From Missionary Counts to the First Official Māori Census of 18581

Turnbull Library Record, Volume 48, 1 January 2016, Page 7

SIMON CHAPPLE

From Missionary Counts to the First Official Māori Census of 1858 1

The first nationwide Maori census of New Zealand was taken by the colonial government and is usually dated 1857, although 1858 is more accurate. It was taken between September 1857 and September 1858, with the exception of Nelson and the Chatham Islands, where returns for 1855 were used. The first European nationwide census had taken place slightly earlier, in 1851. 2 The main co-ordinator of the task of collecting Maori numbers, and the man under whose name the results were largely published, was Francis Dart Fenton, who is probably better known today as chief judge of the Native Land Court between 1865 and 1882.

A total of 56,049 Maori were counted. The population was broken down by provinces and geographic regions and, in most cases, into four further categories - males and females, under and over age 14. Whilst this census considered overall has considerable technical problems compared to modern ones, and indeed other later 19th-century Maori censuses, it is still considered by Statistics New Zealand to be the first official national Maori population estimate. The stated aim of the 1858 census was humanitarian. The object was 'to draw attention to the state of the Native population - especially to its decrease in numbers - with a view to invite inquiry as to the cause, and suggestions of a remedy'. 3

However, this first official census was preceded by and evolved from a body of earlier demographic work by missionaries of the Church Missionary Society (CMS), who had first arrived in New Zealand in the Bay of Islands in 1814, and slowly spread across New Zealand in the following decades. Little attention has been paid to New Zealand missionaries as early demographers of Maori. This essay seeks to trace what the missionaries collected, why they collected it, and the process of evolution of their work into the first official census of Maori. It also remarks on the nature of their achievement and contribution.

Most recent discussions of early British imperial censuses have focussed on issues of centralised colonial control and domination of the native 'other'. Certainly some Maori were wary of census-takers in the later 19th century, fearing that information was being collected by the government in order to tax them or assess

their capacity for armed resistance. These may also have been factors motivating later census-taking in New Zealand. However, this essay focuses on other sources for the evolution of the Maori census.

Maori count Maori Well before missionaries actively counted Maori, Maori were counting themselves. At the time of first European contact, hapu or tribes often took what was akin to a partial census - counting their fighting men. In an environment where disputes between political units were ultimately settled by warfare of varying degrees of intensity, it was doubtless important to know both one's own military strength and that of plausible political rivals. Quoting Samuel Marsden, J. L. Nicolas describes a harvest-time line-up and head count of fighting men in the tribe:

The chiefs muster all their men at particular times of the year. The great muster is taken after the potatoe [sic] harvest. The ground from which the potatoes have been lately dug is cleared of the stones and weeds, and all levelled; upon this ground they all assemble, men, women and children. The men are all drawn up like a regiment or army, and stand in ranks five, six, or seven deep, according to the will of the chief. Then one of the head officers or rungateedas begins to muster them, not by calling over the names, but by passing in front of the ranks, and telling their number. At the head of every hundred men he places a rungateeda, and continues in this manner to number the whole, leaving a rungateeda with each hundred men: thus ten rungateedas answer for a thousand men; the women and children are never mustered. 4

Other near-contemporary information suggests that population counts based on fighting men were not uncommon amongst Maori. In 1793, on a map drawn for Governor Phillip King, the chief Tuki Tahua provided information on populations by fighting men for areas with which he appears to have been most familiar, in units of thousands. He also provided some population numbers in other areas. 5 While in Sydney, prior to arriving in New Zealand, the Reverend Samuel Marsden recorded information about the Bay of Islands from Ruatara, a local chief who had left the bay in 1805, and eventually ended up in Sydney. Based on Ruatara's information, Marsden wrote, 'Moca is the greatest chief; he possesses the largest extent of country and has more than 10,000 men at this command'. Following missionary arrival in the Bay of Islands, Ruatara also provided Thomas Kendall with the numbers of fighting men controlled by himself and several allies, with numbers rounded in hundreds. 6

It is not just in the north where there is evidence of significant Maori interest in counting Maori. In his memoir of his father, written in 1849, Tamihana Te Rauparaha writes often of the numbers of fighting men involved in battles or heke (migrations), and the populations of women, children and slaves associated with them, sometimes presenting numbers in units of 100, and at other times in units of 10. Numbers of deaths in his father's and others' battles are also regularly recorded. 7

