British capture Rangiriri
21 November 1863
Near the end of June 2020, Hamilton City Council released a ‘Historical Report’ they (in conjunction with Waikato Tainui) had commissioned.
‘New Zealand Historian for hire’ Dr Vincent O’Malley produced it for the fee of $10,000.
The report can be found here , and the full text has now been attached to the bottom of this Blog post.
This report was supposed to be instructive to the council in helping them consider the proposal by radical Maori activists and their supporters to ‘decolonise’ our city, by dumping the name of Hamilton in favour of ‘Kirikiriroa’ and also changing the names of Grey St, Von Tempsky st, and Bryce St… as these were named after Pakeha ‘heros’ of the wars of the later half of the 19th century.
A series of articles about the report began to appear on Stuff media, including articles about the Bronze Statue of ‘Captain Hamilton’ in Garden place that had been donated to the city by one of it’s benefactors, Sir William Gallagher.
This statue had become the target of Tainui activists who said it gave them offence.
They defaced it, and in a display of weakness Hamilton City Council had it removed.
This affair is in keeping with radical anti-colonisation activism in other parts of the country against such figures as Captain Cook, and is in fact part of a global radical Left wing movement against capitalism and ‘British/Pakeha/White Imperialism’, that manifests itself in such violent and intolerant hate groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matters.
Reading the report I was alarmed at what I found.
The report is not what it claims to be.
Having discussed these matters with friends, and in anticipation of a public meeting Hamilton City Council was supposed to be having for the public to discuss the merits of Dr O’Malley’s report, I decided I must challenge it’s veracity… for Truths sake.
Below is my written submission, which is a rebuttal of the heavily politicised claims Dr O’Malley attempts to pass off as history.
What is at stake is of the highest import to our whole nation, because it is part of a systemic drive to rewrite history and destroy all of our Colonial heritage.
It is my desire to alert the citizens of Hamiltion as to what skulduggery is afoot and how a false historic narrative is being used to slander the good name of Hamilton city, and many of New Zealand’s greatest Pakeha Founding fathers and heroes, and to use this as an example that all New Zealanders might wake up to what is going on right across our Nation.
The same Radical Political Activist ideology is at work.
The same methods are employed… seeking the same desired result.
So for those of you who care about what is happening… for those of you who are interested in the history of the Wars of the 2nd half of the 1800s… Please read my submission in conjunction with Dr O’Malley’s report.
My intention is to vigorously defend our city’s Pakeha heritage from slander and vandalism by racist radicals via the light of historic fact.
I am still waiting for HCC to announce the expected public forum, yet I have left my submission as written for the day…
The Tross Publishing Submission is also reproduced below.
Vandalised Statue of Captain John Hamilton. Garden Place, Hamilton. Killed at the Battle of Gate Pa.
Photo from this Stuff article
Submission by Tim Wikiriwhi.
For the public review to discuss the historical report by Dr Vincent O’Malley commissioned by Hamilton City Council, in association with Waikato Tainui for the purpose of informing Hamilton City Council on the proposal to change the name of the city to Kirikiriroa, and renaming Grey, Von Tempsky, and Bryce streets.
To the Hamilton City Council, my fellow Hamiltonians, and the people of New Zealand.
In his introduction to his report Dr O’Malley states that it is not an exhaustive document, and yet it’s scope covers some of our nation’s most important events and personalities of the 19th century whose actions and reputations are being seriously maligned and misconstrued.
These are not trifling matters.
These memorials are spiritual taonga of the greatest importance to our nation’s colonial heritage, and esp to our city, so that should the council pass a rash judgement, this cannot help but result in the most shameful of consequences.
If we are to put Dr O’Malley’s ‘History’ under thorough scrutiny… it is not possible to be short and sweet, still there will be many concerns about the report that must remain unchallenged.
I emulate Dr O’Malley in saying my submission is far from exhaustive.
The admission on his part belies a dangerous reality that there is much left out of his report that is of the greatest importance, and even when I have gone some way to fill in gaps, there remains much I simply could not squeeze in.
Doctor O’Malley has been very selective in what he has chosen to include… and what he has avoided.
More on this in due course… I simply wish now to impress upon the council why I have written such a lengthy submission, and ask for you to bear with me… out of a desire to make a good judgement on the matters at hand.
I have tabled two written submissions, one by Tross Publishing, and this one written by ‘yours truly’.
I hope to speak to you directly on the general thrust of these submissions, yet trust city councilors will read them, and ponder the content before any deliberation is made.
I will present critiques of Dr O’Malley’s report… his claims, and his evaluations, and in the process offer alternative perspectives with corroborating historical citations and quotes.
Lastly, I will finish with some final points of importance.
Regarding my citations and references I have done my best to provide significant portions of texts with reference, and any that are not so provided I am more than happy to ensure the council gets them for their own evaluation.
Picture from here
Disclaimer of ill intent.
Out of necessity that stems from the contentious matters at hand it behooves me to state for the record the personal caveat that despite appearances, and the many contrary things I am about to expound, that I do not harbour ill will towards Tainui Kingitanga.
I understand them.
I even empathise with them.
Yet still I cannot support what they are trying to do to our city.
Their activists are the ones that have brought heavy accusations.
I am merely a voice for those who cannot now speak on their own behalf.
My aim is to see an end to the endless grievances that are so destructive to the fabric of our society.
I desire peaceful coexistence.
The Dead shall rise! Court is now in session.
What is going on here today is a type of trial of the dead… one that is reminiscent of the posthumous trial of the ‘Morning Star of the Reformation’ the great John Wycliffe (early 15th cent) by the Roman Catholic Church.
Though he too was long dead, The Roman Catholics held such malevolence for him and his teachings that they decide to hold a trail against him inabsentia … which obviously he could not defend himself. As a matter of course The Council of Constance found him guilty of heresy. His writings were banned, and yet because they could not seize incorporeal John and burn him at the stake… as was their custom to do to those who held contrary opinions, instead they dug up his bones and burned them… and cast his ashes into the River Swift.
Take that heretic!
That we are here today engaged in such similarly dubious proceedings gives me mixed feelings.
On one hand it is with a great sense of sadness and alarm that I witness some of the greatest personalities of New Zealand history… our founding fathers. and heroes who bravely fought and died serving our country to secure peace and safety, and re-establish order in our nation are being maligned in the most contemptible fashion.
I believe these brave men earned the honours and memorials bestowed upon them by a grateful people. How sad it is that with the process of time their worthiness has faded from memory!
Lest we forget.
On the other hand it is with a sense of personal pride and burden that I contemplate that fate has bestowed upon me the opportunity to now step forward in their defense… and do battle for their good reputation, their names sake… for their enduring legacy against a tiny faction of slanderers.
And I intend to fight for their good names with all my heart and mind… and if by some miracle the council can be persuaded to reject the proposal to strip our city of it’s affiliations with these great and honorable men, then I myself will die satisfied in the knowledge that in their hour of need… when there had gathered against them a foe intent on their posthumous character assassination… to strip them of their rightful honours… that it was I… the insignificant Tim Wikiriwhi who knowing the injustice that was afoot and the seriousness of the situation marched towards the sound of the guns.
These are things that are dear to me.
In making this defense on behalf of men who cannot speak for themselves risks bringing undue contempt upon myself from some quarters, yet I will take solace in the fact my intentions are noble and not at all malicious, and should the proposals be rejected as I hope… I will have made a significant contribution to our city’s future well being.
Today I seek to construct a redoubt for the future defense of our pioneering and colonial heritage, and the precious values that have made our nation so prosperous and a great place to live… for everyone.
And such a stand today is sorely needed as our colonial heritage has been under constant barrage by fanatical Liberal revisionists, and too often those that ought to stand fast… instead beat an inglorious retreat!
Come what may… from today my insignificant name will at least be briefly associated with my hero Major Gustav Von Tempsky.
A man of such heroic stature and mettle that I should almost feel ashamed were I to stand in his presence.
I am in awe of him, and despite all the accusations leveled against him today, this is a man of whom I am not ashamed to stand behind… a man who was even revered by his enemies!
Von Tempsky joined the New Zealand Police and it was as a member of the Armed Constabulary that he gave his life in service to our nation!
Grey, Hamilton, Von Tempsky, and Bryce cannot be here to explain themselves in person, and yet we do have records of them speaking in their own defense!
Dr O’Malley says it was greed for land that was the motive for ‘Invading the Waikato’… yet history records Governor Grey’s vehement denunciation of that very accusation!
He gives us his rationale as to why he undertook to square off and do battle against the Kingites.
Dr O’Malley portrays Von Tempsky as a cold-hearted killer of woman and children despite the fact that we have historic records of Von Tempsky expressing sadness when such things occurred and even that he intervened when non-combatants were caught in the frey!
We can see clear evidence within his report that Dr O’Malley has a barrow to push because in the few instances that he notes the expressed sentiments and protestations of these men… speaking in their own defense Dr O’Malley without exception… makes out they are being disingenuous.
All I ask is that these men receive a fair hearing as their reputations and legacy hang in the balance.
Is the matter already settled?
Is there any point in questioning Dr O’Malley’s motives, or report that was shaped thereby?
Is it already such a well established fact that the war in the Waikato was an act of colonial oppression, or can a completely different case be raised in the defense of the accused that has greater explanatory power with more sure foundations in recorded history?
If in the minds of this council there can be no defense given for the good character of these men… and for their conduct… and their worthiness with which their names should justly remain in place, well then this whole proceedings must be called into question as a mere token gesture… a political Haka… to feign due process in a case of which the judgment is already determined before the defense has even been herd!
Political Correctness run amok!
How is it that after more than 150 years our council today is seriously contemplating such radical proposals as to change the very name of our city?
Who is setting such an agenda?
Hamilton City Council has already demonstrated a lack of spine by removing the Bronze of Captain Hamilton from the Square. Many Hamiltonians are alarmed by today’s proceedings, and the prospect that our council may absolutely crumble before the malicious activists who show absolute disregard for our city’s good name!
It is dubious in the extreme that these proceedings are imagined by anyone to have any legitimate jurisdiction or mandate to stand in judgement of the long dead in this manner and whose contemporaries…. your predecessors in council deemed to be men of the highest character having performed the greatest service to our nation.
What is going on here is part of a global calamity facing the West… a regression away from tolerance and freedom into a totalitarian framework whereby conformity is demanded to a single view of everything… and that to hold different opinions from the ‘politically correct’/ woke view is to invite fanatical outrage upon oneself and risk personal and professional damnation.
Today, if you believe gender to be biologically determined and that there are only two sexes… you will be decried as being ‘transphobic’.
If you believe in the traditional rolls of men and woman you will be slandered as being misogynistic and supportive of the oppressive ‘patriarchy’.
If you dare to question the revisionist narrative of New Zealand history that supports Treaty separatism and grievance, you risk being derided as an ignorant crack pot and racist.
In all these things and countless others to question the politically correct perspective is deemed to be guilty of *hate crimes* whereas a ‘woke’ populist can always virtue signal by emotional vocal support for such narrow opinions.
Photo Waikato Times.
How can a fee society function under such conditions… how can public debate be carried out and the truth be weighed and determined by individuals and voters if only one side of any contentious issue is allowed to be herd, and leaders fear that defending the truth will open them up to accusations of bigotry from the rabid Left?
It takes insight and courage sadly in short supply these days.
It is imperative that freedom of speech be rigorously upheld so that more than one side of any dispute be herd.
It is wrong to allow the fanatical ‘offence takers’ to dictate what opinions may be disseminated… or what historical monuments must be cast down.
Certain factions have turned ‘offence taking’ into a profession… an art form… a powerful bludgeon by which they impose their extremist views upon an intimidated and ill-informed majority via feeble minded councils and parliaments.
Notice too how at all these points it is our traditional values which are now under attack. The values upon which Western civilsation has grown into the most prosperous nations on earth with the highest standards of living in recorded history, and the greatest levels of social justice!
Sadly today under this new PC liberal outlook it is sufficient to be found guilty of hate and oppression by simply being discovered denying collective guilt for the colour of ones skin, or expressing personal opinions supportive of our traditional values and history.
These so-called ‘liberal’ movements are in fact patently racist against whites, yet hide behind a facade of ‘protesting against historic racism’… nor are they peaceful or principled in their actions, but destructive of property and prone to rioting and violence.
See how they defaced the statue of Captain Hamilton for which they faced no prosecution!
Why were they allowed to deface public property with impunity?
That is not a legitimate form of protest, but vandalism!
Just imagine if a Pakeha stood in front of some Maori monument having defaced it… do you think they would get away scott free?
And removing the statute is a form of historical and ideological vandalism on the part of Hamilton City Council.
I hope to convince council to desist from continuation of this shameful trend.
Politically Correct Liberalism is the new Tyranny, and it is having disastrous consequences… reducing our national character to one of childishness forbidding open discussion and demanding ‘safe spaces’, etc.
Words and opinions are being conflated with violence.
The idea behind removing the statue of Captain Hamilton was to ‘create a safe space’ for those precious souls who claimed to be ‘traumatized’ at its presence there.
Taking offence is one of the easiest and weakest things in the world to do!
Contrarians like myself are deemed to be ‘hurtful’ and worthy of censorship.
The thinking today goes a bit like this:
Emotion trumps sober reason.
Feelings trump facts.
If you can’t defeat an argument deemed to be ‘offensive’ with facts and reason… you can always resort to rioting, de-platforming, and shambolic prosecutions and proceedings.
Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.
Just the other day (Stuff August 10) A woke Tasman District Councilor Dana Wensley made the news when she exclaimed “Some books about the Treaty of Waitangi on the shelves of Tasman District libraries are “very right-wing extremist”….
It is clear from the article that Dana Wensley does not like books that express ideas that are contrary to her own narrow opinions and wants to remove the people of Tasman’s opportunity to read these alternative perspectives so they may weigh up matters for themselves!
This is censorship for political ends… attempting to control the narrative so that the people only get to hear one side of any debate… the side Politicians like her want them to believe is the only ‘valid’ option.
Yet she seems to be completely deluded about what she is trying to do… she said
“I’m not talking about censorship, I’m just talking about making sure that the books that are free are also academically robust because at the moment there’s a bit of an imbalance and I think that people might be getting the wrong view of our obligations to our treaty partners because of the material they could be accessing from our library, and that concerns me.”
There we have the clear admission that she only wants views that support the notion of ‘Treaty partnership’ being available in the library… other views are to be thrown out and hidden from the inquisitive public.
Rightfully Mayor Tim King said he would be reluctant to see any political influence over the library collection.
“I think it’s a dangerous conversation to start having,” King said.
The above article encapsulates the political barriers and slurs cast upon anyone who challenges the Politically Correct ideology of Treaty separatism implicit in the ‘partnership doctrine’ or challenges any Politically Correct view on any topic because political correctness is itself a very narrow prejudiced viewpoint that seeks to outlaw all dissenting opinions.
And because of its pervasiveness, those barriers are present here today in this meeting and need to be contended with for this discussion to be anything other than one-sided.
Even though people like myself are in fact presenting arguments that are historically conservative against a new a pervasive radical revisionism coming chiefly from the Left… it is we who are being labeled ‘Far Right’ and ‘Extreme’.
Whereas the new radical Left doctrines are considered the ‘Woke’, the enlightened, the progressive, and the informed view.
By such a device critics of the new doctrines are lumped with Adolph Hitler, Mussolini, and Neo-Nazi skin heads…. why would anyone give such people the time of day if they are believed to keep such company?
That is how the peddlers of politically correct leftist agenda work to silence their critics and have them de-platformed… their works removed from public libraries and burned rather than facing them in open debate.
We must also ask if via all these ‘new perspectives’, is our society really improving in moral fiber via the denunciation and abandonment of all the values and historical doings that built this nation and made it great?
Are today’s academics, historians. and politicians really of a higher caliber and occupy a far higher plain than their presumably more ‘backward’ and ‘prejudiced’ predecessors of 100 years ago… whose decisions this generation seems so keen to overthrow?
Is our civilisation on the rise or in wane?
I fear the later.
Either way the fact remains that we are now much less free to hold and express our personal opinions than we were merely 20 years ago.
At all points it is now expected of us to conform to the governments decreed ‘official narratives’ at the risk of being thrown out of university, job loses, and even prosecution looks on the cards via Andrew Little’s ‘hate speech’ proposals.
This all indicates our civilisation is in retrograde. Freedom is in retreat, and we are heading towards totalitarianism.
The modern scholar will always claim their revisionism is closer to the truth than the histories of those contemporary to the facts!
It is clear the founders of our city had a very different view of the stature and worthiness of the likes of Sir George Grey, Gustav Von Tempsky, etc. than those now entertained by Dr O’Malley.
Perhaps had you councilors lived at the time when Tainui was raising a hostile army that was threatening to sack your homes… that you too would have more appreciation for the exploits of Von Tempsky… and the firm hand of Governor Grey!
Major Gustav Von Tempsky
Why I stand in defense of the victors of the Waikato war of 1863-64.
How is it that I have come to hold this man Von Tempsky in such high regard when most of my countrymen don’t even know who he was or what he did?
Quite simply it is because for a very long time it has been my passion to search out the history of such things as the colonization of New Zealand, and investigated the wars of the second half of the 19th century by reading mostly contemporary and near contemporary accounts.
In this regard my views have not been spoon fed to me by a politically slanted education system that peddles the partisan ideologies and modern historical revisionism penned by Maori radicals and their sympathisers which have become so fashionable today and which permeate the opinions expressed within Dr O’Malley’s report.
If the only understanding Hamilton City Councilors have of these momentous events are from reading the narrative supplied to them by Dr O’Malley then that itself shows a gross ignorance that ought to cause an honest person to step down from passing judgement on these matters.
To be informed a person must read contemporary accounts for themselves… rather than simply chugging down the regurgitated slurry of such a partisan revisionist as Dr O’Malley… as if he’s preaching the gospel truth.
Anyone who has read a decent amount of history written before the rise of the modern treaty grievance industry cannot help but stand in awe of Von Tempsky!
What a Man!
He was no Neanderthal!
Besides being a formidable warrior, he was also an accomplished artist, adventurer, and writer.
Even his enemies held him in the highest regard as a mighty foe.
Dr Vincent O’Malley.
Questions about Dr O’Malley’s Objectivity and Bias.
Dr O’Malley introduces his report with the words…
“This historical report has been commissioned by Hamilton City Council, in association with Waikato Tainui to assist the Mayor and council members to consider the proposals with regards to the renaming of Hamilton to Kirikiriroa and for Von Tempsky, Bryce, and Grey Streets to be renamed.
“It does not discuss these proposals or take any view on the merits of them but instead briefly examines the historical evidence concerning the naming of these streets and settlement…”
These comments are found on page 3.
Now in the very first two paragraphs of his report Dr O’Malley makes some highly questionable claims about the nature of what he has tabled.
Examining these first two paragraphs is in fact crucial.
Let me explain why.
Dr O’Malley tries to present his ‘report’ as document free of personal opinion… yet by reading his report it clearly peddles a particular perspective. The reader cannot help but reach the conclusion that Dr O’Malley believes that the proposals have merit…. and in this way his claims of impartiality and of presenting an objective historic view point are exposed as being highly suspect… indeed patently false!
His report clearly favors the interests and opinions of one of the chief parties whom commissioned him to produce it and for this reason alone the report clearly fails to meet the standards of fact and evidence that distinguishes objectivity from partisan opinion.
I say this report is unfit for its expressed and intended purpose for it does not ‘aid the Mayor and council’ to make a sound determination in these matters… but aids the interest of the side of the dispute that has the most to gain from the proposals going ahead.
Despite his claims to the contrary Dr O’Malley has heavily invested his own opinions into the report in which he patently takes a very strong view of the merits of the proposals.
He favours Tainui getting their way!
Let us not forget what part in this history Tainui played!
They were one of the antagonists!
On the other side was Grey, Von Tempsky, Hamilton, and Bryce!
Given we are talking about a war, is it any wonder Tainui maintains some angst against these men to whom their relations suffered ignominious defeat?
Still it saddens me that instead of maintaining a dignified resignation for the sake of unity and moving forward, some within Tainui are stubbornly keeping the wounds open… and sore!
This serves their selfish political ambitions to do so.
My goodness! In half the distance of the passage of time, we as a nation have all moved on from the 2 world wars… we are again on good terms with Germany and Japan… yet despite getting hundreds of millions of dollars, Land, and political advantages via the settlement process that have allowed them to prosper in business, yet still Tainui chooses to harangue us!
Why was Dr O’Malley Selected by Hamilton City Council and Tainui to write the Report?
Questions need to be asked.
I ask myself what transparent process did the city council… in association with the Tainui King arrive at the notion that Dr O’Malley was the right person to produce the report from which they would determine the fate of our city?
Was the Job tendered out?
Was Dr O’Malley selected from a short list of able historians because he displayed an exemplary impartiality?
Or because Tainui already approved of his views because they were fully in line with their own?
The latter is clearly the case.
When I herd about Dr O’Malleys appointment by HCC in association with Tainui to produce his report, I understood certain things about Dr O’Malley that caused me concern.
It was fairly easy to connect the dots given Dr O’Malley has recently published a substantial version of the history of what he calls ‘The Great War for New Zealand. Waikato 1800-2000… excerpts of which were also published in a series in the Waikato Times and elsewhere, giving the Tainui King ample opportunity to gauge what sort of ‘Historian’ Dr O’Malley is and that is he is a man who chooses to view the events and character of the main antagonists of the wars of the 1860s in accord with Tainui! … one of the heavily vested interests in these proceedings.
I contend that this is why Tainui endorsed Hamilton City Council to commission him to produce this report…. and I am sure Tainui are very pleased with what he has had to say.
These facts would be sufficient in themselves to prove his employment has loaded the dice against ‘The defendants’, yet having decided to challenge Dr O’Malley… upon further investigations I discovered an on line biography
On the Website ‘History Works’ Professional historians for hire in Aotearoa
that among other things lists his credentials as having …
“… worked as a professional historian focused mainly on Treaty of Waitangi claims research since 1993 and in that time has prepared and presented many research reports on behalf of iwi around the country.”
(This biography has recently been ‘updated’.)
The implications of this for evaluating the objectivity and impartiality of his report are enormous as they vindicate my many criticisms about the type of Historian Dr O’Malley is and his suitability for the task he was given.
He’s a Man who has made his living for nearly the past thirty years producing reports *On behalf of Iwi around the country*… in support of their grievances and Treaty of Waitangi claims!
He is not simply an impartial historian who objectively searches for the truth. He is a seasoned professional spin doctor for hire, marketing ideas tailored for powerful vested interests.
He has literally been profiteering off the grievance industry for nearly three decades.
The Treaty grievance industry has been very lucrative for the ‘right type’ of ‘historians’… those happy to pedal anti-colonialism.
Given these shocking facts there is simply no way any reasonable person can expect a report from his pen to do justice to the true character and integrity of the ‘accused’!
How can the people of Hamilton have any faith in this document given these heavy slants?
Quite simply… they cannot.
