PUBLIC RECORDS THE NEED TO’ PUBLISH THE SOURCES OF N.Z. HISTORY

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27861, 9 January 1956, Page 8

PUBLIC RECORDS THE NEED TO’ PUBLISH THE SOURCES OF N.Z. HISTORY

[Specially written for "The Press" by A.R.J

In two or three recent review articles the point has been made that, until the English Public Record Office papers relating to New Zealand are copied and made available in Jiew Zealand, historians working in this country will either have to visit London or content themselves with publishing works which are by no means definitive. For a number of years staffs of university history departments have pressed for government action in this matter. They have pointed oiit how important these records are for students of New Zealand history and how sadly New Zealand has lagged behind the Canadian and other Dominion governments. Apparently their efforts are at last going to bear fruit, as the Officer in Charge of the National Archives in Wellington recently stated that a microcopy of all material relating to New Zealand and the South Pacific housed in the Public Record Office, the British Museum, and other repositories in England is to be obtained. He added that the New Zealand material in the Public Record Office for the period up to 1860 is being copied at present and “the first reels of the New Zealand material before 1860 are daily expected.” This is indeed welcome news to all interested in the detailed and accurate writing of our history. Since questions are sometimes asked about the material in London, a brief description of the Public Record Office and an indication of the nature and importance of the New Zealand historical material housed there may be of some general interest.

England’s Public Record Office As its name suggests, the Public Record Office—or P.R.O. as it is commonly termed—is the place of deposit for the public records, those documents which accumulate in the various departments of the British Government and which have been of some importance in the transaction of the business of those departments and are therefore preserved for future reference. These papers are of the very greatest importance to the historian, since they normally give both the real and the official reasons for various decisions taken at the highest level. They often trace, step by step, the manner in which information was accumulated until an overwhelming case was built up in favour of one policy or decision as opposed to another. Of course, these papers are transferred to the P.R.O. only when the departments are finished with them and. except when special permission is granted, they are not even then available to the researcher until they are about 50 years old. by which time there is no good ground for respecting a “confidential” or even “top secret” rating, and the individuals concerned arc usually dead. _ „ The Public Record Office Act of 1838 made the Master of the Rolls, already the titular custodian of the records of the Court of Chancery, the official custodian of practically all judicial records, and empowered the Crown to place all administrative records under his control. This power was exercised by an Order in Council in 1852. Since then, ‘‘documents ... of a public nature belonging to Her Majesty.” to quote the act. have been housed in the building which stands on the Rolls Estate off Chancery lane, near Fleet street, London. This building has been a Mecca for researchers into the history of government policy in a variety of fields. For those who specialise in the history of New . Zealand, the records housed in the P.R.O. are of the very greatest value. Both the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office files are important. Before New Zealand became a part of the British Empire, its affairs, arid British relations with these islands were treated as the concern of the Foreign Office. After New Zealand became a British colony, most questions affecting New Zealand’s relations with foreign Powers and especially those concerned with the possession of Pacific Islands, for which such men as Grey. Vogel. Stout, and Seddon advanced British claims, were also referred to 'the Foreign Office. In the main, however, the records dealing with New Zealand are to be found in the Colonial Office series. This is so simply because New Zealand was, as a British colony.

