Chapter 2
Maori King Movement

On July 31, 1856, the Governor circulated a letter to a number of prominent people asking whether the management of native affairs might be safely conceded to the Governor's responsible advisers, reserving to the Governor a veto in all cases, and a recommendation in relation to expenditure or whether the whole management of native affairs should be reserved to the Governor.¹

Those who favoured keeping control entirely in the Governor's hands included Colonel Wynyard, James Busby, Major Richmond, Major Nugent, Dr. J. Wilson (colonial surgeon at New Plymouth), F.E. Maning, Lieut. J. J. Symonds, Henry Walton, George Clarke, Charles Baron de Thierry, the Rev. G. A. Kissling, and Donald Maclean. Bishop Selwyn, in his reply, asked: “Why should not the two races, though inhabiting the same country, form as it were two colonies, the one in the more advanced state of representative institutions, the other in the state in which many British colonies still are, more immediately under the direction of the Crown. It is undoubtedly most desirable that the whole native race should be gradually admitted to the higher privileges, but in the meantime there is no reason to think that they are discontented with the lower.”

Archdeacon Hadfield's plan, though rejected at the time, was very similar to that adopted a few years later by the British Government. Whether it would not have been wise to adopt, as a temporary measure in 1856, Bishop Selwyn's proposal for a sort of Maori Crown Colony, is a matter for conjecture. The views expressed show that here was considerable variation of opinion on native policy even among the Anglican missionaries.

The Rev. G. Smales, Wesleyan missionary, supporting reservation of full powers in native affairs to the Governor, said in his memorandum of August 11: “A considerable number of natives in the interior and in the Waikato district have recently been canvassing the propriety of electing one of their chiefs as i Kingi mo te Maori (a King for the Maoris).” This passage was heavily marked in the Colonial Office.

Bishop Pompallier advocated the responsibility of the Governor assisted by a Council of Advice consisting of representatives of the House of Representatives and the chief religious denominations.

The report of a Board of Inquiry on Native matters, transmitted to the House of Representatives on July 6, 1856, referred to the “League not to sell land formed among the native population”: “This League, commencing south of Auckland, at about fifty miles from the town, at a branch of the Waikato River called Maramarua, embraces nearly the whole of the interior of the island, and extends to the East Coast, and the West Coast, south of Kawhia.” The Board considered the existing method of purchasing land from the natives the best adapted to the difficult circumstances.¹

In his work, The Maori King Movement in New Zealand, published at Auckland in 1860, the Rev Thomas Buddle, head of the Wesleyan missions in the colony, wrote: “The present King movement has been initiated in the Waikato district. William Thompson Tarapipipi, principal chief of the Ngatihaua, is universally regarded as its author and chief promoter…. In December 1856 the first public meeting held to deliberate on the subject and prepare some plan was held at Taupo, at which several influential chiefs from various districts were present. Many proposals were made to adopt extreme measures.… It was eventually decided that Tongariro (the burning mountain of Taupo) should be the centre of a district in which no land was to be sold to the Government, … that no prayers should be offered for the Queen, no roads be made within this district, and that a king should be elected to rule over the New Zealanders, as the Queen and Governor do over the settlers.” It was unfortunate that at this juncture (in January 1857) William Thompson should have been ignored by Government officers in a visit he made to Auckland and refused a loan for a mill. To crown everything he was insulted by the master of the cutter in which he returned.

