A Page from the History of New Zealand.

The future historian of New Zealand has an arduous task before him. The difficulty of compiling a faithful chronicle will consist, not in the paucity of materials, but in their abundance; in their extreme complication, in their discrepancy, in the utter untrustworthiness of despatches and other official records, on which his main reliance would otherwise be placed. Nor is it likely that the truth will ever be elicited at all, unless by help of those who have been actors on the scene—secured by personal knowledge of events at least from the grosser class of errors. It is therefore to be hoped that as many as can find the leisure will contribute to this end, by unravelling the portions in which they may severally have taken part.

The three most interesting episodes in the annals of the Colony, are the native war, the struggle for self-government, and the contention raised with the Church Missionary Grantees by Bishop Selwyn and Governor Grey. Of these, I shall undertake the latter for my share, with the double object of bringing hidden facts to light, and of justifying a body of worthy men, who have been borne down by a combination of influences, who have been betrayed by their natural allies, who have been assailed the most keenly by those from whom they might have expected the best support. And although we cannot doubt that the truth, perverted and suppressed for a while, would eventually rise up in evidence against their accusers—that those who have undergone the burthen and heat of the day would be restored, unblemished, to the position from which they have been deposed; yet, if my humble endeavours be able to hasten an event that, sooner or later, must take place, seven barren years of colonial life will be remembered with less regret.

It will be shewn in the course of this enquiry,—

That the Missionaries purchased land, not for themselves, but for their children, on account of the peculiar position in which the families were left.

That these purchases were defended by the Church Missionary Society in England, and approved by the Commissioners of Land Claims in New Zealand.

That crown grants for these lands were made by Governor FitzRoy, and issued for the most part by Governor Grey.

That Governor Grey instituted a series of groundless attacks upon the character of the Grantees, partly to facilitate the resumption of the grants, and partly to divert attention from the real cause of the native war.

That, in consequence of these attacks, the Society passed its Resolutions of 1847, referring (he quantity of land to be retained by the Grantees for their own use and benefit, to the joint decision of the Bishop and Governor.

That the Grantees complied with the Society's resolutions, by retaining none.

That the Bishop and Governor, by an undue exercise of power, set aside the Society's resolutions, and substituted two contradictory proposals, with both of which the Grantees were required to comply.

That Archdeacon Henry Williams and Mr. Clarke, upon whom the burthen of the contest was thrown, consented to give up the grants conditionally.

That Mr. Clarke accepted the Bishop's conditions, which were subsequently rejected by the Governor.

That Archdeacon Henry Williams proposed his own condition, which was, that the Governor page 2 should either substantiate, or fully and honourably retract his allegations.

That this condition was approved by the Bishop, who also pledged himself to institute the fullest enquiry into those allegations.

That Archdeacon Henry Williams broke no pledge, but that the Bishop did.

That the Governor refused to substantiate or retract, and therefore failed to obtain the deeds.

That the Governor then resorted to the Supreme Court, where judgment was given in favour of the Grantees.

That the children of the Grantees, believing themselves to be at last in undisputed possession, resolved to meet the Governor's wishes; but were hindered by his appeal to the Privy Council.

That, notwithstanding the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Bishop still insisted on a surrender of the grants, ignoring the conditions.

That the Bishop misled the Society, by suppressing those conditions in his report.

That the Society after much correspondence with Lord Grey and the Colonial Office, issued fresh resolutions, contradictory to those of 1847.

That the Society had no power to abrogate terms which had already been offered and accepted.

That the Grantees resolved to abide by the terms which had been offered and accepted,—i. e., by the Resolutions of 1847.

That the Society dismissed two of the Grantees from service, superannuated a third, and accepted the resignation of a fourth.

That the Grantees used every effort, from the commencement of the contention, to obtain a full enquiry, which was refused by Lord Grey, by the Bishop, by Governor Grey, and by the Society.

That Archdeacon William Williams proceeded to England, where he urged the injustice of condemning without enquiry.

That the Society's Committee refused a full enquiry into their own acts, but granted enquiry into the charges brought by Governor Grey.

That the Committee z bo groundless, but refused reinstatement, on the plea of non-compliance with the Society's contradictory Resolutions of 1848.

That the Committee, when hard pressed with regard to their own acts, but not till then, offered a pension to Archdeacon Henry Williams, which was rejected, with the emphatic declaration, that it was "a question, not of money, but of character."

That the Secretaries to the Society, when hard pressed with a printed "Statement," issued a counter-statement, not of facts, but of fables.

That the Committee had been fully informed by the Grantees throughout, and that neither Committee nor Secretaries could ever have gone wrong, had they simply believed what they were told.

Such is the outline history of the contention. Taken as a dry recital of facts, unencumbered and unobscured, it bears all the appearance of an over-stated case. The Society might almost appeal to character alone in answer. But our surprise is lessened when we perceive that its Committee fell away by degrees, through endeavouring to brave out an early error which they had not courage to confess. Had they foreseen the event, they would surely have taken a manlier and more Christian course. But they advanced blindfold, groping their way, committing themselves more and more irretrievably at every step, until reduced to the alternative of bearing blame themselves, or of driving tried and faithful servants as scapegoats to the wilderness.

It is unnecessary to dwell at length upon the proceedings of the Missionary Grantees, prior to the Society's Resolutions of 1847. The President's acknowledgment, that up to that date, Archdeacon Henry Williams's conduct was not to blame ^a simplifies the question, and enables us to pass on, with a few explanatory remarks, to the opening of Governor Grey's attack.

The position of the earlier Church Missionaries in New Zealand, was one of extreme difficulty. They found themselves in a lawless country, without hope of European civilization being extended to it, but with the duty, unfulfilled as yet, of providing for the large families which were gathering up around them. For want of means, they could not place their children in England; nor would they expose them to the corruption

^a It appears therefore, that the Archdeacon cannot be considered as having done anything in contravention of his engagements with the Committee or of their regulations previous to 1847.—Earl of Chicheiter'4 Memorandum, Feb. 24, 1852.

page 3 of the neighbouring convict colonies. The only help afforded by the Society was an annual contribution of £10, with a ration, for each child under fifteen years of age, when all further allowance was to merge into a sum of £50, regarded as an apprentice fee. The parents were warned explicitly that the Society could do no more.

Thus commenced a period of deep anxiety on behalf of the young people, shut up in a savage country, and excluded from the civilized world. Their sole resource was the adoption of a pastoral life; and the parents accordingly proposed that 200 acres of land should be purchased by the Society for each child. ^a The request was granted, burthened however with the conditions expressed in a Resolution, dated July 27th, 1830.

Under these terms, if the ward should die at twenty-four years and eleven months, the property would revert to the Society. The toil that might have been expended on the land, the money that might have been sunk in it, would be lost to the members of his family, his widow or children, as the case might be.

The Society's offer is characterized by keen forethought, rather than by parental consideration; nor is it surprising that the offer should have been rejected.

Provision had still to be made, and the parents adopted the only means within their reach. They purchased land from the natives out of their own private resources, gave it to the children, and placed the boys upon it as they successively became of age to use it. The result has been, that these young men, by steady perseverance combined with exemplary conduct, have been able to create for themselves a position in the land of their birth, escaping the forlorn and almost houseless lot to which they would otherwise have been condemned.

That the Missionaries were justified in adopting this mode of providing for their families, is not denied; but it has been alleged that the provision was excessive.

Governor Hobson was not of that opinion; for it had been his wish to add an exceptional clause, in favour of the Missionaries, to the Land Claims Ordinance.

Nor was Governor FitzRoy of that opinion; for he spontaneously extended the awards.

Nor is Governor Grey, at present, of that opinion; for he has issued squatting regulations, in which runs of twenty-five thousand acres are treated as moderate allotments. In point of fact, very much larger tracts of land are occupied by single individuals, with tacit permission from the Government.

Nor were the Land Commissioners of that opinion; for they call attention to the magnitude of the families, observing that six Missionaries numbered seventy children.

Nor were the Home Government of that opinion; for in the case of the New South Wales Chaplains, they sanctioned the free grant of 1260 acres of land to each daughter, and of double that quantity, or 2520 acres, to each son. The Missionary families, if placed upon a similar footing, would have been entitled to free grants of land, very much in excess of the amount that has been purchased for them by their parents.

Nor was the Church Missionary Society of that opinion; for it has defended the amount, ably and unanswerably. ^c

Nor are the old New Zealand settlers of that opinion; for they are acquainted with the quality of the soil, ^d and of the circumstances under which the purchases were made. They know

^a This proposition hat lince led to much confusion of ideas. The maximum (200 acres) that the Society was asked to purchase for each child, hat been transmuted into a maximum that each parent would be allowed to purchase for the whole family, from hit own resources. A vague impression to that effect, carefully fostered by many who are better informed, even still remains. Moderation with regard to private purchases was enjoined by the Society, but nothing more.

^b These terms were modified by the Society, but not to a satisfactory extent, in 1833.

^c Vide the Society't forty-fifth Report, in which the question is minutely examined. In April, 1831, the Society resolved,—"That the situation of the Society's Missionaries be represented to Her Majesty's Government, and that they be requested to place them on the same footing with regard to grants of land in New Zealand, as the children of the chaplains of New South Wales."

^d These large tracts of land, according to all the testimony which has reached the Committee, comprise an immense proportion of worthless land; bare rock, barren sands, deep-rooted fern, &c., &c.; in many cases the Natives obliged the Missionaries to purchase a thousand acres of land, in connexion with some moderate portion of cultivated land, which alone the Missionary wished to possess.—Minutes of Society's Committee, Feb. 22, 1847.

page 4 that the larger portion is only fit for cattle runs, which deteriorate by use; they know that when natives disposed of land, they required the bad to he taken as well as the good, reserving the best tracts for themselves; and they know that the purchases were comparatively valueless in the land market—that they remain so even still, for want of protection. ^a

If the history of these purchases were given, a very different feature would be put upon the case. One example shall be adduced.

The largest grant is that of Archdeacon Henry Williams—9000 acres, divided amongst eleven sons and daughters, The claim was of 11,000 acres. Titirangi was the first piece of land acquired r it was then found necessary to secure a right of road, for which purpose the Whau-whauroa, of 4000 acres, was added, the natives refusing to part with less. They were accustomed to say, "the broader the land, the better the utu, [price];" they were quick to perceive their power of enforcing larger purchases than were desired, and seldom failed to use it. The Whauwhauroa is of such indifferent quality, that the Surveyor observed that he would not accept it, to be obliged to cultivate, unless at a premium of £1 an acre. After £300 had been expended on Titirangi, it was found to be unfit for farming, and Pakaraka was bought. In fencing at Pakaraka, two kauri trees, beyond the boundary, were felled by mistake. Shortly afterwards, a party of natives, in a state of great excitement, brought a report to Mrs. Williams that the Archdeacon had been murdered. The fact, however, was that he had been met by three chiefs, Tahuahi, Marupo, and Tao. They insisted upon his purchasing the land that had been trespassed on : the Archdeacon offered to pay for the trees, but they would admit of no compromise; Tahuahi, who was the most violent, shaking a tomahawk over the Archdeacon's head.

The Crown Grant was of 9000 acres. ^b Commissioners Godfrey and Richmond reported that the payments made to the natives would have entitled Archdeacon Henry Williams, under the Ordinance scale, to 22,131 acres.

Under the New South Wales Regulations, his family would have been entitled to 21,420 acres.

And had 2560 acres been awarded to each of those in whose name the land was purchased, the family would have received 30,720 acres, had the claim contained this quantity.

It thus appears, that the "excessive" provision, concerning which so much virtuous indignation has been thrown away, is far within the bounds of moderation; being little more than a means of turning personal labour to account, in pastoral and agricultural pursuits. The error of the objectors is in estimating the provision according to English ideas, of which all who pass judgment at home concerning colonial matters, should strive to disembarrass themselves, so far as their means of information will permit. ^c

Governors Hobson, Shortland, and FitzRoy, had successively borne witness to the services of the Missionaries. But there arose a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph the direction of the colony was entrusted to Governor Grey. From the period of his arrival, he treated them with undisguised mistrust, and suffered no opportunity of accumulating charges to escape. He addressed a series of Despatches to the Colonial Office, impeaching their loyalty and integrity; he charged them with having been accessory to bloodshed for the sake of land; he accused the

^a In this district no persons are cultivating land or holding stock but the sons of the Missionaries. There is no location of settlers for the above cause—the uncertainty of tenure. Any trifling circumstance may lead to the stripping of a settler to his utter rain, and no protection can be afforded by the Government either to person or property. This is admitted by the Government, yet do all pay taxes alike and in equal extent as if the full protection could be afforded. Therefore I repeat that the value of this land is less than nominal—Archdeacim H. Williams to Secretary of State, Jan. 30, 1850.

^b Governor Grey has stated that the Crown Grants granted him the whole of the land he originally claimed, i.e, 11,000 acres.—Vide Blue Book, July 1849, p. 73. This is contrary to fact.

^c Lord Grey's Instructions accompanying the Charter of 1846, afford a notable example of the abshrdities into which this manner of reasoning can lead. His Lordship, after misconstruing a passage which he quoted from the works of Dr. Arnold, and after deriving a right of confiscating native lands upon which labour had not been expended, or which were not in actual use for the depasturing of stock, from the dictum that man was to subdue the earth"—reduced his theory to practice by ordering Governor Grey (in default of registration) to take possession, as of demesne lands of the Crown. The effect of this insane mandate is well known. Governor Grey declared that if enforced, It would involve the colony In bloodshed from one end to the other, (at a later period, indeed, he endeavoured to retrieve the uncourtierlike demur, by putting an impossible interpretation upon the Instructions—vide Wellington Independent, Jan. 12, 1853, in which his Excellency's sudden change of opinion is accounted for;) the natives were on the point of rising in rebellion, from which they were scarcely restrained by the unacknowledged and unrequited efforts of the Missionaries; while quiet was only restored by Lord Grey's assertion—contradictory to the 13th chapter of the Instructions—that he had merely asserted a principle. (Vide the Chief Justice's pamphlet: Bishop Selwyn's letter to Governor Grey in defence of the protest; and "The New Zealand Question," by the Secretary to the Society for the protection of Aborigines.) His Lordship's error, and the perilous consequences, were partly caused by reasoning from English ideas. He appears to have supposed that native culture was similar to that upon his own estates—as if the Maories practiced the four course system of farming, and understood the mysteries of guano. He had yet to learn that the land which has not been subdued—upon which no labour has been expended; is of the greater value to the natives; that they abandon the land which has been worn out by use, and work progressively forward into the heart of the forest, upon virgin soil. Yet the virgin tracts are what his Lordship would have confiscated as "waste."

page 5 ex-Protector of having caused the war; ^a he burned the correspondence (reported to be of a treasonable nature) which was found in the captured pa at Ruapekapeka,—an act by which the writers would have been for ever debarred from vindication, had not an attested copy been fortunately preserved; ^b he assured the Society that unless the old Missionaries were removed, there would be no peace in the Northern District; ^c he stated that the natives who had been in arms against Her Majesty's Government were almost exclusively the people of the Church of England Mission; he informed Lord Grey that the land had been acquired by abuse of religious influence; ^d he likewise informed his Lordship that the ex-protectors of Aborigines had been in the habit of selling their services to Europeans, in the negotiation of land purchases,—an assertion which he was afterwards obliged to retract; he attempted to alienate the minds of the natives from their teachers; he appealed to the cupidity of the natives with the same intent, by promising to give them back the lands which should be taken from the Grantees—a promise which he broke, when he afterwards had the opportunity of keeping it; he caused the troops to be removed from a strong position at Waitangi to a defenceless position at the Wahapu, ^e on the plea of not being able to obtain a suitable location, from the manner in which the Missionary grants were made; he accused Archdeacon Henry Williams of writing letters to "a violent local newspaper," and likewise of contriving to get published a private letter addressed by the Governor to Lord Grey; ^f and to crown the whole, not only refused to "substantiate or retract," but even procured from the Colonial Office a general disallowance of enquiry.

The History of the Contention, ^a to which the foregoing remarks are introductory, is opened by the advent of Governor Grey. From this period we shall enter more largely into the several questions that present themselves. These, indeed, are so numerous and complicated, that, for the sake of order, it will be necessary to break the subject into periods, which shall be respectively designated as those of the Society's Conciliatory Resolutions (Feb. 1847); of the Bishop and Governor; of the Intermittent Skirmish; of the Trial in Court; of the Society's Contradictory Resolutions (June, 1848); of the Central Committee; of the Society's Condemnatory Resolutions (Nov. 1849); and of the Society's Retributive Resolutions (May and June 1851). The Society's Penitentiary Resolutions have yet to come.

In 1847 a copy of the following despatch was communicated to the President of the Church Missionary Society by Earl Grey, Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Private, Government House, Auckland,

June 26, 1846.

Sir,—Adverting to the various questions which have lately arisen in reference to the large tracts of land which have been claimed under what is termed the penny an acre proclamation ^b as well as to the grants which have been issued in excess of the amount of 2560 acres fixed by law, I beg to enclose, for your information, lists of individuals directly interested in these questions which have been separately forwarded in my previous despatches, and I would then beg to suggest that the following really national questions connected with this subject should receive the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

The total number of individuals in whose favor these tracts of land are claimed may be stated at from forty to fifty. For the reasons stated in my public Despatches, I feel myself satisfied that these claims are not based on substantial justice to the aborigines, or to the large majority of British settlers in this country.

Her Majesty's Government may also rest satisfied that these individuals cannot be put in possession of these tracts of land without a large expenditure of British blood and money.

The following subjects, therefore, must be decided by Her Majesty's Government:—

Firstly—Whether, under all the circumstances of the case, they think it consistent with the national honour that the British naval and military forces should be employed in putting these individuals into possession of the land they claim.

And, secondly—If it is determined to adopt this course, how are Her Majesty's forces to be reconciled to such a service t It is one attended with the greatest danger, hardships, and privations; it offers few prospects of honour or reward; from the desultory mode of warfare adopted by the natives, no decisive victory can be gained; the soldiers do not fight to acquire lands for themselves and families, which might support them in their old age. In fact, there is nothing to attach them to such a service, and British officers and men very unwillingly find themselves compelled, under such disheartening circumstances, to undergo such fatigues to put those, whom they would regard as mere speculators, in possession of land wrested from a race who have many military qualities which excite a soldier's esteem. It is my duty to warn Her Majesty's Government that, if British troops are long exposed to the almost unexampled fatigues and privations of a service which has already entailed so large a loss of life on our small force, disastrous consequences must be anticipated. On the other hand, however, I must admit that the individuals interested in those land claims form a very powerful party. They include amongst them those connected with the public press, several members of the Church Missionary Society, and the numerous families of those gentlemen; various gentlemen holding important offices in the public service (and who are therefore acquainted with every movement of Government), and their friends and relatives. It is true that this party is confined principally to the north of the island; they still, however, exercise a very important influence here, and the Government, if it does not yield to their wishes, must anticipate a violent and stormy opposition.

I have, &c.,

G. Grey,

Lieut.-Governor and Commander-in-Chief.

The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone,

&c., &c., &c.

This is the famous "Blood and Treasure Despatch the divulgement of which has been the turning point in Governor Grey's career, ^c His Excellency, being one of those who prefer maintaining the appearance of consistency, to the frank acknowledgment of error, lost his own freedom of action from that time forward. He was obliged to make good in his public despatches what he had alleged in the confidential, and to load himself with an ever-growing burthen of misstatement. "One untruth," according to an excellent old proverb, "begets another, till they come to generations." He had unfortunately committed himself to the assertion that Governor FitzRoy's grants were the cause of the war, and that

^a In using the word contention" it must be clearly understood that Governor Grey, the Bishop, Earl Grey, and the Society contended for Crown Grants : the grantees, not for Crown Grants, but for character.

^b By this confusion of two very different questions, Lord Grey was led into the mistake of supposing that the Missionaries had taken advantage of Governor FitzRoy's waiver of preemption, by purchasing land under the ten shillings and penny ah acre proclamtions after New Zealand had been proclaimed a British Colony.

^c His Excellency stated, on a subsequent occasion, that the Despatch bore reference not to the northern but to the southern districts; forgetting apparently that by another Despatch, of a character even more injurious, dated August 2, 1847, he had defended these very allegations, with especial reference to the Missionary Grantees, and to the war in the north.

page 7 the Grantees could "not be put into possession without a large expenditure of British blood and money:" he had insisted on the difficulty of putting those into possession who had never been out of possession, who are in undisturbed possession still; and has ever since done all that his station and influence could effect, to support his own credit at the cost of those whom he had already so far traduced.

The effect of this despatch in New Zealand, was to provoke the seven well known questions, signed by Archdeacon Henry Williams, the pius Æneas of the missionary party, challenging the Governor to prove his allegations.

Paihia,

August 16, 1847.

Sir,—I have the honour to communicate to you, for the information of His Excellency the Governor, that a copy of His Excellency's Despatch to the Right Honorable W. E. Gladstone, dated June 25, 1846, has been sent by Lord Grey to the Church Missionary House, London, and transmitted to the Missionaries in New Zealand for their observation upon the same.

Considering that His Excellency s Despatch does convey a charge of a very grave and serious nature against the Missionaries in "the North" of having been accessory to the shedding of human blood for the possession of land claimed by them and their children, so as to involve the propriety of posseting even a single acre of land in this country, I am authorised to say that the Missionaries shrink with horror from such a charge, and are prepared to relinquish their claims altogether, upon its being shewn that their claims would render the possibility of such an awful circumstance as the shedding of one drop of human blood.

For the information of the Church Missionary Society, and the Missionaries residing "in the North," in order that they may more clearly determine what steps to take in so serious a question as the one now brought before them, I am desired to present, for the consideration of His Excellency, the following questions arising out of this Despatch, and to request that His Excellency will be pleased to reply to the same.

Firstly—If at any period application was made, directly or indirectly, to the Local Government in this country, by any missionary, or the son of a missionary, to be put in possession of land claimed by him under any circumstance, but more especially by the aid of any Military Force.

Secondly—If the late military movements "in the North" were in any respect connected with the Missionaries, but more particularly for the establishing of a missionary in the possession of his land.

Thirdly—If during the late war with the aborigines, or subsequently, any missionary, or son of a missionary, was dispossessed of his land, or disturbed by the aborigines.

Fourthly—If any complaint has at any time been preferred to the Local Government by any missionary, or the son of a missionary, against the aborigines.

Fifthly—If any complaint has at any time been preferred to the Local Government, and attempted to be substantiated by any of the aborigines, against any missionary, or the son of a missionary.

Sixthly—If a smaller military force be required for the establishing a settler in his grant of land for five acres, than for his grant for five thousand acres; or, if a military force for the establishing of a settler be regulated by the number of acres granted to him by the Government.

Seventhly—If any exception in these respects will be made by the aborigines in favour of land purchased from them by the Government, but withheld by the aborigines from the old settlers, who purchased directly from themselves long before any intimation was given of the formation of a British Colony in this country.

Henry Williams.

To the Hon. the Colonial Secretary.

His Excellency might have taken the land, had he been able to make good his words. But he maintained an absolute silence, not even acknowledging receipt of the letter; for which neglect he assigned different reasons, on different occasions^a.

The effect of the Despatch, in England, was to unsettle the opinions, and to disturb the previous arrangements of the Society. A special meeting took place (22nd Feb. 1847), at which the Committee defended their missionaries, but gave way to the representations of Governor Grey and of the Colonial Office. The following extract is from the minute of the proceedings.

The attention of the Committee is now, however, called to a new aspect of the case, and to consider the prospective measures which it may he right to take, in consequence of apprehensions entertained by Governor Grey, which nave never been before brought under the notice of the committee. These apprehensions are of a most painful kind, being no less than the apprehension of a large expenditure of British wealth and blood, if the land awarded to the missionaries and various other parties is to be taken possession of; and an apprehension also lest British troops should prove unwilling to serve in such a cause. In the despatch June 25th, 1846, the following statement occurs,

"Her Majesty's Government may rest satisfied that these individuals cannot be put in possession of these tracts of land without a large expenditure of British blood and money."

"It is my duty to warn Her Majesty's Government that if British troops are long exposed to the almost unexampled fatigues and privations of a service which has already entailed so large a loss of life on our small force, disastrous consequences must be anticipated."

And in the conclusion of the despatch Governor Grey warns the Government, that if these land claims of the Missionaries and other parties be not

^a Vide Governor Grey's letter to the Bishop, 30th Aug., 1847; and despatch to Lord Grey, 10th Feb., 1849.

page 8 satisfied, the Government must "anticipate a violent and stormy opposition."

The committee cannot hesitate to express their conviction that not one missionary, or catechist of the society, would endure the idea of sacrificing British blood in order to obtain possession of land. They conceive that their whole past life and conduct, for a long course of years, and under circumstances of varied and peculiar trials, may well shield them from such an imputation.

Nevertheless, the Committee, having learned through Her Majesty's Secretary of State the apprehensions entertained by Governor Grey, and having had their attention directed to the many inconveniences which have arisen, at home and abroad, in consequence of the large land purchases of the Missionaries, and having, moreover, full confidence in the high principles of their Missionaries, are now called upon to take decisive measures for removing all grounds for such apprehensions, and for cutting off all suspicion and reproach, by declaring that no missionary or catechist of the Society can be allowed to continue his connexion with the Society, who shall retain for his own use and benefit large tracts of unoccupied land.

In carrying out this resolution the Committee conceive that they are bound to treat their missionaries with all confidence and liberality, as faithful and upright men, who are invited to rise al)ove selfish considerations, and, if needs be, to make some sacrifice of their just rights and lawful wishes, for the sake of the public good.

The Committee cannot go beyond this resolution as they have no power or desire to interfere with the private property of their missionaries. They must leave to their own decision the mode of disposing of land, which those who continue in connexion with the Society may, under the operation of the foregoing resolution, be compelled to part with. But the Committee trust that the proposed resolutions will effectually withdraw the influence of the Church Missionary Society from the opposition apprehended by Governor Grey. And they think that they can also engage for their missionaries, that they will act in the full spirit of the resolution of the Parent Committee, and afford Her Majesty's Government that assistance which they have, on many special occasions, shewn themselves prompt to render, even at the hazard of their personal safety, for the sake of promoting peace and good order among all classes of the inhabitants of New Zealand.

From this resulted what we shall term the Society's

Conciliatory Resolutions.

Committee,

February 22, 1847.

Resolved—

1.	That adverting to the many difficulties that have arisen at home and abroad, during the course of the last seven years, in respect to large land purchases by the Society's Missionaries in New Zealand, to the complicated questions which they have involved, and to the apprehensions of future danger and warfare before possession of them can be obtained; adverting, also, to the altered state of monetary affairs in New Zealand, and to the constant declarations of the missionaries that their chief desire in acquiring land in New Zealand was to make provision for their children; it appears necessary to declare that no missionary, or catechist of the Society, can be allowed to continue his connexion with the Society who shall retain, for his own use and benefit, a greater amount of land than shall be determined upon as suitable by the Lieutenant-Governor of New Zealand, and the Lord Bishop of New Zealand,;a or by such other referee, or referees, as they may be pleased to appoint for the determination of this question, the adoption of which measure is not to be regarded as casting any reproach or suspicion upon the past integrity of the missionaries.
2.	That in carrying out this resolution, every consideration be shewn for the feelings, and wishes, and interests, of the New Zealand missionaries and catechists, as of men against whose integrity and devotedness no imputation has fairly rested; and that any adjustment which it may be necessary to make of their claims upon the Society, shall be made on as liberal terms as the established regulations of the Society will authorise.
3.	That the Right Honorable the President be requested to communicate to Earl Grey the Minute and Resolutions now adopted; and also to tender to Earl Grey the grateful acknowledgments of the Committee for his courtesy in furnishing the Committee with the papers to which they relate; and their earnest request that the statement of the Committee may be forwarded to Governor Grey, and may also be appended to the papers, should they be laid before Her Majesty or before Parliament.

Extracted from the Minutes,

Hector Straith,

Secretary, Church Missionary Society.

There is nothing ambiguous about this : the wording is clear and distinct as could be wished. The reader is asked to interpret the Resolutions for himself, and then, to compare his own construction with that which was affixed to them at a later period, first by the Bishop, and then by the Society. I am content that the whole question should be judged by the agreement or the disagreement of the separately formed conclusions.

The Resolutions were covered by a letter from the Committee, of March 1, which stated—

1.	That the missionaries were to accept the joint decision of the Bishop and the Governor, as to the amount of land to be retained for their own use and benefit.
2.	That they were to abandon altogether such portions of their grants as might lead to disputes with the natives. a It will presently be seen that the Bishop and the Governor proposed two several and incompatible courses. page 9
3.	That they might dispose of such other portions as as had already been virtually occupied, or could peaceably be obtained possession of— I. By sale; or II. By making over to their children; or III. By putting in trust for the benefit of the aborigines.a

Such was the Committee's interpretation of the Resolutions in 1847. In 1848, the Committee understood them to mean that the Grantees should receive 2560 acres each, abandoning the surplus unconditionally to the Crown.

The Resolutions met the views of the Grantees most perfectly; and were obeyed without delay, The grantees went even further than was required of them; for they retained no land at all "for their own use and benefit," but took immediate measures for transferring the whole to their children.^b No question was therefore left for the determination of the Bishop and the Governor.

The question was settled, so far as the Grantees and the Society were concerned; but the arrangement did not suit the views of the Governor equally well. His wish was to obtain the power of dealing at will with the land. He therefore attempted to supersede the resolutions of the Society by substituting an arrangement of his own. The following were the terms proposed :^c—

The Missionaries are entitled by law to grants of land to the extent of two thousand five hundred and sixty acres, and I will incur the responsibility of allowing the Missionaries to select this land in any number of blocks not exceeding four. They shall also have this further advantage, that the survey of these blocks shall be executed at the expense of the Government, and complete titles for these lands shall be given to them. The only reservation to be made will be, that, the Missionaries will not be allowed to include in the blocks they select any lands which the Natives may now justly claim, or which may be required for the use of the Natives, or for public purposes.

Under this arrangement each Missionary will be enabled to select from the entire claims two thousand five hundred and sixty acres of land, selecting those portions which he may have cultivated, or which, from their position or soil, he may regard as being most valuable. The lands thus selected will be accurately surveyed for him, and the boundaries carefully marked, with the assent of the Natives, so as to remove, as far as practicable, all chance of future disputes upon the subject. This arrangement shall be carried out in a spirit of the utmost liberality upon the part of the Government, with the view, in as far as practicable, of making a satisfactory conclusion to this troublesome affair, and one which, I think, will remove the probability of future disputes and discussions upon the subject.

The Grantees had readily acquiesced with the resolutions of their own Society; but were unwilling to negotiate with Governor Grey upon the subject, so long as the allegations of the forementioned despatch remained unretracted or unproved. Nor ought they to have complied with His Excellency's terms, however willing they might have been, on account of the reservation clause.

The full import of the reservation may not be at once apparent to a cursory reader; but it amounts to this:—

That the Missionaries, in granting that "just clains" might be established by Natives, should grant the injustice of their own acquisition; thereby corroborating the charges brought against them by Governor Grey;

That the Natives should be invited to raise objections, which had not occurred to them, when under examination before the Commissioners;

That the Government should select for itself at pleasure;

And that the Grantees should then select a certain number of acres out of the remainder.

It will moreover be perceived that, owing to the very unequal quality of the land, the Grantees would have lain at the mercy of the Government, had they conceded the right of prior selection. It is almost unnecessary to state that his Excellency's interference was repudiated.

It thus appears, in recapitulation of the First Period—

That Governor Grey had charged the Missionaries with being accessory to the shedding of human blood;

That the Grantees had offered to surrender the deeds, if the Governor would make good his allegations;

That the Governor had declined their offer;

That the Governor and the Society had required two different courses of action;

And that the Grantees had complied with the course of action required by the Society.

His Excellency's first attack had failed; he was therefore compelled to bring his reserve into the field. This brings us to the second period of the Contention ^a —to the supersession of the Society's Resolutions by

The Bishop and Governor.

It is introduced by his Excellency's letter of August 30, 1847.

My Lord,—I have ventured to trouble your Lordship with the copy of a letter received this afternoon from Archdeacon Williams, not that I wish to impose upon your Lordship the trouble of even reading this [qu. the] letter, if you do not desire it, [much less of expressing any opinion upon it;] ^b but I simply wish, that if after having read what I am about to say, you may think it necessary to see how the Government at this moment stand with the missionary land claimants, the means of obtaining the requisite knowledge should be at your disposal.

Several gentlemen connected with the Church Missionary Society hold grants for large tracts of land, which are not only illegal, but to the best of my deliberately formed judgment, opposed to the rights of the natives; of the illegality of these grants there can be no doubt,^c for I have obtained the best opinion upon the subject. I feel it to be my duty, for many reasons, to take immediate measures for having these grants set aside by the Civil Courts of the country. If I take this step, and the Government is successful, which I cannot doubt, it will be necessary for me to explain to the Natives of the Northern District, in the most explicit manner, the reasons which have led me to dispossess the Missionaries of their illegally acquired property, in order that no possible misconception may exist upon the minds of the natives, as to the government having taken this step to protect their rights, not to prejudice them.

I fear it would be impossible for me to do this without inflicting? great injury upon the influence of the mission. Possibly, even I might injure deeply our common faith. My wish therefore would, under these circumstances, be, that the Missionaries would accept the offer I made to them through their Secretary Mr. George Clarke, in the Colonial Secretary's letter of the 13th instant, and that they would then voluntarily restore the surplus land to the original native owners, or to their heirs. ^d Such an act on their part would tend, I think, greatly to promote the interest of the mission and Christianity; and I believe, if it were done with the hearty concurrence and co-operation of the missionaries, would be more likely than any other

^a The reader will presently form his own opinion of his alliance. The following is that of Pene Taui, one of the most active among the defenders of the pa at Ohaeowhae.

"What do the Governor and Bishop want in their striving [tohi] for your lands? Shall I tell you? It is nothing but jealousy [tupato] at your influence among us. They think that you and the Archdeacon have climbed up the tree too high, and have clenched your legs to pull you down again—the Bishop pulling at the Archdeacon's legs, and the Governor at yours, to keep you from ascending [keiwhakakake korua]. Nothing but jealousy" [tupato tonu].

^b These words in brackets are not contained in the original letter to the Bishop, but are stated by the late Assistant-Private Secretary to be in the draft. Governor Grey, in a Despatch to Lord Grey, charged the Editor of the Southern Cross with having suppressed these words, which he (the Governor) "considered important."

