Resolutions

Passed at a Public Meeting, held at the Market-place, Auckland, on the 24th December, 1853, on the occasion of Governor Grey's departure from New Zealand.

Proposed by W. C. Daldy, Esq.:—'That this meeting express their regret that a section of a party, together with the numerous officials, should have adopted measures relative to the approaching departure of Sir George Gray from the Colony, which tend to the raising of unchristian-like strife and enmity; that his Excellency should not have been suffered to retire quickly and without notice from the Government of the Colony; and that the setting forth of a protest, for the purpose of clearing the general community from the imputation of having participated in these measures, should have been imperatively required.'

Proposed by James Busby, Esq., J.P., M.P.C.:—'That this Meeting, without expressing any opinion concerning the various measures of Sir George Gray's government, do protest against the offering of any parting compliment—whether by public dinner, address, or otherwise, to a Governor who has compromised the honour of the Crown, and has outraged the moral feeling of the community by his systematic calumny and untruth—who has been publicly and repeated arraigned upon these charges, and whom no single individual has ventured publicly to defend from them.'

Proposed by Walter Brodie, Esq.:—'That this meeting express their regret that any of those 520 Colonists of the Auckland Province who signed the following petition, in the year 1849, should have stultified themselves, and have cast a slur upon the community in now pledging themselves to Governor Gray's uprightness by joining in the testimonials which have been protested against, merely because they had been supported by his Excellency in supplying to the Government trade, such as flour, sugar, tobacco, &c., &c., for native purposes.'

To the Right Hon. Earl Grey, her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonics.

The Petition of the undersigned, Inhabitants of Auckland and its vicinity, in the province of New Ulster, New Zealand, Shrweth,

That this province has, since the arrival of his Excellency Governor Gray, boon subjected by him to a course of policy—or rather to cer- page 18 tain experimental schemes—which have been productive of the deepest injury to the colony, shutting up its resources, preventing the investment of capital, and discouraging all energy and enterprise in the settlers. That the representations of its nourishing condition during the last three years, are founded on false and deceptive bases, calculated only to mislead your Lordship and others at a distance. The apparent prosperity, the increase of revenue and trade, are solely attributable to the large naval and military expenditure, which the liberality of Her Majesty's Government has maintained for so long a period, the withdrawal of which—by leaving the colony to its own natural resources—would show that it has most miserably retrograded under the management of Governor Gray That the crisis which eventually must have ensued from the restrictive and suicidal policy that has been pursued, has been hastened by the discovery of California, and the many temptations to re-emigration which that country holds out; that already many of our settlers have left, but still much greater numbers are preparing to leave,—induced, in many instances, to do so much more by reason of that misgovernment which has shut up the resources of the country, and destroyed the prosperity of the settlers, than because of the alluring attractions of California. That your petitioners have used every legitimate means in their power, by repeatedly memorializing the Legislative Council, pointing out the present unhappy state of this colony, and the imperative necessity for remedial measures being at once adopted, but they have only obtained a reiteration of the same evasive and unstatisfactory promises of future relief, which have been given and broken for the last three years. It is not your petitioners intention to enter now into a detailed statement of their numerous grievances—a document expressing them having recently been forwarded to your Lordship;—their present object being to make known the important fact that they have now lost all confidence in Governor Gray's policy, and all hope of his making any beneficial change therein. But, further, they have lost respect for his character for official veracity, on account of the systematic misrepresentations of his despatches; some being filled with glowing descriptions of the prosperity of the colony—merely fictitious—while at other times they contain certain calumnious strictures on the characters of individuals compounded and forwarded with such complete secrecy, and with such utter disregard of truth, that no one can venture to think himself secure from being assailed—a grievance which your petitioners feel the more keenly by the conviction that they are entirely in the power of such statements; being cut off from any official channel of communication with her Majesty's Government, and being denied the privilege of representative Institutions through the unfounded representations of his Excellency. That under such circumstances your petitioners consider that Governor Gray's continuance in this appointment can tend neither to the advancement of the colony, nor to the interests of the settlers.

May it, therefore, please your lordship to advise her most Gracious Majesty forthwith to remove Governor Gray from his appointment, and replace him with one who may, at least, exhibit straightforward honesty of statement in his communication with her Majesty's Government; and whose proceedings in the colony, whatever may be their result, may, page 19 at least, bear upon the face of them integrity of purpose and good will towards the settlers.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will over pray. Proposed by Mr Joseph May:—'That copies of these resolutions be signed by the Chairman, on behalf of the meeting, and forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.'

Joshua Thorp, Chairman.

Joshua Thorp's letter related to a public dinner given to Sir George Gray a few days before he left Auckland for England. What was called a public dinner certainly was given him. It consisted of 63 gentlemen; 49 were Government, naval, and military officers; 3 merchant captains (non-resident); 11 merchants, as I may term them, who supplied his Excellency with goods to carry out the 'treacle and flour policy; 2 reporters; and Bishop Selwyn. The latter was a passenger with Sir G. Gray in the same ship to England. Can this dinner he considered a public dinner where there were only 14 civilians out of a population in the province of 16,000?