John Ball, in a minute of February 23, 1857, expressed the opinion that it was desirable that the transfer of responsibility for native affairs to the Governor's executive council should not be very long retarded. “But as it will be an experiment not free from risk,” he added, “I am strongly of opinion that it should not be tried mainly at the cost of this country. I shall have far more hope that the Assembly will deal justly and prudently by the natives when they know that they will be in their own persons and purses responsible for their proceedings. Even then there remains the risk that so many of the members are really without a stake in the game, being removed from the native districts…. I would then say that Her Majesty's Government have no desire to retain permanently for the Governor acting on behalf of the Crown the exclusive control of these matters, but that until the representative institutions page 44 which have been introduced into New Zealand have been more firmly established by practice and the results of practical working, it seems to them inadvisable to submit to the vicis-situdes of political change matters affecting the security of the entire colony and the continuance of peaceful relations between the races by which it is inhabited. Such a change Her Majesty's Government are not disposed to consent to while the cost of maintaining a considerable military force for the protection of the colonists is borne by the Imperial Treasury. But whenever the General Assembly is prepared to undertake a considerable share of the cost of the military force maintained in the colony—an arrangement which is no more than the natural and reasonable result of obtaining completely representative institutions—Her Majesty's Government will readily take into consideration the measures necessary for transferring to the control of the Assembly all matters connected with the aboriginal inhabitants and all proceedings in respect to the lands to which the native title may not have been extinguished.… I see no strong objection to proposing to Parliament in the present session a short measure for enabling Her Majesty to assent to any act of the General Assembly for repeating or altering the provisions of the Constitution Act…. Of course it would be necessary to provide that all measures for this purpose should be reserved by the Governor for Her Majesty's pleasure…. Referring to the general question of the security of the colony which, though not, I trust, in actual danger, is plainly not free from cause for anxiety, I venture to suggest to you that the expediency of affording a reasonable degree of naval protection (at the present time, at least), is a matter transcending mere departmental considerations, and deserving to be seriously weighed by all the members of Her Majesty's Government.”¹

On May 9 Gore Browne reported that he had had an interview with the chief Te Heu Heu, who stated that the English were by degrees obtaining the best of the Maoris' lands, and that they would soon “be eaten up and cease to be.” That for these reasons they were determined to have a King of their own, that they would not interfere with the English in the settlements, but that the laws they intended to make should be binding on all who chose to reside among the natives. Gore Browne said: “I was not elected by the English but appointed by Her Majesty, and though I should always be glad to consult with Te Whero Whero, whom he had indicated as the future King, I could not consent to any such election, and that I was sure that he (Te Whero Whero) would not do so.” Later he had two long interviews with Te Whero Whero and the latter declared his intention of being guided entirely by the Governor's advice.

Colonial Office comment on the Governor's actions was favourable. “The conduct of the Governor seems to have been very judicious,” wrote Gairdner, one of the permanent officials. Merivale and Labouchere concurred. In a minute on the Governor's report on his journey, his advisers noted: “The peculiar feature of the time is the tendency to self-organisation now being exhibited by a large section of the Maori people.”² The growing pressure of European settlement was having the not unnatural effect of diminishing inter-tribal animosities and encouraging the concept of a Maori King.

The result of the meeting of the Waikato tribes for the purpose of instituting Te Whero Whero in his office as Maori King was described in the Southern Cross on June 5, 1857: “The King's flag, for the present, has been struck to that of the Queen. But the idea is far from being abandoned. The movement still goes on; while the propriety, the thoughtfulness, and the caution with which it is conducted render it all the more serious by nature…. It is becoming more and more evident even to the most incredulous, that a crisis in native affairs is coming on. We do not believe, indeed, that a King will be actually made; but it is clear that a great change is approaching, either for good or for evil, in the relations between the races. The natives thoroughly understand what they want, and it is not a play-thing that they seek. They are resolved on making an effort to preserve their existence, not only as a race, but, as they understand it, a nation, before they shall be over numbered, and therefore out-mastered by the whites.”² In a letter written by Waikato chiefs to the Government on June 25, 1857, they said: “Perhaps you think that the Maori King will be separated from the Queen. Not so…. Let us work together with respect to the regulations concerning our King, that they may be properly carried out, lest there be strife between them, lest one should clash with the other…. It is now ten years since the Maori chiefs first talked about a King for themselves. It was commenced by Te Heu Heu, who proposed it to Potatau; afterwards by Hoani; and after that by Wiremu Tamihana (William Thompson) to Waharoa. If you disapprove of this (act) of God's take back the Gospel also.”