^c The subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court, in the Queen r. Clarke, and the Queen v. Taylor, disprove His Excellency's assertion that there was "no doubt." The judgment in the former case was reversed upon appeal; but the grounds of the reversal having never been suffered to transpire in New Zealand, it remains uncertain whether they be broad enough to affect any other than Mr. Clarke's particular grant. For both the cases selected for trial are stated by his Excellency to have been specially "irregular."

"Recourse was, therefore, had to the Courts of the country to test the validity of the grants, and two very irregular grants were selected for the purpose. The Courts decided that these grants were good, and although there appeared strong grounds for believing that the decision of the Courts might be reversed upon appeal, yet upon the whole I thought it better, for the reasons stated in my Despatch No. 101, of the 24th July last, and more especially because I found that the grounds on which the validity of the grants was doubtful differed in almost every case, so that any judicial decision appeared but of little value for the final settlement of the question, to have recourse to the Legislature with a view to the final adjustment of the whole matter—Blue Book, August 1850, p. 67.

It is stated, I know not on what original authority, that in the latter case, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed.

^d This offer was made to the Bishop only, never directly to the Grantees; and His Excellency, when the offer was acted upon, refused to abide by it. The Bishop and the Governor subsequently found themselves at cross purposes, of which this passage appears to be the origin.

page 11 measure I am acquainted with, to secure the permanent tranquillity of the Northern district, which is, I fear, likely soon again to be in a disturbed state.

I think the offer the Government have made the Missionaries in every respect liberal; and if they accede to it, it shall be carried out in the most conciliatory spirit. Your lordship has often aided me in my difficult duties in this country, would you once more do so ^a to this extent; that is, if you think the offer of the Government sufficiently liberal, and you see in the same light that I do the dangers which are likely to ensue to Christianity from the measures I must pursue if the missionaries refuse to accept this offer. Would your Lordship interfere so far as to communicate the contents of this letter to them, and then recommend them to adopt the course I have pointed out, or some similar one. ^b

Would you further assure them, if such a course is pursued, they shall have no more zealous friend or assistant in the country than myself, and that I shall not only feel obliged to them for relieving the Government from further anxiety upon this subject, but that I will always thankfully acknowledge my obligations to them for having assisted the Government in the definite arrangement of this most delicate and difficult affair.

Perhaps I ought to add, that I have only delayed answering Archdeacon H. William's letter because I wish in no manner to aggravate, or complicate an affair which is already difficult enough. Some of the Missionaries (indeed one of them told me so himself), are quite satisfied with the proposed arrangement.

They will all, I hope, in considering the matter, bear in mind that I am not responsible for any remark which may result from the publication of my private despatch of 25th June, 1846.^c

I have, &c.,

G. Grey.

To the Lord Bishop of New Zealand.

The Bishop responded to the call, and now appears openly on the scene. Openly, I say, for his agency is traceable much farther back than this epoch. Although the Governor's letter was the ostensible cause of his Lordship's interference, it was in point of fact a shew letter only—a colourable pretext—a basis for the elaborate answer which was directed to the Grantees themselves. It was impossible for his Lordship to go on such an embassy without credentials, and His Excellency supplied them. But which was the prime mover in the scheme—whether the Bishop led on the Governor, or the Governor the Bishop, we have yet to learn. Some have gone so far as to say that each made a tool of the other.

As it will be necessary to pass many unwilling strictures upon his Lordship's conduct towards the Missionary Grantees, I shall state my view of it at once. The Bishop has never had, and never will have, a sturdier supporter in this country than myself.^d But where I think that he has erred, I will not be induced, by motives of mere expediency, to suppress that thought. I have spent some years in tracing error to its lurking place, turning neither to right or left in the search; nor will I suffer any considerations of private respect or admiration to divert me from it.

Amicus Episcopus, sed magis amica Veritas.

There are no longer many who deny that the Bishop committed a great error of judgment, when he involved himself in this contention. He was never called upon to take the extreme measures that he adopted. It was prophecied with fatal truth by one of the highest functionaries in the colony, a steady ally to his Lordship, that the day when such a course should be resolved upon would be a grievous day to the Church in New Zealand. But I believe that the Bishop committed a still greater error by the manner in which he conducted the contention. For we shall presently see that he

^a This letter purports to be the origin of the alliance between the Bishop and the Governor. There is no doub: of the terms having been previously arranged.

^b Mr. Clarke, who understood the natives much better than did the Governor, availed himself of the latitude allowed; adopting the course most nearly, similar, without being absolutely the same: thus complying literally with His Excellency's proposal.

^c This paragraph is a piece of strange effrontery. The missionaries had complained of the remarks contained in the despatch; not of those resulting from the publication of the despatch. These latter remarks had been directed by the public press against Governor Grey himself, not against the Missionaries, as his Excellency, by disclaiming the responsibility, would intimate.

^d In 1848, with reference to certain meetings of the clergy and laity on the question of Church Government, I wrote as follows:—

"There is the Bishop, a man in ten thousand; for earnestness and laboriousness in his cause, almost without an equal. The very Abbot Sampson of St. Edmondsbury, as pourtrayed by the most eloquent of living writers; with such full control over a naturally enthusiastic temperament as to be able to lay himself out more deliberately and cautiously to gain his ends than a careless observer would believe; eminently practical, save when beset by visions of a primitive Church; yet still with a strong Hildebrandine element in his composition, and one who In the early ages would have been equally ready to inflict or suffer martyrdom."—New Zealander, Nov. 4.

Excepting with regard to practicalness, and to the caution that should have deterred him from prominent political interference, my opinion remains unchanged.

page 12 trod a devious path in seeking to attain his end. That he acted conscientiously, according to his own views—that he did all for the best, is beyond a question; but he and I have different ideas as to the latitude of the means permissible in attaining an end.

His Lordship opened the proceedings with a letter to the Missionary Grantees. It is ably and carefully composed : his case was weak, but he has certainly made the most of it. His reasoning must indeed have appeared conclusive, in England, where full and accurate information upon the subject of the letter was not immediately obtainable.

I could have wished that the letter had been as remarkable for charity as for ability. But the desire to make a case against the Missionaries is apparent throughout, as if intimidation had been the main object of the writer. In this he miscalculated: not being able to intimidate sufficiently, he merely provoked resistance.

St. John's College,

September 1, 1847.

My dear Brethren—

In addressing you now on the subject of your land claims, it may be necessary to state the reasons which have hitherto withheld me from expressing any opinion on the subject, and the reasons also which compel me now, with much reluctance, to take a contrary course.

I must at once state candidly that from the time of my appointment to my present office till now, no subject has been more continually present to my mind, or has caused me greater uneasiness than the large purchases of land made by the Society's Missionaries.

In the year 1841, before I left England, I brought the subject before the Church Missionary Committee, and was referred by them to the Rev. Mr. Cunningham, Vicar of Harrow, with whom I held a very long and anxious conversation, but without arriving at any definite conclusion. The substance of the Society's communications with me was thus expressed in a letter dated Nov. 19th, 1841.

We have taken no notice of the Land Question, because the Committee have already expressed both : their own views and their full concurrence in the view taken by the Bishop of Australia, in the papers recently placed in your hands; and we confidently hope that the influence of their communications upon the missionaries, together with the measures adopted by the Land Commissioners, will have settled this question before your arrival in the colony."

When I saw the Bishop of Australia in Sydney in 1842, I found that his suggestions addressed to the missionaries in a letter dated September 28, 1840, had not been complied with; but I still trusted that the measures of the Land Commissioners" would have "settled the question."

On my arrival in New Zealand, I found that the maximum of 2560 acres had been fixed by Govern ment as the utmost limit of land to be held by any one claimant, except under special circumstances: I could not conceive that any special circumstances, of the nature referred to in the Laud Sales Act,^a could occur in the case of a missionary, but that the nature of his office in itself, and the regulations of his Society, would preclude him from applying for an extension of grant,^b even in cases where indulgence might be granted to ordinary claimants. I observed, also, the Society's interpretation of the Resolutions of July 27, 1830, ^c by which 200 acres was always allowed to be purchased for every child of a missionary, would have the effect, in the case of large families, of bringing the whole amount of a missionary's claim so nearly to an equality with the maximum fixed by Her Majesty's Government, that the difference would be altogether unimportant. I therefore considered the question as settled in the way which the Society expected, namely, by the "measures of the Land Commissioners."

These considerations, though they withheld me from taking any public notice of the "Land Question," did not absolve me from my duty of stating my opinion to the C. M. Society in a confidential letter dated June 15, 1843, in the following words :—

"The purchases of lands by the Missionaries have had a most injurious effect upon the minds of the natives and the English settlers. Many years of self denial and disinterestedness on the part of every member of the Mission will be necessary to do away the impression which has been made. Mr. Fairburn's claim of 40,000 acres, ^d Mr, Taylor's of 50,000,

^a This is a mistake : the "Land Sales Act" had no reference whatever to the matter. The "Land Claims Ordinance" of New Zealand prohibits the Commissioners from recommending any grant exceeding 2560 acres, "unless specially authorized thereto by the Governor with the advice of the Executive Council." No "special circumstances" are referred to in the Ordinance: the word "special" as therein used has reference to the nature of the authority—not to the "circumstances."

^b Captain Fitzroy, when referred to in England by Archdeacon William Williams, affirmed that the extension was the spontaneous act of the local Government.

^c The Bishop is not the only one who has been confused by the 200 acre question. This amount of land was to have been allowed by the Society to each child as a free gift, in lieu of the apprentice fee. To suppose that the parents were precluded thereby from purchasing more land out of their own private resources, is simply preposterous. The argument is of late invention, and occurred to no one until there was a use for it.

^d Mr. Fairburn's purchase was made, not for the sake of the land, but for the sake of putting an end to "a long continued bloody struggle between two tribes for its possession." Mr. Taylor's for the purpose of enabling the Aopouri to return to their former homes, from which they had been expelled by Noble's tribe. Is the Bishop justified in keeping back these facts when making invidious mention of the claims?

page 13 Mr. Clarke's, Mr. Hamlin's, Mr. H. Williams's, and others, appearing publicly in the Gazette, have created a feeling among the English settlers, of which the Missionaries, living apart from the settlers, are not sufficiently aware, and probably their own natives do not express their opinions to them as freely as they do to me. I cannot attempt to estimate the amount of evil which Has been thus caused, and can only pray that God may give us all grace for the future to abstain from laying such stumbling blocks ^a in the way of our people."

To this communication the Society returned no answer, concluding, I presume, as I did myself, that the final settlement of the question by the Government had made all further reference to it unnecessary.

In the beginning of September 1845, to my great surprise and infinite sorrow, I learned, for the first time, that the whole subject had been re-opened by augmented grants, issued by Governor Fitzroy and his Executive Council to various claimants, including many members of the Mission. Upon the legality of these augmentations in excess of the maximum of 2560 acres, I expressed no opinion, but, believing Captain Fitzroy to be in the confidence of the Church Missionary Society, I addressed to him a written protest against any augmentation of grants being allowed to such an extent as to infringe the Resolutions of the Society, The substance of Captain Fitzrov's answer, dated Sept. 10, 1845, was, that—

"As Civil Governor, he could not make distinctions between the various land claimants, and that he had declined to act as the lay representative of the Society in New Zealand for the management of its secular affairs."

Though deeply grieved by this renewal of the land question, I still refrained from addressing you, till I should have ascertained in what light the augmented grants would be viewed by the Church Missionary Society.

These are the reasons which so long restrained me from addressing you; but I have now received a letter from the C. M. Society, through the Rev. II. Venn, which obliges me to avow my opinion. The original of this letter shall be open to you if you wish to see it; but at present it is only necessary for me to quote the following extract from the Resolutions which accompanied it :—

"It appears necessary to declare that no missionary or catechist of the Society can be allowed to continue his connexion with the Society, who shall retain for his own me and benefit a greater amount of land than shall be determined upon as suitable by the Lieutenant-Governor of New Zealand and the Lord Bishop of New Zealand, jointly, or by such other referee or referees as they may be pleased to appoint for the determination of this question, the adoption of which measure is not to be regarded as casting any reproach or suspicion upon the past integrity of the missionaries."

Pursuant to this resolution, I placed myself in communication with his Excellency Lieutenant Governor Grey, on the day of my return from the South, and have received from him a letter, which I send herewith for your perusal, to be returned to me at your leisure. You will observe that his Excellency requests me to communicate the contents of his letter to you, and to recommend you to adopt the course he has pointed out in the Colonial Secretary's letter to Mr. Clarke of the 13th August, or some similar one.

The substance of that proposal I believe to be as follows :

1.	The maximum of 2560.
2.	Surveys to be made at the expense of the Government.
3.	The land to he selected in the best situations, provided that the number of blocks do not exceed four.b
4.	The surplus land to he restored to the original native owners. c

I request also your particular attention to the pledge which his Excellency offers that if this course is pursued, you will have no more zealous friend or assistant in the country than himself. ^d

You will easily believe that, unconnected as I am with the Colonial Government ^e, I should at once have declined to recommend to you any course which I believed to be either unjust in itself, or injurious to you, or adverse to the principles of the C. M. Society. But when I find, upon careful enquiry, that the proposal of the Governor agrees exactly with the recorded resolutions of the Society, with the opinion of the Bishop of Australia, with the general principles of Colonial Law, and with the opinions of your best friends ^f among the laity

^a What are there "stumbling blocks it is to be wished that they had been distinctly pointed out. It is easy to generalise; but his Lordship would find some difficulty in descending to particulars.

^b It will be observed that his Lordship omits the reservation clause, through which the right of prior selection was secured to the Government; and that he adds a clause (No. 4) which was not contained in the Governor's official proposal addressed through Mr. Clarke to the Grantees. With regard to the addition, his Lordship appears to have been misled by the Governor's letter of August 30; but I know of nothing that could have misled him with regard to the omission. If his object was to throw the reservation clause as far as possible into the back ground, so as to pass unnoticed, he attained it; for the Grantees—carelessly enough took into consideration, not the Governor's proposal, but the Bishop's version of that proposai, and subsequently acted upon that version.

^c The Bishop proposes that the surplus land should be returned to the natives; the Governor, that it should be surrendered to the Crown. With both these contradictory modes of disposal—i. e. with the so-called Joint determination of the Governor and the Bishop—the Grantees were afterwards required by the Society to comply. All are at cross purposes together.

^d What is this but a mockery? As if his Excellency had not already charged the Missionaries with being accessory to bloodshed.

^e This passage, as it stands, has a curious effect. The Grantees are to believe that the Bishop will not recommend any thing "unjust," because he is unconnected with the Colonial Government.

^f By "best friends," we must understand, not their most intimate friends, who advised the contrary; but those who gave what the Bishop deemed the best advice.

page 14 in this country, and moreover is the very course in which you all acquiesced, ^a and upon the faith of which I withheld all expression of opinion on the land question, till the augmented grants were issued by Governor Fitzroy, I must at once declare most explicitly that I concur entirely in the Governor's proposal, and most earnestly recommend you to adopt it.

His Excellency has detailed to you his own reasons, ^b and it becomes my duty also to furnish you with mine.

First. I must caution you against the idea of any abstract injustice or hardship in the restriction imposed upon your purchases of land.^c

As British subjects you could not legally acquire any title to land in New Zealand, otherwise than by grants from the Crown.^d

That the Crown should exercise a control over the transfer of land, in cases where the public interest is concerned, is a principle as old as the Statute of Mortmain, under which even your own Society, with all its high and Christian objects, cannot accept a bequest of a single acre of land.

I would further beg you to dismiss from your minds all questions upon the particular terms of the Governor's despatch to Mr. Gladstone.^e

This can have nothing to do with the real merits ^f of his proposal, which is founded on an Act of Parliament, ^g and is precisely the sume standard as was adopted during Governor Hobson's administration. I cannot see that Governor Grey's remarks apply to the missionaries more than to many other claimants; and the Society, in requesting his Excellency to act as their adviser, clearly intimate their opinion that neither the matter nor the manner of his remarks is unjust or harsh.^h

The following are the independent grounds on which I concur in the proposal of Governor Grey :—

1. That the permission given to the New Zealand missionaries to purchase lands was "a deviation from the uniform practice of the Society (letter to Mr. Clarke, February 18, 1840) in its other Missions, and Was called for and justified only by the peculiar situation in which they were placed in New Zealand."

The reason for this exception was that there was then no social state in the country into which their children could possibly enter with a view to their future settlement in life. There was no trade nor profession to which they could betake themselves for a livelihood."

"As soon as the state of New Zealand would admit of the children being provided for, as in other missions, the necessity for providing for them, by purchases of land, would cease."ⁱ

Nothing but the necessity of the case could have warranted you in placing yourselves, or the Committee in sanctioning your being placed in such circumstances."

It appears to be contrary to the whole principle expressed in the above extracts that an augmentation of grants should have been applied for in 1845 or 1844, when the social state of the country was altered by colonization; when many of the children of missionaries were in the employment of the Government, and when the establishment of the Bishopric had offered to all deserving young men the direct means of admission into the ministry.^k

The application for augmentation of grants was virtually a new purchase, made at a time when no necessity of the case seems to have justified a deviation from the uniform practice of the Society.

2. That there was no necessity for the augmentation of grants in 1844-5 is further proved by the fact, that it was then impossible for any new Missionary to make such land purchases for his children directly from the natives; and what is not possible cannot be necessary; therefore such

^a At what period did they all acquiesce?

^b The truth of which, as given in the Governor's despatches, has been since invalidated by a public declaration of the Society.

^c What impression is this paragraph framed to convey? Is it not that the Grantees wanted to go beyond the law; whereas they only claimed to keep what the law had already given. They did not complain of any hardship in being restricted by the law, but simply desired that their children should retain what had been granted.

^d "Otherwise than by grants from the Crown"—which had been given.

^e Could the Bishop have gone farther in unconscious eulogy? He assumes that the Missionaries are more than human,—not of like passions" and feelings with men.

^f It has very much "to do with the real merits of his proposal." The question before the Missionaries was this : whether they should resign their grants under menace of exposure, or wait until the Supreme Court should have informed them as to a doubtful point of law. The Bishop is no lawyer, nor is the Governor;—their opinions upon a law point are valueless, and were rightly treated as valueless by the Grantees,

^g No Act of Parliament had any reference to the matter.

^h If the Society did clearly intimate their opinion that neither the matter nor the manner of Governor Grey's remarks was unjust or harsh, it was upon the assumption that his despatch to Mr. Gladstone—the Alpha and Omega of the contention—was founded on facts. The Society was misled; not so the Bishop, who knew the untruth of those remarks, yet identities his own opinion with that of the Society.

This defence of the "Blood and Treasure" Despatch was a fatal error. From the period of embroiling himself in a political contest—from the period of linking himself up with one whose alliance has always proved more harmful than his enmity, the decline of his Lordship's pastoral influence takes date.

ⁱ No purchase of land has been made by the Missionaries since it became known that colonisation was intended.

^k Would the Bishop have them enter the ministry, for the sake of the living?

page 15 purchases cannot be necessary and unnecessary at the same tune and in similar circumstances,^a

3. The extent ^b to which land was allowed to be bought for the children of missionaries was defined by the Society's resolutions, passed July 27, 1830, and July 13, 1835, referred to in the Bishop of Australia's letter of Sept. 28, 1840, in the following words :—^c

"The persuasion of the C. M. Society as most clearly manifested in its various communications, appears to be decidedly that no missionary can justifiably retain any portion of land exceeding the limit fixed in their resolutions of July 30, 1830. What is therein intended by a 'moderate extent' is made evident by a general regulation of the Committee, granting £50 to each son and £40 to each daughter of a missionary on completing their fifteenth year, and at the same time to their expressed opinion of July 13, 1835, that £50 might at that time represent the value of 200 acres of land [Bishop of Australia's letter]. Society then has expressed, and still adheres to the opinion, that 200 acres for each of their sons, and 160 acres for each of their daughters, is the proper limit for the tenure of land by their missionaries. As your friend, then, I think it right to apprise you that the same view is taken by every unprejudiced person qualified to form a sound judgment, and the limit is regarded as a very equitable one, by those who are zealous for the credit of religion."

The full concurrence of the Society in these views is thus expressed in a letter of the Rev. H. Venn, to myself, dated Nov. 10, 1841.

"In the memorandum we have taken no notice of the 'Land Question,' because the Committee have already expressed both their own views and their full concurrence in the view taken by the Bishop of Australia, in the papers recently placed in your hands."

It is almost unnecessary for me to express my approval of the limit defined by the Society, and recommended by the Bishop of Australia. It will at once be seen, as has been before stated, that in the case of large families, this scale will not differ by any considerable amount from the maximum as fixed by Government.

4. My opinion would not be altered by hearing that a portion of the land claimed by missionaries was bought with private funds, for though the Society has not questioned the abstract right of the missionaries in this respect,^d

"It has expressed (letter to Mr. Clarke, Feb. 18, 1840), its disapproval of such transactions in general, as liable to prejudice the character and usefulness of the missionary, and to operate injuriously both to the Mission and to the Society. In the event of the colonization of the country it is stated that it would unquestionably be unwarrantable in the missionary to make large acquisitions of landed property in New Zealand. Besides the bearing of such acquisitions on his own character and duties, and the character of the Society with which he is connected, it could scarcely fail to awaken the jealousy of the colonists, and thus to create a state of feeling between them and the missionaries, highly prejudicial to the mission."

^a I have been accustomed to make little ceremony with the Governor's logic, knowing myself to be the better logician of the two. But it is with unfeigned diffidence that I venture to impugn the reasoning of such a man as the Bishop.

His Lordship's syllogism is this:—

In 1844-5 it was impossible for a Missionary to purchase land for his children directly from the natives;

What is not possible cannot be necessary;

Therefore, there was no necessity for the augmentation of the grants.

It is surprising that the Bishop, acquainted with the free-will controversy, should use the words possible and necessary so loosely. The word "impossible" is here used as synonomous with not permitted by the Colonial Government. Substitute the one for the other, and the non-sequitur becomes apparent. The ambiguity of the word "necessary" needs no comment.

But what of the fact? In 1844—5 it was not "impossible" for a Missionary to purchase land directly from the natives; and purchases effected at that period were more legitimate (I do not say more legal) than those effected before New Zealand became a British colony. In the one case there was the direct authority of the Queen's representative; in the other a British subject was doing an act having a tendency at least to impair his allegiance.

^b An application was made by the Missionaries to the Society for 200 acres as a gift on behalf of each child. The boon was granted, but burthened by so many conditions that the Missionaries for the most part preferred purchasing with their own private funds. Archdeacon Henry Williams made only one purchase with the funds of the Society. In New South Wales the Chaplains purchased what they pleased in addition to the grants issued both to them and to their children.

^c It is easy to select from the writings of a person who has written much on one subject, isolated passages to suit a purpose. But the Grantees can select likewise.

The Bishop of Australia to the Missionaries, January 10, 1840 :—

"No one, I think, can raise any objection to your general plea, that having throughout the Mission families of more than ordinary magnitude, and they without any other provision or dependence, it was not only a natural feeling, but your bounden duty to provide for them, as the country itself should enable you. This was a part of that support which the foresight and goodness of God had placed within your reach, and a man who did not avail himself of it fairly, and to a reasonable extent, would have denied the faith, and would have been worse than an infidel. It is my earnest prayer that God may have given to you all the grace of forbearance that you have not been betrayed into covetousness or an inordinate love of the world, and the things of the world, and that He may make your righteousness as clear as the light, and your just dealing as the noon day."

The Bishop of Australia to the Missionaries, September 28, 1840 :—

"You are bound to provide for your own. Do so, then, and may they enjoy the blessing and support of their Father which is in Heaven. But I say again, and emphatically : Reserve no lands for your own personal property and advantage; so shall you vindicate yourselves and the cause in which you have laboured from the aspersions cast upon it."

The injunction was faithfully observed.

^d The Committee have expressed themselves quite distinctly with regard to all private property of the Missionaries, in the following words :—

"The Committee cannot go beyond this resolution, as they have no power, or desire, to Interfere with the private property of their Missionaries. They must leave to their own decision the mode of disposing of land, which those who continue in connexion with the Society may, under the operation of the foregoing Resolution, be compelled to part with."—Minutes of Meeting, Feb. 22, 1847.

page 16

In the same spirit the Bishop of Australia assured you in 1840, that it was the universal feeling among unprejudiced persons that no individual engaging in the duties of a missionary for the conversion of heathen nations can avail himself of the opportunity thereby afforded, to obtain possession of their lands for his own benefit, ^a without subjecting himself, his motives, and the cause which he has engaged in, to the most injurious suspicions."

To the opinions of the Society, and of the Bishop of Australia, I am obliged reluctantly to add the testimony of my own experience, that the land purchases of missionaries have "awakened the jealousy of the colonists;" have created a feeling highly prejudicial to the mission," have affected the character of the Society," have in some cases alienated the affections of natives from their missionary, and have I subjected us all to the most injurious suspicion. All this I will undertake to prove ^b if it should ever be necessary, hut I earnestly desire to be spared the painful duty by your quiet acquiescence in the Governor's proposal.

These being the merits of the question, you need : not, I think, be surprised that the Society, after bearing many difficulties and anxieties for seventeen years, has found it necessary to declare—Resolution March 1, 1847,—

"That no missionary or catechist of the Society can be allowed to continue his connexion with the; Society, who shall retain, for his own use and benefit, a greater amount of land than shall be determined upon as suitable by the Lieut.-Governor of New Zealand, and by the Lord Bishop of New Zealand, jointly."

Having been now invited to concur with his Excellency in a recommendation which he had drawn up in my absence upon his own view of the subject, I have no hesitation in saying that I shall be perfectly satisfied and sincerely thankful if you will enable me to inform the Society that you have accepted a proposal which expresses the feelings not only of the Governor and myself, but also of your former diocesan, the Bishop of Australia, of the C. M. Society, and (I may add) of every friend and well-wisher of yourselves personally, and of the holy cause in which you are engaged. Do not, I entreat you, think that an injustice is done to yourselves, and to your children, but rather think of the injustice which you will do to your brethren, to myself, to the Society, to the whole mission cause, if, for the sake of a few waste and worthless acres, you alienate from us the confidence and support of those who offer us their most zealous friendship and assistance," if we will assist them in putting an end to an anxiety which not only affects the Government of this colony, but which also for seventeen years has perplexed and distressed our best friends in England, As your friend, brother, and partner in the mission work, who has shared your sorrows and your joys, your hopes and your fears, who have borne the same burdens, and have been comforted by the same successes, I do entreat you to forego some portion even of what you may believe to be your just claim, to forgive and forget every attack upon you which may have seemed to be unjust, ^c to think nothing of any abstract right compared with the sacred duty of avoiding even the appearance of evil, and of taking care lest even your good be evil spoken of. I am well aware that you have been actuated throughout with an earnest desire for the welfare of your children, and I also can say with truth, that from the time of my landing in New Zealand till now, the same subject has continually occupied my thoughts, I have trusted that the time would come when your children would learn, ^d as some have done already, to renounce the barren pride of ownership, for the moral husbandry of Christ's kingdom in the harvest field of souls. For yourselves, I have only further to express my conviction that when the first sting shall have posed away of alleged misconduct, and of imputations which you believe to he unjust, you will be the first to acknowledge that there is a Christian meekness and an active zeal, by which the Christian missionary may inherit the earth, though he have no other possession in it than a grave ! ^e

G. A. New Zealand.

The letter, in composition, is a masterly piece of work; but in practical efficiency, singularly defective. It was at once ill-timed, ill-reasoned, and ill-judged. Ill-timed, because addressed to men who were still smarting with the pain of a cruel and unfounded charge—who could not but reject an address which actually countersigned that charge; ill-reasoned, because it proceeded on the assumption that the land was held by the Missionaries "for their own use and benefit and ill-judged, because, in urging them to acquiesce with Governor Grey's proposal, the Bishop had exceeded his commission;

^a Frequent instances may be observed m which the Bishop asserts, through the mouths of other people. He does not commit himself to saying that the Missionaries did avail themselves of the particular opportunities by their position as pastors: but from the manner of quoting, the charge comes with the force of an assertion. What is the fact? The Missionaries availed themselves of opportunities that were afforded to all the old settlers; paying, however, much more liberally than the rest, on an average, for the land.

^b "All this" the Bishop was called upon to prove, but refused to prove.

^c i.e. "Which may have seemed to be unjust," but is not so in reality.

^d The Bishop's own admission that the land was the children's property.

^e The grave is for the dead, not for the living. But what avails rhetorical display towards men who have character at stake? The Grantees saw clearly, what the Bishop was unwilling to see, that from the time of Governor Grey's attempting to extort the deeds, under threat of exposure, they had no choice but to brave him—to bid him do his worst. Had they been so weak as to yield, they must have lain under the imputation of having purchased his Excellency's forbearance: and had the Bishop been as sensitive for the honour of his brethren as he describes himself to be, he would subsequently have given his heartiest support to Archdeacon Henry Williams, who offered to resign the deeds, provided only that Governor Grey would either "substantiate or retract" his allegations against the Missionaries.

page 17 for he was only authorised to press upon them the proposal of the Society. Hinc illœ lacrymœ: this is the true cause of the house being now divided against itself. Up to this time (I borrow his Lordship's words), "it was impossible for a Bishop to be more pleasantly established, or on better terms with his clergy." And what is his position now I The dissenters and the Roman Catholics are seemingly not ill pleased with it.

It is fabled of the King of beasts, that when he roars, he lowers his mouth to the earth, that the sound, by diffusion, might seem to come from many quarters at once, and the listeners imagine themselves surrounded by the majesty of his presence. Now the Bishop's argument, imposing, and clothed in high-toned words, was like the lion's roar; there was no telling where it came from. Its basis was vague : the propounder's locus standi indistinct. Archdeacon Henry Williams, a clear-headed man, brought his Lordship back to the real point at issue, by simply referring to the definite Resolution of the Society.

Bishops Auckland,

September 7, 1847.

Having seen a communication from Archdeacon William Williams respecting his interview with your Lordship this morning, I beg to state, upon the subject of the lands purchased on account of my children, that it is my intention to abide strictly by the Society's Resolution of February 22, 1847, covered by their letter of March 1, 1847, and that I did never purpose to retain any portion of the said purchases for my private "use and benefit," of which your Lordship is fully aware.^a

In a communication with the Church Missionary

^a Archdeacon Henry Williams has stated upon more than one occasion that virtually he had no land an assertion which the Parent Committee, unhappily for all concerned, were unwise enough to disbelieve. The Archdeacon's veracity having been impugned, it becomes necessary to offer a complete exposition of the case.

In the first place, the land in question was sold as much to the Archdeacon's children, eleven in number, as to himself, and was paid for, partly with the children's money. The following is an extract from a native deed of sale:—

"Ko te puka puka tenei o te tukunga o tetahl wahi wenua no matou ki a Wiremu ki ana Tamarik."

"This is a deed of sale of a certain piece of land from us to Williams and his children."

At the date of the sale, there was no law in New Zealand; the good faith of the transaction is therefore the only guide. In no point of view could the Archdeacon be held to have more than a twelfth interest in the land.

But even of this he presently divested himself. As the boys became successively of age to quit the paternal roof, the father placed them upon the land, telling them that it was their own—that it was all he could do for them, and that henceforth they must depend upon their own exertions to make their way in the world. They broke up portions of the land for themselves, and depastured cattle on the remainder : the father never received one shilling from the land, but paid his sons the market price for whatever they supplied to his household.

The native deeds were passed through the Land Commissioner's Court according to the form directed by the Government notice, which required—The names of all persons who were parties to the original transactions with the natives as purchasers, and are now interested as claimants."

The Returns to the Colonial Secretary, Sydney, New South Wales, were covered by the following letter;—

Paihia, Bay of Islands,

October 15, 1840.

Sir,—I have the honour to transmit to you, agreeably to a notice contained in the Government Gazette dated Colonial Secretary's Office, Sept. 17, 1840, the following particulars of land in New Zealand, purchased from tbs Aborigines of this country by me, as follows, Nos, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, containing the particulars of the land.

These purchases were made for the benefit of eleven children, whose names are in the margin.

I have, &c.,

Henry Williams.

Henry Williams

Edward Marsh Williams

Marianne Williams

Samuel Williams

Henry Williams, junior

Thomas Coldham Williams

John William Williams

Sarah Williams

Kate Williams

Caroline Elisabeth Williams

Lydia Jane Williams

Joseph Marsden Williams

The Archdeacon's name appears prominently in the native deed, as head of the family, according to native custom, by which, in such cases, the chief is spoken of as of the whole tribe. The sale was as much to the various members of the family as to himself. The Crown grants, however, were made out in the father's name alone. This was the act, not of the Archdeacon, but of the Government, which pleased itself. The Archdeacon had performed his own duty by carrying the claims through the Land Commissioner's Court in the individual names of the Clan, and never even saw the grants until November, 1845.

This lays the axe at the root of Governor Grey's cavil,—that the grants should have been made in the names of the children. Where lay the fault? Not with the Archdeacon, but with the Government itself, The Archdeacon had done all that was required of him—he had complied to the letter with the injunctions of the law, and interfered no further. It was not for him to advise the Attorney-General. He left the Government to follow its own devices, knowing that the true claim of the children was derived from the Native Grants, made before New Zealand was a colony. These were the natural titles; acceptance of Crown Grants being merely a legal form, with which the purchasers were required to comply.

In consequence of the manner in which the Government thought proper to word the Grant, it became expedient for the Archdeacon to make a legal transfer, by which the error might be cured. But a succession of hindrances arose, the earliest of which were the expense of survey, and the valueless condition of the land, owing to the unsettled state of the country.

In 1847, the Society required its Missionaries to divest themselves of a portion of the property,—that Is to say, of such control over it as had been conferred by the Crown Grants. Archdeacon Henry Williams acquiesced, informing the Secretaries that he would convey the whole of the land in question to his children, by legal form, as soon as possible. But from this he was hindered by the Bishop, who objected to the transfer, and by the Governor, who impugned the legality of the grants. Until that question should be decided, it would have been absurd to draw the deeds.

The Governor carried the question into the Supreme Court, where the validity of the grants was affirmed, June 24, 1848. On the 22nd of August, 1848, the Archdeacon wrote to Mr. Fitzgerald, as follows:—

"Will you have the kindness to enquire of Mr. Bartley if I can now transfer the land to my sons and daughters, and clear the whole from my hands, as it has never in fact been my property."

Mr. Bartley objected on the ground of the Governor's appeal :—"It would be utterly useless at present, and we must wait until the decision of the Privy Council be known."

By the subsequent passing of the Crown Titles Bill, the impediment was overcome : the deeds were drawn and signed, by the Archdeacon, about a month after receipt of the Society's Resolutions of 1848. But the lands had not the less belonged, de facto, to the children all along.

