Volume 72 1963 > Volume 72, No. 3 > Tamihana's visit to Auckland, by B. J. Dalton, p 193 - 205
                                                                                             Previous | Next   

- 193
TAMIHANA'S VISIT TO AUCKLAND
Mr. Dalton, of the Department of History at the University of New England discusses the available evidence concerning a well-known incident in New Zealand history, and then assesses the effect of the incident on the subsequent development of the Maori King Movement.

FEW EPISODES IN New Zealand history would appear to be better established than the visit of Wiremu Tamihana to Auckland in 1857. How he sought a loan for building a flour mill, and an interview with the Governor, was refused both and went home deeply affronted to take a leading part in the Maori King Movement, is told in all but the briefest histories. Rusden, Saunders, Reeves, Condliffe and Airey, Hight, Morrell, Miller and Sinclair all relate the story in greater or less detail. 1 There are, to be sure, some variations. To Reeves one point of the story is the contrast between Sir George Grey and his successor:

“Governor Grey would have granted both the interview and the money with good grace. Governor Browne refused both . . .” And in similar vein Hight notes “. . . the Governor, Browne, who lacked Grey's sympathetic insight into the Maori mind, refused to see him . . .” Saunders considers that a phrenologist's opinion of “the largely-developed moral sentiments, which made this Maori's head so remarkable for its unusual height” would have been helpful to Browne. Mr. Miller, who like most other writers attributes no personal responsibility for the refusal to the Governor himself, stresses rather the plight of any Maori alone in a strange town—“quite unknown, to the clerk who received him at the Native Department . . . just another ‘bloody Maori’ . . .” In general, however, there is broad agreement on the details and complete agreement on the significance of the episode. To all the writers cited it is a turning-point in the career of Tamihana and in the course of the King Movement.

It may be interesting and even instructive to enquire into the origins of this familiar tale. Six accounts survive which have some claim to rank as primary sources.

1. The earliest of all, and the starting point of what became the “received version” by a route that will transpire, occurs in Thomas Buddle's The Maori King Movement, published in Auckland in mid 1860. According to Buddle this is the way in which Tamihana's friends explained the origin of the movement.

- 194

Tamihana, “in conversation with a friend expressed his great admiration of some of our ways and especially of the manner in which justice is administered in our courts. His friend replied . . . (Your path is through underneath my thighs). He enquired the meaning of this strong figure, and received for reply . . . (Search it out). He thought, he pondered, and at length arrived at the conclusion that it must point to oppression and slavery. ‘That path,’ he reasoned, ‘is the path of dogs only, then, are we to be treated like dogs? Does the pakeha intend to put us beneath his feet? But he shall not be permitted.’ And he resolved on devising some means to preserve himself and countrymen from the degradation thus figuratively indicated. The statement is given as it is commonly related.” 2

The episode is not dated, but Buddle goes on to name Te Heuheu as one of the first adherents to the movement and to give an account of a meeting held by that chief at Taupo in December, 1856. This indicates a date not later than about October 1856, and possibly a good deal earlier. It will be noted that nothing is said of a visit to Auckland or of a flour mill, and that it is not a rebuff by government officials but the advice of a friend, couched in the cryptically allusive language of Maori oratory, which stimulates Tamihana into nationalist activity. That the friend was European is doubtless to be inferred, but is not stated.

2. Soon after Buddle's book appeared a Select Committee of the House of Representatives was set up to enquire into the attempt made by F. D. Fenton to introduce a measure of Maori self-government into the Waikato district in 1857-8. To Governor Browne's recall of Fenton members of the opposition were beginning to attribute the strength shown by the King Movement during the Taranaki War, then in progress, and the Committee's report in general supports this view. Among witnesses examined by the Committee was C. O. Davis, sometime chief interpreter in the Native Office, who had subsequently given evidence of active sympathy with nationalistic aspirations among the Maoris. Apparently someone on the Committee concluded that Davis was the “friend” in Buddle's account, which was read to him. At first Davis tacitly admitted to the identification, saying that Tamihana “came to Auckland to have an interview with the Government, I think, in 1857. I was at that time connected with the Government. He (Tamihana) was residing at Tauranga. On that occasion he applied for a loan to erect a mill. I introduced him to Mr. McLean, and he personally applied for the money, but was refused. Two or three days after, I think, he came to me, and we had a conversation about general matters relating to the Natives. He complained of his want of success in obtaining the money. I said to him, ‘You see that your application has been thrown under the table: therefore if you wish to erect a mill, or raise your own social condition, you must set about it yourself in earnest.’ That was the nature of my conversation with him.”