On August 7, the Governor reported that he had with-drawn the detachment of troops stationed at the Bay of Islands as his advisers had refused to provide proper accommodation for them. His action was warmly approved by the Colonial Office. “The Governor has acted with courage and wisdom,” was Labouchere's minute.¹ In a despatch of August 25, expressing the view that 1,320 troops were not enough for the safety of the colony without naval protection, Gore Browne said: “For some years to come this colony will be in the position of a wooden house stored with combustibles. It is to be hoped that no explosion will take place, but the greatest care may not be able to prevent it.”¹

On September 23 Gore Browne reported that he had received a letter from Te Whero Whero saying that he had accepted the Maori kingship: “This chief was pensioned and brought to live near Auckland as a sort of protector by Sir George Grey, and, as I stated in my despatch of May 9, he very recently assured me of his determination to refuse the offer and check the movement. He acknowledges the letter, but still professes attachment to the Queen.” “Direct opposition,” the Governor added, “would rather accelerate than impede the movement, and unless some unforeseen cause of irritation should arise, I trust it will wear itself out and cease for want of provocation. If, however, contrary to my expectation, this agitation is persisted in, it will resolve itself into a conflict of races and become the greatest political difficulty we have had to contend with since the establishment of the British Government in these islands.” Merivale's comment was: “This seems serious.”²

The Governor, in a despatch of January 23, 1858, reported that Katatore had been ambushed and murdered by Ihaia's brother on one of the main roads of the Bell district, New Plymouth. The motive ascribed was revenge for the murder of Rawiri² and jealousy that Katatore was able to offer land for sale, while Ihaia's offer of land had been rejected. Trouble was also reported in Hawke's Bay, where the chief Moananui was an ally of “Te Heu Heu, the chief organizer of the movement for establishing a Maori King in the Waikato and a league to prevent the sale of land to the Government.” The Governor added: “A building called the King's House and a flagstaff have been erected near the confluence of the Waipa and Waikato Rivers, but I have not thought it advisable to notice what I have no power to prevent…. I do trust that not less than two complete regiments and a steamer of war will be stationed permanently at New Zealand.”³

On February 15 Governor Gore Browne reported that he had issued a proclamation declaring “that all persons whosoever who shall unlawfully assemble with arms within the boundaries of the district described in the schedule to this proclamation, will without further notice be treated as persons in arms against the Queen's authority and active measures will be forth-with taken against them by Her Majesty's civil authorities and military forces.” He added that the officer commanding the troops in New Plymouth had been directed, if satisfied that his interference was necessary, to call in all the inhabitants and inform them that it was not in his power to protect them unless they did as he directed: “He is also furnished with an authority to draw out the Militia for active service, and to call for military assistance from Wellington; but he is enjoined not to commence hostilities unless they are forced on by the natives…. Should war be forced upon us, of which however I have no sort of expectation at present, Her Majesty's Government and the people of the mother-country will know that they are assisting men who are willing to do all that is possible for themselves, and that war has not been brought on for the sake of commissariat expenditure by those who are willing to lay the burden on others, but shrink from bearing it themselves.”¹

In a despatch of February 25 Gore Browne wrote of the Maoris: “I need say no more than that in a military point of view they have every advantage, as they possess and are capable of threading fastnesses we cannot enter, and that they occupy the interior, while we are scattered along the coasts of the island. It may be asked—is a colony which possesses self-government in the most complete form to depend always on the mother-country for military support, and yet contribute nothing towards its expense? In answer I would submit that when the revenue arrives at a certain sum—say two hundred thousand pounds per annum, Her Majesty's Government may fairly require that the colony should contribute towards the cost of its protection, such contribution to increase with the increasing wealth of the colony.”

Here there is a Colonial Office note in the margin: “Yes, but the provincial revenues?”