If Earl Grey would obtain these papers, and calmly and quietly read them over, I think his opinion of Sir George Gray, which he now holds, would be much shaken.

'If Sir G. Gray goes to New Zealand he will go branded with the want of moral principle, and will meet with bitter opposition,' whether the Stafford or Fox ministry are in office. 'He defamed the Church Missionaries, and accused them of their land claims being the cause of the war in 1845. Archdeacon Williams, on these charges, was dismissed the Church Missionary Society, but was ultimately reinstated on proving the charges to be false.' Sir G. Gray destroyed the working of the Constitution Act by establishing the Provincial before the General Government, and as I have before stated, was afraid to meet in the General Assembly the representatives of the people, prior to his leaving the colony. One of the first acts of Sir G. Gray was, to arrest the celebrated chief Pomare, at his pah at the Bay of Islands, and under a flag of truce he was made prisoner, and sent to Auckland on board H.M.S. Calliope. When the late worthy Sir E. Home saw the breach of faith committed by her Majesty's Representatives he shed tears, and well might he. In May 31st, 1861, I was examined before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on Military Colonial Expenses, when I stated that there were between 22,000 and 23,900 Aboriginal New Zealand Natives above fourteen years of age, and all were capable of bearing arms against us in the North Island. These remarks appeared to astonish the Committee, but more especially Lord Stanley; and Mr. C. S. Fortescue asked me 'whether I was aware that a dispatch had been sent out to New Zealand from the Colonial office prohibiting natives from voting at elections; my reply was 'No.' Europeans and natives, under the 7th clause of the constitution are entitled to vote, provided they are qualified; many natives are qualified; and, as the constitution became a legal document by act of Parliament, ergo, all the dispatches from the Colonial office trying to prevent the natives voting are illegal. An act of Parliament must be passed before natives can be legally prevented from voting. We, colonists, have always boon willing to give the natives their rights; but, page 20 Sir, hero is the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies wishing to debar the natives of their rights. By the treaty of Waitangi the New Zealanders have been considered British subjects. Query, are they British subjects, or do they, the New Zealand natives, belong to a foreign nation? It is true that the colonizing powers of Europe have always assumed a dominion over those countries, founded by right of discovery, or the pretension of conquest; and thus established within those countries the principle, that no land could be acquired or held; but mediately or immediately from the respective sovereigns, who assumed such dominion. But, towards New Zealand an opposite course was pursued. 'The Queen had acknowledged New Zealand as a Sovereign and independent State,' had 'disclaimed for herself and her subjects every pretension to seize on the Islands of New Zealand,' and had admitted that the 'title of its inhabitants to the soil and sovereignty of their country was indisputable, and had been solemnly recognised by the British Government.' Whatever, then, might have been the social or political condition of the New Zealanders the British Government had acknowledged and treated them as a Sovereign and independent State. But in a letter from the late Mr. Soames to Lord Palmerston (1839), the right of Great Britain is maintained over the Sovereignty of Now Zealand. But answers which might be made by foreign nations to such a claim are two; first, that the British Statute Book, has, in the present century, in three distinct enactments, declared that New Zealand is not a part of the British dominions; and secondly, that King William IV. made the most public, solemn, and authentic declaration which it was possible to make, that New Zealand was a substantive and independent State.

The recognition of the King, Lords, and Commons of Great Britain of the fact, that New Zealand is not part of the British dominions, will be found in the Statutes 57 Geo. III. cap. 53; 4 Geo. IV. cap. 96, sec. 3; and 9 Geo. IV. cap. 83, sec. 4. The following are the extracts from each of these Statutes. The recognition of King William IV. of New Zealand as a substantive and independent state, is shown by the following:—

'On the 16th Nov., 1831, a letter to King William IV. from thirteen chiefs of New Zealand, was transmitted to Lord Goderich, praying the protection of the British Crown against the neighbouring tribes, and against British subjects residing in the islands.'

'On the 14th June, 1832, Lord Ripon despatched Mr. James Busby as British Resident, partly to protect British commerce, and partly to repress the outrages of British subjects on the natives. His Lordship sent Mr. Busby a letter to the chiefs, in which the King was made to address them as an independent people. Their support was requested for Mr. Busby, and they were reminded of the benefits they would derive from the friendship and alliance of Great Britain.'

'In the month of June, 1832, a Bill was brought into the House of Commons for the prevention of crimes committed by his Majesty's subjects in New Zealand, and other islands in the Pacific, not being within his Majesty's dominions. The Bill was rejected because Parliament could not lawfully legislate for a foreign country.'

'On the 13th of April, 1833, the Governor of New South Wale?, in obedience to Lord Ripon's orders, addressed instructions to Mr. page 21 Busby, in which New Zealand was expressly mentioned as a foreign country, and Mr. Busby himself as being accredited to the chiefs.'

These documents throughout assume the independence of New Zealand.

