The Bishop’s protest led to his being spoken of in the House of Commons by the radical member, Joseph Hume, as “a turbulent priest.” Sir George Grey realized at once the impossibility of carrying out the instructions sent by the Colonial Office. He professed to believe that they were not meant to be carried out literally, and his representations led the English Government to agree to suspend the execution of the Act passed by Parliament for five years, during which time Sir George Grey devoted himself to framing a new constitution for the colony. Unfortunately the difficulties of the land question disturbed the relations of the Bishop with one of the most experienced and revered missionaries in the country, Henry Williams, whom he had made Archdeacon of Waimate. Williams, in order to make provision for his family, had bought land from the natives on which he had settled his sons, who cultivated it with great success. His claim to these lands was approved by the Council set up in 1844 by Governor Fitzroy to consider the whole question of land claims. In recommending the awards made to Henry Williams the Governor said, “that there could be no doubt that Mr. Williams had done more for the advancement and improvement of the aboriginal race than any other individual member of the missionary body.” But the missionaries by their defence of the rights of the natives were extremely unpopular with the New Zealand Company, and the good condition of the lands held by the Williams family, owing to their excellent farming, excited the jealousy of the incoming colonists. The new Governor, Sir George Grey, saw that questions of land tenure were the chief cause of all the troubles with the natives. In his early days, when only insufficiently acquainted with conditions in New Zealand, he was much too ready to believe the accusations made by the Company against the missionaries of having used their position to acquire unlawfully large tracts of lands from the natives. He wrote home to the Colonial Office a private dispatch condemning in strong language the land purchases of the missionaries. Bishop Selwyn, who on other occasions had vigorously defended the missionaries against the Company, did not on principle approve of missionaries owning land for themselves. He wished that their sons should be trained for the service of the Church, and he appealed to the missionaries to teach their children “to renounce the barren pride of ownership for the moral husbandry of Christ’s kingdom in the harvest of souls.” In his zeal and eagerness he seems to have forgotten that all young men are not fitted to be missionaries or teachers. To him it was a plain issue; he did not sufficiently understand Williams’ position. To Williams it appeared that the Bishop was in alliance with the Governor against him, and he felt bitterly the seeming desertion of the man whom he had admired so warmly. When urged by the Bishop to give up the title deeds to his lands he refused.