The question of time—i. e. whether the act of signing was before or after receipt of the Resolutions, is evidently immaterial, and was treated as immaterial, in the case of Mr. Clarke, by the Society, For Mr. Clarke completed the transfer to his children before receipt of those Resolutions.

It thus appears, distinguishing a twelfth interest from a twelfth share, that the Archdeacon had never possessed any land at all; and that immediate compliance with a legal form required by the Society, was hindered, firstly by the Bishop, and secondly by the Governor.

page 18 Society, several months since, I wrote the following words:—

"The first fruits of Pakaraka, the farm where my sons are at work, was my Second Son connecting; himself with the Bishop, and in September last was admitted to Holy Orders, paying his own expenses. The same is open to the rest of my sons. The proceeds of the farm have all been returned upon the farm in improvements; and for myself, I have not received One Shilling."

Before I close my present communication, I beg to remind your Lordship of an observation made to me by your Lordship within the first week of your landing at Paihia;—that previously to leaving England, your Lordship conferred with the Committee of the Church Missionary Society, and that you observed to them that you did not feel that you were at liberty to interfere in the land question, as Bishop, any more than a Bishop in England could interfere with any clergyman who night wish to purchase an estate within his diocese.

Henry Williams.

The Lord Bishop of New Zealand.

The Society's Resolution seemed clear enough. So did Lord Grey's famous Instructions, under which Maori lands, unless registered, were to be confiscated, But Governor Grey did not so understand his Lordship's Instructions. He had his own "reading" of them, which was different from that of any one else. In like manner, the Bishop had his own "reading" of the Society's Resolution. He seems to have taken it as Messrs. Newman and Ward took a Church of England article—in the non-natural sense. The Grantees had taken their stand upon the Resolution; the Bishop met them by putting a different meaning on the Resolution.

This difference of meaning must be attended to; for it was the main point of dispute during the second period of the contention. His Lordship shall state the case :—

St. John's College,

September 8, 1847.

It will not be necessary for me to write at length on the subject of your letter of yesterday. The following points I submit to your notice.

I. You state that it is your intention to abide strictly by the direction of the Society's Resolution of February 22, 1846, covered by their letter of March 1, 1847."

As you seem to think that the meaning and spirit of that Resolution is satisfied by your simply making over all your lands, however they may have been acquired, to your children, I must draw your attention to the following passage of the Society's letter to the Governor, written on the same day, viz., March 1, 1847.

7. Our Missionaries have been earnestly required by this Committee to enter into a fair and open communication with your Excellency and the Lord Bishop, or with your referees; and to make every sacrifice becoming the ministers of the Gospel consistent with the necessary provisions of their large families, so as to enable your Excellency to adjust their claims equitably.

"8. The Committee feel assured that the interests of the Missionaries, as well as of the Society, in their lands and property, are in hands that will calmly and intelligently adjust them for the public benefit and private weal of all parties."

On these extracts, written on the same day as the letter of the Missions to which you refer, I have to remark that the Society requires—

I.	A fair and open communication with the Governor and myself.
II.	A sacrifice to be made.
III.	An adjustment of claims by the Governor.
IV.	A calm and intelligent adjustment of the claims by arbitrators who will look to the public benefit.

I. have further to express my sorrow that not one of the above requisitions have been complied with. The other points to which I may refer briefly,

II. That I have never imputed to you any wish to appropriate any portion of the property in question to your "own use and benefit;" nor do I understand ^a how a Christian parent, living with his children around him, could carry out any such distinction in practice,

III. In my letter to the Missionary Land Claimants I have already expressed my thankfulness that some children of Missionaries had been moved to renounce the barren pride of ownership for the husbandry of Christ's kingdom." In this I had especial reference to your son Samuel.

IV. You are perfectly correct in your recollection of my conversation with you at Paihia; and I have already stated in my letter to Mr. Clarke, that I have abstained from offering any remarks upon the question, till I was called upon by the Society, If my interference had been in my Episcopal character, I should not have addressed my letter to Mr. Clarke.

^a (a) Considering that his Lordship's premisses are incorrect, It is not likely that he should be able to 'understand." The children of Archdeacon Henry Williams were not living around him, but at a considerable distance, distinct both in place and interest.

Even had the premisses been good, the conclusion would have failed to meet the explicit declaration of Archdeacon Henry Williams, in his fore-quoted letter, that he had not received one shilling from the farm.

The Bishop of Australia did "understand," although the bishop of New Zealand did not. "You arc bound," wrote he, "to provide for your own; but I say again, and emphatically, reserve no land for your own personal property or advantage."

page 19

V. In order that the unpleasantness of our present situation may be as much as possible confined within its due limits, I wish to assure you, that so far as I am concerned, no difference need be supposed to exist between us, in our ecclesiastical or private relations; but that our intercourse in those respects may continue as heretofore. It is only as President of the Central Committee of the Society that I must decline to act with any one who will not consent to allow its resolutions to be carried out in their most comprehensive meaning and spirit.

G. A. New Zealand.

Archdeacon Henry Williams.

The Bishop interprets the Society's instructions to its Missionaries, by means of a letter addressed by the Society to Governor Grey, and calls the attention of the Grantees to four propositions, deducible from the 7th and 8th paragraphs. If the deductions be compared with the documents upon which the Grantees took their stand, the reasoning will appear to be none of the clearest; perhaps not even of the best. His Lordship generalises, where the Society particularises; by abstracting the essential differences, he converts specific into generic propositions; he extends the meaning of expressions by lopping off whatever happens to restrict them; he finds them precise, and he leaves them vague.

Error latet in universalibus.

The natural meaning of the Resolution appears to be confirmed, rather than impugned, by the Society's letter to the Governor.

The Bishop having met with opposition, provided for the contingency of an ultimate appeal to the Society, by securing the ground at home.

St. John's College,

September 7, 1847.

I enclose my letter to the Missionary Land Claimants, written pursuant to the Resolution of the Committee which you forwarded to me. The Governor in his Civil capacity has offered them 2560 acres of land for each claimant, to be surveyed at the public expense, and the surplus to be restored to the Native ovmers.^a I am assured by Archdeacon Wm. Williams, that this quantity, taken as proposed, in four blocks, will give to the claimants all the good land contained in the tracts over which their nominal claim ^b extends. If therefore you receive letters from any of the claimants, expressing their intention to make over their whole claim to their children, you will understand that by so doing they will embroil the whole question with the Governor; outrage public opinion; break your Resolutions, and set aside my award; and all for no possible benefit either to themselves or their children. ^c On the contrary, by simply reverting to the original basis of 2560 acres, as fixed in 1841, they will receive that quantity of picked land, ^d surveyed for them at the public expense, and will harmonise all the rules, and conciliate all parties.

The Central Committee have met for their first session, but we have not yet opened our proceedings, because it has seemed good to some of the members involved in the "land question" to decline referring the matter to me, ^e according to the So-

^a When the Governor obtained possession of Mr. Fairburn's land, he did not restore it to the native owners, but gave it to the Pensioners.

^b The question at issue was of Crown Grants, not of land claims. The difference is great; but the Bishop and the Governor adhere to this peculiar phraseology throughout.

^c An unwarrantably light assertion. The children were then deriving the greatest benefit from the surplus land, and do so still.

^d The Bishop says—the Grantees will be allowed to select: the Governor, in well disguised language, that they will not be allowed to select.

^e The Grantees did not decline referring the matter to the Bishop, because there was nothing to refer. The letter is crowded with serious errors, which seem to have been accumulated for the purpose of placing the Missionary Grantees in an invidious position with the Society.

page 20 ciety's resolution, which course, if persisted in, will prevent me from acting with them as members of the Central Committee.^a

A mail is just closing for England, or I would not have perplexed you with this indefinite report; but I will send you the final report, God willing, by the earliest opportunity, and I heartily pray that it may be such as to release the minds of all the friends of the Society from their present suspense.

Your affectionate friend and brother,

G. A. New Zealand.

P. S.—The Governor's letter, a copy of which I enclose, will show that he has requested me to concur with him in the recommendation to the Missionaries, though he felt that, as Governor, he could not act with me in fixing the amount of land to be held.

The Reverend H. Venn,

Secretary.

This is a hard letter, and an undeserved. But I think that, after having been analyzed, it will be of service rather than of injury to the cause of the Grantees.

The Governor's proposal, as reported to Mr Venn, is again mutilated by the Bishop : the objectionable conditions are omitted, the unobjectionable retained. How can we any longer feel surprised at the Missionaries being accused, in England, of a mercenary spirit.

His Excellency's wily reservation—the very clause which would plainly have justified the Grantees in non-compliance is cut off : Mr. Venn is informed that the Grantees will be allowed to take 2560 acres, in four blocks, but he is not informed that "they will not be allowed to include in the block they select any lands which the Natives may now justly claim, or which may he required for the use of the natives, or for public purposes—in other words, that they were to be placed at the mercy of the Government.

There must be, therefore, some mistake about Archdeacon Wm. Williams's observation. He could never have stated "that this quantity, taken as proposed (i. e. after the Government should have appropriated what it pleased) in four blocks, would give to the claimants all the good land contained in the tracts over which their nominal claim extends for there was no security but that the Government might appropriate that very land. The observation would have been simply absurd, and would have been treated as absurd by the Bishop. There is every reason to suppose, judging from what happened with regard to the pre-emption claimants, that the Government would not have been scrupulous in selection. An anecdote was current to this effect, that an officer in her Majesty's service, riding with the Governor near the Waimate, noticed the barrenness of much of the Missionary land, and observed that it was hardly worth while to take away from them their swamps and tops of hills. "I do not object to their keeping the swamps and tops of hills," answered his Excellency, "but I'll cut up their paddocks for them."^b

I am quite sure that public opinion was not "outraged for it set most strongly at that time, and has done ever since, in favour of the Grantees. I speak of the Northern Province; for it is well known with regard to the South, that the New Zealand Company were opposed to any acquisition of land whatever, excepting at the rate of £1 per acre from themselves. My own anxiety lest the Grantees should be worsted in the conflict, was shared by almost all my acquaintance, who were equally of opinion that character was involved, and that the surrender of a foot of land, unconditionally, was a surrender of honour.

Archdeacon Henry Williams and Mr. Clarke had come to Auckland for the purpose of attending the Central Committee; the brunt of the battle therefore fell on them. The Bishop was Chair, man of this Committee; the remaining members were Archdeacon Wm. Williams, Archdeacon Brown, and the Rev. R. Burrows.

These three gentlemen, together with Messrs. Kissling and Maunsell, were the "Five Brethren" upon whose acts and supposed opinions so much stress was afterwards laid by his Lordship and by Mr. Venn. The Society was led into the belief that these gentlemen acted as a Committee; and more than that, as the Central Committee itself.

They most certainly only gave their opinions as five individuals; for they acted, not by appointment, but at the request of Mr. Clarke. Two of the Five Brethren were not members of the Central Committee, and the Bishop had himself refused to sit as Chairman of that Committee until the

^a Why so? The hindrance was imaginary. The Society had given time—until the end of the year—for choosing between three modes of action. The Bishop required the Grantees to adopt a fourth, instanter; and because they demurred, was "prevented" from sitting with them in Committee.

^b His Excellency's practice was to cut off, so as to cause the greatest amount of inconvenience. From Mr. Newman's purchase, he cut off a few perches in the garden, before the door of the dwelling-house, forcing him to re-purchase from the Government, at any price, however exorbitant.

page 21 Land Question should have been settled.^a Moreover, the Society had already declared that the Local Committees were in no way concerned in the case. It will be readily perceived that the opinion of "a committee" conveys an impression of higher authority, than the corresponding opinion of five individuals.^b

The magician in the Arabian tale walked through the streets, crying, "Who'll give old lamps for new ones? 'The Bishop and the Five Brethren took example from him, inviting the Missionaries to "receive new grants for old ones."

Hard beset on all sides, and harassed out of his cooler judgment, Archdeacon Henry Williams consented to abandon the stand which he had taken on the Society's Resolution. He agreed to accept the Bishop's reading of the Resolution, and to receive new grants for 2560 acres, in lieu of the old ones for 9000 acres, on the one condition—that the Governor should either substantiate or retract his allegations against the Missionaries. But the Governor's act was to precede the Archdeacon's.

The following is the correspondence which passed on the subject. It merits a careful analysis, as being the turning point of the dispute, whether inconsistency be chargeable to the Bishop, or to the Archdeacon.

View of the Yen. Archdeacon Henry Williams on the Land Question now pending.

September 11, 1847.

1. It appears to be the view taken by the Church Missionary Society upon the legality of the Crown grants for lands, as stated in their letter of March 1, 1847, that they have no doubt as to their legality.

2. That despatches from Governor Grey have been laid before the Church Missionary Society by the Secretary of State, declaring that the titles to land possessed by the Missionaries are disputed [by the original native owners], consequently that the holders of such titles "cannot be put in possession without the expenditure of much British blood." Hence "some sacrifice to be made" of these disputed titles.

3. The question to be referred is the quantity of land for the Missionaries' "own use and benefit."

4. The surplus lands over and above the quantity fixed upon for the "use and benefit" of any landholder, "he may dispose of by sale, or make them over to his children, or put them in trust for the benefit of the Aborigines, as he may judge proper, or as the Lord may incline his heart to act."

This appears to me to be the letter and the spirit of the wish and desire of the Church Missionary Society, as conveyed by their letter on the land question; I will only observe upon the Second Head, that it is visionary, not real.

But his Excellency the Governor has said that the Crown grant exceeding 2560 acres is illegal. Upon this I merely observe that I am no interpreter of the law, nor do I resist the law, nor do I offer any opinion upon the legality of the present grant I now possess. Yet I cannot withhold the expression of my feeling that I have been severely wounded in this affair, as also by various aspersions from the Governor thrown upon the Missionaries in this and other transactions. I therefore cannot, in honour to myself, to my numerous family, and to the Church Missionary Society, hold any communication with his Excellency the Governor on the subject of a new grant, or receive any new grant ^c from the Crown, unless these numerous and "severe animadversions" expressed or implied by his Excellency in his despatches to the Secretary of State, "upon the past conduct of some of the Missionaries," be either fully established or fully and honourably withdrawn. Should these painful difficulties be removed, I shall Then be ready to accede to any proposition, however opposed to my own judgment, as to the reading of the Society's letter to the Missionaries of March 1, 1847.

This concession is the only step for which the Archdeacon can be considered in any way to blame. For by it he assigned away land which actually was not his own to give. I am aware that no practica1 inconvenience could have ensued; that his children would have made good their father's word, to the last acre of their property; but still the Archdeacon exceeded his own power in making that concession, as much as the Bishop exceeded his own commission in requiring it. The fact is, that it was unfairly obtained. To use the Archdeacon's words, he was "taken by surprise, borne down and pressed for a reply, without a moment's reflection, whilst under great excitement and mental depression, to deliver up that over which he had no control, the property of his family, under most ap-

^a The Bishop made use of a most powerful lever in order to accomplish his object. The members of the Central Committee had assembled from a great distance to attend the meeting, but the Bishop refused either to meet the members in Committee, unless they complied with his award, or to allow the whole body of members to meet for the transaction of business without him as President. In this way, after the lapse of some days, the pledges were obtained.—Arch. Wm. Williams to Sec. of C. M. 31. Society.

^b The names of these five missionaries have since been turned to profitable account by the Bishop and the Society; with how much reason will be seen from the following statement, made by the Rev. R. Maunsell, with the approbation of his brethren, to the Parent Committee:—

"Injustice, however, to them, we think it right to state that the chief ground on which we urged on the land claimants, in 1847, the proposal of the Governor, was the position to which the Mission might have been reduced, if, at that particular juncture, they had refused compliance.—18th April, 1849.

^c "Receiving new grants,' and "surrendering the old grants," were used by the Grantees as convertible expressions. The exchange was equally implied on either hand.

page 22 palling imputations of fraud, deceit, and craft." Such as the concession was, however, it would have been adhered to, had the accompanying condition—"substantiation or retractation" of the Governor's allegations—been complied with

Archdeacon Henry Williams had required that the "substantiation or retractation" should any communication with his Excellency on the subject of the new grants. Certain inconveniences appeared to be involved in this precedency; the Bishop therefore wrote to the Archdeacon, requesting him to waive his condition as to the order of events. This is the ostensible subject, the prominent point of his Lordship's letter; but, as we shall presently see, it contains very much more in reality.

St. John's College,

September 13, 1847.

Your brother, Archdeacon W. Williams, has this morning placed in my hand three papers.

1. A letter of Mr. Clarke to the following clergymen of the Church Mission, Sept. 10, 1847:—Venerable Archdeacon W, Williams, Venerable Archdeacon A. N. Brown, Rev. R. Maunsell, Rev. G. A. Kissling, Rev. R. Burrows, in which, after stating his own opinion on the "land question," he adds—

"Nevertheless, if my reading be considered doubtful to you, and that it does not accord with the spirit of those instructions, I fully accede to the Lord Bishop's proposition, grounded on that more correct reading."

2. A letter from the above five clergymen to Mr. Clarke, to the following effect.

"Respecting the precise meaning of certain passages in the Secretary's letter to the Missionaries, of March 1, 1847, we are not agreed; but taking into consideration the purport and spirit of all the documents written by our Secretary, of the same date, we are decidedly of opinion that the proposition made through the Governor and the Bishop, is one which accords with the wishes of the Home Committee."^a

(Signed by the five clergymen abovenamed.)

3. A paper signed by yourself, and headed—

"Views of the Ven. Archdeacon H. Williams on the Land Question now pending," in which is the following passage—

"Should these painful difficulties be removed, I shall Then be ready to accede to any proposition, however opposed to my own judgment, as to the reading of the Society's Letter to the Missionaries, of March 1, 1847."

I gather from the above, that you have no objection to my proposition in itself, and that the difficulties to which you refer are confined entirely to the animadversions upon the conduct of the Missionaries, expressed or implied in the Governor's despatches.

As a satisfaction to the mind of one who has not attacked your character, but vindicated it again and again; and in concession to the opinion of your five brethren, expressed above, I earnestly entreat you to give me a similar assurance to that contained in Mr. Clarke's letter, as quoted above. I will Then pledge myself to institute the fullest inquiry into those accusations to which you refer, as soon as the approaching ordination and the meeting of the Central Committee shall have taken place; but I am not at liberty to wait upon the Governor, nor do I think he would be at liberty now to enter into the question, as the Legislative Council is still sitting.

The other questions relating to the appropriation of the surplus land, ^b on which Mr. Clarke's letter contains a suggestion, must rest with the Governor; but, as in the case of the imputations upon the Missionaries, I will not fail to use my best endeavours to procure the most amicable and satisfactory adjustment.

G. A. New Zealand.

Archdeacon Henry Williams.

I have seldom read a letter that required more careful scrutiny than this. The Bishop again proceeds to mutilate an extract. He recites a portion of Mr. Clarke's "surrender," omitting the condition attached to it, and then requests the Archdeacon to give "a similar assurance to that contained in Mr. Clarke's letter, as quoted above" i.e. as incompletely quoted by himself. Those three words, so transiently introduced, would naturally escape the notice of an unsuspicious man; and they did escape the Archdeacon's notice until very long after his first perusal of the letter. Mr. Clarke's surrender, apparently unconditional, was followed in fact by this important condition :—

Provided always, that all lands, over and above that proposed, be transferred to the Church of England, to be held in trust for the education of the native population.

But His Lordship, after having requested the similar assurance "as quoted above," saves himself from the charge of having altogether pretermitted Mr. Clarke's condition. "The other

^a The opinion of the Five Brethren is so correct as almost to reach the point of truism. The Society had required certain concessions from the Grantees. If the Grantees thought fit to concede more than was required, there can be little doubt that such additional concession would "accord with the wishes of the Horae Committee." But it docs not therefore follow that the Grantees should be bound to make it.

^b The Bishop had at last perceived that the Governor's proposal, of restoring the surplus land to the natives, was merely a blind. Others were not so easily misled. Heke, who generally had the earliest intelligence of His Excellency's movements, was the first to inform the Grantees of the scheme. "The Governor says," observed the crafty chief, "that he will give part to the Missionaries, and give the rest back again to the Maories. Did you ever see a man trying to coax a dog forward with a bone, while holding a stick behind his back? "

On another occasion, some sovereigns had been sent to Heke by the Governor. He held them up before his eyes, and said, "I am looking to sec whether there is a hook at the end of them."

page 23 questions," he writes, "relating to the appropriation of the surplus land, on which Mr. Clarke's letter contains a suggestion, must rest with the Governor." To my mind, this only makes the matter worse. This lightness of touch, this nicety of management by which the very gist of the surrender is thrown into the back ground, makes it clear to me, that the previous omission was warily made. Others may be of a different opinion; but no one can deny that the paragraph contains at least one clear misrepresentation. It was not a "suggestion" that was made by Mr. Clarke, but a stipulation. The difference is essential.

The Bishop's objection to Archdeacon Henry Williams' proposal is on the score of time. He has his Ordination to attend to; the Governor has his Council; so that the "painful difficulties" cannot be immediately removed. But if the Archdeacon will only give his promise to receive the new grants, the Bishop will then pledge himself,—not, indeed, as might be expected, to obtain satisfaction from the Governor, but merely to institute "enquiries" on his own part; and this upon a matter with which he was perfectly well acquainted.

The Archdeacon's object was to obtain substantiation or retractation, not from the Bishop, but from the Governor. The object of the Bishop was evidently to relieve the Governor from that dilemma : he therefore volunteers to take an enquiry upon himself. It was not the Bishop's enquiry that was asked for, it being notorious that there were no grounds for enquiry; but the Governor's proofs. Yet, a cursory reader would suppose that his Lordship had pledged himself to obtaining the required satisfaction from His Excellency. ^a

The Archdeacon was not aware of all the intricacies of this letter when he 'answered it, but was saved by his own downrightness of disposition. He was possessed with a fixed idea, "substantiation or retractation," which he still embodied in his reply. He abandoned the question of precedency, but repealed the remainder of his condition.

P. S.

Monday. September 13th, 1847.

The Lord Bishop has communicated to me his wish to be furnished with "a similar assurance to that contained in Mr. Clarke's letter," and that his Lordship will then pledge himself to institute the fullest enquiry into those accusations to which I refer, as soon as the approaching Ordination and the meeting of the Central Committee shall have taken place.

I must therefore request that this Postscript may be affixed to my papers presented to you on the 11th instant, with the following alteration of the closing paragraph.

I accede to any proposition relative to the Land Question which you may suggest, however opposed to my own judgment, as to the reading of the Society's letter to the Missionaries of March 1st, 1847; but, I cannot receive any new grants until the severe: animadversions cast upon some of the Missionaries I be either fully established or fully and honourably withdrawn by his Excellency the Governor.

Henry Williams.^b

How this document should ever have been termed an "unconditional surrender," is beyond my understanding. There stands the old condition,—as distinctly marked as Mr. Clarke's suppressed condition—repeated with pertinacity of iteration; yet is the Archdeacon accused of having violated an unconditional pledge ! Were it not for this strange obtuseness of comprehension, I would not have wasted another line upon the matter; but, if additional explanation be needed for those who are "slow of study," it must be supplied.

No one, all events, ever pretended that the surrender of the nth was unconditional. I now ask,—and beg that the question may be distinctly answered before proceeding further,—what was the actual point of difference between the surrender the 11th and the surrender of the 13th? Are not the two identical, except in a stipulation concerning the order of events? ^c Why was the Postscript added ! Was it not because of the approaching Ordination, and the meeting of the Central Committee?

What, up to this time, had been the turning point of the contention? Was it not the disputed "reading" of the Society's Resolution? The Archdeacon expressed his willingness to concede the

^a Even such as the pledge was, his Lordship did not keep it.

^b Accompanied by the following note to the Bishop:—

Sept. 13, 1847.

My Lord—I have to acknowledge your Lordship's communication of this day, and have endeavoured to meet your Lordship's views as suggested, forwarded to the five clergymen.

Henry Williams.

^c By comparing the paper of the lath, with my paper forwarded on the 11th of September, they will be seen to be one and the same, merely transposed to meet the arrangements of the Bishop and the Governor (referring to the Bishop's engagement in preparing candidates for ordination, and the Governor's with the Legislative Council); the only reasons assigned for any change, and the only consideration kept in view by me. There was certainly no release on my part from the establishing, or withdrawing, of the charges made by Governor Grey, as this was the only certainty I possessed of ensuring the Governor's acting which I would on no account relinguish.—Arch. Henry Williams to the Secs, of the Society.

page 24 "reading;" but required a corresponding concession from the Governor, and likewise required the Governor's concession to precede his own. Until that should have been made he could not, "in honour to himself, to his numerous family, and the Church Mission Society, hold any communication with the Governor on the subject." But the Governor's concession, for reasons assigned by the Bishop, could not be immediately obtained, and meanwhile, the business of the Central Committee was at a stand. The Archdeacon accordingly waived the point of form—i.e. of the Governor's making the first advances : he consented to entertain the question of new grants provisionally—to admit the Bishop's "reading" immediately, provided that his Excellency should afterwards "substantiate or retract." This change he effected in the postscript of the 13th, by simply transposing the former terms.

If the final paragraph of the supposed "unconditional surrender" be not a condition, let me be distinctly told what else it is? But, if there could be a shadow of a doubt about the matter, it would be set at rest by the Bishop's own acknowledgment, contained in his letter to Archdeacon Henry Williams, of November 8th, 1848, that the surrender was conditional. It is true, that his Lordship confuses the separate conditions of the Archdeacon and of Mr. Clarke; but the acknowledgement of a condition still remains.

The belief in an "unconditional surrender" was the grand mistake of the Society; I have therefore treated the point with superfluity of demonstration. We shall presently learn how the Society came to be misled.

We now come to the case of Mr. Clarke. He also had tendered a conditional surrender. But his condition was different from that of Archdeacon Henry Williams. The Archdeacon had stipulated for substantiation or retractation : Mr. Clarke, in accordance with one of the Society's suggestions, required the surplus land should be held intrust for the benefit of the Natives.

St. John's College,

September 10th, 1847.

I beg to record the following statements respecting the lands possessed by me in New Zealand.

1. That my titles thereto have never been disputed by the natives, and I am prepared to shew that my children are, and always have been, in peaceful possession of those lands.

2. That I understand from the reading of the home Committee's Instructions of March 1st, 1847, that I am permitted to transfer those lands to my children without reference to the Government or the Lord Bishop. Nevertheless, if my reading be considered doubtful by you, and that it does not accord with the spirit of those Instructions, I fully accede to the Lord Bishop's proposition founded upon that more correct reading; provided always that all land, over and above that proposed, be transferred to the Church of England to be held in trust for the education of the native population.

George Clarke.

To the—

Ven. Archdeacon W. Williams,

Ven. Archdeacon A. W. Brown,

Rev. R. Maunsell,

Rev. R. Burrows,

Rev. G. A. Kissling.

The letter was approved by the Bishop. The condition was in accordance with His Excellency's wish, that the Grantees should accept the offer he had made, and then adopt the course, "or some similar one," of voluntarily restoring the surplus land to the original native owners, or to their heirs. Mr. Clarke's case might therefore be considered as settled. He wrote as follows to the Colonial Secretary, expressing his willingness to receive the new grants :—

St. John's College,

September 18, 1847.

Sir,—Your letter of the 11th instant I duly received on the 16th, and I beer leave to submit to you, for the consideration of His Excellency the Governor, the following remarks relative to lands I possess in New Zealand.

Firstly. The lands I claim in New Zealand were purchased for my children many years before the colonization of this country by the British Government.

Secondly. I have been in quiet and undisturbed possession of these lands more than twelve years.

Thirdly. My claims were duly submitted to the Land Commissioners, and declared to have been equitably purchased, and undisputed by Natives.

Fourthly. The quantity of land I claim, good and bad, is, by estimation, 5,000 acres, for which I paid in valuable property (such as horses, cows, and sheep) as much as £1000 sterling.

Fifthly. I claim this land on behalf of fourteen children and two relatives, both living in New Zealand, thus in good and bad giving them about three hundred acres each. I trust His Excellency will not consider this excessive.

Sixthly. For these claims I hold a Crown Grant; had it been for land less in extent, I should have been perfectly satisfied. Upon the legality or illegality of this grant, I venture no opinion; upon the equity of it I entertain no doubt.

Upon a consideration of these facts, it will be seen that I can have no wish to avail myself of His Excellency's offer, as I am quite satisfied that His Excellency could not add, by a new grant, either to the security of my position, or to the equity of my title. If, however, His Excellency is ready to admit the equity of my transactions in purchases of land made from the natives, and if His Excellency is prepared to guarantee a title to my land, securing me against all future litigation; and, moreover, if it can be shown that the holding of more than 2,560 acres of land would fend in any way to embarrass page 25 Her Majesty's Government, I should feel it my duty to surrender the grant I now hold to His Excellency, upon the terms proposed by His Excellency in your letter of September 11, 1847; provided always that the land over and above the 2,560 acres may be made over by me to the Church of England for the education of the natives.^a

Georoe Clarke.

But Governor Grey, notwithstanding his prior request to that effect, refused "to secure the tranquillity of the Northern Province," (I quote his own expressions,) which was likely to be again soon in a disturbed state," by transfer of these "illegally acquired lands" for the benefit of the suffering and complaining natives." ^b Absolute confiscation to the Crown had been his object all long: ^c the requestor restoration had been amere ad augendum odium manœuvre, by which the Grantees were to be frightened into surrendering the deeds, lest what is called "Maori sympathy" should be brought into play against them.

The following is the answer received by Mr. Clarke:—

Colonial Secretary's Office,

September 22nd, 1847.

Sir,—In acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, I have the honour, by direction of His Excellency the Governor, to inform you that the Government cannot entertain the proposals therein made by you, any further than to ensure you, should you conform to the regulations proposed by Government, [vide supra page 9] that you shall be guaranteed a perfect title to the lands which, in accordance with the law, you will be allowed to retain, and that these regulations shall be carried out in a conciliatory and liberal spirit.

Andrew Sinclair,

Colonial Secretary.

Mr. Kemp had likewise offered to surrender the deeds, on condition of the surplus lands being appropriated for the benefit of the natives. The following is the Bishop's answer to that proposal:—

St. John's College,

November 30th, 1847.

Your letter of the 11th October, 1847, is perfectly satisfactory to me, and I am happy to think that all difficulties arising from your land are likely to he brought to an end. I do not know what course the Government will adopt with the surplus land, ^a but I will not fail to use my best endeavours to procure such an arrangement as may provide for the interests of the native people, in some such way as that which you propose. The arrival of the Pensioners has lately occupied nearly all the attention of the Government, and a good share of my own; but when they are settled on their ground, I nope that all questions in the North will speedily be settled.

G. A. New Zealand.

To Mr. James Kemp.

Let us now return to the Archdeacon's "unconditional sunender."

The Postscript of September 13 was never misunderstood by the Bishop. The transposition by which its terms are distinguished from those of the 11th, was suggested to the Archdeacon by one of the Five Brethren as a means of avoiding the difficulty mentioned in the Bishop's letter of the 13th. Moreover, on the evening of September 25th, at the close of the business of the Central Committee, his Lordship having introduced the subject, the Archdeacon declared, in the presence of the members of the meeting, that he should abide by his condition, without any compromise. Then was the Bishop's time to have denied the existence of a condition. But he suffered the declaration to pass. We must bear in mind that the Governor had not as yet refused to fulfil the condition.

The Bishop was so far from misunderstanding the condition, that he attempted to obtain the fulfilment of it. He did confer with the Governor upon the question at issue, after the ordination, and the meeting of the Central Committee. But he did not succeed in moving His Excellency either to establish his allegations, or to withdraw them. For he had tied his own hands. After having defended the Blood and Treasure Despatch,—after having heaped up further imputations on the Missionaries, in his letter of September I, it was imposible Me for him to press the Governor in earnest.

He was so far from misunderstanding the condition, that in a letter to Mr. Venn, of which further mention will be necessary, he made it appear that the condition had actually been complied with.

The conference with the Governor was opened by the Bishop, September 27th, 1847. It was continued on the 28th, Archdeacons Brown and William Williams being also present. The result of the conference was unfavourable. The Bishop then requested Archdeacon William Williams to obtain specific questions from his brother. The following were accordingly proposed, on the morning of the 29th, for his Excellency's signature.

Firstly—Does his Excellency disclaim having intentionally cast any reflection, which may appear to have been expressed or implied, "upon the past conduct duct of some of the Missionaries," during his Excellency's administration as Governor of New Zealand, save only in the question of these purchases of land; and will his Excellency admit that this is an open question, and one upon which there is a variety of opinions as to the propriety of the Missionaries making provision for their families.

Secondly—Does his Excellency admit that these lands, purchased by the Missionaries, were so purchased in strict integrity and honesty towards the aborigines, as reported upon by Her Majesty's Land Commissioners appointed for the examination of the same.

Thirdly—Does his Excellency admit that he is of opinion that the late military movements in the the North were not in any respect connected with the Missionaries.

Fourthly—And will his Excellency further admit that he is not aware that the Missionaries, or their sons, were put out of possession of their lands by the aborigines, but that he believes they remained in quiet possession of their lands during the late wars in the North.

Archdeacons Brown and William Williams approved of these questions, but the Bishop objected to them, ^b After an interview with the Governor, he proposed to substitute the following, which bear no reference to the point at issue. A marked sensation was created at a meeting of the C. M. Society, when the two sets of questions were contrasted.

Firstly—Whether His Excellency will have any objection to state, that he is not aware of any treasonable or disloyal practices, in which any Missionary, or child of a Missionary, has been engaged during His Excellency's administration, as Governor of New Zealand.

Secondly—Whether the chief matters in which His Excellency may have expressed an opinion adverse to the Missionaries may not be connected with the political objections to the acts and counsels of the late Protector of Aborigines, and not to the Missionary body in general.

Thirdly—Whether His Excellency would feel at liberty to state, that neither the report of Her Majesty's Land Commissioners, nor any other public enquiry, justifies the belief that the original purchases of the "Missionaries were fraudulent or dishonest.

Fourthly—Whether His Excellency will state that no Missionary, or child of a Missionary, has ever applied for military protection, but that to the extent of his observation, they have remained in quiet possession of the land.

G. A. New Zealand.

Alfred N. Brown.

I approve of the above with the exception of the second clause.

William Williams, ^a

I disapprove of the second paragraph.

George Clarke.^b

The following observations are extracted from a letter to a local journal.

