No known copy? T. S. Grace’s suppressed circular, W264

Turnbull Library Record, Volume 15, Issue 2, 1 October 1982, Page 77

No known copy? T. S. Grace’s suppressed circular, W 264

A. G. BAGNALL

Some sixteen years ago, while scanning a file ofth e Southern Cross, a reference was noted to an inquiry by the Auckland Provincial Council about the issue of a circular by T. S. Grace andjohn Telford warning Maori owners, chiefly in the Waikato, against selling land to the Pakeha. More recently, when checking notebooks for untranscribcd material, the significance of the entry was apparent. 1

Most unusually the item itself had not been identified by Bishop H. W. Williams in his Bibliography of Printed Maori . . . (1924), his listing (W 264) being merely a transcription of the entry given byj. D. Davis over 40 years earlier, i.e. ‘Tract in Maori, by C. M. Clergyman, and a Catechist; published against the selling of land to Europeans’. Davis had been in New Zealand only for the six years before his death and the posthumous publication of his bibliography. Like Telford who was, in fact, merely the translator, he died of tuberculosis at a comparatively early age, but he must have obtained the basis of his entry from an informed source. Wells, in his History of Taranaki, refers to it in the Davis form but must have seen at least a translation for he cites the reference (No. 6, i.e. I Kings 21:2-3) to Naboth’s vineyard in a Biblical text; and A. J. Harrop came across the Wynyard despatch to the Colonial Office about it in the 209 series, even quoting from it at some length but, as will be seen, the somewhat hasty letter did not name the individuals thought to be responsible. 2

The Bishop’s father, William Leonard Williams, and grandfather, William Williams, differed strongly from Grace on aspects of Maori-European relations and certainly would have known of the furore caused by the distribution of the circular, probably in August 1854. Grace had been in Auckland for some months after a two year spell of duty at the Turanga Mission station, Poverty Bay, until the return from England of W. L. Williams. His innovations in running the station as well as his views on missionary land purchases annoyed the family, and the delays in taking up his new appointment at Taupo obliged him to wait around in Auckland until Mrs Grace’s latest pregnancy had run its course and his lengthy argument with the local Central Committee of the Church Missionary Society about the terms of his occupancy had been

resolved. He was therefore in the capital at the time of the meeting of New Zealand’s first Parliament with, it is fair to say, some time on his hands once the latest ten-page letter to his Auckland colleagues had been penned. The situation which prompted him to compile and have printed what was seen as a noxious and inflammatory document—and most recipients or interceptors quickly proved it flammable —arose from a speech by the able if somewhat flighty and irresponsible first ‘Premier’ James Edward Fitz Gerald. In a lengthy statement to the House of Representatives on 15 June, immediately after his Ministry had taken office, Fitz Gerald discussed the need to acquire millions of acres of Maori land as soon as possible. When he claimed that there was ‘no question which occupies so large a space in the consideration of the future progress of the colony’ he was not merely indulging in Auckland-orientated rhetoric. He proposed the raising of a massive loan to secure ‘between eleven and twelve millions of acres . . . in a very few years’. He did concede that some areas might be ‘thickly peopled by the Natives, who would not dispose of it at all’ but the balance should be acquired except for areas comprising mountains and rocks or dense forests in the interior. 3 It was Fitz Gerald’s casual disregard of Maori interests, particularly the suggestion that they would be satisfied with the unwanted, literally waste, lands, which aroused Grace’s concern. After discussion with at least one fellow-missionary he went ahead with the preparation of his counterblast.

Land purchases in the Waikato had made little real progress for some time despite Donald McLean’s spectacular successes in Hawkes Bay and Wairarapa. Recent confirmation of his appointment as Chief Land Purchase Commissioner 4 had sharpened official resolution. John Morgan, for fifteen years theC.M.S. missionary at Otawhao near Te Awamutu, was most active in the cause and a regular correspondent of McLean’s. Morgan had undoubtedly done a great deal for Maori agriculture in his district through instructors at his Rangiaowhia Industrial School, more perhaps than he is currently given credit for by those critical of his role in encouraging land purchases. His equally strong support of Grey’s wish for a road through the Centre, over a century before the construction of State Highway 32 from Te Awamutu to Mangakino and Taupo, was seen by some of his Maori friends as much less desirable.