'On the 29th of April, 1834, General Bourke transmitted to Lord Stanley a proposal from Mr. Busby for establishing a national flag for tribes of New Zealand "in their collective capacity," and advised that ships built in the island, and registered by the chiefs, should have their registers respected in their intercourse with British possessions. Sir R. Bourke reported that he had sent three patterns of flags, one of which had been selected by the chiefs; that the chiefs had accordingly assembled with the commanders of the British ships, and three American ships, to witness the inauguration of the flag, at which the officer of U.M.S. Alligator were also present. The flag had been declared to be the "National Flag" of New Zealand, and, being hoisted, was saluted by H.M.S. Alligator with 21 guns.'

'On the 21st Decembor, 1834, a despatch was addressed to Sir Richard Bourke by Lord Aberdeen, approving all the proceedings, in the name of the King, and sending a copy of a letter from the Admiralty, stating that they had instructed their officers to give effect to the New Zealand registers, and to acknowledge and respect the national flag of New Zealand.'

I think these solemn Acts of Parliament and letters from King William IV. are quite sufficient to prove the present position of the Islands of New Zealand, and under these circumstances I again repeat, that it is the imperative duty of the Imperial Government of Great Britain to at once take possession of these islands via et armis, and when completed, act justly and honourably to our allies and neutrals, but take every acre of land from the rebel tribes and the clergy who have instigated them (the natives) in the present unfortunate war.

Lord Grey made a very long speech in the Lords on the 28th ult., the greater part of which is unworthy of a reply. He said, 'could it be believed that Mr. Richmond could be a trustworthy adviser of the Governor's, as he was a New Plymouth settler.' Sir, Mr. Richmond (although differing from him in politics) is the most able native Minister Now Zealand ever had; he does not gain his information from 'treacle and flour dispatches,' but from a long-residence experience, which Earl Grey will never obtain unless he goes out to New Zealand for many years, and lives amongst the natives. Experientia docet might then be his, the noble Earl's, motto. Noble Lords and Hon. Members of the Commons should never debate upon subjects they are perfectly unacquainted with, not even if they derive their information from Sir George Gray (Kt.). How some noble lords have swallowed and digested some colonial dispatches, to me appears most extraordinary. The old colonists who read the Governor's dispatches, from their experience in the colonies, are the only men whose authority ought to be taken as valid. At the Colonial Office Governors are public servants, bowing and scraping at Downing-street for promotion, and generally speaking, do not care one fraction what becomes of their colonists. But what would the United Kingdom be without her 50 colonies? Why, a rabbit-warren on the most gigantic page 22 scale, or three islands of Union or Workhouses without space for a subarban allotment between them. Earl Grey stated on the 28th ult., 'that he hoped his friend, Sir George Gray, would not be deprived of any power to carry out his policy (I presume treacle and flour)." let Sir George Gray find, on his arrival in New Zealand, a British Act of Parliament suspending the existing Constitution of that Colony.' Had Earl Grey said, 'suspend' the minister of religion, who had, to a great extent, been the cause and maintenance of the war, he would have spoken like a wise man. What did the noble Duke of Newcastle say in reply to this attempted insult to the colonists of the noble earl's?

'He could not comply with the suggestion of the noble lord. He believed it would be most unwise and unjust to suspend the constitution on the ground of an insurrection of the native races. To adopt that course would be to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty, and would create dissension among both races. He should think that the suspension of the constitution would be under any circumstances, and certainly under the present, one of the most impolitic acts which a British Minister could commit.' The Bill was then read a second time. A most noble, just, and proper reply to the Duke. We do not require despot Gray to be our treasurer and Governor again. 'Once bit, twice shy.' There is no doubt he had at one time great influence over the natives, but only so long as he had plenty of money, flour, rice, sugar, treacle, tobacco, blankets, &c., Arc; when none of the above-named articles were at hand, all his influence had died away and was gone. The Constitution Act was proclaimed, and Governor George Gray had to ask for 'leave of absence.' If the Constitution Act had been suspended, provided Sir G. Gray accepted the offered appointment which Earl Grey was so ravenous for him to accept, it would just have been the old story of 'treacle and flour.' Peace might have been made for two or three years, until Sir G. Gray had left the colony, but in a short time it would then be the same as it is now. We do not want a 'treacle-and-posset' Governor; we want a man who is not ashamed to meet either his Legislative Conncilmen or the members of the House of Representatives. We want a governor that will go hand in hand with the representatives of the people for the general welfare of the colony, European and native; but Governor Sir George Gray is not the man, I am sorry to say, to do any good in New Zealand. What benefit did he ever confer on New Zealand? I firmly believe that if the Constitution of New Zealand was suspended, as Earl Grey wished it to be by his speech (collected from dispatches) in the Lords, on the 28th May last, viz.:—' In the present state of irritation of the Maoriee and Europeans, perhaps nothing else would answer, that the suspension for three years of the representative system of the Colony, and the concentration of the whole legislative and executive authority in the hands of Sir G. Gray, and a Council deriving its powers from the Crown (alias Governor Gray). The influence which Sir G. Gray possessed over the minds of the Natives would enable him to restore peace in the Colony at no distant period '(with sugar, rice, flour, tobacco, &c, &c, &c.)' The presence of Sir G. Gray would be worth 10,000 additional troops,' (most laughable). So long as the Noble Earl (Grey) expresses his opinions upon Sir G. Gray's dispatches, only, so long will Colonists despise his opinions page 23 generally upon the wants of the Colony. If the Constitution was suspended, there would be no rebellious feeling among the Natives, 'as the sugar and flour policy' would remedy that evil, but there would be, without any doubt, from past experience of Sir G. Gray's actions, a rebellion among the Colonists. We highly respect our Queen and the Constitution. By us, Colonists, is our revenue derived, and we expect that revenue will be expended through the Representatives of our constituents, and not through a Government nominee, who has been tried for no less than eight years in New Zealand.

