THE WAITARA PURCHASE

Turnbull Library Record, Volume 6, Issue 1, 1 May 1973, Page 12

THE WAITARA PURCHASE

June Starke

I A letter from Archdeacon Hadfield, vehement defender of Maori rights, to Archdeacon Govett at New Plymouth, and correspondence of John Coleridge Patteson, Bishop of Melanesia, are recent additions to the Library’s manuscript collections. They provide further documentation of the Waitara dispute which in 1860 brought Maoris and European settlers into open conflict over the possession of land. Bishop Patteson’s comment on the explosion, detached to a degree, reveals his views on the action taken by the chief protagonists. His letters indicate an important twofold role as relatively neutral intermediary between Governor Gore Browne and churchmen led by Bishop Selwyn, and as the means of communicating the clergy’s viewpoint to the Imperial government.

The confrontation at Waitara saw the alignment of the Church of England clergy on the side of native rights to the extent that they were treated with acrimony by land hungry settlers. At the same time the Maoris harboured feelings of disillusionment against their champions. Wiremu Kingi te Rangitake, baptised by Archdeacon Hadfield, expressed this graphically in a letter of 10 December 1862 addressed to Bishop Selwyn from Huiterangiora, District of Kihikihi. . . . ‘Where were you before Governor Brown, [sic] why didn’t you tell him to enquire about that land [at Waitara]? Instead you allowed blood to flow in a crimson tide.’ 1 The Governor had, under pressure, and in Patteson’s opinion with little understanding of the import of his action, secured by force the purchase of this land sold by a tribesman Teira in spite of Wiremu Kingi’s assertion of his right, set down in the Treaty of Waitangi, of ‘chieftanship over the land’ of the Ngatiawa tribe, whereby he refused to permit the sale. 2

Archdeacon Hadfield, more than any other European, had had a close association with Wiremu Kingi and the members of the Ngatiawa tribe since the setting up of his mission at Waikanae in 1839 before the tribe’s return to Taranaki. The substance of his ardent support of Maori rights over the Waitara Purchase may be found in his three pamphlets— One of England’s little wars, The second year of one of England’s little wars and A sequel to one of England’s little wars published in London by Williams and Norgate in 1860 and 1861—and in his evidence taken at the Bar of the House of Representatives on 14 August 1860. Correspondence between Archdeacon Hadfield and Archdeacon Govett, the two missionaries most immediately involved in the complications of Wiremu Kingi’s assertion of tribal rights is referred to by Robert Parris, Land Purchase Commissioner in Taranaki, in his report of the purchase at Waitara. 3

The letter recently deposited in the Library was discovered by Rev. J. A. G. Day amongst papers in the vestry of Holy Trinity Church, Fitzroy, New Plymouth. Archdeacon Hadfield wrote from Otaki to Archdeacon Govett at New Plymouth on 10 May 1860 two months after the outbreak of hostilities. He brings his letter to a close by asking for ‘a few lines’ on occurrences which ‘may not be clearly conveyed in the papers’. While providing no new information this letter sets down clearly Archdeacon Hadfield’s views on the purchase and its effect and pinpoints the close liaison with Archdeacon Govett while filling out some details concerning the views of Hadfield’s Maori friends and informants. There is significance in the observation ‘the shameless falsehood of these assertions of McLean amazes me. He did not venture to speak in that positive way to me in Wellington when I told him that I knew of fifty claimants who opposed the sale.’ This anticipates and supports Bishop Patteson’s view of the value of McLean’s evidence at the Bar of the House. In a letter of 5 February 1861 to his father Patteson refers to The story of New Zealand by A. S. Thomson published in London in 1859 in which it is maintained that no individual had the right to alienate Maori land without the consent of the tribe. 4 He asserts on the authority of the Bishop of Wellington ‘. . . that Mr. McLean, the chief Land Purchase Commissioner and Native Secretary, . . . had himself sanctioned the proof sheet of that book as far as it dealt with all questions affecting native Interests . . . [and] that he had warned the Governor not to involve himself in a “land quarrel” at Taranaki. You may judge from these facts, and I could supply many more, of the value of his Evidence before the House of Assembly.’ In fact McLean’s evidence records more than one view of Maori land tenure. 5