Merivale wrote the following minute for Lord Carnarvon: “Governor Browne deserves credit for the frank and clear statement of his views. For my own part, I am very much inclined to believe that the maintenance of 2,000 men in New Zealand, disposed as he suggests, would be an excellent ‘investment’ for this country—that the stimulus which the sense of security would give to occupation and protection would soon amply repay it in a pecuniary point of view. But this is not the policy in vogue with Parliament or the country, and the next best thing is to adhere definitively to the scheme of reduction and force the colonists to defend themselves?” “Probably,” Lord Carnarvon replied, “but the aspect of affairs at New Plymouth is threatening and affords reasonable grounds for anxiety.” The despatch was referred to the War Office.²

On November 1 T. F. Elliot, Assistant Under-Secretary, wrote on a despatch from Gore Browne enclosing a memorial from New Plymouth concerning power to deal directly with the natives for land: “The New Zealand settlers have from the first origin of the colony been as willing to rush into rash disputes with the natives as unwilling afterwards to fight them out manfully. Insolent and aggressive in spirit, they have failed in the hour of action, and they are the last members of the Empire who can with any fair countenance seek to involve the national forces in difficult native wars in which their own part has so little redounded to their honour.”¹

After reading all the papers, Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, in a minute of October 23, expressed himself as certain that a force of at least 2,000 men was not one too many in New Zealand if great disasters were to be averted.²

On August 19 Gore Browne forwarded “far from satisfactory” accounts of the progress of the King movement. He trusted that “time and absolute indifference and neglect on the part of the Government will teach the natives the folly of proceedings undertaken only at the promptings of vanity and instigated by disaffected advisers.” “In the entire absence of naval protection and the expected reduction of the military force,” he added, “no other course is open to me, even should my anticipations prove incorrect.”³ The Governor also forwarded a translation of a letter from native chiefs of Rangiao-whia to Wiremu Kingi of New Plymouth: “Friend, I have to tell you that the Council has agreed to visit you, and that a King has arisen (or has been appointed) for New Zealand—laws have been agreed upon and the authority of the land has been vested in the King throughout his territory…. At the meeting at Rangiaowhia, 1,529 persons were seen to bend their knees to King Potatau, and at the meeting at Ngaruawahia 860 men (gave in their submission).”⁴

The “Native Territorial Rights Bill,” proposed by ministers, was opposed by the Governor and the Native Department. The Governor declined to recommend it for the Queen's assent. It contained a provision asserting a right to levy a tax of ten shillings an acre on land alienated by natives to Europeans. Gairdner, in a Colonial Office minute on the subject, took the view that “there is a marked exhibition of ability and subtlety on the one side, and of clear manly common sense on the other,” in the controversy between ministers and the Governor, traversed in voluminous minutes, letters, reports, and despatches. The Bill was disallowed.¹

In a despatch of January 25, 1859, Gore Browne reported that attempts had been made by Maoris at Kawhia “to levy contributions from Europeans in the name of the Maori King” and that serious disturbances had broken out among the Maoris at Wanganui. “I regret also to state,” he added, “that I am about to withdraw the European magistrate from the Bay of Islands on the East Coast owing to the disaffection evinced by the natives in that district.” The Governor trusted that time and “the supreme indifference manifested towards the restless agitators who foment the troubles, will produce the desired effect.” The Colonial Office minute, written by Gairdner, read: “This is not a satisfactory report, but the firm and temperate policy of Governor Browne will probably serve to check any serious difficulties. In the meantime the military force has been increased and the Admiralty have reported the assignment of an armed steam vessel for that station.”¹ The Colonial Office minute on the Governor's Financial Statement forwarded by the Governor on January 27, 1859, was: “This certainly shows a favourable result. The New Zealand colonists are always proud of their progress except when they wish to get rid of a liability and then they are apt to plead poverty.”¹

In a despatch of February 12 the Governor stated that the Government was willing to support an entire company of the Royal Engineers in New Zealand at its own expense.¹ The offer was referred to the War Office, who replied: “The offer to pay the men while employed in civil labour, however specious, means in fact nothing more than that the colony would be glad to obtain trained surveyors at much less than the market price, the cost of their passage besides being paid by this country.” In a Colonial Office minute Gairdner wrote: “It would perhaps be better not to send this letter, as it would probably irritate the colonists. The same meaning might be conveyed in more courteous terms.”

In a despatch of March 29, 1859, the Governor stated that he had visited Taranaki, where he found “the settlers dissatisfied with the Government and ill pleased with the Maoris, who, though they possess large tracts of land which they cannot occupy, refuse to sell any portion of it.” The Governor said he had had an interview with the Chief Wiremu Kingi and a large part of his tribe and had taken the opportunity to declare that every man, whether Maori or Pakeha, who committed a crime within the European boundaries, would be arrested and brought before a judge and any sentence pronunced would be carried into effect.

