Travers
practised law in Nelson, Christchurch
and Wellington and served as
magistrate in Nelson. While in
Christchurch he purchased Englefield
Lodge in 1866. Built in early 1852 as
a farm house, it is believed to be one
of the oldest homes in that city. The
image is Travers photographed in the
garden with his wife and daughter.
He was a
member of the House of
Representatives for its first term,
and represented Nelson (1853–54),
Waimea (1854–59), Christchurch City
(1867–70), and Wellington City
(1877–78). He stood unsuccessfully
for the superintendency of Nelson in
1855 and Canterbury in 1866, and was
a member of the Canterbury
Provincial Council in 1867. During
his time in Parliament he was, from
31 August to 2 September 1854, a
member without portfolio of T. S.
Forsaith's short-lived executive. He
is notable for having attempted to
make the general government rather
than the provinces
responsible for education
It
was outside politics that Travers
made his mark in New Zealand. He and
his son Henry explored the Nelson
region. He found the source of the
Waiau River in the Spenser
Mountains, and named the Ada, Henry,
Boyle and Anne rivers in the upper
Waiau Valley. Mt Travers and the
Travers Range bear his name in this
area. In the headwaters of the
Waiau, Travers collected grasses and
alpine flowers, carefully noting the
altitude. Much of this plant
material was forwarded to Joseph
Hooker for the herbarium at the
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Hooker
regarded him as an 'acute
collector'. Herbarium
specimens collected by him are also
held in Te Papa Museum in
Wellington. A skilled photographer,
there are images of this area and
others taken by him.
Shepherd notes “it
has been claimed that W.T.L.
Travers was responsible for
the introduction of the 1869 Botanic
Garden Bill, but from the
evidence available it did not
appear that he contributed
more than other Board members
such as Ludlam, Potts,
Huntley, Mantell or even
Hector. Possibly he drafted
the Bill which Ludlam
introduced, but certainly, as
a Governor of the New Zealand
Institute he would have
supported the formation of the
Botanic Garden from the
beginning. It was only natural
for legal matters to be
referred to him, and his
skills were very valuable in
the conveyance of the Wesleyan
land. As a Governor of the New
Zealand Institute he was one
of the team of men whose
combined talents were
responsible for the Garden's
successful development”.
Henry
Hammersley Travers was his only son
who was born in Hythe, Kent, in
1844. Coming to Nelson in 1849 he
was educated at Nelson College.
After a good deal of experience in
natural history, and some insight
into the law, he chose a country
life, eventually settling near
Paraparaumu. He made two trips to
the Chatham Islands to collect
botanical specimens, the first in
1864, at the request of Sir F. Von
Mueller on behalf of the Victorian
Government, his father meeting all
expenses. The second six years
later was on his own behalf when
he supplemented his former
researches, and paid considerable
attention to ornithology,
discovering a new genus, now
extinct, and three new species,
possibly for the Colonial Museum.
Lyall's wren (Traversia
lyalli) and the
famous black robin (Petroica
traversi) were
named after Henry Travers. He
seems to have failed as a lawyer
and lost his practise by 1900. He
was appointed Curator of the
Newtown Museum in 1913 but was
dismissed some time in 1915. He
died in 1928, and his wife Ida
died in 1937. His large remaining
collection of birds was bequeathed
to the Dominion Museum (later Te
Papa), accessioned in 1944. He
thus joines the ranks of others
like George Vernon Hudson also
associted with the garden in
providing collections to Te Papa,
as the Colonial Museum/Dominion
Museum eventually became known.
CONTENTS
Part
1 Introduction
Part
2 Zoo
controversy
Part
3 Wellington
City Transfer
Part
4 Other
Interests
Part
5 Burial
Part
6 Sources and
resources
Part
7 Plants
etc named for Travers
Part 2
Zoo controversy
The 1869 Botanic Garden Act
provided for use of the Garden for
purposes of acclimatisation.
