This article might as well begin with the words in which it ends: “The
law says one thing, we in our hearts say another. Which is right? Does it matter? Yes, it matters.”
Who owns Norfolk Island is a question most recently put in the local
newspaper, The Norfolk Islander, some
three months ago (July 14, 2012). Yet it first surfaces on
Norfolk with the arrival of the Pitcairn Islanders on June 8, 1856. Although the question in many respects has
been overcome by recent events, the answer remains pertinent, elusive and, for
many, bittersweet.  |
| Codex Pitcairnensis: Pitcairn Island constitution, 1837. |
Most of us of Pitcairn Island descent were raised to believe Queen
Victoria gave Norfolk Island to the Pitcairn Island people. It didn’t matter your opinion of the future
political relationship between the Australian Commonwealth and Norfolk, which
could always generate heated community debate.
It didn’t matter in which country you were born. If you were of Pitcairn descent, you were
raised hearing at least one of your parents and all your Island grandparents passing
on the same opinion: Queen Victoria gave Norfolk to the Pitcairn Islanders. That sentiment can be observed on Norfolk to
this day. Witness the beautiful Queen
Victoria Garden opened in 2009 by Marie Bailey as a testament to the Queen’s
gift to the Pitcairn people. Even as
recently as two weeks ago (October 6), a member of the Norfolk Island Legislative
Assembly in a letter-to-the-editor in the local newspaper refers to Norfolk as
the homeland granted the Pitcairn Islanders by the Queen. It’s probably true that the younger
generations of Norfolk Islander no longer feel the same passion of commitment
to this belief, but the decision-makers of this island still do. After the beauty of this place, that Queen
Victoria ceded this island to the Pitcairn Islanders in 1856 and the consequent
gratitude to her may be the two things over time that Norfolk Islanders have
agreed on most.
There is, in fact, little doubt that the Pitcairn Islanders arrived on
Norfolk believing the Island was theirs.
This is consistently mentioned in the correspondence and diary entries
of the Islanders and of the three Englishmen who had married into the community
and arrived with them. Indeed, it is
clear that not only would the Pitcairners not have left Pitcairn had they not
believed Norfolk had been ceded to them, but according to the log of Captain
Montresor of the “HMS Calypso”, who in 1860 interviewed the first group of Islanders
who subsequently returned to Pitcairn, they returned because “they did not
consider Norfolk Island as their own” [1].
The Crown, however, although remarkably generous in the Pitcairners’
relocation to and establishment on Norfolk, equally believed it had never ceded
control. Moreover, to relinquish British
land to another people, as it were, would have been highly unusual and would
have required an Imperial decree that evidently never occurred. And therein lies the problem: two well-meaning
peoples with two profoundly contradictory views of the same place. Who “owns” Norfolk Island? Since June 8, 1856, it has depended on who
you ask.
How can this be? How could such a
basic question about ownership occur? The
historical record, to date, only clarifies the dilemma, without providing any
answers. But if we use the historical data
as dot points, we can try to connect them to form a picture of how such a
fundamental misunderstanding could have become so firmly entrenched. The dot points are, in chronological order: 1) Governor Sir William Denison's letter-of-instruction to Lieutenant George W. Gregorie, charged with relocating the Pitcairners to
Norfolk, included in a dispatch dated February 27, 1856 [2], which Gregorie
takes to Pitcairn; 2) Denison’s second letter-of-instruction to the same dated
May 16, 1856 [3], significantly amending the first letter, of which the
Pitcairners wouldn’t have been aware until they arrived on Norfolk; 3) the
Letter-of-Cession, which Islanders still refer to as the document that formally
ceded Norfolk to them and which Chief Magistrate George Martin Fredrick Young and
First Councillor Thomas Buffett attest in affidavit was required to be
surrendered to Denison in 1859 [4], and 4)
the letter from Captain Stephen Fremantle of the “HMS Juno” to Chief
Magistrate Young dated June 25, 1856, affirming Denison’s authority to
determine land ownership on Norfolk [5].
There are, as well, interstitial events in this time period – most
notably, correspondence between Denison and senior officers of the Colonial
Office expressing an interest in prohibiting all grants and sales of land on
Norfolk to non-Pitcairn Islanders (“… until the present experiment be fully
tried”.[6]); the establishment on 24 June, 1856, of the distinct and separate
Crown Colony of Norfolk Island, so that no other colony could pass legislation
affecting the wellbeing of the Pitcairners [7], and the corresponding creation
of the Great Seal of Norfolk Island upon which is engraved a ship named
“Pitcairn” sailing into a bay lined with Norfolk Island pines – all of which unwittingly
seemed to only solidify these two conflicting notions about ownership of Norfolk
Island.
 |
| Great Seal of Norfolk Island, 1857. |
The backdrop to Gov. Denison’s first letter-of-instruction is the
Pitcairner’s desire by the 1850s to, once again, relocate to a larger
island. (Their first attempt at
resettlement was a disasterous five months in Tahiti in 1831, during which they
lost some 20% of their numbers to influenza.)
