8
Upon his succession to the position of Tu’i Kanokupolu in 1845, King George immediately assumed supreme authority throughout the whole of Tonga. The laws he had promulgated in Vava’u in 1839, and which were later revised in 1850, were now applied to the whole kingdom. The heathen chiefs did not find it easy to observe many of the laws, which were influenced by the missionary teaching they did not accept: prohibition of Sabbath breaking, fornication, and the exercise of the chief’s traditional rights over the commoners’ property. Moreover, they resented the loss of their independence and power. These underlying elements of discontent were in due course brought to the surface by the sympathetic support of the Roman Catholic French priests who made no secret of their determination to undermine both the Protestant and British influence in Tonga.
In 1842, the first Roman Catholic mission was established in Tonga and became an effective counter-influence to the Methodist missionaries in the affairs of the group. The decision to send Roman Catholic missionaries to the South Seas can be traced directly to the influence of the Irish adventurer Peter Dillon. At his instigation, Bishop de Solages, who had been interested in sending missionaries to the South Seas, submitted a scheme for carrying the Gospel there.1
Dillon had outlined his plans for sending French Roman Catholic missionaries to the South Pacific in a letter to the Bishop in 1829. There he proposed that a party be sent via South America on board the yearly French government cargo ship which could land them at various islands in the Pacific. He envisaged himself as the leader of such an expedition and stressed his own connections with the Polynesian chiefs, saying he could persuade them to accept the missionaries. Although Dillon’s letter was forwarded to the Prince de Polignac, Chief Minister of the French Government, to secure support for the scheme, Dillon was not in fact chosen to lead the expedition (Davidson, n.d., chapters 19, 20, 21).
This scheme was approved in Rome on 22 December 1829, when the Sacred Congregation, at the direction of Pope Gregory XVI, divided the prefecture of the South Seas into two portions. Eastern Oceania was confided to the Picpus Fathers, the first Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Oceania being the Right Reverend Monsigneur Rouchouze, who had been working in Hawaii since 1827. His jurisdiction covered the Hawaiian Islands, Tahiti, the Marquesas and other eastern Pacific Islands. Western Oceania, comprising the area between the Cook Islands and New Zealand, was confided to Bishop de Solages. The Bishop died in 1833 and the project had to be postponed for another two years. In 1835 Pope Gregory XVI established the Apostolic Vicariate of Western Oceania and the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda sought a Vicar Apostolic for the Vicariate, and a body of priests to assist him. Eventually this important task was entrusted to the young chaplain of a boarding school for boys in the Diocese of Lyons, Jean-Baptiste Frangois Pompallier.
On the advice of the Archbishop de Pins of Lyons, who had been working with the Marists, Pompallier turned to the Society of Mary for his priests. Several Marists offered themselves for this new venture and the Archbishop sent their names and that of Pompallier to Rome, with the recommendation that the latter be made the Vicar Apostolic of Western Oceania. Archbishop de Pins also recommended the Marist society to undertake the work of that region, urging that approbation be given to the society in order to encourage and strengthen it. These recommendations were approved in Rome by Pope Gregory XVI in April 1836.
One of the factors which assisted the success of the Roman Catholic mission was the high calibre of its priests. Pembroke and Kingsley (1872:251) have accurately observed that the Roman Catholic priests who were sent out to the South Seas were ‘more highly educated and cultivated than the greater part of those sent out by the various Dissenting bodies’. Bishop Pompallier was himself a scholar and a man of piety and zeal. Father Chevron who, with Brother Attale, was entrusted by Bishop Pompallier with the task of establishing the Catholic mission in Tonga was also highly educated. He had entered the Ecclesiastical College at Belley at the age of 15 in 1826, studied philosophy in a seminary for three years before becoming a teacher, and in 1831, at the age of 24, he was ordained priest. Most of these Marist priests, in addition to being well trained, were dedicated men, sincere in their beliefs, unequivocal in their sense of vocation, and faithful to their calling. Perhaps their spirit of dedication may best be shown in a letter written by their leader, Bishop Pompallier, to the members of the Council of the Propagation of the Faith at Lyons:
One of the Protestant missionaries claimed that it was ‘unreasonable, ungentlemanly, and unchristianlike for a body of Roman Catholics to come to these shores and enter into other men’s labours’ (quoted in Brookes 1941:78). While it is difficult to dispute the truth of this accusation, it is fair to remember that these men, like the Protestant missionaries, were only following the sincere belief of their church. At this particular time the Roman Catholic church was preoccupied with ‘heresy’ as much as with heathenism. On 12 March 1832, de Solages wrote to Pope Gregory XVI and also to the new French King, Louis Philippe, ‘begging for facilities to offset the progress of Protestant missionaries in Oceania’ (Keys 1957:42).