His report must be read with a wary eye, and ultimately rejected as a basis for making any determination as to removing the names of Hamilton, Grey, Von Tempsky and Bryce from the places of honor they hold in our city… because it fails on the most fundamental standard that this situation necessitates… and that his report cannot be construed to be an impartial document from a dis-interested objective pen.
Clearly the report his heavily skewed in favour of the Tainui activists.
He has made a career of it.
To avoid hypocrisy on my part, it is fitting I make the following disclosure describing the Waka I have been paddling for some time.
I have been a political activist for more than two decades, both as a member and spokesman for the now dis-banded Libertarianz Party and as a Waikato based Libertarian Independent.
I was party spokesperson for the de-regulation of Maori Affairs and argued for the abolition of our apartheid (race based) electoral system.
I will be happy to answer any questions regarding my personal political views and I hope this helps to clarify from whence I have sprung.
Cartoon from here
Pot calling Kettle Black.
There is a deep irony involved in that the motives Dr O’Malley unjustly levels at the colonial government of the day… may in truth be justly leveled at the lobby that is currently trying to desecrate the memorials of great and worthy men who bravely opposed the greed, and lust for power of Tainui’s political class.
Dr O’Malley paints with a large brush the idea that the war was started by the Greedy Pakeha who were prepared to deceive and commit atrocities all for the sake of getting their filthy hands on Tainui land.
I refute these accusations and turn them back upon their accusers, yet having made the above counter-accusation, I must reiterate that I take no pleasure in the business at hand and the task with it behooves me to fulfill.
I find it unpleasant that circumstances brought on by a nasty form of politics means that I must participate in dragging up the past that ought not be a topic of concern today but left at rest.
It is a tiny minority of radical activists and political class interests who are causing all this fuss!
They are not truly representative of the ordinary Tainui person, or the people as a whole.
Let me explain.
I am a Maori of Te Arawa and Ngapuhi discent, and it just so happens that both these Iwi fought on the side of Queen Victoria… and yet to me these wars do not represent the truth about today… here… and now.
I do not speak for Te Arawa or Ngapuhi but as an independent citizen of Hamilton.
Ancient inter-tribal conflicts dont even register on my gauges.
That’s not how things work for individuals living in a free society compared to how things were under tribalism.
I don’t hold any animosity towards Tainui.
It is from a love of the truth I speak… overshadowed with grief that necessitates I stand for the legacy of the great New Zealanders whose memorials are today under threat.
I am forced to discuss painful events of a time of tribal differences, bloodshed, victory and defeat.
Life today ought to have moved on… and most of us have!
I have my home in this city, and I send my son to school with many Tainui children.
I work with many proud Tainui… and the last thing I desire is for any of them to think I harbour ill will towards them… I don’t.
In truth I want the very best for them as I do for all New Zealanders, and so I hope they will appreciate that what I am about today is truth and the defense of some of our nation’s greatest Pakeha personalities and not about attacking or belittling the Mana of Tainui.
I respect Tainui’s cultural preeminence over this district.
I enjoy the many Tainui monuments and memorials that scatter the district and also hold deep reverence for the Pas and battle sites of the war.
The war was brutal and I know that many horrible acts were committed by Tainui… all conveniently omitted by Dr O’Malley… their love of the tomahawk, the non-combatants they murdered… yet I also know the great bravery with which their warriors fought during the major engagements earning the respect of Von Tempsky and General Cameron.
That is how I choose to contemplate these momentous events that make the history of our nation as epic as any other.
Yet still I will defend Hamilton from capitulation to their activists unreasonable and disrespectful demands.
Its like we street level Maori have truly been able to let the past rest and are getting on with our lives… coexisting in peace together… working side by side…trying to give our children a happy and secure life… yet there remains a political class that have no intentions of allowing peace to prevail… They harbour malevolent feelings… they are greedy for more, and more, and more.
Just like the war of the 1860s, it is this political class that wants to ensnare their fellow tribesmen by teaching them to look upon their neighbours as somehow being guilty of causing their people grievous wrongs… thereby undoing the peace and harmony between us as a united people… one nation.
This animosity is endemic to the Maori sovereignty movement as a whole and how it functions.
It cultivates a victim mentality by which Maori radicals teach the gullible they ought to carry outrage in their hearts against Pakeha.
This is fostering a very real racial prejudice among Maori against their fellow Pakeha Kiwi. This radical movement is not representative of all Maori.
Many like myself are not even on the Maori Electoral roll. We dislike the separatism and all the whining and victimism, and just want New Zealand to truly be united… one law for all.
Woke Anti Colonialism demands of Pakeha to abandon any sense of pride in their own heritage and instead assume upon themselves a collective guilt!
We live in such politically skewed times in which it is only permissible for Maori to take pride in their cultural heritage!
Over the past 50 years Radical Maori Separatist slander against colonialism has managed to take root in our Education system and today a large portion of Non-Maori New Zealanders have imbibed a toxic ‘self-loathing’ and undeserved shame for their own pioneering origins for which not too long ago our nation took great pride.
Cartoon from ‘Hobson’s Pledge’ here
Bad faith over Treaty settlements on the part of radical separatist.
Having now made commentary on the many seriously compromising issues involved in the choice and employment of Dr O’Malley as historical adviser to our council, I want to present specific points demonstrating how Dr O Malleys bias permeates his report, some obvious, others far more subtil… hallmarks of an experience storyteller seeking to invest the Jury in acceptance of his conclusions.
This is a skill he has honed, and I assert gives us insights into the sort of ‘reports’ and ‘advice’ ‘experts’ like himself have tabled at Waitangi Tribunal hearings over the last few decades exposing the travesty of the treaty settlement process… the issuing of apologies to tribes by representatives of the government for events that are supposed to have happened well over a century ago and despite billions of dollars being paid in compensation and decades of pandering to their grievances … no end appears in sight!
Council has no guarantee that should they bend the knee and change its name to ‘Kirikiriroa City council’ that this will sate Tainui’s relentless demands.
I fear such farcical attempts at conciliation have proven to have the exact opposite effect.
Instead of bringing peace and putting an end to the disputes… They only serve to strengthen activist resolve to carry on ‘claiming offence and grief!’
Take the recent example of the outcry at Ihumatao by a bunch of activists when Fletchers started building a subdivision there and had negotiated an amicable deal with the local Hupu elders who were happy for the project to go ahead.
Treaty settlements for the area had also already been completed.
‘Full and Final’ were the words used by former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson
Despite all this… in walked a bunch of professional Maori grievance activists who began the usual anti-colonial haka.
Despite the ‘Full and Final settlement’ the Tainui King himself did not hesitate to go to Ihumatao and lend his mana to their cause… effectively breaking the settlement… and proving the grievances will never be settled in the minds of Tainui hierarchy.
The policy of contrition and appeasement shows weakness and only serves to entrench Radical activism and grievance… never satisfied.
If there is ever going to be an end to this madness it will only come when the people of New Zealand say *No More!*
Will this stand be made before the Treaty separatists have managed to absolutely desecrate all our nations colonial pride and heritage?
I have written an online article about the issues at Ihumatao that may be found here: http://eternalvigilance.nz/2019/08/apologetic-ihumatao-protester-lives-in-fantasy-and-self-denial/
The causes of the war. (part 1)
“He Iwi Tahi Tatou”. “We are now one people” This is what Governor Hobson said as he shook the hand of each chief who signed the Treaty of Waitangi.
Dr O’Malley would do well to remember this historical fact.
The Treaty united Maori with the rest of New Zealand under British sovereignty.
From evidence within, I describe Dr O’Malley’s report as embodying the partisan bias of such recent ideas of Treaty partnership which contravene the first clause of the Treaty of Waitangi whereby sovereignty was ceded to the British Crown
Instead his school claims sovereignty was supposed to be shared.
I will provide historical validation for what I am saying from Sir Apirana Ngata shortly.
From this fundamental fallacy of ‘Treaty partnership’ he insists that the Kingitanga movement was not a breach of the Treaty… despite this being exactly how it was seen by the British government and settlers at the time, and from his false determination he then proceeds to make a case that the cause of the wars were fundamentally that of colonialist greed for Land, rather than what History proper records… That the Kingitanga movement was a Rebellion against the Treaty and that it was Tainui who began the war preparations, and instigated the dispute.
The war in the Waikato with the Kingites was about sovereignty not greed on the part of the settlers… not lust for land.
Despite these facts, revisionist historians like Dr O’Malley for the last 50 years have eroded our nations pioneering pride and sense of unity to the degree that Treaty partnership concepts, and the notion that colonisation as a whole was one gigantic racist crime… have become ‘official doctrine’ via a shameful process of successive political parties and governments retreating and pandering to radical separatist Maori activism… for the sake of gaining the support of the radicals occupying the Maori seats in parliament.
All this politics makes for very poor history.
New Zealand historian Paul Moon talks about this very thing in an article he wrote ( Stuff Sep 13, 2019)
“Given this importance, the Government’s decision to ensure all school students will be taught our country’s history is to be applauded.
Perhaps the most common response to emerge from the announcement is “which history?” or the more prejudicial “whose history?”. And there’s the rub. History is no mere list of dates and facts. It is often a contest between sometimes different ways of seeing the past, and what particular events in that past ought to be more pronounced. Many of these interpretations tend to chafe on contact with each other, resulting in history being a discipline that has to accommodate a wide range of views. Maybe this is why successive politicians have been reluctant to support compulsory New Zealand history in schools – it seems too contentious. Of course, there are risks that, if done poorly, compulsory history in our schools could veer into the realm of indoctrination. It is no coincidence that one of the first functions authoritarian regimes undertake on assuming power is to produce new history books in order to emphasise the “correct” version of history that is passed on to students. “
The truth is New Zealand has been in the throes of just such a scheme of systematic indoctrination for the past 50 years, and this is why today the legacy of these great men, and others like Captain Cook are under relentless attack.
Early Settlers… from here
I will supply sound arguments and citations to back up my assertions.
For the truth to prevail We must put the origins of the war in the Waikato into it’s correct historical context because this will help dissolve the false narrative that underpins the New Zealand species of Anti-colonialism and the false and divisive doctrines like ‘Treaty partnership’.
It must be understood that Communists have been attacking ‘British Imperialism’ since their age of revolution and a chief means of carrying on their ideological war has been the strategy of ‘divide and conquer’ … looking to recruit disgruntled minorities and activists in Western nations and fermenting angst and division.
Angst has been easy to find in many places, some of which may well express valid claims of large scale injustice yet was the colonisation of New Zealand an invasion of greedy villains hungry to rob Maori blind?
In this portion I want to rebut Dr O’Malleys argument that the war was all about Pakeha lust for Tainui land.
Ironically this modern doctrine peddled by treaty separatist is all about wealth and power… but not for Pakeha.
It’s all about getting massive ‘treaty settlements’ for Iwi via a dodgy process and the inherent bias of the Waitangi Tribunal.
The Waikato war was driven from a lust for wealth and power too but not on the part of the Settlers but was driven by Tainui jealousy at the progress of our industrious pioneering settlers.
It indeed was a struggle for domination… as Tainui decided to rebel against the Treaty… crown their own King… raise an army… and attempt to force the Pakeha out of New Zealand.
This argument I am presenting is the historically *Conservative view*, while Dr O’Malley is peddling radical Maori sovereignty propaganda dressed up as history.
Dr O’Malley’s report preaches the truly *novel and radical doctrines* … and not at all what far less partisan historians who lived nearer the events have recorded.
Dr O’Malley himself on page 10 of his report admits Captain Hamilton’s’ final Naval service record notes that he was ‘killed after great heroism and devotion’, and adds that ‘He was one of 10800 British Officers and men who served in the New Zealand Wars of 1845-72′ … and here’s the kicker… Dr O’Malley injects his own bias by saying their actions as being …’no longer widely seen in the straightforwardly heroic terms they once were among some groups’.
By ‘among some groups’ who considered the deeds of Hamilton, Grey, Bryce and Von Tempsky as being heroic…the men who today stand on trial most certainly were considered national heroes by virtually the entire population of the country…. Maori and Pakeha, save the rebel tribes themselves who were defeated!
I have already mentioned that Dr O’Malley has done his best to try and get the council to view matters from a perspective amiable to Tainui interests that attempts to absolve their recent ancestors of any and all guilt.
If we grant his observation that these matters are today seen in a ‘different light’ it is only because with the process of time we have forgotten what these men did to secure the life we now enjoy, and so in the vacuum modern revisionist like himself have made a living writing narratives for Iwi treaty claims, and for our Lefty Liberal dominated education system.
Can you find a single comment within Dr O’Malleys report where he indicates any wrongdoing by Tainui whatsoever?
I cant… and this type of omission is very indicative of a heavily slanted work.
Yet now I want to begin reminding people of the facts, and to do this properly requires at least a cursory overview of the colonisation process beginning in the early 1800s.
The true history of the British colonisation of New Zealand.
The Treaty of Waitangi is one of the great documents of history, esp in relations to the progress of civilisation and the age in which it was penned.
It is a document of enlightened ideals.
It established the framework for the foundation of the Nation of New Zealand.
Maori may have been here before the Pakeha, yet they were not *a nation*… but a were primitive tribes engaged in a constant state of war one with another.
Christian England was going through an age of Enlightenment whereby they had recoignised the ideal that all men are created equal under God and it was at the time of the foundations of our nation that the British Empire had Abolished Slavery (1833).
Contrast this with what was going on here at the same time in New Zealand.
Maori at this time were not only enslaving one another, but were cannibals… as a slave you were very likely to be eaten.
The practice of cannibalism was not an infrequent anomaly but deeply embedded in Maori custom and enjoyed… and dreaded.
Maori were very cruel to those they captured.
For reference I suggest reading Paul Moons ‘This Horrid Practice’.
In an article published on line by the NZ Herald 16 June, written by Peter Jackson talking about what is going on here in Hamilton.
Ngapuhi Leader David Rankin is quoted as having… ‘turned the whole Black Lives Matter trend on its head as he called for Tainui’s Turangawaewae Marae to be torn down’.
“Black Lives Matter-inspired demonstrations against symbols of history, in New Zealand and around the world, have focused on monuments to Europeans, but Ngapuhi leader, David Rankin, has called on Tainui to take down Turangawaewae Marae, which, he said, his iwi had long regarded as a symbol of enslavement and oppression.
The marae, he said, represented a dark period in the iwi’s history, when Tainui slavers abused his people to build their marae and grow crops for them.
“For us in the North, Turangawaewae Marae is a symbol of that slavery, murder and cannibalism, and so needs to be pulled down,” he said.
“The wealth that Tainui generated was made on the backs of Ngapuhi slaves.”
He had the support of his Te Matarahurahu hapu, whose ancestors were among those captured by Tainui, and used as slaves. Sometimes slaves had become part of the communities of their captors, but in this case they were eventually killed and eaten.
“Tainui famously acquired corn by disembowelling my ancestor and removing the kernels in his stomach for seed,” he said.
“Tainui has a moral obligation to pull down that marae, which for us is a symbol of cultural hatred, and if they don’t pull it down, then we will come down and do the job for them.”
These excerpts can be found on line here
Photo from here
So with this being the inconvenient truth about Tainui’s own history and doings, how duplicitous of them to be now complaining about ill treatment and pointing the finger at *everyone* but themselves?
By what double standard are we expected to hold a microscope to our colonial heritage and yet grant Tainui a free pass on their own checkered past?
Ought it not be clear that the council is being led down a rabbit hole by duplicitous activists?
How can it really be construed that the establishment of British law and order here in New Zealand that until the rebellions, ended these tribal wars, cannibalism, and slavery as described by David Rankin be today be deemed to have been horribly destructive to the indigenous population?
There are far more Maori alive today, and despite the many things vexing Maori today, they all exist in a far healthier and prosperous state than they once did prior to colonization by Britain.
This is an indisputable fact that is almost completely misunderstood about what conditions were like here for Pre-European colonization Maori.
The issues Maori are facing today have nothing to do with ‘post traumatic stress’ caused by collonisation as activist bureaucrats and academics shamelessly assert.
To believe so is yet another way in which the radical activists have been able to smoke the gullible and to misdiagnose the real causes of Maori plight.
The dire social problems facing Maori today have far more to do with personal choices and ethics than is permitted to be laid at their feet, because the fashion of our day is to see them as victims of colonialism rather than as authors of their own plight.
These matters fall outside the scope of today’s concerns and yet these notions still off-colour the way people think about the colonization of New Zealand.
Edward Gibbon Wakefield.
Lets get back on track. The colonisation of New Zealand was far different from European colonization of other places like the penal colony of Australia, The USA, or South Africa.
So it was that during an enlightened era of humanitarianism in Britain and the recognition of the equality of races, and having been invited, and after much lobbying and deliberations, William Hobson was commissioned to treat with Maori for the cession of sovereignty to the British Crown in exchange for protection from France and the establishment of British law and order.
This good will is all reflected in the composition of the Treaty… its various articles, in particular the 2nd article which was expressly concerned with ensuring a transparent and well scrutenised process whereby Land transactions could be facilitated in a way that protected Maori from being ripped off.
Land was to be surveyed, and first offered directly to the Crown who would purchase the land, then on sell it using profits for defraying the costs of governance and the construction of national infrastructure.
Not only does this clause reflect the care and concerns that colonisation proceed on fair terms for Maori, but also was following Edward Gibbon Wakefield’s definitive work ‘The Art of Colonisation’ which sought to take all the hard lessons learned from the less systematic colonisation of other nations like America, and Australia, and is notable for it’s concerns for the wellbeing of Native populations and explained how their interests could be catered for, and importantly how systematic colonisation would solve so many ‘evils’ that such undertakings had inadvertently caused elsewhere when done without foresight… such as how to finance the governance and construction of Infrastructure that is so vital for the common wheal.
In the early years the one thing New Zealand had an over-abundance of was un utilised land.
The idea that land sales should be controlled by the government was to prevent natural oversupply from rendering land values as paltry, thus ensuring Maori got a fair price.
This is not a heritage for which New Zealanders of colonial descent should feel any shame whatsoever!
In fact, it is a story of benevolence and enlightenment, and cooperation that few other nations can equal!
Thus at the very time slavery was abolished in the British empire, in the Christian spirit of the brotherhood of man, missionaries from the Church Missionary Society left the comforts of civilisation and risked everything to bring the gospel. and the benefits of civilisation to the primitive Maori people who lived here in backwards darkness slavery, and superstition.
When it became known that the French had ambitions for this country, by the hand of the missionaries the Maori chiefs formed a confederation asking for the protection of the British Empire.
“In 1831 a petition signed by 13 northern Māori chiefs was sent to King William IV. They asked for recognition of their trading and missionary contacts with Britain, expressed fear of intervention by other nations and requested protection from lawless British subjects”
From here https://nzhistory.govt.nz/james-busby-arrives-as-first-official-british-resident#:~:text=5%20May%201833&text=In%201831%20a%20petition%20signed,protection%20from%20lawless%20British%20subjects.
Putting all this in true and verifiable historical context and the spirit of those times…. The colonisation of New Zealand by the British empire was not ‘an invasion’ but was by invitation.
Ceding sovereignty to the British Crown was a stroke of genius for Maori as not only did they secure for themselves the rights of British subjects and begin in earnest the process by which they would be raised out of primitive poverty and darkness, ending their otherwise endless tribal wars, and they also avoided the very real prospects of having been invaded *For Real*, and subjugated by the French… who still practiced slavery in their colonies.
From the very beginning therefore history records not only the justness by which British sovereignty was established here, but also the peaceable and respectful means by which colonistation was carried out with careful regard for the interests of the Maori people.
The accusations made by Maori radicals like Tariana Turia who called colonisation ‘a holocaust’ claiming it to be one gigantic Lawless stampede to deprive Maori of their lands simply cannot withstand scrutiny.
Such wild accusations are the constructs of heavily prejudiced Political agitators for nefarious political ends… people who seek to set the narrative as a contest between ‘brown’ and ‘white’… when in truth there have always been more ‘browns’ fighting on the side of the ‘whites’ than on the side of the radicals of the Maori Party.
Post 1840 there were contentions raised about the second article of the Treaty whereby pre-emption on land purchases to the Crown was stipulated as a means to systematically control the process of land sales by Maori. It was being argued that in reality the pre-emption on land sales was not consistent with the rights of British subjects confered by the same article.
This argument prevailed and for a period pre-emption was suspended by Fitzroy, and yet it was restored again by Governor Grey in 1846 from a desire to protect Maori from Land sharks and restore a much needed revenue stream for the government.
A reference for these events can be found on line here
Having now laid down the *Real historical* spirit of the times that underpinned colonisation of New Zealand as an enterprise undertaken with very strong ethical concerns and legal protections for the interests of Maori we are better position to look at events in the Waikato in the 1860s.
“Awaiting the order to advance” (for the battle of Gate Pa). Taken at sunrise on 29 April 1864. General Duncan Cameron is leaning on the wheel of the gun carriage, (fifth from right).
The Causes of the War (Part 2)
In the time line of Gordon McLauchlan’s ‘Short history of the New Zealand Wars, on Pg 15 says for 1858 ” Tainui Leader Te Wherowhero is chosen as the Maori king and takes the name of Potatau 1. This is seen by many settlers as a challenge to the sovereignty of Queen Victoria”.
Before hostilities commenced, when Tainui was plotting to attack Auckland and ferment a unified Maori onslaught to drive the Pakeha back into the Sea, they sent emissaries to other tribes in the hope they would align themselves into an overwhelming force, and yet these emissaries met with blunt refusals.
Ngapuhi said they would rather have a white woman as their queen than a Tainui King.
Ref: Maori History of the War pg 510,511 Defenders of New Zealand
Many tribes had confidence in Sir George Grey.
Their confidence would prove well placed.
Nonetheless Tainui rallied sufficient allies to embolden them to continue with their rebellious intent.
This was the true nature of the threat Tainui presented to Governor Grey and why he deployed his army against them in the name of The British Crown, the Treaty, and the people of New Zealand whom were under the protection of the British Crown.
I wish to impress upon you how dire the situation was from the settlers perspective, who were witnessing Maori uprisings and faced the very real prospects of having their lives and property brutally destroyed.
I hope you can transport yourselves back to appreciate the magnitude of the crisis the rebel tribes threw upon the shoulders of men like Sir George Grey, and that the fate of the entire colony hung in the balance and that only by a strong hand and great sacrifice could order and peace be restored.
Was the war about Land? No!
Even from reading O Malley’s report we can see that like Governor Browne before him, Sir George Grey clearly saw the Kingite movement as rebellious and a contrary to the Treaty… thus exploding any notion that the Treaty was supposed to be ‘a partnership’.
(Read pg 19 of his report)
And this was not merely a prejudiced groundless opinion but was a materializing realty via Kingite aggression, murders, and war preparation… admitted in O Malley’s report.pg 21.
When Dr O’Malley portrays the war as really being a massive land grab, he clearly seeks to paint Sir George Grey as dishonest and conniving… yet why should we accept such a clearly prejudicial view?
