French Bishop, Maori Chiefs, British Treaty

By Peter Low

A great event took place in January; an English warship came to the Bay of Islands. It brought a lieutenant-governor subordinate to the English Governor of Sydney; he is called Capt. Hobson…

So wrote Bishop Pompallier in May 1840, in the course of a long letter to Father Colin, head of the Marist Order. Pompallier, with his accompanying priest Louis-Catherin Servant, was present at Waitangi on 5 and 6 February, just before the signing of the treaty - an event that has proved even more important for New Zealand history than he then realised. This article focuses on the role he played at that time.

Jean-Baptiste François Pompallier was then thirty-seven years old, having been born in Lyon in December 1802. His mission to the Pacific had the approval of King Louis-Philippe, Queen Amélie and Madame AdéLaide, the king's sister. His main allegiance, however, was not to France but to the Catholic Church. After entering the priesthood in 1829, he had been ordained bishop in Rome in 1836 and given the task of evangelising Oceania.

Portrait of Bishop Jean-Baptist Pompallier, 1848. Oil on canvas by Marzocchi De Belluci (1800-1871). This is very much what the Bishop looked like and how he was dressed when he attended Treaty negotiations eight years previously.
Reproduced with kind permission of Auckland Catholic Diocesan Archives.

The two years he had spent in New Zealand had not been idle. Within six months he had learnt the Maori language well enough to preach in it, and had baptised his first chiefly convert. By 1840 he had formed clusters of Catholics around Hokianga and the Bay of Islands, established a centre at Kororareka (with a printing press), and become one of the more notable and controversial pakeha in the country. Though he had not ensured that New Zealand would have more Catholics than Protestants - something that has still not occurred - this tall man had certainly given his Church a high profile.

He was controversial for two reasons: religion and politics. The Protestant missionaries, notably Henry Williams, saw him as a scheming papist newcomer competing with them for Maori souls. The first anti-popist pamphlet in Maori was issued as early as 1838. The bishop for his part saw them as heretics, rejoiced at any conversions gained at their expense, and criticised them for their large families and their land dealing. Religious animosity was high in this period, and Pompallier knew that Protestant missionaries had previously driven two Catholic priests out of Tahiti.

He was disliked also for his nationality. Britain and France had been at war for twenty of the preceding fifty years, and were still very much in political competition. Besides, in both countries there were advocates of empire-building, most of whom thought that missionaries could be useful in preparing for annexation and colonisation. Now Pompallier had been given a nine-gun salute by the French corvette Héroine when it visited the Bay of Islands in 1838.And he was flying a tricolore flag on the hill above his mission centre in Kororareka - as Hobson's crew noticed when they sailed in on 29 January 1840.

^ Return to top
The bishop visited Captain Hobson on 30 January, and was received courteously on board the Herald. There he learnt of the plans to establish British sovereignty, from the very mouth of Queen Victoria's official representative, who hoped that the Frenchman would not oppose them. However, Hobson did not seek his help in obtaining signatures (as he did with the British missionaries). Another thing he did not do is say: "We are annexing New Zealand in order to forestall France." That argument, though commonly used by the New Zealand Company, had little place in the thinking of the Colonial Office, for whom establishing the rule of law was a much stronger motive.

During their conversation, Pompallier sought assurances that the Catholic mission would be allowed to continue, in accordance with the recent British policies of religious toleration - he may even have asked specifically that the Catholic Emancipation Act passed in Westminster in 1829 would be applied in New Zealand, since he knew of cases in Australia where Catholics had been forced to attend Anglican services. Hobson gave the assurances requested.

Hobson did not show the bishop the text of the proposed treaty, for the simple reason that it did not yet exist. But he did explain British intentions with regard to New Zealand. And he may have shown Pompallier the circular letters which were being printed that day for despatch to the Maori chiefs, inviting them to the residence of James Busby, the British Resident, at Waitangi on 5 February.

In the following days Pompallier received several visits from Maori chiefs. According to his letter to Colin, "the natives wanted to ask me what they should do, whether to sign or not sign." They included Te Kemara of Waitangi and Rewa of Kororareka, probably with his colleagues Hakiro, Moka and Tareha. Most (perhaps all) were Catholic converts, and were members of the confederation of northern chiefs who in 1835 had signed a Declaration of Independence, following the advice of Busby (who had then been alarmed by the French Protestant Charles de Thierry's plans to set up his own "sovereign state" in Hokianga). Now, in 1840, Busby was championing this new British treaty, as were the leading Protestant missionaries.