Acclimatisation societies were
established quite early in both
Australia and New Zealand, their
main function at that time being to
introduce plants and animals which
might be of value to settlers. The
Wellington Society was established
1871.
|
Image from
Linda Tyler's Botanic
Garden 'John Buchanan'
presentation |
The invitation to the
inaugural meeting was issued by
Travers, and he was elected the
first President. The Society erected
hatcheries behind the Keeper's
Cottage in the Garden for holding
importations of pheasant and fowl.
Unfortunately these were unsightly,
and the Board asked for their
removal after completion of
hatching.
While Hector was overseas
in 1875, Walter Mantell, as acting
Manager of the Garden, became
concerned at the lack of attention
being given to the birds in
captivity. He wrote a strong letter
to Travers, still a leading member
of the Acclimatisation Society,
informing him that the Curator,
William Bramley, was unable to take
time to attend to the birds, that
one black cock had died and the
others looked sick and that no one
from the Acclimatisation Society had
visited them. Mantell continued
"The emus, which with
your consent have been put in
confinement to prevent the
wholesale destruction of young
plants, are looking ill.....The
location of your importations in
the garden has never yet been
properly defined. If that had been
done you might long since have
fenced off the portion allotted to
your Society and both the animals
and the garden would have been
great gainers. No instructions
appear to have accompanied your
last importation of birds which
are therefore still in
confinement". We do not know
how the Society reacted but Traver's
reputation suffered with this
letter.
Mantell's
letter
indicates that there were two emus
in the Garden in 1875. By 1882 one
had died possibly as a result of an
attack by dogs in 1881. In 1903 it
was reported: "that before the
advent of the Zoo at Ncwtown Park
(1906) the Garden had a small
flea-bitten collection of animals
….... - a few monkeys, a kiwi or
two, and the emu ... I was so
impressed with its misbegotten air".
It would appear that the birds and
emu were housed in the space where
today the children's playground is
situated.
 |
Items of expense such as
bird seed and food foranimals show in the records
for the Garden and obviously relate
to the upkeep of animals belonging
to the Acclimatisation Society.
These were legitimate costs expected
to be carried by the Board since the
Botanic Garden Act expressly stated
that food and labour for maintaining
animals or birds was to be provided
on condition that the amount
expended yearly for this purpose did
not exceed l/6th of the yearly
income for the support of the
Garden. There are records of monkeys
being held in the Garden. Sometimes
they caused trouble as when they
escaped in 1882. One monkey was
killed by a dog while Bramley's
thirteen year old son was so
frightened that he took refuge in a
tree! The residents of Tinakori Road
complained to the Garden's
Constable. His report said: "Mrs
Pell and Mrs Reardon complain of
the monkeys taking their fowls,
eggs, and killing their chickens.
Mrs Morrell complains about them
destroying her fruit trees and Mrs
Dixon states that one of them bit
her little girl while passing
along Tinakori Road". The
Board was asked to take steps to
prevent this happening again.
The wish for a zoo for the
Capital City was gaining public
support. In 1889 the Evening Post
carried a letter seeking such
support for the establishment of a
separate Zoological Garden. It read:
"The
Botanical Garden is a wilderness
of pines and macrocarpas and a few
old fashioned flowers and plants
that no modern botanist would take
the trouble to look at. Surely
such botanical and zoological
enthusiasts as Sir James Hector
and W.T.L. Travers could place the
whole thing on a firm basis making
a menagerie self supporting".
The Newtown
Zoo was opened in 1906 and all
remaining animals and birds
where quickly transferred to
their new home.