The accepted Catholic view as expressed by Bishop Blanc, a later historian, writing in the Tongan Catholic paper, Taumua Lelei, is as follows:
It was with such a conviction that the Roman Catholic priests went to Tonga and, because of this uncompromising attitude, which matched that of their Wesleyan counterparts towards them, the clash between the two parties became inevitable.
Like the marriage of convenience between the Methodist missionaries and the Tu’i Kanokupolu family in Tonga, the Roman Catholic mission in Oceania was wedded to the French government. The Catholic missionaries appreciated the advantages of having the protection and assistance of the French government, and, being Frenchmen themselves, they naturally relished the possibility of their work promoting the interests of France.2 Bishop de Solages, for instance, had emphasised the military value to France of Pacific outposts in his proposals for the South Seas mission.
After his return from Rome, Bishop Pompallier paid two visits to the French royal family. On the first occasion he saw only Queen Amélie, who promised him a gift for the mission. On his second visit he managed to see both the King and Queen, and also the King’s sister, Madame Adelaide, who was notably devout and is said to have had much influence on her brother. The Bishop received from Louis Philippe an order for 1,500 francs and letters of introduction addressed to ‘The Commanders of the French Squadron, stationed in the Southern Ocean, Valparaiso’, dated 24 September 1836, and signed by the then Minister of the Navy and Colonies. The letter reads:
Bishop Pompallier (1888:12) later stated that he had reason to attribute his ‘deliverance from civil intolerance and the annoyance of the English Protestant ministers in Oceania’ to this ‘powerful and efficacious protection’ that the King accorded him.
The furthering of nationalism appeared to be the prime motive in the French government’s enthusiastic and unrestrained support of mission work. The resurgence of nationalism which followed France’s defeat at Waterloo led to an intense rivalry and desire to outdo Great Britain. French nationalism was closely linked to Roman Catholicism and it was the ambition of the French government to revive French prestige and restore France’s position as a world power and enlightened nation, by such means as spreading the state religion, particularly in those parts of the world where English Protestantism was gaining ground. After the fall of Napoleon, the French government was often dominated by anti-clericals who sought to curtail the church at home, but at the same time gave unqualified support to Catholic missions abroad (Oliver 1961:98), because they served a national purpose.
Laplace, in the narrative of his cruise around the world in the late 1830s, commented upon Great Britain’s extensive influence in Oceania and how her influence might at any moment be converted into political rights. He also pointed out that ‘the foundation of Britain’s position was religion, therefore it might be undermined by a technique similar to that which the English had used to build it’ (quoted in Brookes 1941:92). Louis Philippe had the reputation of being an opportunist who was prepared to be friendly to the church if such a policy was advantageous, and who favoured the missionary effort because he believed it would advance his colonial ambitions. However, political motives were not the sole basis for the French government’s support, if one considers the comments made by Father Colin, founder of the Society of Mary, on the attitude of the French officials. Writing to Bishop Pompallier he said:
All the evidence indicates that the Roman Catholic priests went to the Pacific with the full blessing of both the church and the French government, and with the double purpose of winning the islanders, heathens and heretics alike, to the ‘one true Catholic Church’ and at the same time promoting French national interests in those islands, particularly where British interests might be undermined.
Pompallier and the members of his team left France on Christmas Eve 1836 and they finally reached Valparaiso in June 1837, where they were received by the Picpus missionaries. They remained there, stranded, for two months awaiting a vessel that could take them to their destination. In August 1837 they departed on board the Europa on a course to the Gambier Islands and Tahiti, where they chartered a small schooner called the Raiatea, which belonged to the American Consul, Moerenhout (later French Consul at Tahiti). With the aid of this schooner they were able to reach their destination with greater freedom and speed and at less expense.