With respect to the actual historic record as to why Governor Grey himself stated he decided to engage the Kingites… and other actions , O’Malley tries to discredit Grey’s honesty by using such phrases as ‘Historians have been highly dismissive of these claims’ (pg 21)
And finishing his chapter on Grey on pg 27 he says “Long remembered (By Pakeha at least) as Good Governor Grey’, his reputation has undergone something of a battering in recent decades as his role in ordering the invasion of Waikato, among other actions, have been the subjected to more critical investigation and analysis”
In insinuating here on page 27 that Grey’s historic reputation as good hinged upon ‘white prejudice’ Dr O’Malley hopes you forget that far more Iwi chose to fight on Governor Grey’s side than with the rebels!
It would seem reasonable to assume all such Maori who fought on the side of the British, and shared in the victory of suppressing the rebellions, restoring the peace under British sovereignty would also hold Grey as being ‘the good Governor’ too!
So his reputation of being ‘good’ is not simply a matter of racial prejudice as Dr O’Malley maliciously insinuates!
Many Maori were glad to see Tainui and all the other rebellious tribes humbled and British sovereignty prevail.
Portrait of Sir George Grey and Te Riwai Ropiha
Invasion or rightful enforcement of British sovereignty?
Dr O Malley’s repetitious assertion that Grey ‘Invaded’ the Waikato has been corrected in the Tross Publishing submission. Grey sent in the troops only after having warned the Kingites to desist from their hostilities, and return to peaceful co existence, and made it clear that if they disregarded his warnings, He would enforce the Treaty, and their violence and rebellion would be punished forthwith. The enforcement of the Law cannot be described as ‘an invasion’ as if Governor Grey had no legal basis to enforce the Treaty, defend the sovereignty of Victoria, and defend the Settlers lives and property from Tainui aggression that was patently a repudiation of the Treaty.
It was his duty to do so.
‘In a proclamation to the Maori Chiefs of the Waikato, dated 11 July 1863′ Governor Grey asked them to stop their evil acts against the peaceable settlers.’
‘Grey asked for the free passage of Europeans in the Waikato district, in particular for movement on the Waikato river.
He also stated: “…Those who remain peaceably at their own villages in [the] Waikato, or move into such districts as may be pointed out by the Government, will be protected in their person, property, and land.
Those who wage war against her Majesty, or remain in arms, threatening the lives of peaceable subjects, must take the consequences of their acts and they must understand that they forfeit the right to the possession of their lands guaranteed to them by the treaty of Waitangi; which lands will be occupied by a population capable of protecting for the future the quiet and un-offending from the violence with which they are now so constantly threatened.”
Excerpts from Richard Stowers’s ‘Forest Rangers’ pg 6
There you have it from Governor Grey what was the cause of the war, and why after having defeated the Kingite rebels, and the sovereignty of the queen being firmly settled, that land was confiscated as just punishment.
It’s important to grasp the sequence of events from Dr O’Malleys own report on pg 21 O’Malley shows that Grey gave the order to his troops to enter the Waikato district after extreme provocation.
Dr O’Malley admits British troops had been ambushed at Oakura and 9 killed, yet omits the fact that in the Waikato also the Kingites had also begun hostilities against the settlers that forced Grey’s hand.
Grey fears about the intents of the Kingitanga movement were materialising with murderous troubles in defiance of the Queens authority.
General Duncan Cameron.
Grey’s Disputes with General Cameron.
It is a recorded fact that I won’t avoid that, as stated by Dr O’Malley that Sir George Grey had a contentious relationship with the man he had in charge of putting down the rebellion, General Cameron. It is not uncommon for there to be differences of opinion about how military campaigns should be run, and that tempers and arguments happen. It is obvious that General Cameron did not see eye to eye with Grey. He was a man of his own opinions, and one whose heart was not committed to fulfilling Grey’s strategies or rationale.
In the heat of disagreement Cameron did express his own suspicions and cast dispersion upon Grey accusing him of being greedy for land.
This dispute may have heavily influenced Dr O’Malley’s views.
Grey himself did not countenance such besmirchment of his character but vigorously denied the accusation.
Without doubt General Cameron was a man of empathy for the plight of his enemy… a fact that itself is incongruous with Dr O’Malleys assertions that atrocities were sanctioned under Cameron’s command such as the account he gives of events at Rangiaowhia and clearly he desired as early settlement for peace as he believed possible.
Alternatively, and as stated by Dr O’Malley having had his ultimatums to stand down rejected, and now having been forced to make good on his warnings, Grey was far more determined than Cameron to ensure the Tainui rebels were sufficiently subdued.
This does not make Grey evil. He was determined to crush the Kingite rebellion and punish them. He not only wanted to strongly enforce the Treaty by which the lawful authority of the British Crown was established but also make it clear that any future rebellions would also face heavy penalties!
This exercise of power was the only means by which rebellious chiefs could be persuaded from causing future troubles and disturbing the peace.
The land confiscations were just punishment.
Grey’s use of power in this way is a lesson in statesmanship and resolve against murderous elements that had to be subdued, and it was from these wise and determined policies our nation enjoyed peace for 100 years… that is until the Early 1970s and the rise of the Communist left radical Maori separatist movement.
Conspicuous by it’s absence is any hint of acceptance from Dr O’Malley that Grey’s expressed views were valid or justified.
Basically, Dr O’Malley chooses to side with the rebels at all points.
That the war was never about plundering land can been easily proven by what actually transpired after the war.
Over time much of the confiscated land was returned, and in fact more was offered to be returned if only Tainui would publicly acknowledge the sovereignty of the British Crown… yet this fundamental point was rejected by Tainui, and is admitted by Dr O’Malley on pg 46 of his report on John Bryce, then Native Minister of the Colony.
It’s important to apprehend the significance of what is said in this section as we can see that the only stumbling block in the return of confiscated land to Tainui was the stubborn refusal of their King to accept Bryce’s only condition… that they acknowledge the English queens sovereignty over this Island from one end to the other.
The war was never about greed for land… it was a battle over sovereignty … and Tainui acted in bad faith against the first article of the Treaty of Waitangi.
They were in rebellion, and they were defeated in battle by British forces with colonial auxiliaries like Von Tempsky and The Forrest Rangers, and many ‘friendly natives’ who distinguished themselves in being fervent in their participation to defend their own lands from Rebel aggression and ensure the ongoing sovereignty of the English Crown.
Sir Apirana Ngata
The confiscations were punishment for rebellion and a clear demonstration of British authority over New Zealand in accord with the Treaty of Waitangi.
Punishment for wrongdoing is never pleasant.
Dr O’Malley states at the top of page 22 of his report that the intervention of the British troops against the Rebel Kingites quote ‘was devastating for the Waikato’ and yet does not indicate to you that the truth is the rebel Maori brought this calamity upon themselves.
They thought they would ‘push the Pakeha back into the sea…. they were horribly wrong… and would have to pay dearly for their crimes.
Many lives were lost as a direct consequence of their rebellion against the Treaty.
An article appeared in the Daily Southern Cross (Auckland daily newspaper) on October 1863, stated
“If lands are now taken from the Maori, through the fortune of war, it is a result for which the Maoris alone are responsible. They have had to choose between British citizenship and independence; and they have made their decision. they have rejected the conditions which might have incorporated them with the European colonists into one British community; and they can no longer plead the treaties made in their favour. they cannot be allowed to enjoy all the romantic part of the bargain, and escape from the legal obligations. They are either British subjects in rebellion, or they are an independent nation making war against England. In either character, they must take all the responsibilities.”
Found on pg7 of R Stowers Forest Rangers.
It is essential to appreciate that the confiscations *were an essential factor* to teach the rebellious and militant Maori chiefs that if they remain peaceful, they would enjoy their lands, yet if they decided to rise up in rebellion they would pay the price… thus the confiscations were not only just, but also a stimulus to future peace.
No less an authority than Sir Apirana Ngata stated that… “Let me issue a word of warning to those who are in the habit of bandying the name of the Treaty around to be very careful lest it be made the means of incurring certain liabilities under the law which we do not know now and which are being borne only by the Pakeha.”
“Some have said that the land confiscations were wrong and they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose and blood was spilled. The Law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom-revenge-plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty ”
Extracts from “The Treaty of Waitangi, An Explanation.” by Sir Apirana Ngata
Dr O’Malley’s ill-treatment of the great Major Gustav Von Tempsky who gave his life for the sake of reestablishing law and order in our nation.
Due to the fact that I have already written many thousands of words in general defense of all four names, I must refrain from any attempts to fully vindicate the worthiness of Each independently.
It pains me that I cannot do full justice in defense of their good names however I could not live with my own conscience were I not to say a few extra things for Von Tempsky.
On June 27 this year the Waikato Times published an article called ‘living in Von Tempsky’s shadow’ in which having read O’Malley’s report Hamilton Major Paula Southgate remarks “Von Tempsky was a pretty nasty gentleman and I hadn’t understood quite how much he had done” …
This is the view Dr O’Malley’s report impressed upon the Mayor, and yet in reality Von Tempsky was an absolute Legend! A national hero who gave his life for the sake of establishing peace and order.
The Mayor would appreciate this if she better informed herself rather than simply taking Dr O’Malley’s report as the gospel truth.
I hope my submission is helpful in this regard.
Let me provide a quotation from an absolutely impartial quarter ‘Bowie Knife Fighter: Gustavus Von Tempsky’
It sources its information about Von Tempsky from ‘An Encyclopedia of New Zealand 1966’
It is an interesting report on the good character of Von Tempsky…. certainly shows he was no murdering ‘Maori hater’… a complete contrast to what the historical revisionists have invented about him…
He was obviously a dangerous man to the enemy,
Quote: “Von Tempsky took part in the actions at Hairini, Waiari, Rangiaowhia, Kihikihi and Orakau, establishing a reputation as an intrepid leader. He was a strong disciplinarian who was popular with his men. When the defenders broke out of the Orakau Pa, he led his men in a ruthless pursuit but strongly disapproved when the British troops killed some of the wounded and women. He encouraged his men to intervene in order to prevent these atrocities.”
This is not the picture of Von Tempsky Dr O’Malley presents.
So much is said in Dr O’Malley’s report, and yet so much also is missing.
His use of citations.
In the introduction to my submission I made commentary on the fact that Dr O’Malley says his report is not exhaustive.
Reading his report, I find carefully avoidance on his part… serious omissions of fact, context, and also purposeful ambiguity on his use of citations that imbue his narrative with an air of objective validity and support it does not justly deserve.
It disturbs me the manner in which Dr O’Malley interweaves personal commentary in with the appearance of having an objective basis in historic citations… without providing the texts from which he claims support what he is saying but references only.
I assert had he done so this would seriously detract from the view point he seeks to portray *as history*.
Rarely does his report contain substantial quotations in their rightful place… his excuse may be for the sake of brevity… yet I see this as a device for him to reinterpret everything to suit his ‘story’.
Often his citations are for a phrase ‘here and there’ yet some might assume the citation vindicates an entire paragraph in which he has made many bold and misleading claims.
It is not that such behavior is abnormal for historians to do who write history like a novel… or presenting a ‘thesis’… which is clearly what Dr O’Malley has done with this report.
They are selective with what they chose to quote verbatim and what they merely seek to allude to… esp when they are selling their own hypothesis rather than rigorously maintaining journalistic integrity.
Under normal circumstances it is up to the reader of history to appreciate this… and to search out other opinions for balance… if they care for such… almost no casual reader does… only those who have a personal interest tend to immerse themselves more thoroughly.
In this sense history is a specialist subject requiring more than just a summer read under an umbrella.
Such deeper interest and study is my passion, thus having searched out multiple sources… I’m giving you the opportunity to consider the other side of the debate … for balance… and I believe that by hearing me a fairer picture will emerge.
Ordinarily modern histories are read for personal amusement and Learning with little at stake, and under such normal conditions the historian may giant themselves much license, yet when we consider the weighty reasons for which the council commissioned his report… and the political nature of Dr O’Malley’s past exploits, such contextual omissions and ambiguous citations simply isn’t good enough!
He ought to have worked to a far higher standard… one that we should expect would be adhered to for Legal proceedings.
How is it that Dr O’Malley expects the council to deem his observations as authoritatively validated without being able to read the citations in the context of which they were originally penned?
Because of this serious failure… intentional or otherwise, is it to be expected that the council will blindly trust his inferences and citations without fact checking or at least corroborating them for themselves from the historic texts he claims as justification for his remarks?
Let me give just one example of many… from the report that concerns me in this regard.
It is in the chapter written to ‘educate’ the city council as to the character of Gustav Von Tempsky on page 30 with the date 13 December 1863 Dr O’Malley introduces what looks to be ‘the first shots fired’ by the Forest Rangers… the Special Forces Units to which Gustav Von Tempsky belonged.
He states that on this date the Forest Rangers ‘Attacked a camp of Maori Men, woman, and children, killing at least 7 of them’.
And that the Newspaper ‘Daily Southern Cross’ accused the Forest Rangers of murder… giving the citation 113.
Dr O’Malley makes no attempt to provide the actual article for councilors to judge, just a reference in the footnotes, yet I have seen the article from which Dr O’Malley has selected his remark.
I wonder how many councilors can say the same thing?
Are Dr O’Malley’s assertions that the actions of the Forrest Rangers he describes as ‘murderous’ the strongest evaluations to be drawn from the text he cites?
Not at all!
Yet he would have you believe they are!
The only way you will discover the contrary is by taking the trouble to fact check.
The article can be found on line here : https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DSC18631217.2.11
The article he cites is very objective in that it does not shy away from telling readers of various perspectives including the uncomfortable reality that some rivals indeed described the event as ‘murder’… yet it goes on to say that such views are ‘almost too absurd to notice’… and carries on *justifying the actions of the Forest Rangers*, painting a very different picture of the hostile Maori Dr O Malley chose to describe as ‘praying men woman and children’!
As the article says… “almost too absurd to notice!”… yet not for Dr O’Malley!
These Maori were enemies… described as plunderers and murderers, and the article commends Captain Jackson for having done his duty.
Von Tempsky was not even present (admitted in the report) nonetheless Dr O’Malley intentionally picked this particular armed clash on the 13th of December because it served his intended purpose to weave in Von Tempsky as vicious and seeking personal vainglory without regard for humane conduct.
Dr O’Malley mentions Von Tempsky’s ‘strong pang of jealousy’ giving the citation 114
How Dr O’Malley’s narrative reads is that The Forest Rangers under their Commander Jackson had committed an act of villainy and that out of envy… wishing he could have participated in this supposed ‘crime’ Von Tempsky expressed his jealousy… when in truth Von Tempsky was not jealous that he had missed out on ‘committing atrocities’, but that Captain Jackson with whom Von Tempsky had chosen to compete for Military honours had gained a noble and glorious victory.
Do you appreciate the subtle distinction from what Von Tempsky himself meant from what Dr O’Malley seeks to portray?
Von Tempsky admitted his own feelings about this… yet what Dr O’Malley omits from his ‘reference’ was that Von Tempsky gained control of his pride and expressed gratitude that his side had scored a victory over the enemy.
Should council undertake similar investigations of the rest of Dr O’Malley’s citations, erudite minds will have no trouble spotting many more factual discrepancies contained within his report at variance with the very citations he uses that ought to vindicate him!
On pages 41-42, Dr O’Malley treats John Bryce in the same manor of attempted guilt by mere association when some Maori children were killed by the Kai Iwi Calvary… a deed he did not participate in and had even been to court and had his name cleared of wrong doing.
In both these cases… neither Von Tempsky nor Bryce committed any atrocities and yet Dr O’Malley has done his best to implicate them and sway this councils views to do the same.
For a better account of the event that what has been given them by Dr O’Malley councilors should read ‘Defenders of New Zealand,’ pg 307-308.
We see that ‘ the group of children’ described by Dr O’Malley were in fact a Rebel raiding party caught in the very act.
Before moving on, I must raise a particularly peculiar and disturbing aspect of the report that seriously calls its objectivity into question.
And that is the very odd way Dr O’Malley does not shy away from using his own published opinions as authoritative references… many times… a ruse that is patently dubious!
Are we supposed to accept Dr O’Malley’s opinions in the report on the cited authority of Dr O’Malley’s own personally published opinions?
What contrivance is this?
We must assert that all such portions of his report that rely on his own authority in this way are portions for which he could find no valid corroborating impartial historical authority.
Today is seems only Black Lives Matter.
Victimism is the new trump card.
We read earlier about the article in which Napuhi Leader David Raken was said to have ‘turned the Black Lives Matter’ argument on its head.
The article was relating the parallels between the defacement and removal of Captain Hamilton’s statue for the town square with recent events in America regarding the destruction and removal of American civil war monuments and others such as memorials to Columbus.
These similarities are not accidental.
Though oceans apart, Radical leftists with heavily racist views in both the US and New Zealand have developed this strategy to win support for their extremist causes, and in the US the openly Marxist group Black Lives Matter have in conjunction with other radical Leftist organisations such as Antifa have organised violent protests and riots.
The defacement of the statue of Hamilton, and demands to remove monuments to Captain Cook, and the business we are discussing here and now about the Name of our city are all related to this left wing political ‘spirit of our times’.
It is a dangerous and destructive and hateful radical ideological movement.
Today, with alarming eagerness myriads of white leftist Liberals gleefully embrace the notion that their own heritage is just one great long trail of oppression and greed.
Remember slavery was ended in US in the latter half of the 19th century so virtually the same period of time has passed as for the wars in New Zealand.
Despite this long passage of time. Black Lives Matter organisation desires to keep angst for Slavery raw and sore… pretending that Black Americans today are still oppressed… not just historically from slavery… but also by what they have coined as ‘White privilege’.
This phenomena has become a full blown hysteria, and being carried away in this frenzy many politicians have been keen to ‘virtue signal’ by pandering to the very skewed opinions of this radical group.
Trends in leftist dominated academic circles, Hollywood, Left leaning media and social media has exported this craze around the globe and it now has roots here in our own city.
That our council is today considering such extreme undertakings as changing the name of our city demonstrates just how intoxicating this Left wing cool aid is!
No doubt some Hamilton City Councilors hold personal political leanings which though not representative of the majority of Hamiltonians, predisposes them to the same sort of bias about ‘white privilege ‘and harbour desires to virtue signal and promote what they believe to be positive discrimination as we witness happening in the US.
This is not equality before the law or blind (impartial) justice.
This is Identity politics and stacking the deck!
Many Hamiltonians were alarmed with the haste with which Hamilton City Council crumbled in the face of the radical Maori activist demands and removed the statue of Captain Hamilton!
This was done without democratic process and signals a foreboding omen that there is every probability that the city council will capitulate further… without a true mandate from the people of Hamilton. In truth I know there will be some left leaning city councilors who relish the opportunity to autocratically make these Radical decisions in total contempt for Democracy.
The removal of the statue is a text book example of how Western values and civilisation are currently under bombardment by politically correct totalitarianism whereby Radical leftists have politicised virtually every aspect of our lives and who display a fanatical hatred and intolerance for any opinions that do not fully align with their own.
Freedom of speech is under attack, and it is true to say that many people, and politicians are today scared to express their true feelings and views out of fear they will be denounced as hateful bigots simply because they do not endorse the Leftist narratives.
All it took for Maori radicals to get the mighty city of Hamilton to prostrate ourselves before them was to claim the statue of Hamilton cause them ‘offence’.
The arguments they proffered were baseless and weak, and held by only a tiny minority!
By far the majority of Hamiltonians enjoyed the statue, and were not at all offended by it, and yet their sentiments and values were held in contempt by a city council without spine and too eager to retreat under the pitiable onslaught of the Leftist political ideology that “white men are evil” and should be ashamed of themselves, and their heritage.
New Zealanders of european ancestry are expected to assume a massive burden of collective guilt all because of supposed ancient crimes they themselves never committed, and pay reparations for oppression to people who were never oppressed… all simply by virtue of the skin colour of each demographic!
It is not without Irony that it ought to be understood that it was such primitive notions of ‘collective guilt’ and exacting ‘utu’ from the relatives for past wrongs committed by individual members of a tribe that fueled the endless cycle of tribal wars of old.
It was the establishment of British sovereignty, and the vastly superior system of law and justice that ended such notions of ‘collective, and that true justice cannot be exacted from innocent others who are merely blood relations.
The Leftist notions sown by ‘Black Lives Matter’ and the treaty grievance industry seek to overthrow the advances made by British rule here in New Zealand and return us backwards to a far less enlightened and divided age… back into tribalism.
This is what Identity politics is all about… dividing everyone into separate groups so that one group can be labeled ‘Oppressors’ and the other ‘Victims’.
That is how Socialism works.
Yet in truth not a single person white person alive today is guilty of the slavery of the past, nor was any black American or Maori a slave of Pakeha.
Ideological slander afoot.
This is a Leftist political revolution that is going on around the globe is involved in a complete rewriting of the history of British empire as one great series of horrendous crimes, one after another….
This is not only ironic, but also an intellectual crime of the highest order given that it can be easily proven that it has been through the enlightened progress of ideals of equality and freedom of which Britain has been the chief teacher and benefactor, that has raised up justice for the common man and the standards of living for the entire western world!
While these facts may be ignored… they cannot be refuted.
Am I the only one in the room who can see that all this political ideology is the very incarnation of racism against white people?
It is the Left that has made race the focal point of all social statistics.
It is the Left that try and absolve the so-called ‘oppressed races’ of any personal responsibility for their lot in life both in the past and in the present, and instead heap all blame upon the focus of their hatred… the so-called heartless, selfish, and greedy white person!
Revisionist histories like the O’Malley report have been written with this as their guiding themes.
White New Zealanders and others have a right to exist here in New Zealand. This is as much their country as it is that of the Maori people.
They too have as much right as Maori to have their heritage respected and for their memorials to stand for posterity… just as we respectfully allow Maori monuments and memorials to stand.
That is what defines an enlightened and tolerant and free society.
New Zealand currently has a very healthy and happy mix of both Maori place names and Pakeha place names.
We have Whangarei and Auckland
We have Tauranga and Wellington.
We have Christchurch and Hokitika… etc etc.
We have Whakatane and Thames.
We have Ngaruwahia and Hamilton.
In no way can it be construed that Maori place names have been systematically obliterated via colonisation.
The opposite is true!
To a very large extent Maori names have been respectfully preserved.
The same can be said of street names.
Far from vindicating the Left-wing narrative about Pakeha trampling underfoot all things Maori this happy balance between English and Maori place names clearly evidences a completely different truth!
It demonstrates a very great mutual respect by most Maori and Pakeha.
This healthy balance is complimentary one with the other.
Yet this is what the Radical Activists are attempting to destroy via their toxic ideas and endless complaints.
The activists calling to demolish our memorials don’t represent the New Zealand people, they are a tiny disgruntled bunch of agitators backed by a powerful vested interest.
Kiwis of all descents have embraced Maori culture as an essential aspect of our national identity and it is outrageously contemptible to assume otherwise.
Yet this respect must be mutual… not just Maori Pa and Maori warriors need to be honoured, but also Pakeha Pa…and Pakeha warriors like the military settlement that was named ‘Hamilton’ after a fallen hero and the streets that were named Grey, Von Tempsky, and Bryce.