CONTENTS
Part
1 Introduction
Part
2 Zoo
controversy
Part
3 Wellington
City Transfer
Part
4 Other
Interests
Part
5 Burial
Part
6 Sources and
resources
Part
7 Plants
etc named for Travers
Part 3 Wellington
City Transfer Controversy 1891
In February 1887 a
sub-committee of the Wellington City
Council considering the proposed
Thorndon Recreation Ground reported
on their visit to the Botanic
Garden. This had taken place at the
instigation of the Minister of
Public Works in order to assess
whether the Garden contained a
suitable site for a recreation
ground. After judging that it did
not, the report went on to deal with
the present plight of the Botanic
Garden, and to present
recommendations on which the Council
could act. The report pointed out "that
the Botanic Gardens were intended
to form the basis of operations
for a system of forestry
throughout the Colony, but the
meagreness of the revenue with
which the Gardens are endowed
quite prevents the Botanic Gardens
Board from carrying out the
objects for which it was created
by public statute". The
report then recommended that the
Council should see the Minister of
Lands and Agriculture to lobby for
a continued Government grant for
the Botanic Garden "and
thus prevent the national gardens
of the Colony falling into
disorder and waste".
Council resolved to do this.
It seems clear from the
report that a site for a recreation
ground was not the main subject
discussed following their visit to
the Garden. In their emphasis on the
Colonial status and national purpose
of the Garden it would seem that
these discussions had been with Sir
James Hector himself. It was
Hector's hope that the Botanic
Garden would continue to develop as
a national centre for the teaching
of botany and the cultivation of
plants for study, acclimatisation
and economic assessment, something
it had largely done since its
establishment. As Shepherd notes “to
this end, in good times, a
disinterested unobstructive
Council, which had been the case,
was better than one whose energy
and interest may have led to
contributions from City rates. For
the possible consequence of this
might have been interference in
the management of the Garden by
persons that the Board would have
judged as unprofessional
busybodies”.
|
Garden aerial
view from north-east
Begonia House and
Rangers Cottage clearly
visible.
|
From
the point of view of its continued
independence it was thought better
for the Board to enlist Council's
help in attempting to get the
Government to reinstate the grant,
rather than ask for support through
City funding. The report of the
Thorndon Recreation Ground
sub-committee not only indicates the
point at which the Council entered
into the question of the financial
management of the Garden, but also
demonstrates a compliant Council,
sympathetic to the plight and aims
of the Botanic Garden Board. The
Council had in fact been supporting
the Garden financially since 1872,
when one sixth of the rents from the
Town Belt had been granted by
legislation to the Botanic Garden
Board for the running of the Garden.
This was not mentioned at all in the
sub-committee's report, and shows
that up until 1888 the Council had
no interest whatsoever in
administering the Garden. Councillor
Seed's statement to the Prime
Minister on 16 March 1889 showed
that all this had changed. There had
emerged within Council a strong
lobby demanding that the Council
control the Botanic Garden as it did
the Town Belt. The possibility of
this lobby achieving its aims became
a serious threat to the Board and
its future plans for the Garden
because of the Government's refusal
to grant operational funds.
This change in the attitude
of the Council appears to be both
relatively sudden and absolute.
During the meeting with the Prime
Minister in March 1889, Councillor
Brandon, who had led the Reserves
Committee to intercede with the
Minister of Lands and Agriculture on
the plight of the Botanic Garden two
years before, was the only one on
the deputation to express something
of the old supportive stance. He
disagreed with the deputation, "holding
that these were colonial gardens",
and therefore belonged to the
nation. The rest of the deputation
supported Councillor Seed, who,
apart from urging the Government to
return the Garden to its rightful
owners, also pointed out that with
the removal of a Government grant
the only revenue going to the garden
was that "which the city gave out
of the Town Belt rents". This
statement not only demonstrated that
the Council had changed its position
on the Botanic Garden since February
1887, but also that it had developed
an assertive stance on the matter
supported by a positive belief in
its right to the Botanic Garden.
The City Council's idea of
its ownership, and therefore
ultimate right to control the
Botanic Garden, had some moral if
not strictly legal foundation.
Travers was quite right in stating
that "the Council never had any
control over (the Garden) at all".
