BURROWS AND HEKE’S WAR

Turnbull Library Record, Volume I, Issue 2, 1 November 1967, Page 4

BURROWS AND HEKE’S WAR

Ormond Wilson

On the face of it, a slim book with the cumbrous title of Extracts from a Diary kept by the Reverend R. Burrows during Heke’s War in the North in 1845 is one of the most useful sources of contemporary information about the early stages of the first clash of arms between British forces and Maori warriors. It is unique in providing what appears to be a contemporary record of the shadow fighting which broke out between Heke’s and Nene’s allies and followers before British forces attacked Heke at Puketutu on 9 May 1845, and continued until Heke was wounded and put out of action on 12 June. Maning’s version of this contest, in his War in the North, is more colourful but lacks the precision of a journal entered up day by day. The view which Burrows had of the war as a whole was limited and in many respects prejudiced, as were also the accounts of other contemporary writers, including the military. No one however was in a better position to describe the events as seen locally than the cleric appointed to take charge of the Waimate Mission Station after Bishop Selwyn’s departure for Auckland in November 1844, who was in constant touch with Heke himself as well as providing, unwillingly, a base for Despard’s assault on Ohaeawai towards the end ofjune 1845. His journal is indeed a mine of detailed information. It tells, for instance, that Heke used the term kupapa (meaning a neutral, or fence-sitter) twenty years earlier than it has otherwise been recorded; it describes how a party of Heke’s followers dragged two small cannon out of the Waimate mill-pond (where they had been hidden by a settler) for use against the British; it records that Colonel Despard, when Nene offered his support, insulted him with the reply, ‘ When I want the help of savages, I will ask for it’ a reply which the interpreter managed to avoid translating. 1

Burrows published the Extracts from a Diary in 1886. In the preface he wrote: ‘Some years before the late Sir William Martin left New Zealand, he did me the honour to read the Diary, extracts from which are embodied in the following pages; and he advised me not to allow the manuscript to be lost, as it contained what might form a chapter in a future history of New Zealand.... Although I have allowed many years to pass away since these suggestions were made, I always had such implicit confidence in Sir William Martin’s judgement, that I all along intended some day to act upon his advice. Having been confined to my home for the last month, I have employed my time in putting together what follows.’ The book opens with a brief introduction recounting (not entirely accurately) some of the circumstances which led up to the war, and this section concludes with the statement: ‘My journal dates from March 3 1845, from which time I kept a tolerably correct, and on some days a very full, account of events as they transpired. The follow-

ing record, therefore, will be extracts from the said journal, interwoven with such remarks and explanations as may be thought necessary to make the whole as intelligible as possible to the ordinary reader.’ Then follow almost daily entries up till 20 July, after which he wrote:‘Although my journal for the next two months contains a large amount of matter, much of it is not such as would be interesting to the general reader. I shall, therefore, only copy such portions as may be considered either instructive or amusing, or both.’ The armies and the war having moved away from the Waimate area, the extracts and summaries given in the remaining dozen pages are of less interest to us today.

It is for the period 3 March to 20 July, when Burrows acted as an intermediary between Nene and Heke, as well as between the British and their opponents, and was an eye-witness of the attacks on Puketutu and Ohaeawai, that the published Diary is most informative. An illustration is the account of the construction of Ohaeawai pa. Colonel Despard was so impressed with the design and strength of the pa that he was convinced some European had a hand in building it. 2 Cowan and others, following Mailing, have written that it comprised an existing pa, belonging to Peni Taua, to which Heke and Kawiti made substantial additions. 3 But on 17 May, only a month before Despard’s arrival at Waimate, the Diary records: ‘Learned from Heke’s natives who are here that there has been a disagreement between Heke and Kawiti as to where they should erect a second pa, the former wishing to have it at Ohaeawai, the latter at Te Ruapekapeka,...’ On 21 May, a mere four weeks before Despard approached what was to be for him an impregnable fortress, the Diary reports a visit to Ohaeawai where Burrows found Heke and Kawiti reconciled, and the pa begun. ‘Found Kawiti busy marking out the lines and otherwise helping on the work. Whilst waiting for the return of Heke I had a good opportunity for observing the locality they have selected as a site for their new pa.’ If this is a contemporary journal entry it seems clear that no pa could already have stood on the site. The engineering skill and industry of Kawiti and his followers (Heke taking no further part after being wounded on 12 June) are therefore the more remarkable. On the strength of several subsequent entries mentioning visits to the site we can also accept the assurance given to Despard by Burrows that no European had any hand in the construction of the pa.