In answer to further questions Davis claimed to have “not the slightest recollection” of using the expression quoted by Buddle. This faintly ambiguous denial is made less convincing by his going on to - 195 deny that it bore the derogatory meaning attributed to it by Buddle. It might, he said, apply to a propitiatory rite, or it could mean “confidence in the person under whose thighs the person addressed is to pass . . .”

Re-examined later, Davis “suspected” that he was not the “friend” of Buddle's account at all. He knew that Tamihana had been “closeted” in Auckland with other friends who were not in government employ and whom he was not at liberty to name, but he knew nothing of what had been discussed. 3

Davis's evidence must be discussed in the light of some knowledge of his career and of his position at this time. An interesting and somewhat enigmatic figure, he was very knowledgeable in Maori matters and had served for about 12 years as chief interpreter in the Native Office. Reprimanded by the Executive Council, on the report of a Board of Inquiry, for some misdemeanor in relation to Maori correspondence, he escaped dismissal in 1855 only “in consideration of his long services”. 4 Browne strongly distrusted him, 5 and he left government employ in 1857 under a cloud. 6 Thereafter Davis maintained correspondence with Waikato Maoris 7 for whom he published a newspaper of a nationalist character, Aotearoa, or the Maori Recorder. 8 It is hardly to our purpose to consider the justice of these suspicions. It is enough that they existed, that at the time he appeared before the Committee, in the middle of the Taranaki War, Davis was widely supposed to have dabbled in activities verging on the treasonable. In these circumstances he had a strong motive for diverting attention away from his own dealings with Tamihana, and his evidence does so very effectively.

While admitting to having given Tamihana substantially the advice attributed to the “friend” of Buddle's account, Davis provides for the exchange an altogether different, and innocent, setting. Tamihana now comes not to discuss politics but to get a loan for a flour mill, and when he complains of being refused, the moral which Davis points is self-reliance. What could be more proper? If any blame is warranted it attaches to McLean by a particularly happy touch. McLean's power in Maori affairs, responsible only to the Governor, had long been a - 196 source of jealousy 9 and the main purpose of the Committee was to sift charges that McLean had wantonly wrecked Fenton's promising efforts in the Waikato. 10 The one telling charge ever made against Fenton had been his neglecting to conciliate the older chiefs, and here was McLean himself affronting one of the most powerful! 11

As will appear, it is Davis's account which provided most details for the “received version”. Two points having no other known source, the date 1857 and the loan for a flour mill, may be considered at this stage. That this date is incompatible with Buddle's story we have already seen: nor is it easily reconciled with the loan for a flour mill. It is well-known that wheat was grown as a cash crop on a considerable scale by Waikato Maoris in the early eighteen-fifties and that many flour mills were built by them, often with government aid. This activity began when the Australian gold rushes sent prices soaring, and virtually ended when the boom collapsed in the middle of 1856. By 1857 large quantities of wheat and flour were rotting throughout the Waikato because the growers would not accept the price then ruling. 12 These were hardly conditions in which a Maori of Tamihana's intelligence would be expected to invest in a flour mill. Davis himself, moreover, does not profess to be certain about the date.

3. What purports to be an account from the King-maker himself is preserved in notes made by H. T. Clarke of the native service from a conversation with Tamihana on February 14, 1861. In the course of a long recital of Maori grievances Tamihana refers to a project he had formed for Maori magistrates and council which, under the Governor's direction, would settle quarrels to which Europeans had shown themselves wholly indifferent.

