Appendix I The Name of Auckland

The City of Auckland is generally stated to have been named after Lord Auckland by Governor Hobson, but, as a rule, no authority for the statement appears in any of the books relating to the subject. As already shown from Hobson’s despatch, dated 10th November, 1840, the Governor chose the name himself. So far, so good. What was his reason for doing so? I exhausted every possible source of information at my command, and failed to obtain any satisfaction. Learning from Mr. Horace Fildes, of Wellington, that Dr. Guy H. Scholefield had, while in England, been given access by the Hobson family to the late Governor’s papers, and from these had written a biography (which, unfortunately, is still in manuscript), I communicated with him on the question of the naming of the city, and specifically inquired if he had seen any document or paper giving in Hobson’s own words his reasons for the name which he bestowed upon the capital. Dr. Scholefield courteously looked through his MS. and replied as follows:—

“I have come across the volume and looked carefully through it for what you want. Here it is, roughly. Having been idle for some years after returning from the West Indies, Hobson applied to the First Lord (Sir James Graham), recounting his services and asking for employment. This was shelved, but in June, 1834, Lord Auckland came to the Admiralty, and in December he gave Hobson command of the Rattlesnake, with orders to proceed to the East Indies (the cruise which brought him first to New Zealand). Hobson wrote thanking Auckland for his patronage, and Auckland replied a few days later:—

“‘I am glad to know from you that your appointment to the Rattlesnake is so satisfactory to you, and can assure you that it was highly pleasing to me to give the service the advantage of having you again in active employment.’ (Private letter in possession of Hobson’s family).

“While Hobson was on the East Indies station Auckland was himself appointed Governor-General of India. Troubles with Burma for months, and even for years, made it seem that an expedition would be necessary, and both before and after the Australian cruise, Hobson had been instructed to be ready for this, as he would be senior naval officer on the station. Finally, Hobson’s time came to return to England, and the instructions were handed over to another captain. In his letters to his wife at this period, which I have copied, but cannot find just now, Hobson frequently refers in terms of gratitude to Auckland’s kindly interest. At one time he expected a naval appointment at Bombay worth £2000 a year, which he compared with a ‘factorship’ in New Zealand or a governorship of Port Philip, which he surveyed. His conclusion was rather in favour of the latter.

“In my chapter on Hobson’s character, I refer to his frequent acknowledgments of the kindly interest of three men, Sir Lawrence Halsted, Lord Auckland and the Duke of Clarence. He has commemorated them and others in the nomenclature of Australia and New Zealand, wherever he had a chance. ‘Believe me,’ he writes to his wife in 1836, regarding the kindly interest of Lord Auckland, ‘many a valuable officer pines in obscurity merely because he has no friends to bring his merits into notice.’ The friendship of Lord Auckland was well recognised, for an acquaintance once asked him to exert his influence on behalf of his own son-in-law. ‘It would gratify me beyond measure,’ he writes to Mrs. Hobson in reply ‘to be the means of pushing his son-in-law forward, but to write to Lord Auckland, as —— wishes me to do, to ask his Lordship’s interest on behalf of another, merely because he befriended me, is so absurd a thing that I cannot help wondering how any rational man could propose it.’

“I hope that this may be sufficient to fix the responsibility for the name of Auckland. There can be no historical doubt as to its origin, and the reason for it.”