The best thing to be done just now is to strike out by Act of Parliament the 73rd clause of our Constitution Act, and put in one by Act of Parliament of the very opposite nature. Until then we shall not be living under responsible Government. Then, in two or three years after peace is proclaimed, we will not ask the Home Government for any soldiers, unless we guarantee to support them. This 73rd clause will be the means of John Bull paying from one and a-half to two and a-half millions of money, as I have before said. Is it not natural to suppose that colonists of from fifteen to twenty-five years' standing, and who hold the highest positions in the colony, are not better judges of the requirements of the natives and the colony generally, than all the colonial ministers who have held office for the last twenty years? I wish Earl Grey, or some hon, member of Parliament, would call for letters (put up in form of a pamphlet) from James Busby, Esq. (member of the Provincial Council, formerly British resident in New Zealand) to the Duke of Newcastle, dated Auckland, November, 1853, accompanying a speech delivered by him in the Provincial Council, on a motion for a Committee to prepare a petition to the Queen and both Houses of Parliament, for redress of grievances therein referred to; also to call for a letter forwarded to the Secretary of State, dated December, 1853, or January, 1864, from Joshua Thorp, Esq., Chairman of a public meeting held in the Market-place at Auckland, on December 24, 1863, transmitting the resolutions passed at that meeting on the occasion of Governor Sir G. Gray's departure from New Zealand.

I will now quote two or three paragraphs from Mr. J. Busby's letter (pp. 8 and 12):—

'In November, 1849, a petition was sent to her Majesty, signed by 520 of the most wealthy and respected in and about Auckland, praying her Majesty to remove Sir G. Gray from the colony;' for this reason, amongst others, 'they had lost all respect for his official character, on account of the systematic misrepresentations of his dispatches.'

I will now refer to the feelings of the Southern colonists :—

'In the Parliamentary papers of August 14, 1860, there is a letter from the Chairman of the Settlers' Constitutional Association at Wellington, forwarding a series of resolutions. Amongst the movers and seconders there were the names of five Justices of the Peace. These resolutions charge the Governor, Sir George Gray, with suppression and misrepresentation, with giving a false colour and gloss to his proceedings, with deliberately misrepresenting the opinions of the colonists, and with other varieties of crimen falsi; capping the climax by saying, that the dispatch of the 29th of November exhibits a suppression of two facts so flagrant that this Association cannot character- page 24 ise by any term which the proprieties of social usage would justify them in employing.'

Now, Sir, here is a cloud of witnesses to the character of the Queen's representative. But one yet remains, and that is Sir George Gray himself. One more paragraph, fearing you cannot allow me space for more:—

'As if the great enemy of mankind had suggested that the powers and riches of this world and the glory of them are his; and that to whomsoever he will, he giveth them, and that yielding to the voice of the tempter, he replied, "I will give you a sign"; I will "remove the land marks; will" enter into the fields of the fatherless;" I will spoil the heritage of the "widow." "Can you ask more." Sir, the man whom I denounce is the Queen's Representative in this country—a man whom the Queen has delighted to honour—a man whom rival statesmen and politicians of all parties have vied with each other in extolling. I denounce him as the oppressor and calumniator of Her Majesty's subjects, and the violator of the national honour. I do this, Sir, in the name of the Queen's subjects whom he has oppressed. I do it in the name of the national faith, which he has violated. I do it, Sir, with reverence—in the name of God, whoso ministers he has calumniated.'

The whole contents (with very few exceptions) of this letter being in possession of our Colonial Minister; unless Governor Gray has, by accident 'shelved it,' does it not appear cruel to the colonists that Sir George Gray should be re-appointed Governor of New Zealand?