In September 1854 Morgan thought that the time was now ripe for McLean to visit the district and effect purchases from those who were ready to sell: I strongly recommend you to strike while the iron is hot and use every exertion to open up this fine district to European settlers. I feel particularly anxious to see you

make purchases around here as much exertion is being made by Europeans to close up the country & prevent natives selling land. An abominable printed document on this subject is now being circulated, one copy of which is now before me. I am also very anxious for you to purchase the land for the Church . . . [to] enable me to carry out my plans with ease . . , 5

The ‘abominable printed document’, the subject of this paper, could hardly have been an element in the Financial Message (no. 5) of his Excellency the officer administering the Government, a fortnight earlier. From an extended statement, the House about to adjourn learned, inter alia, that ‘the native mind is disturbed by the extent of territory which has . . . lately been added to the Crown Demesne’. Colonel R. H. Wynyard, who for thirteen months was the administrator between the departure of Grey and Gore Browne’s arrival, thought that active land purchase negotiations should be suspended for a time to allow Maori feeling ‘to subside’. 6 McLean may have been alerted by other informants or, more likely, Maori feeling may have rendered Grace’s action irrelevant. However, resentment at this claim broke into a storm with the publication in the Southern Cross of 17 October of a translation of Grace’s circular and strong editorial comment. The editor said that the document had been ‘placed in our possession’ adding later that the translation was ‘our own’, possibly that of T. S. Forsaith, former Protector of Aborigines but now a draper and Auckland politician with press connections. 7 Its wording was a somewhat more idiomatic version of that later given to the Committee of the Auckland Provincial Council as set out, below, with the

accompanying text in Maori: 8 Ko etahi patai kite hunga Maori mo te hoho Wenua Wakamatamatauria nga mea katoa: kia u kite mea pai 1. I whiwhi nga Tamariki a Iharaira ki to ratou wenua tupu i te pehea? I hohona ranei e ratou kite moni? Kenehi 15: 7-18 2. Kahore he Ture i hoatu e te Atua ki a ratou me to ratou wenua? He Ture ano? Rewitikuha 25:33-34 3. Ko nga Matua anake ranei to ratou wenua, no nga Tamariki ano ranei? Kenehi 17:8; Ruka 15:31 4. Na wai hoki tenei wenua i homai mo koutou, mo te hunga Maori? Ki ta Paora, na te Atua. Nga Mahi 17:26

Some questions to the Maori people about the selling of Land Let all things be understood: be steadfast to the good thing 1. How did the Children of Israel obtain their land for an inheritance? Was it purchased by them with money? Genesis 15: 7-18 2. Was there not a Law given by God to them concerning their land? A Law indeed? Leviticus 25:33-34 3. Does their land belong to the parents alone or to the Children also? Genesis 17:8; Luke 15:31 4. Who gave this land for [i.e. to] you for the Maori people? According to Paul, it was God. Acts 17:26

5. Kowai ia e homai ana i a koutou tamariki ma koutou? Waiata 127:3 6. E tika anaranei ma e hoko ta ratou oranga ara, to raitou oneone me nga tamariki a te hunga, ke? Nga Kingi tuatahi 21:2-3 7. E tika ranei ki to Ingarani ture te hoko i te kainga tupu o nga tupuna? Nga rea nga kai hoko wenua ki a homai ki a koutou te ture o Ingarani mo tenei. 8. Ki ta te Maori, he nui noa ahi te taonga o te Pakeha. Otira e ahatia ana e ratou to ratou taonga: E waiho ana ano e ratou ma a ratou Tamariki. I Timoti 1:8; II Kor 12:14 9. Me aha ianei e koutou to koutou taonga, ara, to koutou wenua? Me waiho ano ra hoki mo nga Tamariki. Kia rite ta koutou ki ta te Pakeha rite nga. 10. Tena! Kia hohoro koutou te wakaoho ia a koutou Tamariki ki te reo Pakeha, me nga ritenga katoa a te Pakeha, te wiu Hipi te wangai kau, te rapu Waro Rino Koura kapa, aha, aha.

11. Tenei pea tetahi Ture hou mo te wenua, haunga te Ture nga Hurae mete Ture ate Pakeha? Kahore atu. Ruka 12: 13 & 14 12. KoteahatePutakeoterauakatou o tenei ao? Ko te wenua. Tiuteronomi 3: 7,8, 9 13. Mo te aha i hiahia ai te Pakeha ki te hoko i tenei wenua Maori? 14. He aha nga mea i runga o te wenua? He Rakau, he Patiti, he Wai, me era atu tini mea 15. He aha nga mea o roto? He Waro, he Rino, he Koura, he Kapa, he Kapia, mete tini noa iho ote

taonga.

5. Who is he that gives you children? Psalms 127:3 6. Is it just for you to sell their food that is their ground, for the children of the strange people? I Kings 21:2-3 7. Is it just according to the Law of England the selling of the inheritance of the ancestors? Let the parties appointed to purchase land be sent to give you the law of England concerning this. 8. According to the native idea the wealth of the white men is very great. But what is done by them with their wealth? It is left by them for their children. I Timothy 1:8; II Corinthians 12:14 9. What then will you do with your property that is to say, your land? Leave it of course for the children. Let your custom be alike with that of the white man. 10. Well! Make haste to teach your children the white man’s language, and all the customs of the white man, the driving [of] Sheep, the feeding of Cattle, the seeking of Coal, Iron, Gold, Copper &c &c.