Information on Maori counts further south suggests a similar interest and methods. In discussions regarding Ngai Tahu land claims, reported in the Press in 1879, Wiremu Te Uki of Ngai Tahu reports a historic tribal assembly in response to a Ngati Toa threat, with the observation that, regarding men, 'they were counted for fighting purposes'. An alternative mode of Maori enumeration in the south, which did not involve counting fighting men, is recorded by Merekihereka Hape of Waikouaiti, who stated, 'On fine days the people go out, and the chiefs would then count them'. This method is also endorsed by Harimona Pohio of the same place: 'The people were numbered. When they used to go and get food the number who went from each place was counted'. 8

Given such a background, it is not surprising that some Maori later resisted national census-taking for fear the information the government collected on their numbers would be used for military purposes. As late as 1916, some Maori, in parts of the Waikato for example, were resisting government census-taking, concerned that it would be used to enforce conscription. While Maori tended to provide demographic information in terms of numbers of fighting men, missionaries had little direct interest in assessing Maori military capacity. Their early interest was in roughly ascertaining total numbers of souls available to save for Christ. Numbers of unsaved Maori souls justified their initial expansion into New Zealand, to both themselves and their backers in England. Their early recorded numbering of Maori populations primarily in terms of fighting men, therefore, almost certainly reflected Maori modes of thinking. It was from these estimates of fighting men that missionaries made their first estimates of total numbers of Maori.

Missionary estimation of the total size of the Maori population, 1834-45 The CMS missionaries were not the first Europeans to estimate the size of the Maori population. Based on no clear method, on Cook's second expedition, Johann Forster estimated more than 100,000 Maori. Forster's estimate is the most commonly used figure for the Maori population at first contact. (Cook's name is often appended to the estimate, though there is no evidence that he bore

any responsibility for it.) Missionaries on the ship the Royal Admiral, which visited Hauraki in 1801, put the number of Maori at 'many hundred thousand', and missionary William Ellis, visiting the Bay of Islands in 1816, placed the numbers at half a million or more. 9 As is indicated by their variability, these earliest European estimates of Maori population size must be treated as guesses, constrained by superficiality of contact, limited ability to converse with locals, and lack of information about significant populations in many areas, including inland.

The first reasonably informed estimate of the Maori population of the North Island was made by the Reverend William Williams of the CMS in early 1834, reported in a letter to his parent body, and recorded in the 1838 British Parliamentary Inquiry on New Zealand. By the time of Williams' estimate, the missionaries had been accumulating information on local populations in New Zealand for 20 years. Williams himself had lived in New Zealand for nearly a decade. He spoke Maori well, putting him in a strong position to acquire and accurately filter local information. He and other missionaries had travelled widely in the northern half of the North Island, where most Maori lived. His estimates represent an informal pooling of a variety of missionary-collected and Maoriprovided information, as well as information from Pakeha traders in different parts of the country.

Following a journey through the Waikato and into the East Cape-Poverty Bay region in 1833/34, Williams estimated the Maori population of the North Island at 106,000, divided up by eight different areas. 10 His main method involved using local Maori information on numbers of fighting men, then multiplying them up to give an overall population estimate: 'We may form some idea of the actual state of the population, by the census the Natives give [of numbers of fighting men], in which we rarely find them yield to exaggeration... The whole number of men, therefore...multiplied by 3, will perhaps give the total, including women and children'. 11 The paucity of missionary knowledge about the South Island, where they had no informants, is reflected in Williams' overall New Zealand-wide population estimate of about 200,000.

Given that missionaries had been in New Zealand for nearly two decades at the time of Williams' estimate, it is worth asking what took them so long to count Maori. The number of missionaries was very small. Therefore capacities and predilections of individuals doubtless played a role. But until the arrival of Henry Williams in 1823, the New Zealand mission had been riven with discord. The missionaries' preoccupation was with daily survival in a hostile environment. They had made little initial effort to travel widely beyond the Bay of Islands. Additionally, their lack of success for many years in converting locals seems to have meant there was no real push to examine numbers of unconverted Maori elsewhere.