"Guardedly expressed indeed ! Not only would Governor Grey have been able to answer the questions, without compromising the despatch—not only would his charges have been unremoved, but they would have been positively clenched, had this form of explanation been accepted. For, in the first place, the disloyal missionary practices referred to, were those alleged to have taken place before Sir George's arrival in New Zealand. Sir George, according to the alteration, is to answer only with regard to what might have taken place since his arrival, thereby reiterating the charge.

"The second question is a mystification. Sometimes, in the despatches, the ex-protector of Aborigines is a Missionary—when it suits His Excellency's purpose that he should be so;—sometimes not a Missionary, but only a Catechist. The Missionaries, though far from admitting that Mr. Clarke's political acts and counsels were open to censure, very fairly ask to be shewn in what respect these were connected with themselves.

"On the third substituted query, it will suffice to observe, that Her Majesty's Land Commissioners had long before officially reported that the original purchases of the Missionaries were made in strict integrity, and that the Rev. H. Williams had actually paid enough to entitle him to 22,131 acres of land, more than double the quantity claimed. His Excellency, therefore, is graciously to certify that a report, which may be read in the Blue Booh, was actually made, and this certification is to be received as 'either a proof or a withdrawal' of the charges contained in his own despatch !

"How the Bishop—to whom I pay almost a feudal allegiance, well deserved and heartily rendered—could ever have suggested them, is to me a mystery. Bearing tenaciously in mind the fact, that the prize land would have been as surely won by substantiating, as by withdrawing the accusations, what, I ask, could have been the real motive of alterations in the queries being made. It is even still more surprising that so clear headed a man as the Bishop should have failed to perceive that no Missionary could, by any possibility, have acquiesced in the second paragraph—sacrificing the ex-protector of Aborigines—but the ex-protector himself. Would his Lordship have had the Grantees drive their fellow labourer as a scape-goat into the wilderness, with the sins of the congregation upon his back, and shelter themselves in his disgrace? Every honest feeling, had Mr. Clarke been innocent, every generous feeling, had he been guilty, would have forbidden it."

The Parent Society is far more keenly alive to the "efficacy of sacrifice."

Such is the result of his Lordship's promise to "institute the fullest enquiry—a broken pledge, a carefully devised attempt to smother up the truth. The substituted questions are proof definitive of the unfair spirit in which the Archdeacon's demands were viewed, and are the turning point of the Bishop's share in the contention.

On the third day, the 29th, the Bishop and Archdeacon Brown met the Governor again. Archdeacon William Williams being satisfied that this discussion would end as it began, had retired from the conference. He judged rightly; for The Condition was Refused by His Excellency. On the afternoon of this day, Archdeacon Henry Williams embarked for the Bay of Islands, but at sunset received a summons to wait upon the Bishop. He did so, and was astonished by a demand, insisted on with much severity of language, that his Crown Grants should be unconditionally surrendered. Such, in fine, was the "amicable and satisfactory adjustment" spoken of by His Lordship in the letter of September 13. The demand was not complied with.

This was the climax of the proceedings : the negociation had utterly failed. Singularly enough, I am unable to trace any public mention by His Lordship of this most Important conference. His Lordship has, at all events, done himself injustice in not having given it greater publicity. For, at present, it appears as if it had been studiously kept out of sight.

But, although he abstains from relating the fail-

^a "If it be asked why I signed a paper against which I raise an objection, I reply that I did so hastily, not seeing the drift of the paper signed."—Arch. Wm. Williams Statement to Society. For he had not as yet been taught the necessity of scrutinizing his Lordship's words.

^b Archdeacon Henry Williams was not requested to approve.

page 28 ure of his attempt to perform his promise, he does complain of not having been allowed reasonable time for such performance.

By letter from England, the following passage has been received as a quotation from the Bishop's correspondence,

"The Archdeacon revoked his pledge within a fortnight, and thus left us [the Bishop and the Governor] no time to institute those inquiries which were necessary in order to enable us to fulfil ours."

Yet an alteration was made in the Archdeacon's letter of the 11th, to suit the Bishop's objection regarding "time the altered letter was accepted by his Lordship, who selected his own "time" for negociating with the Governor concerning the stipulated condition; no act of the Archdeacon's intervened to hinder the Bishop from obtaining the "most amicable and satisfactory adjustment and finally, the Bishop, who had taken his own "time" when to commence proceedings, and when to conclude, informed the Archdeacon that nothing could be done in the way of a "satisfactory adjustment." Neither at that time, or at any time since, was the Archdeacon called upon to carry out his pledge. But he has been called upon for an unconditional surrender.

Thus ended The Second Period of the contention. A step in advance had been almost gained, but had been lost again. The Governor, by non-compliance with the required condition, and the Bishop by breaking through all terms, in demanding an "unconditional surrender," had set the Archdeacon free from his hasty engagement. He accordingly fell back upon the plain meaning of the Society's Resolutions, and matters reverted to the old position.

It thus appeal's, in recapitulation of the Second Period—

That the Grantees had taken their stand upon the natural reading of the Society's Resolutions;

That the Bishop understanding the Resolutions otherwise, had proposed his own reading for the acceptance of the Grantees;

That two of the Grantees (by one or other of whom the rest would have been guided) had agreed to accept that reading, conditionally; the Archdeacon stipulating that the Governor should substantiate or retract; Mr. Clarke, that the surplus land should be held in trust for the benefit of the Natives;

That the Bishop, by breaking through all terms, had released the Archdeacon from his engagement; while the Governor, by refusing to accept the terms, had released both the Archdeacon and Mr. Clarke;

That the Grantees had fallen back upon their original reading of the Society's Resolutions;

And that the Governor had now taken the place of the Bishop, as leader in the contention, having determined to run the risk of "deeply injuring our common faith," by an appeal to the Courts of Law.

We now arrive at the third, or

Skirmishing Period

of the contention. It is characterized by irregular warfare—a delivery of loose shot, preparatory to the Governor's renewal of attack, through means of the Supreme Court.

The Bishop's demand for an "unconditional surrender," had put an end to the negotiation. But there is a collateral matter connected with the unsuccessful result, that must not be passed without mention.

Intelligence was received that Governor Grey had been tampering with the Natives at the Bay of Islands, whilst the Archdeacon and Mr. Clarke were away at Auckland, negotiating with the Bishop; that he had been attempting to engender dissatisfaction, and to lower the teachers in the estimation of their converts. He was declared to have told the Natives that the Missionaries had stolen their lands; that he, the Governor, would take away those lands, and restore them to the original owners. The object is evident. For if, by appealing to the cupidity of the Natives, he could secure their active alliance, the Grantees would have no choice but to submit, ^a There is no tenderer

^a Governor Grey, in his letter to the Bishop [supra p. 10] had written thus:—

"I feel it to be my duty, for many reasons, to take immediate measures for having these grants set aside by the Civil Courts of the country. If I take this step, and the Government is successful, which I cannot doubt, it will be necessary for me to explain to the Natives of the Northern district, in the most explicit manner, the reasons which have led me to dispossess the Missionaries of their illegally acquired property, in order that no possible misconception may exist upon the minds of the Natives, as to the Government having taken this step to protect their rights, not to prejudice them.

"I fear it would be impossible for me to do this without inflicting great injury upon the influence of the Mission. Possibly, even I might injure deeply our common faith."

The following observations are extracted from a letter to a local journal:—

"Would it be credited, that while the negotiations were yet going on, which had been entered upon at his own instance, to obviate the necessity of 'deeply injuring our common faith that while there was every prospect of an amicable adjustment of ail difficulties—an adjustment which verged go closely upon completion, as to have led the Bishop into announcing, with thanks to God, 'the happy conclusion of the land question;' after having requested the Bishop, in the same letter, to assure the Missionaries that if such a course were pursued, they should have no more zealous friend or assistant in the country than himself,—would it be credited, I say, that this sanctimonious lip-worshipper, within a short ten days, should have done his best to inflict that very injury "upon our common faith" which he had so earnestly deprecated? "

"Cruising along the coast, in search of a suitable location for the establishment of a corps of Pensioners, Governor Grey landed at the Bay of islands. Finding himself among Natives, he took the opportunity of tampering with them, and of attempting to rouse them into hostility against the Missionaries. He told them that the Missionaries had tahaed (stolen) their lands; that he was fighting with the Missionaries, not with the musket, but with the pen; that he should take their land from them, and give it back to the Natives; striving by every device that he was master of, to bring the teachers into contempt, and bribing the converts, by promises which he could not legally have kept, into combining with himself against their ancient friends. That he should signally have failed, is only the more to his own discredit; for success will cover much. C'etait pire qu' un crime; c'etait une faute worse than a misdeed, it was a blunder."

"Archdeacon Henry Williams wrote to Dr. Sinclair, Colonial Secretary, setting forth the Governor's conduct," (Vide Blue Book, p. July, 1849.)

"Governor Grey, instead of explaining himself to the accuser, forwards his defence [with a mis-statement of the complaint (par. 7)] to a more favourable judge, placing in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Colonies 'the means of completely refuting these accusations; 'thereby gaining some twelve or eighteen months of secrecy. A defence of more ludicrous irrelevancy it was never yet my lot to read. That such astounding logic should have found its way into a solemn state paper is almost beyond belief : the pleadings of Messrs. Hume-vesne and Baise-cul before the renowned Pantagruel were nothing to it. Sir George must have imagined himself at the Feast of Fools, and that he was playing the Abbot of Unreason."

"His reasoning simply amounts to this,—that when he left Auckland in the Inflexible, he had no intention of proceeding to the Bay of Islands, and, therefore, that he did not tamper with the Natives when he got there ! Is not this enough to make the bones of ancient Burgersdicius rattle in his grave? The grave-digger's 'argal' shrinks into nothingness by the side of his Excellency's. There is a homely English proverb, that 'if a man's name be up, he may lie a-bed till noon yet one would have supposed that the Governor was drawing over freely upon his reputation at the Colonial Office, in gravely propounding such bare-faced non-sequitur as this."

Southern Cross, 18 Nov. 1851.

It is unnecessary to go further into the defence [Blue Book, July, 1849, pp. 5 and 6], or Into the refutation of the defence. The rest of His Excellency's arguments are of like infirmity, and are dealt with in like manner. But why should argument have been employed at all? A clear conscience would have fallen back upon facts—would have challenged the accuser to the proof, within the Colony, where the evidence could be examined, instead of "placing the means of refutation" in the hands of Lord Grey.

This evidence, a portion of which is to be found in the Blue Book (July, 1849. pp. 84, 85, 86,) His Excellency has never yet attempted to meet, although his correspondence with the Resident Magistrate at the Bay of Islands, concerning Waka Nene, who had been tampered with in the manner described, shews that he was not insensible to the expediency of so doing. I shall now shew how he sought to distract attention from the point at issue.

Archdeacon Henry Williams, shortly after his return to the Bay of Islands, passed Waka with a simple tena-ra-ka-koe (salutation), instead of stopping to converse, as usual. The reason was, that Waka happened to be standing among some military officers at the time. But Waka supposed that the Archdeacon was angry with him on account of what had taken place during the Governor's visit to the Bay, and wrote to His Excellency, expressing his regret that such should be the case. Governor Grey placed the letter in the hands of a Wesleyan deputation, treating it as a complaint against Archdeacon Henry Williams; but this interpretation was not admitted. His Excellency, after some further conversation, dismissed them with these words:—"Well, gentlemen, I only hope that you will protect Waka from this religious persecution." Fortunately, Archdeacon Henry Williams had been always on excellent terms with the Wesleyan Missionaries in his district, and the breach that must have ensued between the Church of England Missionaries and the Wesleyans, had the latter acted in accordance with His Excellency's request, was averted.

page 29 point with the old Missionaries than their influence with the Natives. There is nothing which they resent so strongly as any attempt to wean from them the confidence of their converts. The Archdeacon was seriously, but justly angry. He spoke to myself, among others, upon the subject, telling me that "were there power in New Zealand, he would have impeached Sir George for his conduct."

I observed, in answer, that Sir George had placed himself beyond the pale of civilized warfare; that he had broken the truce by a foray into the enemy's country pending the issue of the negotiation; that no terms were to be kept with such a man, for that in fact there were none to keep, all having been thrown to the ground by the Governor's own act and deed. This I believe to be good international law.

But the Archdeacon did keep terms, for they had been made with the Bishop, who was not to blame; he held himself still prepared to surrender the deeds on the old condition, until his Lordship, by demand of an unconditional surrender, released him from the engagement.

The Archdeacon cared but little for the acres; he would have thought the Governor's retractation cheaply bought by the sacrifice. Up to this time, he would rather, for choice, that the Governor had taken the laud—together with the condition. But it was now made only too clear that the Governor had never intended to substantiate or retract, and that the Archdeacon had been only borne in hand throughout. Once relieved from the hasty pledge, he changed his views, and resolved to withdraw himself altogether from the contention, turning a deaf ear for the future to the dangerous and hollow overtures proposed. He resolved upon allowing the law to take its course, unopposed, and upon risking the loss of even the 2560 acres that were still offered by the Government. He wrote to the Bishop from on board the Undine, in which he was about to proceed to the Bay, for the purpose of explaining his change of sentiments," and of placing page 30 upon record the conduct of Governor Grey. His Lordship forwarded the letter to the Parent Committee, by whom it was severely reproved. They objected to its "style and tone." We might wish, indeed, that the style and tone had been something less trenchant; but it should be remembered that the letter was written under circumstances of great provocation—the Bishop's demand of an unconditional surrender, and the Governor's tampering with the missionary converts.

Much unnecessary animadversion has been wasted upon this letter. It may perhaps be wanting in the humility that is due to an ecclesiastical superior; but it is manly, honest, and straightforward,—amply defensible before such as permit the feeling of self-respect.

Undine,

September 30, 1847.

Your Lordship appeared somewhat surprised last evening, at my change of sentiment respecting these "waste and worthless acres." The main reasons for my change your Lordship will find in the newspaper, Southern Cross, of last Saturday, the 25th instant, wherein I see that no faith is to be kept with Governor Grey. My anticipations therefore are not groundless. 'The safety of my family, humanly speaking, depends alone upon the respect shewn to me by the Chiefs of the various Tribes. This Captain Grey has endeavoured to set aside. I am sorry your Lordship should have been so much hindered in waiting upon the Governor this week : I hope you will be spared further trouble, as I now feel perfectly indifferent as to what his Excellency may either think, say, or do.

Your Lordship is aware that virtually I have not at any time possessed land, or hem concerned with or about land. I am therefore at a loss to understand why this question should have been lately so severely cast upon me by your Lordship in the reproachful way it has been cast upon me, as if it were a case of Fraud and Dishonest dealing. Nor can I admit of its repetition from any quarter. If I have done wrong, I object not to suffer for the wrong; but, if not,———. It must needs be that offences come. I am thankful, however, that in this I have a conscience void of offence, both towards God and towards man. The name of Missionary was an offence, long before they had bought any land, as it is also an offence throughout these seas at the present day : to say therefore that the purchase of land is the cause of present or past offence, shews that those who thus speak are unacquainted with the subject. The offence is not in the purchase of land; but that these young people are in quiet and undisputed possession of their land and content with their lot, not looking after situations of interpreters, &c., &c., &c.

Should your Lordship have any thing further to say on the subject of land purchases for the sole benefit of my family, I must refer your Lordship to my sons, who are of age, and can speak for themselves. As relates to the land of which your Lordship has spoken to me, to the great perplexity of my mind, I am as Paul was, while yet living, dead, and therefore do not speak upon these temporal subjects. I have no land, nor desire to possess any but the grave.

I must request that your Lordship will never again name the subject of land to me. It is a reproach and an offence to me, and will be injurious to both.

It had been well had your Lordship maintained the view upon this occasion possessed on your first landing in New Zealand. You were then fresh from England, and your views purely English. I do not find any one to support your Lordship's line of proceeding in this case. The time and place were ill chosen. The time mentioned by the Church Missionary Society for us to come to a conclusion as to our determination of action, appears to extend to the last day of December. That required by your Lordship was but a day. The difference therefore is considerable. There has been much indiscreet hurry in the whole matter. This connexion of Church and State is seriously to be lamented. The State will do us no good, though I have done the State some service. My Lord, every man to his station and each to the discharge of his own duty. I have duties to attend to, and must not be hindered by the Governor. Should his Excellency wish to contend, he must do so with those younger than myself.

I must request permission in conclusion, to draw your Lordship's attention to a subject mentioned on many occasions; the frequency of your Lordship's defence of the Missionaries, and how often you have been pained to hear the aspersions cast against the character of the Missionaries. For this we thank your Lordship; but does your Lordship suppose that no return has been made on my part?

I have myself borne your Lordship and the College on my shoulders, and have never staggered under the weight, and have been your champion from the beginning, both in New Zealand, in New South Wales, and in England. In this we have each supported the other, and why shall not this so continue. Your Lordship may rest assured that I do not flinch, as you may see in the instance now under consideration.

Your Lordship has also mentioned the necessity of our sacrificing to "Public Opinion." When was public opinion ever known to be correct? What is it at the present moment ! I will sacrifice any thing but principle. But were I to attend to "Public Opinion," I should soon be on shore. I always steer by my own compass, making a straight course, regardless of "Public Opinion," preferring my own, except in certain doubtful cases.

What think you, my Lord, is the "Public Opinion" of your Lordship as a possessor of land, and as a practical farmer? as your Lordship in "Public Opinion" comes under both these heads. But before I open this case, your Lordship will, I hope, clearly understand that I have no remark personally to make. I merely call your Lordship's attention to "Public Opinion," to which your Lordship seems to pay much respect, thinking we ought to sacrifice to this deformed Idol. I am an advocate of proving all things by their own merits. The Mission and the Church must thus stand. If either in itself cannot stand upon its own merits, the sooner it falls the better. But "Public Opinion" will never destroy or disturb a good cause. The more the rubbing the brighter the polish.

Your Lordship has purchased land, the deeds of page 31 which stand in your Lordship's name; but you say, you hold these deeds in trust as property for the College. Still the Public will have their opinion, and will make their remarks, of course regarded only by those who may be under its influence. The deeds I hold are in trust for my College, one member of which has been admitted to the office of Deacon.

In"Public Opinion" your Lordship is represented as a Practical Farmer, from the circumstance that the whole of the College Farm is under your lordship's practical observation and supervision, the plough and the spade being under the guidance of your Lordship as Principal, the ground prepared, the wheat, the potatoes, the grass, all under your Lordship's control. In this your Lordship has far exceeded myself, inasmuch as I never attend to these things.

My Lord, some have pretended to show that there is a mote in my eye. I have endeavoured to find it with careful examination; but my eye is free from pain, my vision clear. I therefore conclude my friends are under some delusion.

But what of "the wedge?"^a Your Lordship has frequently mentioned this subject—the desire of many to introduce the small end, when its own weight would in time accomplish all they desire. Methinks, the wedge is at work, and unless your Lordship be quick to upset both the wedge and the wedgers and cast all into the sea, we shall have much mischief ere long, and the remedy come too late.

Henry Williams.

The Lord Bishop of New Zealand.

One phrase of the above has caused much cavil :—"Wherein I see that no faith is to be kept with Governor Grey."

It happens that no faith had been pledged to Governor Grey; therefore there was none to break with him. It had been pledged to the Bishop, and had been kept with the Bishop. But the abstract phrase itself is considered objectionable.

A far-fetched meaning has been placed upon it, in order to extricate the Archdeacon from a supposed difficulty. I myself can see no difficulty about the matter : the expression is to he justified; not to be explained away. Sir George having broken the truce, in his attempt to excite the Natives, ^b all prior negotiations would have be-

^a It had been stated in presence of the Bishop, that many were labouring to cause "a split" between the old and the new Missionaries. "Very possibly," observed his Lordship; "but they have not yet been able to insert the thin end of the wedge." This wedge has since been driven home.

^b His Excellency's various attempts to excite the suffering and complaining Natives" against their teachers by promising restoration of the lands—a restoration which would have been illegal, if made by the New Zealand Government, after the formal extinction of the native title in the Commissioner's Court—are covered by the plea of Maori sympathy," His extreme jealousy of this feeling, in others, has been remarkable throughout : he has never lost an opportunity of making it appear in England, that the colonists were bent upon oppressing the Natives, whose defence was with him alone, and has even gone so far as to make the insulting declaration that the colonists would foster war for the sake of profiting by Commissariat expenditure. Let us therefore enquire how far he has been restrained by Maori sympathy," whenever it was convenient to shake it off, from committing acts detrimental to Maori interests.

We have already seen that he hindered Mr. Clarke and others from putting the surplus land in trust for the benefit of the Natives. Rut he has done more than this. Governor Grey is the only Governor who has broken the treaty of Waitangi. It will be remembered that Lord Grey, by the 13th chapter of Instructions appended to the Charter of 1846, had required a general registration of native land, under penalty of confiscation, in case of non-compliance by the owners or even, as shewn by Chief Justice Martin, in case of neglect " from oversight, error, or any worse cause," on the part of the Officer appointed by the Government to perform the duty. Rut the Treaty of Waitangi had recognized the native claims without limitation: therefore, any condition or restriction whatever was a manifest violation of the Treaty. These Instructions caused great alarm in the Northern Province; for, indeed, an attempt to enforce them would have been certain war. Governor Grey declared, at first, that 'they would cause bloodshed and uproar from one end of the country to the other the Bishop entered a solemn protest; the Chief Justice, in a pamphlet primed at the College press, proved unanswerably that the Instructions involved, not only a breach of Treaty, but also a violation of established law, The public press laboured with a two-fold object;—to keep up the resistance of the colonists, by strenuously denouncing the Instructions; and to allay the ferment among the Natives, to throw oil on the troubled waters, by shewing the extreme improbability of the Instructions being ever practically enforced. Its conductors even deemed it their duly to suppress the 13th chapter from their reprint of the Instructions, for the sake of keeping back from the Natives direct and precise knowledge of what had been prepared against them. But it was impossible to prevent the circulation of sinister rumours. The excitement of the Natives rose to the highest pitch; chiefs removed the bones of their relatives, lest they should be desecrated by Europeans; an outbreak was imminent, and was only averted by the unremitting efforts of the Bishop and of the various Missionaries. But Governor Grey, though urged to declare in public what he had stated in private, that the Instructions would not be enforced, refused, being unwilling to compromise the head of the Colonial Office. For a change had taken place in His Excellency's ideas. He had received a private communication from Lord Grey, the nature of which was described by himself to Archdeacon Hadfield, releasing him from the enforcement of the Registration clauses, but stating that it had been thought necessary to assert the principle. He now discovered that his Lordship had been "entirely misunderstood that is to say, by the whole body of Settlers, by the Missionaries, by the Judges, by the Bishop, by the Press, within the Colony; and, in England, by the organs of the New Zealand Company, by the Society for the protection of Aborigines, in Doctor's Commons, and in the Inns of Court. According to his improved "reading," no such principle was involved. When reminded of his original declaration, so damaging to the credit of Lord Grey, he denied it. But the declaration is proved against him, having been made to some whose testimony is beyond impeachment. [Vide Metoikos to the Wellington Independent, 12th January, 1853, where the subject is more fully developed.]

A petition, signed by 410 of the inhabitants of Auckland and its vicinity, was forwarded through Governor Grey to the Queen. The petitioners averred that they were under serious apprehensions for the safety of their families, complained of the silence maintained on the subject of the Instructions by Governor Grey, and prayed that the Registration clauses might be annulled. To this petition the names of the Bishop, of the Chief Justice, of Missionaries of different denominations, and of all the leading settlers in the district were attached. Governor Grey impugned the veracity of the petitioners, and declared that at no period in the existence of the Colony had the minds of the Natives been more free from suspicion and alarm. The charge of untruth, when it came to be known, was strongly resented at a public meeting held in Auckland.

The Bishop protested on his own behalf, and on that of his clergy. The Governor's denial of excitement was subsequently met by the Bishop in the following words :—

"It then on that particular 7th of July, on which your Excellency's two despatches and my protest were forwarded, there was no exiting ground for apprehension, that day can only be looked upon as a happy interval of repose preceded and followed by fears on the same subject and in the same quarters." Lord Grey (or, more probably, the subordinates of the Colonial Office in his Lordship's name), instead of either acceding to the prayer of the petition, or proving that the definite act complained of was not a breach of Treaty, evaded the point at issue by referring to his repealed assurances that no breach of Treaty was intended.

His Lordship is much to blame; but Governor Grey is himself the real violator of the Treaty.

Lord Grey, misled by agents of the New Zealand Company, and but imperfectly acquainted with the Colony, framed a scheme of Government with which a breach of faith was connected. Governor Grey had influence enough to procure the postponement of such portions of the scheme, as he deemed objectionable. The Suspension Act was framed, in accordance with His Excellency's suggestions : s0 much of the Constitution Act as displeased him was east out : so much as he thought fit to sanction was retained; he had power to bind and to loose,—and what was the result? the clauses conferring self-government were cut away; the spoliation clauses were left. To the dishonour of our Statute Book, they may still be read therein. But his Excellency had extricated Lord Grey from a serious difficulty, and has not been disappointed of reward.

On the subject of Lord Grey's Instructions, a very masterly work, entituled The New Zealand Question, by the Secretary of the Society for the protection of Aborigines, may be referred to. It should, however, be observed that the writer, having drawn a portion of his materials from Blue Books, has been led into error concerning his Excellency's share in the proceedings.

But Governor Grey, the champion of the suffering and complaining Natives," has done even more than this. Not content with causing an unjust, though inoperative law to be placed upon the Code, he has absolutely confiscated native land; seizing it upon a principle which has rendered the act of confiscation doubly harmful. According to the interpretation which his Excellency puts upon the Law, native women, married to European subjects of the Queen, forfeit the right of holding land which they would have held, by native custom and under security of the Treaty of Waitangi, had they been living m concubinage with Europeans. In the year 1849, I brought this question forward in the form of a memorial to the Legislative Council, signed by Edward Meurant, on behalf of his native wife.

The outline of the case was this. The memorialist had married a native woman. Certain Natives transferred to her thirty acres of land, "as a marriage portion, and for the support of her children." This land was confiscated by Governor Grey, apparently on an assumption of the native title being extinguished by the transfer. Ten acres out of the thirty were granted to the husband; the grant containing a false recital, and being otherwise in contravention of existing rgulations. The remainder was retained. A portion of this remainder was offered for sale by public auction : no bidders appeared. The Government then attempted to extinguish the native title by purchase from the donors to Mrs. Meurant, but without success; only one among them having yielded to temptation. The land was again put up for sale by the Government, and this time a buyer was found.

A memorial was presented to the Council, but his Excellency objected to its being printed. On the following day, he obtained the withdrawal of amotion concerning the rights of half-castes, by proffering statements which two members of Council, in a joint letter to Lord Grey, afterwards denounced as incorrect. Mr. Meurant appealed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but his Excellency neutralised the appeal by misrepresentations of fact. His Lordship's answer was unfavourable; but before it reached the Colony Mr. Meurant had died, leaving a wife and family but indifferently provided for. I addressed Lord Grey on behalf of the widow, pointing out his Excellency's misstatements, and the flagrant immorality—amounting to an official premium upon concubinage, involved with His Excellency's interpretation of the law; for that on no pretext whatever, had the native woman been merely living with Meurant, could the land have been seized. My letter was detained in the Colony for five months by the New Zealand Government, which has refused to account for the delay; after a lapse of nearly two years, the fact of an unfavourable answer having been received was communicated to me; but my application for a copy of the Despatch containing it was refused. I again addressed the Secretary of State for the Colonies; the letter was returned to me by Governor Grey, who refused to forward it on the plea of the correspondence having been already so "voluminous." The case has been suppressed from the Blue Books, notwithstanding a special request that it should be made public; my formal application, as member of the House of Representatives, for leave to inspect such records in the Colonial Secretary's Office as bear upon the question, that I might be enabled to give full information to the Society for the protection of Aborigines, has been disregarded.

Such have been the proceedings of the New Zealand Government with regard to the question of amalgamating the races. A native woman, if lawfully married, is placed in the position of a felon, being able to acquire land for the Crown, but not for herself. The evil consequences are not merely in theory, but real; the mischief is at work before our eyes. The confiscation of such lands is put forward by Europeans, appealing to the leading case if the widow Meurant, as an excuse for not doing justice to the native women with whom they live; and even where only an excuse, it is so far valid and tangible as materially to weaken the efforts of those who labour to bring about the amendment of past error.

I do not dwell upon the execution of Martin Luther, a prisoner of war, having been unable to trace its secret history so closely as to be able to tell the whole. But this I know, that he was not a party to the treaty of Waitangi, and am informed, upon conclusive authority, that the military execution was consequent to a wish expressed by Governor Grey, that an example should be made on the first convenient opportunity. Luther was a Wanganui native; and his death was the ultimate cause of the Wanganui war, which was merely precipitated by the accidental discharge of a pistol in the hands of a midshipman.

The Natives have been to His Excellency a stalking horse, under cover of which he has moved towards his various ends. When he wishes to put the semblance of vigour upon his government, he exaggerates the trifling successes of the troops over the Natives; when he strives to postpone the introduction of representative institutions until the eve of his own departure, he predicts oppression of the Natives by the Colonists, and a period of renewed rebellion; and when he seeks to cast a slur on the Missionaries, he represents them as pillaging their converts, and pictures a discontent which he has endeavoured in vain to raise.

page 32 come nullified; if faith had been pledged to him, it need not have been kept. No cognisance was to be taken of what might have passed : matters were in statu quo ante. Every thing reverted to its original position. I believe that the expression was set down upon paper with little thought; but it happens, nevertheless, to be strictly and literally maintainable. The simplest of heart and the most honest of purpose are the least careful about nice weighing of their phrases, or considering what construction might possibly be put upon their words.

Such is the letter upon which, while it remained unpublished, inculpation so grave was based : let those who still believe that the Archdeacon has been justly treated, make the worst of it. They shall presently be constrained to admit that, in matters more essential than "style and tone," it contrasts most favourably with the Bishop's letter of the same date.

The Bishop's resources were not yet exhausted. He shifted his ground, and attempted to renew the negotiation, modifying his demand of an "unconditional surrender" by the introduction of a "Neutral party."

St. John's College,

September 30, 1847.

1. On the 14th September last, I wrote to the Rev. H. Venn, to cal upon him to unite with us all in thanking God for the happy conclusion of the "Land Question." I was led to write thus by your letter to the five clergymen and myself in the following words :

"I accede to any proposition relative to the Land Question which you may suggest."

Letter to the five Clergymen, Sept. 13, 1847.

"I have to acknowledge your Lordship's communication of this day, and have endeavoured to meet your Lordship's views as suggested."

Letter to the Bishop of N. Z., Sept. 13, 1847.

2. I now most earnestly request you to act in the spirit of this declaration by resigning into the hands of some neutral party the deeds which you hold for the augmented grants of land issued by Governor FitzRoy; ^a and by accepting the mediation of your brother, Archdeacon Brown, and myself, to remove ! all unpleasant feeling between the Governor and the Missionary Body.

G. A. New Zealand.

Archdeacon Henry Williams.

The Archdeacon's letter of the 30th is too plain; the Bishop's of the same date is not plain enough.

We find in it another mutilated extract. Archdeacon Henry Williams' surrender is quoted without the condition attached to it. It will bo remembered that Mr. Clarke's surrender had been treated similarly.

The letter being addressed to the Archdeacon himself, there is nothing, prima facie, so very reprehensible in the omission; for it could not have misled the party to whom it was addressed. But the letter bears the impress of having been written to one person, for the purpose of being read by another—formally to the Archdeacon, substantially to Mr. Venn, ^b The non-allusion to the three days' conference, and to the summons of the preceding day, is otherwise inexplicable. A copy was forwarded to England; the mutilated extract was presented to the Society in a form that was beyond suspicion; and by means of this extract, the charge of having violated a solemn pledge was clenched. The Bishop is the better judge of what is right, and what is wrong; I can only say that I would not myself have dealt with a document in like manner.^c

On the previous day, his Lordship had demanded an unconditional surrender. He now requests that the deeds should be resigned into the hands of "some neutral party," and that a certain mediation, which is proposed as if it had not already failed, should bo accepted. This mediation is, moreover, made dependent upon the prior resignation of the deeds.

What are we to understand by a "neutral party?" We must suppose, a stakeholder, who should hold the deeds pending the fulfilment of some condition, and ultimately gave them up to the Bishop, or return them to the Archdeacon, according as the condition should or should not be complied with. For if under no circumstances they were to be returned to the Archdeacon, they might as well have been surrendered at once to the Bishop, without the intervention of a third party.

What was the condition thus implied to be? His Lordship does not inform us. We should naturally have supposed, the old condition—the Governor's substantiation or retractation. But we should have been very much mistaken. We are subsequently enlightened through a circular addressed by the : Bishop, as President, to the Members of the Central Committee in New Zealand.

That the agent so appointed be instructed to retain the deeds and grants surrendered into his hand, till the conditions, offered by the Colonial Government, by the survey of the lands, &c., be fulfilled.

Really, this is turning the question into mockery. The Grantees maintain that their character is involved in the question of surrender; and by way of inducing them to abandon that stronghold, they are reminded of the promise of a survey gratis. Which of them ever doubted, or cared to think whether the Government would fulfil such a condition? His Lordship seems to have thrown out a supposititious condition, as a tub to a whale. The Grantees, he assumed, were determined to have a condition, of some sort or another; and he found them a condition, to amuse themselves withal.

Who was the neutral party to be—this uncompromising exacter of a survey gratis from the Go-

^a The Archdeacon's' grants were issued, not by Governor FitzRoy, but by Governor Grey, Nov. 21, 1845. Several augmented grants, subsequently called "illegal," were issued by Governor Grey in 1846.

^b I may be mistaken, but imagine that the Society, facto, is governed by Mr. Venn—that the clock goes as it pleaseth the clerk.

^c By expunging or suppressing at pleasure, that which remains may become totally different from what [it] would hare been if exhibited as a whole.

It has been remarked that every statue existed in the block of marble from which it was carved : and that the sculptor merely dis-closes it, by removing the superfluous portions; that the Medicean Venus, for instance, has not in it a single particle which did not originally exist exactly in the same relative position as now; the artist having nothing, but merely taken away. Yet the statue is as widely different from the original block as if something had been added.—Whately on the Kingdom of Christ, Essey ii.

page 34 vernment? Again we are subsequently enlightened. In the first instance, he is the Bishop's chest: this neutrality being objected to, he becomes Percival Berrey, Esquire, Solicitor to the Society. Of "the chest," I shall presently have more to say.

The Archdeacon returned no answer to the Bishop's letter; he considered it as extremely affronting—a reflection on his honesty. For what was the use of a neutral party, except as a security against bad faith? Why should the Archdeacon be pressed to resign the deeds before fulfilment of the said condition, if his intentions were unsuspected? Anxiety to obtain actual possession of the deeds is apparent throughout the proceedings.