The text of Archdeacon Hadfield’s letter is as follows: Otaki, May 10 1860 My dear Archdeacon, ... I have had some difficulty in dealing with these people. Even if I had been inclined to put a favourable construction on the Governor’s proceedings in reference to the occupation of Waitara, the people here are far too intelligent and well-informed for anything but a distinct avowal of my opinion, that a military occupation of land, when there had not been even a breach of the peace, was illegal. But they are not prepared to take any part in the war: they still have faith in the Queen’s Government, though they have none in the present Governor. I, however, rather fear that the injustice of the attack on VV. K. will be made much of by the supporters of the Maori-King throughout the country. I know that many in this district have been led by the Waitara affair to join it. How strange it seems that with such a formidable and widely spread conspiracy

well organised throughout the country to oppose the Queen’s government the Governor should have left it alone and gone out of his way to attack a chief who was opposed to it. Nothing now but a very strong force will do to put down this conspiracy and rebellion. It will require many years to do it. The principle to which you allude, of asking an individual tutua to sell any land he may fancy he has a title to, is wholly at variance with Maori custom. If the Governor could carry the point (which he could not except by force) anywhere it was attempted, it would be futile for any practical purpose, as no tutua G can establish a title anywhere to 50 acres of land. But as said before, it is wholly repugnant to maori notions on the subject and cannot be acted on. With regard to Matene’s 7 opinion about Teira’s title he says he had no opportunity of seeing any one but Teira’s party. He was afraid of expressing his opinion at Taranaki. A letter of Wi Tako’s was published by McLean; but Wi Tako said here last w'eek that there was no doubt whatever that Wi K. was right in denying Teira’s right and in resisting the Governor. He told Rewai 8 so; who is my informant.

My own opinion is that a greater act of injustice was never committed in N.Z. or elsewhere than the possible expulsion of W. K. and his tribe from land they refused to sell. It was unjust; it was illegal. And I will never cease to argue in support of these two assertions till the truth is admitted. I have quite convinced two or three members of the Gen. Ass. that I am right in this. I distinctly deny McLean’s statement as to the majority of the claimants to the land in dispute having been satisfied. But the alteration of men’s property cannot be decided by majorities. McLean last year started this new principle at Manawatu, because Ihakora and others wished to sell their land. He opposed the chiefs and said you can’t interfere, he may do what he likes with his own. They shrewdly replied—‘Very good; that cuts both ways; if he has a right to sell we have a right to withhold.’ The result is that the block purchased is full of Maori lands with ill-defined zig-zag boundaries—some containing many hundreds of acres. The greatest possible confusion will be the result. And a very high price has been given for a very small block of land; and the natives are all intensely disgusted. With regard to Ropoama, 9 he is a personal enemy of W. K. He unjustly interfered with Euoha’s 10 rights in Queen Charlottes Sound. You could have this confirmed to you if you like by any Waitara natives. Wi K’s having appointed him as his successor is a fiction—at least I am told nobody knows anything about it. Ropoama sent McLean a list of names favourable to Teira’s sale including those of Whitikau’s 11 party who had never authorised him to do so, and who side with

W. K. The shameless falsehood of these assertions of McLean amazes me. He did not venture to speak in that positive way to me in Wellington when I told him that I knew of fifty claimants who opposed the sale. What a foolish proceeding it appears to have an assembly of the chiefs 12 at the present time! It really seems lamentable that twenty years after the establishment of the Government in the country there does not appear to be the least advance in government of the natives. McLean’s nominees are called together to advise with him. What weight will their proceedings carry with the various tribes? Absolutely none. And then again the move is ridiculed as an act of weakness. I seem at times as if I am in a dream. I am sorry you have been obliged to send your children away. I feel sadly grieved to think your settlement is so thoroughly disordered. We must pray and trust that peace will soon be restored. . . . Yours very faithfully, Octavius Hadfield Yen. Archdeacon Govett

II Bishop Patteson’s papers were purchased by the Library in 1970 as part of a collection in the estate of Mr K. Webster, London. The correspondence consisting of twenty-nine letters covers the period 1854 to 1871 and concerns primarily the affairs of the Melanesian Mission. These letters, addressed almost entirely to his father, Sir John Patteson, some of them in journal form, have significance in the discussion of British Colonial policy as it affected missionary activity in Melanesia which was territorially outside the British sphere of influence in the Pacific. Comment is made on Church activity and events which occurred in New Zealand during the five months spent each year at the Melanesian mission school at Kohimarama. Eight letters discuss the Waitara affair and reveal Patteson’s key role in the outcome of the purchase. Throughout he frankly recognises the import of what he writes. Bishops Selwyn and Patteson came from families linked by friendship and common interests in the legal world, tied to Eton and strong followers of High Church principles. Rev. W. Tucker, biographer of Bishop Selwyn, observes that he sought counsel and assistance from Mr Justice Patteson, ‘One who better than almost any other man, was qualified to give it’, 13 in the formulation of the colonial Church constitution. Sir John Patteson became a member of the Privy Council in 1852 after a distinguished