Evidence was given before the Colonial Military Expenses Committee, May 27, 1861, 'That the troops in New South Wales cost £141 per man; in Victoria £157, and in Tasmania £127 per man.' 'By last accounts from New Zealand, there were 5,354 troops there, but by this time, from additional troops that we know have been sent there, there will be about 7,000 men. Taking the cost of a soldier in Tasmania at £127, the annual cost, upon such estimate for 7,000 in New Zealand annually, will be not less than £889,000, not including transport, which has been very heavy, or the cost of ammunition, &c, which must also be very expensive; for instance, in one of the last three skirmishes between the troops and the natives, for every native that was killed 520 rounds of cartridges were expanded. At Waterloo the number of rounds was about the same; but should there not be some advantage by the rifle over the old Brown Bess. If we take Mr. Elliot's evidence before the same committee, April 21, 1861, there were in New Zealand, March, 1859, 1,050 men, rank and file, which men cost £105,770 for the year—over £100 per man: ergo, 7,000 men would cost only £700,000, bear in mind, without any transport expenses. All the above-named money is being spent through that absurd 73rd clause in the Constitution Act. The colonists prefer peace to war. A few men make fortunes in war time, but the colonists generally are almost ruined by it. With regard to the Cape Colony, what has Sir George Gray done to benefit that colony more than any other governor has done for any other colony? Sir G. Gray has been thought a most excellent Governor at the Cape—why? According to the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons on Military Defences in the Colonies, in 1860,—' Ho had an army in page 25 1857-58, a period of exceptional tranquility, of 10,759 men, the military expenditure alone was £830,687, equal to more than one-fifth of the expenditure on the whole of the colonies, including the Mediterranean garrisons, during which time the whole frontier police only cost £34,403.' As a matter of course, Sir George Gray must be a good Governor in the eyes of the Capo colonists, with £830,687 commissariat expenditure.'

'Since that time (1858) this force has been materially reduced, but this year (1859) new works have been begun (at the expense of the Imperial Treasury), and the general officer commanding has informed the Governor that if they are to be completed, manned, and armed, he will require an additional force to be placed at his disposal of at least four regiments of infantry, 850 artillery, 400 cavalry, and a proportion of engineers.'

When the above despatch was written at the Cape, and the Cape Town colonists heard of it, they were nearly frantic with joy; their beloved Governor was not only spending £830,687 amongst them, but he was trying to get the Imperial Government to send him out an additional 6,000 men, to 'man and arm a fort that was to cost the Imperial Treasury about £1,000,000 sterling. 'The extra commissariat expenditure, if the 6,000 went out, would be another £500,000 a year to the colonists. Sir, under these circumstances could there be found in any part of the world a better Governor than Governor Gray at the Cape? But, sir, now comes the unpleasant position of Governor Grey, and, I presume, accounts for not hearing so much of him lately. This despatch of his, requiring about 6,000 additional men, 'to man the fort' in perspective, at Cape Town, was unanimously shelved by those hon, members who formed the Committee of the House of Commons last year on the 'Military defences in the Colonies.' This report worried Sir G. Gray amazingly, as well as annoyed the anticipators of the expected expenditure.

This dispatch of Sir George's was very fairly and honourably shelved, very unlike the way in which he shelved my correspondence, passed through him, as Governor of the colony of New Zealand, in 1850 and 1851, to the Colonial Minister. See the following:—

'Auckland,

Nov. 23rd, 1851.

'To the Honourable the Colonial Secretary,

'Sir.—On the third of June, 1849, I had the honour of addressing a letter to the Eight Hon, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, regarding some land in this colony, which I considered I had been unjustly refused a Crown grant for, from his Excellency Sir George Gray, which letter was forwarded to his Excellency, open, for his perusal before sending it. Captain Nugent, then Private Secretary to his Excellency, acknowledged the receipt of it, in which he stated "I have laid before his Excellency the Governor-in-Chief, your letter, &c, &c" Upon my arrival in England I made an application to Lord Grey at the Colonial office, when I received the following reply from Mr. B. Hawes :—

'"Sir.—I am directed by Earl Grey to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th March, referring to one which you state you addressed to his Lordship on the 3rd of July, 1849, relative to your claim of land in New Zealand, and I am to acquaint you in reply, that page 26 his Lordship would ho glad, if it should be in your power, to forward to him a copy of that letter, as, under the description you have given of it, no such communication is recorded to have been received at this department. Signed, J. B Hawes."

'Upon receipt of Mr. Ha wee's letter, I forwarded a copy of my original. I should now feel obliged if you would inform me why my letter, before alluded to, was retained in this colony, in place of its being forwarded to Downing-street.

'I have the honour to be, Sir,

'Your obedient servant,

(Signed) 'Walter Brodie.'

(No. 103.) 'Colonial Secretary's Office, Auckland,

28th April, 1852.

'Sir,—With reference to your letter dated 23rd November, 1851, requesting to be informed why a letter which you had addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon the 3rd July, 1849, had not been sent on, I am directed by the Lieutenant-Governor, Colonel Wynyard (Governor Gray, residing at this time in Wellington) to acquaint you that a dispatch has been received from the Governor-in-Chief, in which he directs that you should be informed that your letter to Earl Grey had been laid aside, with the papers connected with your claim, together with his dispatch transmitting it, and from the length of time occupied in the inquiries, was, he regrets to say, over-looked, until Earl Grey's attention having been directed to the subject when you were in England, the letter was called for and has been transmitted to his lordship.

'I have the honour to be, Sir,

'Your obedient servant,

'W. Brodie, Esq.' (Signed)

'Andrew Sinclair,

The following letter was then written:—

'Auckland,

May 3rd, 1852.