In 1844 and again in 1869 at the
time of the Botanic Garden Act, the
City Corporation did not exist at
all. Even when the Municipality was
founded in 1870 it was dominated in
larger matters until 1876 by the
still existing Provincial Council,
though concerns relating directly to
the city were slowly given over to
it. One of these was the vesting of
the Town Belt in the Corporation by
legislation in 1871 and 1872. The
intention of the New Zealand Company
in creating the Town Belt was to
provide open space between town and
country for recreational purposes.
Throughout its history the Belt has
survived for this purpose in spite
of large appropriations of land. One
of these was the Botanic Garden
until it was returned to the City in
1891.
Admittedly the citizens had
access to the Botanic Garden land
for recreational purposes, but this
was only one side of the question.
The other side of appropriation is
that control of public land passes
into the hands of private
individuals and individual interests
with legislative approval. Also,
once legislative consent has
established the change in control
and use, it is unlikely that the
land will ever return to public
ownership. At no time during the
formation of the Garden were the
citizens of Wellington in a position
to participate in the allocation of
these lands. From their point of
view the Botanic Garden was
appropriated public property. Also,
with the danger of appropriation in
mind, it was of natural concern to
the citizens of Wellington and the
City Council that, should the Garden
change hands because of the Board's
financial collapse, it remain in
public use rather than fall into the
hands of some private or Government
interest. Though they may not have
been consulted in 1869, by 1889 the
citizens of Wellington had the means
and the will to call the tune on the
future of the Botanic Garden, and
this they had set about doing.
Given the generally
parochial interests of councillors
in the 1880s, the fact that the
Council became interested in the
Botanic Garden points to a growing
public interest combined with the
return of councillors with a
commitment to the issue, as well
as support from standing
councillors. That public
opinion and the return of
councillors interested in the city
acquiring the Botanic Garden had
been factors in the election of
September 1888 is born out by
Councillor Brown in March 1889. In
supporting the deputation on the
move to vest the Garden in the city,
he pointed out to the Prime Minister
"that it was a new member who
carried the proposal in Council,
and that the ratepayers were
generally in favour of it at the
late elections." The new
member, Councillor William Seed, at
the same meeting, was emphatic that
"there was no doubt (that) the
public was in favour" of the
vesting of the Botanic Garden in the
city. Also, by 1889, even before the
deputation to the Prime Minister, it
must have been obvious to the
Council that funding for the Garden
was not going to come from the
Government. It is interesting that
even to this day, funding issues
continue to face the Garden.
As an issue affecting all
wards, vesting of the Botanic Garden
was an eminently achievable goal.
The benefits and service of the
Garden to the city were enjoyed by
everyone, so that pubic support
arose out of direct popular
experience. As a developed reserve
no excessive drain on the rates or
expensive loan monies were
necessary, so the ratepayers of the
time could afford to indulge in an
unqualified support for the venture.
Even Mr Traver's rhetorical
questions on the cost of running the
Garden in his letter of March 1889
would have had little effect.
In an attempt to retain
control of the Garden and gain the
support of a cost-cutting
Government, Hector had unfortunately
named a sum as low as three hundred
pounds as an adequate rate, in
conjunction with Town Belt rents, to
cover running costs. Even then two
hundred pounds of this was an
estimate for fence repair and gorse
clearance, a maintenance cost that
would not occur every year. Basic
running and maintenance costs thus
set meant that the Botanic Garden
would be a very good return on a
modest annual investment.
In 1889 a controversy
between the Botanic Garden Board and
the Wellington City Council surfaced
in the letter columns of The New
Zealand Mail. A deputation led
by the Mayor had met the Prime
Minister. Among the matters
discussed was the Botanic Garden,
the council "urged the Government
to introduce legislation restoring
the Botanic Garden to the control
of the public”.
This remark prompted a long
letter to the paper from Travers,
which proceeded "to show that the
Council never had any control over
(the Garden) at all." He was "amused
at the new-born enthusiasm of the
City Council in relation to the
Botanic Garden" although "it
never voted a sixpence"
towards its maintenance. “Does
the public know what the cost of
keeping these gardens in proper
order will amount to? Is it
prepared to add this burden to the
rates, whilst drainage and other
works affecting the health and
well-being of the city are left
unheeded? What assurance,
moreover, is there that the
gardens would, under municipal
control, be well managed? Surely
the example of horticultural
knowledge exhibited in the
plantations now under the control
of the Council does not offer such
an assurance".