“I visited Auckland for the purpose of laying my suggestions before the Governor (Sir George Grey). At the Native office I saw Mr. Charles Davis, I told him of our wishes; he put me off with this reply, ‘It is of no use your applying to the Governor, he will not accede to your proposals, he will tell you that you are but children and require teaching. When he sees that you are sufficiently advanced he then perhaps will entertain your suggestions.’ I returned home without seeing the Governor, disappointed at the results of my mission; I determined to undertake at my own risk what my Pakeha friends denied me. The King had not then entered into my speculations; I thought that a number of magistrates together with a runanga 13 composed of members of all the tribes of New Zealand would meet our requirements. It was not until after the Waikato chiefs had received a letter from Matene te Whiwhi, suggesting a King, that we took it into serious consideration and finally accepted Matene's advice. This King was to be in close connexion with the Governor . . .” 14
- 197

As Clarke has transcribed Tamihana's words into 19th century officialese there is a considerable loss of immediacy, even an “appearance of being doctored” as was noted in the Colonial Office; 15 but there is no sufficient reason to doubt its substantial accuracy. Although the words used are different, the advice attributed to Davis is in substance the same as in both Buddle's and Davis's accounts, and as will appear the general tenor of Tamihana's story agrees closely with a second version emanating more directly from him. Davis it will be noted, appears rather in the role of Buddle's “friend” than in that he ascribed to himself. McLean makes no appearance and there is no reference to a flour mill.

The name of Sir George Grey is almost certainly Clarke's own interpolation. It was standard practice in documents of the period for a translator to add in brackets explanatory words or phrases where a literal translation was obscure. Thus in quoting a letter from Tamihana Gorst interpolates the name of Governor Browne, in brackets, at one point. 16 Nevertheless, it is a clear inference from the only other indication of date in the account that the Governor must have been Grey. The visit to Auckland is clearly indicated as taking place before Matene Te Whiwhi's essay in king making, perhaps a considerable time before, and that incident is usually dated 1852. 17 Even if it carried over into 1853, the visit would clearly have occurred before Grey's departure in December 1853 and over two years before Browne's arrival in September 1855. A date in 1852 or 1853 is readily compatible with Davis's flour mill story, especially as Grey gave great encouragement to such projects in the latter part of his first governorship.

Nevertheless, there are clear indications in other sources that the name is mistakenly included. It follows that there must be some error in the passage which so clearly implies that Te Whiwhi's letter postdated Tamihana's visit to Auckland; and it is not difficult to see how confusion may have crept in at this point. Possibly Tamihana meant that, although there had been talk of a king in Waikato ever since Te Whiwhi's letter, he himself considered that Maori magistrates and a council would suffice, up to the time of his visit to Auckland. Possibly for the moment he confused Te Whiwhi's essay in king-making with that of Te Heuheu, which he indicates elsewhere as deciding him to support a king.

4. Later in 1861 Tamihana addressed to the Governor a detailed justification of his part in the King Movement. The letter is undoubtedly authentic and there is no reason to suspect any tampering. After relating how he had striven for years to put down inter-tribal strife, and how he had been influenced by biblical exhortations to set up a king, Tamihana goes on:

“When we arrived at the year 1857, Te Heuheu called a meeting at Taupo . . . When the news of that meeting reached me, I said, I will - 198 consent to this to assist my work that the religion of those tribes that had not united, might have time to breathe.”

After citing a verse in Samuel—(“. . . now make us a king to judge us like all the nations”)—Tamihana concludes:

“This is why I set up Potatau in the year 1857 . . . The reason why I set up Potatau as a king for me was, he was a man of extended influence, and one who was respected by the tribes of this island.” 18

No visit to the capital, no flour mill, and no European's advice appear in this sober apologia. Written at a time when Browne was demanding submission from the King Movement and openly preparing for war if it should be refused, its main purpose is to draw a contrast between Tamihana's conduct and that of the Government. While he had striven tirelessly to put down tribal war the Government had been completely indifferent. His efforts had consistently failed until the King's election, but now that tribal bloodshed had ceased the Governor was demanding that the King be abandoned. An instance of Tamihana's being rebuffed in seeking government co-operation would fit so well into this carefully-drawn picture that its omission is surely significant. If there were no other extant account by Tamihana it would be a reasonable conclusion that the visit either never occurred or had been forgotten. But Clarke's notes are sufficient evidence that the incident did take place and that Tamihana remembered it only a few weeks before writing this letter.