It is of little wonder or consequence that some few Tainui chose to keep a chip on their shoulder about these matters.
I do not deny them their right to do so yet I am very concerned that they are trying to manipulate our city council into a state of contrition!
Were these men on trial faultless angels? Obviously not.
But on the whole, they were great figures who served our country to the best of their ability… making both friends and enemies in the process.
There will always be controversies and disputes about men of action and historical figures.
No one escapes
Intolerance and offence ought not to be a trump cards that negates everyone else’s values and opinions.
A society cannot stand under such petty terms.
It inevitably self immolates.
Let’s allow our historic monuments to stand up for future generations to ponder.
It is my very strong petition to the Council today that they respectfully preserve the names of Hamilton, Grey, Von Tempsky, and Bryce Street.
Author: Tim Wikiriwhi
So must end my critique of Dr O’Malley’s so-called historical report.
I do not have time to full expound on the injustice, financial burden, and chaos that would be unfairly borne by Hamilton clubs, businesses, etc should the council make such a rash decision to change the name of our city. I will only mention it in passing because this is a significant and unnecessary evil that would result from such a foolish council determination.
In closing my final argument is possibly the most important because it has to do with democratic due process.
This council must not pretend it has any mandate from the people of Hamilton to make such radical changes!
None of you ran for office with the express policy saying you believed Hamilton to be a despicable name associated with oppression.
Such momentous and highly ideologically driven proposals ought to be reserved as an election issue of the highest order and opened to rigorous public debate.
If upon the conclusion of these proceedings the proposals to change the names of our city and streets are not immediately dismissed as they ought to be, then they should be made a referendum!
Then the people of Hamilton will let you know their will on this matter… yet devious leftist political operators do not want this to be decided by the people… because they know what the answer will be!
Such a shameful deed was recently committed by the New Plymouth District Council behaving in total contempt for democracy by autonomously establishing a Maori ward against the will of the people who have overwhelmingly rejected the proposal in the past.
Under not conditions ought the shameful activities of NPDC be emulated here in Hamilton.
May the guilty councilors be thrown out on their activist butts next election!
There is a gross duplicity at work!
We live in a shameful PC world where it appears that the only people allowed to take pride in their heritage are non-Europeans.
A double standard by which the ‘Great Maori chiefs’ are not today being held to anything near the same politically correct standards that are used to posthumously character assassinate their contemporary great Pakeha chiefs!
Maori murderers, slavers, cannibals, get a free pass!
If we are to re-name Hamilton and Grey St, Von Tempsky Steet, and Bryce st… on the basis that they are accused of participating in atrocities and oppression ought not we also apply the same standards and outrage to the monuments of Te Rauparaha, Te Kooti, etc etc????
In truth it is a travesty to compare the doings of Grey, Von Tempsky, Bryce, and Hamilton with such villains!
Wisdom dictates we entirely abandon this destructive witch hunt and travesty of dragging up the past in this way!
Leave *all* monuments… whether Maori or Pakeha to stand!
Let them be there for future generations to contemplate and appreciate our rich heritage of *both* Maori and Pakeha… and of course the monuments of every other ethnicity of New Zealanders that have played their part in building and enriching our nation.
Let us cease pandering to the divisive activism of radicals!
The greatness, and goodness of the founders of our nation ought to be well known by every Kiwi boy and girl!
The richness of our heritage as the source of our culture and national character must be defended from those who seek to trample it underfoot.
The crisis posed by the various Maori uprisings required men of both principle and determination as Grey, Hamilton, Von Tempsky and Bryce undoubtedly were, willing to risk personal danger for the sake of defeating the murderous and lawless rebels.
It was not a time for effeminate weaklings, or policies of appeasement of the sort that Richard Chamberlain would become infamous for as he acquiesced in the face of aggression of Germany
The Tross Publishing Submission…
The first disturbing thing to be said about the one-sided “Historical Report on Hamilton Street and City Names” is that it was commissioned by two parties, one of them being the Waikato Tainui tribe and it appears that O’Malley has tailored his report to suit their obvious purpose of progressively removing European names from Hamilton city and streets. It is unbelievable that the Council, which is supposed to represent all the citizens of Hamilton, should join together with the prime advocate for a change of names.
For this reason the Report should be treated with a certain amount of wariness. Furthermore, O’Malley cannot be regarded as an impartial historian when it comes to any historical matter affecting British forces for he has told at least one public gathering that he hates the British for what they allegedly did to his Irish ancestors some 200 or so years ago.
His report is not impartial; it is character assassination by carefully selected half truths of four historical figures whose names have been recognised in Hamilton for a century and a half without any problems. O’Malley’s narrative is backed by bold assertions that are often untrue but widely accepted, being part of the new “conventional wisdom” of revisionist “historians” and others.
In his Introduction he makes the rather trivial point that Captain Hamilton never visited the place to be named after him. So what?
Nor did Lord Auckland ever visit Auckland, or the Duke of Wellington visit the capital of New Zealand, or Sir Charles Napier visit Napier. Nor did the hero of Trafalgar ever visit Nelson, or General Picton visit Picton, or Lord Palmerston visit Palmerston or Warren Hastings visit Hastings.
As early as the Introduction O’Malley shows his bias by referring to the “invasion” of the Waikato by Governor Grey and this word “invasion” (or its verb) is used throughout the book (13 times) in an emotive and brainwashing manner. It is untrue as the word “invasion” suggests an invasion of another country or territory such as Hitler’s invasion of Poland or Argentina’s invasion of the British colony of the Falkland Islands in 1982. Since Waikato, like all of New Zealand, was sovereign British territory under the rule of the Governor of New Zealand it was not legally possible for Grey to “invade” part of his colony. “Militarily occupy” – yes; but not “invade”.
On Page 4 he states that the military settlement of Hamilton was established on the site of a Maori “kainga” known as Kirikiriroa. That may be so but the Hamilton of to-day was built almost entirely by the enterprise and labour of people of European ancestry (mainly British) and there is no reason 150 years down the track to change the name of this lively and largely non-Maori city. In fact, it would be disrespectful to the memory of all those who helped build Hamilton over the years to do so.
Captain Hamilton died in the battle of Gate Pa in defence of the sovereignty and unity of New Zealand, as established by the Treaty of Waitangi and subsequent events, against a rebellion that was trying to destroy such sovereignty.
The statement on page 14 of the Report that Governor Grey “captured and kidnapped the elderly Ngati Toa rangatira,” Te Rauparaha, is highly emotive but incorrect. The true story is as follows:
Richard Deighton, a government interpreter, discovered a letter written by Te Rauparaha calling on the disaffected Upper Wanganui and inland tribes to join with chiefs Mamaku and Rangihaeta to raid Hutt Valley frontier posts. Deighton took the letter to Governor Grey in Wellington and it was decided to arrest Te Rauparaha for treason (plotting rebellion). This is not “kidnapping”. Thomas Lambert, author of “Pioneering Reminiscences of Old Wairoa” (New Plymouth, 1936) wrote on Page 293 of his book that, had Deighton not alerted Grey to Te Rauparaha’s intentions, the forces of Te Rauparaha, Rangihaeata, Mamaku and Maketu could have united to massacre occupants of the fledgling colony of Wellington and the Hutt Valley.
Furthermore, to describe Te Rauparaha merely as “the elderly Ngati Toa rangatira” is to tell only a fraction of the story for this “rangatira” was the most notorious cannibal in pre-1840 New Zealand.
On Page 16 O’Malley writes “Iwi such as Ngai Tahu were rendered virtually landless”. If that were true, then it would be by their own actions. By 1840 this group of a mere 2,000 people had sold two thirds of the four fifths of the South Island which was nominally theirs. However, most of these sales were overturned by Hobson’s Land Commission which looked into pre-1840 sales to see that they were fair. The tribe did not return the purchase price to the original buyers.
The chiefs then later sold their land again to the government in ten sales covering 37.366 million acres. The Kaiapoi natives thanked Governor Grey for the “fair payment” that they had received. (“One Treaty, One Nation, Wellington, 2015, Page 226) The 1896 census showed that Ngai Tahu were cultivating only 857.5 acres of their 45,000 acres – less than 2%. (Ibid, P. 231) Thus they were not using even the land that remained to them.
On Page 18 O’Malley makes the utterly false statement that the Maoris “had been explicitly promised the right to manage their own lands and affairs in the Treaty of Waitangi”. This was not explicitly promised and anyway it would be in violation of Article 1 of the Treaty which ceded sovereignty to the British Crown.
On Page 21 O’Malley writes, “Grey claimed he had been left with no choice but to launch such an invasion (that word again!), pointing to supposed evidence of an imminent Kingitanga attack on Auckland. Historians have been highly dismissive of these claims.” Not true.
The leading historian of the Maori wars, James Cowan, wrote in Volume I of his “The New Zealand Wars” that the half-caste government interpreter, James Fulloon, reported to the Government that the Kingite rebels planned to “execute a grand coup by attacking Auckland by night-time or early in the morning. The Hunua bush was to be the rendezvous of the main body, and a portion of the Kingite army was to cross the Manukau in canoes and approach Auckland by way of the Whau, on the west, while the Ngati-Paoa and other Hauraki coast tribes were to gather at Taupo, on the shore east of the Wairoa.
The date fixed for the attack was 1st September, 1861, when the town of Auckland was to be set on fire in various places by natives living there for that purpose; in the confusion the war-parties lying in wait were to rush into the capital by land and sea. Certain houses and persons were to be saved; th(os)e dwellings would be recognised by a white cross marked on the doors on the night for which the attack was fixed. With the exception of those selected in this latter-day Passover, the citizens of Auckland were to be slaughtered.” (pages 239-40)
Also on Page 21 Rewi Maniapoto is introduced as “a senior Ngati Maniapoto rangatira” What is missing is Rewi’s part in joining the 1860 rebellion in Taranaki against the wishes of the first Maori “king”, Te Wherowhero and the role of Ngati Maniapoto in driving the British out of the Waikato in 1863 against the wishes of Te Wherowhero’s successor, Tawhiao.
On Page 23 O’Malley continues his mischief by stating that at Rangiaowhia there occurred “the deliberate torching of a whare whose inhabitants were killed in the blaze”. The evidence for the burning of this whare is most uncertain and it appears that it accidentally caught on fore from another burning structure. The occupation of Rangiaowhia was for the purpose of capturing the rebels’ food supply, thus avoiding a direct attack on their fort at Paterangi which would have caused many deaths on both sides.
However, at one whare Sergeant McHale was shot dead at point blank range when he invited the inhabitants to surrender. Apart from the deaths of two Maoris, all subsequent deaths at Rangiaowhia arose from this shooting of McHale. In the words of Captain Wilson, who, unlike O’Malley, was present at the scene, “Our man (Sergeant McHale) was dead inside the hut [killed by a Maori] before the attack commenced” (One Who Was There, Brett’s Historical Series, from P. 3 of New Zealand – the Fair Colony, by Bruce Moon, P. 3)
Further down Page 23 O’Malley tries to establish that a large proportion of those killed in the battle of Orakau, which effectively ended the Kingite rebellion in the Waikato, were non-combatants (women and children). If they were “non-combatants”, what on earth were they doing in a fighting pa that had been specially constructed for making a last-ditch stand against very superior forces?
On Page 24 O’Malley describes the Pai Marire (Hau Hau) movement as “good and peaceful” when, in fact, it was a terrorist movement that carried out random murders and beheadings of such grotesqueness that other tribes quickly came round to fight on the side of the Crown in order to defeat these barbarous savages. The Pai Marire people beheaded Captain Lloyd and carried his head around the country, claiming that it could talk, and they murdered Rev. Volkner at his church at Opotiki on 2nd March, 1865, stripping him, hanging him and then spreading his corpse out on the ground and chopping off his head. “The natives then formed themselves into a line and prepared to taste the blood as it ran out of the head and body,” wrote Captain Levy of the “Eclipse” who was present. (GB Parliamentary Papers 1866 (3601) Colonial Secretary’s Office, Wellington, 21 March, 1865)
In the words of historian, James Cowan, this scene of horror “was of a character revolting beyond measure. It was as if a devil had entered into the people. Assuredly there was a demon before them in human form, at once terrifying and fascinating them by his sheer savagery. Kereopa, dressed in his victim’s long, black coat, stood in Volkner’s pulpit and placed the dripping head on the reading-desk in front of him; by its side he set the communion cup of blood….Gripping the head, he gouged out both eyes…he swallowed them one after the other. …Then the cannibal priest took up the communion chalice and drank its contents. He passed it to one of his flock, who put it to his lips and took a sip, and then it was passed from hand to hand among the congregation.” (The New Zealand Wars, Vol. II, Page76) To describe this violent and bloodthirsty movement as “good and peaceful” is deceitful on O’Malley’s part and suggests that he is unable to distinguish between right and wrong – a serious problem for a so-called “historian”.
Also on Page 24 in the last paragraph O’Malley states that over 3 million acres were confiscated under the New Zealand Settlements Act. What he fails to mention is that the government gave back to the tribes around half of the confiscated land, making an eventual confiscation of 1,610,618 acres. In failing to point this out O’Malley is guilty of either deception or shoddy research.
On Page 26 O’Malley writes “But a stumbling block remained the Crown’s unwillingness or inability to return the confiscated lands in full, rather than the small fraction of them that formed part of Grey’s offer.” The key issue was not land but sovereignty – whether a separate state should exist within a newly united nation. That was why the chiefs signed to Treaty of Waitangi – to obtain a single sovereignty over and above the ever squabbling and fighting tribes. Sovereignty had to be settled before confiscated lands could be handed back and this Tawhiao, the second Maori “king”, always refused, thus preventing the return of lands to the Waikato tribes. O’Malley ignores this key issue. This distorted story of the events leading up to the fighting, being the rebellion of some Maoris only, has become common in recent historical commentary. The false insistence that there was no rebellion flavours the whole narrative.
Many Waikato Maori refused a “king” and several great meetings in 1857 and 1858 failed to reach a consensus. Furthermore a majority of Maori across the country supported the peace and opposed the king movement. At the Kohimarama conference in 1860, the largest gathering of chiefs in New Zealand history, the more than 100 chiefs present unanimously affirmed their loyalty to Queen Victoria, their Sovereign.
Page 33 of this increasingly unreliable Report states further misinformation re Rangiaowhia that women, children and elderly men were sent there “as a place of safety and sanctuary for non-combatants”. Oh, really? Then why did the troops find “substantial quantities of arms” (NZ – the Fair Colony, Page 31) when they later searched the whares? In the words of Bruce Moon in his book, New Zealand – the Fair Colony (P. 24) “Far from being the haven of peace which these people [e.g. O’Malley] would have us believe, Rangiaowhia was the principal source of food for the rebels in their strong fort at Paterangi and therefore fully involved in the rebellion.”
O’Malley ends Page 33 by throwing in something that is in violation of all the historical records of the time; “And other unconfirmed estimates put the death toll at more than 100”. His reference for this? His own book. Nothing more. This appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking on his part and has no place in any half credible historical report that is being paid for partly by the ratepayers of Hamilton. It is at variance with all reports by all sides at the time – military, newspaper correspondents, missionaries, etc.
On Page 35 O’Malley returns to the battle of Orakau and calls this purpose built fighting pa a “sanctuary”.
At the top of Page 45 the Report gives a laudatory description of the village of Parihaka. However, another report (from the Taranaki Herald, 12 September, 1881) stated “The natives of Parihaka are in a deplorable state…..They are fearfully affected with vermin, which has been induced by the crowded state of the whares and the want of cleanliness. Parihaka is absolutely filthy for want of sanitary precautions”.
On this same page the Report again enters into the territory of speculation (as opposed to history) when it states that “Oral histories also record that multiple women were raped” [at Parihaka]. These unfounded allegations (and that is all they were) first appeared during the hearings of the 1927 Sim Commission, which looked into the Parihaka incident – 46 years after the event. The two who made the allegations were Te Whiti’s son, Noho Mairangi Te Whiti, who was only fourteen at the time of the Parihaka incident, plus a certain Rangi Matatoro Watene. They referred to the alleged perpetrators as “the soldiers” (no names, rank or further description) and were unable to state the number of alleged victims, their names, their ages, the dates on which the supposed acts occurred, the location(s), or the number of such offences.
In June, 2017, 136 years after the event, the Minister of Treaty Settlements, Christopher Finlayson, resurrected this unproven and unlikely allegation and used :”rapes committed by Crown troops” as a ground for paying $9 million to the descendants of the people of Parihaka. A concerned taxpayer, Mike Butler, sent Finlayson a request under the Official Information Act asking:
date(s) on which the alleged offences occurred
the specific location(s) where the alleged offences occurred – at Parihaka or elsewhere?
the number of such offences
names and descriptions of the alleged offenders
names and numbers of the alleged victims
ages of the alleged victims
the date(s) when the alleged offences were first reported.
Finlayson failed to answer any of these questions. There were reporters from the newspapers at Parihaka when the occupation occurred, there were strict orders to the soldiers not to consort with the inhabitants, and no such allegations were made at the time. Therefore, unproven rape allegations against both the weight of evidence and the traditions of the armed forces can best be regarded as untrue. So why did O’Malley include this in his Report? It seems to be nothing more than a further indication of his bias against British and colonial troops of the nineteenth century.
The smell of bias continues further down page 45 when the Report talks of Te Whiti and Tohu being “imprisoned without trial”. Technically correct but nevertheless misleading. On Page 124 of his book, Kinds of Peace; the Maori People After the Wars, 1870-85, Professor Keith Sinclair wrote of Te Whiti and Tohu’s confinement in the South Island as “being treated as gentlemen and not as convicts” while the New Zealand Mail wrote on 24 March, 1883, “Te Whiti states that he has no cause to complain of the treatment he received when he was in the South Island but on the contrary he was very hospitably entertained. He certainly does not look upon his forced residence in Nelson as an imprisonment or even as a banishment.”
In conclusion one has to wonder at the point of this Report. It seems to be part of an undemocratic process to impose on the people of Hamilton certain name changes that appear to have no other purpose than to further advance the domination of the area by the tribal elite of Tainui, a relatively small tribal grouping that represents a small percentage of the people of Hamilton. And not even all of these would support a name change as many part-Maoris seem to want to just get on with their lives like other New Zealanders and not to be tools of the tribal elite. To change the name of a major city, built largely by the sweat, toil and initiative of non-Maoris, as well as three of its main streets is a serious matter and SHOULD ONLY BE DONE BY REFERENDUM OF THE PEOPLE OF HAMILTON.
Why should Hamiltonians have the name of their city taken away from them by a passing council after several generations of building Hamilton into what it is to-day? This biased report by a biased historian is not an appropriate tool for anyone to use in trying to reach a decision re the name of Hamilton; it appears to be part of some underhand and undemocratic process for changing the name of the city and some of its streets by going behind the backs of the people of Hamilton.
The O’Malley Report.
Historical Report on Hamilton Street
and City Names
Dr Vincent O’Malley
Table of Contents
John Fane Charles Hamilton (1820-1864)……………………………………………………..4
Origins of the Name………………………………………………………………………………4
Biographical Information ………………………………………………………………………..5
Sir George Grey (1812-1898)…………………………………………………………………… 11
Origins of the Name……………………………………………………………………………. 11
Biographical Information ……………………………………………………………………… 11
Gustavus Ferdinand von Tempsky (1828-1868) …………………………………………… 28
Origins of the Name……………………………………………………………………………. 28
Biographical Information ……………………………………………………………………… 28
John Bryce (1833-1913)…………………………………………………………………………. 39
Origins of the Name……………………………………………………………………………. 39
Biographical Information ……………………………………………………………………… 39
This historical report has been commissioned by Hamilton City Council, in association
with Waikato Tainui, to assist the Mayor and council members to consider proposals
with regard to the renaming of Hamilton to Kirikiriroa and for Von Tempsky, Bryce and
Grey streets to also be renamed.
It does not discuss these proposals or take any view on the merits of them but instead
briefly examines the historical evidence concerning the naming of these streets and
the settlement, before providing historical portraits of the individuals after whom these
streets (and the city of Hamilton) are named, i.e. Gustavus Ferdinand von Tempsky,
John Bryce, Sir George Grey, and Captain John Fane Charles Hamilton.
These portraits draw upon a range of historical sources, primary and secondary,
including where available existing biographical information about the lives of these
individuals. It is not intended to provide an exhaustive account of their life stories. In
the case of George Grey, for example, multiple full-length biographies, each running
to hundreds of pages, have been published and his life and career extended over
multiple countries and continents. By contrast, John Fane Charles Hamilton was a
relatively minor historical figure and there remain gaps in what is known about his
story, even after locating his naval service records in Britain’s National Archives.
For the purposes of this report, connections with Hamilton and the broader Waikato
region are highlighted where possible, but not exclusively. Captain Hamilton famously
never visited the settlement that would come to be named after him, while John Bryce
was best known for his actions elsewhere. As governor, Grey ordered the invasion of
Waikato in 1863. But his life story is much bigger than that, as is that of von Tempsky,
one of the colonial soldiers who took part in the invasion.
John Fane Charles Hamilton (1820-1864)
Origins of the Name
The military settlement of Hamilton, established in August 1864 on the site of a Māori
kainga known as Kirikiriroa, was named in honour of Captain John Fane Charles
Hamilton, recently killed during the battle of Pukehinahina (Gate Pā) on 29 April of
that year. Evidence for this naming comes from an 1870 farewell dinner to LieutenantColonel William Moule, commander of the 4th Waikato Regiment at the time the new
settlement was established. Responding to a toast in his honour, Moule told the
it is now more than six years since he cleared a spot ‘mid the brown fern at
Kirikiriroa, upon which to pitch his tent. He had the honor of naming the
settlement after the late Captain Hamilton, of H.M.S. Esk, who died while
gallantly fighting for his country and the colonists of New Zealand, at the Gate
Moule’s statement was highlighted decades later, when claims were put forth that the
settlement had been named after Colonel Hamilton of the 12th Regiment (East
Suffolks).2 Historian P.J. Gibbon’s statement that Moule ‘[c]onsciously or
unconsciously’ must also have had in mind other Hamiltons is impossible to verify.3
What we do know is that Moule himself clearly stated that he had named the
settlement after Captain Hamilton and that other evidence confirms this fact.