The correspondence of Sept. 30 was otherwise unfortunate. It led to a confusion of dates, which effectually blinded many, for a while, to the condition of the surrender. The Archdeacon's letter to the Bishop of September 30, was presently quoted by the Society as of October 1.

To appreciate the effect of apparently so trifling^a a change, it must be borne in mind that the turning point of the contention with regard to Archdeacon H. Williams, had been his final refusal, on September 29, to surrender the deeds, so long as the condition of substantiation or retractation should be unfulfilled, Nor could his conduct be impeached by any one who is aware of the Governor's evasion, and of the Bishop's broken pledge. Therefore, the substitution of another turning point became necessary to those who sought to impeach that conduct. I confine myself to fact, in stating that the substitution actually did take place. By alteration of a single day, from September 30 to October], the Archdeacon's letter becomes a reply to the Bishop's of the 30th, which thus appears, in the distance, as a first endeavour on his Lordship's part to carry out the pledge of investigation; while the Archdeacon's letter, being altered in date, is made to appear as a rejection of his Lordship's proposition. The correspondence thus appears as the conclusion of a matter that in reality had been terminated two days before; and the Governor's proceedings at the Bay of Islands—complained of in the letter—are substituted for the Governor's refusal of retractation or of proof, as the cause of the negotation having been broken off.

Both letters were written on the 30th, and both were delivered to their respective addresses on the 1st; I believe within two hours of each other.

It was of importance to ascertain the origin of this mistake. A notice having appeared in the "New Zealander," June 26, 1850, that the Bishop would be ready to allow any person to read the whole of the correspondence on this subject that had passed through his hands, I applied at the College for permission, which was accorded, a manuscript volume being put into my hands. This book, I must observe, would very much mislead a person not previously well acquainted with the subject. For it contains only correspondence, which is yet so continuous that no gap in the subject is apparent. But the discussion had not been conducted solely in writing. It had been carried on partly in conversation, partly by correspondence, to suit the convenience and the engagements of the contending parties. The documentary evidence tells only half the tale. There are no minutes of proceedings in the book, and consequently no mention of the important three days' conference. From the book, we should necessarily conclude that the negotiation was broken off on September 30—one day later than its actual conclusion, and in consequence of the Governor's proceedings at the Bay.

But more than this, the book does not contain what it professes to contain, the whole of the correspondence. Important letters are omitted, for want of which the Grantees, if they be judged by the book, are made to seem altogether in the wrong. Had I not been previously acquainted with the greater portion of the correspondence—had I not been able to point out the gaps that had been left by the compiler, I must have been impressed with the strong conviction that greediness in the Missionaries had overmastered their love of truth.

Then follows the Archdeacon's letter, which is correctly dated in the book.

This appears to have been the origin of an error that afterwards extended itself, and became of serious injury to the Archdeacon. I cannot tell how it arose in the Bishop's mind; for the Archdeacon's

^a The mother of mischief is no bigger than a midge's eye.—Orietal Proverb.

page 35 letter does not contain one word in answer to the Bishop's letter of the same date, but refers to what passed in conversation on the 29th.

Though I could find no reference whatever to the three days' conference with the Governor, I did find an expression, in the same letter, which appeal's to provide for a contingency—that of Mr. Venn's being informed that the conference had resulted in failure. I quote again from memory, but will answer for substantial correctness.

The two Archdeacons were perfectly satisfied with the tone and spirit of His Excellency's explanations, which they considered perfectly candid and conciliatory.

The Bishop's statement is inexplicable; for Archdeacon William Williams was not satisfied with those explanations : again and again has he expressed himself to that effect. ^a

The Grantees had been given to understand that the Bishop had furnished the Governor with a copy of the letter dated Sept. 1. Archdeacon Henry Williams requested to be informed whether the supposition were correct.^b The Bishop answered in the affirmative, but directed his answer to Mr. Secretary Clarke, to whom he also returned the Archdeacon's letter. He was then called upon to make good an allegation which he had formerly undertaken to prove.

Paihia,

December 7, 1847.

Your letter of November 30, 1847, to Mr. Clarke, Has been forwarded to me, in which your Lordship states that a copy of your letter to the Missionary Land Claimants, of September 1, 1847, "was sent to His Excellency."

In consequence of the publicity" which your Lordship has given to that letter, in thus forwarding it to His Excellency, I feel it to be my duty, in behalf of the C. M. Society and of the Land Claimants, to request that your Lordship will proceed to prove "wherein" the affection of the Natives has been alienated from their Missionaries," which your Lordship assures us that you "will undertake to do if it should ever be necessary."

With regard to the "awakened jealousy of the Colonists," and the "feeling highly prejudicial to the Mission," we are prepared to prove that these are wholly of a political nature, disconnected from land, and strictly confined to that feeling of enmity which we are taught to expect, and even to rejoice at, in the Sacred Scriptures. ^c

It has been found necessary to write to the C. M. Society, to request that nothing be received by them reflecting upon the character of the Missionaries, until we shall have an opportunity of knowing the nature of the same, and be afforded the liberty of answering for ourselves.

Henry Williams.

To the Lord Bishop of New Zealand.

The Bishop directed his answer to Mr. Secretary Clarke, again returning the Archdeacon's letter.

St. John's College,

December 14, 1847.

I enclose a letter of enquiry which I have received from the Ven. Archdeacon Williams, relative to some expressions in my letter addressed to you on September 1, 1847, on the subject of the Land Claims. On that occasion I acted advisedly in addressing myself to you, and I see no reason to change the opinion which I then formed, that on this particular question you are the most proper organ of communication between the Claimants and myself. I have therefore to request that all such enquiries as those contained in Archdeacon Williams' letter, may, if necessary, be forwarded to me by yourself, with the consent of the other members of the Mission who are interested in the subject. In order, however, to save unnecessary trouble, I wish it to be understood, that in undertaking to prove certain assertions in my letter, if it should ever be necessary, I reserve to myself the fall right of determining when that necessity may he considered to have arisen. At present I confine myself to the simple assertion that my own experience confirms the expectations of the Society and of the Bishop of Australia.

G. A. New Zealand.

George Clarke, Esq.

I do not quite understand what his Lordship means by "a letter of enquiry the Archdeacon had not made enquiries, but had asked for proof.

In accordance with his Lordship's suggestion, Mr. Clarke was constituted the organ of communication. He wrote to the Bishop, Jan. 7, 1848, "with the consent of the other members of the Mission who were interested in the subject," observing

^a At the close of the second day's conference. Archdeacon W. Williams retired from it, being convinced that the discussion would end as it had begun. In a letter to a relative, dated June 26, 1848, he writes as follows :—

"As to giving up the Crown Grants to the Governor or to the Bishop, without the satisfactory explanation which your father required, I never dreamt of such a thing."

^b The Grantees had considered the letter as merely between the Bishop and themselves. Mr. Maunsell, a member of the Central Committee, was slow to believe the fact of its having been communicated, and, in a letter dated October 25, 1848, expresses himself as follows :—

"I cannot but feel certain that there is some error somewhere in this statement. Surely the Bishop could not have thought of publishing such a severe document, and one so incorrect in some of its sutements."

^c In the Northern Province, the feeling of the Colonists was generally unfavourable to the Missionaries, until the latter were assailed by Governor Grey. An immediate reaction in public feeling then took place.

page 36 upon his Lordship's refusal to perform his undertaking, and upon certain passages in his Lordship's letter of Sept. 1, 1847.

The Bishop made answer—

Undine, Bay of Islands,

March 27, 1848.

On my return in the Dido, I found your letter, purporting to express the opinions of yourself and three other persons unknown. If you really wish that letter to be put upon record, as part of the correspondence on the land question, I will do so when I receive the additional signatures of the persons whose opinions it contains, and I shall then be ready to submit all that I have written, said, or done, to the judgment of any body of arbitrators, to whose award we shall all agree to yield the most unqualified obedience. I must decline all personal charges and explanations till I am satisfied that a Tribunal has been constituted whose decision will be final.

G. A. New Zealand.

George Clarke, Esq.

This substituted arrangement might be very fair; but it was not in accordance with what the Bishop had pledged himself todo. It might be very fair; but it was a deviation from the Bishop's original undertaking, which might reasonably lead to the conclusion that the Bishop had proposed a new arrangement, not for the advantage of the Grantees, but for his own.

The Grantees resolved to keep the Bishop to the point. The Secretary made answer—

Waimate,

April 10, 1848.

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter of the 27th of March, 1848, which has been laid before the members of the Mission interested in the correspondence, and I am directed by them to state, that inasmuch as I was deputed by you to be the organ of communication between your Lordship and themselves, they deem any other signature than than of the appointed deputy informal.

I am further directed to say, that we are of opinion that the whole correspondence upon this subject should be laid before His Excellency, as the letter of September 1, 1847, has been handed over to the Governor by your Lordship.

It is our opinion that there is no question between your Lordship and ourselves which can be referred to arbitration. All our affairs are laid before the C. M. Society.

George Clarke.

The Lord Bishop of New Zealand.

The combined attack of the Bishop and the Governor had failed. They had never quite understood each other, and half confidences are ruinous. His Excellency called in the secular arm, appealing to the Supreme Court. This brings us to the fourth, or

Trial Period

of the contention.

Some of the Grantees, with the consent of their children, had expressed themselves willing to render up their trust : the rest, maintaining that a surrender involved an acknowledgment of the truth of Governor Grey's allegations, resolved to risk losing the whole of the land, rejecting his offer of 2560 acres. ^a

Mr. Clarke's crown grant, as being in the opinion of the Attorney-General one of the most irregular, was selected for the first legal attack. A writ of scire facias was issued on the part of the Government.

The defendant remained passive, instructing his Solicitor simply to enter an appearance, ^b and on no account to argue the case; ^c nevertheless, to

^a This is a point that has not been sufficiently attended to by those who still maintain that the Grantees held on to the acres, not for the sake of forcing an investigation, but for the sake of the property. The Governor had intimated, that if they did not accept his terms, they might find themselves losers not only of the surplus, but of the whole. The following is an extract of a letter from the Colonial Secretary to Mr. King:—

Referring to the 6th Clause of the Ordinance, you will observe that it will not be obligatory on His Excellency to make or deliver any new grant whatever, in the event of your present deeds being set aside in due course of law; I am directed, however, to inform you, that on your surrendering the grants you hold, strictly legal grants shall be forthwith issued, &c.

No one entertained the slightest hope of a judgment favourable to the Grantees.

^b In New Zealand, pleas are given in verbally to the Judge, almost as in the earlier times, when they were delivered ore tenue, at the bar.

^c Mr. Merriman said that he appeared for the defendant, who was unwilling to allow the case to go by default, lest he should be considered as wanting in respect for the Crown and the Court, by not obeying the command of the writ; but that he had been expressly instructed by his client not to argue the case."—Report of Trial.

Nevertheless, one of the grounds assigned by the Society for dissolution of connexion with Mr. Clarke, was that he had litigated with the Government."

page 37 the surprise of all, Mr. Clarke's title was declared valid, by judgment given June 24, 1848. ^a

The Grantees had won the day. Up to this time, the surrender of a foot of land, unconditionally, would have been virtually an acquiescence in Governor Grey's allegations. But their position was now changed; what they would have been wrong to do upon compulsion, they might rightly do as a spontaneous act. The children of the Grantees resolved upon coming to an arrangement with the Government.

The offer was about to be made, when all was put a stop to by an intimation that his Excellency intended an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Their titles being thus again placed in abeyance, the original objection to a surrender revived. For the day was not yet won : they had still something to fear, and their motives were therefore still liable to misconstruction.

The Bishop had heard of the projected arrangement, and of its having determined by reason of the appeal. Mr. Kissling, one of the Five Brethren, wrote at his Lordship's suggestion to Archdeacon Henry Williams, urging the expediency of still carrying it out.

What impression does this convey? Is it not that if the Grantees had been in earnest, the arrangement would have actually been made, so many months having been allowed them for carrying it out?

His Lordship forgets to mention that Mr. Clarke's solicitor was served with notice of appeal, within a fortnight of the judgment. None but officials were acquainted with the date of the appeal being actually posted for home.

It suffices to state the fact.

It thus appears, in recapitulation of the Fourth Period—

That the Grantees had resolved upon allowing the Law to take its course;

That judgment had been given in favour of the Grantees;

That the children of the Grantees had consequently resolved upon coming to terms with the Government;

And that their intentions had been frustrated by the Governor's notice of appeal.

Misled by the Bishop, beguiled by private letters, tampered with by the Colonial office, and staggered by the plain speaking of the Grantees, the Society resolved to cut the knot, and, in a summary way, to get rid of a question which it could not, or would not understand. Finding itself hampered by the Conciliatory Resolutions of 1847, it took pattern from America, and repudiated. We thus arrive at the Period of the

Contradictory Resolutions.

These are dated June 26, 1848, and are as follows:—

Resolved,

1. That While the Committee give full credit to Archdeacon H. Williams for a desire to act in conformity with the directions of the Parent Committee, and for disinterestedness as to his own personal and pecuniary benefit, they must at the samo time unequivocally declare, that the proposition made to the Missionaries by the Bishop, in his letter of 1st September, 1847, grounded as it was upon a communication from the Governor for the settlement of the land question,^a was in conformity with the views of the Committee, and ought to have been acquiesced in by Archdeacon H. Williams without hesitation.

2. That this Committee can see no sufficient grounds in the circumstances referred to by Archdeacon H. Williams, for the withdrawal of his consent to that arrangement after it had been formally given on the 13th September, and acted upon by the Committee.

3. That the Committee indulge a strong hope that Archdeacon H. Williams, upon being made acquainted with these views, will at once renew his consent to the proposal of the Bishop, and thus avert the painful alternative in which they otherwise would be placed, of regarding his continued refusal as a dissolution on his part of his connexion with the Society, which the Committee could not contemplate without great pain and regret.

4. That the Committee must further express their deep regret at the stylo and tone of the Archdeacon's letter to the Bishop, Oct. 1, 1847 [Sept. 30, 1847,] which they regard as calculated, in many ways, to affect injuriously the interests of the Society and the spirit of "the whole Mission; and they trust that he will hasten, if he has not already done so, to make such reparation as may be in his power for the errors into which he appears to have been betrayed by the irritation of the occasion.

The Committee, by their Resolutions of 1847, had granted certain rights to the Missionaries : these they now attempted to revoke. They had granted liberty to dispose of the surplus land, and they now confiscated that land. But Mr. Venn maintains that the two sets of Resolutions are the same; i.e. that the Resolutions of 1848 are only a fuller exposition of the views of the Committee in 1847.

Let us compare the several comments of the Bishop, of Archdeacon H. Williams, and of Mr. Venn.

St. John's College,

November 8, 1848.

Though my former endeavours, and those of other friends, have been unsuccessful, the present state of the Laud Question compels me to address you once more, and I can assure you that I do so in a spirit of friendship, and with a ready disposition to put an end at once, ^b if you will allow me, to all difference between us.

On the 13th of September, 1847, you expressed your assent in writing to the proposal contained in my letter of Sept. 1, 1847. That assent you afterwards withdrew, in consequence of some charges which you supposed to be brought against you by Governor Grey, if I rightly understand your letter of October 1, 1847. ^v.

In a subsequent letter you seem to resent some allegations which I had made in my letter of Sept. I, and called upon me to prove them; and Mr. Clarke, in a letter on the same subject, brought forward new objections to my conduct, viz., that I had abused my power as President of the Central Committee.

As I conceive that it will not be likely that you will reconsider your decision, upon which you have acted now for thirteen months, unless I can satisfy you that the Society in England take an opposite view to your own on all these points, I transcribe seriatim the extracts from letters now before me, which I think will convince you that you have judged wrongly of the light in which these questions would be viewed in England.

I. As to the propositions contained in my letter of September 1, 1847.

Resolutions of Committee of Correspondence of Church Missionary Society.

June 20, 1848.

Resolved—

"That while the Committee give full credit to Archdeacon Henry Williams for a desire to act in conformity with the directions of the Parent Committee, and for disinterestedness as to his own per-

^a "Grounded as it was upon a communication from the Governor,'—from the terms of which the Governor had departed.

^b "To put an end,"—by unconditional submission on the part of the Archdeacon.

An English clergyman suggested a scheme to the Pope, for putting an end at once" to schism. His Holiness was delighted—he was mast anxious for unity,—he would do his utmost to effect a coalition with the heretic churches, stipulating merely for their "unconditional submission to the Church of Rome.

^v The date of the letter is Sept. 30, not Oct. 1. The effect of this alteration has been already pointed out. The charge complained of in the letter was Governor Grey's alleged observation to a native chief, that the Missionaries had stolen their land. It was not this charge, but His Excellency's refusal to substantiate or retract" certain prior charges which caused the so-called withdrawal" of absent; nor would this confusion have ever occurred, but for the alteration of date, and for the Bishop's forgetfulness of his negotiation with the Governor Having been finally broken off, not on Oct. 1, or on Sept. 30, but on Sept. 29.

page 39 sonal and pecuniary benefit, they must at the same time unequivocally declare that the proposition made to the Missionaries by the Bishop, in his letter of September 1, 1847, grounded as it was upon a communication from the Governor for the settlement of the land question, was in conformity with the views of the Committee, and ought to have been acquiesced in by Archdeacon Henry Williams without hesitation."

II. As to the sufficiency of your reasons for withdrawing your assent on the ground of objection to the Governor's conduct, alleged in your letter of 30th September, 1847.

2nd Resolution of Committee of Correspondence, June 26, 1848.

"That the Committee see no sufficient ground in the circumstances referred to by Archdeacon Henry Williams, for the withdrawal of his consent to that arrangement after it had been previously given on the 13th September, and acted upon by all parties in the subsequent assembling of the Central Committee."

N.B.—From this Resolution it is evident that the Committee do not think that I exceeded my powers in requiring a settlement of the Land Question, before I consented to act as President of the Central Committee. ^a

On the subject of the Governor's allegations against the Missionaries, which you seemed to think a sufficient reason for refusing all concession, I transcribe a passage from Lord Chichester to Earl Grey, written after his Lordship had seen all the Governor's despatches. ^b

"For my own part, I must say that the very moderate and candid manner in which he (Governor Grey) notices the transaction (viz., the publication of the Governor's despatch in the "Southern Cross") not only increases my respect for him as a public officer, but most conclusively proves the sincerity of his friendly feelings toward the Missionaries and the Missionary came." ^c

You are probably already aware that the Society has expressed its deep regret at" the most improper use" which has been made of the Governor s despatch, which will be considerably increased when they become aware that the Governor's letter to me which I sent to Mr. Clarke, for the information of the Land Claimants, was first made the subject of an agitation in the Council, and then published in the same manner as the other. I only mention these subjects to warn you that your charges against the Governor are less thought of in England than the improper manner in which your controversy with him has been conducted.

III. On the subject of the allegations against my conduct made by yourself and Mr. Clarke.

I have already adverted to the question of the delay of the Central Committee. As to the other points in which you think that I have offended you, you will find from the first Resolution above quoted, that the Society have approved of my letter of September 1, 1847, which had also been approved of by five of our brethren [when? and assented to by yourself, [when?] and upon which you have my written promise that I will retractor amend any tiling which a duly constituted body of arbitrators ^d shall decide to be erroneous. On the contrary, your letter to me of the 30th September, 1846, is thus commented upon by the Society.

Committee of Correspondence, June 20, 1848.

4th Resolution.

"That the Committee must further express its deep regret at the style and tone of the Archdeacon's letter to the Bishop, September 30, 1847, which they regard as calculated in many ways to affect injuriously the interests of the Society, and the spirit of the whole Mission, and they trust that he will hasten, if he has not already done so, to make such reparation as may be in his power for the errors into which he appears to have been betrayed by the irritation of the occasion."

On this subject, my dear Archdeacon, I hasten to assure you that I took no offence at your letter, and desire no reparation, but seek only for a restoration of that peace of mind and pleasure in intercourse with you which I enjoyed in September last, when you gave me your assurance that you would comply with the proposition which I made to you on behalf of the Society, Once renew that assent, ^e and this

^a I really cannot accept an opinion, even from the Church Missionary Society, cum res ipsa per se vociferatur in contrariam. I have read the Bishop's commission from the Society : I know what he has done; and see that the fact is beyond dispute.

^b The Earl of Chichester gives his opinion of Governor Grey, basted upon the study of Governor Grey's despatches. Cuilbet in sua arte credendum est. The Bishop does not commit himself by enunciating his own opinion, but quotes the Earl of Chichester's; for what purpose, unless that it should be acquiesced in, I cannot tell.

^c Lord Chichester is so much pre-occupied with the contents of his neighbour's wallet, that he forgets the contents of his own. He forgets that the Society, with his own sanction, had already selected and published the more objectionable portions of that despatch, when he condemns the publication of the whole. Publication of the whole was called for even in fairness to Governor Grey. What if the more objectionable portions only had been printed in the "Southern Cross?" His Excellency's outcry concerning the alleged omission of certain unimportant words from his letter to the Bishop—words which were not contained in the original after all, will show how eagerly the charge of garbling a document would have been raised.

Mr. Venn's remarks on the same subject, are distinguished by a curious simplicity of admission. He writes as follows to the Archdeacon, 31st March, 1848:—

"We allude especially to your letter to the Governor in the form of several queries, in reference to his despatch of June 25, 1846. We are ourselves to blame for not having cautioned you against such an use of the despatch, which was marked private, and which was communicated to us as an act of courtesy by Earl Grey, and in confidence. [Is this a fact? Are we to believe that Earl Grey signified any wish for secrecy, or laid any restriction upon the Society's use of the communication?] We concaved that the nature of the document would have put you on your guard in the use of it : and that you would not have gone further than private communication with the Governor upon the statements which it contained. We have alluded to the transmission of it to the newspapers in our general letter. That act was quite unjustifiable, and we fear that the Colonial Office can scarcely be expected to make us confidential communications in future, and that we shall only receive such papers as are printed for general use."

The Society did publish; Archdeacon H. Williams did not.

Lynx envers nos pareils, et taupes envers nous,

Nous nous pardonnons tout, et rien aux autres hommes.

^d The Bishop quotes his promise in the second, or substituted form, which had already been rejected by the Grantees; but so mention of the original promise, which he bad in vain been called upon to fulfil.

^e That "assent"—which had never so been given.

page 40 and every other difference between us will immediately be at an end.

IV. On the appropriation of the surplus land.

I recollect that such a condition was annexed to the consent which you and Mr. Clarke gave on September 13, 1847, relative to the appropriation of the surplus land. On this point the Society thus writes: "This disposal of the surplus land beyond the 2560 acres, cannot be allowed to delay the settlement another moment."

I believe that I have now referred to all the causes which seemed to hinder you from renewing your assent of September 13. I may add further, that in full expectation that you would at once give way when you found that the decision of the Supreme Court was in your favour on the legal question, the appeal was not sent to England for many months after the delivery of the judgment; nor is it certain that it is even now too late to spare the Society the pain of having the whole question reopened in the most public form in England.

This might in itself assure you of the friendly feeling of the Governor, of which Lord Chichester, as I have already shown, is fully convinced. But, for your further satisfaction, I add an extract of a letter which I have this day received from the Governor himself.^a

"In order to show in the fullest manner the friendliness of my feelings towards the Missionaries, I beg again to repeat to your Lordship the assurance I have personally made, that if the Missionaries will settle their land claims, no care shall be wanted on my part, to bring this arrangement to a satisfactory conclusion. I must also add, that notwithstanding all that has taken place, the sense of the benefit which the Missionaries have conferred upon this country, is so strong in my mind, as to make me anxious to entirely disregard and forget any occurrences of an unpleasant nature."

With the earnest prayer that the spirit of unity and love may remove all causes of variance between us, and restore peace on a basis of agreement satisfactory to all, and forgiving you, ^b as I hope to be forgiven by you.

I remain, &c.,

G. A. New Zealand.

To Archdeacon Henry Williams.

The Archdeacon's reply is highly characteristic. Terse in style, striking at the essential points of the question, every sentence is a home thrust. It was not only left unanswered by the Bishop, but was

^a The Bishop brings forward a letter, written by the Governor, at proof of the Governor's friendly feelings towards the Missionaries. "What sort of evidence is this? Would the Bishop accept such evidence for himself? Does the Bishop, moreover, not perceive, that if the Missionaries were guilty of what was laid tu their charge—of constructive treason, and of being accessory to the shedding of blood, these friendly feelings would be most discreditable to His Excellency. But Governor Grey, in point of fact, merely offers "to disregard and forget" the wrongs inflicted by himself.

His Excellency's testimony in his own favour is inconclusive. But his testimony against himself is obviously entitled to consideration. Habemus optimum testem confitentem. The following letter, written by his command, will show the avidity with which he seized upon any tale, no matter how absurd, which might tend to the prejudice of the Missionaries:—

Colonial Secretary's Office,

February 9th, 1846.

Sir,—I have it in command from the Lieutenant-Governor, to acquaint you that His Excellency is informed by various persons, that when Heke was latdy at Paihia, upon one occasion, in the evening, a flag which had been flying at the Ruapekapeka as a fighting flag, was hoisted on a temporary flagstaff the Natives, assisted by one of the sons of Archdeacon H. Williams, whilst you stood by, neither remonstrating nor in any way interfering with the Europeans or Natives.

His Excellency would be glad to receive such an explanation of the circumstances as you may think it necessary to offer.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

Andrew Sinclair.

To the Police Magistrate, Kororareka.

The circumstance here alluded to took place at the making of peace, in January, 1846. The flag was hoisted on the departure of H.M.S. North Star, in compliment to Sir Everard Home, who had held a long conversation with Heke on the previous evening. The object of the letter was evidently to impute a treasonable act to the son of a Missionary.

Another instance, of prejudice and dullness combined, is so absurd as to be worth preserving.

In 1848, Archdeacon Henry Williams, when absent in Auckland, was informed from the Bay of Islands that depositions had been taken against him at the Police Office, upon a charge of having excited seditious feelings in the minds of the Natives, during divine service, against the Military and the Government. On his return, he waited upon Mr. Clendon, for the purpose of learning particulars. It appeared that a statement had been made to Major Bridge to this effect:—that Archdeacon H. Williams, on a certain Sunday, had visited a party of Natives belonging to the Kawakawa, who were cultivating in a bay at the back of the Wahapu, where the troops were quartered; that he had enjoined upon them the necessity of being jealous and careful in their movements, for the Devil as a Roaring Lion, was prowling about on the watch, and would fall upon them unawares." Mr. Clendon added that Waka Nene had been consulted, and that Major Bridge, as Resident Magistrate, intended to ask an explanation.

Major Bridge,'on reflection, waived the proposed enquiry; but the Archdeacon learned that the case had created no little stir in the camp, where treason had been freely imputed to him.

The facts were these. Archdeacon Henry Williams had preached to a party of Natives who had been in the Government service, the time and place as stated. He had impressed upon them the necessity of resuming their Christian duties, for that In the neglect of the means of grace, they would become graceless. He drew their attention particularly to I Peter, V. 8,

Out of this text arose a ludicrous misapprehension. Our military theologians, apparently better acquainted with the Devil than with Peter, and unaware of the allusion being scriptural, deduced from it the following chain of inference:—

"A Lion the Lion is the emblem of England.

A Roaring Lion i.e. the British Lion In the person of British soldiers; for who can roar as they do?

The Devil as a Roaring Lion Le. the soldiers are Devils, seeking to destroy the friendly Natives.

Such reasoning is not to be gainsayed—at least by mood and figure.

Some months after this occurrence, a Government Officer accosted the Archdeacon, who was walking to the Church at Kororareka, and observed, with much kind feeling, that he wished to put him on his guard against mentioning the Military or Government in his address to the Natives; for that there were persons on the watch for expressions which might be construed into sedition. The Archdeacon returned thanks Cor the caution, and expressed a hope that he might see some of the informers at the service.

^b (b) What for?

page 41 even excluded from the College volume of correspondence. ^a On finding that its place was vacant, I thought upon the empty frame at Venice, among the portraits of the Doges, with its chilling inscription—"Locus Marini Faletri, pro criminibus decapitati."

Paihia,

November 30, 1848.

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your Lordship's letter of the 8th instant, and should have answered it earlier, hut have just returned from Kaitaia.

I feel much pain that your Lordship has again revived your question of the surrender of the Crown Grants to land already decided by the Supreme Court, which I had concluded would have set the subject at rest, there being in this country no superior authority, particularly as his Excellency in his letter of August 8th, 1847, to the Church Missionary Society, states—

As Governor of the colony, I am bound to secure to the Missionaries that extent of land to which they are by law entitled." ^b

It had been my intention on no account further to have noticed this subject, but as your Lordship's views of the whole matter appear so opposed to my own, and the evidence produced of so partial and incorrect a character, it will be my duty to enter somewhat into the subject.

It has been a season of great trial to me to feel that there has been any interruption to that sincere esteem in which I once held your Lordship; I did not desire further to press upon your Lordship to prove the allegations brought forward in your letter of September 1, 1847, as expressed in my letter of December 7, 1847, fearing that you might probably be brought into some dilemma. I consequently wrote my letter to Mr. Fitzgerald, of October 11, 1847, which has been rejected by your Lordship. I therefore was the first to propose conditions of peace, considering that I was the injured party.

In the letter just received, your Lordship speaks of peace. But what peace, so long as these allegations are unremoved The present is a civil question between your Lordship and myself. The offer of peace does not stand equally between us. Our relative position appears as that of accuser and accused—the smiter and the smitten.

I thank your Lordship for the expression of your kindly feeling towards me, and I should be thankful could I feel myself at liberty to receive it. But so long as the imputations of the Governor are approved of and supported by your Lordship, it appears to be beyond my power to do so.

Should I in the course of my present remarks cause any unnecessary disquietude of mind to your Lordship, not called for by the singularity of our correspondence, I shall much regret the same. I feel that I am impelled to enter upon this discussion by your Lordship, and by the extraordinary proceedings of the Church Missionary Society, which appear to justify the persecuting spirit of the Governor towards myself and other members of the Mission. As your Lordship continues to press this question, I must proceed.

Your Lordship has admitted that there is no ecclesiastical question between us. But the Church Missionary Society appears to have condemned all I have said, both to your Lordship and the Governor, confirming thereby all the allegations of every kind and character, denying to me the privilege of speaking in self-defence.

I am ready to admit that my letter of September 30, 1847, was written under excited feelings, caused by the agitation of the day; that in "style and tone" it was not according to my better judgment. With your Lordship's permission, therefore, I shall request to cancel every expression which may be deemed objectionable in that respect; but that one is the only letter of which I speak as having been out of order.

I ask leave to call your Lordship's attention to my letter of September 29, 1846, which you will perceive has called forth the disapprobation of the Church Missionary Society. Your Lordship will judge how far the expressions of displeasure are applicable in this case. If misplaced here, so may they be in other instances.

Your Lordship draws my attention to the following words :—

"That the Society has approved of the letter of September 1, 1847, which had been approved by five of our brethren, and assented to by yourself."

My Lord,—I cannot but regard this as a very fearful clause, as being at variance with the correct state of the case; and I must request the liberty to say, that I never assented to that letter, which my letter of November 22, 1847, will clearly show. I am greatly grieved whenever I look upon that same letter of September 1, 1847.

The letter of September 1, 1847, your Lordship further states, "had also been approved by five of our brethren."

It is extremely painful to me to express my opinion, that your Lordship must be under considerable error in stating that "five of our brethren did give their approval to the letter in question, which I am assured has tended seriously to mislead the Church Missionary Society. Your Lordship, in a letter to Mr. Venn, September 7, 1847, has also used the following words :—

"I am assured by Archdeacon William Williams that the quantity taken, as proposed, in four blocks, will give the claimants all the good land contained in the tracts over which their nominal claim extends."

If, indeed, these words were used by Archdeacon William Williams, they only show under what serious error he Was labouring at the time, in consequence of the misquotation given by your Lordship in this same letter of September 1, 1847, in omitting the latter part of the same clause : the reservation required by His Excellency nullifies the whole.

The same serious error I observe respecting five of our brethren, and I do assert that they know nothing of the peculiar character of that letter; for I did not myself notice it until fully examined after my return to the Bay, as shewn in my letter of November 22, 1847. I am satisfied that not one of our five brethren would undertake, with your Lordship, "to prove" in my presence the contents

^a The Bishop's letter of November 8, which called forth the Archdeacon's reply, it duly transcribed into the book.

^b The Supreme Court, subsequently to His Excellency's statement, had decided in favour of the Grantees.

page 42 of that letter, which I have already requested your Lordship to do according to your promise. Should your Lordship obtain from the five clergymen their written approval of that letter of September 1, 1847, I must request a copy of the same for my information and guidance.

The concluding part, the exceptionable clause, omitted by your Lordship, is as follows :—

"The only reservation being that yon will not be allowed to include in the blocks you may select, any lands to which the natives may establish a just claim, or which may be required for the use of the natives, or for public purposes."—Governor Grey's letter to C.M. Society, August 6, 1847.

By this reservation, the whole was to be thrown into Chancery; the natives invited to raise objections after the examination before the Land Commissioners, and the remainder might be cut up by His Excellency, according to his desire and will, we having no voice in the question. Even had we desired to accede to the proposition made, it was beyond our reach.

The arrangement also of this exceptionable paragraph in His Excellency's letter to the C.M. Society of August 6, 1847, appears to be so disposed that this reservation clause escapes the eye, unless to a person in quest of the same. It did escape my eye, and that of the others concerned, and appears to have escaped the observation of the C.M. Society, when they speak of a choice of selection having been given, which is contrary to the correct statement of the case.

The approval, therefore, of the C.M. Society to this letter of September 1, 1847, as mentioned by your Lordship, appears evidently to have been based upon wrong principles, upon statements of "our five brethren," produced to shew an approval on their part, though there appears no evidence on record to warrant such conclusion.

Though I gave no assent to your Lordship's letter of September 1, 1847, I did assent to the proposals of the Governor, conditionally that

"The numerous and severe animadversions expressed or implied by His Excellency, in his despatches to the Secretary of State, upon the past conduct of some of the Missionaries, be either fully established or fully and honourably withdrawn."

Even this conditional assent I should not have given had I observed the exceptionable clause, omitted in your Lordship's letter of September 1, 1847. But the whole was marred by the Governor himself, in his visit to the Bay in the course of September. Upon my assent thus given, there appears a desire to lay considerable stress, and upon my withdrawal of the same, the C.M. Society appear to have based their resolution of June 26, 1848, without considering how this assent was obtained, which was in an unfair and ungenerous manner, to which the "five clergymen" can testify. I was taken by surprise, borne down, and pressed for a reply, without a moment's reflection, whilst under great excitement and mental depression, to deliver up that over which I had no control, the property of my family, under most appalling imputations of fraud, deceit, and craft. The members of my family had a right to have demanded a revocation of that assent, inasmuch as the property was theirs.