11. There is perhaps a new Law for the Land besides the law of the Jews and the law of the white man? There is no other. Luke 12: 13 & 14 12. What is the root of all the wealth of this world? The land. Deuteronomy 3:7, 8, 9 13. For what reason did the white man desire to purchase this Maori Land? 14. What are the things upon the Land? Trees, grass, water and other numerous things 15. What are the things inside? Coal, Iron, Gold, Copper, Gum and endless wealth

16. Tenei ake ina riro enei wahi wenua katoa i te Pakeha, kei hea e kitea tetahi wahi hei Taone mo koutou ake? 17. E te Wanau! He nui te pai o tenei wenua Maori, rite tonu kite wenua o nga Tamariki a Iharaira i mua. Tiuteronomi 3:7, 8, 9 18. Na koutou na nga matua o nga Maori e ata wakaaro marire ki enei kupu, kite ritenga o te Rongo Pai, kia mahi tika ai koutou kia koutou tamariki. I Timoti 1:8

16. Hereafter when all these pieces of land are gone to the white man where will some place be found as a Town for you? 17. O children! Great is the Goodness of this Maori Land, quite equal to the land of the children of Israel in former times. Deuteronomy 3:7, 8, 9 18. By you, by the fathers of the Maories [sic] let these words be quietly considered according to the Scriptures that you may work justly to your children. I Timothy 1:8

According to the evidence of Hugh Carleton before the Provincial Council Committee the Southern Cross translation was made only from ‘a written copy’ of the printed broadside of which he gave the Committee a specimen as well as a manuscript transcription—in his words ‘a Copy of the written Copy from which the translation was made’, that is the translation made by Telford from the accompanying English original by Grace. This can only be inferred from the confused report by the Committee Clerk in the record of what Carleton actually said—he was not at this stage on the Provincial Council but the Member for the Bay of Islands in the House of Representatives. After he had given the Committee a copy of the printed version and discussed the type in which it was set he continued: . . . the Copy now before the Committee was not the one from which the translation ... in the ‘Southern Cross’ was made. That was a written Copy. The written Copy which I hand to the Committee [my italics] was a Copy of the written Copy from which the translation was made. The English translation is annexed 9

Although his marriage to a daughter of Henry Williams was some years ahead he is likely to have been in touch with the Central Committee of the C.M.S. and to have obtained his manuscript version from the secretary, Robert Vidal, or another member. The joint English and Maori copy which must have been at least a transcript of Grace and Telford’s final version has some obvious errors in both languages by the two or more copyists involved. A certain clumsiness of expression suggests that it may be a translation but, for a number of reasons, the present writer considers that it is a copy of both the original Maori and English until the still elusive broadside itself is discovered. C. 0.8. Davis, the most competent Maori scholar known to

have expressed an opinion, later told the Committee that the Maori text was ‘bad’. He could not see ‘what object was to be gained by the circulation of such a paper’. 10 John White, then official translator, provided yet another version with variations in wording and syntax, generally to give the text a stronger relevance in English than the awkward rendering of the newspaper translation. The draft survives in his papers in the Library of the Auckland Institute and Museum, but the original again is missing, as it is from the official file. Two examples may be quoted for comparison—no. 7 for which the White version reads: ‘ls it according to English custom to sell the hereditary estates of their ancestors? demand of the Land Purchase Commissioners the English law (or custom) in this case’ —and number 9: ‘Then what are you (Natives) to do with your wealth that is your land? You must leave it for your Children, so that you act as Europeans do.’ 11

The Southern Cross understood that copies of the circular in envelopes addressed to individual chiefs were handed out in Auckland to be taken up country, a statement repeated by Carleton to the Provincial Council Committee but perhaps in conflict with Grace’s claim to Vidal, the Secretary of the local C.M.S. Committee, that ‘six copies only have been distributed’. The concern of the editor, to be echoed by McLean, was that the immediate effect would be to ‘excite the jealousy of the Aborigenes [sic] with respect to their lands’, to give them a false idea of its value and ‘to inculcate as a religious duty the expediency of closing up the country’. The effect of the circular would be to ‘check their progress in civilisation’ and —commercial Auckland’s greatest fear —to drive hundreds of intending settlers from Auckland to the south.

