LOS ESCLAVOS NEGROS
CAPITULO 19: LA SERPIENTE EMPLUMADA
adhered strictly to the terms of this Treaty, which Tupou said im
Thurn had grossly violated. Tupou also informed Sir Richard Seddon,
Prime Minister of New Zealand, of his intention to visit New Zealand
in the near future and sought his assistance in his fight against 35
im Thurn. Seizing this opportunity to further his own plans for
Tonga but eager not to destroy the Imperial Government's willingness
eventually to pass Tonga on to New Zealand, Seddon cautiously
promised to give Tupou all the legitimate assistance he could.
On 13 March Cotter and Meyer Hutter arrived in Tonga personally
to familiarize themselves with the recent happenings and the existing 3 6
state of affairs and to advise Tupou on what to do next. After
closeting himself for a week with them and with J.B. Watkin, the
King gave Cabinet its first definite indication that he intended to
fight for his lost rights. In a letter to the Premier, Tupou demanded
£460 from Government as rent for its use of Royal land for the 37
Government College since 1886. Mateialona's reply, however, forced
Tupou to shelve this demand: Government was in great financial
difficulties, said the Premier, and if forced to pay His Majesty the
rent he demanded she would be compelled to close the college or hand 38
it over to the Free Church.
Tupou to R.J. Seddon, 27 January and 24 February 1905, Royal correspondence.
Mateialona to E. im Thurn, 6 April 1905, C.0.225, Colonial Office Papers.
Tupou to S. Mateialona, 20 March 1905, Royal correspondence; Mateialona to E. im Thurn, 6 April 1905, C.0.225, Colonial Office Papers.
Mateialona to Tupou, 21 March 1905, C.0.225, Colonial Office Papers.
On 22 March Tupou sent Hunter a copy of a letter of protest
which he was just about to post to the Secretary of State for the
Colonies. In this twenty-three page document (obviously the work
of Cotter and based on correct accounts of im Thurn's actions in
Tonga) Tupou rightly told the British Government that neither he, nor 39 any King of Tonga, 'nor anyone else having the authority so to do'
had given Britain the right to violate his sovereignty or trespass upon
the liberty of Tongan citizens on Tongan soil. His verbal and
written endorsements of im Thurn's instructions had been forced out
of him and were therefore legally invalid and morally wrong. The
Supplementary Agreement, continued Tupou, had stripped Tonga of
the 'substance of . . . . power and authority' and only the 'bare 40
skeleton or shadow' was left to her. The High Commissioner, Tupou
emphasised, had deferred to the Constitution but violated it at his
convenience.41 While im Thurn had justified his intervention in Tonga's
internal affairs with the explanation that Tupou had violated the
Constitution, he himself had committed the same crime by actions such
as ignoring Parliament by not awaiting its decision on the Supplementary
Agreement.' Besides, the methods which im Thurn and Hunter had employed
for forcing the King of Tonga to do what they wanted had been
'calculated to irritate and injure Government and its methods of 42
administration in the eyes of the people'. Tupou also refuted much
of what im Thurn had claimed to be wrong with the Government. There
was no shortage in the Tongan Treasury, Tupou boldly but untruthfully
stated, and certainly none for which Fotu or Sateki had been personally
responsible.
Tupou to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 24 March 1905, C.0.225, Colonial Office Papers.
Ibid. Ibid. 39 40 41 42 Ibid.
borrowed £4,000 from the British Government, he found it hard to
follow the logic of im Thurn's declaration that he had freed Tonga
from debt. Had not Tonga simply changed creditors? And what
country in the world, Tupou asked was free of debt?
Immediately after sending Hunter a copy of this letter Tupou
instructed Mateialona to call a Cabinet meeting for that afternoon
at which he was to inform its members that His Majesty would travel to 43
New Zealand. The S.S. Hauvoto on which His Majesty was to travel
was then probably in Nuku'alofa and was due to leave within the next
few days. As the reason for this suddenly publicised visit Tupou,
who had recently been suffering from an abscess on the left side of
his head, said that Dr Madennan had ordered him to have a change and
not to return to Tonga until he was well. The same day Mateialona
clearly conveyed Cabinet's displeasure with His Majesty's proposed
visit by informing Tupou that the Cabinet was sorry that he had to
go abroad when Government was in great difficulties but that they
supposed His Majesty had to go because of his health. On the
unanimous decision of Cabinet Mateialona then wrote to Seddon that
'His Majesty the King of Tonga had no authority or power to pledge
the credit of, or in any way to arrange as to, the future government 44
of Tonga'. The Premier also sent similar letters to the Auckland
and Sydney newspapers. In these ways Cabinet, which later learned
that McLennan had never ordered Tupou to go abroad at all demonstrated
its distrust of Tupou and its members fears for their positions.