In his reply to the Travers
letter, the Council contended that
the Garden belonged "of right to
the citizens of Wellington".
Though they agreed with him about
the Council's lack of horticultural
expertise he added this
qualification: "It does not
follow, however, that the Council
will not be able to do better in
the future. The ratepayers, at any
rate, will be able to return
councillors whom they may have
reason to think will be able to
look after the gardens; in this
way they will be able to exercise
a very salutary control over them,
and this they cannot do at
present. "
In
the discussion regarding the
transfer of the garden to the
Wellington City Council, Mr
Travers arguing on behalf of the
Board said the Garden was in a
satisfactory state “with seven
miles of well kept walks and
that it had been maintained as a
Colonial Garden”, for the
benefit of the whole country. He
argued the importance of the
original 'thirteen acres'
and the need to safeguard this
area for the purposes of botany
for all time. Hector supported
Travers view, and spoke of the
need for a Research Garden. He
also stressed the importance of
the summit of the Garden as a site
for an observatory for obtaining
satisfactory astronomical
observations.
The Vesting Act was
passed in 1891 with additional
provision made for a 2.4 ha
approx. (six acre) site for a
future Observatory and the
requirement that the original 5.3
ha approx. (thirteen acres) be
maintained as a Botanic Garden in
perpetuity. The management of the
Garden by the New Zealand
Institute had come to an end.
Hector felt the loss very keenly,
as undoubtedly did the rest of the
Board. The Council maintained the
Colonial Botanic Garden was vested
in the City of Wellington solely
for reasons of economy. What had
been overlooked was, that forty
years earlier, in l851, the
Governor had agreed to consider
the issue of a Crown Grant to the
trustees named by the Wellington
Horticultural Society, to be held
by them in trust for any future
municipal corporation to be
established in Wellington. No
corporation was operating in 1869
when the Crown Grant for the
Reserve was made to the New
Zealand Institute. It could be
argued that it had been intended
from the beginning that the town
of Wellington should administer
the Botanic Garden.
As 1891 came to a close,
the City and its people received
that portion of the original Town
Belt which included the
appropriation of 5.3 ha approx. (thirteen
acres), together with
approximately 21.85 ha approx.
(fifty-four acres) of the Wesleyan
Reserve appropriated in 1852.
Fortunately they still, as open
park land, fulfilled the original
green belt concept of the
Directors of the New Zealand
Company. It is the New Zealand
Company's legacy to the people of
Wellington, to enjoy as an area of
public recreation and to serve the
disciplines of botany and
horticulture.
At the City Council
meeting, a communication was
received from Sir James Hector, in
reference to the Botanic Garden,
intimating that the garden was now
under control of the City Council
and giving certain details as to
the wages paid to the caretaker
and his assistant. The Mayor said
that several of the fences
required repairing, and the gorse
wanted clearing. He thought that
now the garden was under control
of the Council they should at once
take the matter in hand.
The passing of the
Botanic Garden Vesting Bill in
1891 came as a bitter blow to
Travers and to his colleagues who
had worked so hard with such
limited funds to create a Garden
which had an educational function,
as well as a place for public
enjoyment. He voiced his criticism
of the proposed takeover in the
newspaper and argued most forcibly
in evidence to the Legislative
Council for the continued
management by the Board. He
did, however, manage to have an
extra clause inserted in the Act
which provided for the perpetual
management of the original 'thirteen
acres' as a true
botanic garden, thus ensuring
that the Garden was not to
become just a municipal park. This
clause in the Act is Travers'
everlasting memorial.