When they finally reached Vava’u, which was the first port of call, Bishop Pompallier managed to obtain two interpreters, one a Frenchman and Catholic, the other an American and Protestant. Through these two interpreters, according to the Bishop’s own account, he established social communication with King George, who, in the absence of the two Wesleyan missionaries, John Thomas and William A. Brooks, showed him cordiality and kindness and agreed that two of his company could remain on the island. However, when Thomas and Brooks returned two or three days later, the Bishop learned from one of the interpreters that the missionaries ‘had done nothing but beset the mind of the King in order to constrain him not to receive any member from my company on his island’. Being unable to speak the language, the Bishop raised no objection and bade the King farewell, promising him that when he had learned the language he would return to see him again and then ‘he [the King] would understand all things better according to my wishes and hopes for the happiness of himself and his country’. According to the Bishop, all he wanted to do was to leave two of his company in Vava’u to guard the mission stores and to correspond with the mission stations they expected to establish elsewhere (Pompallier 1888:17). His real intention in wanting to do this, however, is not clear. According to his biographer, ‘The King at first agreed ... that the Bishop should leave two of his company at Tonga to study and teach there’ (Keys 1957:62).
However, the Wesleyan missionaries who had been working there since 1831 were not convinced that the Bishop’s plan to leave two of his company in Vava’u was as simple as he tried to make it appear. Consequently, they voiced their objections to the Bishop. According to John Thomas’s account of the incident, the Bishop honoured them with a visit the day he and Brooks arrived back from Ha’apai after attending their District Meeting. After offering to give them any supplies they might want from his vessel, the Bishop told them that he wanted two of his company ‘merely to remain’ in Vava’u. The missionaries replied that it should be the King’s decision. The Bishop then informed them that the King had led him to believe that it was a matter for the Wesleyan missionaries to decide.
The Bishop then assured the missionaries that he did not want his men to act as teachers or interfere in any way with religious matters.
The Bishop, however, persisted in his belief that John Thomas had it in his power to decide the matter. Thomas then offered to accompany him to the King and hear what he had to say on the subject. The Bishop accepted the offer, and they all set off to the King’s house. Thomas described this encounter:
Despite the numerous discrepancies between the two accounts of the incident,3 several facts appear certain. The Bishop’s account shows an unfortunate lack of knowledge, or appreciation, of the real character of the King. He clearly underrated the degree of conviction with which King George had accepted Christianity through Methodism. During the past three years he had been deeply involved in the religious revival which began in Vava’u and then spread throughout Tonga. He identified himself with the Methodist mission and was instrumental in gaining new members. Obviously, he watched with pride and satisfaction the growth of the mission, and for the Bishop to tell him that the Catholic church was the old, and therefore true, church, implying that the King’s own church was not, must have been a great insult to him, arousing in him (if he had not had them before this incident) some feelings against both the Bishop and the Roman Catholic church. The Bishop’s allegation that the Wesleyan missionaries decided the matter for the King, implying that the King was a puppet of the missionaries, was based on an underestimation of both the intelligence and character of King George. It was quite natural for him to seek the advice of his missionaries in cases such as this one, for he was well aware of the limitation of his knowledge of the white man’s laws and way of life, let alone religion, but in the end he always made his own decisions. John Thomas himself often complained that the King did not take any notice of him. Another missionary wrote of him:
The Wesleyan missionaries felt justified in their objection to the establishment of a Catholic mission in Tonga where their own mission had already, been established. They feared that this would only confuse the people and bring difficulties to their work as well as to the country as a whole. Events which followed in the forties and fifties proved them right. They also had good reason to doubt the real motives of the Bishop in his attempt to leave two of his men in Vava’u. The missionaries were well aware of the train of events associated with the landing of Catholic priests in Tahiti in 1836.
However, one cannot overlook the fact that there was a decidedly anti-Roman Catholic bias among the Wesleyan missionaries. They had inherited this outlook from the parent body at home, and in Tonga they made no secret of their hostility to the expanding work of the Catholic priests. Their letters during the 1840s and for the next two or three decades after the establishment of the Roman Catholic mission in Tonga were full of these anti-Catholic sentiments.