career at the Bar. John Coleridge Patteson, his son, early reveals that his observations are made in the full knowledge of both Selwyn and himself that these views would reach the Imperial authorities notably W. E. Gladstone, Selwyn’s friend and contemporary at Eton, and Henry Pelham, fifth Duke of Newcastle, Peelites who joined in strange alliance the government of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell in 1858. Gladstone served as Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Duke of Newcastle as Colonial Secretary from 1859 to 1864. Before arriving in New Zealand Patteson wrote from the Duke of Portland in a journal letter dated 25 June 1855 to his father:

I must write one sheet or so to you wh. must not be seen out of the house, giving you an exact account of the state of the C.M.S. clergy, of the treatment the Bp. has suffered from them, and the Salisbury Sq. committee, of the extraordinary manner in wh. self will and ingratitude seem to be developed in a colonial atmosphere . . . also I shall give you, as exactly as I can, an account of the qualifications requisite to make a clergyman useful in N.Z. or Melanesia; of course this will be simply retailing what the Bp. has often told me, but he does not write it lest it shd. get abroad and so compromise him; but he told that I might, and agreed with me that it might be useful that some such account shd. be in the hands of someone who could state among his friends with some degree of authority the sort of person required.

Unfortunately the ‘sheet or so’ is not to be found but this observation alerts the reader as to the significance of this collection of letters. J. C. Patteson reveals himself as a sensitive, humble man subject to introspection. He displays a strong sense of dedication and the highest regard and respect for Bishop Selwyn whom he refers to as ‘my bishop’ on more than one occasion. 14 He writes incisively making very personal comment on personal encounters by reporting conversations verbatim and drawing excellent word pictures of people. This is exemplified in his estimation of William Swainson, Attorney General, as:

. . . not a man known intimately by many and by no means an easy man to understand; in fact his mistake is probably this, that he likes to be an enigma to many people, and almost on purpose is somewhat inconsistent, but he is a valuable man, and personally I value him much, and we talk freely together. 15 The letter concludes with a postscript which clearly puts the significance of the Selwyn Patteson relationship into context: Jan. 23 (1860). I saw the Bp. yesterday—his mind is quite made up about Melanesia. He said ‘Suppose Archd. Hadfield had taken

Wellington, and Chas. Abraham could have some day been Bp. here, I might then have taken Melanesia, but I think this plan the better one of the two on the whole, even were the other possible. I have been for a long time arranging this. I might have delayed a year, but for the political changes at home, the Duke of Newcastle being at the Colonial Office—it will take some time to arrange the basis on which the Bpric. shall be constituted. . . . Your father has helped me to determine the question of New Zealand or Melanesia and I can see clearly I can [not?] keep both. I agree with him that with our Church Constitution requiring management with my knowledge of the natives, and at my increasing age, I ought to retain N.Z. The matter is settled, and the letter to the Duke of Newcastle is already in the Governor’s hands. ... It is not as if I am passing over the mission into a stranger’s hands—we shall of course always work together, and I shall give all the assistance that I can —go as a passenger it may be (whereat I laughed) or do anything you may wish— ’ .. . and now you know the whole story.

To turn to Patteson’s comment on and involvement in the Waitara affair his letters of March and April 1860 and January, February and May 1861 clearly reveal his role. He records his reaction at the outbreak of hostilities and traces the causes and events leading up to the confrontation taking the view that: The evil is, that the matter was allowed to begin without due consideration, and without any consultation of the Bp. Mr. Martin or Archd. Hadfield, or in short, anyone but the interested parties, the selfish set at Taranaki, and the anti-native part of the community. ... It is not only that the Colonisation of N.Z. will be delayed: but that a bitter feeling between the two races will be excited and increased. In this case there is some show of justice on the side of the English, but the long course of insult offered by the white settler to the Maori is forgotten. . . , 16

