Part Two
Outliers to Trends in Māori Baptisms, 1857-1866
by Rosa Ewing*
In D.B.H. Gadd’s The Baptismal Register of the Ihu Matao Wesleyan Mission Station 1849-54 and the Manukau Wesleyan Circuit 1855-1869, 1857 marked the beginning of the demise of Māori baptisms on the Manukau Circuit. This reflected growing tensions and distrust between Māori and European settlers and the precipitation of the Taranaki and Waikato Wars. Despite these trends, however, several Māori continued to be baptised on the Circuit. These Māori were often related to Māori mission assistants.
This article aims to briefly summarise the trends that Gadd highlighted, before delving into the outliers. It will explore why these Māori continued to subscribe to Wesleyan Missionary practices and how they present another dimension to the popular historical narrative.
Trends in Gadd’s Register
From 1857, Māori baptisms on the Manukau Circuit experienced a significant drop. For 1857, Gadd tallied only two Māori baptisms, a stark reduction from 12 in the previous year. This was followed by zero baptisms in 1858, and two each in 1859 and 1860. There were only a further two Māori baptisms before they halted completely, one in 1863 and one in 1866. Gadd noted the election of the Māori King in 1858, the Waitara Dispute in 1859, and the beginning of the Taranaki War as relevant events to the decline in baptisms. As has been explored in several historical works, these were all key events that reflected the changing relationship between Māori and Pākehā in the 1850s and 1860s.
Line Graph of Māori and European baptisms, 1849-1871. Shows dramatic decrease in Māori baptisms from 1857, while European baptisms increase. Graph by Author using data from D.B.H. Gadd (ed.), The Baptismal Register of the Ihu Matao Wesleyan Mission Station 1849-54 and the Manukau Wesleyan Circuit 1855-1869, c.1964, MS-109, Auckland War Memorial Museum Tāmaki Paenga Hira, Auckland.
Since the beginning of European settlement, and the subsequent signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, Māori-Pākehā relations have been fraught with disputes over authority and land. The establishment of a separate Māori king movement, the Kīngitanga, represented a significant and official declaration of the deep-seated distrust many Māori felt towards the colonial government, and the desire for Māori control over Māori affairs. Because of their close familial ties with Ngāti Mahuta, Manukau iwi Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua were actively involved in the election of Pōtatau Te Wherowhero as the first Māori King in June 1858. In March 1858, a hui was held at Ihumātao to discuss the formation of the Kīngitanga Movement. A letter published in the Taranaki Herald in 1863, as part of a translation of the Kīngitanga’s gazette, outlined how at Ihumātao ‘the people of the Manukau were favourable to the King movement – all the chiefs attended.’
Pōtatau Te Wherowhero (Ngāti Koura; Ngāti Mahuta; Waikato; Te Arawa), the first Māori King. Auckland Libraries Heritage Collections NZG-18900614-0003-01
Given the general support that Manukau Māori had for the Kīngitanga, Gadd rightfully used this as an explanation for the decrease in baptisms from 1856 to 1858. Additionally, reports from Wesleyan missionaries showed a decrease in Māori population on the Manukau Circuit. In 1857, 365 people were recorded as living on the Circuit. Yet, in 1858, this population had reduced to 313. While this change may also have been due to migration patterns of Māori, both reports were dated in November, reducing the credibility of seasonal migration as an explanation.
Māori participation in the Wesleyan Manukau mission further deteriorated when war broke out in Taranaki in 1860 and the Kīngitanga supported Taranaki tribes. A truce was established between colonial forces and Māori in 1861, but Albert E. Tonson recognised the first Taranaki War as a turning point for the Pākehā-Māori relationship. According to Tonson, Māori became suspicious of Pākehā and began to insult settlers, looting their homes. However, Tonson’s history of the Manukau is one-sided and based primarily on Pākehā sources. Examining a range of sources more carefully, we see that Pākehā were also responsible for stoking suspicions of Māori. For example, settlers acted upon their suspicions of Māori at Waikōwhai in April 1862, when European sailors uprooted Māori crops and instigated violent scuffles.
Tensions and suspicions continued to simmer until the colonial government undertook military action against the Kīngitanga in 1863. On 10 July 1863, a government officer read a proclamation from Governor Sir George Grey to the tribes of Manukau. The proclamation issued an ultimatum: Māori must pledge allegiance to the Crown and surrender their weapons or leave the Auckland region. Māori who did not comply were to be forcibly evicted. Despite peaceful and prosperous relationships with Pākehā, most Māori in the Manukau chose to join their Waikato relatives. Lucy Mackintosh has called the eviction of Māori from their Manukau homes a ‘polarising moment,’ felt deeply across the community. Flourishing Māori communities were reduced to shells of themselves.