The Wesleyan missionaries had, however, underestimated the calibre of the man with whom they were dealing. Bishop Pompallier had tremendous determination and strength of character, and he had no intention of giving up easily. He kept his word to the King that he would come back, but before that he decided to strike his first blow at the Methodists by establishing mission stations in ’Uvea and Futuna. With regard to this unexpected move the Bishop afterwards wrote:
Meanwhile, Dillon, after his return from the Pacific at the end of 1838, continued to maintain his contact with France and the French missionaries. In a letter to Father Colin, in February 1841, he alleged that, after Captain Croker’s death in 1840, the Tongans had banished their cruel oppressors, the British missionaries, from Tongatapu, and were now asking for French missionaries and for the protection of the French Crown:
Dillon also suggested that perhaps a French colonising company could be formed to buy land in Tonga under his guidance, and that the mission should begin work in Fiji. He informed Colin that he had written to friends in Tonga telling them to advise the chiefs not to let the Wesleyans return and to expect Roman Catholic missionaries soon. He made a further suggestion that ‘perhaps the Marists should abandon New Zealand now that it had become British and concentrate on Tonga and Fiji, where they could benefit France as well as the Catholic religion’.
After carefully considering Dillon’s proposals, Father Colin rejected some of them but approved of Dillon’s suggestion that missionaries should be sent to Tonga and Fiji. He decided to support this idea by sending missionaries to Tonga.
In 1841, when news reached Pompallier of the murder of Father Chanel at Futuna, he wrote to the captain of the French corvette L’Aube, M. Lavaud, on 6 November 1841, expressing his indignation at what he believed to be the apathy of Captain d’Urville of the Astrolabe in not visiting the missions at ‘Uvea and Futuna while he was in those waters, but instead taking as a passenger to a neighbouring island the ‘intolerant’ John Thomas, at whose instigation the King had banished him and his missionaries from Vava’u four years before. The Bishop complained that he could not understand why no ship had visited ‘Uvea and Futuna, despite the letters he had sent to the French stations and consuls at Valparaiso, Tahiti and to the ministers of foreign affairs and of the admiralty.
Lavaud immediately placed the corvette L’Allier and her commander, Captain du Bouset, at the Bishop’s service. With this protection Pompallier fulfilled his promise to return to Vava’u. According to his own account:
Referring to this incident, the Reverend Stephen Rabone (Journal, 1 Jan. 1842) wrote that the chiefs of Vava’u were asked whether they had heard what the French had done at Tahiti and other places. He claimed the Tongans were aware of their intention to ‘force Popery’ upon them and that they could often be heard praying earnestly and sincerely to the Lord to steer the French vessels in any direction but to their islands. In his opinion, the conduct of the Roman Catholic priests only served to affirm the common notion ‘that it is a work of great mercy with them to convert us hereticks tho’ by fire and sword to their system—than to enlighten the minds of dark and untaught heathen’. He claimed that there were many other heathen islands where the Roman Catholics could expand ‘all the resources of their charity’, but they would not go there because ‘agitation’ was one of their watch words. He deplored the use of a man-of-war to threaten a few quiet, unarmed natives, adding that in such an unequal contest they might indeed gain something:
Bishop Pompallier and the two vessels left for ‘Uvea and Futuna, where he stayed for the following five months, to smooth out some of the difficulties in the work of his mission stations there. On 9 June he finally left Futuna, taking with him Father Chevron and a catechist, Brother Attale. They departed aboard the Sancta Maria which was accompanied by a large canoe in which were more than thirty Tongans from Tongatapu who had been living in ‘Uvea for some years and had been converted to Catholicism. They now wished to return to Tonga to help convert their people and they had asked the Bishop for at least a priest and a catechist, ‘to sustain them in the practice of salvation and to endeavour to obtain the conversion of all their island’ (Pompallier 1888:79).
After four days, they arrived at Lakemba (Fiji) and were met by another party of Tongans, one of whom was Fifita’ila, son of the celebrated Fa’ē of Pea. At this stage there had been no firm decision as to where the mission station should be established, for the Tongans from ’Uvea did not agree among themselves. However, Fifita’ila advised them that their only hope would be with Moeaki of Pea. The Bishop inquired who Moeaki was, and was informed that he was a chief of high rank whose paternal uncles, Tākai and Fa’ē, and grandfather Lavaka, were responsible for making the present hau, Aleamotu’a, the Tu’i Kanokupolu. This information pleased the Bishop ( Taumua Lelei, June 1931:4).