As the crisis develops Patteson takes his father into his discussions with Bishop Selwyn, William Martin, Chief Justice, and William Swainson—the Auckland Triumvirate. He writes freely and openly of the dilemma of these Churchmen, their assessment of the situation and their responsibility in the attempt to prevent extended warfare by finally seeking the Governor’s recall. On April 10 1860 three weeks after the confrontation at Waitara he wrote: This Taranaki affair has become so serious, and is likely to involve such very grave consequences, that I think you ought to hear about it, so that you may be in a position to give real information, if required. I really fear, that if not itself the crisis of the attempt to

amalgamate the two races, it is bringing on that crisis very rapidly. I don’t feel sure, that a war of extermination may not grow out of it. Anyhow it is a very serious matter, and the least important part of it is this, that it may cause the recall of the Governor, misunderstandings at home as to the attitude of the Church of England people, and misconceptions as to the actual relations between the natives of this country and the English people. It may be the commencement of a course of real injustice to the native race. Bishop Patteson takes the missionaries’ line and deplores the attitude of the settlers towards the Maori. He observes that they understand little of their way of life or their language. ‘They dont contemplate the New Zealander ever becoming entitled to the privilege of the English citizen, though they take good care to let him feel that he is the subject of the white man’s sovereign.’ 17 Personal anecdotes give another and human dimension to the facts of the situation as he sees them:

‘Now,’ said a man to me yesterday ‘all their savage passions will be aroused.’ ‘Yes’ said I quietly ‘on both sides’ Whereupon our eyes met and I looked him steadily in the face till he saw my meaning and held his tongue. 18 However, from the beginning Patteson is concerned at the effect of the clergy’s stand. He sounds a warning that their attitude could engender the feeling that they forgot their duty as subjects of the Queen in their defence of Maori rights (‘and with some reason owing to the wrongheadedness of some of the clergy’). He is critical of Archdeacon Hadfield’s action in withholding letters from Wiremu Kingi who sought his intercession with the Governor to prevent the Waitara purchase and observes: One person has acted wrongly no doubt. Archd. Hadfield. He was in actual communication with his old friend Wm. Kingi, and suppressed information that was in his possession; in this way. He for 20 years and more has been a quasi Dictator in the South on all Maori questions; he had, I believe, passed his word (as it were) to Wm. Kingi that he could not be disturbed in the quiet rights which he enjoyed at Taranaki (according to Maori comprehension of rights, customs etc). Now that the Governor has taken a part contrary to that which Archd. H. assured his friends must be taken,

he (the Archd.) is so excessively angry that he cannot speak or write temperately on the matter. 19 Patteson does not see this as sufficient reason for not communicating with the Governor and furthermore predicts only the possibility of great mischief in Hadfield’s insistence upon printing a pamphlet. 20 . . . His object is not now to offer advice —it is too late —it is simply a repudiation of any share in ‘such gross injustice’—a severe con-

demnation of the Governor’s policy; and all, as I fear, in intemperate, unwise language. 21 The Bishop is critical too of Archdeacon Govett as saying ‘imprudent and in the present crisis, wrong things at Taranaki’. 22 Patteson considered that Colonel Gore Browne was misinformed and unaware of ‘the real difficulty surrounding the question and of the strength of character and means of resistance possessed by the Maori.’ He asserts that Bishop Selwyn, William Martin and William Swainson living within a mile of him had not the slightest notion of the Governor’s intention to enforce the Waitara purchase. He records their dilemma feeling it would be an act of impertinence to approach him:

The Governor now says ‘Why did not men warn me of the consequences of what I said a year ago at Taranaki?’ Mr Swainson said to him ‘How is it that you never consulted us?’ to which he replied that he really did not know what he had been about. I think the truth is that the Governor did not see that he had raised a question which was agitating widely and deeply the Maori people and so did not see that he needed advice: they on the other hand did not think it conceivable that he could have acted otherwise than deliberately, when he took such a very decided step, in opposition to the accepted principles on which land was to be bought. . . , 23 Bishop Patteson’s neutral position as Melanesian missionary ‘knowing all the circumstances’ made him the obvious means of communication with the Governor. A good churchman, Colonel Gore Browne felt himself deserted by the clergy whose championing of Maori rights he, as an Indian Army Officer, was unable to understand, seeing their stand as disloyalty to the Queen. But it was the Governor who first approached Patteson who gives a full account of a conversation which took place on Easter Sunday, 8 April 1860:

I had not seen the Governor for a year . . . But he and McLane [sic], the head native secretary, were on the wooden terrace outside the [Government] house, and he saw me, and came forward in his hearty way . . . [Reference is made to Bishop Selwyn’s sermons (‘when he spoke out about English covetousness etc.’) and the Governor observed ‘You only set our backs up.’] . . . Then did the Governor open fire instantly[?], taking me by the arm and leading me into the room, where we sat down on the same sofa. . . Gov. I am very sorry not to meet with the cooperation I thought I could count upon from the Church J.C.P. The Bp. only yesterday said to a third person in my hearing, that he thought it was the duty of every loyal subject to give his best advice and support to the Government. Gov. But why was not information given to me long

ago. J.C.P. I dont defend Archd. Hadfield’s conduct; but surely a man may reserve to himself the right of differing in opinion from any policy adopted by the Government. Gov. Certainly, so long as the difference of opinion does not lead him into a course of action contrary to the welfare of the country. J.C.P. I can hardly think that any man can fail to see that his simple duty to the Queen now is to support your Excellency to the utmost of his power; but I can understand how it is, that several of the persons you usually consult should have hesitated to obtrude their opinion upon you. The suppression of information I dont defend. Gov. The Bishop is a man of war. J.C.P. He has a strong feeling naturally on all native questions, but I can assure your Excellency that he is anxious and ready to cooperate with the Government though I dont think that he is privately convinced that the claims to this land at Taranaki have been properly investigated. Gov. It is painful to me not to be acting with my usual advisers on native questions. I have a letter from the Bp. of Wellington which I can only characterise as a ‘painful letter’. I wrote to him in the most friendly way possible, but he differs from me, and has written a very painful letter, which in vindication of myself I must send home in the Despatches. It seems as if they all took a strange course. As for Archd. Hadfield, his conduct is that of a traitor. But I have put myself into Mr Martin’s hands. I can act with him (implying that he could not act with the Bishop)....

This conversation graphically illustrates the extent of the Governor’s alienation from the Auckland Triumvirate particularly Bishop Selwyn but apparently it at least helped temporarily to re-establish contact as Patteson reported on 20 April that Colonel Gore Browne had ‘assented to a proposition’ that Bishop Selwyn, Mr Martin and Mr Swainson should draw up papers relevant to discussions at a great meeting of chiefs to take place at Kohimarama. 24 He did not expect the Governor to follow their recommendations but considered that ‘He is quite at his wits end, and his ministers dont know what they are about. In fact the country is not governed at all at this minute.’ But Bishop Patteson and his friends saw no reason for the Governor’s recall at this stage:

I think that, after this lesson, he would do well. His fault, I take it, has been that he has taken no pains to know much about the natives, their usages, customs and rights; and that he does not know them personally, and conciliate the chiefs by proper attentions, and learn to talk to them even a little. There has been great pressure upon him, from Taranaki especially, somewhat also, I suspect, from his ministers. But the truth may be not impossibly that he thought English rule must sweep away some of what he thought to be Maori

prejudices. This, I hope is not in his mind, because it would be manifestly unjust. 25 However by the end of this long journal letter written between 10 and 27 April, 1860, Patteson stated that he feared that the Governor did ‘not wish to recede from the course’ he had taken. This hardened line is reflected in the arrangement made by the Triumvirate to ensure that their position was understood by the Imperial authorities. Bishop Patteson acted as their mouthpiece: The Taranaki affair very serious. The Governor has now a considerable force at his command from Sydney and elsewhere, and he is determined (as I fear) to follow up the war vigorously. Bp, Mr Martin, and Mr Swainson all think him wrong. . . . The papers I will send if I can: they are violent and scurrilous in the highest degree. There is great difficulty about writing. The Bp thinks that with his friends in power at home, his letter would carry weight and damage the Governor terribly. Mr Martin and Mr Swainson will not write. Yet somebody from whom information may be obtained at the Colonial Office, ought to be in possession of the facts. Hence I write with their knowledge to you: I dont mean that they have seen this nor do I write officially as it were, but rather leave you to make out for yourself from what I have written in so diffuse a way the real state of the question. The fear is that the Maori race will be oppressed: the tone of the colonist’s mind is very unjust and very strong; they would repudiate the treaty of Waitangi tomorrow. N.B. The correct translation of the Maori copy of the treaty gives the chiefs the power of chieftainship over their lands. This clause does occur in it. 26