'Sir,—It may be very well for Sir George Gray to state that he had overlooked my letter. This case of mine has created too much sensation to be easily forgotten. The contents of my letter were perfectly true and required no colouring. I firmly believe, Sir, that Sir George Gray was ashamed to forward it, knowing exactly the state of my claim—thinking that as my correspondence about the said claims had been going on for near eleven years that I should be inclined to give it up; but, Sir, now you are in office, I am fully determined to have my rights, as a British subject, settled, which I trust, Sir, you will assist me in obtaining—a grant to land which I have fairly purchased and proved in the Land Commissioner's Court. I wrote for a copy of Col. Godfrey's report (the Land Commissioner of my claim), which was refused. Why should I be refused to see a public report of my own land claim? I know of several settlers here, who have asked the same favour, if it may be called a favour, and it has been granted to them. There surely, Sir, must be something wrong in not granting my request. The Attorney-General stated that he thought it would not be prudent for me to see the report. After reporting Commissioner Godfrey's conduct to me page 27 while in his court to the then acting Governor in 1842, he; the Commissioner, Col. Godfrey, did all in his power to thwart me in my land claims. Previous to my leaving here for England, in 1842, he would not report upon my several claims, which I am well aware were ready for reporting upon; hut as soon as I left this colony for England he reported upon them against me. In my letter to Earl Grey, dated April 5th, 1851, I informed his lordship that it was quite impossible for his Excellency, Sir George Gray, to give me my land I now claim, more especially the large Cavalla Island, which contains rather more than 2,000 acres, as the natives are well aware that it has increased in value fifty times more than when I purchased it of the natives in 1840, and that if his lordship would grant me 2,000 acres of land eight or ten miles from Auckland, I would accept it, giving up all claim to my Island, which is worth £10,000, and all my other disputed land to the Crown, as I well know that before Sir George Gray could put me in possession of my land I now claim there, without much blood shed (especially for the Cavalla Island), and which would lead to another unfortunate war, they being determined not to give up the land peacefully, Col. Godfrey having told them not to do so, after they had proved to him, in his own court that they had sold it to me and received my payment for it. Sir, I have spent many thousands of pounds sterling upon those unfortunate lands, and without wishing to offer any disrespect or threat, if I cannot get these claims immediately settled by getting a grant of 2,000 acres of land within ten miles of Auckland, in three separate blocks, which would not repay me by £3,000 for what I have laid out upon these claims, I shall endeavour to get my case brought before Parliament. The 2,000 acres I am now asking for, has not cost this Government one halfpenny per acre. I can prove my claims have been disallowed merely because I reported Col. Godfrey to the Government for swearing at me in his own court here, which I would not put up with, and for which I censured him. In the case of Mr. James Busby's land claims, which came before Land Commissioner Godfrey for hearing, he (Mr. Busby) had no less than thirty-one witnesses to prove his claim; but another chief was required as a witness, but was too ill to be present. Col. Godfrey, hearing that all the witnesses were not present, in his usual gentlemanly manner, said to Mr. Busby, "D——your blood, Sir; if I require a witness out of hell you must bring him before me." Ought I to lose my lands for censuring a commissioner for almost similar language?

Such are the grievances that early settlers have had to put up with.

Many settlers have to put up with many losses in the colonies unless they have some good friends or relations at home to fight their battles for them.

'I have the honour to be, Sir,

'With due respect,

'Your obedient servant,

(Signed) 'Walter Brodie.

'To the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies.'

In the letter from the Colonial Secretary (Andrew Sinclair), No. 103, he states, 'that your letter to Earl Grey had been laid aside with the papers connected with your claim, together with his (Governor Gray's) page 28 dispatch transmitting it, and from the length of time occupied in the inquiries, was, he regrets, overlooked, &c., &c, &c.' If I am to believe what Andrew Sinclair states, that my letter, accompanied by Sir George Gray's dispatch, was really laid on one side by accident, it is very clear from letter 103, that Sir George Gray had written his dispatch, which was to have accompanied my letter, before he had collected the information, which occupied such a 'length of time' in obtaining. I must, therefore, naturally suppose the prejudiced contents of Sir G. Gray's dispatch in reference to my letter to the Secretary of State. To this day these fair claims of mine have not been settled. Andrew Sinclair was acting Colonial Secretary in New Zealand for a great many years, but why was he not recommended by Sir George Gray to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his appointment being confirmed from Home, as the Colonial Secretary of New Zealand?

The great fact is, that the commisariat expenditure at the Cape is being greatly reduced, ergo, Sir George Gray's assumed combination of qualifications are being reduced in a proportionate ratio, the great commissariat expenditure in our colonies just now, is, unfortunately, in Now Zealand, where, some say, Sir George Gray is going to be re-appointed as Governor.

If he goes, he will, I have no doubt, make the colonists believe that the great commissariat expenditure in that colony is being made through his influence, which in reality will be the fact, but only through his former abominable 'treacle and flour policy.' If he goes, I do not envy him. Our Colonial Minister has paid him the most undeserved compliment, and in so doing, has, he being a servant of the Crown, placed him in a most unpleasant position. He cannot well refuse the offer, or he may not expect to be appointed to one of the first vacancies either in India or Canada. With a large commissariat or Colonial expenditure, Governor Gray has been most foolishly considered a favourite, but when money was scarce, and likely to be scarcer, Governor George Gray always managed to get leave of absence from the colony he governed.