Grace’s form of presentation was far more skilful than might be thought, despite the fact that a check of the biblical references shows some to be only marginally relevant if not incorrect. Until the original document is seen it can only be said that Grace was perhaps in too great a hurry to select more specific examples. But for over fifteen years the message of the Protestant missionaries had been hammered home to converts and others in a succinct dialectic which referred constantly to appropriate scriptural injunctions. He had clearly given thought to his choice of text and wording as testified by the angry official reaction to what was seen as an embarrassingly effective broadside. McLean expressed his concern to the Colonial Secretary a few days after the press report, urging an immediate investigation of the circumstances surrounding its issue. He had already brought to official attention The strong opposition of several of the Native Tribes to the sale of their lands—, the numerous Confederations they are forming in the islands to resist it, —the

national feeling of Independence adverse to the progress of the English Government, which such opposition creates; and the evil which it is likely to generate by creating feelings of resentment and ill will between both races . . . the result of which, as the Europeans preponderate, must inevitably be very injurious to the Aborigines themselves . . .

He urged that ‘every vigilance should be used to check the circulation of a document which written under the guise of Religious sympathy’, in the ‘present state of the native mind’, and in the districts where it had been circulated, was ‘of a most dangerous and seditious character . . ,’. 12 Wynyard had already instructed the Native Secretary to make every possible exertion and inquiry to trace the authors and to get him a copy.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies was informed. Wynyard stressed the danger to the work of colonisation and the tendency of the circular to create disaffection ‘and a disposition to resist her Majesty’s authority on the subject of all others [in which] the Natives are most susceptable and most easily mislead’ [sic]. Public opinion pointed to the Church Missionary Society as the author and he regretted to inform London that their inquiries ‘confirmed the fact, and places the onus of this mistaken and imprudent measure on a Member of that Body ... in Auckland’. 13 Among the enclosures was a copy of his letter to the local C.M.S. Committee calling upon them to ‘counteract the evil tendency such a document is calculated to create’.

In New Zealand, members of the Society were quick to repudiate any responsibility for the document or its publication. Robert Vidal, the recently appointed Secretary of the Central Committee from England, in a statement dated 27 October and signed jointly with G. A. Kissling (who Grace later declared had first agreed with his views), and W. C. Dudley, declared that they were ‘neither directly or indirectly connected’ with it and knew nothing of it until their attention was drawn to the newspaper article three days after its appearance on the 17th. In a lengthy accompanying letter Kissling said he understood that Grace intended to call on Wynyard. 14 No record of the subsequent interview exists. Grace later felt that he had quite satisfied the acting Governor who gave him a very kind reception although the latter’s impressions were less favourable. The broadside itself had no imprint, thus giving some encouragement to the opinion of both press and officialdom that it was run off on the Mission press. Maunsell as the person in charge of mission printing was most anxious to rebut suggestions that such was the case:

We have nothing that can properly be called ‘The Mission press’. There are I believe only two amateur presses (if I may so call them,) very small, now in the

mission, one at Kaitaia, the other at Auckland. Whether the former has ever been in operation I have never learned. The latter was during the past winter worked with much difficulty in printing a few chapters in the Bible.

Maunsell felt able to be somewhat fulsome in his recognition of Government impeccability: ‘I am confident that very few of our body could be induced to take any step in political matters, much less against the Government whose moderation & justice in all its transactions with the Aboriginal race the Missionaries as a body have always contemplated with much satisfaction . . . ’ He had not seen a copy at Kohanga, Waikato Heads, from where he was writing and no one had referred to it. 15

Ashwell from Taupiri and Taylor at Wanganui joined in the chorus of repudiation. Ashwell had seen two copies, one with a Maori on his way to Tauranga and the other shown to him by Fluirama, a chief of the Ngatimahuta, to whom the missionary had expressed his strong disapproval of the sentiments in the circular and his endorsement, even cordial approval, of McLean’s policies. 16 Taylor, like his Auckland colleagues, had taken custody of the one copy he had seen —sent by Telford to a Maori known to him from his period of duty at Putiki with Taylor. Taylor had used his best efforts ‘to counteract its pernicious tendency’. 17 The resolution which he forwarded from the ‘members of the Western District of the Church Missionary Society’ was even stronger in its support of Government policy than those already quoted. When Grace caught up with the reaction of his colleagues he was somewhat shaken. He might have felt —for he was not a modest man —as Christ denied by Peter.

Meanwhile, since the initial letter from Morgan to McLean, the Fitz Gerald ‘Ministry’ and its even briefer successor under Forsaith had vanished like Fitz Gerald, Sewell and the doubtful southern colleagues hastening back to their own troubles. By default as much as self-interest it was proper that the Auckland Provincial Council should respond to the dominant feeling of its masters and investigate the matter. That the Province’s first Superintendent should have been the Officer administering the Government may have been more than a coincidence of the same order as the fact of his successor William Brown being the owner of the Southern Cross with Logan Campbell, a leader of the Auckland group which had long been agitating for the cancelling of the Crown’s right of pre-emption and a return to direct purchase from Maori owners. 18 The Southern Cross made the Grace affair an opportunity to step up its pressure for this move and, in the wider context, it is significant that Frederick Whitaker, who moved the resolution in the Council for setting up the committee of inquiry, of which he was appointed chairman, was the public spokesman for this view.