1 New Zealand Herald, 15 April 1870, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18700415.2.30
2 Waikato Times, 24 July 1923, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WT19230724.2.89
3 P.J. Gibbons, Astride the River: A History of Hamilton, Hamilton: Hamilton City Council, 1977, p.35.
4 Waikato Times, 2 June 1922, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WT19220602.2.72.1
John Fane Charles Hamilton was born in Hildersham, Cambridgeshire, on 28
September 1820.5 His father was Colonel John Potter Hamilton and his mother
Charlotte Hamilton (nee Fane), the daughter of a long serving Oxford MP.6
John joined the navy at the age of 14 in August 1835. He saw active service in the
First Opium War (also known as the Anglo-Chinese War) of 1839-42, a series of
military engagements intended to force China to allow the importation of opium in
payment for tea and other Chinese goods exported to Britain. The war ended with the
signing of the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, the first of what are known as the Unequal
Treaties, which opened China up to further British trade and influence. Hamilton was
present at and took part in a number of actions during the war prior to the signing of
After serving for a time in the Lisbon and Portsmouth naval stations, in 1844 Hamilton
was promoted to the rank of lieutenant and posted to the South American station.8
However, he was court martialled for disobedience and contempt of orders in 1846
while serving on the sloop HMS Racer, and not restored to original seniority until
1848.9 The circumstances behind this court martial are not clear.
Between 1848 and 1851 he served on HMS Prince Regent, and between 1851 and
1854 on HMS Bellerophon. In 1854 he was further promoted to commander and took
part in the Crimean War of 1853-56 on HMS Leander.
‘John Fane Charles Hamilton (1820-1864)’, Tauranga Memories: Battles of Gate Pa and Te Ranga (1864),
‘A Naval Biographical Dictionary: Hamilton, John Fane Charles’,
‘A Naval Biographical Dictionary: Hamilton, John Fane Charles’,
8 Daily Southern Cross, 3 May 1864, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DSC18640503.2.12
9 Admiralty: Officers’ Service Records: Hamilton, John F C, Captain, ADM 1961/543, National Archives,
10 Admiralty: Officers’ Service Records: Hamilton, John F C, Captain, ADM 1961/543, National Archives,
London; Admiralty: Officers’ Service Records: Hamilton, John F C, Captain, ADM 196/36/1422, National
In 1855 Hamilton married Laura Parry in Bicester, Oxfordshire. They had three
In 1856 Hamilton became commander of HMS Elk, which served at the East Indies
and China station, taking part in the Second Opium War against China (1856-60). In
December 1857 HMS Elk took part in the capture of Canton. In 1858 HMS Elk was
relocated to the Australia station.12 Hamilton was promoted to captain in February
1858 following his recent services in China and left the vessel at this time.
his movements between 1858 and 1863 are unclear, he probably returned to England.
On 22 May 1863 Hamilton was appointed captain of HMS Esk.
14 HMS Esk sailed from
Portsmouth on 20 May 1863 and docked in Auckland on 4 November 1863.15 Between
the ship’s departure from England and its arrival in New Zealand, war had broken out
when Crown forces, led by Lieutenant-General Duncan Cameron, the commander of
British forces in New Zealand, crossed the Mangatāwhiri River on 12 July 1863,
commencing the invasion of Waikato.
HMS Esk joined a Squadron of Royal Navy vessels deployed to New Zealand and was
soon after its arrival deployed as part of the Thames Expedition under Colonel George
Carey, the expeditionary force consisting of 44 officers, 922 men and other vessels,
including HMS Miranda, and the Sandfly.
16 Carey had received orders to construct a
line of fortifications between Hauraki and Waikato and sailed from Auckland on 16
November 1863. The expedition reached the Firth of Thames just under a week later
and commenced constructing a series of redoubts.17
11 11 ‘John Fane Charles Hamilton (1820-1864)’, Tauranga Memories: Battles of Gate Pa and Te Ranga (1864),
12 ‘Naval Database’, http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/18-1900/E/01585.html
13 Daily Southern Cross, 10 November 1863,
14 Admiralty: Officers’ Service Records: Hamilton, John F C, Captain, ADM 1961/543, National Archives,
15 Gerald J. Elliot, ‘The Royal Navy in New Zealand: HMS Esk, 1863-1866’, http://ellottpostalhistorian.com/articles/HMS-ESK-In-NZ.pdf
16 Gerald J. Elliot, ‘The Royal Navy in New Zealand: HMS Esk, 1863-1866’, http://ellottpostalhistorian.com/articles/HMS-ESK-In-NZ.pdf
17 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
However, HMS Esk returned to Auckland on 25 November and on 8 December
Hamilton and a number of other officers and men left the vessel in order to participate
as naval brigade in the Waikato Flotilla, a naval force that took part in the Waikato
War and had recently (20-21 November 1863) played a prominent role in the attack
on Rangiriri.18 During his time in Auckland Hamilton attended the military funerals of
a number of officers killed in the Rangiriri action.19
Hamilton probably took part in the occupation of Ngāruawāhia soon after this, a royal
salute in recognition of the Queen’s flag flying over the settlement being performed
on 9 December 1863, before re-joining HMS Esk early in January 1864 (although his
service records do not describe his movements in any detail at this time).
newspaper report noted that a naval brigade led by Captain Hamilton had reached the
military camp at Drury on 8 December, marching that same day from Auckland. They
were to travel on to the Mangatāwhiri River the next day before shipping on the
colonial vessels the Pioneer and Avon for service in the Waikato.21 Waikato Māori had
been informed that Governor George Grey would come and talk peace terms with
them only after British troops were allowed to enter Ngāruawāhia unopposed and fly
the Union Jack there. These terms were complied with in full, Kīngitanga supporters
abandoning their settlement and taking down the Māori King’s flag. But Grey never
came to talk peace.22
A report late in January 1864 recorded that HMS Esk under Captain Hamilton was
about to set out for Tauranga from Auckland.
23 Instead, it travelled to the Firth of
Thames. By February 1864 Hamilton was described in HMS Esk’s log as taking an
18 ‘The Royal Navy in the Waikato Campaign 1863’, National Museum of the Royal New Zealand Navy,
19 Daily Southern Cross, 30 November 1863,
20 Gerald J. Elliot, ‘The Royal Navy in New Zealand: HMS Esk, 1863-1866’, http://ellottpostalhistorian.com/articles/HMS-ESK-In-NZ.pdf
21 New Zealand Herald, 9 December 1863,
22 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
23 New Zealand Herald, 27 January 1864,
active part in Hauraki operations.24 Since the construction of the various forts in
December, a naval blockade had been imposed over the Hauraki district and Hamilton
was reported in April 1864 to have confiscated Māori goods for trade from one vessel
found to be carrying items worth more than the £100 maximum value that had been
stipulated.25 In the same month large numbers of Hauraki Māori agreed to take an
oath of allegiance to the Crown, citing the ‘uncompromising nature of the blockade’
against them as a factor in their decision.26
Back in Auckland, on 20 April 1864 HMS Esk and Captain Hamilton welcomed on board
a special passenger, Lieutenant-General Duncan Cameron. They sailed the same day,
reaching their destination at Tauranga the following day. In January 1864 Carey and
600 men had been landed at Tauranga, taking possession of the Te Papa peninsula
with the intention of cutting off a supply route for Kīngitanga fighters in the Waikato.27
Some Tauranga Māori began constructing pā in anticipation of an impending clash
with Crown forces in their area, convinced that the landing of Carey’s men signalled
hostile intentions. The arrival of Cameron, who took charge of a force of 1650 men,
moved matters closer to open conflict.
In this context, Tauranga Māori had begun fortifying a ridge about five kilometres
inland from the Te Papa mission station that Cameron and his officers had
commandeered as their headquarters. On 27 April 1864 Cameron reconnoitred the
position, known as Gate Pa (Pukehinahina) from a position about 1200 yards away.
He was unimpressed by what he saw and gave orders to direct a massive artillery
barrage against the pā from first light on 29 April 1864.28 With little sign of activity
from inside the pā, and convinced all inside might well be dead, by late afternoon that
same day he sent forth a storming party consisting of 150 soldiers from the 43rd
24 Gerald J. Elliot, ‘The Royal Navy in New Zealand: HMS Esk, 1863-1866’,
25 Daily Southern Cross, 20 April 1864,
26 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
27 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
28 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
Regiment and 150 sailors and marines from the Naval Brigade. Another 300-strong
party, consisting of members of the 43rd Regiment and Naval Brigade, including
Captain Hamilton, were to act as a reserve.
The British entered the pā with ease, encountering minimal resistance. Suddenly, a
tremendous but invisible fire was let loose upon them. The Gate Pā defenders were
firing from concealed positions beneath the feet of the storming party, inflicting
significant casualties. Panicked survivors turned and attempted to flee but were soon
mixed up with further reinforcements sent forward by Cameron. Matters quickly
became chaotic. In all, over one-third of the storming party ended up as casualties,
31 killed (10 of them officers) and 80 wounded. Māori losses are harder to gauge but
might have been between 19 and 32 killed and 25 wounded.30
Among the dead was Captain John Hamilton. A report published a few days later
described the circumstances of his death:
The General, who was in the advanced trench of his position, ordered up the
supports almost immediately after the storming party rushed the breach; and
the second division of blue-jackets and the gallant 43rd, led by Captain
Hamilton, of the ‘Esk’, advanced with a ringing cheer to the support of the
forlorn hope. They arrived at a critical moment; the storming party exposed to
a murderous fire on all sides, and from hidden assailants beneath, and without
an officer left to lead them, were wavering; part were outside the pa. Captain
Hamilton sprung upon the parapet, and shouting ‘follow me, men!’ dashed into
the fight. The moment was his last. He fell dead, pierced through the brain by
a bullet, and many of his officers shared the same fate.31
29 Buddy Mikaere and Cliff Simons, Victory at Gate Pā? The Battle of Pukehinahina-Gate Pa 1864, Auckland:
New Holland, 2018, p.100.
30 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
31 Daily Southern Cross, 3 May 1864,
Hamilton was subsequently buried at the Mission Cemetery in Tauranga. The final
entry in his naval service record notes that he was ‘killed after great heroism and
Captain John Hamilton is a minor figure in New Zealand history – to the extent that
he does not appear in either major New Zealand biographical dictionary (one edited
by G.H. Scholefield in 1940 and another multi-volume work published in the 1990s)
and he is chiefly remembered today for the city named after him. He was one of more
than 18,000 British officers and men who served in the New Zealand Wars of 1845-
72, actions that are no long widely seen in the straightforwardly heroic terms they
once were among some groups.
32 Admiralty: Officers’ Service Records: Hamilton, John F C, Captain, ADM 196/36/1422, National Archives,
Sir George Grey (1812-1898)
Origins of the Name
Grey Street, located in Hamilton East, was named in 1895 after former New Zealand
governor and politician Sir George Grey.33 It originally referred to the southern end of
the main street in Hamilton East, with the remainder, including what is now the main
commercial area, known as Heaphy Terrace.34 In 1910 both were named Grey Street,
with Heaphy Terrace confined to the area north of the railway line.35
George Grey was born in Lisbon, Portugal on 14 April 1812. His father, LieutenantColonel George Grey, had been killed in battle against Napoleon’s forces just eight
days earlier and it was said that overhearing news of his death had shocked his AngloIrish mother, Elizabeth Ann Vignoles, into premature labour.36 The young George
received his education in England and at the age of 14 enrolled as an officer cadet at
Sandhurst military college.37 Upon graduating in 1830, he was commissioned as an
ensign in the 83rd Regiment of Foot, serving for six years in Ireland.38
Grey returned to Sandhurst for further training and was promoted to lieutenant. But
conditions in Ireland appalled him and army life did not appeal. He proposed an
expedition to Western Australian in 1836, travelling there twice between 1837 and
33 ‘Kete Hamilton: Hamilton Streets: Grey Street’,
34 P.J. Gibbons, Astride the River: A History of Hamilton, Hamilton: Hamilton City Council, 1977, p.348.
35 ‘Kete Hamilton: Hamilton Streets: Grey Street’,
36 J. Rutherford, Sir George Grey, K.C. B., 1812-1898: A Study in Colonial Government, London: Cassell, 1961,
37 Edmund Bohan, To Be a Hero: A Biography of Sir George Grey, AucklandL HarperCollins, 1998, p.18.
38 Keith Sinclair, ‘Grey, George’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1990. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1g21/grey-george
1839. The expeditions were poorly planned and achieved little. During the first
expedition, Grey was speared by an Indigenous Australian, who he shot and killed.
In 1839 he was appointed as the temporary Resident Magistrate at Albany, in Western
Australia. He married Eliza Lucy Spencer in the same year. She was 16 years old and
more than 10 years younger than George at the time of their marriage.40 Their sole
child, a son born in 1841, died in infancy.41 George was said to have blamed Eliza and
the pair grew more distant.42
Grey forged his reputation as a dynamic and progressive young administrator with an
1840 memorandum for the British Colonial Office concerning the amalgamation of
indigenous peoples into settler society through education and the rapid extension of
the rule of law into their communities.
43 He returned to England in the same year but
was soon offered the governorship of South Australia, resigning from the army in order
to take up the post the following year. The South Australian colony was struggling
financially and Grey oversaw sweeping cuts in public expenditure. He became deeply
unpopular as the results of these retrenchments began to be felt, but by the end of
his governorship in 1845 South Australia was in a more prosperous situation. However,
his efforts to prevent settler attacks on indigenous communities, and to promote his
assimilationist policies, met with limited success.44
In 1845 Grey was appointed governor of New Zealand, arriving in Auckland in
November of that year to take up the position. At the time of his arrival, the colony
was in a state of financial crisis, war had broken out in the north of the country and
unresolved tensions in central New Zealand stemming from disputes over New Zealand
Company land purchases were threatening to also spill over into open conflict. Grey
39 J. Rutherford, Sir George Grey, K.C. B., 1812-1898: A Study in Colonial Government, London: Cassell, 1961,
40 Edmund Bohan, To Be A Hero: A Biography of Sir George Grey, Auckland: HarperCollins, 1998, p.42.
41 Keith Sinclair, ‘Grey, George’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1990. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1g21/grey-george
42 James Belich, ‘Sir George Grey’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
43 Enclosure in Grey to Lord John Russell, 4 June 1840, Great Britain Parliamentary Papers, 1841 (311), p.44.
44 Keith Sinclair, ‘Grey, George’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1990. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1g21/grey-george
was provided with substantially more military and financial resources than his
predecessor, Robert FitzRoy, and immediately set out to impose Crown authority over
The new governor’s first objective was to bring the Northern War to a rapid and
decisive end. To this end, the rangatira Hone Heke and Kawiti were given just five
days to comply with a Crown ultimatum previously issued by his predecessor or suffer
the consequences. Following expiry of the deadline on 5 December 1845, Grey issued
orders for Kawiti’s new pā at Ruapekapeka to be attacked and its defenders crushed.46
The subsequent attack on Ruapekapeka in January 1846, for which Grey was
personally present, claimed the lives of 12 British soldiers and sailors and an unknown
but probably greater number of Māori defenders.47 Only a small number of Māori had
been inside the pā at the time of its capture, but Grey nevertheless proclaimed the
battle as a ‘brilliant success’ that had resulted in ‘severe defeat and punishment’ for
Kawiti’s forces.48 The Northern War and its aftermath would have severe
consequences for Ngāpuhi, whose previous trade and commerce was badly damaged
and never returned to pre-war levels.49
Grey next turned his attention to central New Zealand. There, at Wairau in June 1843,
Ngāti Toa rangatira Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata had sought to resist the illegal
survey and occupation by the New Zealand Company of lands to which Māori laid
claim. The resulting clash left 22 Pākehā and 4 Māori dead. Following the incident,
incoming governor, Robert FitzRoy, concluded after investigation that the settlers had
been responsible for what happened, as a result of their efforts to claim lands to which
45 Keith Sinclair, ‘Grey, George’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1990. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1g21/grey-george
46 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aoteaoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
47 ‘The Northern War – Ruapekapeka’, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/northern-war/ruapekapeka
48 Vincent O’Malley, ‘“The Natives Here Rule” – Northland After 1846’, in Brad Patterson, Richard S. Hill and
Kathryn Patterson (eds), After the Treaty: The Settler State, Race Relations and the Exercise of Power in Colonial
New Zealand, Wellington: Steele Roberts, 2016, p.205.
49 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aoteaoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
they had no legal title.50 Grey, though, later reversed this finding, at the same time
vowing to impose Crown authority over the Cook Strait region.51
In the Wellington region, a similar scenario was unfolding, with the Company claiming
lands in the Hutt Valley that their Māori owners and occupiers insisted had never been
sold. Grey arrived in Wellington in February 1846 and ordered troops to take
possession of the disputed area. Māori offered to leave provided they received
compensation for their property. Grey refused to negotiate, instead declaring martial
law over the Wellington region on 3 March.52 Fighting followed at Boulcott’s Farm on
16 May 1846 and at Battle Hill (Horokiri) between 6-13 August. But Te Rangihaeata
evaded capture, eventually making his way to the Manawatū.
Meanwhile, Te Rauparaha, who had taken no part in the fighting, was accused by
Grey of secretly aiding his kin. In June 1846 Grey captured and kidnapped the elderly
Ngāti Toa rangatira, taking him to Auckland and holding him without trial until Te
Rauparaha was eventually permitted to return home in 1848. Grey’s actions, intended
to eliminate or neutralise perceived threats to his own authority in the Cook Strait
region, were widely applauded by settlers. But his actions against one of the most
senior rangatira in the land shocked many Māori. Exploiting Te Rauparaha’s absence,
in 1847 Grey pushed through the purchase of lands at Wairau and Porirua, demanding
these in part as utu for the Pākehā slain at Wairau in 1843.53
Grey revealed a ruthless streak in other ways during the Wellington campaign. A group
of Whanganui Māori captured at Pāuatahanui in August 1846 were transported to Van
Diemen’s Land (Tasmania), where one of their number, Hohepa Te Umuroa,
contracted tuberculosis and died in captivity in July 1847. Another man, Te Whareaitu,
was hanged for ‘rebellion’ at Paremata barracks in September 1846. There was no
50 Minutes of the Proceedings at Waikanae, 12 February 1844, GBPP, 1845 (131), p.32.
51 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Maui: Report on Northern South Island Claims, Wellington:
Legislation Direct, 2008, vol. 1, chapter 5.
52 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aoteaoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
53 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Maui: Report on Northern South Island Claims, Wellington:
Legislation Direct, 2008, vol. 1, chapter 5.
evidence he had killed anyone but Grey was determined to stamp his authority by
making an example of the unfortunate Te Whareaitu.54
Many of the Māori who had taken up arms against the Crown at Wellington came from
Whanganui, and in July 1846 Grey extended martial law over the district, presaging
the spread of fighting to the region. Troops were stationed at Whanganui in December
and the following April a young naval officer accidentally shot and wounded a local
rangatira. In response, a group of young Māori males attacked and killed several
members of a settler family chosen at random. Five of the six perpetrators of this act
(all aged between 12 and 18) were quickly captured, and all but the youngest executed
soon after. Crown forces clashed with Whanganui Māori at St John’s Wood in July
1847, and some other skirmishing took place, but the fighting soon ended.55
A long period of peace and prosperity followed, not just at Whanganui, but across the
country. It was aided in large part by Grey’s efforts to cultivate relationships with
important rangatira and their communities – what critics dubbed his ‘flour and sugar’
policy – that involved annuities to prominent chiefs, the construction of schools and
hospitals (open to all but specifically targeted at Māori), loans to Māori for the
purchase of flour mills, agricultural equipment and other items.56
Grey also refused to implement instructions received from the British government that
effectively required him to confiscate all areas deemed to be ‘wastelands’ owned by
Māori. Any attempt to implement such a policy would be fiercely resisted, Grey warned
the Colonial Office, whereas many Māori communities would ‘cheerfully’ agree to sell
any lands not required for their own subsistence at ‘trifling’ prices provided the Crown
monopoly on land purchases was strictly enforced. They would do so, Grey explained,
convinced that the ‘real payment’ for their lands came through all of the benefits they
received from entering into such a deal: the enhanced value of their reserves and new
54 Ian Wards, The Shadow of the Land: A Study of British Policy and Racial Conflict in New Zealand, 1832-1852,
Wellington: Government Printer, 1968, pp.296-297.
55 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aoteaoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
56 Alan Ward, A Show of Justice: Racial ‘Amalgamation’ in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, Auckland:
Auckland University Press/Oxford Univeristy Press, 1974, pp.86-87.
markets for their produce because of the influx of settlers; the provision of
infrastructure such as roads; and more specific benefits such as schools and hospitals
that were regularly promised as part of Crown negotiations.57
These policies heralded the start of a period of large-scale Crown purchasing that saw
more than 99% of the South Island and around 20% of the North Island acquired by
1865, typically at a fraction of the price at which these lands were then resold to
Pākehā and often with only the barest of reserves.58 Iwi such as Ngāi Tahu were
rendered virtually landless as settlers took up occupation of the purchased lands and
the promised ‘real payment’ failed to materialise. They and other iwi would spend the
next 150 years seeking redress for the very real harm incurred by their people as a
result of the Crown’s failure to uphold its end of the bargain.
Grey departed New Zealand at the end of 1853 with the colony’s finances back in the
black and peace restored across the country. In Britain, he had developed a reputation
as a progressive, dynamic and humanitarian young colonial administrator. But
problems loomed on the horizon. Pākehā had lobbied strongly for self-government –
the right to manage their own affairs – and in 1846 the British Parliament passed a
new constitution that provided for an elected House of Representatives in New
Zealand. But because the right to vote was based on an English-language literacy test
at a time when most Māori could read and write only in their own language, the effect
of the new constitution was to deny all but a very small number of Māori men the
right to participate in this new forum. Grey warned that any attempt to impose this
new constitution over the colony would be resisted ‘to the utmost’ by Māori and
successfully argued for the measure to be shelved.60
57 Grey to Earl Grey, 15 May 1848, GBPP, 1849 , pp.22-26; Vincent O’Malley, Beyond the Imperial
Frontier: The Contest for Colonial New Zealand, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, 2014, p.51.
58 Vincent O’Malley, Beyond the Imperial Frontier: The Contest for Colonial New Zealand, Wellington: Bridget
Williams Books, 2014, pp.51-52.
59 Waitangi Tribunal, The Ngai Tahu Report 1991, 3 vols, Wellington: Brooker & Friend, 1991.
60 Grey to Earl Grey, 3 May 1847, GBPP, 1847-48 , p.42; Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New
Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, 2016, p.62.
In 1852 the British Parliament passed a further New Zealand Constitution Act providing
for elected general and provincial assemblies. This time there was no English literacy
test. Instead, the right to vote (restricted to men over the age of 21) was based on
property ownership determined according to European forms of land tenure. Since
most Māori held their lands under customary title, the effect was the same: most Māori
men were excluded from participating. A safeguard was included in the new measure
known as section 71. It provided for self-governing ‘native districts’ to be declared
under the mantle of the governor, in effect giving legal status to the existing situation
in many districts outside the European townships, where iwi continued to manage
their own affairs much as they always had.61
The problem was that successive governors, including Grey, refused to implement
section 71, considering (in Grey’s words) that it would be ‘better not to require our
Courts in any way to recognize the barbarous customs of the native race’ and to
instead work towards extending the reach of English laws within Māori districts.62 And
so when the General Assembly met for the first time in Auckland in 1854 it was
composed solely of Pākehā men, and its members had been elected almost entirely
by the same group: when a few dozen Māori managed to meet the property
qualification a few years later, there was an outcry among settlers.63 The new
Parliament became a vocal lobby group for Pākehā interests, and overwhelmingly
hostile towards Māori, at a time when the latter still constituted a majority of the
population (at least until 1858).