Many other examples of the usefulness of this document, assuming it to be a contemporary record, could be quoted. There are, unfortunately, grounds for suspecting that in preparing it for publication Burrows did rather more than interweave, as he said, ‘such remarks as may be thought necessary to make the whole as intelligible as possible to the ordinary reader.’ Some of these interwoven remarks are obvious and irrelevant from the point of view of the historical validity of the pub-

lished Diary. For instance, after quoting Heke as using the term kupapa, Burrows added in parenthesis, ‘a kupapa is one who is sitting still, taking no part with either side’. Similarly, in the passage describing the site of Ohaeawai, Burrows added: ‘lt does not require the practised eye of a military engineer to see that they are making one fatal mistake in placing the stockade within long rifle range of a conical hill situated to the west, and bordering on a small forest.’ In the event, possession of this hill nearly gave Despard victory, and Burrows may have well added his comment afterwards. If so, the claim to foresight was a harmless piece of vanity.

As was the normal and required practice among missionaries in the field, Burrows sent a copy of his diary to the CMS in London. By 1845 the practice had rather died out, and oddly enough the only journal Burrows transmitted was for the period 3 March -31 December 1845. Since he was for part of this time in the storm centre of critical events this too may be ascribed to vanity - a useful vanity. Nor need it surprise us that the document sent to the CMS, of which the Turnbull Library has a microfilm copy 4 , should be specially compiled for the purpose. Most missionaries edited their day-to-day journals before sending home a fair copy. The difference between the Burrows journal preserved in the CMS archives and that published in 1886 is however startling. It was natural that in writing of Nene he should call him ‘Walker’ to the CMS and ‘Waka’ in a New Zealand publication, and perhaps not surprising that for the CMS he should omit most of the passages critical of Colonel Despard. But it is certainly surprising to find that the two versions only rarely use the same phraseology, and that the CMS version is a mere fifth the length of the published one.

Burrows sent off the CMS version in three instalments covering the periods 3 March -31 July, 1 August - 31 October, and 1 November - 31 December, respectively. The first instalment was written out in a different hand from the two subsequent ones, and was accompanied by a covering letter dated 15 September 1845. 5 The Turnbull Library also holds a MS copy of this instalment, written in a partly filled exercise book by the hand which wrote the instalments for 1 August -31 December. Comparison with the letter signed by Burrows (and with other letters now held in the Hocken Library) shows that the Turnbull MS and the subsequent instalments sent to the CMS were written by Burrows himself, while the first instalment on the CMS microfilm was a transcription made by a copyist who also indulged in some unimportant editing. Punctuation and capitalisation differ as between the Turnbull MS and the microfilm, and occasionally the copyist (perhaps Mrs Burrows) inserted minor alterations or embellishments in the MS itself. From this evidence it may be presumed that Burrows intended to retain a copy of the journal, as edited for the CMS, in the exercise

book, but that this intention was abandoned after the first instalment. The evidence confirms the natural presupposition that neither the Turnbull MS nor the instalments sent to London were themselves the original journal. Further, it is apparent that Burrows must have worked from this original document in 1886: the actual instalments sent off to the CMS would not then have been available to him, and the Turnbull MS ends on 31 July, while the published Diary continues, intermittently, until the end of the year. This original document was presumably the one read by Sir William Martin and it would today have as much interest for us as it had for him. Without it, can we make any assessment as to whether the Turnbull MS-CMS version or the published Diary conforms more closely to the missing original?