Tupou to Mateialona, 24 March 1905, Royal correspondence.
Mateialona to R.J. Seddon, 24 March 1905, C.0.225, Colonial Office Papers.
More important still, Mateialona and his colleagues were the first
officially and publicly to articulate the already growing feeling
that, in practice, as well as in theory, the traditional ideas of
kingship and Royal privileges, especially if they had been abused,
did not have any place in the existing political system. No doubt
im Thurn's recent emphasis on the function and powers of the Privy
Councillors and the membership in Cabinet of men like Mateialona,
Sipu and Polutele, were greatly responsible for the existing
ministry's views.
On 25 March Tupou appointed Fatafehi Prince Regent until his
return to Tonga. Fatafehi was to have the rights and powers of
Regency as defined in Clause 46 of the Constitution; because these
were not qualified, Mateialona insisted that Fatafehi*s powers were
technically equal to those of the King, but Tupou forbade Fatafehi
to 'repeal any law or make any new law or add to or abridge any clause 45
in the Law or Constitution', or 'to sign any document' relating to 46
anything which did 'not appear in the Law and Constitution'. Tupou's
deliberate and debatable restriction of the Government's activities
during his absence was probably successful, for in his first report
on these events to the High Commissioner, Mateialona complained that 47 Tonga had been effectively without a King since Tupou's departure.
On the 26th, Tupou accompanied by his Secretary, Sione Filipe 48 Tongilava, J.B. Watkin, Cotter and Meyer Hutter left for Auckland.
Letter of Appointment of Fatafehi Tu'ipelehake as Regent, 25 March 1905, C.0.225, Colonial Office Papers.
Ibid.
Mateialona to E. im Thurn, 6 April 1905, C.0.225, Colonial Office Papers. 45 46 47 48 Ibid.
communication with the Imperial Government and to give him easier
access to people such as Seddon whose help he wanted. The Free
Church, Hunter reported to im Thurn had paid for the trip and had in
fact offered to pay for Tupou to go to England and fight his case.
Two days after Tupou's departure a letter in the name of the
Legislative Assembly and protesting against Britain's and im Thurn's
recent interference in Tongan affairs was circulated by Siosiua Kaho
and Ma'atu among the nobles and the People's Representatives for their 49
signature. In a legally and morally questionable move Cabinet
and the Courts stopped the circulation of this document and in fact
prosecuted the two men who had circulated it. And when the case
was heard Siosiua Kaho and Ma'atu were released on the grounds that 50
they had simply been acting under the King's orders. That
approximately ninety per cent of the Tongatapu members of Parliament 51
(thirteen nobles and six Representatives of the people) had
already signed the petition by then strongly suggests that, although
the majority of the House, like most of the Tongans, may have
disliked Tupou's rule, they still did not wish to see him completely
humuliated by foreigners.
The discovery of the petition, however, was probably Cabinet's
first concrete and definite evidence of the purpose of Tupou's visit
to New Zealand. In their fear for their positions the Cabinet
members personally and collectively complained to im Thurn about the
King's latest behaviour. In a personal letter
49
Ibid. 50
Ibid. 51
Annex to Mateialona to E. im Thurn, 6 April 1905, C.0.225, Colonial Office Papers.
that if Tupou regained his former powers he would immediately dismiss
the officials im Thurn had appointed. Tupou, Polutele continued,
had 'no thought for his people, Government, or country', and had
I 52
he been removed from Tonga all would be well in the land'.
Mateialona, in his official report to im Thurn told him that Tupou
had gone to New Zealand in order to try to reverse what the High
Commissioner had done in Tonga. To demonstrate their support of
im Thurn's actions Mateialona and his supporters made up a petition 53
deploring Tupou's efforts to change them. This was signed by
eight nobles and seven chiefs, among whom were the majority of the
Privy Council except for Fatafehi, Maealiuaki and Fotofili. Fatafehi,
who had secretly confided to Hunter that he did not wish to give his
son a 'parting kick down hill', told his disappointed colleagues that
his letter of appointment as Regent had clearly forbidden him to sign
any documents such as the petition. Maealiuaki simply refused to
be involved and Fotofili had already signed the petition condemning 54
im Thurn's actions.
Soon after his arrival in Auckland Tupou sent a telegram to the
Colonial Office protesting against the deportation of Sateki and Fotu
and their retention in Fiji. At the same time, Cotter, who knew that
no court in Fiji had the power to detain the two men in that colony,
asked a Suva lawyer, Humphrey Berkeley, to get the Fijian Supreme Court 55
to order im Thurn to release the two Tongans.
52
53
54
55
T. Polutele Kaho to E. im Thurn, 4 April 1905, C.0.225