Missionary focus improved following Henry Williams' assumption of leadership. By the mid-1820s the missionaries had begun to follow Samuel Marsden's initial example and travel more widely to seek out new populations - and perhaps more amenable converts.

Around 1842 a second North Island population estimate was made, by missionary James Hamlin. 12 He estimated that there were 120,000 Maori. Like Williams, he was a strong Maori linguist, with a wide experience of New Zealand (from 1826). He provided a greater area breakdown than Williams had - for 23 rather than eight areas - but otherwise his method seems to have been identical. The multiplier for fighting men seems, again, to have been three, and Hamlin attempted to justify this via some convoluted reasoning derived from a small survey of Maori families in the southern part of Manakau. It is possible that Hamlin's estimate forms the basis for the figure in the 1840 Blue Book (the official statistics publication of the time), which put the 'Aboriginal' population at about 120,000. Again, missionary numbers seemed to be ending up in official British publications.

The third Maori population estimate which bears a direct missionary imprimatur is that of George Clarke senior, dated 1845. 13 Although, at the time, Clarke was working for the colonial authorities as Chief Protector of the Aborigines, he had been recruited from the ranks of the missionaries. He counted 109,550 Maori by locality and tribe, describing them, perhaps significantly, as 'souls'. He divided these Maori 'souls' by religion: Church of England, Wesleyans, and Roman Catholics, as well as Pagans. Clarke's estimate therefore includes a newer missionary motivation, separate from roughly counting 'numbers of souls to save'. Conversion of Maori to Christianity had been happening apace since the 1830 s, and a developing missionary interest was in estimating their church's 'market share'.

Those three missionary (or quasi-missionary) estimates - dated 1834, 1842 and 1845 - are unlikely to be sufficiently precise to derive a population time trend of any exactitude between these dates. Nor can they be uncritically used to derive a quantitative time trend between those dates and 1858, when the first official government census was taken. In the latter case, however, they do suggest qualitatively that the Maori population was falling, confirming a fact already well established in the literature.

There are two other detailed estimates of the Maori population in the early 1840 s. Both were undertaken under the auspices of the New Zealand Company. In both cases, the producer of the estimate travelled extensively around the country to collect information. Edmund Halswell made a detailed estimate of 107,209 Maori in 1841, including both the North and South islands. 14 Again, rounded estimates of fighting men were multiplied by three to obtain population estimates. Ernst Dieffenbach estimated 114,890 Maori over the 1839-41 period, for both islands. 15 Unusually, he used a fighting-man-to-population ratio of four to create

his estimates, based on his belief that every fighting man had on average one wife and two children. These two non-missionary estimates cannot be taken as independent from the missionary work, as both estimates would have called upon the missionaries informally for population information.

For some reason, of all these estimates, Dieffenbach's has obtained by far the most attention in the academic literature, perhaps because it was published as part of a book. Yet Dieffenbach's direct experiences of New Zealand and of the local language and customs were quite limited compared to those of Williams, Clarke or Hamlin. His lack of knowledge is reflected in his choice of a fightingman multiplicand of four, a number which early Maori censuses suggest is almost certainly too high.

By the 1840 s, however, the main inadequacies of the fighting-man method of Maori population estimation were probably evident to all who those who had used it. The decline of Maori warfare by the 1840 s had resulted in a much greater and more economically efficient dispersion of the Maori population across the land, making counts of fighting men both less relevant to Maori, and also more difficult to achieve for enumerators. 16 In any case, most estimates of counts of fighting men were rounded to the nearest hundred - or more often thousand

- and were thus quite imprecise. Lastly, the multiplicand to turn numbers of fighting men into an overall population estimate was an unknown variable, and one upon which overall population estimates were highly conditional. As a consequence, when comparing fighting-man-based estimates over time, there was too much error to derive a meaningful quantitative measure of population change. This issue of Maori population change, or more specifically depopulation, was becoming an important policy concern for the missionaries, and the British more generally.

Depopulation concerns move missionaries from population estimates to censuses

The depopulation question driving the humanitarian concerns expressed as the central object for taking the 1858 census emerged as a concern of New Zealand missionaries in the 1830 s.