On 30 June 1842 they arrived at Pangaimotu and the Bishop sent two messengers to inform Moeaki of the new mission and of the proposal to establish it under him in Pea. Moeaki and Lavaka welcomed the Bishop’s proposal and invited him to Pea. On 2 July the Bishop and Father Chevron conducted the first mass held in Tonga under a tree at Pangaimotu. Next day, the Bishop’s party landed on the main island. They first called on Aleamotu’a, but he would not accept the new mission, saying that they already had one. He directed them to Moeaki. That day, the Bishop and Father Chevron held the first mass on Tongatapu, in the house of Moeaki. His wife Fie’ota and their three children, and two others, joined the church that day.
Aleamotu’a had not expected that Moeaki would accept the Catholic Mission, since he was at that time a Methodist and, when he found out that Moeaki had accepted the new mission, he became very angry and repeatedly sent messengers to urge him not to do so. Meanwhile, Fie’ota pleaded with Moeaki to turn Catholic, and Lavaka added his weight in support of her, so that finally Moeaki was converted to Catholicism on 7 July 1842. Bishop Pompallier then left Father Chevron in charge of the mission with Brother Attale as his assistant.
On his return to New Zealand Pompallier wrote to Lavaud, on 19 October 1842, and gave an account of the work he had done:
The founding of the Catholic mission in Tonga was a staggering blow to the Wesleyan missionaries, for obviously Bishop Pompallier had scored a victory over them at this stage. They were absent, attending a District Meeting, when the Bishop and his followers arrived at Tongatapu. Expressing deep disappointment and indignation, John Thomas reported to the Committee in London that upon returning to Tongatapu he found:
Apart from Pea, two other Catholic centres existed on Tongatapu, one at Holonga and the other at Kotongo (Kolonga). Both were formed from the people who came from ’Uvea with Bishop Pompallier in 1842, and who had returned to their own places of origin.
Having now established their roots in Tonga, the priests proceeded with vigour and enthusiasm to pursue the task which they firmly and sincerely believed God had called upon them to perform: namely, the conversion of all Tongans, Protestant and heathen alike, to the ‘true faith’.
According to Methodist accounts, the priests travelled for a time to the various places where the Wesleyan missionaries were already well established, ‘endeavouring to subvert the faith of the native converts’, and ‘in the prosecution of this object, they resorted to every species of calumnious misrepresentation’ (West 1865:290). They alleged that at Hihifo the priests told the people the Methodists were misleading them, for they were of Mr Wesley’s religion, which only began one hundred years ago ‘and Mr Wesley was no better than Jovili [Siovili] (an imposter, who was in the Navigator Islands a few years since, and who deceived many)’ and, also, that their Bible was full of error (Farmer 1855:365).
Later, Peter Turner (Journal, 1 Dec. 1848) recorded that, while at Mu’a, he ‘procured a small book belonging to the Romish party’ which the priests had given to a heathen there. An extract from it reads:
Realising the importance of the Tongan language to their work, the priests applied themselves to learning it, having been greatly assisted by the fact that it had already been reduced to writing by the Methodist missionaries, and aided by their earlier contacts with Tongan speakers at ‘Uvea. A few years later, one of the Wesleyan missionaries admitted how greatly he admired the way in which the priests had mastered the language. Their command of the language enabled them to establish schools by the late 1840s. Like the Wesleyan missionaries, they trained and sent more gifted members as teachers in the various places where they had converts. Peter Turner (Journal, 5 Nov. 1848) wrote:
It is very evident that the priests are following our example in some things.
In spite of their untiring efforts, the priests were not very successful in converting the masses to their faith as they had hoped to do. The Reverend George Miller reported in 1845: ‘Popery, hitherto, thanks be to God, has not made much progress in Tonga. Many of the heathen see that it is the old thing in a new garb’ ( W-M Mag., 1846:158). Later, in 1850, another Wesleyan missionary wrote, ‘there are now 4 Romish Priests on Tonga, but they are losing their influence among the people, and with all their seeming compliances, and “pious” fraud, they are cast into the background. The reason for this is, we have God and truth on our side’ ( W-M Mag., 1851:510). As will presently be shown, the Wesleyan missionaries succeeded in convincing their converts that ‘Popery’ was a system of lies and that the French missionaries were agents of France, whose real intentions were to create disturbances which could be used by their country as an excuse to annex Tonga.