This apparent discrepancy is accounted for when it is recalled that Tamihana's memory of the episode, as recorded by Clarke, is not of a rebuff at all. Like the accounts of Buddle and Davis, different though they are in detail and emphasis, it is essentially a story of Tamihana's being dissuaded by a friend's advice from seeking government aid (or, less specifically in Buddle's version, from following European precedents). Thus seen the incident has no relevance to the object of Tamihana's June letter.

It will be noted that Tamihana indicates that his decision to support a king was made when the news of Te Heuheu's meeting reached him. Now Archdeacon Hadfield, much further from Taupo than Tamihana, knew of the coming meeting as early as April 1856. 19 It would be very surprising if Tamihana did not know at least as early. Starting in the latter part of December, 20 it probably extended into January and perhaps even into February 1857. 21 The earliest surviving evidence of Tamihana's supporting election of a King is in a letter of 12 February 1857, signed by him on behalf of the whole of Ngatihaua. 22 Allowing for the joint deliberation necessary before the letter could be written, it seems likely that Tamihana's decision came before the end of the Taupo meeting, precipitated perhaps by Te Heuheu's summons.

- 199

5. The fullest account with any claim to primary authority, and the immediate source of the “received version”, is in J. E. Gorst, The Maori King, published in London in 1864. Although he did not arrive in New Zealand until more than three years after the latest possible date of the visit to Auckland, it might be thought that his version incorporated details learned direct from Tamihana with whom he was on terms of cordial friendship for two years. Passages italicized are those containing details which do not appear in earlier versions.

“At the beginning of 1857 . . . Wiremu Tamihana paid his last (I believe his only) visit to Auckland. He has said that his chief object in going was to see the Governor, and lay before him the lawless condition of the country, in order that some plan might be arranged to cure the existing evils. He was also anxious to have a European magistrate stationed at his own village. He was, however, received coldly, and his requests were slighted, although nobody can now recollect how or why. He complains of some subordinate officer having treated him with great rudeness when he tried to obtain access to the Governor. It is quite certain that somebody took upon himself to refuse the Chief admission to the Governor's presence. He saw Mr. McLean, the Native Secretary and Chief Commissioner of the Land Purchasing Department, and asked him for a loan to erect a mill. He was refused. A notorious opponent of land-selling, he was not one to be looked on with any favour by a land-buying Government. Before leaving town he visited a friend, and complained to him of the treatment he had received. His friend replied: ‘You see that your application has been thrown under the table: therefore, if you wish to erect a mill, or raise your own social condition, you must set about it yourself in earnest.’ 23 Mortified and disappointed, he returned home to meditate on the advice he had received. It readily commended itself to a proud, self-reliant man. He determined to ask no more favours from the English Government, but to work out what his countrymen wanted without that help which he had just been denied.
“The fruit of this resolution was the following circular, which was sent about the Waikato district . . .”

Gorst quotes here the letter of 12 February 1857 already referred to. He then goes on:

“This was not the first proposal for the election of a King, nor the first nomination of Potatau to the office. The desire for a king had existed for six or seven years previously: the only difficulty was to find some chief to place on the throne who would be accepted by all. A meeting attended by 1,600 natives had just been held by Te Heuheu at Taupo . . . At this meeting it was distinctly proposed that Potatau te Wherowhero, the great chief of Waikato, should be king. When Tamihana heard of the proposal he resolved to do his best to carry it into effect. He therefore at once published the formal assent of Ngatihaua in the letter quoted above.” 24

Before considering this passage, there should be placed alongside it an earlier paragraph in which Gorst gives a rather different account. After - 200 asserting that different motives induced different adherents to join the King Movement, which itself changed character continuously, he continues:

“Wiremu Tamihana and the Ngatihaua tribe, who were the first to set up Potatau as king, declared that they did so to supply that want of government . . . which they severely felt.”

Gorst goes on to quote a somewhat free rendering of Tamihana's letter of 7 June 1861. 25

Still earlier in the book Gorst refers to a meeting with Tamihana soon after the latter returned from his mediation in the first Taranaki War. This would set the date at about the beginning of April, 1861.