There are three reasons why Governor Gray may be likely to accept the appointment of Governor of New Zealand, viz.:—

1st., A bait held out to him by our Colonial Minister to grant him one of the first three vacancies in the Presidencies in India, or in Canada, which he has so long been looking after.

2nd, Conditionally, that the Constitution Act of New Zealand is suspended, so that he may have the power of spending the Colonists money as heretofore, without the Colonists consent.

3rd, To get out of the way of Admiral Keppel.

This last reason is not to be despised.

There are not more than three or four colonists in this country just now (if that number), who are in favour of Governor Sir George Gray being reappointed to New Zealand. If any of those three or four I allude to are in his favour, it is only because Sir George Gray dealt with them as traders and merchants, in supplying him with flour, treacle, sugar, tobacco, &c, &c, for his native policy. But should they be in his favour, my readers must bear in mind that they (the three or four I refer to) signed the petition in 1849 for Governor Sir George page 29 Gray's removal from the colony. Query, Has our Colonial Minister the whole and sole control of retaining the 73rd clause in the Constitution Act of New Zealand, thereby inflicting upon John Bull, as occasion may require—for instance, the late war in New Zealand—a penalty of one or two million sterling for the expenses of such war? This said 73rd clause states as follows :—

'It shall not be lawful for any person other than her Majesty, her heirs and successors, to purchase, or in anywise acquire or accept, from the aboriginal natives, land of or belonging to, or used, or occupied by them in common as tribes or communities, or to accept any release or extinguishment of the rights of such aboriginal natives in any such land as aforesaid; and no conveyance or transfer, or agreement for the conveyance or transfer of any such land, either in perpetuity or for any term or period, either absolutely or conditionally, and either in property, or by way of lease or occupancy, and no such release or extinguishment, as aforesaid, shall be of any validity or effect, unless the same be made to, or entered into with, and accepted by her Majesty, her heirs, or successors. Provided always, that it shall be lawful for her Majesty, her heirs or successors, by instructions, under the signet and royal sign-manual, or signified through one of her principal Secretaries of State, to delegate her powers of accepting such conveyances or agreements, releases or relinquishments, to the Governor of New Zealand, or the Superintendent of any province within the limits of such province, and to prescribe or regulate the terms on which such conveyances or agreements, releases or extinguishments, shall be accepted.'