Since the priests failed to make much impact upon established Methodist areas, they abandoned the itinerant system and concentrated their efforts upon the few centres in which they had established themselves. In addition to Pea, Holonga and Kotongo, these now included Ma’ofanga and Houma.6
The priests were as aware as the Wesleyan missionaries of the importance of converting the influential chiefs to their work. Once they had learned that the highest chief in all Tonga was the Tu’i Tonga, Laufilitonga, who lived at Mu’a and who was still a heathen, they concentrated all their efforts upon trying to win him. Father Chevron first visited him in 1842, but Laufilitonga rejected his overtures. In 1843 Bishop M. Douarre arrived from France on his way to New Caledonia. He and the other priests paid Laufilitonga a visit. The Tu’i Tonga showed them sympathy and promised that he would accept Catholicism. However, when the new Vicar of Central Oceania, Bishop Bataillon, first visited Tonga in 1844 Laufilitonga still refused to be converted.
The Wesleyan missionaries were equally unsuccessful. Peter Turner (Journal, 6 Mar. 1843) alleged that when he and John Thomas went to Mu’a to see the Tu’i Tonga, he ran away to the bush and refused to see them. It seems that political issues were involved. Bishop Blanc points out that the main reason for Laufilitonga’s not accepting either Catholicism or Protestantism was that King George, who had defeated him in war many years ago, had accepted a foreign religion, and the missionaries supported him. When the Catholic mission, another foreign religion, arrived, Laufilitonga could not understand that there was a vast difference between the two, and so he preferred to remain heathen ( Taumua Lelei, July 1931:3-4).
However, Father Chevron persisted and finally Laufilitonga recognised that the two missions were not the same and permitted Father Chevron to reside at Mu’a in 1847. In the following year, 1848, he decided to accept Catholicism and attended the mass on Sunday, 24 September. He was baptised by Bishop Bataillon on 30 September 1851.
The Wesleyan missionaries claimed that the conversion of the Tu’i Tonga was an integral part of the priests’ general plans to destroy their influence on the people of Tonga. They alleged that the priests were secretly encouraging the ‘spirit of disaffection, which the termination of the war of 1840 had not removed from the minds of several important heathen chiefs’ (West 1865:291). They claimed that after King George was appointed Tu’i Kanokupolu in 1845, the priests began, at first secretly and then openly, to try to undermine his authority. The Reverend Thomas West (1865:291) wrote that the priests:
At an encounter with two of the priests from Mu’a, who were on board the Mary Jane anchored at Nuku’alofa, Peter Turner (Journal, 5 Nov. 1848) accused them of trying to make the Tu’i Tonga King of Tonga, among other things. ‘These things’, he wrote, ‘I told to the priests and showed them how unbecoming it was for them to meddle so much with the chiefs and the Government of the Islands.’
Turner then wrote two long letters to King George, ‘giving an account of the state of affairs in Europe and of France in particular’. In the same letters he urged King George to come to Tongatapu, noting that ‘A word from him goes a long way with many of the heathens’.
King George reacted promptly, as West (1865:291) recorded:
The effect of this meeting was quite significant, as West points out that the Tu’i Tonga’s ‘public disavowal of all claims, as opposed to those of the lawful sovereign, effectually prevented any further open attempts on the part of the priests, to be his advocates’.
Again, according to the Wesleyan missionaries, when the priests failed in their bid to undermine King George’s power by making Laufilitonga King of Tonga, they adopted another method. This was to claim that the chiefs of Pea, Mu’a and Houma had every right to rule their people quite independently of King George and his laws.
Although the Ha’a Havea chiefs had agreed to support King George and to accept his authority, at the fono which he held after his installation as Tu’i Kanokupolu they still remained uncooperative. It was claimed that their reason for resisting King George’s laws resulted from the priests telling them that to submit to these laws, which King George had promulgated with the guidance of the English missionaries, meant submitting to the King of England and not to King George. The priests also promised the chiefs their support and the support of French men-of-war (P. Turner, Journal, 5 Nov. 1848).
King George then decided to move his court to Lifuka, Ha’apai, leaving the administration of Tongatapu to Ma’afu and Lavaka, two of the leading chiefs of the Ha’a Havea. It seems very probable that King George did this in order to test their loyalty. If they faithfully carried out their responsibilities and maintained peace and order on Tongatapu, he would be satisfied, for that would prove that there was no further hostility or resentment towards his authority and the law of the country. But if, on the other hand, they seized upon this opportunity to rebel and undermine his authority, then with his solid following in the rest of Tongatapu, Vava’u and Ha’apai, he could easily crush any rebellion.