The Committee’s terms of reference were to enquire into the whole subject of land acquisition from the Maori owners and particularly into Wynyard’s recommendation that active negotiations should be suspended for a period. It was to report also on ‘what shall appear to the Committee the best mode of acquiring native lands for the future’, as well, of course, as an investigation into the ‘authorship of a certain publication which had anonymously been put into circulation’. 19 Meanwhile the Central Committee of the Church Missionary Society continued its own investigations. Vidal apparently called on Grace three days after the appearance of the article. What then transpired can only be inferred from the later charges and countercharges of both parties. Until that week the Committee’s dominant worry was Grace’s vigorous and forthright insistence on adequate financial backing for the establishment of his Taupo station. The local resources of the Society were unable to meet the level of support which Grace expected and Vidal’s firm but not very perceptive method of handling the problems in the manner of a twentieth-century Treasury investigating officer was causing marked tension. Now amid the tumult of this new and quite unsuspected storm, Grace’s role as a fractious trouble-maker was to them the more apparent.

At the initial interview Vidal apparently made a tactical error in over-emphasising the displeasure of ‘certain members of the Government’ —unnamed —rather than concentrating on the quite proper and more specific anxiety of the Society to clarify responsibility. Grace, viewing Vidal more as an agent of Government ‘and as a matter of course not acknowledging such authority, gave no satisfactory information upon the subject’. 20 Next day he received a letter from Messrs Kissling, Wilson and Vidal ‘which carried on the face of it an evident desire to entrap me’ showing to Grace a wish ‘to commit me for what you all apparently suppose a most unpardonable crime’. He felt ‘indignant’ at their proceedings to which he gave the same reply as before —admitting nothing, denying nothing. He was unwilling to accuse himself ‘before such a tribunal’, considering the remarks in his colleagues’ letter to the parent committee in London which he had apparently seen, ‘as absurd as they were uncharitable’. 21 But he did now concede that if Vidal, as a C.M.S. agent, felt it his duty to interrogate him he was prepared to give the Secretary ‘such information so far as I am concerned’. Vidal in his reply the following day the 27th defended his references to the views of Government officers, ‘the case having assumed a most serious nature . . . affecting the Government of the country and the peace and welfare of the whole population’. 22

John Telford, the second person involved in the publication, had crossed to New South Wales a few weeks earlier. Ten years before, in 1844, he had been appointed mission printer in successor to Colenso, serving for some four years before a lengthy visit to England in 1848. Dogged by ill health he was posted on his return the following year as a lay worker to assist Taylor at Wanganui and spent much time at Pipiriki. However the climate of Wanganui and the living conditions at Putiki were unsuitable and he was back in Auckland in 1853 when he met Grace.

Telford, as he later explained, agreed to assist only with the translation of the circular and with some reluctance, after ‘repeated visits and representations of the author made me loath to give him offence by a refusal’. He explained his unwillingness to assist not only on grounds of health but, somewhat curiously, for the reason that although ‘the object appeared to be good’ it was but a temporal one and not entirely ‘within the limits of missionary action’. 23 He confirmed that the circular had not been printed on the mission press but by an Auckland printer in the ordinary course of business. Grace had paid for the printing and had taken all the copies, giving Telford ‘a few of them, but with the exception of two or three which I sent ... to a friend in Wanganui ... I circulated none’.

Wynyard considered Telford’s explanation ‘rather evasive’. What he stated was ‘all very well’ but Grace was still the author and Telford had arranged the printing. That it was not printed by the C.M.S. was now ‘of little moment’ as it was never supposed for a moment that other missionaries named ‘had anything to say to it’. 24 Had Wynyard seen the letter which the catechist wrote a week or so later to one Charles Graham, his doubts about Telford’s good faith would hardly have diminished. The reason, as Telford saw it, for the ruthless impatience of the Auckland politicians was the expected demise of the Maori race ‘by the friends of the Southern Cross ’. It was no wonder that the circular, ‘simple and honest though it be should have given offence to these men’. Telford compared Grey, whose image as a friend of the Maori was as yet unshaken, with Wynyard—‘feeble-minded, unfit for his situation’. 25

The Provincial Council, meanwhile sat in mid-November to hear the evidence of Hugh Carleton and others on aspects of the land purchase question as well as the Grace circular. Before interviewing the printer John Richardson it questioned Philip Kunst, managing printer of the Southern Cross and William Wilson ofth eNew Zealander. Kunst declined to be drawn on the identity of the printer but merely suggested that the type had been cast in Sydney—‘All the Printers in Auckland have similar type . .