Your Lordship had held secret conferences with some of my brethren, though not a word was offered to me until your Lordship presented the letter in question on the 4th the eve of the Sabbath, and on the 6th demanded an answer. I further say, that at the College I was treated as a culprit, an Achan who had wrought folly in Israel.

In your Lordship's charge just received, appears a passage bearing especial reference to the case, highly objectionable, and of too recent occurrence to be misapplied. This passage was not brought forward at the delivery of the charge, otherwise I should personally have noticed it publicly before the clergy. It stands on the 70th page.

Your Lordship proceeds in the letter under consideration :—

"The extracts from letters now before me I think will convince you that you have judged wrongly of the light in which the question would be viewed in England."

Your Lordship is correct. I did "judge wrongly of the light in which the question would be viewed I in England and what is the conclusion, but that the Committee who have given judgment were in a maze, otherwise they could not have shown such inconsistency or indifference. They must have been deceived through allegations so artfully constructed by His Excellency the Governor, and confirmed by your Lordship with these weighty words:—"all this I will undertake to prove," with the assertion also made by your Lordship, that the same was approved of by "our five brethren and, finally, that I had myself assented to the same. Sampson Kempthorne, Esq., had also in his late visit to England made allegations of a similar character. When, therefore, I consider the nature of this body of such evidence thus produced, the mystery is unfolded to me, inasmuch as I possess the key to the whole.

The Secretary of the C.M. Society, the Rev. H. Venn, in a letter under date of March 31, 1848, uses the following words :—

"It is impossible for us to institute enquiries upon this subject."

These imputations having been made by high authority, and undertaken to be proved by the Bishop and five members of the Mission.

When, therefore, I am informed by the official organ of the Parent Committee, before whom the I question was brought for their paternal consideration, that my case was rejected by them after six and twenty years of service,—that "it is impossible to institute enquiries upon the subject," all my surprise ceases, and my confidence in the C.M. Society is extinct; for we are evidently betrayed, and my duty now is clearly, that I must personally defend our cause, wich I will do by God's grace, rejecting the aid of man.

I must request your Lordship's attention to the consideration of the origin of this agitation with the Committee of the C.M. Society. The Society explain, in their letter of March 1st, 1847, that it was in consequence of the despatch of June 25, 1846, with certain extracts, mentioning insurrection, rebellion, blood and treasure, with sundry other evils devised by cunning art; also, of His Excellency's letter of April 7, 1847, representing the occupation of the Missionaries on their farms,—imputations too glaring to be entertained. The allegations brought forth must be established or fall. Upon the establishing or non-establishing must the whole question rest. Should my opponents fail to prove their assertions, and no one has yet attempted to do so, there will be a proof at once that the C.M. Society has been brought into a false position, for the premises being false, page 43 the conclusion must of necessity be false also.

I will proceed to examine the 1st Resolution of the Committee of Correspondence of the C. M. Society, June 26, 1848 :—

"That while the Committee give full credit to Archdeacon H. Williams for a desire to act in conformity with the direction of the Committee, &c."

By referring to the papers of March 1, 1847, in my possession, with which alone I have to do, it will be seen that I have acted not merely with a "desire to act in conformity with the direction of the Parent Committee," but to the very letter of those instructions, in which there is no ambiguity of expression. In the above opinion, I am supported by the first legal authority in this Colony.

The Parent Committee state, in their letter dated March 1, 1847 : "with respect, however, to such other portions as the parties may have already virtually occupied, or can obtain peaceable possession of, they will be at liberty to make them over to their children." Upon this reading I have acted, and do now stand.

Upon the question of private property, the C. M. Society declare under the same date, that they cannot interfere :—

"The Committee cannot go beyond this Resolution, as they have no power or desire to interfere with the private property of their Missionaries. They must leave to their own decision the mode of disposing of land, which those who continue in connexion with the Society, may under the operation of the foregoing Resolution, be compelled to part with."

Your Lordship has, and does "interfere with the private property," not of the Missionaries, but of their families; though the legal question has been determined by the judges of the Colony.

The following passage evidently shows that the C. M. Society is ignorant of the legal state of the question :—

"The disposal (therefore) of the surplus land beyond the 2560 acres, cannot be allowed to delay the settlement another moment."

The above is hastily written, without due reflection and enquiry made. I merely say that no delay has arisen on my account. As far as I am concerned, this has long been settled according to the law of the C. M. Society, laid down in their instructions of March 1, 1847.

The Supreme Court of the Colony has determined the civil law of the question, and pronounced the Crown Grants made by Governor FitzRoy to be legal.

Respecting your Lordship's warning to me, "that my charges against the Governor are less thought of in England than the improper manner in which my controversy with him has been conducted,"—

Your Lordship's view of this subject is certainly singular. At present it is too early to give an unbiassed opinion relative to that correspondence, particularly as the C. M. Society, at the time of writing, had only my letter of August 16, 1847, before them. Certainly in that letter I made no charge against His Excellency, but met his charges against the Missionaries. Every charge was on His Excellency's side, reflecting upon certain members of the Mission, as having been the cause of the rebellion, &c. These imputations and allegations from His Excellency fully justify my correspondence, and I must continue to press upon His Excellency the importance of producing evidence, so long as His Excellency continues to put forth his unfounded aspersions; more particularly as the Secretary of the C. M. Society informs me that "it is impossible for them to institute inquiries upon this subject."

Of the friendly feeling of His Excellency towards the Missionaries, mentioned by His Excellency in the extract before me, I need not the assurance of your Lordship. The reading of the various despatches which have been forwarded to the Secretary of State will fully explain these friendly feelings, as also his Excellency's letter of April 7, 1847, to the C. M. Society, read by your Lordship on September 25, 1847, in the presence of three members of the Central Committee, whose disapprobation was expressed on that occasion.

In noticing the extracts given by your Lordship from Lord Chichester's letter to Earl Grey, "written after his Lordship had seen all the Governor's despatclies,"—I ask if it were possible that his Lordship could have come to any other conclusion than the one expressed, confirmed as those despatches were by your Lordship's letter of Sept. 1, 1847, represented by your Lordship to have been approved of by Five members of the Mission. ^a I do not hold myself amenable to an opinion drawn from such very partial and incorrect statements. It does not appear that the Earl of Chichester read any papers but the Governor's despatches. This is not the usual mode of determining important questions by English Judges.

If your Lordship's remarks upon the publication of either the despatch of June 25, 1846, or his Excellency's letter to your Lordship of August 30, 1847. which "was made the subject of an agitation in the Council," are intended to be attached to me or to us, I ask your Lordship upon what authority? In both these documents serious reflections were cast upon some of the Missionaries. If these reflections were in any degree true, we were the sufferers by the publication. But his Excellency knows they could not be home out if brought to light; hence the irritation on this question. It would be equally just to charge upon us the severe remarks of the public press relative to the present question.

Upon statements equally futile has this whole agitating question rested. Since his Excellency has put forth such inflammatory materials, the whole weight must rest upon himself This is but another instance of an ungenerous proceeding against us, which I must reject with such disdain as may be consistent with my station. I heard of these insidious despatches in a letter, January 8, 1847, from Auckland, though they only appeared officially in September of the same year.

With regard to the "having the whole question reopened in the most public form in England" of which your Lordship speaks, I can have no possible objection. It has been my desire to have public investigation, and since the C. M. Society observes "that it is impossible for them to institute inquiries," and your Lordship has declined "to prove" statements made, after promise given "to Drove," and his Ex-

^a With regard to the alleged approval of the Bishop's letter of September I, by the "Five Brethren,"—it suffices to state that the Archdeacon addressed a circular to them, inquiring whether such was the fact. One of the five replied, that he had disapproved of the letter in question. Two replied that they had never been called upon to approve it; and two declined making any answer at all. But not one affirmed that he had approved of the letter.

page 44 cellency has preserved silence, it is the more incumbent upon me that I do assent to having the whole qustion re-opened in the most public form" impartially and thoroughly. His Excellency, not being satisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court, has himself moved the case to the Privy Council, and for the consequences of such a movement I can by no means be responsible.

I perceive, my Lord, we are coming to close questions, and it will be my duty to analyse every description of evidence brought against me, I take nothing for granted, nor can I concede anything to others.

It appears too evident that this agitation arises from vindictive and malicious feelings, more against our office than our persons, otherwise this attack would not bave been brought so exclusively against the Missionaries.

The reluctance to attempt to prove the allegations brought in secret against us, does most clearly prove that the whole is fiction. Is therefore a body of veterans to be condemned unheard and cut to pieces, their families ruined, merely because such a one puts forth false and foul aspersions?

My Lord, can you say that in the purchase of this land we have violated any law, either human or divine? The civil law has determined in our favour : with the law of the C. M. Society we have carefully complied, to the very letter, and St. Paul observes, that "where there is no law there is no transgression."

Your Lordship did protest against this land being settled on my family.

The Governor has protested against its being settled on the Natives.

The Natives do protest against its being given up to the Government.

The Civil Law has confirmed the grants issued by Governor FitzRoy.

The C. M. Society express their displeasure for acting in strict conformity with their own instructions.

My position is much like that of the fabled man and his ass, who could please no one.

I trust, my Lord, no man will be able to charge upon me a desire to prolong this painful subject, a bane to the best interests of the community, to the comfort and prosperity of our minds, and to the progress of our work. The subject of my letter to Mr. Fitzgerald, forwarded by that gentleman to your Lordship, will show my desire for peace, based upon the decision of the judges. By the rejection of that letter, your Lordship does in fact reject the law as laid down.

I feel assured that no attempt at justice has been rendered to me, except in the Supreme Court. The C. M. Society are at present under serious delusion, from false premises, I am aware of probable consequences. I dispute them not. I have counted the cost, and patiently await the issue. My confidence is where it has been throughout, in the righteous Judge of all, into whose bands I commit my cause. May His will be done.

But, my Lord, ere I close, permit me to request a pause before a blow be inflicted which may be regretted when too late. To your Lordship and to the Governor I have challenged proof, which has not been accepted. Surely not because claimed by a Missionary, nor can it be because our law condemns before the accuser and accused be brought face to face.

When I look at the long catalogue of imputations—am I to take these things for granted? As soon, my Lord, shall I take for granted what I saw in print some twenty years ago, a declaration made that I had been cooked and eaten by the Maories. Even for this, my Lord, I required proof, as I now do, for every other statement, made, no question with me by whom.

My Lord, I feel myself secure, Whatever man may do, under the protection of Him who is too wise to err. But I do exceedingly fear and tremble for the fate of the infant church in New Zealand, and for your Lordship's influence. I stand unscathed upon the promise of God, whose truth hath been my shield and buckler. Permit me then as one advanced in years, to warn your Lordship in the support you give to the unrighteous acts of Sir George Grey. I will yield to no one in loyalty to my Sovereign, and to the representative of Majesty : of this I have given proof. Yet, let it be understood, that while I respect the office, I have none for this person. ^a

Henry Williams.

To the Lord Bishop of New Zealand.

From the Archdeacon's comment upon the Resolutions of 1848, let us turn to Mr. Venn's. This is of another character; weak, and vague—composed apparently under the depressing influence of a difficulty which the writer felt himself unable to overcome. The fault is in the subject. We cannot suppose that a practised writer like Mr. Venn could fail to express himself with clearness if he had any thing clear to say; but be is in reality on his defence, and obliged to take example from the cuttle-fish, whose sole resource, when in danger, is to darken the water in which it lies.

Church Mission House,

June 30, 1848.

The letter which you will here receive from Mr. Marsh, and my former letter, will have prepared you for the matter which I have now to communicate to you.

The Bishop having laid before the Committee your letter him of Oct. 1, 1847, ^b in which you withdrew your assent to the settlement of the land

^a The appendix to this letter being long, and merely illustrative, is omitted.

^b The altered date again; from Sept. 30, to Oct. 1. By this Mr, Venn is enabled to represent a simple mention of what had already taken place, as the actual withdrawal of a pledge. No allusion is made to the three days' conference with the Governor, and to his non-fulfilment of the Archdeacon's condition, for the Bishop had made no mention of it; none to the final closure of negotiations on September 29, by the Archdeacon's refusal to comply with the Bishop's demand of an "unconditional surrender The Society's view is evidently drawn from the Bishop's letter of September 30 to the Archdeacon, and from the Bishop's letter of December 7 to Mr, Venn.

page 45 question upon the basis proposed by the Bishop and the Governor, which you had given upon Sept. 13, they felt that they had no alternative but to express their judgment upon the case, Mr. Marsh kindly attended our Committee, and brought with him many private letters from your brother and yourself : all your letters upon the subject and your brother's pamphlet had also been circulated; your case therefore had every consideration which Christian regard for yourself and justice could demand. The result was the unanimous adoption of the Resolutions which I now transmit to you, and which have been transmitted to the Bishop.

I do not enter upon a variety of points which have received much consideration, because at the great distance both of time and space which separates us, it is vain to attempt to keep up discussion; yet there are one or two points which I cannot omit. You lay much stress upon the terms of our original Resolution,—that no Missionary should hold above a certain amount of land for his own use and benefit; as if the Committee had meant to exclude the case in which a parent held land for the use and benefit of his children. But you have entirely mistaken the meaning ^a of the Committee. We had all along understood that our Missionaries held land with a view to their children's benefit, and not for their own separate aggrandizement. This holding land with a view to the ultimate benefit of the children, was the only case we contemplated, and the terms "sole use and benefit" were introduced to exclude such cases of trust as we understood to exist, when a Missionary holds land for the Society, or for the Natives, or upon any other declared trust. It was equally clear to the Committee that if the Bishop and Governor had put your interpretation upon our words, they would have fixed a very different amount as the maximum from that of 2560 acres, ^b and all our Missionaries would have been bound by our Resolution to conform to their settlement.

It appears that you dispute the alleged illegality of the extended grants of Governor FitzRoy, but after the declaration of their illegality by Earl Grey, ^c the Committee feel themselves bound to treat them in that light, and that there should be no hesitation on your part in giving them up to Government to be disposed of as the Government may think right.

At the time at which the Parent Committee adopted its Resolution of Feb, 22, 1847, they presum-that the extended grants were legal; ^d the contrary decision of the Colonial Office had not then been pronounced, as it has since been, against their validity.

We are aware that your withdrawal of your consent to the arrangement arose from a sense of inreputation or rather from a feeling that your honour and reputation would be compromised. You will learn from Mr. Marsh, who has guarded your reputation with the utmost tenderness, that it appears to him and to us, at this distance, that by a ready compliance with the Bishop's arrangement, you would nave stood in a much better position for the vindication of your reputation, and that even now this is the first step, to recall your withdrawal of consent, and to yield the point in dispute. I do not enter upon the painful subject of the false accusations which have been brought against you or the unjust treatment which you have experienced from different parties, for the very reason stated in the last paragraph,—our lips are shut as long as there exists a serious cause of complaint which we cannot defend. ^e But I do not fear for your character; ^f it will rise I am persuaded above all these clouds. Only take heed to yourself, to your temper, and to the avoidance of the appearance of evil, and the God you serve will make your integrity clear in his own way.

Upon the last Resolution I will add nothing; it is sufficiently full to explain the unanimous feeling of the Committee, and I am persuaded that you will, after perhaps the burst of chagrin, respond to it.

Had I less confidence than I have in your christian principle and natural generosity, I should be very sad and apprehensive of the results of this letter, and I should add many apologies for the imperfect manner in which I have expressed myself. But I write as a Christian brother to a Christian brother, and I commend my infirm attempt to the blessing of our common Maker.

H. Venn, Sec. C. M. S.

The Venerable Arch. Henry Williams.

The gist of Mr. Venn's letter is contained in the third paragraph : the writer must have entirely bewildered himself before hazarding so untenable a statement. The Parent Committee have affirmed by their own comment on their own Resolution,

^a "It is a mere waste of labour and learning and ingenuity to enquire what meaning such and such an expression is capable of bearing, in a case where we know, as we do here, what was the sense which was actually conveyed by it, to the hearers, and which the speaker must have been aware it did convey to them."—Whately on the Kingdom of Christ.

Quoties in verbis nulla est ambiguitas, ibi nulla expositio contra verba fienda est, is a maxim, equally binding in law and in conscience.

^b The Governor had refused to fix, as Mr. Venn well knew.

^c Of what value is Earl Grey's declaration, on a point of Law? Mr. Venn is said to be an able man : he is at least not so simple as he makes himself out to be.

^d This is apparently an endeavour to account for that contradiction between the two sets of Resolutions, which Mr. Venn, in a former paragraph, had virtually denied. Those of 1847, it appears, were passed under presumption of the extended grants being legal: those of 1848, under the presumption of their being illegal. But, from Scylla, he falls into Charybdis. For if the Resolutions of 1848 were affected by the "decision of the Colonial Office," they should have been in so far reversed, when the contrary decision of the Supreme Court became known to the Parent Committee.

^e What is this "cause of complaint? "

^f Mr. Venn does not "fear" for the Archdeacon's "character." It is manifest that in this affirmation he is only too correct. But when he tells the Archdeacon that the God you serve will make your integrity clear in his own way," I would ask leave to remind the Secretary to the Church Mission Society, that the shipwrecked Paul, though supernaturally assured of being saved from peril of the sea, did not for that neglect the use of human means; but bestirred himself actively on the occasion, even surmounting the danger by his own exertions.

page 46 that their original view was not what Mr. Venn states it to have been.

With respect, however, to such portions as the parties may have already virtually occupied, or can obtain peaceable possession of, they will be at liberty to dispose of them by sale, or to make them over to their children, or to put them, in trust for the benefit of the aborigines, as they may judge proper, or as the Lord may incline their hearts to act.

If this does not mean what the Grantees understood it to mean, Mr. Venn should have informed them what else it means. Some lands were clearly transferable from the parents to the children: Mr. Venn should have informed us what lands. But he merely tells us that the parents mistook the meaning of the Committee : i.e. that they transferred the wrong lands. Yet there were no other lands to transfer, excepting those held in trust for the Society, or for the Natives. A straightforward man would have told us what the Society did mean concerning this transfer, instead of confining himself to what the Society did not mean. Mr. Venn's exclusion is palpably an evasion.

To the three foregoing views of the Contradictory Resolutions, I will subjoin my own.

The first requires no proof, beyond what simple inspection will afford. Mr. Venn's attempt at explanation is futile : words must be received as they are laid down.

in blind acquiescence with caprice, or even with injustice. Such a requisition, though hardly reasonable, would at least be rational. There is no perfect efficiency without discipline; no discipline without passive obedience. Abandonment of volition, demanded by Ignatius Loyola, was the secret of his success. Perinde ac cadaver, is the motto under which the most efficient Society that the world has known was incorporated. ^a

The argument might have been good, although the tyrant's plea. Though far from assuming, I am not disposed to deny its sufficiency. But it so happens that the Committee had already precluded themselves from the use of it. They cannot justify their own inconsistency, even upon the ground of "despotic authority," having already declared officially that they "have no power or desire to interfere with the private property of the Missionaries." ^b

With regard to the second point, the Committee have involved themselves in a dilemma, from which there appears to be no escape.

Either they have stultified themselves by commanding an impossibility, requiring the Grantees to give up what they did not possess, or else they must have assumed that the transfer from the parents to the children was collusive. If the latter, how conies it that to an offence so unpardonable, not one word was offered in rebuke? The fraud, it seems, was to be connived at, provided only that the Grantees would consent to place the Society on a pleasant footing with Lord Grey and the powers that be.

The conclusion appears to me inevitable; yet I by no means charge the Society with having perceived it. Their main fault appears to have been the want of courage to look a difficulty straight in the face. They would be the better for some of that thorough downrightness of disposition, which they have so severely reprehended in Archdeacon Henry Williams. I believe that they had been misled; but am sure that they need not have been misled, had they not been weak and willing listeners.

The Society's Contradictory Resolutions were not complied with.

Still bent upon obtaining substantiation or retractation,—upon proving that there had never been any question of land, but only of character, Archdeacon Henry Williams, in the name of the Grantees, addressed astringent letter to the Secretary of State

^a "If authority declares that what seems to you white, is black, declare it to be black."—Loyola's Spiritual Exercises, p. 291.

^b A member or the Parent Committee has observed : "The Bishop clearly exceeded his commission, and then betrayed the Society into a contradiction of their own decree." The expression is happily turned, but will scarcely bear analysis; take it as you will, the dilemma still remains.

page 47 for the Colonies, ^a appealing to him for protection against the dangerous and insidious despatches of Governor Grey," demanding an open enquiry into the charges already preferred, and pledging himself, should he not scatter those charges to the winds, to resign his duties in New Zealand. ^b

Lord Grey made answer, that enquiry could not he conceded to the accused, because such concession would be an affront to the accuser.

The Bishop had already favoured the Governor's escape, by substituting the pointless queries.

And the Society had declared that it was impossible to institute enquiries on the subject.

It thus appears that the demand of investigation was opposed by Governor Grey, by Lord Grey, by the Bishop, and finally by the Society.

How such a challenge can be declined, unless by those who fear the light, is a marvel of the age. It was not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which was accused had met the accuser face to face, and had licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him; neither must the like be suffered, without the stubbornest resistance, to creep in among ourselves. Whatever may be thought of the three first refusals, for the fourth, at least, there is no excuse. That Governor Grey should have opposed enquiry, was to be expected; he had every thing to lose by it : the Bishop may have felt himself too far committed with His Excellency to withdraw from him : Lord Grey may possibly have signed a refusal that he had never read; but that the Society itself should not have responded to the call, is beyond my understanding, There is nothing for it but to suppose that these masters in Israel "have lights that are denied to such as I.

The glove is thrown down by the accused : wager of battle is required. No inconvenience, no difficulties can be pleaded in answer to that appeal; all must go down before it. Yet it has been rejected by men whose desire of acting for the best should be above dispute. Who shall account for this? Are we to suppose that religion is without its chivalry of feeling,—that it is of less avail than a high-bred, though worldly sense of honour, in elevating our aims to justice for the sake of justice, without fear or compromise? It has not been always so, and God forbid that it should be so now—that the Knights Templars of the Church should be extinct, and the Shavelings only left; that the spirit which once impelled the flower of Europe headlong against the Saracen in Palestine, should have dwindled into negociating priestcraft.

I will never believe it; but yet I cannot blind my eyes to a certain timidity which disposes many towards shrinking from inconvenient truth, towards yielding to the bias of what has been so long miscalled "expediency." Seek the truth, I say, at whatever risk, conducting the search not in secret conclave, but before the face of the world. Seek it for its own sake, regardless of consequence. Walk steadfastly onwards, and the danger will prove to be

^a Archdeacon Henry Williams had again endeavoured to bring the question to issue with Governor Grey himself.

Paihia, 27th March, 1848.

Sir,—I have been favoured with a copy of Earl Grey's Despatch, of March 1, 1847, to His Excellency Governor Grey, in which appears the following passage;—

"In considering your recent despatches, my attention has been struck by various passages which appeared in those despatches, and which affected the proceedings and character of certain of the agents of the Church Missionary Society in New Zealand; these proceedings represented to be of such a nature as to prove seriously embarrassing to your Government."

In considering the dates of His Excellency's despatches, after so short a period in this country, I have to request that I may be informed, for the satisfaction of the Church Missionary Society, wherein the proceedings of the Missionaries have been "of such a nature as to prove seriously embarrassing to His Excellency's Government," as represented to be in His Excellency's Despatches alluded to by Earl Grey.

Henry Williams.

The Honourable the Colonial Secretary.

To this letter no answer was returned.

^b For observations upon the Archdeacon's letter, and upon the disgraceful despatch by means of which the Governor procured disallowance of enquiry, see "Letters to the Southern Cross," xii. and xiii., from which a single extract shall suffice.

"To follow the despatch through its complication of untruths, would be an endless task, I must restrict myself to the leading points, and be content with challenging any one to select from it six consecutive lines (the despatch numbers 190 lines in the Blue Book) in which I shall be unable to point out a misrepresentation. They are thick set beyond belief."

The challenge has not been taken up.

Yet Governor Grey has not hesitated to accuse Archdeacon Henry Williams of extreme untruth [Blue Book, July, 1849, p. 5.]. For the Archdeacon's veracity, scrupulous and unflinching, I will pledge my own, Time after time has it been tried, even before hostile judges, and so often has it been made good. It has passed through fire like the fine gold. But His Excellency's first resort, when embarrassed in contention, is to the charge of falsehood. For a term of years he has flung this forth, on every side of him, without reck or spare; and, unfortunately for the Colony, he has been believed at the Colonial Office, Few of his political opponents have escaped at all; but the rute has been, to take the heads off the tallest poppies first.

The alleged untruthfulness of Archdeacon Henry Williams rests upon Governor Grey's assertion. But what is Governor Grey's assertion worth? In the year 1849, a petition was addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, praying for Governor Grey's recal, because of the unprosperous condition of the Northern Province under his Government (such was in fact the case prior to the discovery of the Australian Gold Fields), and because of the systematic misrepresentations of fact, accompanied by calumnious strictures on the characters of individuals, contained in bis despatches. To this petition 520 signatures were attached.

page 48 more in show than in reality; keep in the midst of the path, and you shall pass in safety, as did Christian between the lions before the gate of the Palace Beautiful. For the beasts were chained, though at the first he knew it not.

It thus appears, in recapitulation of the Fifth Period—

That the Grantees did not comply with the Society's Resolutions of 1848, having, by compliance with the Resolutions of 1847, already placed it beyond their power to do so;

And that a demand of open investigation had again been made on the part of the Grantees, which had been again refused.

We now arrive at the Period of

The Central Committee.

The Bishop had sent a flag of truce to the Archdeacon; but thought it unnecessary to state that he was even then assailing him in distant quarters. At the very time of writing the bland and pacific letter of November 8, he was engaged in subserving the policy which had been unremittingly pursued by His Excellency,—that of raising up the Archdeacon's fellow-labourers against him, careless of the disunion, the inevitable schism in the Mission that would follow on success.

Operations were commenced by a circular, addressed to the several members of the Central Committee, excepting Archdeacon Henry Williams, and Mr. Clarke, who were not informed.

November 6, 1848.

Many important communications having been lately received by the President of the Central Committee, upon which the opinions of the other members of the Committee must be immediately obtained, he avails himself of the suggestion contained in the third paragraph of a public letter of the Society to Mr. Clarke, dated 6th April, 1848, to request the members of the Committee to give their opinions in writing on the points referred to in the Resolutions transmitted herewith.

* * * * *

The questions proposed by the Circular for consideration were—

i. The Society's Resolutions of 1848;

ii. Resolutions prepared by the Bishop to the following effect :—

That the Grantees should surrender the deeds into the hands of an agent agreed upon by all, who should retain them in his hands until the conditions offered by the colonial Government (by survey of lands, &c.) should have been fulfilled.

That Percival Berrey, Esq., Solicitor to the Central Committee, should be proposed as the said agent.

And that Mr. Kemp should be removed to another station.

A meeting of the Committee, composed of the following members—

• Archdeacon William Williams, Chairman, Archdeacon Brown,
• The Rev. G. A. Kissling,
• The Rev. R. Taylor,
• The Rev. R. Maunsell,
• The Rev. R. Burrows,

was held in April 1849, at Tauranga, where the following proceedings, protested against by Archdeacon William Williams, took place. Mr. Maunsell, the Provisional Secretary, shall state them for himself.

Tauranga,

18th April, 1849.

The accompanying documents will acquaint you with the object of this letter.

Deeply grieved am I in common with the other members of the Central Committee, that we should find it necessary to take any steps likely to hurt a senior brother who has rendered so much service to this Mission, and who has never shrunk from any amount of privation or labour in the discharge of his duties.

Still we felt that there was no alternative. As representatives of the Parent Society, as moreover feeling that the character of the whole body was involved in these proceedings, we concluded that we must enter into their consideration, while we determined to go no further than duty seemed absolutely to require.

As the question seems to rest on plain and simple grounds, we declined entering upon all questions not affecting them. We desired to consider it simply as servants of a Missionary Society, and in such a view we invite your acquiescence in our decision.

If I may take the liberty, I would urge you to consider how difficult it is to take a correct view of moral questions, ^a when personal interest is concerned : ^b that five members of this Committee, all Missionaries, some of them as warm friends as you have in this island, were most unanimous in their decision, that whether we examine the mat-

^a I confess myself unable to perceive the difficulty.

^b What personal interests? Did the Committee disbelieve the Archdeacon when he asserted that he had none? If they did, it was their duty to represent him to the Society as unfit to remain another hour in its service. If they believed him, they impeached themselves. We can only suppose that, like too many in the colonies, they are unaware of the extreme gravity of the expressions which they permit themselves to use so loosely.

page 49 ter in the light of worldly honour, ^a of the precepts of the Bible, or the obedience which we owe to our Society, only one course of action presented itself.

Having thus delivered our views, we would indulge the hope that you will recognise our motives; and I hear that the spirit of self-sacrifice is as strong now as it was in the early days of your missionary life.

I am directed to forward the accompanying Resolutions and Questions for your perusal.

The first set of Resolutions comprise our decision in your case, and that of Mr. Clarke.

The second refer to the publication of Governor Grey's despatch of June 25, 1846, and his private letter to the Bishop, of August 30, 1847.

The Committee request that you will forward an answer direct to the Parent Committee on each question specifically, and send me a copy of such answers.

Robert Maunsell.

Provisional Secretary. To Archdeacon Henry Williams.

The Resolutions of the Committee of Correspondence of June 26, 1848, having removed all doubt of the views of the C. M. Society on the Land Question, you are requested to state whether you are prepared to resign into the hands of any agent that the Committee may appoint all grants for land purchased by you or on your account from the native population, beyond the maximum of 2560 acres, such lands to be appropriated to any purpose that the Parent Committee may appoint. ^b

Resolutions of the Central Committee on Mr. Clarke's reply :—

Resolved—

I. That this Committee are of opinion that the Governor's proceedings in no way affected the pledge given by Mr. Clarke, September 1847.

II. That when a decision in Mr. Clarke's favour; was received from the Supreme Court, a stronger obligation then rested on him to fulfil his pledge by surrendering his surplus lands.

III. That this Committee therefore deeply regret to find that though the Referees appointed by the Home Committee had given their decision—though five of the senior Missionaries had pressed the acceptance of that decision—and though Mr. Clarke had pledged himself to abide by it, on the sole proviso of these surplus lands being appropriated to the benefit of the native population, Mr. Clarke should have hastened, before the receipt of an answer from home, to assign over those lands to his own family.

The Committee are of opinion that the Governor's proceedings in no way affected the pledge given by Mr. Clarke, in September, 1847. I will not allow myself to comment upon a Resolution which flies so deliberately in the face of facts. Mr. Clarke had pledged himself to resign the deeds, on condition that the land should be held in trust by the Church of England for the benefit of the Natives. Governor Grey rejected this condition; nevertheless, the Committee record an opinion that "the Governor's proceedings in no way affected the pledge !"

In what manner the decision of the Supreme Court strengthened Mr. Clarke's obligation to fulfil his pledge, the Committee are careful not to explain.

The Third Resolution only goes to show that the Committee had not forgotten Mr. Clarke's condition, when they agreed upon the First.

Resolutions on Archdeacon Henry William's case.

Resolved—I. That this Committee regret to perceive that Archdeacon Henry Williams with-drawn the pledge signed by him, September, 1847—that they are clearly of opinion that nothing has transpired in this island that could relieve Archdeacon Henry Williams from the obligations of that pledge. That this Committee, therefore, must repeat in this case the decision they have come to with respect to Mr. Clarke.

II. That in order that the Parent Committee may have the case up to this date fairly before them, the questions put to Mr. Clarke be forwarded to Archdeacon Henry Williams, and that he be requested to send an answer direct to the Parent Committee, and a copy of that answer to the Provisional Secretary.

Questions put respecting the publication of the Despatches.

1. Have you been in any way accessary to the supplying a copy of Governor Grey's Despatch of June 25, 1846, ^c to the Editor of the Southern Cross; or to any other person by whom it could have been so supplied?

2. Have you been in any way accessary to the supplying a copy of Governor Grey's letter to the Bishop, of August 30, 1847, to the Editor of the Southern Cross, or to any other person by whom it could have been supplied?

The Committee are of opinion that nothing had transpired that could relieve Archdeacon Henry

^a It is disheartening to see such ingenuity displayed by Christian men, in finding out the point through which they might inflict the sharpest pain. Like Paris, of greater craft than courage, they would have found means to pierce the heel of Achilles. The earlier years of Archdeacon Henry Williams' life had been spent in the service of his King, where he acquired that sensitiveness to questions affecting his personal honour, which afterwards disenabled him from giving way, so long as the imputations which had been cast upon it should be unremoved. A more upright, a higher minded, or a braver man than Archdeacon Henry Williams—I speak upon the knowledge of many years—it was never yet my chance to meet. And yet, with a feeling which in laymen I should characterize by a harsher term, do this Committee select the reproach which beyond all others would be galling and offensive. The tone of the proceedings is ungenerous, from first to last : a kicking—if not of the dead Lion, at least of the Lion that was thought to be dead.

^b The Society had designated three modes, in one of which the land was to be disposed of; the Governor a fourth; the Bishop a fifth : and now the Central Committee insist upon a sixth.

^c The Despatch which goes by the name of "Blood and Treasure." The following observations, extracted from a letter to the southern Cross, will throw light upon the Question:—

"The Missionary Crown titles were the main obstacles to Sir George's cherished scheme for recovering to the Government thegreater portion of such lands as had been purchased by Europeans directly from the aborigines. The high character of the Missionary body, which had been only enhanced by the unsuccessful attempt to impugn it, after the destruction of Kororareka; the large consideration that had been given by them in purchase, and the love of the Natives for their teachers, combined to render these grants almost impregnable. But His Excellency, confident in his own fertility of resource, decided upon venturing an attack. With a mastery hand he traced out the plan of a campaign. Its main feature consisted in placing the Missionary body between two fires—reproaches from home, and native discontent; the one consequent upon forged imputations of having originated the war, the other to be fomented by an appeal to cupidity, the master passion of the Maori mind.