^ Return to top
How did the bishop reply to the chiefs' questions? Nobody knows the full truth. But his advice to the chiefs has been subject to at least three inaccurate interpretations.

The first view is that the French bishop led a conspiracy against the British treaty. The Anglican Williams thought this, and other Englishmen in the Bay of Islands shared his suspicions, including Captain Hobson. In its extreme form, this view blamed Catholic influence for all Maori resistance to the treaty, as if the Maori chiefs were unable to have any reservations about it without outside help! Of course, newcomers were not always aware that the northern tribes had been dealing with Europeans for decades, and that a few chiefs (including Rewa) had been to Sydney.

The second view is that Pompallier stayed entirely aloof from all political questions. This was the view he himself always asserted, for example in his letter to Colin:

"I enlightened the chiefs about what was involved for them and then left them to make their own decision, remaining politically neutral myself, telling them that I was in this country with my men to work for the salvation both of those who would not sign and those who would sign".

This too is inaccurate, as will be shown below.
Recently there has emerged a third suggestion - that the bishop bears some moral responsibility for the treaty. A booklet published by the Conference of Churches as a "backgrounder" to the "Church Leaders' Statement for 1990" states that he was present "at the initial signing" and implies that he supported it, though not as strongly as the Anglican and Wesleyan missionaries.

This suggestion is based on an error of fact. Although Pompallier attended the gatherings at Waitangi on 5 February and the following morning, he did not witness any signing of the treaty document. He departed before a single Maori had signed. This, as Claudia Orange says in her detailed study of the Treaty of Waitangi and the circumstances surrounding it, "was probably sufficient to suggest the Bishop's public dissociation from the business in hand." Nobody at the time thought Pompallier supported the treaty, and nor do any historians now. There are good arguments for Catholics to honour it, but its association with Pompallier is not one of them.

^ Return to top
But that was on 6 February. In the preceding week the various chiefs had approached him for advice. They knew of his rivalry with the Protestant missionaries who were advocating the signing of the treaty, and of his ability to give a non-British viewpoint. And they admired him.

He admired them too, albeit in a way that may now seem paternalistic. His early letters from New Zealand speak of the Maori people's hospitality and generosity, of their intelligence in learning European ways, and particularly of their curiosity about the Catholic religion - this gave the bishop special pleasure. Yet while they were worth saving, they also needed saving from their sins. This is what he told his priests in 1838:

"Pride appears to be the chief fault of the New Zealanders; from it come an overwhelming sense of shame in disgrace, a spirit of vanity which makes them covet European dress, jealousy of their neighbour and envious desire of his goods; vainglory which causes them to parade their titles and possessions; a craving for praise and esteem from influential persons; and an eagerness to receive gifts which will increase their prestige in the eyes of others".

That sentence shows at once a keen awareness of the importance of mana to the Maori, and a great self-assurance about the applicability of European moral judgments.

A letter of 1839 is perhaps even more revealing:

"Sometimes I am tempted to laugh when seeing myself alone in the wilderness with this band of former cannibals, tattooed, badly clad, and always provided with their club or European weapon. One would take them for a company of brigands; and yet these are inoffensive sheep who press close on the steps of him whom Jesus has given to them for shepherd".

One doubts whether they would relish being called "inoffensive sheep". But the phrase testifies well to Pompallier's consistently religious viewpoint: his prime concern was the salvation of souls.

This prime concern explains why Pompallier did not lead a public campaign against the proposed treaty. For him to have come out publicly against any attempt to impose British sovereignty would have been bad for Catholic interests, since it seemed probable, even before 1840, that the North Island would be increasingly dominated by the British.

However, his opinion of the British plans was not high. He wrote to Colin that: "this is nothing other than a crude attempt by England to take possession of New Zealand…I was quite sure that request for signatures was only a pretext, the annexation was decided on".