During the meeting Te Teira offered to dispose of land at the mouth of the Waitara river. The Governor promised to buy it if he could prove his title to it. “William King (Wiremu Kingi) then rose, and, while asserting no claim to it, said he would never permit that land to be sold. Then, waving his hand to his people, he and they left the meeting with some want of courtesy to myself…. I have little fear that William King will resort to violence to maintain his assumed right, but I have made every precaution to enforce obedience should he presume to do so.”² Thus was the fatal purchase made which was to be the occasion, if not in fact the final cause, of long and bitter warfare. Possibly no other single act in all the long and controversial history of New Zealand has led to more conflict in deeds or in words.

“From Wellington,” the Governor continued, “I proceeded to the New Province of Hawke's Bay, where also I had interviews with some important chiefs. Here too I found the emissaries of the party professing allegiance to the Maori King had preceded me, but I have reason to think that their influence was in a great degree neutralized by my visit.” Referring to the King movement, the Governor stated that in 1857 Potatau had given him an assurance that he would control the then probable movement, that he had no desire to be King, and that he would always be a faithful subject to Her Majesty. The Governor said he had every reason to believe that the old chief had adhered to his promise.

“At the time alluded to,” he said, “I appointed Mr. Fenton to be magistrate of that district, this officer being enthusiastic in his desire to introduce law amongst the natives. It soon, however, appeared that the tribes of the Waikato were divided into two parties: one chose Potatau as their head and was composed of all the old and important chiefs: the other consisted of young men who called themselves the Queen's party and desired to be assimilated with the English. page 59 I will not assert that Mr. Fenton's indiscretion was the cause of this formation of two distinct parties in this district, because it is possible that this movement was beyond his control, but he unwisely allied himself with the latter party. Potatau explained that his position as the great chief of the Waikato had been recognized by all the Governors, but that now young men were encouraged to disregard his authority and that some slights had been put upon him. I soon found that if Potatau had chosen to assume the position his followers desire to thrust upon him, all the chiefs of importance in the South would join him (an opinion in which I am fully confirmed by my recent tour), and I have strong reason to believe that many of the leading men on the other side only wanted to see if he really would establish a national party, when they would also join him. As soon as this came to my knowledge, I declared that I would recognize no parties at all: that Her Majesty was the only Sovereign of New Zealand, but that I fully acknowledged Potatau (as all my predecessors had done) as the great chief of the Waikato. This tranquillized affairs, but I was accused of putting an extinguisher on the Queen's party who were alone thought deserving of consideration.”

In a despatch of June 15, 1859, the Governor noted that land in Wanganui was selling at £2,000 per acre.¹ In a despatch of the same date, he referred to the deadlock at Wellington between the Superintendent, Dr. Isaac Featherston, and his Council. Chichester Fortescue,² the new Under-Secretary of State, wrote: “It is difficult to read with patience this account of the working of the machinery of government at Wellington—two rival powers both created by all but universal suffrage, a miniature assembly of (I suppose) some dozen members, a President of the little republic. And the latter required to ‘reign’ through ‘responsible advisers,’ that is, the hostile majority of a Council, which he defies, trusting to his own popular origin and support.” The Duke of Newcastle added this comment: “The colonists will probably soon find out that an elected superintendent is incompatible with the system he is supposed to work.”³

To fears of Maori aggression was now added dread of foreign attack. France and England were on the verge of war. In a letter to the officer commanding the troops, Colonel Gold, dated August 2, 1859, the Governor wrote: “As the erection of batteries and the supply of arms, etc., from England are matters requiring considerable time, while the colony would in all probability be in greater danger from the French squadron at New Caledonia immediately after a declaration of war than at a later date, I beg to suggest for your consideration such preparations as could be made at a moment's notice.… I have already ascertained that at least one hundred volunteers trained to artillery can be obtained at a moment's notice, and arrangements are being made for enrolling them and establishing a fixed rate of pay.”⁴