Wilson also could not say where it was printed but thought that it was set in type held by St John’s College; he had compared the type

face of the circular with a specimen ‘pattern’ supplied by the College for a recent job and showed the Committee that the two documents were ‘exactly alike’. He thought that St John’s and the New Zealander were the only two Auckland printers with any quantity of this font —‘Richardson and the Southern Cross may have some very much alike, but not exactly the same’. 26

However, any uncertainty was removed by the next witness, Richardson himself who admitted to printing 250 copies although he now didn’t have one. In his words: ‘I do not perfectly understand Maori and did not think I was printing any harm or I would not have printed it. . . . It was brought to me by a person [Telford] in a careless offhand sort of manner saying “print this”.’ 27 Richardson’s own background warrants noting. He had arrived in Auckland in July 1841 with his family, under engagement to the Auckland Newspaper and General Printing Company. He was thus a staff member of the capital’s first newspaper, the New Zealand Herald and Auckland Gazette. About 1848 or 1849 a legacy enabled him to commence his own printing house at Windsor Terrace, Mechanics Bay. 28 Two years later he was publishing a short-lived journal, the Auckland Independent and Operative’s Journal, from William Street near the Mechanics’ Institute. In 1855, some months after the Grace inquiry, he was publishing the Trumpeter, allegedly a free-thought paper, although on his death 28 years later he was duly buried by the vicar of St Matthew’s in the Anglican cemetery. He was also printer and part-owner ofthe Auckland Examiner (1858-61) but none of these enterprises seem to have prospered, for his obituary stated that he had ‘experienced his share ofthe vicissitudes of colonial life’. At the time of his death in 1883 at the age of 76 he was a compositor for the New Zealand Herald. 29

Grace told his own Committee that the omission of the printer’s name was no one’s fault but his own. On the point of anonymity Grace was somewhat more equivocal. If the failure to acknowledge the circular was a crime ‘I am sorry for it’. He had never before written an anonymous document, but in the present instance did not presume to think that he deserved the whole honour for its appearance. Again —‘how many sets of questions have been published in Native without a name?’ 30 The Provincial Council Committee could not itself examine Grace, some weeks away on his lengthy journey to Pukawa, or Telford. On the question of authorship, Carleton at the outset had said that he ‘had not the slightest doubt but ... no positive knowledge [but] from various circumstances I believe Mr Grace to be the author’. He was not obliged to disclose from what source he had obtained either the printed or the manuscript copy but interestingly cited the use of the word ‘potiti’ (patiti, i.e. grass) in

clause 14 as an example of East Cape dialect which drew attention to Grace as the possible author. The Committee decided to write to the Superintendent for information on the point although subsequently Wynyard provided a firm answer. 31 Doubtless the elusiveness of the author was the reason for its failure to state correctly either Grace’s initials or place of residence in its report which was tabled on 8 December. ‘The Rev. M. Grace, of Turanga, near the East Cape’ on his own admission to His Excellency was ‘the author of the document in English’. The Committee did not attribute ‘any improper motives either to Mr Grace or to Mr Telford’, but could not acquit them ‘of a most serious want of discretion, and . . . much . . . regretted that these gentlemen should be located in districts where the propagation of such views . . . are most likely to be productive of the most mischievous results’. It pointed out that the opinions of the duet were in strong contrast with the members of the C.M.S. generally: ‘. . . none . . . who have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion . . . feel the slightest sympathy towards this unfortunate proceeding . . .’. On the wider question of speeding up land purchasing the Committee recommended that a number of resident land purchase officers be appointed in key districts. 32

Without the cooperation ofCarleton the Committee might never have seen a copy. Wilson in the evidence quoted had clearly seen one before the meeting although he probably made his comparison at the hearing by using the one left by Carleton. Wynyard was expecting a copy ‘from the interior’ 33 which doubtless never arrived; John White had not seen one when he also appeared 34 and Dr Andrew Sinclair as Colonial Secretary told Wynyard that ‘it never has been in the possession of the General Government’. 35 Whether pernicious, simple, evil or honest it has, to the time of writing, simply disappeared although the writer is confident that at least one will be found. An interested friend has been watching for one to surface for some 25 years.