"The first of the two objects was clearly attainable by nice management of his own correspondence with Downing-street. A series of Despatches was accordingly brought to bear against the Grantees, which, for subtlety, and daring untruth, are without a parallel in Colonial history. From broad calumny down to insidious suggestion, from overt attack down to the petit coup de langue, nothing was spared; confidential communications were indited, for the reception of such statements as could not face publication in the Blue Book; the great work of disparagement, owing to the Missionaries being ignorant of what was being transacted behind the scenes, was going on triumphantly, when the colony was startled by the apparition of the famous 'Blood and Treasure' Despatch. This, although marked 'private,' had been communicated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to Governor Grey's bitter vexation and dismay. The Missionary Grantees, although long since made aware, by the use which had been made of the letters found in Ruapekapeka Pa that they were objects of His Excellency's especial enmity, were not prepared for so scandalous a deviation from truth; nor was it till now that they were made aware of the battle being a l'outrance, and that it behoved them to make a stand without delay.

* * * * * * * * * *

"By whom was the Despatch given for publication? Unless I much mistake the character of Archdeacon Henry Williams, he would never allow such a question to be put to him—formally, at all events. But there is no cause why I should consider myself as under restraint, and therefore take upon me to assert that the Archdeacon did not contrive the insertion of it in any newspaper whatever. Sir George's charge is nothing more than one of his own ceaseless attempts at detraction. He cannot shelter himself under the plea of mistake; the statement is more than mistaken—it is deceptive. For he who affirms a fact, likewise affirms his own knowledge of that fact: but Governor Grey could not have known what actually was not the case. As one aware of the manner in which that Despatch did find its way to a local journal, I challenge His Excellency to the proof. Now is His Excellency's opportunity, if he can make good his written words, to throw discredit upon every assertion that I make : no small gain to him, if he succeed; for I have earned the right to feel that my assertions, on points of fact, are held conclusive.

"Governor Grey must be possessed of more than common assurance, to complain, unblushingly that others besides the Missionaries should have been suffered to peruse his confidential Despatch. What less could he have expected from men so grossly accused? Would he have had them meekly kiss the rod, or, with knowledge of the poison, suffer it to work? Would he have had them give colour to his own charges, by abetting the concealment of them? He who gave that despatch to the world, rendered a public service. He gave the first check to that system of detraction which was taking such vigorous development, and cast an incipient shade upon what had been already uttered. Secrecy at least, so far as the style of warfare was concerned, was got rid of, and the attack could now be met in open day. Up to this time the Missionaries had contended with one who had 'the receipt of fern seed, and walked invisible,' striking where he listed. But they are not the first who have been so dealt with : such things have been before.

"'I beseech thee, Eugenius,' quoth Yorick, taking off his night cap as well as he could with his left hand—his right being still grasped close in that of Eugenius—' I beseech thee to take a view of my head.' 'I see nothing that ails it,' replied Eugenius. 'Then, alas ! my friend,' said Yorick, 'let me tell you that it is so bruised and mis-shaped with the blows which have been so unhandsomely given in the dark, that I might say with Sancho Panza, that, should I recover, and mitres thereupon be suffered to rain down from heaven as thick as hail, not one of them would fit it.' "—Letter concerning the Despatches, No. VIII.

page 50 Williams from the obligation of his pledge: in other words, they profess to be unaware of Governor Grey's refusal to fulfil the condition upon which the pledge was given. Is it to the guidance of these that laymen are expected to commit themselves?

The Committee wish to know by whom the despatch was given to the Southern Cross, But whence do they derive their right to ask? The act was perfectly legitimate; and being legitimate, no longer concerns them. I am not at liberty to say who did : the Archdeacon's word must be taken for it that he did not. Governor Grey affirms the contrary; but in a conflict of personal testimony the Governor's word must not be taken against the Archdeacon's. He who made public the contents of that despatch, in New Zealand, performed a duty to the community—a duty which had been already performed by the Society in England, though not with equal fairness to Governor Grey; for the Society, instead of giving the whole, had given the more objectionable portions only.

With regard to the privacy of the Despatch, every one acquainted with the practice of the Colonial Office is aware that the word "private," written on a Despatch, is not necessarily a bar to publication, but a caution merely. For there is no abstract right of privacy to any official correspondence on public matters. It is public property, to be dealt with according to convenience; wherefore publication repeatedly does take place, without permission of the writer, and without complaint. Lord Grey'S transmission of the document to a public body would alone have sufficed to raise the seal of privacy. ^a

The Committee wish to ascertain the means by which the Governor's letter to the Bishop found publication in the Southern Cross. But whence, I ask again, do they derive their right to ask? For the cession of a copy, if the act of a Missionary, would have been perfectly legitimate. The letter was written for the Missionaries, and was communicated to the Missionaries, not by the Bishop, but through the Bishop, in accordance with the writer's

^a But it was transmitted, says Mr. Venn, in confidence: implying that the Secretary of State stipulated with a public body for privacy; and admitting, that the said public body by publishing portions of the despatch, abused his Lordships confidence. This is not easy to believe. The question is easily settled, by reference to the official letter, with which the despatch was enclosed to the Society.

page 51 unconditional request, as expressed by the letter itself; and immediately became the property of the Missionaries, individually and collectively, as much as if it had been directed to them. This was pointed out by myself to the Bishop, at the time; and the validity of the argument was not denied. Nevertheless, his Lordship on a subsequent occasion, did not refrain from commenting upon the divulgement of a letter "without the consent of the writer, or of the party to whom it was addressed." We must suppose that the external address alone was in his Lordship's thoughts. ^a

With regard to the questions, Archdeacon Henry Williams simply demanded the Committee's authority to put them.

He subsequently wrote (Jan. 1, 1850) to Mr. Maunsell, recapitulating the proceedings from the first.

The letter is long : I shall therefore extract such portions as bear more immediately upon the Resolutions of the Central Committee.

* * Of the nefarious proceedings of Govemor Grey the members of your Committee were fully aware. You knew that his allegations, bitterly reflecting on certain members of the Missionary body, were fabulous. You knew that in no case could his Excellency be borne out in his reiterated statements. You knew that no attempt in any quarter had been made to prove anything, though undertaken to be proved,—though from the date of the Sanguinary Despatch, June 25, 1846, three and a half years have passed away. You knew "that these land purchases" had not "been the cause of insurrection." You knew that no disputed title had been produced. You knew the of inviting natives to dispute titles, though long established—that serious and dangerous evils might be apprehended from encouragement given to the cupidity of so excitable a people, arising from the nature of the Governor's communication with the chiefs in the Bay of Islands, Sept., 1847, as set forth in his Excellency's letter to the Bishop of August 30, 1847, that he should thus explain to the Chiefs, though he could not do this without inflicting great injury upon the influence of the Mission." "Possibly," his Excellency observes, "I might even injure deeply our common faith." ^a

These last words express his Excellency's determination, at all hazards; and shew that his cause was bad to require such severe terms. You knew that the sons of the denounced Missionaries were in actual possession of the land disputed by Governor Grey. You knew that this entirely arose from political motives alone, as shown in our letter to the Bishop of Jan. 7, 1848, and that the real object with the Government was not "to restore the land to the Natives," as no instance of the kind has yet been known of any land having been given back to them after their title became extinguished, and you also knew the mark of approbation expressed by Governor FitzRoy in Council and confirmed by the Council June 12, 1844, given as the ground for the issuing of this grant to me. * * * Yet with the knowledge of these facts, you pass the above Resolutions, though you knew that the pledge in each case had been set aside by his Excellency alone.

To reply to your queries proposed, Nos. 1 and 2, I should consider to be a degradation to my station. The substance, in the most objectionable parts of that Despatch, had been embodied in the letter of March 1, 1847, from the Church Missionary Society, and appeared in the Blue Book for 1847, though the Despatch entire did not. I received communication of these despatches in January, 1847, which could alone have come from the Colonial Secretary's Office in Auckland, This I communicated to the Bishop by letter of November 30, 1848, read in your Committee. The question also had been before the Northern District Committee, and met by them in their meeting of December 27, 1848, of which also you were fully aware, inasmuch as the minutes of that meeting had been read in the Central Committee. But for your information, I will repeat what I gave to the Church Missionary Society in a letter of August 31, 1848.

^a Governor Grey, on the occasion of a dispute with the Bishop, threatened to quit the Church of England, of which he bad supposed himself to be. His Lordship might have answered, with Francisco, For this relief, much thanks."

page 53

"You appear to charge us with furnishing the press here with a copy of Governor Grey's Despatch of June 25, 1846, which is incorrect. True, we were not very careful to withhold it from the sight of many, it was so great a curiosity—a cunningly devised fable. It was therefore seen by very many before it appeared in publication, and we consider that it was a most providential circumstance that it did come before the public. But the great objection which has been put forth seems to have given weight and importance to it, and to prove its own condemnation as incapable of enduring the light. The only tangible reason therefore against this Despatch being brought to the light, was its being of too infamous a character to stand the test of inspection."

I also gave a similar reply to the Bishop upon this same subject, in my letter of November 30.

With these facts before you, and rejected by your Committee, what conclusion can any impartial person come to !

Since the receipt of your letter of April last, I have received information by letter, on good authority, that the Despatch of August 30, 1847, was provided, directly or indirectly, by the Bishop's private chaplain.

The feeling towards us, which has been put forth by the Parent Committee, and the Provisional Committee, during these many months of severe trial and perplexity, justifies my belief that had we been impeached, as contemplated, for treason, the same want of sympathy would have been exhibited. As I see, therefore, a general confederation against us, and a determination to exclude investigation, it is my intention not to close this case until I do fully lay open to view these pusillanimous proceedings. The Parent Committee may possess a power arbitrarily to disconnect my further services—a point I shall not dispute with them; but their right to destroy my reputation I shall dispute. I have written to the Secretary of State, and contemplate doing so to the President of the Church Missionary Society. I shall maintain my position and rank in society, obliging all to speak, if aught to say; and will myself vindicate the proceedings of the calumniated New Zealand Missionaries, and the honour of the Church Missionary Society, in fearlessly meeting every attack,—and in so doing, exercise a right which is the duty of a Christian Missionary. * *

The following is the Committee's account of its own proceedings, as rendered by their Provisional Secretary :—

Tauranga,

18th April, 1849.

Enclosed with this you will receive copies of certain proceedings of the last Central Committee.

You will see from them that our Secretary being involved in the main question there treated on, the Committee considered that he should not be called upon to write upon them officially to you. They therefore appointed a Provisional Secretary to discharge that duty, until we receive your final decision.

You will see that the Resolutions refer to three subjects. First, the land retained by the Missionaries beyond the amount fixed by the Referees named by you. Secondly, the publication of certain documents in the country. And thirdly, the heavy expenditure at present connected with our Secretarial department.

The intimate bearing that the first of these subjects has upon our character and operations, and the duty we owe as your representatives, constrained this Committee, however reluctant, to enter upon its consideration. They indulge also a hope, that an authoritative opinion from them would place the members concerned in anew and better position, by shewing that irrespective of the extraneous questions with which that subject had been mixed up, there were other reasons on which compliance should be yielded.

The Committee therefore determined to waive all considerations foreign to the main question, and to view it simply on Missionary grounds, as a matter on which the appointed Referees had given their award, on which the two leading Land Claimants had given pledges, and on which you had pronounced a clear decision.

You will see the Committee's question to Mr. Clarke on the surrender of the surplus lands. Mr. Clarke's reply you will find in the minutes, with our Resolution thereon, and Archdeacon William Williams' protest against the Resolution.

Our opinion was unaltered by either the reply or the protest. We disclaim all knowledge of any stipulation expressed or understood, beyond the one proviso contained in the pledge itself. ^a

No subsequent correspondence or proceeding of a third party could, we consider, have diminished the strength of assurance given to us. ^b Neither are we aware of any additional facts that could alter our view of the case. On the contrary, the Committee consider that when the Crown Grants were declared to be valid, and the honour of the purchasers thus vindicated,^c an additional reason was Imposed upon the Land Claimants to shew to all, that having gained this point, the mere possession of land was not their object. We think it right to state that the chief ground on which we urged on the Land Claimants in September, 1847, the proposal of the Governor, was the intricate position to which the Mission would have been reduced, if, at that particular juncture, they had refused compliance.

^a "We disclaim all knowledge of what we knew right well.

^b What was the strength of that assurance?

^c In what manner did the decision of the Supreme Court vindicate the honour of the Mission? The dishonouring charge was this :—that the Grantees, by means of religious influence, had pillaged the "suffering and complaining Natives;" that they had provoked rebellion, and been accessory to the shedding of blood. From this charge they are held to be exonerated by the Chief Justice's decision, that in making certain grants, Governor FitzRoy had not contravened a certain ordinance. But the argument is more than inconclusive; for it is contradictory. Surrender it now required on the ground of legality; it had been formerly required on the ground of illegality. Does not this recal the fable of the Satyr and the Traveller—the blowing hot and blowing cold? But the argument is more than contradictory; for it is unfaithful. Why do the Committee suppress the fact of the decision being neutralised by an appeal which replaced the families of the Grantees in the former position? For what the Court had done, the Governor had undone. Why, again, do they suppress the fact of the families having agreed, in a spirit of extreme conciliation, to meet Hit Excellency's wishes; and of the agreement having been frustrated by His Excellency's notice of appeal?

page 54

Archdeacon Henry Williams' letter we presume^a to be a reply to the Bishop's letter, forwarding the Resolutions of the Corresponding Committee. This was sent by the Bishop to the Committee; it is forwarded in this parcel to you. Upon this and other documents we decline further remarks.

The aforesaid Questions and Resolutions I will forward to Archdeacon Henry Williams immediately, and will request him to send an answer immediately to you. The same step I will take with Mr. Kemp, who, as Mr. King is now retired from the Mission, is the only other member of our body that has not acceded to the aforesaid proposal. ^b

Our attention was drawn by your letter to the publication, in one of the local newspapers, of a despatch of Governor Grey's. We were also reminded of a publication in the same newspaper of a private letter on the Land Claims from the Governor to the Bishop, and by the Bishop shewn to the Missionaries.^c Deeply feeling as we do the odium that must attach to our body from such proceedings, we endeavoured to ascertain whether any of our Members had been a party to the publication of either of these documents; with that view we framed the accompanying questions. You will see by the minutes that each member present denied any participation in such proceedings. I will forward also the questions to Archdeacon Henry Williams and Mr. Baker, the only other Missionaries then in Auckland, that they may have an opportunity of forwarding their disclaimer direct to you.

The heavy expenditure connected with the Secretary's department had for some time engaged the attention of your Missionaries. Reduced as is now most seriously our Missionary force, curtailed as has been our income from year to year, we have thought it unwise that such a large portion of that income should be absorbed in duties not directly Missionary; especially as there is but little prospect of the Society s lands being made available for meeting the expenses connected with that department. We found, moreover, that serious inconvenience and expenses had been incurred in various particulars in consequence of our agent not being resident in Auckland or its vicinity; and on these grounds framed the accompanying Resolution.

You will see that this Committee have not felt themselves called upon, by your communication, to take any other step in the matter here brought before you, than that of merely expressing their opinion. Having thus discharged this duty, they leave the whole question for the final decision of the Parent Committee.

R. Maunsell,

Provisional Secretary of Central Committee.

To the Secretaries of the
Church Missionary Society.

One single paragraph in Mr. Maunsell's letter may characterize the whole.

"We disclaim all knowledge of any stipulation, expressed or understood, beyond the one proviso contained in the pledge itself."

The sentence betrays its Irish origin, but the meaning is clear enough; that the Committee would recognise nothing but the naked pledge, disjoined from the accompanying condition.^d

To those who are not yet conversant with the hidden springs of action in New Zealand—with the nature of the means by which Governor Grey has endeavoured to attain his ends, this wilful blindness may seem incredible. It suffices for the present to observe, that His Excellency's favourite policy—the divide at imperes, handled with consummate art, and sustained by the many resources which an arbitrary Government can supply, had effected a thorough disentegration of the Mission. ^e The Committee, saving one, were content to grind in Cæsar's mill : eager to conciliate the powers that be, they lent their aid in bearing down the man who had hewed them out an entry to the work,—the leader of the Mission, for the sin of having vindicated the Mission from the aspersions of Governor Grey. But they chose a time to fall upon him when he was already hard beset.

Curramus præcipites, et

Dum jacet in ripa, calcemus Kaisaris hostem.

It thus appears, in recapitulation of the Sixth Period—

That the Governor had effected a division in the Missionary ranks;

That certain of the Governor's party had summoned their brethren to an unconditional surrender;

And that their right of summons was not acknowledged.

We now come to the period of the Society's

Condemnatory Resolutions.

These were confirmed by the Parent Committee, November 30, 1849, and published by the Bishop in the New Zealander, with the following observations.

To the Editor of the New Zealander.

June 25, 1850.

Sir,—My attention has been directed to the publication in your paper (15th June, 1850,) of a single Resolution of the Church Missionary Society, detached from the series of six to which it belongs. I enclose a copy of the whole series, for those who may be interested in the question; and I have further to add, that I shall be ready to allow any person to read the whole of the correspondence on the same subject which has passed through my hands.^a

I remain. Sir,

Your obedient servant,

G. A. New Zealand.

They will no longer excite surprise. The Parent Committee, avoiding facts as carefully as if walking the ordeal among red-hot ploughshares, substitute certain questions of their own superstition, and upon these are the Grantees condemned.

Resolved—

I. That in adjudicating upon the case of Archdeacon Henry Williams, the Committee do not lose sight of his long and valuable services to the cause of the Gospel in the past twenty-six years, nor of the fact that his augmented grants were made to him by the Governor (Fitz Roy) in Council, as an honourable testimony to his extraordinary services for the good of the colony.

That adverting to the refusal of Archdeacon Henry Williams to accede to the proposal ^b submitted to him by the Governor of New Zealand and the Bishop, and declared by the five members of the Central Committee ^c in New Zealand, on the 13th September, 1847, who were acting as the representatives of the Society on the spot, to be in conformity ^d with the views of the Parent Committee, namely, that he should resign his extended grants above the maximum of 2560 acres; notwithstanding that he had deliberately given both to the Bishop and to his brethren, on September 13, 1847, his written consent ^e to the proposal; and notwithstanding, also, that he had received, in November, 1848, the unequivocal declaration of the Parent Committee that his continued refusal ^f would be regarded by them as a dissolution, on his part, of his connexion with the Society;—adverting also to the many hindrances and evils which his unhappy contention for his extensive land claims ^g has brought upon the cause of Missions;—the Committee are reluctantly compelled to declare the connexion to be

^a I applied, in accordance with the term, of this notice, for permission toread; a manuscript volume, which did not contain "the whole," was supplied to me without remark. This omission of important documents from the Bishop's collection, together with a serious mis-statement which then for the first time met my eye, was the cause of the present work being resolved upon.

^b By the Resolutions of 1848, the Archdeacon was required to renew his assent to the Bishop's proposal. He is now condemned for refusing to comply with the Governor's proposal. To have complied with both proposais—i. e. to return the surplus land to the Natives, and to surrender it to the Crown, was impossible.

^c The Central Committee had not met on September 13, 1847: the Five Brethren did not act as representatives of the Society, having no authority to do so; the Society had even expressly declared that the Local Committees were "in no way concerned in the case."

^d The Five Brethren merely expressed their approbation of Mr. Clarke's and the Archdeacon's pledges, with the separate conditions attached thereto. No one had as yet attempted to disjoin the Archdeacon's condition from his pledge. The Bishop gave his approval to the conditions by consenting to sit as Chairman of the Central Committee, which he had refused to do until he should be satisfied.

^e Nothing can excuse this deliberate sinking of the Archdeacon's condition, with which the Committee had by this time been made fully acquainted. It is needless to re-open a question already so fully explained.

Touching upon a minor point, it may be observed that the stress laid by the Committee upon the Archdeacon's "written consent" leaves a disagreeable impression on the mind; as if they deemed it a more heinous offence to break a written than a verbal promise. I have accustomed myself to think the contrary, for the reason that a verbal promise is more difficult to enforce. The latter should be considered as a debt of honour.

^f "His continued refusar'—to surrender land which was not his own to give. The Committee are bound to show how this might have been done. Possibly they may have thought, by stringent measures with the Grantees, to force the children into rendering back the land to the parents, who could then surrender it to the Crown. If so, why not openly and boldly have required the children so to act? Did they fear to admit their knowledge of the children being in actual possession?

^g We have here a flagrant error of speech. The Archdeacon had no land claims to prefer, and consequently none to contend for; he did not even defend the action that was raised against him by Governor Grey. The following is his answer to the Writ :—

May 4, 1848.

Sir,—In obedience to a Writ from the Supreme Court, to show cause on the 10th of May instant why certain grants of land, in this colony, issued by Her Majesty to me in the year 1844, should not now be declared null and void; I have the honour to state, for the information of the Chief Justice, that, with unfeigned respect for the Court, it is not my intention to appear on that date, or to offer any opposition to the proceedings of the local Government; the point desired to be ascertained by it being the legality of certain acts of the predecessor in office of the present Governor, a subject in which I, individually, have no interest, either in the grants or in the lands which they convey, further than as Trustee and natural Guardian for my children. But as such Trustee, I beg most respectfully to record my Protest against their rights being infringed by any act of this Government.

Henry Williams.

To Thomas Outhwaite, Esq., Registrar of the Supreme Court.

The Committee's allegation of "hindrances and evils" following "his unhappy contention for his extensive land claims" should be characterized by a harsher name than I care to bestow upon it. The Archdeacon was attacked by the Bishop, was attacked by the Governor; he contended for character alone, and tendered the grants as a price for the testing of that character. Whatever should be the issue, the same payment was to be made. If Governor Grey's allegations against the Missionaries could be proved, the Archdeacon tell, and the acres with him. If they could not be proved, but were honourably withdrawn, he lost the acres still, but maintained his integrity. In what light do those appear who would deprive him of both?

page 56 dissolved between Archdeacon Henry Williams and the Church Missionary Society. ^a

III. That Archdeacon Henry Williams be allowed to draw his stipend for twelve months after the receipt in New Zealand of this Resolution, or for three months, with a passage home for himself, wife, and young children, should he wish to do so; but that the Northern Committee take immediate measures for receiving from Archdeacon Henry Williams all the property and documents of the Society which he may possess; and that they also make such provision for the spiritual duties of the Mission, under the sanction of the Bishop, as the case may require.

IV. that the foregoing Resolutions must ^b not be regarded as giving any countenance to the charges against Archdeacon Henry Williams, of which he complains in his correspondence, September and October, 1847, nor as contravening his declaration that he has acted upon his sense of what had been due to his own character,^c and to his family interest; ^d the Committee having only treated the question in reference to his connexion with the Church Missionary Society, and to the serious injuries ^e which have been inflicted on the work and reputation of the Society, by the extensive land claims of its Missionaries.

V. That while the Committee have felt themselves compelled to adopt the painful measure of terminating the connexion between Archdeacon Henry Williams and the Church Missionary Society, they venture to record their confident hope that the general interests of Christianity in New Zealand may not suffer loss by this measure, but will still receive the aid of the Archdeacon's experience and labour, as long as he shall continue to reside in that island.

VI. That these Resolutions be communicated to the Bishop of New Zealand, and that Earl Grey and Governor Grey be informed of the dissolution of the connexion between Archdeacon Henry Williams and the Church Missionary Society.^f

Hector Straith,

Secretary.

The sixth Resolution is the clue to the rest. Taken in connexion with Governor Grey's Despatches and the correspondence of the Colonial Office with the Society, it shews conclusively that these proceedings arose out of political expediency, and not from Missionary irregularities. Otherwise it could not have been deemed necessary that "Earl Grey and Governor Grey be informed of the dissolution of the connexion" between the Society and one of its Missionaries.

The Parent Committee, anxious as the Central Committee to conciliate the powers that be, had descended from spiritual to worldly action, and had lent their aid to the attainment of apolitical object. What was the nature of the temptation,—whether they felt flattered by the notice of a Secretary of State, or whether they had some presumed advantage in view, it will now be difficult to ascertain.

I doubt not but that they will strongly repudiate the imputation—that they have blinded themselves to the latent motives which originally induced them to abet the proceedings of the Colonial Office; but the chain of evidence is irresistible.

During a period of seventeen years, the Mis-

^a Quædam remedia sunt graviora periculis.

^b The Society's absolute "must" savours somewhat of the ludicrous. The Society's second Resolution did give countenance to Governor Grey's charges against Archdeacon Henry Williams, and, in fact, wants nothing but truth to be a strong corroboration of those charges. It has done him the greatest injury, and would be doing that injury still, but for the exertions of his many friends, who know the worth and sterling honesty of the man.

^c The reservation comes too late. It is painfully evident that the Committee entirely disregarded what was due to the Archdeacon's character when they declared that it was impossible to institute enquiries upon the subject.

^d Not one word, in plea for family interest," can be produced against the Archdeacon. He has confined himself on this point to a bare statement of facts;—that although the Crown grants were made out in his name by an act of the Government over which he had no control, the members of his family were the rightful owners of the land. The remark is as mischievously conceived as it is unfounded in fact, and the quiet, artistic manner of its introduction, at once betrays the spirit in which the Resolution was drawn up. The Committee should have been superior to the dealing of side blows.

^e These "serious injuries" have been inflicted upon the work, not by the Grantees, but by Governor Grey, and by the Society itself.

It is needless to recapitulate the acts by which Governor Grey proceeded to carry out his memorable expression, that possibly he might "even injure deeply our common faith it suffices to observe, that he was foiled within the Colony by the confidence which the native converts, who saw through his design, still maintained towards their teachers. But in England he had more success; the Society were easier of credence than the Aborigines, and brought an injury down upon their own heads which might have been avoided by grappling fearlessly with the question, and entering upon it with Christian faithfulness.

^f What right have the Parent Committee to stand between Archdeacon Henry Williams and the vindication of his character? what right have they to support Governor Grey in his refusal to perform an act of simple justice—in his rejection of the one condition, "substantiation or retractation," under which the land was offered for his acceptance? The Committee have made themselves parties to the suppression of truth: they have taken the burden of His Excellency's refusal upon themselves.

page 57 sionary land purchases are sanctioned and defended by the Society, ^a In the year 1847 the Parent Committee declare that their "attention is called to a new aspect of the case," by Governor Grey's Despatch, the tenor of which is exclusively political.

Upon this the Resolutions of 1847 are based.

We find the President of the Society corresponding with the Secretary of State for the Colonies; ^b Mr. Venn, privately as well as publicly, with Governor Grey; and "confidential" communications—so at least says Mr. Venn—passing between Downing-street and Salisbury-square.

We find Lord Grey declaring that he would not hesitate to dispossess the whole body of Missionaries of the property they had acquired," if the law would enable him "to proceed to so extreme a measure." The law is given against Lord Grey, and the Society hastens to the rescue, calling upon the Grantees to give up the deeds, the favourable judgment of the Supreme Court notwithstanding.

We find the Governor complaining that the grants embarrass his Government. The Society insists upon the cause of embarrassment being removed.

We find the Governor informing the Society that unless the old Missionaries be removed from the North, there will be no peace in that part of New Zealand, ^c The Society gives its virtual sanction to a political charge, by refusing to supply a copy of the letter, thereby hindering the Grantees from rebutting the charge.

We find the Bishop opening the contention at the request of Governor Grey, and see him so closely enmeshed by Governor Grey, as to be unable to withdraw from it. ^d

We find Mr. Labouchere expressing his thanks to the Bishop, in the House of Commons, for the supposed arrangement of a political question.

We find the Society, in its Jubilee volume, censuring the Missionary land purchasers, as the cause of "civil commotions."

And lastly, we find that the five first condemnatory Resolutions are given by the Secretaries to the Society, in a statement which will be presently examined; but that the sixth is silently omitted. For the writers felt the force of the admission contained therein.

It thus appears that the proceedings of the Society—taking the receipt of the Despatch called "Blood and Treasure" as a starting point, begin, continue, and end, politically. Ab ovo usque ad mala secular interference. ^e

We now come to the case of Mr. Clarke. The following is the letter by which bis disconnexion with the Society was notified :—

Church Mission House,

March 31, 1849.

1. The Committee have had under their consideration your various communications, in reference to the office assigned to you as Secretary of the Central Committee, and as Agent for the general maniement of the Society's land in New Zealand. They have observed with much regret the position into which you have been brought with respect to the Governor and the Bishop, in consequence of your land claims.

2. The Committee find from your letter of Sept. 2, 1848, that there are two formidable obstacles to the advantageous leasing of the land belonging to the Society :—first, in having no crown titles, and secondly, that the Missionary stations are generally unfavourable for trade and mercantile pursuits. The Committee had looked to you for the removal of the first of these obstacles, and had afforded every facility by sending a form for a trust deed ^a for the investment of the land, and the names of thirteen trustees, but as yet the Committee find that nothing has been done ^b to effect this object. They are aware that several applications have been made by you to the Government on the subject, yet they think that if direct personal efforts at the government office in Auckland had been persevered in, the real difficulties of the case would have been overcome.

3. The Committee have received only one Report from you since your appointment on the 8th Sept. 1846, ^c of the state of the buildings and property of the Society, which is dated Waimate, Sept. 1, 1847; it refers only to the lands and buildings close to your own immediate residence, and does not even embrace the whole of the northern district, nor all the information the Committee would have desired, and no statement has reached the Committee of the condition of the property ^d in the middle, eastern or western district.

4. It does not appear that you have attended the quarterly meetings of the local district committees except in the northern district, since your appointment, as it was requested you would have done by the Committee's minutes of September 8, 1846. ^e

5. The Committee also observe that all the secular business of the Society at Auckland, ^f has devolved upon the Rev. G. A. Kissling, such as the providing for and sending home Mr. Stack and family, Mrs. Reay and child, &c., which duties would properly belong to the general agent of the Society, but which you cannot discharge while residing on your own property ^g in the north.

6. The Resolutions of the Parent Committee of Feb. 22, 1847, state that the Missionaries in New Zealand shall abide by the decision of the Governor and Bishop, as to the amount of land that they are to hold, and fixed this decision at 2560 acres. The Committee find that you have allowed your claims for more extended grants to be tried by the Civil Courts in New Zealand. They cannot but regard that act ^h as contrary to the simple arid definite meaning of the minute of Feb, 22, 1847, ⁱ and that you have thus placed yourself in circumstances most unfavourable for carrying on the duties of your office with advantage to the interests of the Society.

7. Having given these subjects full consideration, the Committee regret that they are obliged to state to you, that you have in their opinion incapacitated yourself from serving the interest of the Society in the efficient manner that is absolutely necessary under the trying and difficult circumstances of the New Zealand Mission.

8. Under these circumstances the Committee have resolved that your connexion with the Church Missionary Society shall cease in one year after you receive this communication.

H. Venn,

H. Straith,

Secretaries C.M.S.

Mr. George Clarke,

Sec. Central Committee.

The four first reasons for dissolution of connexion are evidently pressed into support of the fifth. This, the actual reason—the refusal to surrender the deeds, unless the surplus land should be held in trust for the Natives,—comes last in order. I should scarcely have been surprised at finding it in

^a A form for a Trust Deed—for land not yet possessed.

^b Much had been done by Mr. Clarke, though nothing by the Government; frequent "personal efforts" had been made, but the Government was found impracticable.

^c Mr. Clarke's appointment was dated September 8, 1846; notice was received in New Zealand June, 1847; the first report drawn up September 8, 1847. A most elaborate report, for 1848, was duly forwarded, and has been extensively quoted by the Society.

^d The property of the Society in the middle, eastern, and western districts, consists merely in houses, besides a piece of waste land at Tauranga; "the property" alluded to is confined to the northern district.

^e The imperfect means of travelling in New Zealand must be considered. Unfailing attendance, together with punctual performance of his remaining duties, was impossible.

^f Mr. Clarke was required to attend quarterly meetings at each district, as well as to conduct "the secular business of the Society at Auckland;" it was therefore impossible for him to remain any length of time in Auckland. Mr. Clarke was in Auckland on one of these two occasions, but no application was made to him.

^g Mr. Clarke had no landed property, and therefore could not be residing on his own property in the North. The farm of the Waimate was put into his special charge, and the district pointed out by the estimate for his salary is the northern district : Auckland is in the middle district.

^h What act? Mr. Clarke was passive—he did notact.

ⁱ There was but one opinion among the legal profession in New Zealand, concerning the "definite meaning of that minute. But the Society appear to hold the double doctrine—the disciplina arcuni; framing exoteric instructions for their brethren at the Antipodes, with an exoteric meaning for the initiated at Salisbury Square.

page 59 a postscript. And even this reason is unfairly stated. Why is no mention made of Mr. Clarke's compliance with the Governor's terms, as expressed in his Excellency's letter to the Bishop, of August 30. Having an end to serve, the Committee were pre-determined to make a case. They would have called Mr. Clarke to account for troubling the water while drinking below them in the stream.

Had they restricted themselves, indeed, to the consideration of legitimate evidence, they could not have shewn even the semblance of a pretext for Mr. Clarke's dismissal. It afterwards appeared, that for lack of an open charge, the Committee had fallen back upon secret information. For when the case was re-opened by Mr. Marsh and Archdeacon William Williams, a letter was produced, in which Mr. Clarke was accused of having neglected his public duties. This letter, being private, could not be quoted.

Here we come to the root of the mischief, to the fons et origo malorum. It is the listening to whisperings—the craving for sub sigillo information, that has ruined the New Zealand Mission.^a Secret communications, prompted by local jealousies, have issued from the colony in almost uninterrupted stream, and have been encouraged by those to whom they were addressed. Larger hearted men would have drawn back from such evidence by an instinct of aversion; men of the world would have cast such evidence aside from experience of its little worth; and scripture readers should have remembered that "he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest." ^b

The Bishop had assured Mr. Venn, that the Grantees would "outrage public opinion," if they refused to give up the deeds. Public opinion has indeed been outraged, but not by the Grantees. At Kororareka—the destruction of which had been attributed to treasonable practices of Archdeacon Henry Williams, the excitement occasioned by his dismissal was intense. The members of his congregation assembled forthwith, and presented the following address :—

May 31, 1850.

Reverend and dear Sir,—Astonished and grieved at the unexpected termination of your valuable labours among us, we cannot allow you to leave Paihia without the expression of our deep sympathy with you, and our strong sense of the value of those exertions which, in connexion with the Church Missionary Society, have exercised so beneficial an interest upon the country around us during the last twenty-seven years.

Neither would we omit to hold a grateful remembrance of the many disinterested services performed ministerially for all classes of your countrymen, nor the readiness with which your extensive influence with the Natives has ever been exercised to assist the industrious settlers by the promotion of peace, order, and good will among them. That influence we feel assured will, under all circumstances, still be as ever used for the benefit of the government and country.