When entering the new
period of management in 1891, the
Garden was to be funded by the
City. It was, however, deprived
for the time being of the
expertise of men with scientific
or horticultural knowledge. It was
many years before the Corporation
could supply this need. Nothing
has ever been done to counter the
bitterness engendered by the
change, nor to acknowledge the
dedication and service of Hector,
Mantell, Ludlam, Mason, Travers,
Kirk, Archdeacon Stock, and other
members of the Botanic Garden
Board, as well as John Buchanan of
the Colonial Museum.
The day the Council took
control has been regarded by some
as the establishment date for the
Garden, but it was in fact
established some 23 years earlier,
in 1868, although the NZ Company
was directed in 1839 by the
British Government to make
provision, in its plans for
Wellington, for a botanic garden
to be established and maintained
in perpetuity
for its residents.
CONTENTS
Part
1 Introduction
Part
2 Zoo
controversy
Part
3 Wellington
City Transfer
Part
4 Other
Interests
Part
5 Burial
Part
6 Sources and
resources
Part
7 Plants
etc named for Travers
Part 4
Other Interests
Besides
his political and legal interests,
Travers was a skilled observer in
many branches of natural history
and always kept himself informed
on the latest developments. The
geographical distribution of
plants interested him
particularly, and he made a
special study of the flora of
Nelson, Marlborough, and
Canterbury. Hooker considered the
contributions of Travers to the
Kew Herbarium especially valuable
because he always noted at what
elevation the specimens were
found. Travers, who was a fellow
of the Linnean Society, also spent
much time trying to discover an
easy way to process the NZ flax, Phormium
tenax. Baron Mueller
dedicated his Vegetation of the
Chatham Islands to him,
while Hooker named a small shrub
of the daisy order, Traversia,
in his honour. Very interested in
ethnology and Maori-European
relationships, Travers made a
point of trying to understand the
Maori attitude. His Stirring
Times of Te Rauparaha (1872)
seeks to explain the reasons
behind the Maori troubles of the
1840s. In 1877 he contributed the
letterpress for C. D. Barraud's
portfolio of lithographs, New
Zealand – Graphic and
Descriptive. He also
contributed many papers to the Natural
History Review and to the Transactions
of the Ethnological Society.
In 1888 he published From New
Zealand to Lake Michigan,
which is an interesting account of
a trip he made through the
north-western and central United
States. For some years he acted as
Vice-Consul for France and was
awarded the Grand Cross of the
Order of Cambodia.
 |
Travers
photo from Linda Tyler's
Botanic Garden 'John
Buchanan' presentation |
Travers's
interest
in natural history led him to
become one of the founders of the
New Zealand Institute, drafting
the statute under which the
institute was established in 1867.
He was one of its governors until
his death, and from 1888 to 1903
was its treasurer. Travers is
claimed to have drafted the 1869
act establishing the Botanic
Garden of Wellington which was to
be managed by the Institute,
although Shepherd has found no
firm evidence of this, although as
a lawyer and board members he
would have been involved. For 22
years he was a member of the
Botanic Garden Board.
Travers
published some 40 articles on
botany, ornithology, geology and
ethnology in the Transactions
of the New Zealand Institute.
He was a skilled amateur
photographer, whose work is now
sought after by museums and
galleries.
He was a
keen military volunteer in both
Nelson and Canterbury and was
gazetted captain (unattached list)
on 31 March 1869. In 1874 he was
founding president of the
Wellington Acclimatisation
Society. In the same year, as a
member of the board of governors
of Wellington College, he
supervised a large planting of
trees obtained from the botanic
garden, on the slopes of the town
belt behind Wellington College.
Travers
was one of the first shareholders
of the Wellington Gas Company, the
Wellington City Steam Tramways
Company and the Wellington and
Manawatu Railway Company. For a
time he was city solicitor. He was
adviser to both the Wellington
Woollen Manufacturing Company and
the Wellington Patent Slip
Company, and urged attention to
harnessing the power of the Hutt
River.
