Why then, erect a monument to that battle? To answer that, we must look at the politics of the day. Kawana Paipai, an elderly senior chief from Putiki and one of the leaders at Moutoa complained to the Provincial Superintendent (Dr Isaac Earl Featherstone), that two of his chiefs had been thrown into the ground without coffins -- buried like dogs.
Featherstone had assured him that they would be reinterred in coffins wherever the chief wanted and that not only would a suitable monument be erected to their memory, but also another to the brave men who had sacrificed their lives at Moutoa for the pakeha.
But how serious was the danger to Wanganui citizens if the Hauhau had won the battle? Apart from those faced by the outlying settlers had they not taken refuge in town, there was none.
As Featherstone saw it, the memorial would not be just one to the dead, it would be charged with a highly political message: that co-operation by Maori with government would have its rewards. As a politician, he probably also realised the value to him of a monument bearing his name. It would improve his standing in the district, which was rather low because the settlers felt their needs were neglected by government.
So barely two months after the fight on Moutoa Island, the Wellington Provincial Council was asked to give a vote of thanks, "complimentary and substantial, to the natives engaged in the late fight up the Wanganui River". The resolution was as follows:
"That this Council desires to convey to the friendly natives at Wanganui, who gave such a signal proof of their loyalty at the fight at Moutoa, the deep sense it entertains of their praiseworthy conduct, and to thank them heartily for their valuable and effective assistance. And that in recognition of their patriotic services, a suitable monument be erected in the town of Wanganui, sacred to the memory of those friendly natives who gave their lives in defence of their European fellow settlers. And that Mr Speaker be requested to forward the resolution to his Honour the [Provincial] Superintendent [Dr Isaac Earl Featherstone], for transmission to the Friendly Chiefs."
But Mr Borlase (after whom, Borlase Place in Aramoho was named), who had no feelings whatsoever for Maori, poured a torrent of invective against it, claiming there was not a Maori south of the Waikato who did not want the pakeha driven into the sea. He was supported by Mr Bunny and others, but an outburst of noble sentiment from the many others that spoke to the resolution silenced them, and the resolution was passed. It suited the superintendent to agree to it.
It is apparent from the discussion that many of the council members were under the mistaken belief that the friendly Maori fought the Moutoa battle in order to prevent the hostile Pai Marire, or Hauhau, from attacking the Wanganui settlement, whereas it was an exercise of tribal mana -- that the foes wanted to go down the river without the sanction of the local Maori.
Soon after, Featherstone visited Sydney and purchased a white, marble, sculpted figure of a weeping woman on a pedestal. It was erected in Market Place facing the river. Why there? It was almost certainly because it faced the beach where the upriver Maori landed to do their trading and it would be a constant reminder to them of the value of co-operation with the government (Market Place was appropriately named at the time.
It was renamed "Moutoa Gardens" at the end of 1899). The total cost was stated to be 600 to 800 pounds ($66,000-$88,000 in today's money). On the front face of the pedestal was inscribed: "To the memory of those brave men who fell at Moutoa 14 May 1864 in defence of law and order, against fanaticism and barbarism. This monument is erected by the Province of Wellington."
This was a free translation of the inscription in Maori on the opposite face. It is strange that the primary inscription was in Maori, but placed on the rear of the monument, while its translation occupies the more important front face. The names of the friendly Maori who fell were inscribed on one side and on the remaining side, the date: "4th September, 1865. Isaac Earl Featherston, Superintendent."
Also in the list of the dead was Brother Euloge, from the Catholic Mission Station at Kauaeroa (which was across the river and slightly downstream from Jerusalem). One account says he rushed in front of the Hauhau and implored them to stop fighting, but a bullet killed him. Another account says he was kneeling in prayer on the battlefield and that when a Hauhau cut the top off his head he picked it up and put it back on, but died soon after the battle.
This date on the monument is probably that of its engraving and not that of its unveiling in Market Place Gardens on December 26, 1865 by Dr Featherstone. The newspapers reported it was a fine day, with many on holiday being present, and many Maori.
Before the ceremony, Maori treated the spectators to a spirited haka, "which was at least sufficiently demonstrative. British soldiers too often find their dress and accoutrements a hindrance to them, [but] the natives take care that they shall not be encumbered after a similar fashion, their covering being reduced to the scantiest proportions -- certainly scantier than beseems the modern idea of civilisation."
The Wanganui Chronicle reported that the superintendent gave a short address "which, we regret to say, was imperfectly heard even by those near him, but the gist of the subject was obvious". It was a tribute of gratitude to the brave, and an incentive for the native allies to stand fast in the cause of law and order.
Featherstone had said that "a few, and only a few words will suffice" and went on to deliver a speech that was printed in full in the Wellington Independent of January 9 and occupied 45 column centimetres of print.
Many of the council members were under the mistaken belief that the friendly Maori fought the Moutoa battle in order to prevent the hostile Pai Marire, or Hauhau, from attacking the Wanganui settlement.
Curiously, it is a monument commemorating a Maori battle success, yet no native took part in the dedication ceremony, although many watched. The Wanganui Chronicle of December 30, 1865, said the superintendent's speech "could have been no more than a dumb show to the Maoris". Even more curiously, the statue appears to have been sculpted with disproportionally large hands.
The figure of Grief holds on to a broken marble column which has a garland of flowers. Her right palm is on the column top and the fingers once hung down in front. By 1900, the little finger was missing. Now there are none.
The missing little finger could be blamed on vandals, and possibly other fingers went the same way until the scars were hidden by a mass amputation of the stubs. Her left hand is large and certainly not feminine. Few notice the deformities, although the Reverend Richard Taylor did note in his diary that "one hand was far too large".
Much has been written about the reactions of the American writer Mark Twain to the inscription on the memorial. From the perspective of the Wanganui settlers, who were living in a war zone, with an uncertain future and a demonised enemy, the inscription was not inappropriate.
Twain, having seen the plight of the slaves in America, considered it was ill-considered. He said that the barbarian fanatics were fighting for their homes and their country (which was true); they fought and fell bravely. What he hadn't realised, was that the battle was between Maori and Maori, not white men and Maori.
He said that it "invited treachery, disloyalty and un-patriotism," which would be true from the Hauhau point of view, but opposite to that of Featherstone and the settlers.
To rewrite it now would be akin to the operations of the Ministry of Truth (which specialised in rewriting history) in George Orwell's 1984.
Jim Parnell is the editor of the Friends of the Whanganui River Annual