Happily, one small clue exists. When Hugh Carleton was writing his Life of Henry Williams in the 1870 s he quoted a communication he had received from an unnamed clergyman. The correspondent wrote to Carleton, ‘I quote from my journal’, and then gave an entry for 7 July 1845. 6 The entry is undoubtedly from Burrows’s journal, though it differs greatly both from the CMS version and from the Diary. The Turnbull MS however provides us with an illuminating revelation. The original entry has been crossed out, and a new one inserted. Both are fortunately legible. By comparison with a letter written by Burrows in 1879 on the CMS microfdm it is clear that the revised entry was written by him in the 1870 s in a handwriting markedly changed since 1845. This revised entry is substantially the same as that printed by Carleton: the differences can be readily explained by reference to Carleton’s habit of ‘improving’ the style of all material he used whereby, alas, the breathless prose of the letters and journals of Mrs Henry Williams becomes formal and correct. So likewise with Burrows. The revised journal entry in the Turnbull MS was transformed into the sort of style Carleton considered proper.

J JLJL It would therefore seem certain that in writing to Carleton Burrows did precisely what he said: ‘I quote from my journal.’ He quoted, in other words, from his original journal, not from the version prepared for the CMS. For some reason he then decided to insert this original entry into the CMS version he had retained the Turnbull MS. We are thus in possession of one single entry from his original journal which we can compare both with the CMS version and with the published Diary. Here are the three forms in which the entry for 7 July 1845 appeared: 3 gf fj gnohiw- vik 1. Original journal: Left early for the Camp on my arrival I was met by Wilmot who told me that Colonel Despard had determined upon retiring to the Waimate. He begged me if I had any influence with the Colonel to dissuade him from such a mad act. Mr Clendon also confirmed what Wilmot had said. I went as usual to report myself to the Colonel and he informed me of his intentions. I ventured to point out to him what I considered would be the result of such a step. I was not thanked for my

advice, but was glad to find shortly afterward that the order had been countermanded. Walker & all the leading men of his party were much opposed to the [step]* and the former gave the C to understand that he & his men did not intend to follow his example. 2. Turnbull MS - CMS version: Went to the Camp this morning found the Colonel had decided upon returning here to wait for more assistance or further orders. Walker and all the leading men were opposed they were well aware the confidence such a step would give the party in the Pa and most probably add to their numbers, whereas a steady resistance notwithstanding the loss they have sustained would inspire the enemy with fear and very shortly to desert their Pa should an opportunity offer. The Natives have not ceased to wonder & talk at the determined manner in which the Soldiers attacked them some calling them very courageous others terming it madness. One remarked they were devils and not men to rush up in the manner they did.