Grey had been instructed to stay in New Zealand long enough to oversee the
introduction of the new constitution. But he could see what lay ahead and left before
doing so.64 When he returned more than eight years later, the state of things had
changed considerably. Rangatira who felt keenly their exclusion from the mechanisms
61 Alan Ward, A Show of Justice: Racial ‘Amalgamation’ in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, Auckland:
Auckland University Press/Oxford Univeristy Press, 1974, pp.90-91.
62 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
63 B.J. Dalton, War and Politics in New Zealand, 1855-1870, Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1967, p.80.
64 W.P. Morrell, British Colonial Policy on the Mid-Victorian Age: South Africa, New Zealand, The West Indies,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969, pp.202-203.
of governance established under the 1852 constitution looked to form their own bodies
in an effort to better manage their own affairs but found themselves accused of
defying Queen Victoria’s authority as a result. Given they had been explicitly promised
the right to mange their own lands and affairs in the Treaty of Waitangi, many Māori
found such a response baffling.
Grey had meanwhile been appointed governor of Cape Colony in what is now part of
modern South Africa. There Grey pursued an uncompromising military approach
towards the Xhosa people, backed by land confiscations, a scheme of military
settlements that he later claimed was the basis for the New Zealand Settlements Act,
and various attempts to extend British rule over them. A cattle-killing cult that resulted
in more than 40,000 Xhosa dying of starvation was viewed by Grey as a timely
opportunity to extend his authority over them. But his plan to attract as many as 8000
German military settlers and their families to the region failed disastrously, generating
huge financial losses for the British.65
Meanwhile, Grey kept a keen eye on events in New Zealand, where his successor,
Thomas Gore Browne, had forced through the purchase of lands at Waitara with only
minority support from the owners, precipitating the outbreak of the first Taranaki War
in March 1860. Grey privately condemned the Waitara purchase as unjust and offered
to return to New Zealand to resolve the crisis. Dissatisfied with Browne’s handling of
the situation, the Colonial Office eventually agreed. Grey arrived in Auckland in
September 1861 for his second term as New Zealand governor. One historian has
suggested that Grey was ‘not the best, but the worst possible Governor to have sent
back to New Zealand in 1861’.66 Grey was a natural autocrat, unaccustomed to sharing
power with anyone and matters in New Zealand had changed considerably since his
first governorship ended.
65 Vincent O’Malley, Beyond the Imperial Frontier: The Contest for Colonial New Zealand, Wellington: Bridget
Williams Books, 2014, pp.139-141.
66 Alan Ward, ‘The Origins of the Anglo-Maori Wars: A Reconsideration’, New Zealand Journal of History, 1, 2
For one thing, the Kīngitanga (Māori King movement) had been established, with
Potatau Te Wherowhero raised up as the first king in 1858. Browne viewed the
Kīngitanga as a threat to the Crown’s authority and began preparations to invade its
heartland in the Waikato district in 1861, deeming the assistance large numbers of
Waikato and Ngāti Maniapoto fighters had rendered Te Ātiawa during the first Taranaki
War to be acts of ‘rebellion’.67
It was only news of Browne’s imminent replacement by Grey that saw an invasion of
Waikato timed for September 1861 called off. Grey quickly concluded that ‘no
adequate preparation’ had been made for a military confrontation with the
Kīngitanga.68 One of his earliest decisions was to order the construction of the Great
South Road between Auckland and Waikato. Work on the road began in December
1861 and was completed in March 1863, enabling troops to march overland to
Waikato. At the same time, he successfully lobbied for further military reinforcements
to be sent to New Zealand and oversaw the construction of armed steamers that could
be used to patrol and control the Waikato River.69
Waikato Māori expressed alarm at these developments; but far from offering
reassurance, Grey was threatening and aggressive, telling Waikato Māori in a
December 1861 meeting that the Kīngitanga should be stopped and would be as a
result of his planned scheme of ‘New Institutions’.70 The governor’s planned rūnanga
system was in this way immediately framed as something that had been devised with
a view to undermining the Kīngitanga and that was further reinforced when he later
refused to contemplate proposals that would have allowed the Māori King a role in
approving measures passed by the official rūnanga to be established. Grey’s approach
appeared to confirm the worst fears of Kīngitanga supporters and the rūnanga scheme
67 Vincent O’Malley, Beyond the Imperial Frontier: The Contest for Colonial New Zealand, Wellington: Bridget
Williams Books, 2014, p.112.
68 Grey to Newcastle, 30 November 1861, AJHR, 1862, E-1, Sec.II, pp.33-34.
69 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
70 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
was dismissed as little more than a ruse intended to undermine support for the King
Grey’s marriage was an unhappy one and during a voyage to South Africa in 1860 he
accused Eliza of infidelity. The pair separated and did not see one another again for
decades. By 1862 observers were worried about Grey’s mental and physical health.
The hectoring and aggressive tone of many of his official communications also came
to greatly frustrate the British government, which often found his reports on the state
of affairs in New Zealand contradicted by separate despatches from LieutenantGeneral Duncan Cameron forwarded to the War Office in London.72
Shortly after his arrival in New Zealand in September 1861, Grey privately told his
outgoing predecessor, Thomas Gore Browne, that he wanted ‘an excuse to take the
Waikato’.73 Harriet Browne later wrote of Grey that ‘I heard him with my own ears tell
Col Browne he hoped the natives would not submit as it would be much better for
both races that they should be conquered’.74 Observing the Crown’s military
preparations, some Waikato Māori also became convinced that an invasion was being
In January 1863 Grey made an unscheduled and unannounced visit to the Māori King’s
headquarters at Ngāruawāhia. Grey himself later claimed to have made generous
offers to those assembled that would have secured peace if agreed to, but historians
have noted the absence of any credible evidence to support the governor’s claims.75
Waikato Māori remembered the encounter differently. Grey, it was said, had declared
that he would not fight against the Māori King with the sword, ‘but I shall dig round
71 Alan Ward, A Show of Justice: Racial ‘Amalgamation’ in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, Auckland:
Auckland University Press/Oxford Univeristy Press, 1974, pp.132-133.
72 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
73 John Gorst, The Maori King or The Story of Our Quarrel with the Natives of New Zealand, London: Macmillan,
1864, p.203 [annotated by Thomas Gore Browne], MS-0860, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington; Vincent
O’Malley, Beyond the Imperial Frontier: The Contest for Colonial New Zealand, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 2014, p.116.
74 H.G. Browne to C.W. Richmond, 10 January 1862, in Guy H. Scholefield (ed.), The Richmond-Atkinson
Papers, Wellington: Government Printer, 1960, vol. 1, p.741.
75 Alan Ward, A Show of Justice: Racial ‘Amalgamation’ in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, Auckland:
Auckland University Press/Oxford Univeristy Press, 1974, p.157.
him till he falls of his own accord’.76 That statement was said to have left a profound
impression on the tribes, now aware of the governor’s overriding obsession with
toppling the Māori King.
Fighting resumed in Taranaki in 1863. In April of that year British troops took forcible
possession of lands at Tataraimaka that had been held by Māori as an equivalent for
the disputed Waitara block. Following an investigation, the following month Grey
announced that Waitara would be returned to its customary owners. But in the interim
a party of British troops had been ambushed at Ōakura and nine of their number killed.
Meanwhile, in the Waikato, Civil Commissioner John Gorst had been evicted from his
post at Te Awamutu after a series of inflammatory articles directed against the
Kīngitanga. A planned government courthouse at Te Kohekohe, inside the King’s
boundary, that was secretly intended to double as a military post, was also a flashpoint
At a meeting with ministers on 24 June 1863 Grey formalised plans for an imminent
invasion of Waikato that involved clearing out all ‘hostile Natives’, confiscating their
lands and establishing military posts on them stretching across the island. Any
remaining lands would be sold to defray the costs of the war.78 Grey claimed he had
been left with no choice but to launch such an invasion, pointing to supposed evidence
of an imminent Kīngitanga attack on Auckland. Historians have been highly dismissive
of these claims.79 Rewi Maniapoto, a senior Ngāti Maniapoto rangatira and the
supposed ringleader of the assault on Auckland (the main market for Waikato Māori
produce) was returning from a tangi at Taupō when he learned that British troops had
76 John Gorst, The Maori King, or The Story of Our Quarrel with the Natives of New Zealand, London: Macmillan
and co., 1864, p.324.
77 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
78 Domett to Grey, 24 June 1863, AJHR, 1863, E-7, pp.8-9.
79 B.J. Dalton, War and Politics in New Zealand, 1855-1870, Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1967, p.176.
80 Renata Tamakihikurangi and others to Featherston, 19 October 1863, AJHR, E-11, p.4.
The war that followed was to have devastating consequences for Waikato Māori and
it was Grey who bore direct responsibility for the decision to invade.81 In November
1863 Rangiriri pā was taken by Crown forces in highly controversial circumstances
after a white flag of truce was flown from inside the pā. The Kīngitanga defenders
insisted they had not intended to surrender; but after heavy losses suffered by both
sides, Cameron took the opportunity to enter the pā and take more than 180 men
prisoner. Following the battle, Kīngitanga representatives reiterated their desire for
peace. Cameron informed them in response that he was not authorised to bring the
war to an end. They would have to await the arrival of Governor Grey, who would
only come to talk peace provided British forces were allowed to enter the Māori King’s
headquarters at Ngāruawāhia unopposed.82
Cameron and his troops entered the deserted settlement of Ngāruawāhia on 8
December 1863, hoisting a Union Jack on a flagstaff that had until days before flown
the King’s flag. Peace was within grasp. Except that Grey never came. He had not yet
achieved the kind of crushing and decisive victory that was thought necessary in order
to destroy the Kīngitanga. And meanwhile ministers had their eyes on the rich and
fertile lands south of Ngāruawāhia. The war was to be pushed further south.83
The main body of troops advanced up the Waipā Valley towards Rangiaowhia and Te
Awamutu early in 1864. But a considerable obstacle remained in their way at
Pāterangi, where perhaps the most impressive chain of Māori fortifications ever
constructed blocked their further passage south. Cameron decided against attempting
to storm Pāterangi. Instead, at 11pm on 20 February 1864 a column of 1230 British
troops and their colonial allies marched silently and in single file around the perimeter
of the Pāterangi defences. Shortly before dawn the following morning, the troops
81 B.J. Dalton, War and Politics in New Zealand, 1855-1870, Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1967, p.178.
82 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
83 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
reached the near deserted settlement of Te Awamutu. Cameron decided to
immediately push on to Rangiaowhia.
What followed at Rangiaowhia in the early hours of Sunday 21 February 1864 –
including the deliberate torching of a whare whose inhabitants were killed in the blaze
– proved a source of great and enduring pain and bitterness for many Māori.
Rangiaowhia was not a fighting pā but an open village that was intended as a place
of sanctuary for women, children and elderly men. Following Rangiriri in November,
the Kīngitanga had been criticised for bringing women and children into a fighting pā
and advised to send them away to a place of safety. Bishop George Selwyn,
accompanying the Crown forces as official chaplain, was told nine days before the
February attack that Rangiaowhia had been designated such a place and was asked
to consult with Cameron and ensure that the people there would not be harmed.
Instead, Crown forces targeted the settlement.85
Grey was not present for the attack on Rangiaowhia or the final battle of the Waikato
War at Ōrākau between 31 March and 2 April 1864, when as many as half of the 300
Māori inside the pā were killed, most during a bloody pursuit when attempting to flee
for their lives on foot on the final day. Among those killed were many women, including
at least one wounded female prisoner. Another women, Ahumai Te Paerata, was shot
and wounded four times but managed to survive. An unknown number of children
were also killed. Following the attack on Rangiaowhia, women and children had likely
been brought into the pā for their own protection. The Waitangi Tribunal concluded
that ‘non-combatants were massacred by Crown forces’ at both Rangiaowhia and
Ōrākau.86 Historian James Belich also concluded that the disproportionately large
number of Māori killed at Ōrākau compared with those wounded, ‘suggests that the
Orakau pursuit involved a large-scale massacre of wounded non-combatants’.87
84 James Belich, The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict, Auckland: Auckland
University Press, 1986, p.163.
85 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
86 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims (Pre-Publication Version),
Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 2018, p.528.
87 James Belich, The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict, Auckland: Auckland
University Press, 1986, p.173.
Notwithstanding that Grey was not personally present during these attacks, given his
decisive role in ordering the invasion of Waikato he bore a large share of responsibility
for what occurred.
And Ōrākau did not mark the end of fighting. There was renewed warfare at Taranaki
and further conflicts in the Bay of Plenty, the East Coast and elsewhere across the
central North Island, much of it targeted against supporters of the Pai Mārire (good
and peaceful) religion founded by Taranaki prophet Te Ua Haumene, and later (after
Grey’s governorship had ended) against Titokowaru in the west and Te Kooti in the
east. Grey had been present for the engagement at Ruapekapeka in January 1846
and took to the field again in July 1865 when he personally led a group of colonial
soldiers and their Māori allies in storming a near empty pā at Weraroa in Taranaki.
Grey had become embroiled in a bitter dispute with Duncan Cameron, the commander
of British forces in New Zealand, who had become increasingly disillusioned with the
war, viewing it as an inglorious land grab fought for the exclusive benefit of New
Zealand settlers and they clashed again after Weraroa, with Grey falsely claiming that
Cameron had refused to make any troops available for the attack.88
After 1866 Imperial troops took no further part in the fighting and colonial ministers
assumed greater responsibility for the conduct of the war. However, Grey dragged out
and delayed sending British troops back, prolonging their stay in New Zealand.89 Prior
to then, Grey had also sparred with ministers over the extent of lands to be
confiscated, eventually agreeing to measures that saw over 3 million acres taken at
Waikato, Taranaki, the Bay of Plenty and elsewhere, under the New Zealand
Settlements Act and related legislation. Grey had originally claimed to be the architect
of the confiscation policy, but later sought to distance himself from it, seeking to
preserve some of his earlier reputation as a progressive and enlightened administrator
in the face of stern opposition to the policy from the Aborigines Protection Society and
88 B.J. Dalton, War and Politics in New Zealand, 1855-1870, Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1967, pp.231-
89 Keith Sinclair, ‘Grey, George’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1990. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1g21/grey-george
other missionary and humanitarian groups.90 However, his protestations of innocence
A related dispute between Grey and his ministers concerned the fate of the Rangiriri
prisoners. Initially taken to Auckland and held captive on a hulk moored in the Hauraki
Gulf, before being transferred to Grey’s personal estate on Kawau Island, the prisoners
escaped from the island in September 1864 and eventually made their way back to
Waikato. However, others had died during their captivity.91
In 1866 the Colonial Office was alerted to allegations of atrocities committed by British
troops and their allies during General Trevor Chute’s January 1866 Taranaki campaign.
Confronted with the allegations (including, among other things, that Chute –
Cameron’s replacement as commanding officer – had issued orders for no prisoners
to be taken), Grey reacted indignantly, describing the statements as a ‘base and
wicked calumny’ and leaking the confidential despatch to his ministers.92 The British
government was fast losing patience with Grey and in 1868 his tenure as governor
was terminated. Although still relatively young, he would never again be offered a
Grey instead returned to Britain where he tried but failed to get elected as a Liberal
member of the House of Commons. In 1870 he returned to his home on Kawau Island
and an early retirement, before being drawn into colonial politics in 1874 at the head
of a movement opposing the abolition of provincial government. In 1875 he was
elected Auckland Provincial Superintendent and in the same year entered the General
Assembly as MP for Auckland City West.93 Although the provincial government system
was abolished in 1877, Grey’s own political fortunes were on the rise and in October
90 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
91 ‘Memoranda and Reports Relative to the Maori Prisoners’, AJHR, 1864, E-1, Part II.
92 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aoteaoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
93 Keith Sinclair, ‘Grey, George’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1990. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1g21/grey-george
of the same year he became Premier (now called Prime Minister) of an administration
that included a mix of liberals, radicals and some conservatives.94
During his time as Premier, hopes were high that Grey would be able to broker a peace
settlement with the Kīngitanga. He attended a number of important hui and at times
it appeared that an agreement might be close. But a stumbling block remained the
Crown’s unwillingness or inability to return the confiscated lands in full, rather than
the small fraction of them that formed part of Grey’s offer.95
In October 1879 Grey’s administration fell when several MPs defected. During his time
as Premier he had championed a number of radical causes, including universal
manhood suffrage. He remained in Parliament until 1895, continuing to advocate for
a number of sweeping changes to the status quo, including an elected rather than
appointed upper chamber and governors, and was ‘seen by some as the grand old
man of New Zealand politics, by others as a dangerous eccentric staying long beyond
Elected to Parliament again in 1893, he left New Zealand for the final time the
following year. Back in England he was granted an audience with Queen Victoria and
reconciled with Eliza. He died in London on 19 September 1898 and was buried in St
Besides his political life, Grey was also an avid collector, amateur ethnographer and
botanist. He donated a substantial collection of rare manuscripts and books to the
Auckland Public Library and his lavish mansion, along with some of the exotic flora
and fauna he introduced, can still be seen on Kawau Island today.
94 Keith Sinclair, ‘Grey, George’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1990. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1g21/grey-george
95 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
96 James Belich, ‘Sir George Grey’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
97 Keith Sinclair, ‘Grey, George’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1990. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1g21/grey-george
98 James Belich, ‘Sir George Grey’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
Sir George Grey was a dominant and domineering figure in New Zealand history. A
‘brilliant and effective servant of British imperialism’,99 Grey was also frequently
ruthless, manipulative and deceitful. Long remembered (by Pākehā at least) as ‘Good
Governor Grey’, his reputation has undergone something of a battering in recent
decades as his role in ordering the invasion of Waikato, among other actions, have
been subjected to more critical investigation and analysis.
99 James Belich, ‘Sir George Grey’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
Gustavus Ferdinand von Tempsky (1828-1868)
Origins of the Name
Von Tempsky Street, located in Hamilton East, was named after the Prussian-born
soldier adventurer and artist Gustavus Ferdinand von Tempsky.100 Hamilton Borough
Council resolved in 1906 to name the street that ran between Hamilton East school
and Bridge Street ‘in honour of the hero of the Waikato War’, according to an account
published in the Waikato Times.
Gustavus Ferdinand von Tempsky was born in East Prussia on 15 February 1828.102
He came from a prominent military family and attended cadet school in Berlin in
preparation for his own expected career as a military officer. On graduating, von
Tempsky joined his father’s regiment in 1845. He lasted only nine months in the
Prussian Army, travelling to Mosquito Coast, in Central America, where a Prussian
settlement was planned.103
There, von Tempsky had his first experience of military action, when the settlement
came under attack from Nicaraguan forces, serving as an officer in the local militia. It
was in the Mosquito Kingdom also that he first met Emilia Ross Bell, his future wife.104
100 ‘Kete Hamilton: Hamilton Streets: Von Tempsky Street’,
101 Waikato Times, 22 September 1906,
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WT19060922.2.20 ; Hamilton Borough Council minutes, 21
102 N. A. C. McMillan. ‘Tempsky, Gustavus Ferdinand von’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published
in 1990, updated March, 2006. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
103 N. A. C. McMillan. ‘Tempsky, Gustavus Ferdinand von’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published
in 1990, updated March, 2006. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
104 N. A. C. McMillan. ‘Tempsky, Gustavus Ferdinand von’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published
in 1990, updated March, 2006. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
After hearing of the Californian goldrush, von Tempsky travelled there in 1850,
spending his next three years trying and failing to make a fortune. He returned to
central America, marrying Emilia Bell at the British Bluefields settlement in 1855. They
had three children together. After returning to Europe briefly, von Tempsky and his
family moved to Australia in 1858, where he tried digging gold in Victoria and dabbled
in other jobs.105
In 1862 von Tempsky crossed the Tasman, spending the next year attempting to work
the Coromandel goldfields. Although that again proved unprofitable, he did secure a
position as the local correspondent for the Daily Southern Cross newspaper.106 When
the Waikato War began in July 1863, von Tempsky sought to put together a volunteer
unit from among the goldminers. But his efforts were rebuffed, partly it seems because
of his German nationality. Von Tempsky instead reported on the early phases of the
war and befriended William Jackson, a member of the Papakura Valley Rifle
In August 1863 Jackson was appointed as the commander of a new and elite volunteer
unit, known as the Forest Rangers, which was intended to specialise in irregular
warfare such as bush fighting.108 Von Tempsky was invited to join the Forest Rangers
on an early expedition into the Hunua Range. Impressed by von Tempsky’s skills,
Jackson suggested that he apply for a commission in the unit. Von Tempsky was
appointed ensign in the Forest Rangers, conditional on becoming a naturalised British
subject, which was granted on 24 August 1863.109
105 N. A. C. McMillan. ‘Tempsky, Gustavus Ferdinand von’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published
in 1990, updated March, 2006. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
106 N. A. C. McMillan. ‘Tempsky, Gustavus Ferdinand von’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published
in 1990, updated March, 2006. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
107 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.9.
108 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.10.
109 N. A. C. McMillan. ‘Tempsky, Gustavus Ferdinand von’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published
in 1990, updated March, 2006. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
Von Tempsky, along with Thomas McDonnell, later volunteered to scout the area
around Paparata in October 1863.110 Both men were able to supply valuable
information to the commander of the British forces in New Zealand, LieutenantGeneral Duncan Cameron, about the strength of Māori defences.111
In recognition of their efforts, both men were promoted. Von Tempsky was made
captain, effective from 10 November 1863, and the Forest Rangers were reconstituted
at the same time into two separate companies. Von Tempsky took control of the No.
2 Company, but with Jackson (still in command of the No.1 Company) having overall
command by dint of his seniority.112
On Sunday 13 December 1863, Jackson’s company attacked a camp of Māori men,
women and children at Paparata, killing at least seven of them. The Māori party were
reportedly at prayer at the time and Jackson’s men were soon accused of ‘cold-blooded
murder’ in the Daily Southern Cross newspaper.113 Von Tempsky and his men did not
take part in the attack and he recorded that on hearing of what had taken place ‘my
first emotion was a strong pang of jealousy’.114
Four days later both of the Forest Rangers companies embarked on another three-day
expedition into the Hunua Range in pursuit of Māori.115 Although the invading Crown
forces had pushed south as far as Ngāruawāhia by December 1863, the Forest
Rangers remained based further north at Papakura, securing the Great South Road
and Auckland from potential attack from the direction of the Hunua Range.116 Because
110 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, pp.31-32.
111 N. A. C. McMillan. ‘Tempsky, Gustavus Ferdinand von’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published
in 1990, updated March, 2006. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
112 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.34.
113 Daily Southern Cross, 17 December 1863,
114 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.40.
115 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.41.
116 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.42.
of this, von Tempsky did not take part in the actions at Meremere and Rangiriri through
October and November.
