Hamilton. — Armour presented to Titore by Willicmi IV. 41 



what curious : it passed from the Nga Puhi to Titore, and from Titore to 

 Te \\Tiero ^^^lero, at the Waikato feast, and came into Taonui's hands under 

 the following circumstances : On the death of a favourite daughter, Te 

 Whero ^\Tiero made a song, the substance of which was that he would take 

 of? the scalps of all the chiefs except the Ngaweka and fling them into his 

 daughter's grave to revenge her untimely death. The words of the song 

 highly insulted the various individuals against whom it was directed, more 

 especially as it was a great curse for the hair of a chief, which is sacred, 

 to be thus treated with contempt. But the only chief who dared to resent 

 this insult from so great a man as Te Whero Whero was Taonui, a chief 

 of Nga Puhi and Ngati Whatua, who demanded a taua or gift as recompense 

 for the afiront, and received the armour of E'Hongi in compensation. I 

 made a drawing of the armour, which was old and rusty : it is steel inlaid 

 with brass ; and, although never worn by the possessors in battle — for it 

 Avould sadly impede their movements — it is regarded with a sort of super- 

 stitious veneration by the Natives, who look upon it as something extra- 

 ordinary." 



There is another extract which I will give, from Thompson's " Study 

 of New Zealand," as it relates to information obtained by him in 1849.* 

 ■■ This armour " [Hongi's] " is now scattered about the country. In 1849 

 I found the breastplate in the possession of a chief living near the source 

 -of the AVaipa River ; in 1853 Waikato, the chief who accompanied Hongi 

 to England, told me he had buried the helmet with his son's bones a few 

 Aveeks before my visit to him at the Bay of Islands." 



Both of the latter extracts refer to Hongi's " armour." The first gives 

 the details of its passing from Titore to Te WTiero "Whero at the Waikato 

 feast, I but both extracts describe the armour sufficiently to make it clear 

 that it was not chain armour, but plate armour. 



It is evident, therefore, that, if the relics deposited by Dr. Pomare were 

 Hongi's, he must have had a suit of mail and a suit of plate armour. Earl, 

 in his b©ok pubUshed about the year of Hongi's death, distinctly mentions 

 *' chain armour," and in this he is supported by Taylor. Angas and 

 Thompson speak quite as positively to its being plate armour. 



Then, it is stated by the Whanganuis that the armour was given as a 

 ransom for Tokiwhati. Now, Tokiwhati was wounded and captured by 

 the Whanganuis in the course of Tuwhare's third expedition or war party, 

 the survivors of which reached their homes at the Bay of Islands about 

 October, 1820. Now, we know that Hongi, who returned from England 

 to the Bay of Islands 11th July, 1821, wore his coat of mail at the capture 

 of Mokoia Island, at Lake Rotorua, in August or September, 1823. It is 

 dlso recorded that Hongi had a narrow escape at this battle. He was struck 

 by the bullets of the Arawa from one of their few guns, and one bullet fired 

 by the hand of Te Awa-awa struck his steel cap and knocked him over 

 into the hold of the canoe. Mr. Percy Smith thinks that Hongi probably 

 used the armour at Mauinaina, November, 1821, and at Te Totara. It is 

 therefore quite clear that the ransom of Tokiwhati could not have been the 

 armour of Hongi. 



The whole question at this time seemed to turn on deciding who was 

 correct. Earl and Taylor or Angas and Thompson. 



* Thompson's " Sttidy of New Zealand," p. 256. 



•j- This is the great feast held at Remuera, J Ith May, 1844. 