The story of the deterioration of Māori-settler relations and the development of the Waikato War provides ample explanation for the decline in Māori baptisms on the Manukau Circuit. In this sense, the Register starkly reflected the escalating negative impact colonisation was having on Manukau Māori. The Circuit became largely deserted by Māori, and some villages, such as Pehiakura, disappeared completely. Morley hypothesised about the abandoned missions that ‘it is safe to say that not more than five per cent [of Māori] remained faithful to the Church or retained the profession of Christianity.’
The abandoned pā site at Pehiakura, near Kohekohe, photographed in 1964. Writer Elise Locke and Methodist minister Rev. C.T.J. Luxton are pictured. Auckland Libraries Heritage Collections Footprints 07063.
Outliers
In reference to the dwindling Māori population on the Manukau Circuit, an 1859 Māori Work Report from the Wesleyan Missionary Society contested that, although the population was small, ‘we do not feel the liberty to neglect the few because they are few.’ While the outliers to the overarching trends in baptisms that Gadd outlined represent only a small number, they represent a story that has been overlooked in the history of the Manukau. Undoubtedly, the deterioration of race relations, the establishment of the Kīngitanga, and the outbreak of the Taranaki and Waikato Wars made it less tenable for many Māori to live in Manukau, causing their migration. However, Māori who continued to observe Wesleyan Methodism on the Manukau complicate and enrich the popular historical narrative. The following section brings to light who these Māori were, and their involvement in the Wesleyan mission.
In 1857, despite ‘increasing fear of Pākehā domination’, two Māori infants were baptised at Papāhinu. Tracing these individuals and their whānau was difficult due to the exclusion of last names on the register, and the frequency of common Māori names, often transliterations of biblical names, across sources. Furthermore, wāhine Māori have been marginalised in historical records with little to no details recorded, perhaps reflecting the patriarchal focus of information collection in this period. Consequently, one of the infants and their family could not be traced. Yet, some sources were found that elucidate the life of the father of the other infant.
The father of a child baptised in March 1857, Patoromiu, appeared in a story published in Te Karere Māori/the Māori Messenger, on 28 February 1857. The story, written in te reo Māori, told that Patoromiu was involved in a fishing accident. After catching a shark in his net, Patoromiu fell overboard approximately four miles from shore. Patoromiu is identified as living at Papāhinu, on the Manukau, so is likely the same Patoromiu from the baptism register. The article went on to state that (translated) ‘All the Māori people love him. The Pākehā also love him.’ This shows that Patoromiu was a well-liked person, getting along with both Māori and settlers.
In The History of Methodism in New Zealand, William Morley lists ‘Patoromo’ as a preacher on the Manukau Circuit. While this spelling does not match the baptism register, it is probable that it refers to the same person. Across Morley’s History, there are several issues with the transcription of names, including errors in spelling, initials, and exclusion of first names. Therefore, it can be assumed this is the same person and that Patoromiu, a popular figure in the Papāhinu community, was likely a native preacher for the Wesleyan mission. His role as an assistant to the mission likely portrays his dedicated faith and is probably why he had his child baptised despite rising fear and distrust of Pākehā.
For 1858, Gadd recorded zero Māori baptisms. This is consistent with the decline in population on the Manukau Circuit from 1857 to 1858. However, in his 1858 Circuit report, Native Assistant Minister Hohepa Otene mentioned that he had baptised two children at Ihumātao and one at Papāhinu. Both Gadd’s abridgement and the original register did not record any baptisms at Ihumātao or Papāhinu in 1858. In fact, Hohepa Otene was not listed on the register as having performed any baptisms. Nevertheless, it is likely that he assisted with the baptisms that his superior, Rev. Thomas Buddle, is recorded as having performed. Perhaps these baptisms were not recorded in a register, or another register exists, but its existence is uncertain. The case of Hohepa Otene and the three baptisms in 1858 are important because they tell us that we are missing the details of at least three people, and that the baptism register may be an incomplete source.
Rev. Thomas Buddle, headmaster of the Wesleyan Native Institution 1844-1849, performed many baptisms on the Manukau Wesleyan circuit. Auckland Libraries Heritage Collections 4-02671-2.