^ Return to top
The best insight into his actual words to the chiefs comes from Captain Lavaud of the French Navy, who met him some months later. Pompallier is reported as having said these words to the chiefs:

"It is for you to consult your material interests and decide; if it concerned the salvation of your souls, then I would direct you; but here it is only a question of knowing whether it is preferable for you to recognise and obey a great European chief, rather than to live as you have lived until now. I am not sent among you to become involved in such questions. I will add, however, that you must give mature consideration before deciding, for the Europeans are strong".

But (he told Lavaud) the chiefs did not want to hear talk of obedience; they supposed that Captain Hobson would be an additional great chief for the Europeans only, but not for them.

One of the key words here is obey. The bishop was making it clear to the chiefs that the treaty would mean ceding or losing some of their past freedoms. The suggestion that Hobson's powers as governor would resemble their powers was false, as any European could see - and Pompallier was telling them so. He may also have explained that in international eyes they would no longer have the independent status which they had declared in 1835. I think he knew that the chiefs would feel less favourably towards the treaty after consulting him than they did beforehand.

The reactions of at least two of these chiefs, Rewa and Te Kemara, are well documented: both spoke strongly against the treaty on 5 February. Rewa said that it would result in the chiefs becoming slaves and being employed to make roads and break stones on the highways. And the following day Te Kemara claimed that the bishop had warned him "not to write on the paper, for if he did he would be made a slave".

Now it's hard to believe that Pompallier, in advising the chiefs, had actually used the Maori word taurekareka (slaves). His desire to appear neutral probably excludes such an ill-weighed term. It is very likely, however, that the words he did choose were weighed quite well enough to reveal his intention: namely to make the chiefs much less likely to sign. Pompallier had influenced them in this direction.

^ Return to top
To me, the conclusive evidence for Pompallier's personal preferences in 1840 comes from the next part of Lavaud's report. Note that this was based on a private discussion they had in July 1840, when Lavaud was en route to found the French colony in Akaroa. By that time Hobson had declared British sovereignty over both islands: over the North Islands on the basis of the treaty, and over the South Islands on the basis of "discovery by Captain Cook". What is more, Captain Bunbury had by then obtained important South Islands signatures, and on that basis had declared British sovereignty over the South Islands (but Pompallier may not yet have learnt this fact):

"Monsignor was afraid that under the new regime his mission would be compromised, and he would have liked it if I could have annexed some part of Oceania, Tonga in particular, in order to establish his seat there. He thought also that, as far as the demonstrative acts of the English were concerned, I could press ahead and annex the Middle Island [ie. establish French sovereignty over the South Island] - he said that the English had done a conjuring trick there".

So much for the bishop's total indifference to politics! This passage leaves no real doubt that he was personally opposed to British sovereignty: he would much have preferred French. (He apparently placed little importance on Maori preferences). And his reasoning was simple: French sovereignty would have ensured a dominant position for the Catholic Church, and almost guaranteed the ample funding which the bishop kept requesting from Europe. Thus, far from being neutral, Pompallier had a bias which can be stated clearly: Maori spiritual interests can be best served by Catholicism, and Catholicism can be best served by French sovereignty.

Note also that the discussions between bishop and chiefs had taken place before the precise text of the treaty was known: this was not revealed until 5 February after final drafting the previous night. Pompallier's letter to Colin views the treaty as one of cession, a means used by the British to establish sovereignty. And this was presumably his view of it even before hearing the precise text. He was therefore trying to explain, not the written words of the document but his perception of the intention behind them, and of their probable results - as he puts it, to "enlighten the chiefs about what was involved for them". He was talking, for example, about what "cession of sovereignty" meant in European eyes, and not about what the cession of kawanatanga (governance) and guarantees of rangitiratanga (chieftainship) might mean in Maori eyes. In other words, I am in close agreement with Claudia Orange's summary of this matter: "Suspicions of Pompallier were partially correct… It is not surprising that the Kororareka chiefs, with Pompallier as their adviser… demonstrated a more accurate grasp of the nature and effect of the treaty than most".

Captain Hobson issued Pompallier a special invitation to attend the gatherings at Waitangi, doubtless thinking that this would make the Catholic chiefs more likely to sign. This placed the bishop in a small dilemma. Should he stay away, to dissociate himself from it, as the other Frenchmen in the Bay did? No, he thought, since his absence might jeopardise his relationship with Hobson, and the useful protection which Hobson might give if he became governor. Beside, he would like to disprove a Protestant rumour that he would not show up!