That changed in January 1864 when von Tempsky and the Forest Rangers No. 2
Company received orders to advance south into Waikato, leaving Papakura on 23
January for Tuhikaramea.117 Shortly after arriving, along with Cameron and his troops,
von Tempsky and his men advanced up the banks of the Waipā River to Te Rore. From
their Te Rore camp, Cameron contemplated his next move, reconnoitring an
impressive line of Māori fortifications less than five kilometres away at Pāterangi.118
On 11 February 1864 von Tempsky and his men took part in a significant engagement
at Waiari, a bend on the south bank of the Mangapiko River. It was there that a party
of about 50 British soldiers bathing in the river found themselves ambushed by a Māori
party. While a small covering party of 20 men held the Kīngitanga force at bay,
reinforcements were called for, among them von Tempsky and about 30 of his men.119
Von Tempsky recorded of the battle that:
A ditch of the breastwork of an ancient pa slopped down to the river. It was
densely covered with scrub, as well as the bank of the river. My men bounded
down into it like tigers. On our hands and knees we had to creep, revolver in
hand, looking for our visible foes. The thumping of double-barrel guns around
us announced soon that we were in the midst of the nest. I had in all about
thirty men. Some were stationed on the top of the bank, others in the very
river, and the rest crawling through the scrub. There were strange meetings in
that scrub. Muzzle to muzzle, the shot of despair, the repeating cracks of
revolvers and carbine thuds, and the brown bodies of Maoris made their
117 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.47.
118 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 2016, p.285.
119 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.59.
appearance gradually, either rolling down the hill or being dragged out of the
Although the exact figures are unknown, the Māori force at Waiari suffered heavy
losses, with a likely figure of around 35 killed, compared with 6 dead on the Crown
side.121 Von Tempsky’s official report of the engagement stated that his own men had
personally killed seven Māori.122
Rather than attempt to storm the formidable Pāterangi defences, Cameron decided to
try and bypass them altogether. Late on the evening of 20 February 1864 a column
of 1230 troops marched silently and in single column around the pā. They marched
along the banks of the Mangapiko River, over an old cattle track, before reaching a
dray road that took them to the settlement of Te Awamutu.123 Among the advance
party was von Tempsky and his men.
The first troops reached Te Awamutu towards dawn on 21 February. The settlement
was nearly deserted, save for a few Māori who had stayed back to protect St John’s
Anglican Church. And so Cameron issued orders for the attacking party to immediately
press on to Rangiaowhia a few kilometres away. Cavalry were the first to enter the
settlement, receiving orders to charge as they came within sight of it.124 Von Tempsky
recorded that he and his men had heard the ‘rapid crack-crack of revolvers and
carbines’ as they followed behind, realising that ‘the conflict had commenced’.125
What followed was completely different from other pā battles of the Waikato War
because Rangiaowhia was not a fortified settlement. It was not a pā at all but rather
120 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.59.
121 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 2016, p.288.
122 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.64.
123 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 2016, p.291.
124 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.70.
125 G.F. von Tempsky, Memoranda of the New Zealand Campaign in 1863 and 1864, p.104, qMS-2008, Alexander
Turnbull Library, Wellington.
an open village without fortifications of its own. The main body of Kīngitanga fighters
were at Pāterangi awaiting a British attack that never came. Following the Rangiriri
battle in November 1863 the presence of women and children inside the fighting pā
was condemned by various figures, including Governor George Grey, and the
Kīngitanga urged to remove both to a place of safety.126 Nine days before the attack
on Rangiaowhia Bishop George Selwyn, then serving as chaplain to the Crown forces,
was informed that the settlement had been designated such a place and asked ‘to
confer with General Cameron and make sure that the people there were left
Most of the residents of Rangiaowhia were women, children and elderly men, sent
there in the belief that the British forces would respect its status as a place of safety
and sanctuary for non-combatants. Instead, in the early hours of Sunday morning, 21
February 1864, they found themselves under attack, at first by cavalry, followed by
foot soldiers, including von Tempsky and his men. Von Tempsky recorded that ‘our
blood was up’, as a result of which his men reached the settlement considerably in
advance of many of the other foot soldiers.128
There are multiple first-hand accounts of what followed and some of these disagree
on crucial points. But the official British return noted that 33 prisoners were captured:
21 women and children and 12 (probably elderly) men.129 These returns also noted
that 12 Māori had been killed in the attack on Rangiaowhia but made no reference to
their ages or gender. That was perhaps hardly surprising given the make-up of most
of the residents. And other unconfirmed estimates put the death toll at more than
126 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 2016, p.295.
127 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 2016, p.297.
128 G.F. von Tempsky, Memoranda of the New Zealand Campaign in 1863 and 1864, p.104, qMS-2008, Alexander
Turnbull Library, Wellington.
129 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 2016, pp.299-300.
130 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 2016, p.303.
Von Tempsky recorded that he had set out to seize a group of Māori huddled in the
Catholic church at one end of the settlement before receiving orders from Cameron to
stand down. Obeying reluctantly, von Tempsky and his men marched towards the
centre of the settlement, from where firing was still to be heard.131 There a circle of
soldiers had surrounded a whare with a sunken floor and a narrow entranceway. The
body of one soldier shot while attempting to enter lay in the doorway. Inside were a
group of Māori. Von Tempsky recorded that ‘Some neighbouring whares had been set
fire to, with a view of communicating the fire to the all-dreaded one’. That seemed,
he wrote, ‘unfair’ and so he decided to rush the whare, retrieving the body of the
By this point the flames were lapping over from a neighbouring whare and von
Tempsky and his men withdrew. Von Tempsky then described an ‘old looking man’
coming out of the now burning whare with his hands in the air in a gesture of surrender
and cries of ‘Spare him!’ ringing around. He noted that some of the men, ‘blinded by
rage, at the loss of comrades perhaps’, ignored these pleas, firing at and killing the
man. None of the other occupants of the whare dared come out after this incident.
All, including a young boy, were torched to death. In all seven people died in the
Hearing of the attack on their families, the Kīngitanga men of fighting age abandoned
their position at Pāterangi and rushed back to come to their aid. Prised out of their
formidable fortifications, they found themselves under attack the following day at
nearby Hairini, suffering heavy losses (at least 30 killed) in the engagement.134 Von
Tempsky and his men were again present, von Tempsky subsequently permitting the
Forest Rangers to loot nearby Māori dwellings.135
131 G.F. von Tempsky, Memoranda of the New Zealand Campaign in 1863 and 1864, p.105, qMS-2008, Alexander
Turnbull Library, Wellington.
132 G.F. von Tempsky, Memoranda of the New Zealand Campaign in 1863 and 1864, p.108, qMS-2008, Alexander
Turnbull Library, Wellington.
133 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 2016, pp.301-02.
134 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 2016, p.293.
135 G.F. von Tempsky, Memoranda of the New Zealand Campaign in 1863 and 1864, p.115, qMS-2008, Alexander
Turnbull Library, Wellington.
They were also present on 23 February 1864, when Crown forces raided and looted
the Ngāti Paretekawa settlement of Kihikihi, previously home to Rewi Maniapoto and
his people. In the space of a few hours the entire settlement was destroyed before
the soldiers returned to camp at Te Awamutu with their spoils.136
Von Tempsky and the Forest Rangers were also present at the final battle of the
Waikato War, which took place at Ōrākau, a few kilometres from Kihikihi, between 31
March and 2 April 1864. Around 300 Māori from multiple iwi, including women and
children, were gathered in the still incomplete pā when it was attacked by Crown
forces on 31 March 1864. Women and children had likely been brought into the pā
after what took place at Rangiaowhia, when what was understood as their sanctuary
had been attacked. The British commander, George Carey, dispersed his men around
the pā, believing it was surrounded and bombarding it with heavy artillery. Von
Tempsky and his men took up a position to the east of the pā.137 That followed initial
but unsuccessful efforts to storm the defences.
Inside the pā, matters quickly became critical, the Māori defenders soon running out
of food, water and ammunition. Crown forces commencing sapping towards the pā
and had nearly reached its outer perimeter on 2 April, when William Mair was sent
forth to invite the pā’s occupants to surrender. Declining to do so, they instead later
fled the pā on foot, attempting to break through British lines and make their way
towards the Pūniu River several kilometres to the south. Large numbers were killed in
the subsequent pursuit, around 150 in total. Those killed included a number of women,
including in at least one case a wounded woman who a number of soldiers gathered
around to kill.138 Describing the scene afterwards, von Tempsky noted that he was
136 G.F. von Tempsky, Memoranda of the New Zealand Campaign in 1863 and 1864, pp.117-18, qMS-2008,
Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington.
137 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.97.
138 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 2016, p.332.
‘sorry to see’ women amongst both those killed and the wounded prisoners. However,
he declared that nearly all of these cases, apart from one, had been ‘accidents’.139
Von Tempsky and his men remained in the Waikato district for nearly twelve months
after the Ōrākau battle, awaiting the allocation of confiscated lands promised them in
return for their services. As a senior officer, von Tempsky received an allocation of
400 acres of rural lands in the Pirongia district.140 In April 1865 von Tempsky and 50
Forest Rangers were sent to the Whanganui district. He led an attack on a party of
about 80 Pai Mārire supporters at Kakakaramea near the Pātea River on 13 May 1865,
killing six to eight of their number and earning praise from the Premier, Frederick
Weld, for his actions.141
Later in the year von Tempsky was ordered to serve on the East Coast under James
Fraser, a more junior and less experienced officer. Feeling slighted, von Tempsky
refused and was arrested for disobeying orders but with public opinion strongly on his
side was later cleared by a court of inquiry.142
In December 1865 he returned to Whanganui, joining an expedition by Major-General
Trevor Chute, the new commander of British forces in New Zealand. Chute’s force
travelled north, attacking and destroying a number of pā early the following month,
including Okutuku, Te Pūtahi, Ōtapawa and Ketemarae. A notable feature of the short
but destructive campaign was how few prisoners were taken. One of Chute’s most
senior officers later alleged that orders had been issued that no Māori should be taken
alive.143 An unknown number of Māori were killed during Chute’s five week campaign,
139 G.F. von Tempsky, Memoranda of the New Zealand Campaign in 1863 and 1864, pp.151-52, qMS-2008,
Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington.
140 Richard Stowers, Forest Rangers: A History of the Forest Rangers During the New Zealand Wars, Hamilton:
R. Stowers, 1996, p.127.
141 Evening Post, 20 May 1865, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP18650520.2.8 ; N. A. C.
McMillan. ‘Tempsky, Gustavus Ferdinand von’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1990,
updated March, 2006. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
142 N. A. C. McMillan. ‘Tempsky, Gustavus Ferdinand von’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published
in 1990, updated March, 2006. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
143 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
which involved attacks on an estimated 8 pā and 20 villages, as well as the deliberate
destruction of crops in order to render these settlements uninhabitable.144 Chute’s
uncompromising and ruthless approach was widely applauded by settlers at the time
after his predecessor’s increasing reluctance to fight Māori. Von Tempky was the
unnamed author of a short book on Chute’s campaign but did not go into any details
about his own actions during the course of it.145
Von Tempsky returned to Auckland for a time, where he was a prominent figure in
the social life of the city. Following the disbandment of the Forest Rangers, in January
1868 von Tempsky accepted a commission as Inspector (the equivalent of Major) in
the newly-established Armed Constabulary.
146 After serving for a time in Waikato and
Whanganui, he was sent to Taranaki when the war against Titokowaru broke out.
When the garrison at Turuturumōkai was attacked on 12 July 1868, von Tempsky led
a party of reinforcements who arrived at the redoubt to find ten men dead and another
six wounded, leaving just six of the original guard unscathed.147
On 21 August 1868 von Tempsky took part in an attack on Titokowaru’s stronghold at
Te Ngutu-o-te-Manu. Its occupants were initially taken by surprise but rallied strongly
to drive the Crown force out. Despite initial newspaper reports claiming a crushing
victory, the engagement had been far from decisive.148
On 7 September 1868 Crown forces advanced on Te Ngutu-o-te-Manu for a third time
(there had been an earlier, abortive, effort on 10 August). Advancing through dense
bush with a view to attacking from the rear of the pā, the main body of troops became
144 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
145 A Campaign on the West Coast of New Zealand, Comprising the Western Portion of the Provinces of
Wellington and Taranaki by European and Colonial Forces, under the Command of Major-General Chute, During
the Months of January and February, 1866, Wanganui: The Times, 1866.
146 N. A. C. McMillan. ‘Tempsky, Gustavus Ferdinand von’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published
in 1990, updated March, 2006. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
147 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
2019, p.194; Daily Southern Cross, 17 July 1868,
148 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
lost and eventually arrived at a clearing in front of Titokowaru’s position. Here they
found themselves exposed to attack from those inside the pā and others hiding in
nearby bush covering, falling in great numbers before orders could be issued for
survivors to retreat. Among the colonial troops killed was von Tempsky, or Manu Rau
(100 birds) as he was said to be known to Māori on account of his ability to rush from
one place to another, doing the work of many soldiers.149 His death caused panic
among other nearby troops and the subsequent retreat was chaotic and confused.
The fact that von Tempsky’s body, along with the other men killed, could not
subsequently be recovered was seen as particularly humiliating. Titokowaru’s party
instead burned them on a funeral pyre.150
Von Tempsky had achieved almost folk
hero status among many Pākehā during his short time in New Zealand and his death
was widely mourned. Although he remains a romantic figure for some, in recent times
his reputation has undergone closer examination and critique.
149 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
150 James Cowan, The New Zealand Wars and the Pioneering Period, Wellington: Government Printer, 1983, vol.
John Bryce (1833-1913)
Origins of the Name
Bryce Street was named by the Hamilton Borough Council in 1910 after John Bryce, a
former Member of Parliament, Minister for Native Affairs, farmer and veteran of the
New Zealand Wars. The street had originally been known as Grey Street but was
renamed when part of Heaphy Terrace was renamed Grey Street East.151 Hamilton
Borough Council had resolved to make this change in 1891.152 In 1905 the same
council’s legal and finance committee recommended that Grey Street West be
renamed Bryce Street.153 It is not clear why there was a delay in making the change.
John Bryce was born in Glasgow, Scotland, in 1833. His parents were Grace McAdam
and John Bryce, a cabinet-maker.154 Grace died from tuberculosis, prompting a
decision that the rest of the family would migrate to New Zealand. In 1840 John junior,
along with an older brother, a sister, and his father landed at Petone on the Bengal
Merchant, the first New Zealand Company ship to sail from Scotland. The family sailed
in steerage class, reflecting their straitened circumstances.155
John’s father took up work as a carpenter, before settling on a bush farm in the Hutt
Valley.156 However, New Zealand Company claims over the Hutt Valley were strongly
contested by local Māori and in 1846 war broke out in the region. A still young John
151 ‘Kete Hamilton: Hamilton Streets: Bryce Street’,
152 Hamilton Borough Council minutes, 8 September 1891; Waikato Times, 10 September 1891,
153 Waikato Argus, 12 August 1905,
154 Hazel Riseborough. ‘Bryce, John’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1993. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2b44/bryce-john
155 G.H. Scholefield (ed.), A Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs,
1940, vol. 1, p.109; Moyra Cooke, ‘John Bryce, 1834-1913: The White Charger’, MA thesis, Massey University,
156 Hazel Riseborough. ‘Bryce, John’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1993. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2b44/bryce-john
junior was said to have been greatly moved by the story of William Allen, a young
bugler in the British Army killed in the fighting that took place at Boulcott’s Farm on
16 May 1846, recalling Bugler Allen’s actions and describing them in heroic terms
It appears that John junior had limited opportunities for formal schooling, and was for
the most part self-taught.158 Later in life he would move freely with men from the
upper echelons of British and settler society, many of whom had received their
educations at elite English public schools and universities such as Oxford and
John Bryce’s fortunes appear to have improved significantly in 1851, when he travelled
to the Victorian goldfields with his brother. Both brothers returned to New Zealand
two years later wealthy enough to buy and develop farm lands in the Rangitikei
district.159 The following year, in September 1854, he married Elizabeth Ann Campbell.
The couple had a large family: eight daughters and six sons.
In 1859 Bryce first entered the world of politics, serving on a number of road boards.
His big breakthrough came in 1862, when he was elected as member for Wanganui
and Rangitikei on the Wellington Provincial Council. In 1866 he was also elected to
represent Wanganui in the General Assembly, before being compelled to resign from
his political positions in February 1867 due to ill health (Bryce was a life-long
In 1868 war returned to Taranaki and the Kai Iwi Cavalry, a volunteer settler unit, was
formed in October and quickly put into action against Ngāti Ruanui prophet and
military commander Riwha Titokowaru, who was leading resistance to the confiscation
of Taranaki Māori lands. John Bryce, then aged in his mid-thirties, had previous
157 Moyra Cooke, ‘John Bryce, 1834-1913: The White Charger’, MA thesis, Massey University, 2015, p.9.
158 Hazel Riseborough. ‘Bryce, John’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1993. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2b44/bryce-john
159 Moyra Cooke, ‘John Bryce, 1834-1913: The White Charger’, MA thesis, Massey University, 2015, p.9.
160 Moyra Cooke, ‘John Bryce, 1834-1913: The White Charger’, MA thesis, Massey University, 2015, p.10.
experience in volunteer cavalry and was chosen by members of the unit as its
The Kai Iwi Cavalry were in action within days of being formed, and soon developed
a reputation for ill-discipline.162 In early November 1868 Bryce’s own commanding
officer, General George Whitmore, wrote of the unit that:
the Kai Iwi Cavalry Volunteers – a motley group of horsemen from 14 to 60
years of age…a perfect pack of devils, and most uncontrollable. If they smell
the natives, they follow Bryce like a pack of hounds, and cut, slay, and destroy
the poor natives before you have time to look around you.163
Whitmore’s comments proved prescient. On 25 November 1868 the Kai Iwi Cavalry
set out on their first major expedition. Two days later, on 27 November, they came
across a group of Māori at Handley’s Woolshed, near Nukumaru. The official report of
what followed noted that the Kai Iwi Cavalry had encountered a party of ‘Hauhaus’,
killing eight of their number with sabre, revolver and carbine. It singled out Sergeant
George Maxwell for praise, noting that he had ‘himself sabred two and shot one of the
The report omitted one critical detail: the Māori party that the Kai Iwi Cavalry had
attacked was not a party of adult Pai Mārire fighters but a group of young children,
between 6 and 12 years of age, who were out hunting pigs. One boy, aged about 10,
was killed by a single stroke from a sword that decapitated him. Another boy, around
12 years old, died as a result of multiple sword attacks.165 Maxwell had played a
prominent role in these killings. But what of his commanding officer, Lieutenant John
161 James Belich, ‘I Shall Not Die’: Titokowaru’s War, New Zealand 1868-1869, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 1989, p.191.
162 Moyra Cooke, ‘John Bryce, 1834-1913: The White Charger’, MA thesis, Massey University, 2015, p.13.
163 Wanganui Herald, 8 December 1868,
164 W. Newland to Whitmore, 27 November 1868, AJHR, 1869, A-3, p.12, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgibin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1869-I.184.108.40.206&e=
165 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
Bryce? He was said to have been chasing a runaway horse when some of the cavalry
began their advance on the unarmed children and was still chasing it when Maxwell
killed the first boy.166 He later caught up with Maxwell and the other leading men and
issued orders for them to retire. Maxwell initially refused before eventually complying.
Bryce arrived at the scene in time to watch the second gravely wounded boy die.167
He had not participated in the killings but knew that those attacked and killed by his
own men were innocent children.
Years later there would be sequel to this episode when Bryce sued the Australian
journalist and historian George Rusden for libel. Rusden had written in his threevolume history of New Zealand that ‘[s]ome women and young children emerged from
a pah to hunt pigs. Lieutenant Bryce and Sergeant Maxwell of the Kai Iwi Cavalry
dashed upon them and cut them down gleefully and with ease’.168 As there were no
women present – only children – and Bryce had not personally ‘cut down’ anyone,
Bryce’s high-profile libel action was successful in the London courts.169
Bryce and the Kai Iwi Cavalry took part in further actions in the war against
Titokowaru, none nearly as controversial as what had occurred at Handley’s Woolshed,
before the unit was demobilised in August 1869 and officially disbanded in November
of that same year.170 Thus ended his time as a military officer, though not his role in
directing military operations against Taranaki Māori.
In 1871 Bryce returned to the political stage, elected unopposed as the member for
Wanganui in the General Assembly.171 He held the seat until 1881, when he became
the member for Waitotara until 1887. Between 1889 and 1890 he represented Waipa
166 James Belich, ‘I Shall Not Die’: Titokowaru’s War, New Zealand 1868-1869, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 1989, p.201.
167 James Belich, ‘I Shall Not Die’: Titokowaru’s War, New Zealand 1868-1869, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 1989, p.203.
168 G.W. Rusden, History of New Zealand, London: Chapman and Hall, 1883, vol.2, p.504.
169 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/ Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
170 Moyra Cooke, ‘John Bryce, 1834-1913: The White Charger’, MA thesis, Massey University, 2015, p.22.
171 Hazel Riseborough. ‘Bryce, John’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1993. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2b44/bryce-john
in Parliament, followed by Waikato between 1890 and 1891.172 Between 1876 and
1879 Bryce was chair of Parliament’s Native Affairs Committee, considering a large
number of petitions from Māori seeking relief and redress in respect of various
grievances, as well as draft legislation and other matters. One historian notes that ‘His
views were hopelessly at variance with Maori aspirations’.173
When a new government was installed in 1879 under the leadership of John Hall,
Bryce was sworn in as Native Minister. He remained in office until August 1884, other
than a ten-month period between January and October 1881, following his resignation
after falling out with other ministers (and a similar but briefer interlude in April 1882).
When Bryce came to office, the prophets Te Whiti-o-Rongomai and Tohu Kakaki were
leading a campaign of non-violent resistance to the survey of confiscated lands in
southern Taranaki from their base at Parihaka.174 The people of Parihaka responded
to the survey of lands not previously occupied by Pākehā, by ploughing and later
fencing the areas concerned. Large numbers of Parihaka men had been arrested and
were awaiting trial for their actions.
Bryce quickly signalled his intention to respond in uncompromising fashion, passing
legislation that provided for the Māori prisoners to be imprisoned without trial. He
dismissed objections by declaring Magna Carta and habeas corpus as ‘mere legal
technicalities’ and described the grievances of Taranaki Māori as being entirely without
substance.175 A West Coast Commission was established to investigate any unfulfilled
promises to Taranaki Māori. But Bryce declared they had none. His approach was too
much for many of his fellow Cabinet ministers, and in January 1881 he resigned. Later
that year, with no resolution in sight, Bryce was brought back into the fold.
