Copy of a Despatch from Earl Grey to Governor Grey. Downing-street, November 30, 1847.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 282, 12 April 1848, Page 3

Copy of a Despatch from Earl Grey to Governor Grey. Downing-street, November 30, 1847.

Sir, — I have to acknowledge the receipt of your two despatches of July 7, 1847, Nos. 71 and 73, from the last of which I am happy to find that the publication of my despatch of December 23, 1846, had not been followed by that excitement among the natives of the northern parts of New Ulster, which report had given you reason to apprehend ;

and that, at the date of your writing, a greater amount of tranquillity and prosperity prevailed throughout the whole of New Zealand, than had ever, in your opinion, existed. 5 I have received tbis intelligence with the more satisfaction, because it goes far to dispel the alarm which would otherwise have been excited by the Protest, transmitted in your despatch, of the Bishop of New Zealand on his own behalf, and that of certain clergymen, " against the principle of my Letter of Instructions," referring, as I learn from the extracts, to my despatch of the 23rd of December last. I have read this Protest with very great regret. Objections proceeding from his Lordship to any principles "of Government laid down by me, would have been entitled to, and would certainly have received my most respectful consideration, had the grounds on which they rested been explained by me ; but I learn from this document, with equal surprise and concern, that it was the expressed resolution of the Bishop "to inform the natives of New Zealand of their rights and privileges as British subjects, and to assist them in asserting and maintaining them :" that is — for the context will not allow of any other interpretation of his words — to impress upon their minds the belief that their rights and privileges would be invaded, and the Treaty oi Waitangi violated, by the course of policy in respect to the land question, which her Majesty's Government had instructed you to pursue. It is true that the Bishop declares his intention of thus assisting the natives in maintaining their lights only "by Petition to the Imperial Parliament, or by " other loyal and peaceable means," and disavows the intention of doing anything " which can be considered likely to add to the difficulties of the colony." I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of these assertions. But I fear that it is impossible that language such as that of this Protest, can be addressed to a people who have so lately emerged from habits of the most savage barbarism — a people well armed and warlike, of easily excited passions, and minds untrained to European habits of obedience — without very serious risk. The natives are less likely to be acute in discriminating between " loyal and peaceable" and more violent methods of asserting their rights, than to be quick in apprehending and fierce in resenting any supposed violation of them, especially when impressed upon their minds by so high an authority as that of the Bishop of New Zealand. When I reflect on the scenes, of which some parts of this Colony have been lately the theatre, and the passions which have been aroused by questions arising out of this very subject, it appears to me, that those who use such language incur a heavy responsibility, and the heavier in proportion to the eminence of their station. If the employment of it has not, in this instance, " added to the difficulties of the colony," as your despatch gives me reason to hope, I cannot but think that this is less owing to the Bishop's disclaimer of such intentions, than to the unsubstantial nature of the grievance with which he is endeavouring to persuade the natives that they are threatened. For I think it must appear evident to himself, upon reflection, that he has proceeded somewhat hastily to condemn the policy which I directed you to pursue in the despatch which he has quoted, without ascertaining, with sufficient care, what that policy really was. His Lordship has not correctly apprehended the purport of my instructions, which he has thus been led unintentionally to misrepresent in a manner calculated to excite in the minds of the natives a belief as to the intentions of the Government, which would have been equally unfounded in reality, and dangerous had it been unfortunately adopted by them. The protest is directed against what is termed my " doctrine" that " the savage inhabitants of New Zealand have no right of property in land which they do not occupy, and which has remained unsubdued to the purposes of man," and seems to assume that this " doctrine" was to be acted upon by the Government's at once taking possession of all such land in New Zealand. I have said that this seems to be assumed, because, although the protest is far from being clear, having apparently been written under feelings of much excitement, I can put no other interpretation upon it, since I cannot believe that the Bishop would have thought it necessary to protest, and to declare his intention of exciting and aiding the natives to resistance, against the mere expression of an opinion.. The despatch, instead of expressing any such intention as the Bishop appears to have supposed, expresses the very reverse. It says, indeed, indeed, that if this question were now open for consideration, that is, if we were commencing the colonization of New Zealand at the present time, the doctrine to which the Bishop objects would, in my judgment, be the best foundation of our proceedings, as 1 conceive it to contain the true principle in regard to property in land. These opinions I see no reason to alter. Th«

Bishop has adduced no argument against them. I have been confirmed in them, as well by the disastrous results which have followed from acting on the < purary principle, as by the able and important judgment of the Supreme Court j of the colony, transmitted to me in your despatch of the sth July last No. 64, in which the Judges establish, upon the highest legal authorities both of this country and America, that the views I expressed are those which, for nearly 300 years, have been uniformly recognized and acted on by the consents of civilized nations. But it is one thing to deny the general theory on which a certain supposed right is founded, and another thing to endeavour to set aside rights which have been formally recognised, because they are founded on a theory conceived to be erroneous. While I laid down what I considered the better principle, I endeavoured carefully to guard myself against being supposed to enforce it as applicable to the present state of New Zealand; and I believe I succeeded in doing so. I expressly informed you that, in point of fact, you were not in a position to act on that principle, and that, from past transactions, a state of things had arisen, in which a strict application of it was impossible. I stated my belief that " the right of the Crown cannot now be asserted to large tracts of waste laud which particular tribes have been taught to call as their own." I directed you, in the strongest language, "to maintain those rights of the native tribes to land which you have already recognized." All that I advised was this : that the theory of the ownership, by tribes, of unoccupied land, should not be made the foundation of any future transactions ; and that, what I conceive to be the rights of the Crown, that is, of the public (where no engagements to the contrary have been made), should be carefully attended to in the disposal of land, wherever no property has yet been recognized. Aud if the Bishop had consulted the Instructions accompanyiug the Charter, which were published with it, and which really contain the practical directions to the local Government, which my despatch was only intended to illustrate, he would there have found the greatest attention paid to the maintenance of every thing which can be called an existing native right to land, though established in consequence of the prevalence of that mistaken theory which 1 have combated. The Protector of Aborigines is there directed to inform the Registrar respecting all lands within his district to which the natives, " either as tribes or individuals" claim either proprietary or possessory title ; that all such claims shall be registered ; and that wherever it shall be shown, either that such lands have been actually occupied by the natives, or that the ownership to such lands although unoccupied, has been recognised by the executive or judicial authorities to be vested in the natives, such claim shall be finally and conclusively admitted. I cannot imagine what portion of these instructions can be designated as a violation of the rights of the natives, as established either by the treaty of Waitangi, or any other agreement or authority. Nor should I have thought it necessary to enter on this detailed justification of language used by me on any former occasion, had it not been for the singular misinterpretation put upon it (I have no doubt unintentionally) by so high a functionary. It is very unfortunate that the Bishop should have founded, on such a misinterpretation, a perilous appeal to the feelings of the natives ; and it will be happy for his lordship, no less than for the public, if he shall have seen reason not to act upon his protest, or if his views have failed to produce among the natives that sense of injury which he himself appears to feel in their behalf. You will communicate a copy of this despatch to the Bishop of New Zealand. I have, &c, (Signed) Grey. Governor Grey, &c, &c.