So he chose to attend, and to attend in style. He went dressed as a spiritual prince, carrying his bishop's cross and wearing a large ruby ring and an impressive purple robe - both to see and to be seen. For this purpose his imposing height (1.83m) was an asset he gladly exploited. Accompanied by Father Servant, he joined the official procession right behind captains Hobson and Nias, and proceeded to take a prominent seat next to Busby who was on Hobson's immediate left. Thereby he effectively upstaged the Protestants, one of whom (Richard Taylor) remarked: "I feel sure he cane either as a spy or to get himself acknowledged as an important personage before the natives, which I think he succeeded in doing."

Father Catherin Servant SM, undated photograph.
Reproduced with the kind permission of the Auckland Catholic Diocesan Archives.

For that whole day, Pompallier sat and listened, first as Hobson explained his purpose and the proposed treaty, and then as the chiefs engaged in whaikorero. The bishop was well-positioned to hear everything, including the voice of Williams interpreting for Hobson's benefit - a later remark suggest that Pompallier shared the doubts of some other pakeha about Williams' accuracy.

Father Servant described the occasion in these words:

"The governor proposes to the tribal chiefs that they recognise his authority: he explains to them that this authority is to maintain good order, and protect their respective interests; and that all the chiefs will retain their powers and possessions. A great number of chiefs then speak, displaying one after another all their Maori eloquence. The majority of orators do not want the governor to extend his authority over the natives, but over the Europeans exclusively".

Pompallier later expanded on this, in conversation with Captain Lavaud, who had good reason to seek detailed information about the circumstances of the British annexation:

"After a few minutes the silence was broken be a chief who, walking to and fro in the semicircle, uttered a speech which was unfavourable to the proposals made in the name of Queen Victoria - he could not see why the British were coming such a long way solely to serve the interests of the Maori, and he ended by telling his compatriots that that was something hidden underneath it.

A chief from the Williams party was prompted to follow this very independent chief - so as to combat the tasteless words that had just been heard - and the discussion continued, sometimes for, sometimes against, until the moment when the principal chief of Kororareka, the famous Rewa, uttered these words: "Chase away this white chief; what has he come to do here? To take away the freedom which you now enjoy. Do not believe in his words, do you not see that henceforth you will be mere slaves? That soon he will be employing you to make roads and break stones on the highways?" The chief is Catholic and malevolence attributed his speech to the advice of Bishop Pompallier. It had a great effect on the assembly: the commotion was so great that the session had to be suspended until the arrival of the great Hokianga chief Patuone, who was counted on to re-establish the balance. Finally he arrived and spoke at length in favour of Mr Hobson, and explained by bringing together his two index fingers side by side, that they would be perfectly equal, and that each chief would similarly be equal with Mr Hobson. Then they broke up without deciding anything. However, the papers remained on the table with pens and ink to receive the signatures, mokos or crosses of the natives; and also visible were woolen blankets, clothing, tools, tobacco and food awaiting signatories at the exit".

This account makes no attempt to list all the chiefs who spoke that day. Instead, it mentions four: two who spoke in favour of the proposed treaty (Patuone and the "chief from the Williams party") and two who spoke unfavourably (Rewa and the one who spoke first, who can be identified as Te Kemara). We are given a simplified version of the debate, one which (for example) mentions Patuone while neglecting his younger brother Nene.

^ Return to top
The resulting picture highlights the strong contrast between Rewa and Patuone: Rewa, stated to be Catholic, speaks of loss of freedom, and depicts the governor as an employer, even a slavemaster; whereas Patuone, who was Anglican, speaks of perfect equality between Hobson and each chief, and demonstrates his meaning with a striking gesture. This leaves no doubt that Rewa and Patuone disagreed in their expectations as to what the treaty would mean in subsequent years. Patuone's gesture of the two index fingers, if indeed it meant perfect equality between each chief and Hobson, resembles what the Catholic chiefs are said to have thought before consulting Pompallier: "Hobson would be an additional great chief for the Europeans, only".