3. Published version: Left early for the camp. On my arrival I was met by Captain Wilmot, of the Artillery, and Mr Clendon, Magistrate of the Hokianga District, who informed me that the whole force was about to be withdrawn to theWaimate, there to wait for reinforcements from Sydney and Melbourne. Captain Wilmot pressed me to use my influence with the colonel to prevent such a step. I went, as usual, to report myself to the colonel, accompanied by Mr Clendon. On our way to the tent we noticed nearly the whole camp busy in preparing for a move. After the usual salutations the colonel told us his intentions. Mr Clendon, who had been primed beforehand, ventured to give it as his opinion that the withdrawal from the situation, leaving the rebels in the pa, would add greatly to their numbers, and enable them to take to the bush and do much mischief. Colonel Despard, who was suffering very much at the time from neuralgia, and had been for several days, replied, ‘What am I to do? Quite one-third of my men are either killed or disabled; if the rebels from the pa were to come out in force and line the bush all round, I have not sufficient men to go out against them.’ The reply to this was, ‘You have Waka here with his men for such work as that should it be needed, but the rebels are not likely to leave their pa in any force to attack you so long as you are here.’ The Colonel was now informed that Waka meant to remain even if the troops were withdrawn, and what he would ask for would be some help in strenghtening the stockade his men had put up on the flat a little way to the rear of the camp. Colonel Despard was further informed that it was reported on very good authority that a proposition had been made by Kawiti to desert the present pa, and withdraw to the neighbourhood of Ruapekapeka. It was also suggested to the colonel by Mr Clendon that the 32 lb gun, lately brought in the North Star, might be so placed as to do much more execution than it had hitherto done. After some further conversation we withdrew, and immediately afterward the order to strike tents, etc. was countermanded. During the day the gun was dragged some way further up Waka’s hill, and a steady fire from thence opened upon the pa. At my suggestion the few wounded, who were still in the camp, were removed to the Waimate. We numbered now altogether about 30 in hospital. The drays have been sent to Kerikeri for further supplies of ammunition, etc. * Word omitted in the Turnbull MS, but supplied in Carleton’s transcription. From internal evidence it seems not improbable that the variation between the versions for the entry of 7 July are typical of the period 3 March - 20 July. The Turnbull MS-CMS version states the facts briefly but includes a spattering of explanatory notes. The published Diary is a free-flowing narrative unlike the sort of jottings of which journals are usually composed. This is the pattern for 7 July. In the Turnbull MS four lines out of fifteen summarise the information given

in the original; the balance, describing the views of Nene’s followers and the feelings of Kawiti’s men inside the pa at Ohaeawai, were presumably based on subsequent discussions, incorporated here in order to explain the situation to the CMS. The published Diary on the other hand greatly expands the original jottings into a detailed account of the day’s events. One need not for that reason doubt the general accuracy of the Diary : re-reading his old journal will have recalled to Burrows’s mind many details which were not included in it. He will also have had available to him, from published sources and from personal conversations, much information of which he had been unaware when writing up his journal in 1845. On the other hand it would be impossible for him in 1886 to recollect the exact terms of conversations held forty years earlier. Sometimes these conversations are briefly recorded in the Turnbull MS, and were presumably therefore written down in the original. On 7 July they were not. Nor were they in the other examples quoted earlier.We cannot therefore be certain either that Heke used the term kupapa or that Despard told Nene that if he wanted the help of savages he would ask for it. There is however ample evidence in the Turnbull MS of frequent discussions with Heke; and there is also corroborative evidence in Despard’s own reports, and in the account of the war he wrote in 1846, 7 of his generally scornful attitude towards his Maori allies. Heke’s joking reference to pigs as kupapa and Despard’s rudeness to Nene would at least be in keeping with their characters. To sum up, then, we may accept the statement made by Burrows in his preface to the Diary that he wrote the version for publication in a month during 1886; it is apparent that in doing so he was working from an original journal which, except for one single entry, we no longer possess; it seems clear that he went beyond his avowed purpose of interweaving ‘such remarks and explanations as may be thought necessary to make the whole as intelligible as possible to the ordinary reader’; but at the same time it is probable that this amplified version conforms more closely to the original journal than the abbreviated version compiled for the CMS, of which the Turnbull MS covers the period

3 March -31 July.

REFERENCES 1 Diary pp 25, 33 and 38; 1 May, 30 May and 19 June 1845. (For the emergence of kupapa during the wars of the sixties, see R. I. M. Burnett, ‘Kupapas Journal of the Polynesian Society Vol 74 No. 2, June 1965). 2 Diary p 45, 11 July 1845. Despard to Fitzßoy, 12 July 1845 (quoted in the New Zealander, 30 August 1845). 3 Maning, War in the North, (appendix to Old New Zealand 1910 edition, 314. Cowan, New Zealand Wars, I 48-9. 4 Turnbull Micro MS 212. 5 Turnbull Micro MS 211. 6 Carleton, Life of Henry Williams, II 113-4 n. 7 Despard, ‘Narrative of an Expedition...’, United Services Magazine 1846.