In a post mortem on the report the Southern Cross was really concerned only with the steps necessary to speed up land acquisition from the Maori owners. It thought that Grace and Telford were much to blame, perhaps not completely so, for the Central Committee of the Society had acted with ‘utter disregard of their duty in sending Mr Grace to the interior again among the natives’, adding with Henry Williams in mind, although not quite correctly on points of detail, that time was when they had taken it upon themselves to dismiss one of their brethren ‘for the crime of being opposed to Governor Grey’. 36 Meanwhile, at quite a different level and in another hemisphere, the hasty despatch of 31 October from Wynyard to Sir George

Grey, Bart., briefly Colonial Secretary, had at last arrived. Its wording was somewhat tendentious: Public opinion pointed to the Church Mission Society as the author of this Circular, and I regret to acquaint you that the result of our enquiries confirmed the fact, and places the onus of this mistaken and imprudent measure on a Member of that Body, who for some Months past has been detained professionally in Auckland. 37

Apart from the charming irrelevancy of the last line Wynyard failed to name Grace, a pointed note in the Colonial Office, or to state that Grace himself had made a personal explanation. He did regret that he had not sufficient time to procure a copy of the circular itself but enclosed the press report. In a minute to the permanent Under-Secretary Herman Merivale, Sydney Herbert, one of the three clerks who (as was customary) initialled it, said the document appeared to be ‘a repetition of the mischievous course pursued by some of the Europeans in New Zealand . . .’. It was decided to send the letter to the Church Missionary Society for comment and at the same time to request the Society’s cooperation in checking a course of action in view of the ‘Disastrous consequences which might result from such an influence being Exerted on the Natives . . ,’. 38 The titular addressee, Henry Thomas Pelham, 3rd Earl of Chichester, for nearly half a century the Society’s President, would have received a little earlier, perhaps by the same vessel which carried Wynyard’s despatch, Grace’s own explanation. The parent committee, having considered both, passed a resolution as follows:

That without questioning the propriety of Mr Grace’s giving his advice to the Natives respecting the sale of their land, the Committee cannot but disapprove of the step he has taken of circulating an anonymous paper amongst the Natives calculated to stir up a prejudice against the Government and the Europeans in the country, as well as of the use he has made of Scripture for that purpose. 39

It is clear that Grace’s own statement, a copy of which has not so far been located, referred specifically to the Fitz Gerald declaration which, if carried out, ‘would be frought with ruin to the Natives, & great injury to the Colony, by causing Native lands to become again matters of wholesale speculation thereby putting a final stop to native industry & consequently to the prosperity of that part of the Colony’. Grace was a man of strong Christian principle, unswerving resolution, great ability and, above all, enormous energy. Somewhat unusually among his brethren, he had had some years of business experience, probably in the weaving industry, before joining the Church. But for his faith he might have been a Tawney

capitalist or, indeed, have succeeded in any walk in life which did not demand some measure of compromise. On Church issues his consistent adherence to fundamentals brought him into conflict with more establishment-orientated colleagues and when frustrated or threatened he seized a pen with the same interminable results as Colenso but, justly, with more effect. During the local arguments with Vidal and the Committee he poured scorn on the cumbersome time-wasting committee organisation of the C.M.S. preferring simply to make up his mind and forge ahead. When two years later he was incorrectly accused of being behind the decisions at the initial Pukawa meeting prior to the establishment of the Maori King, Gore Browne, perhaps prompted by McLean, was prepared to banish him. When the eye of this hurricane also passed it opened a path for time, circumstance and his family to found one of New Zealand’s most interesting bicultural dynasties with its own positive contribution over several generations. In the shorter term, memories of this 1854 trauma prompted historically significant reactions in two camps. Who will deny, on the one hand, that Grace’s strong Maori sympathies were a factor in his surviving at Opotiki in March 1865 when Volkner was killed? Correspondingly, the guarded but clear indication which James Hector passed on to him two years later that Government —as distinct from Grey himself —did not want him back at Taupo reflected also the memories and reactions of a colonial wartime administration.

Today’s complexities of coexistence, the facts as well as the rights of successive Maori incursions preceding a European occupation by guile, force and a peculiary British blend of both which now compel more than a meed of justice on the path to positive inter-racial reconciliation, are obviously beyond the scope of this historical footnote. From the Maori standpoint the dying Telford’s rider on the controversy is a fitting conclusion 130 years later: My prayer is, that a time may arrive . . . when the painful & perplexing elements in this critical period of their history being all evaporated they may continue to be known as a distinct people—intelligent, wealthy & respected—living in harmony among themselves, and at peace with their fellow country men of foreign descent 40

REFERENCES The above paper is a background note to the appropriate chapter in Tongariro and the Ways to It. I have pleasure in acknowledging assistance from a number of people during its preparation, more particularly Ms Sharon Dell who had earlier copied John White’s translation in Auckland; Mr C. J. Parr of Auckland for a most pleasing interest and some significant references; Mr Ross Somerville, New