Now history shows that governors were soon to have much more status and power than chiefs. In other words Rewa's view was an exaggerated picture of what really happened, whereas Patuone's view was simply false. Yet Patuone was one of the speakers who turned the debate back in favour of the proposed treaty. Pompallier was unimpressed: he considered such views ill-founded, and probably attributed them to the Protestant missionaries. But he held his tongue until the next day. He did not participate in the private discussions that evening, of which Williams later said: "I gave [the chiefs] but one version… showing the advantage of them being taken under the fostering care of the British Government".

The next morning Hobson, rather perfunctorily, requested that the signing should begin without further debate. But Pompallier had not yet heard certain words from Hobson, words which their meeting on board the Herald had led him to expect: those that would ensure the continuation of the Catholic mission. Here is the story as Pompallier penned it some years later:

"One question however interested me deeply, it was that of religious freedom, about which no one in any way seemed to trouble themselves. Before the last meeting broke up and it became a question of signing the treaty, I broke my silence. I addressed Captain Hobson, begging him to make known to all the people the principles of European civilisation which obtain in Great Britain, and which would guarantee free and equal protection to the Catholic as to every other religion in New Zealand. My demand was immediately acceded to by Captain Hobson, who made a formal notification of it to all the assembled people, to the great satisfaction of the Catholic chiefs and tribes, who triumphed in the fact of my presence in the face of the Protestant missionaries and at the speedy compliance with the few words I had spoken".

The bishop's pride is not fully justified. While Hobson did indeed comply speedily, he did fail to mention it in his official report to London. And Henry Williams even claimed that the Maori, far from applauding, made no sense of it at all. Here are the words which Hobson authorised Williams to read out:

E mea ana te Kawana ko nga whakapono katoa o Ingarani, o nga Weteriana, o Roma, me te ritenga Maori hoki e tiakina ngatahitiae ia.
[The Governor says that the several faiths of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also Maori custom shall alike be protected by him.]

Unfortunately, we cannot congratulate Pompallier for this tolerance of ritenga Maori - that phrase was inserted by Williams, probably on the suggestion of William Colenso. Pompallier's respect for the Maori people did not extend to their spiritual traditions: his letters often use the phrase "of no religion" to describe a Maori not converted to Christianity. (Father Servant's writings show a greater acknowledgment of Maori spirituality.)

We can say, however, that the proclamations is historic, for especially for its mention of ritenga Maori, which would not have occurred that day had not Pompallier broken
his silence. Thus the Catholic bishop unintentionally helped the Maori to gain recognition for their spiritual taonga. Some Maori leaders later referred to this proclamation as "Article Four" of the Treaty.

^ Return to top
What Pompallier did intend, of course, was protection for the Catholic faith. Having obtained that, and probably increased his mana as well, he was ready to make his exit - before Hone Heke placed the first Maori signature.

He may not even have heard the next intervention, that of Colenso who raised an even more important question: did the chiefs really understand "the purport of the Treaty"?
On that matter, however, we do have Pompallier's opinion, clearly stated three months later in his letter to Colin: "Few understood well what they did in signing. They were won over by presents and by their ignorance."

On the basis of the above discussion, we can suggest that Pompallier's opinions were as follows: Many of the Waitangi signatories, such as Patuone, expected to retain their status and power, and to lose little of substance. But these expectations were ill-founded: on the contrary, British sovereignty would mean substantial losses in status and authority. These false expectations had been encouraged by the Protestant missionaries; but the chiefs who consulted the Catholic bishop formed more appropriate expectations. These chiefs were the few who "understood well what they did in signing".

Rewa and Te Kemara were among those few. After Pompallier's departure, these chiefs did sign the treaty. They were some of the last to do so that day, and they signed with great reluctance (not that this made their signatures less useful to Hobson).

Why did they sign? Colenso's account makes it clear that they were responding to pressure from there peers, most of whom seem to have made their decisions the previous evening. Now the bishop may not have done the Protestant chiefs justice: they had debated the matter at length (they didn't simply listen to Williams), and the wording of Article Two pleased them. As a result, Rewa and Te Kemara were confronted by a consensus that was in favour of signing, and so they chose not to continue their opposition. Besides, however discouraging Pompallier may have been, he had certainly said that the decision must be theirs.