The Duke of Newcastle wrote: “I should be glad to see the regiment in New Zealand raised to 1,200 men, and this ought to be done, but I cannot recommend another battalion…. If a native insurrection were to take place, two things should be borne in mind: (1) that no military force which could be sent there could undertake to protect scattered settlers, and (2) that the soldiers should act in force against the enemy in the field and the small posts must be withdrawn and their places occupied by volunteers. This is the best way to prevent the sanguinary excesses which will occur when civilians only half trained to arms and smarting under the loss of property, and perhaps of relatives, are called upon to take the field unchecked by the presence of regular soldiers.”¹

In a despatch of August 22, 1859, the Governor said that he had received a letter from the Superintendent of Wellington (Dr. Featherston) “in which he states that Sir George Grey's scheme for disarming the natives and rendering another war wellnigh impossible has been successful to a degree which he himself could not reasonably have anticipated, but that the state of affairs has been entirely changed, and the fruits of his policy lost, by the issue of a proclamation by myself on June 25, 1857, superseding Sir George Grey's regulations and substituting others in their place.” The Governor stated that the Superintendent was in error in referring to Sir George Grey's proclamation of 1846 as being the one in force previous to 1857. It should have been the one dated August 20, 1851. “You will perceive,” he added, “that instead of relaxing the restrictions on the sale of arms the proclamation of 1857 made them rather more stringent.” The Governor said that only 43 guns had been legally sold in Wellington since the proclamation. “That they have been sold illegally,” he added, “is no fault of the proclamation or of mine, for the police and all means of prevention are in the hands of the Superintendent. The sale of gunpowder is, however, permitted freely by the proclamation.” He explained that this was due to his finding that all the unfriendly natives were abundantly supplied with arms and ammunition, and “that our friends complained that we would neither protect them nor enable them to protect themselves: that smuggling was carried on almost openly; that prosecutions had signally failed, even when the breach of the law was notorious.”¹

In a despatch on the administration of native affairs, Gore Browne wrote: “The natives have seen the land they alienated for farthings resold for pounds; they feel that dominion and power, or as they term it ‘Substance,’ went from them with the territories they alienated, and they look with apprehension to the annihilation of their nationality. The consequence of this feeling has been the formation of a league to prevent the alienation of land, commenced by the tribes in the Waikato before my arrival in the colony and which has since been combined with the so-called King movement.”

“The Europeans,” the Governor went on, “covet these (Maori) lands and are determined to enter in and possess them, recte si possunt, si non quocunque modo. This determination becomes daily more apparent. A member of the Auckland Provincial Council stated in the Council that ‘the fault lay in the system of acquiring land from the natives. We were called upon to leave them the best land and sacrifice ourselves to sympathy for the natives—and all that kind of humbug. The settlers had no room for their stock and would be obliged to set Government at defiance…. People would soon begin to act on the old principle of letting land belong to those who can keep it.’”

In a Colonial Office memorandum on this despatch it was stated: “Much discussion from time to time occurred in consequence of the steadfast desire by the responsible ministers to press their interference in native questions, a claim which Colonel Browne has hitherto succeeded in resisting with great firmness and temper on essential points…. All the evidence goes to show the strong and striking difference which is attached by the natives to the influence of the Queen and her representative, and to that of the Ministers, whom they at once recognize as a body having no permanent existence in themselves and dependent on the will of the Legislature, a body which they regard as their natural adversaries.”¹ In a despatch of ebruary 22, 1860, on his visit to the Poverty Bay district, Gore Browne stated that the Maoris were much wanting in courtesy to him. “They objected,” he said, “to the Union Jack hoisted at the magistrate's residence during my stay, said they should not recognize the Queen, and that unless I visited them for the purpose of restoring the lands which the Europeans had cheated them out of, they did not wish to see me.” The Governor noted that since the Rev. T. S. Grace had presided over the church during Archdeacon W. Williams's absence in England the Maoris had openly and distinctly objected to the prayer for the Queen used in the Church of England service. The Duke of Newcastle's comment was: “Mr. Grace may very probably become responsible for bloodshed.”²