John Coleridge Patteson returned to his flock in Melanesia and his letters are not concerned with New Zealand affairs until he returns to Kohimarama on 28 November 1860. In spite of preoccupation with his Consecration he discusses fully the precarious state of the colony. The situation had deteriorated so much that he considered the recall of the Governor as the only possible means of achieving a peaceful settlement. He observed that the Maoris were uniting over the land question and they could attack anywhere in the North Island. ‘The Maori throroughly distrusts the Governor—nothing for it but a new man as well as a new policy' 21 In his letter of 5 February 1861 he writes: Now that you are in communication with the Duke of Newcastle we have great hopes that you may be instrumental by God’s blessing in bringing about a very different state of things here. He gives a full account of dinner conversation at Government House on 4 February:

I was astonished last evening at the tone of the Governor and Mrs Gore Browne when for five minutes only some question was touched upon bearing upon the state of the country. You may judge of the ‘animus’ of the Governor and the Ministry by the ‘Native Offenders Bill’; by the Governor’s ‘Proclamation’ to stop the free expression of the opinion of the colonists; by the report, well founded as I have reason to think, that a majority of one only saved us just the other day from the Proclamation of Martial Law in Auckland. But last evening he was sneering at the free and enlightened community and distinctly implied that the only way to govern this country, and both races in it, is to have an absolute Despotism. I sat between him and Mrs G. Browne and turning to him stopped the conversation. . . . In another context Patteson records that ‘the Governor himself described the state of the English population by saying that they alternate between abject fear and beastly bullying’ stressing that the general disaffection of the Maori was created by the present misgovernment. No amount of Martial Law, no quantity of soldiers and Armstrong guns will stop that; they are not disaffected towards the Crown, hut towards the present Governor and Government. Is this distinctly understood at home? The real hope is that the Home Government

will do them justice; they themselves draw this distinction, and cling to the hope of it proving a well-founded one. This letter of 5 February is the key letter in which Bishop Patteson gives a picture of the state of the country and sets down his views as to the remedy: I constantly reiterate the same statement, that the only hope for N. Zealand consists in the immediate removal of the present Governor: and in the appointment of some Governor or Commissioner empowered to investigate fully the causes of the present quarrel. If Sir George Grey came out, that would, humanly speaking, be best of all. Next best, some strong man of rank and position to hold his own against the the mischievous spirit of the colonists. ... I pray God that the Duke may be guided to see this matter aright—by which I do not mean necessarily seeing it as I see it, but that he may be enabled to realise our actual position here and the line of action that must be adopted with reference to it. I dare to affirm that humanly speaking, it is as inexpedient and useless as it is unjust to attempt to settle this question by force. Send a new man —offer terms of peace—investigate the whole question openly and honestly —do not be so cowardly as to be ashamed to confess that we are in the wrong. This will restore confidence—Then introduce measures for the well government of the two races.

Colonel Gore Browne was recalled by a despatch from the Duke of Newcastle of 25 May 1861. Sir George Grey returned but Bishop Patteson’s high hopes for peace and justice were not achieved.

111 The aim of these extracts from Bishop Patteson’s letters has been to give the reader some idea of his assessment of the causes, effects and outcome of the Waitara dispute and of his not unimportant role in influencing the course of events. An examination of published works and documents has produced no evidence to date of his involvement in the affair. Charlotte M. Yonge in her still standard biography, Life of John Coleridge Patteson. Missionary Bishop of the Melanesian Islands published in London in 1873, ‘purposely omitted letters upon the unhappy Maori war’. 28 Sir John Gutch in Martyr of the Islands. The life and death of John Coleridge Patteson published in 1971 passes over the Waitara purchase with slight comment. His quotations from Patteson’s letters concerning the affair are not in the Library’s collection which gives substance to the view that there are other relevant letters in existence. Little attempt has been made to put this collection into context with the documentation of the Waitara dispute as a whole. 29 There is no doubt, however, that Patteson leaves a vivid picture of Colonel Gore Browne, the man, as he saw him and most important throws light on the actions of Bishop Selwyn and his friends in Auckland. He foresaw and pointed out the dangers of the clergy’s vehement support of the Maori cause but it seems that he was unable to convince the Duke of Newcastle that their stand amounted to little more than disloyalty to the Crown. In a letter to Sir George Grey of 5 June 1861 the Duke wrote:

I have come very reluctantly to the conclusion that the Bishops of New Zealand and Wellington and Archdeacon Hadfield have done much mischief by the part they have taken, and you will see that both Lord Lyttelton and I have expressed this opinion in Parliament. It may be said that Bishop Selwyn’s ‘solemn protest’ was not published by him and was only sent to the Governor; but such protests are not fitting productions from the Prelate of any Church, and it is only too well known that the spirit of that document has actuated the dignitaries in question and some of the missionaries. 30 In defence of Archdeacon Hadfield it must be recognised that he had no Sir John Patteson to put his view to the Colonial Office and was forced to make a direct and public approach to the Duke of Newcastle 31 by letters and pamphlets in order to make his stand for Maori rights. Regarding Hadfield’s action in withholding Wiremu Kingi’s letters, Patteson

himself wrote ‘that Hadfield had reassured Wiremu Kingi that he could not be disturbed in the quiet rights which he enjoyed at Taranaki’. 32 He was apparently as much in the dark as Bishop Selwyn and his friends in Auckland as to the Governor’s intention to enforce the Waitara purchase. This is supported by Bishop Abraham’s letter defending Hadfield. ‘We had no idea of the sudden coup de main your Excellency was planning.’ 33

Bishop Patteson may not have succeeded in justifying the clergy’s stand in the eyes of the Duke of Newcastle but his letters and that of Archdeacon Hadfield must take their place in the documentation and analysis of the outcome of the Waitara purchase.

NOTES All letters from Bishop Patteson are addressed to his father, Sir John Patteson. 1 ATL. Misc. MS 1326. Objection to Commission of Enquiry on Waitara. 2 J. C. Patteson, 25 April 1860. See p. 20. 3 In AJHR, 1860. E-3A, p. 9-10. 4 Thomson, A. S. The story of New Zealand. London, John Murray, 1859, pp. 96-98. 5 In AJHR, 1860. E-4, p. 156 Tutua, freeman of the tribe. This definition is to be found in Archdeacon Hadfield’s evidence at the Bar of the House. In AJHR, 1860. E-4, p. 3. 7 Matene Te Whiwhi, chieftain at Otaki. 8 Rev. Rewa te Ahu, a Ngatiawa serving at the Otaki Mission who asserted his right to the disputed land at Waitara. 9 Ropoama te One, chief at Queen Charlotte’s Sound. 10 Euoha, half brother to Wiremu Kingi. 11 Whitikau, chief at Queen Charlotte’s Sound. 12 Conference with chiefs held at Kohimarama, 10 July-11 August 1860. 13 Tucker, H. W. Memoir of the Life and Episcopate of George Augustus Selwyn, D.D. London, Wells Gardner, 1879, vol. 2, pp. 87-88. 14 J. C. Patteson, 5 July 1856. 15 J. C. Patteson, 23 January 1860. Fragment. 16-17 J. C. Patteson, 23-25 March 1860. 18 J. C. Patteson, 27 March 1860. 19-23 J. C. Patteson. Journal letter, 10-27 April 1860. 24 See note 12. 25 J. C. Patteson. Journal letter, 11 April 1860. 26 J. C. Patteson. Journal letter, 25 April 1860. 27 J. C. Patteson, 7 January 1860. 28 Yonge, C. M. Life of Coleridge Patteson. Missionary Bishop of the Melanesian Islands. London, Macmillan, 1874, p. vi. 29 See Morrell, W. P. British colonial policy in the mid-Victorian age. Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1969, pp. 244-269. Sinclair, K. The origins of the Maori wars. Wellington, New Zealand University Press, 1961, pp. 215-225. 30 Martineau, John. The life of Henry Pelham Fifth Duke of Newcastle, 18111864. London, John Murray, 1908, p. 322. See also p. 319. A private letter from the Duke of Newcastle to W. E. Gladstone, 21 January 1861. 31 Hadfield, Octavius. One of England’s little wars. A letter to the Right Hon.

the Duke of Newcastle, Secretary of State for the Colonies. London, Williams and Norgate, 1860. 32 J. C. Patteson. Journal letter, 10 April 1860. See p. 17. 33 G. F. Abraham, Bishop of Wellington, to the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator, 24 August 1860 reprinted in O. Hadfield, The second year of one of England’s little wars. London, Williams and Norgate, 1861, p. 90. See also pp. 1823 for Hadfield’s reasons for withholding the letters.