under the direct control of the Colonial Office. The Governor was appointed by the Crown and was in regular communication with the Secretary of State for the Colonial ana War Departments up to 1854 and thereafter with the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Secret Dispatches Many of the dispatches which passed between Governor and Secretary were published in Parliamentary Papers in England or, later <m. in Appendices to Journals of the Hou - e of Representatives in New Zealand. But the published records tell only part of the story. Often the more interesting points of view were advanced in ‘ secret" dispatches and not fitted into the ordinary numbered series. The discovery of one of these unpublished but extremely important dispatches can provide a real thrill for the researcher, especially If he has already searched the New Zealand archives and found no copy there. Thus, in his recently published King Dick" Mr Randal Burdon indicated that no copies of certain confidential dispatches had been retained in New Zealand. He would have found, the originals in the P.R.O. Dispatches for which no copies exist in this country are virtually limited to those private communications from the Governor to the Secretary of State of which no copies were kept and those letters written by Seddon and others when they were on tour outside New Zealand. But. if access can usually *be obtained to copies or dispatches in Wellington, this does not apply to the minutes or memoranda written on them by the Colonial Office staff. These minutes are often most revealing of the outlook of the_ Secretary of State for the Colonics, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary ’normally a member of the House of Lords if the Secretary was in the Commons or vice versa), and the Permanent Under-Secretary, the head of the official staff. The official reply to * dispatch was normally written in the most courteous terms, and the real reasons for a decision were not always given. The minutes tell the researchers far more about the personalities and views of the writers than their diplomatically official replies ever can An illustration of the real views of a Permanent Under-Secretarv. Sir Robert Herbert, is found in his minutes on certain New Zealand dispatches proposing the annexation of various Pacific islands. He termed Vogel's annexation scheme as a foolish as well as an impudent composition” and later referred to Vogel as “the most audacious adventurer that perhaps has ever held power in a British Colony.” That the Colonial Office did not restrict its criticisms to the colonial Premiers but occasionally demonstrated its mistrust of a Governor’s policy may be seen from this comment by the Earl of Kimberley, when Secretary of State, on Sir Arthur Gordon. Governor of New Zealand, 1880-82: "The contempt which Sir A. Gordon shows for Parliamentary Ministers is very characteristic of the man. He seems to be entirely without any popular sympathies except for coloured men.” _ A review in “The Press some months ago mentioned the dislike of the Colonial Office for Sir George Grey in the days when he was a party politician in New Zealand. Referring to the fact that Grey had been unable to secure the necessary support wherewith to form a Ministry. Herbert commented: “The evil seems to have been averted.” In the days when Grey was Premier and writing long memoranda, he commented somewhat acidly: “Sir G. Grey has spare time to instruct H.M. Ministers as to their duties.” A National Matter These illustrations, which could be multiplied a hundred-fold, demonstrate only partially the very great interest and value these records have for the researcher in New Zealand political history. Subjects involving the colony’s or Dominion’s relations with the British Government simply cannot be fully investigated from the material now available in Wellington. The welcome news that our National Archives are collaborating with the Australian Commonwealth National Library and the Mitchell Library, Sydney, in securing copies of these records will whet the appetites of scholars in New Zealand for more than a taste of what they know to be available in London.

The probability is that it will be some years before even the betterknown records are copied. The sooner New Zealand possesses copies of the more important source material concerning her early history the better it will be. These sources are of fundamental importance, both to scholars and to the people. This latter claim is justified when we remember that the national history of a country is a national‘matter and of great public interest, and that in the last resort the sources give whatever meaning the scholars may read into the story of th** country’s growth and development. The onus is upon the scholars to ensure that the research done is thorough and fundamental and thus guarantee that the study of history is not a propaganda tool. The onus is upon the State to preserve the records of its activities and to provide access to those records in a public institution resembling the Public Record Office. A first step is being taken in securing a microcopy of the New Zealand material in the P.R.O. for our National Archives. But, since a single microfilm or photostat copy is almost as likely to be destroyed by fire or air raid as the original copy in London, a sound case can be presented for the printing of the more important of these records. A generation which is seeing considerable sums spent on the writing of war history and Parliamentary history might well expect the publication of a series of “Historical Records of New Zealand."

In support of this final point, let us hear Professor V. H. Galbraith, Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford: “The books we write, however necessary, are ephemeral and their usefulness must pass. The sources remain and it is a function of civilised society to preserve them for future study. Their best chance of survival lies in publication, and it is for this reason that I rate the printing of the sources of history as a national obligation, worthy of more serious consideration than it has ever hitherto received from the Government. In the last resort our students can and must make up in their own heads their own reconstruction of past events. They can do it only as we have tried to do it, from the sources. All sound teaching, therefore, should lead back to them. In this way alone can the study of history claim to give an education that is truly classical.”