The first recorded observations of Maori depopulation following the establishment of regular contact with an expanding Europe were made to missionaries by Maori themselves. 17 The fact that Maori were first to remark upon their own depopulation is unsurprising: only they were in a position to compare their populations over time, both before and after European contact. In addition, Maori were directly experiencing this depopulation, and it would have been a central concern to them. Missionaries were recording their often urgent

and sometimes insistent population concerns from the early 1820 s, well before depopulation shifted onto the local European cognitive horizon.

These first Maori concerns are typically recorded with little additional missionary comment. It was only after missionaries became established in New Zealand and had observed Maori populations over significant periods of time that they began to record their own concerns about depopulation. 18

Population concerns seem to have been a significant factor behind missionary developments in counting Maori by the early 1840 s. Estimates of the sort that Williams, Hamlin and Clarke had produced were insufficiently precise to address the question. The Bishop of Australia, William Broughton, visited New Zealand in 1839, in the midst of a major and widespread influenza epidemic, and afterwards, expressed major concerns about Maori depopulation and the uncertain reasons for it.

Broughton's specific concerns echoed a more general British humanitarian worry about indigenous population decline around the Empire and its fringes. These were expressed in reports of the House of Commons Committee on Aborigines and the formation and publications of the Aboriginal Protection Society. Taking up the depopulation cudgels in a New Zealand context was the British humanitarian Reverend Montagu Hawtrey. In a book, written as a letter to intending New Zealand colonists, Hawtrey opposed British colonisation of New Zealand, based on experiences of past harm to natives. As one palliative to perhaps inevitable colonisation, he recommended collecting periodic Maori census information and vital statistics. This would provide information to understand and address depopulation, and to avoid colonisation causing harm to Maori. 19

The 1840 s missionary attempt at a nationwide census

In September 1844 the CMS held a synod at Waimate, Northland. Here they resolved to take an annual census of the Maori population. 20 The newly arrived Bishop George Augustus Selwyn was probably a major driver behind this ambitious project. In a speech to a London audience in 1854, Selwyn asserted that he had heard it stated as a fact before his 1841 arrival in New Zealand that The native races melted away before the advance of civilisation'. 21 Assessing the truth of this proposition may have been a major reason for the decision to collect a census. Selwyn had prior experience in census collection to address public policy issues. Around 1835, as curate in the British town of Windsor, he had organised a census of children, to settle a dispute about the number of children not provided with an education. 22

In early 1843, before the synod's decision, Selwyn had announced his intentions by taking a nominal census of the population of the Waimate area of Northland, counting nearly 1,300 Maori and providing a sketch map of Waimate villages and their respective populations. 23 Selwyn's census-taking had raised the ire of some prominent locals, including Hone Heke, who had concerns regarding missionary motivations, and saw it as a hostile rather than a humanitarian act. 24 Selwyn had also taken nominal censuses in the Foveaux Strait area in early 1844. He would later take further nominal censuses, including information on family structure, in the Bay of Plenty and Urewera areas in 1845-46. 25

Also before the synod's decision, the Reverend Richard Taylor had collected census information on villages in the Whanganui River area in the middle of 1843. He broke the information down by men, women, boys and girls, in what appears to have been the first missionary census to attempt a broad age-and-sex breakdown. 26 It is surprising that the nominal census which appears to have followed the synod's decision seems largely not to have followed Taylor's pattern.

No overall publication ever came out of the decision of the 1844 synod. As much as the launching of the project reflects Selwyn's strong vision of the importance of the issue of Maori health, the fact that it does not seem to have been seen through to completion may also reflect one of Selwyn's personal weaknesses as head of the Church in New Zealand - an excess of ambition relative to the resources at hand.