“He gave me at the same time some account of the origin and purpose of their Maori monarchy, which he declared had been established only when they found the British authorities would do nothing to repress crime amongst them . . .” 26

Nowhere else is there any reference to discussing the subject directly with Tamihana.

The main sources of Gorst's account will now be tolerably clear. It is an amalgam of three earlier accounts. The “chief object” attributed to him is that declared in the Clarke notes, which also provides the source for the last sentencee of the first paragraph. The main body of the account, with all the details of the visit, is drawn chiefly from the evidence of Davis, whose name is suppressed for no very clear reason. The passage following Tamihana's letter of 1857 is drawn almost entirely from his letter to Browne of June 1861. In one respect the task of combining these different accounts is rather botched. Gorst cites, without any attempt to reconcile them, two distinct explanations of the origin of the 1857 letter—first that it resulted directly from his rebuff in Auckland, and second that it resulted from Te Heuheu's meeting at Taupo.

The source or sources for the italicized portions is not certain, but in some cases can be conjectured with some confidence. Thus his dating of the episode is a necessary consequence of three points:

  • (a) The evidence of Davis which fixes the date at some time in the first half of 1857 (Davis having left the government service not later than the end of July 1857).
  • (b) The letter of 12 February 1857 which fixes the date by which Tamihana had committed himself to support of the King.
  • (c) Gorst's own view of Tamihana as a man of careful deliberation, which requires as long an interval for “meditation” as possible between the visit to Auckland and its “fruit”, the letter of 12 February.

These require the date to be put as early as possible in 1857—hence “At the beginning . . .”

The alleged desire for “a European magistrate” to be “stationed at his village” is supported by no other evidence and conflicts with some. It may result from a careless reading of Clarke's notes, in which - 201 Tamihana early states explicitly that the project he took to Auckland was one of Maori magistrates and a runanga, but later refers simply to “magistrates”.

Why Gorst should say that nobody could “now recollect how or why” Tamihana's proposal was slighted is puzzling at first sight, since the account of Davis (which he cites) clearly explains the “how”, and his own explanation of the refusal of the loan appears adequately to explain the “why”. But if Gorst had enquired in the Native Office, to which he was attached, why Tamihana's request for assistance in organizing self-government should have been rejected, certainly no one would have remembered “how or why”. No account of the episode gives any reason for thinking that the project was mentioned to anyone in the Native Office except Davis, who had left it nearly three years before Gorst arrived in the country.

The reference to “great rudeness from some subordinate officer” is not easily accounted for. If Davis is meant, the words attributed to him in Buddle's account, or those in Clarke's notes, might perhaps be considered rude, but everything would depend upon the tone. To this we have no clue except that Tamihana does not appear to imply any rudeness in Clarke's notes, and that the friendly contact maintained by Davis with the King party in after years suggests that his words, whatever they may have been, were not so regarded by the Waikatos generally. It is not unlikely that Tamihana was shown rudeness by some clerk junior to Davis—the general picture sketched by Mr. Miller is amply justified by contemporary evidence. 27 Whether a rangatira of Tamihana's lineage would hold it consonant with his dignity to complain of rudeness from an inferior is perhaps more dubious. All in all there seems to be no sufficient reason for treating this as more than a literary embellishment by Gorst.

On Gorst's own showing the reason given for McLean's refusing the loan can only be conjecture. Certainly no one outside the Native Office, probably no one but McLean himself, could have any sounder reason for reaching this conclusion, and Gorst has already tacitly admitted that he could get no information from that quarter. If any credence is to be given to the flour mill story at all, however, Gorst's guess is likely enough.

Similarly the statement that it was the nomination of Potatau at Taupo that decided Tamihana is unlikely to be more than a guess, though again a reasonable one. Very little was known to Europeans of proceedings at the meeting, and that little only percolated slowly. Extant contemporary accounts dwell chiefly on proposals for interdicting land sales—always a prominent aspect of the King Movement later. Although there are references to proposals for a King, they are - 202 brief, suggest that little support was evident, and do not name Te Wherowhero, nor indeed any other nominee. 28

The date given by Gorst brings Tamihana to Auckland at a time when the Taupo meeting was almost certainly still in progress. If his date is correct, it is curious that no account notes this concurrence of events. Further, as the Government was undoubtedly anxious to obtain authentic intelligence of the Taupo meeting, it is most unlikely that the opportunity presented by the visit of any Waikato chief in January 1857 would have been neglected.