His first wife Jane
Travers died in 1888, and on 9
April 1891 he married Theodosia
Leslie Barclay. Travers was
injured as the result of an
accident at the Hutt railway
station where he fell alighting
from a moving train, falling
between the platform and the
cars. He
subsequently died on 27 April 1903, aged
84.
CONTENTS
Part
1
Introduction
Part
2 Zoo
controversy
Part
3 Wellington
City Transfer
Part
4 Other
Interests
Part
5 Burial
Part
6 Sources
and resources
Part
7
Plants etc named for Travers
Part
5 Burial in
Bolton Street Memorial Park
 |
Travers
unmarked
grave – in poor repair
(Observatory Path to
the left and Trustees
Crescent to the right)
Partially renovated
and cleared grave -
recent photo
|

|
Nick Perrin of the
Bolton Street Memorial Park
notes that Travers is buried
in the Park, and “was so notable
that it was surprising not
only that his grave has no
memorial, but also that it
was lost” until Perrin
recently identified its
location. He claims that his
identification is certain,
because an old map of Bolton
St known to be pre 1889
shows a grave labelled "Travers".
Kathleen Coleridge is a
descendant of Travers, and
said her father once
showed her a grave which
he said was Travers, and,
when discussed with
Perrin, his description of
it sounded to her that it
was what her father had
identified. The pre 1889
map is very rough with
whole sections drawn in
the wrong place, and the
Travers grave is one of
those wrongly located on
the map. However, the
placement of nearby graves
which are named on the old
map can be recognised, and
their distribution around
the Travers grave is such
that he can be absolutely
sure that it is the one
with a low concrete wall
with 5 sides at the
junction of lower
Observatory Path and the
lower end of Trustees
Crescent. It remains
unmarked and damaged.
CONTENTS
Part
1
Introduction
Part
2 Zoo
controversy
Part
3
Wellington City
Transfer
Part
4 Other
Interests
Part
5 Burial
Part
6
Sources and resources
Part
7
Plants etc named for
Travers
Part
6 Sources and resources
Principal
sources:
Winsome
Shepherd and Walter Cook; The
Botanic Garden, Wellington
A New Zealand History 1840
- 1987 Highly
recommended for the story of
the Garden. This
article is significantly
sourced from this book.
R. Winsome
Shepherd Travers, William
Thomas Locke 1819–1903
Lawyer, magistrate,
politician, explorer,
naturalist, photographer http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1t105/travers-william-thomas-locke
Other sources:
William
Travers (politician)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Travers_%28politician%29
Mr. Williiam
[sic] Thomas Locke
Travers. Wellington: The
Cyclopedia Company
Limited. 1897. http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-Cyc01Cycl-t1-body-d4-d26-d6.html .
TRAVERS, William
Thomas Locke (1819–1903). Lawyer,
politician, and
naturalist http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/travers-william-thomas-locke
Christchurch's
Oldest
House http://canterburyheritage.blogspot.co.nz/2008/10/christchurchs-oldest-house.html
TRAVERS, William Thomas
Locke Phtographs http://canterburyphotography.blogspot.co.nz/2009/07/travers.html
William Thomas
Locke TRAVERS
General notes
http://www.thekingscandlesticks.com/webs/pedigrees/12568.html
W.H.L
Travers biographical http://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/theme.aspx?irn=2683
Travers
photographs - some
examples
http://mp.natlib.govt.nz/search/?l=en&s=a&q=travers+photographs
Henry
Hammersley Travers, The
Cyclopedia of New
Zealand [Wellington
Provincial District] http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-Cyc01Cycl-t1-body-d4-d117-d6.html
Henry
Hammersley Travers
http://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/theme.aspx?irn=2683
A
number of other
sites list
biographical data,
but with little new
content.
CONTENTS
Part
1
Introduction
Part
2 Zoo
controversy
Part
3
Wellington City
Transfer
Part
4 Other
Interests
Part
5 Burial
Part
6
Sources and resources
Part
7
Plants etc named for
Travers