The missionary information, however, was summarised and used to provide indicators of the size of the Maori population in the 1840 s. An anonymous writer observed that '[a] very careful census is now in progress under the guidance of the Bishop of New Zealand. At the commencement of 1848 it had extended over half of the northern island, and contained an enumeration - family by family and individual by individuals - of about 40,000 persons'. 27

In 1857 Bishop Selwyn also referred to this work: 'Having a census in my possession containing the names of 35,000 men, women, and children in the tribes south of Auckland, I know that this [ascertaining individual claims to land] can be done', suggesting a motivation additional to the humanitarian was creeping into the rationale for a census. 28 Presumably drawing on this missionary demographic information, Selwyn also observed that, 'The population of New Zealand was about 80,000 ten years ago [lß47]'. 29

Some may question Selwyn's contemporary claims as overblown. Indeed, there is no extant documentary list, which 1 have been able to find, of all the 35,000-40,000 names he claims to have gathered. However, there is existing documentary evidence in the shape of Selwyn's diaries of his journeys, where names, sex and family relationships of Maori in various areas of his travels are meticulously recorded for at least hundreds of people. Basil Howard has already published Selwyn's efforts in the Muruhiku area. 30 Such information was also collected by missionaries for over f,700 people in the Waikato in 1844 and again published (see below). There is a surviving list of names for parts of the Golden Bay, Nelson, Porirua, Kapiti and Horowhenua areas in the Turnbull library. 31 Thus, even what remains suggests an impressive effort, going well beyond fighting-man estimates and even head counts. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Selwyn had some genuine basis for his claims, and 35,000 names does not seem implausible.

Despite the absence of an overall publication drawing the project together, various other parts of the missionary census have survived in the record. A partial summary version seems to have survived. 32 The most detailed summary data provided is for the East Coast area, which was taken by William Williams during 1846. On his trips around his region Williams took censuses of the villages he stayed in or passed through, recorded the name of the local tribe and hapu, and recorded the number of males and females therein. The data collection ranges in

dates over a period of a year or more, so it is not a census count in the modern sense. The extant document also includes Richard Taylor's 1843 census numbers for Whanganui and Taranaki, clearly collected before the synod's decision. Summary population data for the Tauranga region and others is also included.

A further part of this nominal census is the surviving list of names for parts of the Golden Bay, Nelson, Porirua, Kapiti and Horowhenua areas mentioned above, broken down by area, tribe and sex, and probably taken, on the basis of internal evidence, in 1844 - although the library catalogue dates it 1846. 33 This document is again revealing of other missionary motivations for collecting census information. Information about people's religious status is often included, including 'H', presumably for 'heathen', and 'P', presumably for 'Papist' (Catholic), as well as containing some baptismal and occasionally post-dated death information. The same distinction by religious status is often made in nominal census information contained in Selwyn's diaries of his journeys of 1845-46 in the Bay of Plenty and the Urewera.

Despite the missionary failure to complete even their single one-off census project, let alone achieve it annually, a part of the mid-1840s missionary demographic work shows up directly as a key contribution to achieving the goal of the 1858 census. The main question of the 1858 census was to address the extent and causes of Maori depopulation. An obvious major shortcoming in its ability to do so was the lack of information on what had been happening to the Maori population prior to 1858. The issue was partially overcome by connecting the nominal Waikato census, taken in 1844 by experienced and locally domiciled missionaries Alfred Nesbit Brown, Robert Maunsell and John Morgan, with that for 1858, which seems to have been coordinated by Francis Fenton, who had lived previously in the Waikato, who was a good friend of Maunsell, and who, in 1858, was the local resident magistrate.

The connection of the two censuses by name, by people who were familiar with both Maori culture in general and with the people of the local area, provides an exceptionally good measure of depopulation over the 1844-58 period for the Waikato region.

Some may question these claims of accuracy for the Waikato work, but the high degree of local experience involved in the censuses and the great published detail in Fenton's 1859 report strongly suggest quality doubts are misplaced. Fenton provides each person's name in 1844 and their name change (if any) in 1858; records the person's hapu; notes their place of settlement; details their family relationships in terms of wife or husband, parents, and children; details those who had emigrated between 1844 and 1858 (and sometimes where they emigrated to); distinguishes adults from non-adults; marks any deaths over the period plus those men shot dead at the 1846 battle of Te Ihutaroa; provides information on

female fertility; and provides a great deal of other incidental information. Fenton does not attempt to enumerate those who were born and died between the two censuses, presumably to avoid recall error, nor does he count immigrants. 34

Fenton's and the missionaries' accomplishment was a serious technical achievement, for any population. As a longitudinal study of place-based mortality, fertility and emigration, linking people by name and residence over time, it was well ahead of its time in both conception and execution - certainly locally - and as far as I can determine, internationally as well.