Have not honourable members of the House of Commons some voice in this matter, in looking after the public moneys, spent in such a reckless manner as in the late New Zealand war, merely for upholding the above 73rd clause of the Constitution Act? one of the most absurd clauses ever inserted in any Act of Parliament, and, perhaps, inserted to please the Church party, who are now, fortunately, extinct in the colony; some of which party have been the means of so much bloodshed, and the sacrifice of nearly half a million of the settlers' property in said colony. 'Peace is now proclaimed in the colony unconditionally; 'and it is to be hoped that the conditions made by this time will be a guarantee against any future war in the colony. But what conditions can be made? Only a condition between those few tribes who have surrendered? Why not have taken possession of the three islands of New Zealand at once. It will have to be done—and now is the time, with the force we have in the colony. The next question will be, who is to pay the expenses of this war? Not the colonists; if even they are able and willing. It will be the Imperial Government. The House of Commons is responsible, inasmuch as they have implicated themselves in the native policy by passing the New Zealand Constitution Bill. Once erase the 73rd clause of the said Bill, and in its place insert a clause of the very opposite nature. Then, and not until then, can the colonists be justly called upon to pay any war expenses. The Government, according to their despatches, have acknowledged their responsibility for the expenses of the war. But who is to compensate the unfortunate New Plymouth settlers for their losses, which are nearly half a million sterling? The Duke page 30 of Newcastle stated not long ago, in the House of Lords, that the colonists would have to pay their proportion of the expenses. if they were compelled, what a cruel case to tax these New Plymouth settlers for the loss of their property which they have been working hard for for the last twenty years, much of said property having been sacrificed within rifle range of the military, but these settlers were prevented from saving a tithe of what they had by order of the military commander. I trust that these few truthfully-written pages will reach the heart of every member of the British Houses of Parliament, and that they will bear in mind, in their coming to the rescue of the unfortunate New Plymouth settlers and the colony generally, that hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling have been collected for the Indian famine fund, the Syrian fund, &c., &c, and that up to the present time nothing has been asked for the unfortunate New Plymouth settlers. These colonists have gone abroad 13,000 miles from the old country, to gain an honest livelihood, because the United Kingdom was too small for its increase of population, and by their going these 13,000 miles they have added another jewel to the crown of our beloved Queen. New Zealand forms one of the Australian group, which group in 1858 had an import and export trade with the mother country of no less than £28,500,000, while the trading between the next eighteen most flourishing colonies with the mother country was only £28,480.000 in the same year, a difference in favour of the Australian group of £20,000 in the year. The imperial military expenses of the Australian group in 1858 were £311,000, deducting £61,000 from Tasmania, which Mr. Elliot stated, in giving evidence lately before a Committee of the House of Commons, 'was not expected to be paid by the colonists, it having been a penal settlement, and having now many ticket-of-leave men residing there' But mark the difference of the military expenses of the next eighteen most flourishing colonies, when they cost £1,800,000 for the same year. So that I hope when the Committee on Imperial Colonial expenses report upon these former colonies, they will take into consideration that indirectly we do pay our military expenses, especially New South Wales and Victoria. In stating the £1,800,000 for the eighteen colonies, I do not include the military expenses of Malta, Gibraltar, Corfu, Bermuda, &c, or any garrison colony. These fifty jewels in the crown are not only England's support but they are the envy of every European Power. Now that peace is proclaimed in New Zealand, I must say I do think it would be most impolitic and unwise generally, and unjust to Governor Browne to remove him, even if he were superseded by the most excellent Governor. The war has been brought on by him (and very justly); peace is proclaimed during his governorship. He is now in a position to consolidate an everlasting understanding between the Europeans and the natives, but not with the sugar and flour policy. I have no doubt that he has had his instructions how to act should peace be proclaimed, if not he ought to have had such instructions. But leave him where he is until a satisfactory arrangement is made between the colonists and natives. But as to Sir George Grey going out to settle the affair it is most absurd. I wish my readers would read Sir G. Gray's history from the time he went to South Australia and resided with the Governor there, as a friend. By sending Sir G. Gray out to New page 31 Zealand now, would be more ridiculous than the sending out of Sir Charles Napier to India, some years ago, to take the command over (then Sir Hugh Gough, now) Lord Gough, who had brought matters to a close at Sobraon before his (Sir Charles Napier's) arrival in India. I beg leave to state that in penning these few pages I am, comparatively speaking, disinterested in the colony. I wish to prove, from twenty years' experience, that, to a great extent, Sir G. Gray's policy (treacle and flour) has been the cause of the present war, mixed up with his 73rd clause of the New Zealand Constitution Act. Some of my readers, in running over these few pages, I have no doubt, will be astonished at what I have stated; but I have stated facts, which I am prepared to prove. Governor Gray once stated at a dinner party, on board of one of her Majesty's ships, in the Waitemata river, Auckland, that, 'before long, grass should grow in the streets of Auckland.' He tried his utmost to ruin us, by going to the south to live, and expending the revenue. Had it not been to spite the Auckland settlers, he never would have spent so much money in making a military road out of Wellington (referred to by Earl Grey lately in the House) as he did. Where the other military roads are that Earl Grey referred to in his late speech, I do not know, although I have been in the Colony for twenty years, but I presume the Noble Earl was taking for granted that Governor Gray's dispatches were correct, and that he might quote from them. If a military road was required in the Colony, it should have been made from Auckland, into the heart of the Waikato district, where now, it would have been of so much value. A military road ought to be immediately made there, from Auckland, and a military station formed in the centre of the Waikato district. Gray left Auckland because he could not gull the Colonists there; they were too wide awake for him; consequently he appointed a Lieut-Governor, and goes away to Wellington, for some years, to spend the Parliamentary Grant, of from £30,000 to £60,000 a year, but after all the money he spent at Wellington, the Wellington people petitioned for his recall. Lieut.-Governor Eyre was an honest and clever man, but Governor Gray could not agree with him. The correspondence between these two Governors is highly instructive, and would prove to my readers, if they could read it, the truth of many of my remarks in this letter. Although Lieut-Governor Eyre was compelled to leave the Colony he was very soon made full Governor of another Colony by the Colonial Minister. If he found men he could not control, he did his utmost to grind them to dust, if possible. If the Colonists complained to the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon their harsh treatment, there was a shelf in his office where such correspondence was at times placed. I have already give one instance of such fact. With regard to my supporting Governor Browne in all his war actions for the last two years, I beg leave to state that Governor Browne is no friend of mine; he acted towards me, while in the colony, as illiberally and unjustly as any Governor could do. I support him, nevertheless, because I know he has adopted a right course, but there is one fault I have to find with Governor Gore Browne regarding the New Zealand War. That is, that he had no right to call his Executive together to obtain from them officially (as his dispatches show) their opinion or advice upon going to war, page 32 knowing at the time that by the Constitution Act, they, the Executive, had no voice in the matter. There is no doubt Governor Browne was in a fix, but he should not have fixed his Executive in the same position. The advice given to him was private, although he has made it public; but whatever opinion the Executive gave Governor Browne, that opinion was invalid. The Executive had no business to give a public or invalid opinion, upon a subject that the 73rd clause of the Constitution Act debarred them from giving an opinion on.

Walter Brodie.

15, Delamere-terrace, Hyde-park, W.,

June 12, 1861.

P.S.—I have throughout this letter spelt Sir George Gray's name with an 'a.' Sir G. Gray is of an Irish family, and not connected with any of our noted English aristocratic families who spell their name Grey. Sir G. Gray's family has been acquainted with my family for forty years; the 'a' is familiar to me. Major Gray, Sir G. Gray's uncle, who died about two and a half years ago, near Auckland, spelt hie name with the 'a,' as well as the Major's nophew, Lieutenant Gray, who was in New Zealand.—W. B.