Actually, even on 6 February, a few chiefs refused to sign. These may or may not have felt the bishop's influence. But one who had - Rewa - subsequently took part in a hui at Manukau, where more chiefs were being asked to sign. Rewa argued strongly against signing, with some success. If he couldn't retract his own signature, he could dissuade others.

Meanwhile Bishop Pompallier had accepted that he was living in a British colony. Although I have several times quoted his letter of 14 May 1840, singling out its unfavourable remarks about the treaty, it also has some good words to say for the treaty. It had certainly ended the accusations that Catholic priests were plotting to take over New Zealand; besides, government by Britain was better than no government at all. And of course the Catholic mission continued. Ten years later the bishop accepted British citizenship.

As a postscript to this chapter, I will quote some documents of 1845-46 which refer to 1840. In a letter to Cardinal Fransoni, Pompallier says that by signing the treaty the Maori people "were made English subjects, and their country an English possession, although they did not understand the whole tenor of the treaty and had not the slightest intention of ceding their territory and their sovereignty".

Given this view, it is no surprise that he carefully dissociated himself from the treaty in the eyes of those Maori who were unhappy with British rule. An obvious case was Hone Heke, the chief who had chopped down the British flagpole and threatened a war of rebellion. In a letter to Heke dated 31 January 1845, the bishop reminded him of his (Pompallier's) words to the chiefs five years earlier:

Kihai rawa hoki ahau i mea ki a koutou, tukua to koutou rangatiratanga ki nga pakeha ahakoa Ingarangi, ahakoa Wiwi, ahakoa Amerikana, ahakoa no te tahi iwi ke atu… Ki te mea e mai pai ana koutou kia riro ia ki tetahi iwi pakeha ranei e koutou, na, kei a koutou te whakaaro.
[I never told you to give up your rangatiratanga to foreigners, whether English, French, American or any other nation. If you wish to give it up to a foreign nation, that is your affair.]

^ Return to top
When Henry Williams saw the text of this letter, he was far from impressed - and wrote as follows:

M. Pompallier tells them in plain terms that they had yielded up their rights as chiefs in the following clause: "If you consent to yield up your rights as chiefs to a foreign nations, or if you prefer to keeping [sic], that is your affair." - which compare with the treaty itself. It may appear remarkable that this document has not called forth a single observation. To me it appears perfectly clear that [he told them they would lose rights?], which view has been collaborated [sic] by natives who have told me that we concealed the truth from them respecting the Government seizing the country and taking them for slaves to mend roads and fell timber - but the Papists told them the truth, which was that the Government had done so - hence the whole of the mischief that has taken place."

Now the Anglican missionary was at that time attempting to blame Catholics for Heke's war. And he is absolutely right that Pompallier's letter takes no account of Article Two of the Treaty, the guarantee of rangatiratanga. Williams, of course, never ceased to believe that the Treaty of Waitangi was in the best interests of the Maori race. And perhaps, as late as 1846, he believed sincerely that the chiefs could trust that guarantee. The Catholic bishop never shared that notion! Then again, Williams may have considered that the best policy for the Maori would be to take it seriously and to keep calling on successive governments to honour it - which is what many prominent Maori leaders have done ever since.

This article has focussed on Pompallier's role in 1840. What did he achieve in the matter of the treaty? If a rejection of British imperialism was his aim, then he failed. But that was, at most, a hope rather than an aim. His prime and essential objective - his "bottom line' - was the protection of Catholicism. He was right to applaud himself for obtaining that proclamation of tolerance (and all New Zealanders can be pleased how little religious strife our nation has experienced). In addition, he ensured that a number of Maori chiefs were very well informed about the likely consequences of signing. That was not a bad role to play in relation to the Maori: the French bishop as realist rather than idealist, respectfully "enlightening them about what was involved."

Acknowledgments

This article can be found in "The French and the Maori", published by The Heritage Press, 1990. It is posted on the Pompallier Mission website with the kind permissions of the author, Peter Low; the holders of its copyright, La Fédération des Alliances Françaises de Nouvelle Zélande; and of its original publishers, Heritage Press.

Dr Low may be emailed at peter.low@canterbury.ac.nz. His more recent presentation of this topic will be published shortly as part of the Pompallier Symposium papers.