Nothing substantial in Gorst's account can be regarded with any confidence as originating in any other reliable source than those already considered. Its sole importance, indeed, is that it brings together, in no very careful or critical spirit, elements from several earlier sources and combines them, with one or two literary embellishments, into a form subsequently adopted by Rusden who launched it into the main stream of New Zealand history. 29

6. The last account to be considered comprises marginal notes made by Governor Browne in his own copy of Gorst's book. No early account attributes any personal share in the episode to Browne: all agree in making it clear that his knowledge can only have been gathered at second hand after the event. But he was certainly aware of the incident before leaving New Zealand, and it would have been of sufficient interest for him to make enquiries of government officials. Even if he did not follow the Waikato Committee's proceedings closely enough to note the evidence of Davis, he certainly read Clarke's notes. In forwarding them with other correspondence to the Colonial Office he observed, “I have always wished to communicate with him, [Tamihana] but owing to the conduct of C. O. Davis, as described by himself to Mr. Clarke, I have never been able to do so.” 30

Between the end of fighting in Taranaki and the 25th of July 1861, when he learned of his forthcoming replacement by Grey, Browne persisted in efforts to arrange a meeting with Tamihana in the hope of reaching a peaceful settlement with the King party. 31 He thus had both motive and opportunity for gathering any information still available in the Native Office. His notes show familiarity with Buddle's account, but nothing that is new or significant save on one point.

- 203

Browne accepts Gorst's account as substantially accurate, noting:

“The [date?] is incorrect. It was in 1855—Tamihana saw Davis who was always a traitor. Davis told him it was useless for him to see the Governor unless he was prepared ‘to pass under his, Davis’ thigh'— referring to a custom among Maori's when a man has been taken prisoner and is about to be enslaved or slain.”

Opposite the reference to Tamihana's visiting a friend in Auckland Browne notes, “The friend was Davis.” 32

Thus the only point of interest for our purposes is Browne's positive dating the episode in 1855. As he clearly accepts it as falling within his own governorship he could have no interested motive in substituting 1855 for 1857. It has already been noted that the usual date derives solely from a tentative statement by Davis, that it conflicts with some other evidence, and is not easily reconcilable even with Davis's own story of the flour mill. Browne's date creates no such difficulty. It is in harmony with other reliable evidence, and can therefore be accepted as probable. The visit is thus to be placed somewhere in the last four months of 1855. 33

From this survey of the evidence it may be concluded that Buddle's story, the evidence of Davis and the notes by Clarke clearly refer to the same incident. To the extent that the three versions agree with each other, and are in accordance with Tamihana's letter of June 1861, the story can be regarded as well-authenticated. Where there are differences of substance, all details must be regarded with suspicion. On this basis the episode may be reconstructed as follows:

When proposals for a Maori King began to be discussed in the Waikato, i.e. from 1852-3 onwards, Tamihana at first preferred to follow British practices more closely and formulated a scheme of Maori magistrates and council. He clung to this idea for some years although impressed by biblical injunctions to choose a king and disappointed by the transient results of his efforts to end tribal strife; and in the hope of securing government assistance he visited Auckland towards the end of 1855. Discussions with C. O. Davis, with whom he was already acquainted, dissuaded him from seeking government co-operation. The general effect of Davis's advice is clear, though apparently conflicting accounts survive. That he warned that a state of humiliating dependence would result, as in Buddle's account, is not unlikely in view of his obvious sympathy with the nationalistic sentiments of the Waikatos somewhat later. He may have said that Tamihana's reception would be more sympathetic if he first proved his capacity and earnestness by putting his proposals into partial effect, as in Clarke's notes. If Tamihana had failed to obtain a loan for building a flour mill—a highly questionable detail since only one account refers to it—Davis may well have used this to underline his argument. Possibly all three points may have been made in the course of what was doubtless a long - 204 discussion. At all events it seems clear that it was what Tamihana and others of the Waikato regarded as the friendly advice of Davis which turned Tamihana's thoughts away from co-operation with the Government. Nevertheless, he remained uncommitted after his return from Auckland until Te Heuheu's meeting of December 1856. By 12 February 1857 he was, with all the Ngatihaua, publicly committed to the election of Te Wherowhero as King. Allowing for the time necessary to obtain the tribe's consent to that letter, Tamihana's conversion may be considered with some confidence to have occurred not later than early January 1857.