In 1859, two baptisms were recorded at Waikōwhai. Both were officiated by Thomas Buddle. Unfortunately, the individuals baptised were unable to be traced. The 1859 Māori Work Report quoted a population of 353 on the Manukau Circuit, an increase from the 1858 report of 313. Despite this fluctuation, the unsigned report acknowledged the generally declining population and the need to ‘work while it is day’. This showed that Wesleyan missionaries were aware of the declining engagement with Māori, but thought it important to continue their work while a small number of Māori still lived in the area.
In 1860, a further two Māori were baptised by Thomas Buddle. One was an adult, which is unique among the register’s entries, but unfortunately with no surname or date of birth recorded, no reliable information could be found on this individual. The second Māori baptised in 1860 was the child of Hohepa Otene, and ‘Father’s Occupation’ was listed as ‘Native Assistant Missioner’. Given that Hohepa Otene was born around 1780, it is difficult to confirm him as the father of a child born in 1860, when he would have been about 80 years old. Additionally, because he was a signatory to Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and an assistant to the Wesleyan Mission, Hohepa Otene’s life is moderately catalogued. It is known that he was married to Rihi, daughter of prominent Te Rawara chief Poroa, until her death in 1846, and that they bore at least one son in 1838, but no other children are confirmed. Also, because Hohepa Otene was a popular baptised name (after New South Wales Wesleyan missionary Joseph Orton), it is difficult to ascertain whether this is the same Hohepa Otene. But because his occupation was listed as Native Assistant Missioner, and Hohepa Otene referred to Ihumātao as his ‘kainga [sic] tupu’ (ancestral home), it is probable. Therefore, this baptism is another example of a child whose father was involved in the mission, hinting that observing Christian rites was important to some Māori despite the deterioration of race relations.
Abodes of Māori that were baptised on the Manukau Circuit, 1857-1866, as recorded in Gadd’s edited baptismal register. Figure by Author using map from Google Earth.
Between 1860 and 1862, there were zero Māori baptisms on the Manukau Circuit. Interestingly, despite the ultimatum to Māori to pledge allegiance to the Crown or leave the Manukau which resulted in an exodus of Māori to the Waikato, one Māori child was baptised in December of 1863. Gadd listed the location as ‘?..atutai.’ The original register shows signs of an error in handwriting and appears to be written over, rendering it difficult to decipher the location. It is possible to read the name of the father, John Wing Kati, who was listed as a boatman.
The final Māori child that Gadd listed was the daughter of Hone Gage, at Pilot Station (likely the pilot station built at Whatipū on the North Head of the Manukau Harbour) in 1866. Hone Gage was listed as a ‘Native’ in the register. Morley referred once to Hone Keti in his list of preachers on the Manukau Circuit. Hone Keti can be a transliteration of the English name John Gage. The father of the 1866 baptism, Hone Gage, may be this preacher, but it is also possible that John Wing Kati, the father of the 1863 baptism could be a variation of the name John Gage. Alternatively, it is possible Hone Keti and John Wing Kati were the same man, father to two children, baptised in 1863 and 1866. The mother of the 1863 infant was listed as Mere, and the mother of the 1866 infant was listed as Meri, so it is plausible that these were two children of the same couple, recorded with slight variations in spelling between 1863 and 1866. It is also possible that John Wing Kati, in 1863, was occupied as a boatman, before becoming the native preacher whom Morley identified. Assuming these factors, Hone Keti or John Gage was identified as another Māori man who had his children baptised on the Manukau despite the deterioration of race relations and Māori population, again probably because of his faith in the Wesleyan church as a native assistant.
Significance of Māori Assistants
Of the Māori baptisms on the Manukau Circuit between 1857 and 1866, unfortunately many details cannot be retrieved due to lack of recorded information, and numerous repeated names across sources. Additionally, more time would be needed for more thorough research. Importantly, I have found that at least four of the children baptised belonged to fathers who were active assistants to the Wesleyan mission. This suggests a reason for some Māori not leaving the Manukau Circuit despite deteriorating living conditions and war: their duty to and belonging to the Wesleyan Church.
Even though they were few, it is important not to leave these individuals and their whānau off the historical record. This article has demonstrated some outliers of historical trends, adding a new dimension to the popular historical narrative that tells the story of the decline of the Wesleyan Mission in the Manukau. The identification of some of these Māori reveal nuances in Gadd’s abridged register and demonstrate an expansion of the potential of the source for telling local histories.