It would have been a source of much gratification to be permitted to present you with some little memorial of our regard, but this pleasure, we trust, is only deferred. In the meantime, our affectionate interest will accompany you to the sphere of your future ministrations, with heartfelt prayer that the best blessings may attend you and your estimable family, and that when called to resign your chaise upon earth, you may be enabled to say with St. Paul, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day." We bid you heartily farewell, and remain with the deepest sentiments of esteem,

Reverend and dear Sir,

Your obedient Servants,

[Here follow the Signatures.]

The Venerable Archdeacon Henry Williams.

Public opinion in Auckland was in accordance with the following letter, received by the Archdeacon from the leading barrister in the Province, at present the Speaker of the Provincial Council :—

Auckland,

12th June, 1850

My dear Archdeacon,—We have learnt with regret the determination of the Church Missionary Society in England, and your withdrawal from Paihia, a spot where you have spent many happy and useful days,—a spot associated with many pleasing recollections of children, and much of what we hold in life as most dear.

We may bend, but must not sink under earthly afflictions. 'Tis not in human nature to suppose you unaffected by this blow. Although you will bear your sorrows as becomes a man, you must also feel them as one. In honest truth, I for one think that you could not have done otherwise than you have done; in other words, I would have acted precisely in the same maimer.

It wits not the value of the land, but the principle of its retention, which constituted the question. My opinion always was, that whilst there existed the slightest imputation, or shadow even of imagination that your conduct was subject to question or admitted of doubt, you could not, consistently with your duty to yourself, to your children, or to the Society with which you were connected, relinquish a foot of ground. I still retain that opinion.

Of the precise grounds on which the Society have come to their decision, or in what terms that decision has been expressed, I am ignorant; but have heard that their intimation was not of an unkindly character. A remembrance of your labours and services, and a feeling of their own character as Christians, would, I trust, prevent any net of an ungracious description. I have not heard one syllable of unkindness expressed towards you here. Men may differ, and probably will differ, but I have not heard the slightest exultation. I have heard a strong expression of sympathy. I do not think you are a man at all likely to give up an opinion once formed, without what muy appear good reason for doing so.

Our excellent friends,___,___, myself, and others, thought that you would have compromised your character if you had yielded. I now see no course remaining but one of firmness, and of silent, dignified, and respectful acquiescence in the decision.

Time may develop many facts which possibly may place matters in a different position; but whatever betides, surrender of a foot of ground would be a surrender of honour. Your time in life, like my own, cannot he very long; the members of your family (sons) are exerting themselves honourably to achieve independence. They will not want for any thing.

You have the consolation of seeing their approval of your conduct; not a mere acquiescence on the ground of duty, but the approving judgment of their minds. I confess I did not anticipate that affairs would have assumed their present position, but we all saw that such a result was possible. The imputations cast upon you, and your very proper refusal to give way until withdrawal, the decision of the Supreme Court operating so strongly in your favour, and what I cannot overlook—your long, often dangerous, and alway energetic labours, did lead my mind to think that the result would have been different.

I still think the Society must labour under some great misapprehension.

You have, however, to deal with things as they are, not what they might have been; and without under-rating the painfulness of the infliction, I greatly mistake your character if you give way under it. Nothing but consciousness of crime, ought to cause us to sink : there has not been crime; there may have been a degree of error, but an error of the Society's own creation. And I think with St. Paul, that a man is worse than an infidel, and hath denied the faith, who does not take reasonable care of his own household.

Did you do more than any other prudent and affectionate parent would have done, viz.—place your children in a position not to be burdensome to society, or to suffer destitution. But we have so often canvassed this matter, that I shall not resume or pursue it.

Now, my dear Archdeacon, I trust you will not think this letter obtrusive, or presuming; I mean kindly, and trust that your usefulness will not be impared, although under somewhat different circumstances than formerly. May that family for whom you have dona much, and suffered much, prove a blessing to you.

With kindest respects to Mrs. Williams, and you all, in which my family join :—believe me to be, dear Mr. Archdeacon, yours ever faithfully

T. H. Bartley.

The Venerable Arch. Henry Williams.

On Saturday, the 23 of May, Archdeacon Henry Williams received intelligence of his dismissal. "On the Friday following"—I borrow Mr. Busby's words—"he left Paihia, the station he had planted twenty-seven years before, and which had been the cradle of the Mission, amidst the tears of his people of both races. Those who were present can testify that this is not a mere form of expression, but a literal truth. On the Sunday following he was doing the work of an Evangelist in the barn of his sons at Pakaraka, where they had already commenced preparations towards the erection of a chapel for his future ministrations; and to the neighbourhood of which place several of the tribes who have been accustomed to attend his ministry have expressed their intention to remove."

Mr. King, the oldest member of any of the Society's Missions, reckoning more than forty years of service, was superannuated; that is,—he was permitted to continue the whole work, upon diminished pay. He still discharges his duties, with the same efficiency as ever.

Mr. Kemp was subsequently dismissed by the Central Committee. This being altogether beyond their powers, the Grantee was restored to his position by the Society. He was then permitted to resign, page 61 on a commutation for a retiring allowance.

It thus appears, in recapitulation of the Seventh Period—

That the Society, with every fact at last before it, had enforced the conditions of the Contradictory Resolutions;

And that the discarded Missionaries, seeking reward elsewhere, continued their labours as before.

We now arrive at the period of the Society's

Retributive Resolutions.

The proceedings of this Period took place in England : I therefore purposely condense them, having merely undertaken to recount what has fallen under my more immediate cognisance, within the Colony. Could Archdeacon William Williams be induced to make public his narrative of what took place, the gain to the cause, and the instruction to those members of the Society who do not take a leading part in its conduct, would be great. The wish for this, however, is stronger than the hope : his connexion with the Society, and his relationship, may possibly incline him to reserve.

The Parent Committee, which had taken for granted that the condemnation of the Grantees would set all at rest, found themselves at last upon their own trial. They had slept when they should have been watching, and were ashamed to confess; they had erred a little once, and having never taken courage to amend the error, had become involved almost irretrievably in difficulty. It now became a question, whether they should condemn themselves, or confirm the condemnation of the Grantees. Unfortunately, the Society was at once Plaintiff, Defendant, and Judge in the same cause. Tres personas una sustinuit; suam, adversarü, judicis. The result might have been anticipated. By one and the same act, the Committee acquitted themselves, and sacrificed the Grantees But one thing they forgot,—that the appeal to public opinion still remains. There, at least, the New Zealand Mission will meet with an impartial judge.

Archdeacon William Williams, overborne by the Central Committee, resolved upon pleading the cause of the Grantees in person, before the Society, He arrived in London within a few days of the Society's annual meeting, at which he was requested to speak. This he declined to do, on the ground of having a matter to lay before the Committee, which would not sit until after the meeting at Exeter Hall. He was much pressed to change his resolve, but being found immovable, was promised the first meeting of the Corresponding Committee. On the 20th May, 1852, he laid before them a statement relative to the charges of Governor Grey, which had, in point of fact, been countersigned by the Society. He then produced a large mass of evidence from Governor FitzRoy, Sir Everard Home, Captain Beckham, and others of the 400 who were conveyed to Auckland on the capture of Kororareka; from Colonel Despard's account as published in the United Service Journal; from the Bishop, Judge Martin, Tamati Waka Nene, and Honi Heke; concluding with a request that the Committee would vindicate the Mission from the Governor's charges, by publicly declaring their belief that the native war had not been caused by the Grantees. ^a The Committee were unwilling to admit that the Governors allegations had been countersigned by the Society, but-were ultimately made to perceive the fact. ^b

After some discussion, [the following Resolution

^a This declaration was a sine qua non with Archdeacon William Williams. He writes as follows:—

"It was exclusively the matter of character which brought me to this country [England], and had it not been for the full vindication given by the Committee on May 27th, recorded in their Resolution, printed in page 223 of their last report, I could not have remained in connexion with the Society."

Letter to the Earl of Chichester, Dec. 20, 1851.

^b The cause for the altered tone of my address to you, noticed in your letter, may be understood by the following particulars. You will not fail to call to mind that, throughout this strange affair,—notwithstanding that the imputations of Governor Grey have by us been openly met and refuted, and also that the late Governor FitzRoy had given evidence in our favour, in a plain contradiction of all Governor Grey had said to the prejudice of the Missionaries; notwithstanding the severity of public opinion expressed throughout New Zealand upon the dangerous and crafty despatches of Governor Grey, which will yet be established against himself, though suppressed by the Colonial Office,—that not one word of sympathy, assistance, or support in our difficulties has been offered by you in any form to men long tried and writhing under such weight of infamy, in no respect attempted to be established. Your letters also, particularly that of Dec. 20, 1848, in which severe terms of condemnation are used upon a charge which had been denied by me and explained to you : yet this deceitful and designing character, but of yesterday, of whom nothing sterling is known, is set forth in your Reports in most exalted terms, for the frank declaration of his artful sayings against the Missionaries, giving your passive confirmation to the charges set forth—that we were the cause of the war and all its attendant evils, with other extravagant charges from the same quarter.

Archdeacon Henry Williams to the Secretaries of the C. M. Society, June 3, 1850,

page 62 [unclear: was] passed by the Committee

Resolved—

That the Committee having learned that the minds of several of their Missionaries have been painfully affected by remarks which have been publicly made assigning the origin of the late war in New Zealand in some degree to the proceedings in which they had been concerned, feel it right to declare that there was no intention whatever on the part of the Committee to give the slightest colour or countenance to the charges complained of; ^a and further, that a careful examination of documents submitted to them connected with these transactions establishes the conclusion in their judgment that the disturbances in New Zealand were in no respect attributable to any act of the Missionaries; and that the conduct of the Mission throughout those try-and eventful times was calculated to engender in the minds of the Natives loyalty towards British authority and respect towards themselves.

At the next Committee meeting he brought forvard the special case of Archdeacon Henry Williams. The chief points of his statement were the Society's letter of March 1, 1847, which the Bishop had set aside; the condition of the Archeacon's pledge; the Bishop's pledge to institute the fullest inquiry into the charges complained of; the Bishop's rejection of the four questions proposed by Archdeacon Henry Williams, which were no further objectionable than that they were inconvenient for the Governor to answer; and the Bishop's proposal to substitute for them four other questions which did not touch the case in hand. With regard to the warmth with which Archdeacon Henry Williams had expressed himself in some of his letters, the Committee were reminded of the systematic and harrassing attacks that had been maintained against him. ^b Governor Grey's conversation with Mr. Busby was brought forward, his various despatches, the numerous and unfounded statements by which he had sought to injure the Archdeacon, with more especial reference to that by which his Excellency made it appear that the troops were obliged to be quartered in an indefensible locality, because Archdeacon Henry Williams' extensive land claims prevented them going elsewhere. The Committee were shewn that Governor FitzRoy and Colonel Despard had fixed upon either Victoria or Russell as the proper position; that the troops were actually quartered at Victoria on their return from Waimate, but were removed by direction of Governor Grey to their present false position at the Wahapu. ^c He concluded by

^a "It a nie." says M. de Sotenville to George Dandin, "et l'on a nul droit de se plaindre de tout homme qui se dedit."

Compare the present disclaimer with the following extract from the Society's Jubilee Volume for 1849, and let me be then informed how the two shall be reconciled. I have nowhere seen consistency, but on the part of the Grantees.

"Since Bishop Selwyn bore his testimony, civil commotions, intestine contests, and perplexed and difficult questions have at once put to the test the religious principes of the Natives, agitated their minds throughout the length and breadth of the Island, and caused the character of the Missionary agency to be scrutinized with seventy by friends and foes. We claim not for every individual subjected to such scrutiny exemption from censure; but the instances in which the Society's Missionaries have been betrayed into errors of Judgment or worldliness of conduct should not tarnish the honour of the Missionaries as a body, or deprive them in the eyes of candid and intelligent observers of the merit of having first introduced Christianity into New Zealand."

The Committee permit themselves to speak of scrutiny." When, or where was it made? Scrutiny—the severest scrutiny towards all parties concerned, is what the Missionaries are asking still, in vain.

The selection of a Jubilee year for condemnation is unfortunate. Time has been when Jubilee was kept by reluming all fields throughout the country to the sellers; Mr. Clarke insisted upon appropriating the surplus land to the benefit of the original native owners, rather than to that of the Government, and was thereupon dismissed.

^b I believe that the charge of Treason, against Archdeacon Henry Williams, was originated by a naval officer, who fell at the attack upon Owhaeowhae. The particulars of this charge were communicated to the Governor, who addressed the following letter to the Archdeacon.

Auckland, April 2, 1845.

Sir,—I have the honour of acknowledging the receipt of your letter, dated Paihia, March 20th, which reached me yesterday.

I am so much accustomed to hear and read such strange perversions of fact, and such unfounded attacks upon even the best characters in the community, that they usually pass unnoticed by me: But this is a startling charge.

Had you not distinctly referred to the extraordinary language used, I should not have alluded to it in writing to yourself, so deeply roust you be, as I am, pained that such expressions, such imputations, with reference to yourself, should have emanated from any one however ill-informed, hasty, or excited.

To accuse Archdeacon Williams, the tried, the proved, the indefatigable, of being a Traitor," of having acted traitorously, seemed to me so utterly absurd, to say the very least, that such an idea could not be entertained by me for one moment. I rejected it with feelings similar to those of Sir Everard Home, who, before this, has, I trust, fully relieved your mind from every scruple upon this subject.

I might refer to the Bishop's clear statement of all that he witnessed frequently in company with yourself on the fatal 11th of March; to the statement also of Archdeacon Brown, who was also present, and to others; but your well-known character requires no testimony.

In conclusion, I need hardly say that the charge made against yourself by____, is, in my opinion, as unfounded, unjustifiablé, and ungrateful, as is it indeed absurd.

Robert FitzRoy,

Governor.

The Venerable Archdeacon Henry Williams.

Vide, plain facts relative to the late war in New Zealand, p 16.

^c Vide Blue Book, July 1849, p. 74.

Governor FitzRoy, Colonel Despard, and General Pitt had pointed out two positions, as suitable for the troops : namely, Kororareka and Waitangi. After the capture of Ruapekapeka, the troops returned to the Bay of Islands, and Colonel Despard, having the whole country before him, placed the detachment at Victoria on the Waitangi—the key to the country—on the premises of James susby, who was absent at the time in England. Mr. Busby, on his return, wrote to Major Bridge, the officer in command, offering to let his premises for a rental of £120; but Major Bridge, after communicating with the Governor, was ordered to remove the troops toi Wahapu—a situation described by General Pitt and by Colonel Bolton as defenceless and untenable,—where they still remain. For the Wahapu, an annual rent of £400 is paid.

page 63 moving that the Society's Resolution dissolving the connexion with Archdeacon Henry Williams be reversed.

After much opposition on the part of Mr. Venn it was agreed that a Sub-Committee should be appointed to take the subject again under consideration.

Archdeacon William Williams, assisted by the Rev. E. G. Marsh, was present during part of the proceedings of the Sub-Committee, but not during the deliberation. A sensation was created when Archdeacon Henry Williams' questions were contrasted with those which the Bishop proposed to substitute, Lord Chichester acknowledging that the latter did not hear upon the case. Mr, Marsh's argument was confined to a single point : that by the Resolutions of February, 1847, the Committee had authorised the Archdeacon to dispose of his lands to his children; that the Committee were as much hound by those Resolutions as the Archdeacon; and consequently, that, having given him the right, they had no power to revoke it by a subsequent decree.

The Sub-Committee took their stand upon the Resolutions of 1848, and would not allow any reference to those of 1847, having at last, apparently, arrived at a clear perception of the difficulties of their own position. They replied—that all the points adverted to had been considered before the Society came to its decision, that no new matter had been brought forward, and that consequently the decision must remain as it was. ^a

But the Sub-Committee "were painfully impressed with the fact that the Archdeacon's land was entirely made over to his suns and daughters, and that he had therefore no property in New Zealand that he could call his own." As if the fact were new to them ! The Archdeacon had assured them of it long before; and, as it now appears, had been supposed to have told a falsehood. The word is harsh; but I hold by what Jeremy Taylor terms "that Macedonian simplicity which calls things by their right names."

"Painfully impressed with the fact," the Sub-Committee proposed that the Archdeacon should be pensioned off at £150 a-year. Mr. Venn spoke of his being likewise made the incumbent of his own new Church at Pakaraka, receiving, in addition to the Society's allowance, the rental of that land which the Archdeacon had himself devoted to ecclesiastical purposes.

We hear of damages in the English Civil Courts, and of utu among the Maories; but may well bel startled at the offer of a pecuniary compensation for wounded honour, by the Church Missionary Society.

Need I say, that the proposition was at once rejected by the Archdeacon's friends, without wasting time in consulting him.

The Sub-Committee persisted. They embodied the proposal in their report, and brought it up for confirmation to the General Committee, when the following Resolutions were proposed :—

Resolved—

I. That this Committee having considered the Report of the Sub-Committee upon the case off Archdeacon Henry Williams, is of opinion, that not sufficient grounds have been shown to justify their rescinding the Resolutions which dissolved the Society's connection with Archdeacon Henry Williams.

II. That the Committee have learnt with pain that, while providing for his children's maintenance by the transfer to them of his land, Archdeacon Henry Williams has divested himself and his wife of all means of support.

III. That taking into consideration Archdeacon Henry Williams' long and important services, and his present circumstances, the yearly allowance of £150 be made to Archdeacon Henry Williams until any change in his circumstances shall renden such a provision unnecessary.^b

Mr Marsh moved, as an amendment, that Archeacon Henry Williams be replaced on the Sociey's list this was negatived, and the Resolutions were carried, July 14, 1851. Archdeacon Wiliam Williams then stood up and said—"I am prepred to declare, that Henry Williams will not accep of any pecuniary compensation ^a from the Committee, so long as their Resolutions shall leave him under the charge of being unfit to remain in connxion with the Society. It is not a matter of salary, but of character."

Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat, has been said of old, with more truth than good Latinity. The Secretaries to the Society have illustrated the proverb. A short, but lucid exposition of the case had been presented by the Rev. E. G. Marsh, brother-in-law to Archdeacon Henry Williams. His reasoning was conclusive; but the Secretaries thought fit to meet it, and, in a fatal hour for themselves, indited a reply. It was not until they wen obliged to shew their hand, that its weakness was fully exposed. So soon as they committed thenselves to facts, so soon as it became possible to meet them on firm ground, they were lost.^b

The Secretaries commence their reply to Mr. Marsh's statement by excepting to it altogether. According to Touchstone's category of retorts, they meet him on the third cause, and disable his judgment.

In the present instance, they must at once except against any judgment formed upon 'the case' presented by Mr. Marsh, who, by an error easily explained, and pardoned in one so nearly related to the parties in question, has selected, out of a long series of transactions, the favourable points on his side of the question, together with partial quotations from the Resolutions of the Society, as the ground of his accusation.

If this affront be intentional, it is unpardonable. If unintentional, the writers betray the temper of heir own minds—their inability to perceive the course that a man of high-toned feeling would instinctively adopt. Have they yet to learn that relationship, under circumstance like this, isa restraining, rather than an impulsive force; that it must indeed have been a grievous wrong which could have induced a kinsman to come forward, and brave the imputation which the Secretaries have not scrupled to affix—the misconstruction of motives into which men of coarser mould are so prone to lapse. He who apprehends an unconscious bias, makes sure at least that if he err at all, his error should be found on the other side. ^c And the Secretaries volunteer their pardon. The offer is gracious, and must be appreciated.

The Secretaries complain that Mr. Marsh has offered partial quotations." Not "partial," but port quotations; for ail are fairly extracted. Before bringing such a charge, they should have seen that they came into Court with clean hands themselves. For the Reply, a pamphlet of twenty-four pages, contains no less than ten "partial," or part quotations (some among them of a seriously delusive tendency), thirty mis-statements, and one blunder.

To go through the whole of these in turn—to follow the Secretaries up through all their mazes of error, would be tedious, and needless; I shall therefore content myself with selecting a few of the more glaring mis-statements, from which the character of the rest may be inferred. But the full catalogue shall be supplied, should the authors be so imprudent as to demand it. ^d

The Secretaries assert (Reply, p. 3) that

In the year 1830, the Committee were induced, by the peculiar circumstances of the New-Zealand Mission, to authorise purchases of land "to a moderate extent," as a provision for the children after fifteen years of age. The Missionaries themselves proposed 200 acres for each child as a maximum. But the Committee declined to sanction this maximum, on

^a Notwithstanding this declaration, Mr. Vidal, the Society's agent in Auckland, wrote to the Archdeacon, asking how and where he would with the money drawn.

^b The talismanic "Confidential', is endorsed on the Reply. By this, if I understand them rightly, the authors would bar the right of publicly impugning the statement contained therein. On this principle, any person, by means of a single word, acquires the right of printing and distributing confidential untruths, secure from risk of their being overthrown. The position is too absurd to be seriously maintained; I shall therefore take the liberty of giving a wider circulation to statements that were to crush the Grantees for ever.

^c Mr. Marsh had already refused to visit New Zealand on a proposed committee of enquiry; for that unless he should find fault, with the proceedings of his relations, he would be liable to the charge of partiality.

In Dryden's dedication of his Juvenal, we read as follows :—

"I remember a saying of King Charles II. on Sir Matthew Hales (who was doubtless an uncorrupt and upright man), that his servants were sure to be cast upon a trial, which was heard before him : Not that he thought the Judge was possible to be bribed, but; that his integrity might be too scrupulous."

This idea would scarcely have occurred to Mr. Venn.

^d The Secretaries, writing to Archdeacon William Williams concerning his printed letter to the Earl of Chichester (Dec. 20, 1841). wound up with the following appeal :—

"We trust that you will therefore withdraw the imputation you have cast upon the Committee and Secretaries, and thus obviate the necessity for any further painful and unseemly controversy between the Committee and one of its Missionaries upon a matter of fact, of such grave importance."

They should take their exhortation to themselves. The imputations cast upon the Grantees by the Reply (dated Oct. 13, 1851), together with its wild mis-statements, have long since been irrecoverably overthrown; yet even to the present day are not withdrawn.

page 65 the ground that when the value of land should rise, it would become too large a provision.

Here is the suppressio veri : the Committee refused to grant so much land from the Society's funds, in lieu of the final allowance to the children of the Missionaries. But this refusal had nothing whatever to do with the amount of land which a Missionary might purchase with his own private funds.

They assert (p. 3) that Mr. Fairburn's disconnexion with the Society arose from his retaining an undue amount of land. ^a This disconnexion arose from a totally different cause.

They assert (p. 6), on the authority of Mr. Marsh's statement, and as if they had no direct knowledge on the subject, that the Archdeacon's extended Land Grants amount to 11,000 acres. ^b No such conclusion is to be drawn, directly or indirectly, from the statement; and the Secretaries had been informed, again and again, that 9,000 acres was the quantity comprised.

They assert (p. 6) that "the Committee were very imperfectly informed of these acquisitions of lands." But a full account of the extent of those land purchases, together with a vindication by the Committee of their Missionaries' conduct therein, appears in the Appendix to the Society's Report for 1844-5.

They assert (p. 13) that Archdeacon Henry Williams actually yielded the point for which Mr. Marsh contends. They likewise print the Archdeacon's pledge in its garbled form. Yet Archdeacon "William Williams had already proved, before the Secretaries and the Committee, that the point had not been yielded. Nor can [unclear: th] writers plead ignorance with regard to the pledge [unclear: a] it was in their own possession, uncurtailed.

That is to say, after annexation of the country to the Empire; after the purchasing of land from Natives had become illegal, and after receipt of the Society's command to discontinue purchasing. Now this assertion—the gravamen of the charge, to which all the other assertions are makeweights only, is absolutely untrue. The first purchase made by Archdeacon Henry Williams was effected in the year 1833, after his eldest son had ceased to receive support from the Society : the last was made about the year 1837.

Fine wire-drawn subtleties were to be expected from Mr. Venn; but the Grantees were wholly unprepared fur so rude a perversion of facts. Whether this arose from crassa negligentia, from sacra ignorantia, or from worse, I do not pretend to say; but am entitled to observe, that without the foregoing assertion, the Society's case against Archdeacon Henry Williams would have been incomplete. ^c

The drawing forth of a "Reply" was a decisive advantage to the Grantees. The Committee were provoked into descending from their fastness; risked the chances of an open field; and were routed at the first onset. So severe have been their losses, that even should they succeed in regaining the strong-hold, they will no longer be able tu defend it.

Here, then, the question must rest awhile. But the Society must not think that it will here be suffered to end. The position of the Grantees is secure; their allies are increasing in number, day by day, and there are those among them who will never retire from the field until atonement fora grievous wrong shall have been enforced. We cannot expect that the arbiters will readily give way; they stand too far committed : whilst their endeavour to compound for themselves, to purchase Archdeacon Henry Williams' acquiescence in his own disgrace—adding an affront to an injury without perceiving it—is alone conclusive proof of that high-spirited feeling which prompts to the voluntary acknowledgment and reparation of error being not among them. Nevertheless, by steady persistence in demand, they must yet be overborne. It is a question of time alone. Truth cannot fail to make its way at last never allowed to sleep.

Before taking leave of the subject, I would call attention to certain leading points connected with it.

I. That the question between the Grantees and the Society is confined to what has taken place during six years past; the President having admitted that, prior to 1847, the Grantees were not to blame.

II. That the augmented Missionary grants at the seat of war, though signed by Governor FitzRoy, were issued by Governor Grey, during the first few months of his administration. ^a

III. That in spite of official agitation, of the various artifices employed to create discontent among the Natives,—in spite of the alleged alienation of the Natives from their teachers, the Grantees arc still in undisturbed possession, and would at this moment, were it necessary, be supported by the Natives in possession.

IV. That Governor Grey, by simply substantiating or retracting his allegations against the Grantees, might have acquired the surplus land fur the Crown, at any time prior to his attempted seduction of the Natives at the Bay; and that if the interests of the Colony would really have been promoted, as alleged, by confiscation of those lands, he has sacrificed those interests to his own perverseness.

V. That His Excellency's sympathy with "the suffering and complaining natives" was unreal; a blind, under cover of which he might more safely attain his ends. For whenever native interests have been counter to his own, he has abandoned the former without compunetion. ^b

VI. That the confusion in which the subject is involved has been generated by mystery. Had all communications concerning the Grantees been made public from the first—had the system of confidential despatch-writing been put an end to by the Home Authorities, the evil would have been arrested before attaining its present growth.

VII. That all parties concerned, excepting the Grantees, have shrunk from open enquiry; but that the Grantees have never relaxed in their efforts to obtain it.

VIII. That time has proved the Grantees to have acted wisely in refusing to give up the deeds, until the question of character should have been fairly brought to issue. The consequences of that refusal have brought about what would otherwise have never been publicly obtained,—the exculpation of the New Zealand Mission from the charges of Governor Grey; which is therefore under the deepest obligations to those who stood in the gap—who sacrificed themselves, for the benefit of all.

IX. That the dispute with the Grantees did not spring from matters of opinion, but from matters of fact; and was therefore capable from the first, through open enquiry, of being brought to a definitive issue.

X. That Governor Grey endeavoured to retrieve the false step which he made at the outset of his New Zealand career, by vague and exaggerated expressions of interest in the Society's operations, which have been able to deceive Lord Chichester, and others who place credence in much profession; but that his regard for the Mission has never carried him the length of offering what would have been a substantial benefit,—reparation of the injury inflicted by himself. The Mission has been at last relieved from obloquy, not by him, but in spite of him.

What has the Governor gained by his desperate attack upon men, whose very office should have secured them, if not from rash assertions, at least from deliberate untruths I Deliberate, I say,—for the statements of the Confidential Despatch, put forth at an early period of his career, were continuously maintained in subsequent despatches, with especial reference to the Grantees.

And what, again, could have been his latent object? Judging from long and watchful study of his I acts, I say that he was influenced—firstly, by the desire of assigning a fictitious origin to the native war; and secondly, by a favourite theory concerning the price of land, as connected with immigration. ^a

The cause of the war was the flag-staff at the Bay,—the emblem of Government, considered by the Natives as the symbol of servitude. Four times had the staff been raised, and as often had it been cut down. Governor Grey saw well the hopelessness of raising it again; but he likewise saw that if it were not raised, he would have no right to claim the meed of victory. He therefore yielded to the demands of the hostile Natives, and then diverted attention from those demands by assigning a different origin to the outbreak. Governor Fitzroy's augmented grants were the most convenient substitute; and upon these the blame was laid. ^b

But he likewise wished to recover the land which had been ceded by his predecessor. He had brought the grants to bear upon his version of the war : he now brought the war to bear upon the grants. He declared that Grantees, who had never been out of possession, could not be put into possession without the shedding of blood. And he would have succeeded in recovering the land, but for an unforeseen event—the publication of the confidential despatch—which obliged him to change the whole course of his intended polity. ^a This, apparently an event of email importance, was as a railway point, which, by deflexion of a few inches, turns off the train from one to another line. For the lay Grantees, despairing of a favourable decision in the Supreme Court, would have accepted the Governor's terms—a portion of the land, lest they should lose the whole. But the Missionary Grantees were debarred from accepting those terms, for with them the question was of character. They suffered the law to take its course, and to their deep surprise, were supported by the law. The rest took heart of grace, and resisted the aggression : a second trial ended with a like result; and, finally, the Crown Titles Ordinance was passed by Governor Grey, confirming the grants which he had been unable to revoke.

Acribus initiis, incurioso fine.

What has the Society gained by its dealing with the Colonial Office? The approbation, it appears, of a Secretary of State. And for this, a heavy price has indeed been paid. A healthy limb has been cut away; the rest of the body is disordered; and the disease must rise to a crisis yet before it can be cured. Even in matters of more worldly care, the Society is suffering loss. Monetary subscriptions are being refused, or transferred elsewhere, because of the self-seeking displayed by the Committee—of the braving out an error to avoid acknowledgement of having erred. Few, perhaps, as yet; but of some, I know. And the refusals will increase in number, proportionately as contributors shall learn to understand the case.

What has the Bishop gained by his share in the contention? It is easier to say what he has lost. He found the Mother Church united; he sees it now divided against itself. He has lost the willing co-operation of many fellow-labourers, who now work by the side of him, rather than along with him. He has lost the support of the elder Missionary families, now fast assuming an important position in the community. He has exposed himself to much injurious, even to unjust suspicion; and by having failed, where he had put forth his utmost strength, has shown the measure of that strength. To balance these evils, he has nothing to shew, beyond the prematurely tendered thanks of Mr. Labouchere in the Home of Commons for the adjustment of a political question.

I can only suppose the Bishop's motives in joining forces with the Governor.^b Public opinion has assigned them, and not without severity. But, though his Lordship would fain have made the Grantees amenable to that tribunal, he has ignored its jurisdiction as regards himself. Few, indeed, will now deny that this coalition has been the great error of his Lordship's career. He had leagued himself with one whose alliance is more dangerous than his enmity, whose turn has come, and who now exacts the full penally of the bond. His character is linked with that of Governor Grey, bound in Mezentian union—the living against the dead. Who shall marvel furthermore that so many of his staunchest adherents among the laity should have fallen away, or that the jealous suspicion with which all the Governor's acts are viewed, should have been partially reflected on himself. ^c

The time has been when the Bishop might have carried all before him; when, by legitimate means, he might have raised his influence to the pitch of

^a The close examination to which the Governor's despatches have been subjected within the colony, appears to have stopped the publication of New Zealand Blue Books. Some few documents, concerning Representative Institutions, have been dragged forth by Mr. Fox; but the usual series of despatches upon general subjects is no longer seen.

^b The Bishop and the Governor respectively call to mind the Homeric Odysseus and the Virgilian Ulysses, The one, endowed with the old heroic craft—all daring and all enduring—every inch, aman: the other, a setter of ambuscades—a trickster merely; as far inferior to his magnificent prototype as was the Mantuan to the Grecian Bard.

^c It has remarked, that the Bishop was of necessity the loser, having to find character for two.

page 69 almost absolute authority. But ho failed to improve the golden moment, which is now irrecoverably lost.

The Grantees had been charged by Governor Grey with having been accessory to the shedding of human blood : the charge was credited at the time by many, and the character of the Mission was at its lowest ebb. But The Bishop knew that they had been maligned. Then it was that he might have knit them to himself by stronger than ecclesiastical ties,—by the bonds of gratitude and well merited affection. He was their natural champion; it was for him to have interposed his own broad buckler between the Missionaries and their assailant. Help at need is no matter of compact; he should have stepped forward and given it, without a word.

Instead of this, he waited for their extreme exigency, and then tendered his assistance—at a price.

I will undertake to say that, had he acted in a free spirit of generosity, there would have been no question—not for one hour—about the "waste and worthless acres." The Grantees and their children would have rejoiced at possessing them, for the sake of being able to cede them. His unconditional support would have been remembered to him, and would have been repaid fourfold. Ail would now have been increasing love and honour, instead of cold civility and mutual distrust.

But the Bishop had overrated the force at his own disposal; he had underrated the men with whom he had to deal; and had become so far compromised before the error was made manifest, that he could no longer bring himself to giving way. Instead of gathering his mantle gracefully around him, he struggled to the last.

I hope most anxiously that I have not wronged the man. Able, unselfish, enthusiastic, and devoted, we shall not readily meet with his like again. I find no fault with his lust of power,—nor with any man's lust of power, whore power is only sought for the sake of advancing a benevolent or a holy cause; but while tolerating downright force, even to the verge of tyranny, I do most steadfastly repudiate every form of manoeuvre, every deviation from the straight and narrow path. And it is now too plainly manifest that the Bishop has not always refrained from sacrificing means to ends.

Let us hope that his Lordship will yet come forward to undo, so far as in him lies, the injury that his interference with the rights of private property has caused to the infant Church in New Zealand to repair his error by doing justice at last to men whom he has attacked and ruined in their calling; to heal the wound that ho has himself inflicted.

Cosi od' to che soleva la lancia
D'A chilla e del suo padre, esser cagione
Prima di trista e poi di boom mancia.

It is not yet too late : there is no vindictive feeling among those whom he has wronged; I believe, but little acrimony. It has been a question only of character with the Grantees throughout : his Lordship has but to lend his help in restoring that character—which will most assuredly be fully recovered in the end, with or without his aid—for the reconciliation to be complete.

I conclude by quoting a passage from Gibbon's I Decline and Fall, which I long since applied to Governor Grey's proceedings against the Missionaries, little thinking at the time how closely applicable it was to the Bishop also. The Emperor Valentinian had slain his general Ætius, the main support of a tottering throne. He was thus answered by a Roman, whose advice he had not disdained to solicit :—"I am ignorant, Sir, of your motives and provocations : I only know, that you have acted like a man who cuts off his right hand with his left."