Tamihana's visit to Auckland thus appears as only one in a chain of influences leading to his joining the King Movement and not as an isolated, decisive, event. The importance of the visit is reduced and the nature of its effect upon him is significantly changed.

It may be pointed out that there are other grounds for disputing the appearance of crucial significance given to this visit in many accounts by its being the only concrete event amidst generalities about the King Movement's origin. The implications that Tamihana would not have joined the Movement but for his visit to Auckland, and that the Movement would then have been much less powerful, are justified by no reliable evidence. In spite of Tamihana's prominence, resistance to land-selling and a determination to keep all European influences at arm's length became much more prominent in the King Movement as it developed in practice than the desire for peace, law, and order which appear chiefly to have animated Tamihana.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[A date in brackets is that of first publication, given where a later edition is quoted.]

Primary
  • Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1860. E-1B, E-1C, F-3. Auckland.
  • BRITAIN, S. J. and others (eds.), n.d. A Pioneer Missionary Among the Maoris, 1850-1879, being Letters and Journals of Thomas Samuel Grace. Palmerston North.
  • C.O. 209. Despatches from the Governor of New Zealand to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Vols. 130, 138, 139, 141, 142, 160, 161. Ms. London, Public Record Office.
  • MCLEAN, Donald. Papers. Series I:3, 8. Typescript, Wellington, Alexander Turnbull Library.
  • Minutes of the Executive Council, 1855. Ms. Wellington, National Archives.
  • Parliamentary Papers 1860. XLVI [2719].
  • Parliamentary Papers 1862. XXXVII [3040] London.
  • SCHOLEFIELD, Guy Hardy, (ed.), 1960. The Richmond-Atkinson Papers. Vol. I. Wellington, Government Printer.
  • SEWELL, Henry. Journal. Typescript, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington.
- 205
Secondary
  • BUDDLE, Thomas, 1860. The Maori King Movement in New Zealand. Auckland.
  • CONDLIFFE, John Bell and Willis Thomas Goodwin AIREY, 1935 (1925). A Short History of New Zealand. 5th ed. Christchurch.
  • — — 1954 (1925). A Short History of New Zealand. New ed. (7th) completely revised and extensively rewritten by W. T. G. Airey. Christchurch, Whitcombe & Tombs.
  • GORST, John Eldon, 1864. The Maori King. London.
  • — — 1959. The Maori King. Ed. by Keith Sinclair. Hamilton, Paul's Book Arcade.
  • HIGHT, James, 1933. “The Maori Wars, 1843-72.” Cambridge History of the British Empire. VII, pt. ii, 121-141.
  • MILLER, Harold, 1950. New Zealand. London, Hutchinson.
  • MORRELL, William Parker, 1935. New Zealand. London, Ernest Benn.
  • REEVES, William Pember, 1950 (1898). The Long White Cloud. 4th ed. London, Allen & Unwin.
  • RUSDEN, George William, 1895 (1883). History of New Zealand. 2nd ed. Vol. II. Melbourne, Melville, Mullen & Hade.
  • SAUNDERS, Alfred, 1896. History of New Zealand . . . Vol. I. Christchurch, Whitcombe & Tombs.
  • SINCLAIR, Keith, 1957. The Origins of the Maori Wars. Wellington, New Zealand University Press.
  • — — 1959. A History of New Zealand. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books.
1   Rusden 1895:38; Saunders 1896:335-6; Reeves 1950:198; Condliffe and Airey 1935:187, 1954:94; (there are minor differences between the versions in these two editions). Hight, 1933:133; Morrell 1935:37-8; Miller 1950:64; Sinclair 1957:73-4; Sinclair 1959:112. Dates cited are those of editions used: books are listed in order of original publication.