Fenton then used this data, which he argued was broadly representative of Maori across New Zealand, to infer more general patterns for Maori population decline, and to aid in inference regarding the patterns and causal processes lying behind depopulation. Later modern scholars of Maori demographics, like lan Pool, have used it for very similar purposes. It has a claim to uniqueness, being New Zealand's first longitudinal study, as well as New Zealand's first inter-temporal census linkage on names. Both these approaches have become much more common in recent years, with significant innovations taking place at Statistics New Zealand.

Discussion The missionary aim in reporting on Maori populations prior to and immediately following their arrival in the Bay of Islands was to roughly reckon the total number of souls to be saved in the area of initial contact, to persuade themselves and their backers of the worth of their conversion endeavour. Once missionaries adjusted to the difficulties of spreading the gospel in the Bay (and this was an adjustment process which took the best part of two decades), gathering information on the number of Maori souls to save in other regions became an important issue. It was this motivation, following his travels to the south, which seems to have driven William Williams' 1834 estimate of the Maori population.

Once Maori began to convert in numbers to Christianity in the later 1830 s and 1840 s, issues of market share of souls saved began to become important, and missionaries eventually began estimating and reporting the religious status of the overall Maori population. This missionary concern was further stimulated, not simply by the continued existence of heathen Maori, but also by their grave theological concerns about the potential growth of Roman Catholicism amongst converted Maori.

Breakdowns of the Maori population into adults and children by sex may have been stimulated by its potential use as a rough proxy for population health and growth. These simple breakdowns parallel work by others in New Zealand, and are very similar to breakdowns in early censuses by missionaries in Hawaii and Tahiti.

The most important motivations in the development of the first official 1858 census were British concerns about the size, extent and causes of Maori population decline. These concerns had been troubling Maori for much longer, since at least the 1820 s. They first emerged in the missionary community in the 1830 s, partly as a consequence of direct observation, but also because the growing humanitarian movement in Britain at the time was chivvying them along. It is difficult to know exactly what motivated the 1844 synod to collect an annual Maori census, since no record of discussions appear to have survived, but addressing the amount and causes of depopulation is likely to have been an important factor.

In addition to those functional reasons for the missionary demographic work, one should also acknowledge the enlightenment traditions of intellectual curiosity and an associated British empiricist tradition of census taking. Both Selwyn and Taylor, stalwarts of the earlier censuses, were fairly typical, university-educated, upper-class English polymaths of the time. Doubtless the intellectual curiosity which went with such a type played a role.

The contribution of Reverends Brown, Maunsell and Morgan to the pioneering one-off longitudinal study of Maori mortality, fertility and emigration, reported in the Fenton census, remains the defining, indeed likely world-leading, demographic achievement of the New Zealand missionaries. It is this study which remains as the major published information and achievement arising out of Bishop Selwyn's over-ambitious plan to collect an annual census of Maori at the 1844 synod.

However, barring that ground-breaking longitudinal study, the nature of the missionary contribution in New Zealand to Maori demography was more limited than in some other parts of the Pacific. In Hawaii, for example, missionaries were collecting regional censuses in the 1820 s, and vital statistics on births and deaths for large areas as early as the 1830 s, 35 something that in New Zealand only the Reverend Johann Wohlers did for the small island of Ruapuke, post--1844. Indeed, Hawtrey's 1840 humanitarian-based recommendation to collect Maori vital statistics on births, deaths and marriages was unheeded by successive New Zealand governments until 1913, despite vital registration for European New Zealanders beginning in 1876. Hence, an important part of the jigsaw puzzle for understanding the causes of Maori depopulation and assessing their health was not in fact collected until after the Maori population had been growing again for several decades.

ENDNOTES 1 I wish to thank an anonymous referee and Paul Callister for their very helpful input into the development of this article. Neither, however, bear any responsibility for the final form and content. 2 For a general history of the census in New Zealand see www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/info-about-the-census/intro-to-nz-census/history/history-summary.aspx, accessed 4 December 2015.