172 The New Zealand Parliamentary Record, Wellington: Government Printer, 1925, p.81.
173 Hazel Riseborough. ‘Bryce, John’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1993. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2b44/bryce-john
174 Hazel Riseborough. ‘Bryce, John’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1993. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2b44/bryce-john
175 Hazel Riseborough, Days of Darkness: Taranaki 1878-1884, Wellington: Allen & Unwin/Port Nicholson Press,
The more conciliatory William Rolleston, who privately believed the people of Parihaka
were genuine in their commitment to non-violent resistance, was prevailed upon to
issue one last proclamation before resigning. On 19 October 1881 he gave the
Parihaka community 14 days to submit to law or lose any lands they still held.176 Bryce
was immediately sworn in as Native Minister to make preparations for the forthcoming
confrontation. All of this took place as the Governor, Sir Arthur Gordon, raced back
from a visit to Fiji, landing just two and a quarter hours after the signing of the
proclamation.177 He believed that Te Whiti’s cause was a just one and was furious that
the government had taken advantage of his absence to rush through the ultimatum.178
With Bryce given a free hand to confront the people of Parihaka, preparations were
quickly put in place. Te Whiti and Tohu continued to urge their followers to act
peacefully, even as speculation as to the forthcoming invasion of their community
reached frenzied levels.179 A force consisting of nearly 1600 Armed Constabulary and
volunteers was hastily assembled, commanded by Colonel J.M. Roberts but under the
direction of Bryce.180 Despite determined efforts by Bryce to prevent detailed press
descriptions of what unfolded at Parihaka, two journalists managed to sneak into the
settlement, witnessing and subsequently reporting on all that unfolded.181
Bryce, riding a white charger and accompanied by Rolleston on foot, advanced on
Parihaka on the morning of 5 November 1881 at the head of the force. They were
greeted by a large party of skipping, singing and dancing children (in some accounts
including boys performing haka).182 Within the settlement itself a crowd of up to 2500
people had assembled to witness proceedings, with Te Whiti and Tohu continuing to
urge calm. Samuel Crombie-Brown, one of the journalists to defy Bryce’s media
176 Hazel Riseborough, Days of Darkness: Taranaki 1878-1884, Wellington: Allen & Unwin/Port Nicholson Press,
177 Hazel Riseborough, Days of Darkness: Taranaki 1878-1884, Wellington: Allen & Unwin/Port Nicholson Press,
178 Hazel Riseborough, Days of Darkness: Taranaki 1878-1884, Wellington: Allen & Unwin/Port Nicholson Press,
179 Hazel Riseborough, Days of Darkness: Taranaki 1878-1884, Wellington: Allen & Unwin/Port Nicholson Press,
180 Hazel Riseborough. ‘Bryce, John’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1993. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2b44/bryce-john
181 Star, 7 November 1881, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS18811107.2.20
182 Rachel Buchanan, The Parihaka Album, Wellington: Huia Publishers, 2009, p.48.
blackout, observed that ‘The whole spectacle was saddening in the extreme; it was
an industrious, law-abiding, moral and hospitable community calmly awaiting the
approach of the men sent to rob them of everything dear to them.’
The Riot Act was read and demands issued for Te Whiti, Tohu and others to hand
themselves over for arrest. Te Whiti urged Bryce to come and talk to him instead. But
Bryce refused to dismount from his horse and told Te Whiti that the time for talking
was over.184 As constables stepped forward to arrest Te Whiti and Tohu, both prophets
continued to urge restraint among their followers as they were led away without
resistance. Members of the expeditionary force subsequently looted and pillaged the
settlement.185 The Parihaka community had attracted Māori supporters from all over
the country, and Bryce issued orders for the non-resident population to be forcibly
dispersed. As the people were removed, their houses were pulled down. Oral histories
also record that multiple women were raped.186 Before leaving the scene, Bryce
oversaw the destruction of all crops deemed to belong to outsiders.187
Following the invasion of Parihaka, Bryce helped to steer through further legislation,
indemnifying Crown forces for their actions and providing for Te Whiti and Tohu to be
imprisoned without trial.188 The pair were held for the next 16 months before
eventually being allowed to return to Parihaka. Over the following years they rebuilt
their community, continuing to peacefully resist the confiscation of their lands and
facing further arrests.189
In his role as Native Minister, Bryce also played a prominent part in negotiations
leading to the opening up of the King Country to the North Island main trunk railway
line. As part of his strategy to entice Waikato Māori who had taken refuge in the King
Country following the Waikato War of 1863-64 to return north of the Pūniu River again
183 Star, 7 November 1881, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS18811107.2.20
184 Star, 7 November 1881, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS18811107.2.20
185 Waitangi Tribunal, The Taranaki Report: Kaupapa Tuatahi, Wellington: GP Publications, 1996, p.206.
186 Waitangi Tribunal, The Taranaki Report: Kaupapa Tuatahi, Wellington: GP Publications, 1996, p.237.
187 Moyra Cooke, ‘John Bryce, 1834-1913: The White Charger’, MA thesis, Massey University, 2015, p.71.
188 Moyra Cooke, ‘John Bryce, 1834-1913: The White Charger’, MA thesis, Massey University, 2015, p.73.
189 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
so that a potential obstacle to the ‘opening up’ of the King Country was removed,
Bryce introduced a Waikato Confiscated Lands Act in 1880 that provided for small
reserves to be set aside for landless ‘surrendered rebels’.190 In 1882 he also introduced
an Amnesty Act providing for offences committed by Māori ‘in insurrection against Her
Majesty’s authority’ to be subject to a general pardon. Following the legislation, there
was speculation as to whether Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki, then taking shelter in the
King Country, would be included in the pardon. At the instance of Ngāti Maniapoto
leader Rewi Maniapoto, Bryce met with Te Kooti in February 1883 and agreed to his
In October 1882 Bryce met with King Tawhiao at Alexandra (now known as Pirongia)
just north of the King Country. Tawhiao repeated his familiar plea for the confiscated
Waikato lands to be returned in full. Bryce rejected this out of hand, offering to return
a small portion of the confiscated lands west of the Waipā River and insisting that ‘the
sovereignty of the Queen must extend over this island from end to end’.192 Bryce’s
uncompromising approach, and his offhand treatment of the Māori King, made it
impossible for the Kīngitanga to accept what had been offered them. King Tawhiao
thereafter looked to the British government and Queen Victoria to intervene, while
Bryce focused on negotiations with Ngāti Maniapoto.193
In March 1883 Bryce reached agreement with a number of Ngāti Maniapoto leaders,
providing for a survey to be commenced for a railway through their territory in return
for various measures designed to protect their lands and authority.194 Ngāti Maniapoto
believed they had entered into a sacred ‘compact’ with the Crown. But they soon found
their lands and authority under threat as the King Country was opened up to the
operations of the Native Land Court and large-scale land purchase operations. The
190 Vincent O’Malley, The Great War for New Zealand: Waikato 1800-2000, Wellington: Bridget Williams
Books, 2016, pp.497-502.
191 Judith Binney. ‘Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1990.
Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1t45/te-kooti-arikirangi-te-turuki
192 Waikato Times, 31 October 1882, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WT18821031.2.12
193 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
194 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims [pre-publication version],
Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 2018, p.797.
Waitangi Tribunal concluded in its 2018 Te Rohe Pōtae report that Bryce acted in bad
faith and knowingly misled Ngāti Maniapoto rangatira during the course of
negotiations that led to an application in December 1883 for a survey of their external
boundary, which later provided the basis for the Native Land Court to commence
hearings in the district.195
As Native Minister, Bryce did attempt some reform of legislation governing Māori land
purchases and was said to have detested fraudulent land dealings and speculation by
‘land-sharks’.196 But he also described it as an ‘absurdity’ for Māori to believe they
should manage their own affairs and ‘utterly impractical’ for them to think they should
play a greater role in deciding on ownership of their lands.197 Although Bryce had not
personally killed anyone at Handley’s Woolshed in 1868, he turned a blind eye to what
had taken place, and was complicit in the affair as a result. It is said that Māori
thereafter referred to him as Bryce ‘Tangata Kohuru’ (Bryce the murderous man),
perhaps reflecting belief that he bore responsibility for what had happened.198 His
prominent role in the invasion of Parihaka is more clear-cut. It is an incident today
widely remembered as deeply shameful.
Bryce’s subsequent political career was less memorable. And personally, he expressed
no regret for what had happened at Parihaka, observing on the 25th anniversary of
the invasion that he had no misgivings about what had taken place.199 It was, Bryce
said, the event in his life of which he had ‘never ceased to be proud’.200 He died at his
home in Whanganui in January 1913.201
195 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims [pre-publication version],
Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 2018, pp.908-911.
196 Alan Ward, An Unsettled History: Treaty Claims in New Zealand Today, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books,
197 Bryce to Governor, 11 January 1884, MA 23/1, Archives New Zealand, Wellington; Bryce to Governor, 11
February 1884, G 49/20, Archives New Zealand, Wellington.
198 ‘Te Tangata Kōhuru: The Murderous Man’, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/classroom/conversations/te-tangatakohuru-murderous-man
199 Hazel Riseborough. ‘Bryce, John’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1993. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2b44/bryce-john
200 Hawera and Normanby Star, 3 February 1903,
201 Hazel Riseborough. ‘Bryce, John’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1993. Te Ara – the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2b44/bryce-john
7 thoughts on “War in the Waikato. Rebuttal of the O’Malley report for Hamilton City Council with regards to the proposal to change the name of our city to Kirikiriroa.”
Lindsay Perigo’s picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2020-09-11 06:56
Here is a Speech by a man who nearly became Prime Minister, and should have, Don Brash to 10 people 2 nights ago at Victoria University, Wellington. A mere 10 people, not because only 10 people wished to be present, but because 10 was the maximum Woke Victoria—which recently sought to have “Victoria” expunged from its name—would allow. Remember, this is the same taxpayer-funded university that allows ethnic cleansing in the name of terrorist Only Black Lives Matter in its music department. Woke-Fascism at its most disgusting.
The speech on the whole is excellent, and astonishingly brave in its Anti-Woke-Fascism. One thing to note is that Don omits a key part of Section 61 of the Human Rights Act, 1993:
being matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons
This is crucial to the case for repealing s61, as well as the case against “hate speech” laws, which the Woke-Fascists are just itching to impose. I checked with Don directly, and he assured me the omission was inadvertent. In any event, enjoy:
IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER THREAT IN NEW ZEALAND?
On the face of it, that’s a silly question. In New Zealand, freedom of speech is enshrined as one of our fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights Act of 1990. Section 14 of that law, headed “Freedom of expression”, notes that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
That sounds pretty unambiguous. But as you probably know that piece of law is qualified by another, namely Section 61 of the Human Rights Act of 1993, which states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person –
to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or to broadcast by means of radio or television or other electronic communication words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting; or
to use in any public place…, or within the hearing of persons in any such public place, or at any meeting to which the public are invited or have access, words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.”
By comparison with a great many other countries, New Zealand stacks up pretty well.
In most Muslim-majority countries, for example, there are laws which make it a criminal offence to speak ill of Islam, or to make an attempt to convert people from Islam. Laws against blasphemy – speaking ill of Islam – can get you killed in Pakistan. Even suggesting that Muslims are free to vote for a non-Muslim as Governor of Jakarta can get you jailed in Indonesia, as the former Governor of Jakarta discovered to his cost.
A couple of years ago, a Turkish writer who had been invited to give three lectures in supposedly modern Malaysia was detained and forced by the religious affairs authority in that country to abandon his third lecture. His crime: arguing that Islam should never use coercion either to win converts or to keep those who are already Muslim in order.
Nor is it only Muslim-majority countries which seek to suppress free speech in the name of religion. Since 2013, insulting the feelings of religious believers has been a criminal offence in Russia.
In many countries, anti-defamation laws are used to control political opponents.
Thailand, for example, prohibits even the slightest criticism of its king, who is believed to be semi-divine. Anyone who “defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir-apparent or the regent” can be imprisoned for up to 15 years. The government which seized power in 2014 has charged scores of people with lese-majeste, and a great many more for violating an order forbidding public discussion of a proposed referendum.
Even in ultra-modern Singapore, government officials have sued and bankrupted critics for statements that politicians in many other places would have disputed, laughed off or simply ignored.
In the United States, the first amendment to the constitution appears to provide a strong guarantee of freedom of speech.
But in recent times we’ve seen increasingly aggressive attempts to shut down free speech, perhaps especially at US universities.
In early 2014, Brandeis University, one of America’s leading universities, revoked its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at its commencement ceremony. Protestors had accused her – a strong advocate for the rights of women and children, especially in the Middle East – of being “Islamophobic”.
Three years later, in 2017, there was the celebrated case when Charles Murray was unable to speak at Middlebury College, with the female host of his lecture suffering injury as she tried to extract him from the melee of rowdy students. And Charles Murray’s offence? Though he is an anti-Trump Republican, and the author of such notable works as Human Accomplishment and Coming Apart, he is still blamed for what is seen as an unforgivable sin, namely suggesting in a book he co-wrote with Richard Herrnstein more than 20 years ago that some races might be slightly brighter, on average, than other races.
The same year, Berkeley’s KPFA Radio cancelled a planned interview with Richard Dawkins. The interview had been planned to discuss Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene, which had been named the most influential science book of all time by the Royal Society a week earlier. The interview was cancelled because of Dawkins’ alleged attacks on Islam – which Dawkins strenuously denied.
And the intolerance has spread beyond the universities. There was, for example, strong opposition from some members of the orchestra when conservative commentator Dennis Prager was invited to conduct the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra. Prager was on record as favouring the adoption of a child to a married man and a woman, in preference to a single person or to a same-sex couple; and as noting that, if there is no God, ethics are subjective. Happily, the orchestra held fast, and Prager conducted the orchestra.
Even more happily, in the last few years there has been a strong push-back against these attacks on free speech. The University of Chicago has issued a firm statement, since adopted or endorsed by more than 30 other colleges and universities, including Princeton, Johns Hopkins and Purdue, which states that its role is not “to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive”.
A letter sent to the incoming class went further: “we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings’, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’”.
Well, what of New Zealand? The debate about what should be allowed has been well and truly joined in the last few years.
In 2016, there were two speeches which triggered complaints to the Human Rights Commission.
One was by Muslim cleric Shaykh Mohammad Anwar Sahib, at the time the secretary of the Ulama Council of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand. In his speech, he said that “Jews are using everybody because their protocol is to rule the entire world.” He went on to say that “Jews are the enemy of the Muslim community”, and made offensive remarks about women. Then Ethnic Communities Minister Sam Lotu-Iiga responded quickly, reminding everybody that hate speech is prohibited in New Zealand under Section 61 of the Human Rights Act.
The second speech was by self-proclaimed Bishop Brian Tamaki. Quoting the Book of Leviticus, he stated that the Bible made it clear that gays, sinners and murderers were responsible for the recent earthquakes.
Perhaps it was these speeches, perhaps it was recent developments at US universities, or perhaps it was the reaction to the suggestion that there should be a club for “Europeans” at Auckland University, but something provoked Professor Paul Moon, History professor at AUT, to launch his petition in defence of free speech early the following year.
It was a relatively short petition, but made some essential points:
“Freedom of speech underpins our way of life in New Zealand as a liberal democracy. It enables religious observance, individual development, societal change, science, reason and progress in all spheres of life. In particular, the free exchange of ideas is a cornerstone of academe…
“Individuals, not any institution or group, should make their own judgments about ideas and should express these judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas they oppose, without discrimination or intimidation.
“We must ensure that our higher learning establishments are places where intellectual rigour prevails over emotional blackmail and where academic freedom, built on free expression, is maintained and protected. We must fight for each other’s right to express opinions, even if we do not agree with them.”
Voltaire’s famous line comes to mind: “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
In short order, Professor Moon got 27 well-known New Zealanders to sign the petition – New Zealanders as diverse as Tariana Turia and Don Brash!
But in some respects things have gone backwards since that time.
In April 2018, physicist and retired historian Bruce Moon was invited to give a speech by the Nelson Institute, in the Nelson public library. He chose to speak about the “fake history” which is too often being used to reinterpret the Treaty of Waitangi. Shortly before he was due to speak, the Nelson library cancelled the booking on spurious “health and safety” grounds.
In the middle of 2018, two so-called alt-right Canadian speakers were prevented from speaking at venues owned by Auckland Council on grounds which Auckland mayor Phil Goff argued at the time related to what they might say (though Auckland Council had had no problem in allowing Kim Dotcom, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden to use the Town Hall a year earlier).
That prompted Jan Thomas, the Vice Chancellor of Massey University, to pen an op-ed for the New Zealand Herald in July that year asserting that “the right to speak freely is a bedrock principle of democratic society. This includes the right to hold opinions and express one’s views without fear and the ability to freely communicate one’s ideas. History is littered with examples of tyrants who have sought to stymie this freedom of expression and, conversely, reveals the tragedy of those whose voices have been silenced under such oppression.”
But she went on to argue that “freedom of expression is one thing, hate speech is another”, endorsing Auckland Council’s decision to ban the two Canadians from speaking at a Council-owned venue.
And the following month she banned me from speaking on the Massey Palmerston North campus, ostensibly on security grounds but actually because she thought that in talking about my time as the Leader of the National Party I might chance to say something that might offend some of her staff. It was an outrageous ban, and when her emails were released under the Official Information Act, it was quite clear that she had lied in claiming I had been banned on security grounds. She should have resigned, or been fired.
In March last year, New Zealand saw the tragedy of 51 Muslims killed, and many more injured, by a man who clearly hated Islam with a passion and who saw it as his duty to kill as many Muslims as he could. No sane person could condone such an atrocity and the perpetrator has rightly been sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
But the event has prompted serious discussion about whether New Zealand needs laws prohibiting so-called hate speech, with both Attorney General David Parker and Justice Minister Andrew Little talking publicly about the need for laws to criminalise hate speech. The Human Rights Commissioner has also called for such laws.
But it’s a hugely tricky area, and perhaps that explains why we haven’t yet seen any draft legislation which would restrict hate speech.
What does “hate speech” actually mean? Nobody defends the right for people to urge violence against persons or property of course. But beyond that opinions will differ.
Should Israel Folau be allowed to point out that the Old Testament says that gays will go to hell after they die unless they repent of their homosexuality? I would argue “yes”.
Should Muslims be allowed to argue that gays, adulterers, and those who abandon Islam should be killed, thus implicitly condoning murder? I would argue “no”.
But those are, at least to me, relatively straightforward cases. There are many other areas where societal attitudes are effectively shutting down discussion or debate, with mainstream media simply refusing to entertain debate in areas where views differ strongly.
For example, it is judged to be too insensitive, or too judgmental, to suggest that the children brought up by their two natural parents are likely to have a much better start in life than those brought up in single-parent families, or in families where the adult male changes at irregular intervals.
It is regarded as quite inappropriate to recommend that adoption be regarded as an alternative to either abortion or single parenthood.
It is regarded as verging on treason to question whether human-induced climate change is really the most serious challenge facing humanity, despite the contrary views of people as different as Canadian Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, and Matt Ridley, a well-known British science writer.
It is regarded as far too judgmental to suggest that some cultures are superior to, or more advanced than, others.
It is regarded as quite inappropriate to publicly question the wisdom of allowing as immigrants people who believe that adulterers should be stoned to death.
And you dare not suggest that the Enlightenment civilization brought to New Zealand by the early British settlers was significantly more advanced than the Maori culture of the early nineteenth century, even though early nineteenth century Maori had no written language, had not yet invented the wheel, and were still practising cannibalism.
You may not even question the proposition that Maori are indigenous, even though Maori themselves talk about Maori arriving by canoe from a distant place within the last 1,000 years, vastly more recently than humans arrived in North America some 15,000 years ago, or in Australia more than 50,000 years ago.
It is regarded as racist to suggest that all New Zealanders should have equal political rights, despite that being the clear meaning of Article III of the Treaty of Waitangi and the only basis for a peaceful society in the long-term.
And the mainstream media censor any who would argue that case. As you may know, Casey Costello and I are the two spokespeople for the Hobson’s Pledge Trust, an organisation committed to advancing equal citizenship in New Zealand. We get almost no media coverage, despite issuing umpteen press statements, and when we do get media coverage most of it is focused on me: I can be caricatured as an elderly white male racist. Casey can’t be: she is a young woman of Ngapuhi and Anglo-Irish ancestry, so doesn’t fit the need to describe Hobson’s Pledge as a male, white, organisation.
A couple of years ago, I wrote an article about the way in which affirmative action in favour of Malays had damaged most Malays, based on an article from the well-respected British weekly The Economist. I noted the parallels with New Zealand. I submitted the article in turn to the Sunday Star Times, the Herald on Sunday, the Otago Daily Times, and the Listener. All declined to publish it.
Hobson’s Pledge is routinely described by our critics as “racist”, which surely is a totally Orwellian use of the word. It is those who argue for preferential rights for some based on their race who are, of course, the real racists.
As long ago as 2017, well-known writer and former editor of the Dominion-Post Karl du Fresne noted that then Police Commissioner Mike Bush had talked to the Human Rights Commission about the possible need for a law prohibiting “hate speech”. Mr du Fresne commented:
“A hate speech law would mark a radical and dangerous extension of existing police powers: from protecting people and property against clearly identifiable threats, such as assault and theft, to making value judgments about whether a citizen has crossed the blurry line between fair comment and something much darker.
“Such a law would be welcomed by activist minority groups which want the state to protect them from any comment they see as hurtful or oppressive. But freedom of speech is far too precious in a democracy to be undermined by subjective judgments from police officers about what constitutes incitement to “hate” as opposed to a robust expression of legitimate opinion.”
OK, but what would I do with the speech by the Muslim cleric? Given the long and appallingly negative effects of anti-Semitism, for me it’s a line call. But on balance I think I would allow it, as long as I am allowed to argue publicly that people who hold such misogynist and anti-Jewish views should not be allowed to become permanent residents or citizens of New Zealand.
And the speech by Brian Tamaki? Again I would allow such speech, as long as I am free to note that the guy is a nutter, and that the Book of Leviticus also bans the eating of meat containing blood and the wearing of any garments made of two types of fibre. No rational person takes such strictures as relevant today.
I don’t know whether I am optimistic or pessimistic about the future of free speech. A very noisy number of New Zealanders – who unfortunately control at least the taxpayer-funded media in New Zealand, and the editorial policy of our two major newspaper chains – have a narrow view of what can be shared with the wider public.
On the other hand, when the Auckland Council banned the two Canadians from speaking in Council-owned facilities back in 2018 a very diverse range of New Zealanders – from Chris Trotter on the left to Lindsay Perigo on the right – quickly formed the Free Speech Coalition, and raised money to take the Auckland Council to court arguing that banning the Canadians was quite contrary to the Council’s obligation to Auckland citizens.
And after I was banned by the Massey Vice-Chancellor I was phoned by a former Parliamentary colleague – a member of the Alliance Party no less – who told me that while he and I differed on almost every policy issue, we were at one on the importance of free speech.
We fight on!
Unobjectively ‘Experts’, in courts of Law.
Blar Blar Blar…..
Re-learning history in Aotearoa
Revisionist O Malley….
WAITANGI DAY 2023: TRUE NEW ZEALAND HISTORY: CAPITAN GUSTAV VON TEMPSKY WAS A GREAT MAN OF HIGH CHARACTER… A HERO WHO GAVE HIS LIFE FOR OUR COUNTRY.