2   Buddle 1860:7.
3   App. to Jour. 1860 F-3 20-1, 34.
4   Minutes Exec. Coun. 1 Sept. 1855.
5   e.g. Browne to Merivale, 2 June 1855, C.O. 209/139 “. . . our ablest interpreter is not to be trusted . . .”; Browne to Labouchere No. 71, 23 July 1856, CO. 209/138 “. . . C.O. Davis, whose discretion is less indisputable than his information which is equal to that of anyone in the Colony” (omitted in published version, Parl. Pap. 1860 XLVI [2719] No. 100); Browne to Labouchere No. 61, 3 Aug. 1857, CO. 209/142 “. . . reason to suspect this man for a long time but could never obtain sufficient evidence . . .”
6   Browne writes on one occasion that Davis resigned to avoid an enquiry into his conduct, despatch No. 12, 24 Jan. 1861, C.O. 209/160; and elsewhere, “C.O. Davis was turned out or as he says left the native office when detected in dishonesty . . . I dismissed him.” Marginal note in his own copy of Gorst 1864:95. This copy is in the Alexander Turnbull Library.
7   Browne to McLean confid., 8 Feb. 1858, McLean Pap., I Vol. 8 40-2.
8   A copy is enclosed in Despatch No. 12, CO. 209/160.
9   See, for example, Scholefield 1960:246, 364-9; Sewell Journal: 20 April, 21 Aug. 1856.
10   In substance the Committee finds the charge proven. App. to Jour. 1860 F-3.
11   McLean was examined by the Committee before Davis and was not re-examined afterwards.
12   See Fenton's Waikato Journal, ibid. 1860 E-IC No. 3.
13   i.e. Council or committee.
14   H. T. Clarke, extract from Journal, 14 June 1861; encl. in Parl. Pap. 1862 XXXVII [3040] No. 8.
15   Rogers Minute 13 May on Despatch No. 30, CO. 209/161.
16   Gorst 1959:40. Modern editorial practice is to use square brackets in similar circumstances.
17   See, for example, Buddle 1860:3.
18   Tamihana to Browne, 7 June 1861, App. to Jour., 1861 E-1B No. 20.
19   Hadfield to Browne, 15 April 1856, Parl. Pap., 1860 XLVI [2719] 233-4.
20   Te Hapuku writes on 16 Dec. 1856 that Maoris have already left his district (Napier) to attend, ibid.
21   It was not until 2 Mar. 1857 that Browne was able to report its end. ibid. No. 124.
22   22 App. to Jour., 1860 E-Ic 3.
23   Gorst here cites “N.Z. Parl. Papers 1860 F—No. 3, 332”, i.e. the evidence of Davis in his first examination before the Waikato Committee.
24   Gorst 1959:54-5.
25   ibid.:40-1.
26   ibid.:6.
27   See for example the complaints of Te Heuheu in Browne to Labouchere No. 40, 9 May 1857, CO. 209/141. This is summarized by Gorst 1959:57.
28   There are contemporary references or reports by two government officials and two missionaries. Halse to McLean, 22 Dec. 1856, McLean Pap. I, Vol. 3; G. S. Cooper incl. in Parl. Pap., 1860 XLVI [2719], No. 26; Buddle 1860:7-8; T. S. Grace, Report for 1856, and Grace to Venn, 24 Mar. 1858, Britain n.d.:68, 75-7.
29   Although Rusden usually makes thorough use of New Zealand official papers, he cites only Gorst as his authority for this passage. Rusden 1895:38.
30   Browne to Newcastle No. 30, 1 Mar. 1861. Parl. Pap., 1862, XXXVII [3040], No. 8.
31   Against the wishes of Potatau and Tamihana many of the Waikato King party, including some Ngatihaua, joined in the Taranaki War. At its conclusion Browne judged it essential to obtain from the King party adequate evidence of “submission to the Queen's sovereignty”, and was preparing for war if it should be refused. He hoped that a personal meeting with Tamihana would help to remove suspicion about the Government's intentions, which was a major obstacle to a peaceful solution.
32   Gorst 1864:81-2 (Turnbull Library copy).
33   Browne reached New Zealand on 5 Sept. 1855. Despatch No. 1, 8 Sept. 1855. C.O. 209/130.