Hawaii was a candidate, for example, on the invitation of King
Kamehameha III. But the Pitcairners were
loyal subjects of the British Crown and wanted to maintain their link to it, as
well as their separateness in the world.
Norfolk Island, in the meantime, was in the process of being disbanded
as a penal settlement. Relocation to
Norfolk loomed enticing both to the Pitcairners and their supporters in England
eager to represent their interests, and to the British Colonial Office, which
was pleased with the thought of a loyal, English-speaking people maintaining
the considerable infrastructure they had created. In addition, Napoleon III was by now in power
in France and French activity in nearby Noumea was escalating, so continued
occupation of Norfolk was strategically desirable, as well. But cession?
Even as late as 1854, the Pitcairners were informed by British Consul,
B. Toup Nicolas, that ceding the Island to them would not be possible [8]. So how do we get from that point to the
Pitcairners arriving in 1856 believing Norfolk belonged to them? Even if you presumed an island naiveté borne
of culture and isolation, which their private and public correspondence does
not suggest, the decision to relocate to Norfolk included the participation of
Buffett, Evans and Nobbs, three reasonably well-educated Englishmen, and the
active involvement of Admiral Fairfax Moresby, a staunch friend of the Pitcairn
people and Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Station. So, again, if Norfolk hadn’t been ceded to
them, how could a reasonably well-counseled people come to so firmly believe
otherwise? There is one other element to
the background story: particularly given their experience in Tahiti, not every
Pitcairner wanted to leave their home for Norfolk and there was a great reluctance
to break the community up. Concurrently,
Gregorie had been advised by Denison that, “… it would be well that you use
your influence to induce the whole community to move together” [9]. This is what I think happened.
Denison’s first letter-of-instruction speaks of setting aside some 1000
acres for various public or common purposes and the remainder of the Island, plus stores, livestock, etc.,"... be handed over to the different heads of families..." [10]. The precise distribution of land would be based on what was agreed upon between Gregorie and Chief Magistrate Young. What follows is entirely speculation, but had
Gregorie returned without the Pitcairn Islanders the mission and perhaps his
military career would have been considered a failure. I have often wondered to what extent Gregorie
may have oversold the interpretation of the “remainder” of the island being for
the Pitcairners. His official log sheds
no light on the subject. But that first
letter is profuse in extending the use of Norfolk to the Pitcairners and I can
imagine the temptation to exaggerate a little to salvage the mission and get
everyone onboard. I still search for
Gregorie’s personal diary or letters; something in which he might have recorded
his private thoughts and experience.
People have argued that if Gregorie did oversell Norfolk, as an agent of
the Crown, it would have amounted to a contract. Meanwhile, well after Gregorie and the Pitcairn Islanders are en route
to Norfolk, Denison amends the first letter-of-instruction to Gregorie regarding
the Pitcairners’ use of Norfolk. This
second letter stipulates that all arrangements for land can be revised and
amended by himself as Governor-General of New South Wales, a position Denison
held concurrent with that of Governor. This
condition is new and unknown to the Pitcairners when they arrive.
The wording of the Letter-of-Cession, which reputedly ceded Norfolk to
the Pitcairners, is unknown. We know its
purpose by its absence. In an (undated)
affidavit, Chief Magistrate Young and First Councillor, John Buffett, declare
that upon arrival a document (the Letter) was presented to Chief Magistrate
Young by Commissariat Officer, Thomas Samuel Stewart, giving them “… possession
of Norfolk Island and all stores, livestock, houses, etc. etc. on Norfolk
Island...”. (Steward and a small party
had remained on Norfolk after the closure of the penal colony to meet the
Pitcairners and would have been the highest-ranking authority on land.)
This Letter-of-Cession is what people refer to when they state that
Queen Victoria gave Norfolk to the Pitcairners.
It is a belief I share. George
Martin Fredrick Young was my great-great-grandfather and his having to
relinquish the Letter to Denison remains the lore of my family. This particular document, after being
returned to Denison, has not been seen since.