Zealand Reference Dept., Auckland Public Library, particularly for his eleventh-hour discovery of the hitherto uncatalogued minute book of the Auckland Provincial Council Committee; Mr lan Thwaites, Librarian, Auckland Institute and Museum and Mr Michael Hodder, Senior Archivist, National Archives, Wellington. 1 Southern Cross, 17 Oct. and 12 Dec. 1854. 28. 'Wells, History of Taranaki (1878), p. 155; A. j. Harrop , England and the Maori Wars (1937), p. 27-8. 3 N.Z.P.D. vol. 1, p. 89, 15 June 1854. 4 26 March 1854, and see W. D. Mclntyre’s note on McLean’s appointment in Sewell Journal (1980) v 01.2, p.4ln. 5 Morgan to McLean, 20 Sep. 1854, on I.A. 55/774. The basis on which letters such as the above, in itself typical of many thousands received, became part of the official record or remained in his private papers is of interest. Private letters tended to be held by McLean unless, as in the present case, action stemmed from them. Alternatively, private letters from officials tended to remain so, particularly if the subject matter was also dealt with in an official communication. 6 Financial Message n 0.5, in N.Z.P.D. vol.l, p. 369, 4 Sep. 1854. 7 Southern Cross, 17 Oct. 1854. The front page is incorrectly headed October 18 although the correct date, the 17th, heads the inside feature story. 8 Auckland Provincial Council. Native Land Purchase Committee (1854) Minute Book, p. 51-3; NZMS 595 session 2 (Oct. 1854 —Jan. 1855), Auckland Public Library. 9 Ibid, p. 6. 10 Ibid, p. 7.

11 MS 328, Auckland Institute and Museum Library. White’s title was ‘Questions to the Natives on the sale of Lands’. 12 McLean to Col. Sec., 21 Oct. 1854, I.A. 54/3411 on 55/774. 13 Governor’s despatches, 31 Oct. 1854, no.l 16 (Misc.) N.A. G/30/24; 209 series; micro reel no. 1254. 14 On I.A. 55/774. 15 R. Maunsell to Col. Sec., 14 Nov., ibid. Williams in a note in his Bibliography (p.x) explains that the Kaitaia press was the small press which Selwyn had brought with him to Waimate and was not needed when the C.M.S. gave him the original Mission press —Colenso’s—when St John’s College was transferred to Auckland in 1845. 16 B. Y. Ashwell to Col. Sec., 30 Nov., ibid. 17 R. Taylor to Col. Sec., 14 Dec., ibid. 18 The background to this campaign is given by Professor Russell Stone in his paper ‘Auckland party politics in the early years of the provincial system, 1853-58’, New Zealand Journal of History, 14 (Oct. 1980), 153-78. 19 Auckland Provincial Council. Journals ... 8 Nov. 1854, p. 16. 20 T. S. Grace to R. Vidal, 12 Dec. 1854 (Part III) Vidal corres. C.M.S. CN series, micro reel no. 60. 21 Grace to Vidal, 26 Oct. 1854; C.M.S. CN 06 series, micro reel n 0.44. 22 Vidal to Grace, 27 Oct. 1854, ibid. 23 J. Telford to Vidal, 14 Nov. 1854, on I.A. 55/774. It may be significant that there is no reference whatever to the case in the Grace family biography, A Pioneer Missionary . . . by S. J. Brittan (and others). In fact, except for two minor letters about Telford’s gift to Grace of a bell for theTaupo church (p. 40), 1854 is a blank year. 24 Minute by Wynyard, 29 Nov., on I.A. 55/774. 25 Telford to Charles Graham, 30 Nov. 1854; C.M.S. micro reel n 0.59.

26 Auckland Provincial Council. Native Land Purchase Committee, op. cit., p. 9. 27 Ibid, p.lO. 28 Southern Cross, 10 Mar. 1849. 29 N.Z. Herald, 13 Aug. 1883. 30 Grace to Vidal, 12 Dec. 1854, op. cit. 31 Auckland Provincial Council. Native Land Purchase Committee, op. cit., p. 11. 32 Ibid, Committee report in Votes & Proceedings. 33 Committee minute book, p. 28. 34 Ibid, p. 14. 35 Ibid, p. 27 36 Southern Cross, 12 Dec. 1854. 37 Governor’s despatches, op. cit., 31 Oct. 1854; 209 series micro reel n 0.1254. 38 Minute signed 15 and 19 Feb. 1855, on above. 39 H. Venn, Sec. C.M.S., 2 Mar. 1855:‘The case of the Revd T. S. Grace . . .’,on inward despatch from Sec. of State, 1855 n 0.17; 209 series micro reel n 0.1256; C.M.S. home letter-books 1853-5, on micro reel n 0.67. The comparable New Zealand resolution was passed by the Central Committee in February 1855. The Committee deeply regretted that a member should have participated in the publication of the document although members believed that it had not ‘produced the serious mischief anticipated by the Government’. (Minutes 12 Feb. 1855, item no. VI, which formally lists the exchanges between those concerned. Auckland Institute & Museum Library, MS n 0.60). 40 Telford to C. Graham, 30 Nov. 1854; C.M.S. letters, micro reel n 0.67.