3 F. D. Fenton, 'Observations on the State of the Aboriginal Maori Inhabitants of New Zealand', in Journal of the Statistical Society December 1860, pp. 508-541. 4 J. L. Nicolas, Narrative of a Voyage to New Zealand, Vol. II (London: James Black & Sons, 1817), p. 31, footnote 3 5 New Zealand Historical Atlas (Auckland: Bateman, 1997), Plate 9. 6 John Rawson Elder, ed., The Letters and Journals of Samuel Marsden, 1765-1838. (Dunedin: University of Otago, 1932), pp. 22-23; 61. 7 Tamihana Te Rauparaha, The Life and times of Te Rauparaha (Martinborough: Alister Taylor, 1980). 8 Press, Vol. XXXI, Issue 4303, 15 May, 1879, p. 3. 9 Ann Salmond, Between Worlds: Early Exchanges Between Maori and Europeans 1773-1815 (Auckland: Penguin, 1997), p. 539, footnote 32. 10 Dandeson Coates, Evidence to the New Zealand Select Committee, 14 May 1838 (Great Britain Parliamentary Papers on New Zealand 1837-40).

11 The Missionary Register 1834, p. 546. 12 James Hamlin, 'On the Mythology of the New Zealanders', in Tasmanian Journal, Vol. 1, 1842, pp. 254-64; 341-58. 13 Great Britain Parliamentary Papers on New Zealand 1846/7, No. 5, 337, 47, Appendix Ato Minutes of Thursday 3 April 1845. 14 Edmund Halswell, Third Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Colonization from Ireland (1849). London: Appendix D [Census of Native Population and Localities of New Zealand]: 30-43. 15 Ernst Dieffenbach, Travels in New Zealand (London: John Murray, 1843). Two vols. 16 George Augustus Selwyn, A Journal of the Bishop's Visitation Tour Through his Diocese, Including a Visit to the Chatham Islands in the Year 1848. Church in the Colonies No. XX. New Zealand Part V (London: The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 1851), p. 64. 17 Missionary Register 1822, p. 197. 18 Missions of the Church Missionary Society at Kishnaghur and in New Zealand (London: Hatchards, Seeleys & Nisbet, 1840), p. 111. 19 Montague John Gregg Hawtrey, An Earnest Address to New Zealand Colonists, with Reference to their Intercourse with the Native Inhabitants (London: John W. Parker, 1840), p. 53.

20 Cotton, Journal, Vol. 8, 26 September 1844. Alexander Turnbull Library (ATL) ref. Micro-MS-0176. 21 Fenton, 1860, p. 537. 22 Henry W. Tucker, Memoir of the Life and Episcopate of George Augustus Selwyn, Vol. 1 (London: Wells Gardner, 1879), pp. 25-26. 23 George Augustus Selwyn, Letters, vol. 2, p. 420; 434. ATL ref. qMS-1776. 24 Tucker, ibid, p. 169. 25 George Augustus Selwyn, Journal of Bishop Selwyn with various other notes. ATL ref. qMS-1772. 26 T. Walton, 'Settlement patterns in the Whanganui River Valley, 1839-1864', in New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 16 (1994), pp. 123-168. 27 Anon, 'Polynesians and New Zealand', in Edinburgh Review 91 (1850), p. 451. 28 George Augustus Selwyn, Great Britain Parliamentary Papers on New Zealand 1854-60, vol. 10, p. 546. 29 Ibid., p. 547.

30 Basil Hillyer Howard, Rakiura: A History of Stewart Island, New Zealand (Dunedin: Reed for the Stewart Island Centennial Committee, 1974). 31 Church Missionary Society: Register of Native Population. 1846. ATL ref. Micro-MS-0878. Church Registers of the Male and Female Population. ATL ref. MSZ-0800-0085. 32 Ibid., p. 547. 33 Church Missionary Society: Register of Native Population (1846). ATL ref. Micro-MS-0878. Church Registers of the Male and Female Population. ATL ref. MSZ-0800-0085. 34 Francis Dart Fenton, Observations on the State of the Aboriginal Inhabitants of New Zealand (Auckland: W. C. Wilson, 1859). 35 Robert C. Schmitt, The Missionary Censuses of Hawaii. No. 20. (Honolulu: Dept, of Anthropology, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, 1973).