While it is documented that Denison’s second letter-of-instruction was
given to Captain Henry Denham of the “HMS Herald” for delivery to Gregorie upon
his arrival on Norfolk [11], I can’t help but think that the Letter-of-Cession
is, in fact, a copy of Denison’s first letter-of-instruction. Both documents – the affidavit and the first
letter-of-instruction – refer to the same thing: the Pitcairners having full
use of the land and what is on it (less a portion for public use). The affidavit claims that their document was
signed by Denison, as would have been the first letter. And it is known that Gregorie, on Denison's recommendation, called on
Norfolk on his way from Sydney to Pitcairn to confer with Stewart in preparation for the Pitcairners’ arrival. He would have had ample opportunity and
reason to share a copy of his instructions with Commissariat Officer Stewart, with
whom the final preparations for the arrival lay.
It's quite possible that the Pitcairners arrived without knowledge of the wording of Gregorie's first letter, which is why their emphasis is on what they
received from Stewart. There is no entry
in Gregorie’s journal of his reading his instructions to them on Pitcairn. This is not entirely surprising since the instructions contained personal comments about Nobbs, which would not have been for public consumption. Moreover, Gregorie was tasked with reading a
specific letter to the community from Governor Denison [12] and presumably wouldn’t have
read them both. Stewart’s journal is of no
help. Although there are indications of
a second volume, the one published account of his time on Norfolk ends in January,
1856, many months before the relevant correspondence and events occur. Consequently, there is no corroborating
evidence supporting the handing of a document by Stewart to Young. Nevertheless, it was the belief of the
Pitcairners present that a document giving them possession of the Island was
handed to Young, and demanded from him by Denison some three years later. The wording of this document seems to only
have upheld their understanding of Norfolk as being theirs.
There is, as well, no record in Gregorie’s journal of his receiving the
second letter-of-instruction from Denham or of his informing the Pitcairners of
its content. But that would have been of
little consequence. Within three weeks
of the Pitcairners landing, Captain Stephan Fremantle arrives to read a
dispatch authorised by Denison to Chief Magistrate Young. Dated June 25, 1856, it codifies the spirit of
the second letter by now stipulating that all land arrangements on Norfolk will
be subject to the Governor’s approval.
To the Pitcairn Islanders, this was reneging on the very agreement which
brought them here. It is at this point
that the contention between Pitcairn Islanders, now Norfolk Islanders, and
authorities on the Australian mainland about ownership firmly begins.
 |
| Flag of Norfolk Island. |
Who owns Norfolk Island? As I
mentioned, the historical record only clarifies the dilemma, not answers the
question. The law says one thing, we in
our hearts say another. Which is
right? Does it matter? Yes, it matters.
- Rick Kleiner
***
1. The British Admiralty, upon
learning of two families returning to Pitcairn in 1860, directed Captain F.B.
Montresor of the “HMS Calypso” to visit Pitcairn and enquire about their
condition. One of the questions asked
was why they left Norfolk Island. To the
Captain, the Islanders mentioned climate and homesickness. Captain Montresor goes on to add, to his
officers, more confidentially, they pointed to the arrival of non-Pitcairner
Islanders “among them, who were not of them” and ensuing issues of ownership of
property. [Public Records Office,
“Calypso”, 1860.]2. “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 30. Go to www.rickstours.nlk.nf/Letter%231.pdf to read the complete document.
3. “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 35. Go to www.rickstours.nlk.nf/Letter%232.pdf to read the complete document.
4. Go to www.rickstours.nlk.nf/Affidavit.pdf to see the Young/Buffett affidavit as we have record of it.
5. Proclamation from Capt. Stephen
Fremantle, Captain of “HMS Juno”, Senior Officer in Australia, to “The Chief
Magistrate of the Pitcairn Islanders Now Resident On Norfolk Island”, June 25,
1856. This document was discovered among
Bishop Selwyn’s papers in the Auckland Museum by historian, Merval Hoare, in
1963. Go to www.rickstours.nlk.nf/Proclamation%20from%20Capt.%20Fremantle.pdf to read the complete
document.
6. “Correspondence on the Subject
of Removal of Inhabitants of Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856;
presented to both Houses of Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 25.
7. “Correspondence on the Subject
of Removal of Inhabitants of Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856;
presented to both Houses of Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 29.
8. Letter from B. Toup Nicolas
“To the Pitcairn Islanders”; Raiatea, July 5, 1854.
9. “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of
Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of
Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 31.
10. “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of
Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of
Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 31.
11. “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of
Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of
Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 34.
12. “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of
Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of
Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 32.