Ma’afu and Lavaka chose to rebel. They started to rebuild the fortress at Pea. When news of this reached King George, he sailed for Tongatapu to investigate the matter, but Ma’afu and Lavaka denied the rumours and King George returned to Ha’apai, after the promulgation of the 1850 Code of Laws. However, the truth could no longer be contained, and, when an appeal came from the Governor, Stinia Haumono, and his friends in Tongatapu, King George decided to move his residence to Nuku’alofa in 1851. At this stage Ma’afu and Lavaka openly defied his authority and gave asylum to any fugitive from the laws promulgated by the King. Vaea and Fohe, two other Ha’a Havea chiefs, fortified Houma, ready to support Pea in the event of war.
In spite of repeated efforts on the part of the Wesleyan missionaries,8 the Ha’a Havea chiefs had determined to defy the authority of King George and, if attacked, to fight. Basil Thomson (1894:355) who was a particularly severe critic of the Wesleyan missionaries, had this to say: ‘The priests had set their followers on the road that leads to civil war, and for the misfortunes that overtook them they have only themselves to thank.’
King George declared war on Pea and Houma on 1 March 1852. He asked the French priests to leave Pea in case harm might come to them, but they replied that it was not the way of Catholic priests to desert their followers in their time of distress.
Meanwhile, M. Nallier, the commander of a French vessel from Tahiti, the Henri, arrived in Tonga on 13 April with Bishop Bataillon on board. Nallier informed the King that he had orders from the French Governor at Tahiti to remove the French priests to Tahiti if he found them in danger, and if they so desired. However, after being told the cause of the war and the steps the King had taken with regard to the personal safety of the priests, the Commander replied:
Bishop Bataillon, however, addressed a letter to the King asking him whether it was true that the purpose of the war was to destroy the remainder of the heathens and the adherents of the Roman Catholic mission. The King replied:
Skirmishes occurred between both sides, with the loss of several lives on both sides. On 21 April, the King, ‘not wishing to sacrifice human life unnecessarily’ by storming the heathen fortresses, resolved to besiege them, in order to starve the rebels into submission. Pea was besieged by four divisons from Nuku‘alofa, Mu’a, Ha’apai and Vava’u, and Houma was entrusted to Ata and the Hihifo warriors. Apparently there was a hope among the rebels that the Bishop would return with a French man-of-war by the end of April. After a while, however, the priests decided that one of them should go to Tahiti to inform the officer commanding the French men-of-war of their danger. Consequently Father Calinon left for Tahiti on the Atalina on 27 June. Undoubtedly Father Calinon’s trip raised considerable hope among the rebels for French intervention to settle the war in their favour. But after a month of expectation, Houma could not hold out any longer, and on 11 July, Vaea and Fohe surrendered. Commenting on this, West (1865:329) wrote:
Meanwhile, Pea held out a little longer, believing that a French man-of-war might arrive on any day to assist, and at the same time the King instructed his army to attack Pea immediately if a French man-of-war were sighted. On 9 August a ship appeared and everyone waited anxiously to ascertain if it were the long-expected French ship. However, it turned out to be the H.M.S. Calliope, commanded by Captain Sir Everard Home, a personal friend of King George. Sir Everard offered protection to the priests of Pea in his ship, but the priests declined the offer saying that they were in the fort for the sole reason of administering to their people and that they were prepared to lay down their lives, if necessary, for the sake of their calling.
However, on 17 August 1852 Pea surrendered and on the following day its fortifications were levelled and Sir Everard Home witnessed the way in which King George did everything he could to save the lives and property of the French priests. Before leaving Tonga, Sir Everard wrote to King George verifying his actions on these matters.
Meanwhile, Father Calinon returned in a small vessel, ‘and when he found the war ended, declared that he would have ample reparation in due time. He subsequently departed for Tahiti, where he lodged certain charges and claims, against the Tonguese, before the French Governor’ (West 1865:337). Eventually the long awaited man-of-war, La Moselle, arrived on 12 November, with Calinon on board. Its commander, Captain Belland, made inquiries regarding the complaints lodged in Tahiti by Father Calinon. Apparently the captain was quite satisfied with the King’s account. West (1865:338-9), who was present at the inquiry, wrote:
Belland then decided not to submit to the King the ‘documentary claim for heavy pecuniary compensation, on behalf of the Roman Catholic missionaries for damages to their property’. He also decided to take Father Calinon back with him to Tahiti.