Muaupoko Land and Politics Scoping Report

Home , Mangatainoka, Muaupoko, Poroutawhao

Wai 2200, #A55

Jane Luiten July 2014

Wai 2200 Porirua ki Manawatu District Inquiry Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 3 1. Muaupoko Ancestral Rights, 1820-1870 ...... 6 1.1. Muaupoko 1820-1870 Bibliography ...... 21 2. Nineteenth Century Land Alienation ...... 43 2.1. Old Land Claims/New Zealand Company Purchases ...... 43 2.2. Early Crown Purchases, 1840-1870 ...... 45 2.3. Native Land Court Title and Partition, 1872-1886 ...... 48 2.4. Land Alienation, 1886-1900 ...... 59 2.5. Nineteenth Century Land Alienation Bibliography ...... 68 3. Twentieth Century Land Alienation ...... 114 3.1. Twentieth Century Land Alienation Bibliography ...... 121 4. Lake Horowhenua ...... 134 4.1. Lake Horowhenua Bibliography ...... 146 5. Resource Loss/Degradation ...... 153 5.1. Resource Loss/Degradation Bibliography ...... 156 6. Outstanding Muaupoko Claims ...... 158 7. Scoping Recommendations ...... 161 Appendix: Commission ...... 167

List of Tables

Table 1: Muaupoko claims relating to loss of ancestral rights ...... 12 Table 2: Early Crown purchases in Porirua ki Manawatu ...... 45 Table 3: The Horowhenua Block partitions, 1886 ...... 51 Table 4: Muaupoko claims relating to Native Land Court title and partition ...... 53 Table 5: Muaupoko claims relating to land alienation, 1886-1900 ...... 64 Table 6: Muaupoko claims relating to land alienation, 1900-2014 ...... 116 Table 7: Muaupoko claims relating to Lake Horowhenua ...... 140 Table 8: Muaupoko claims relating to resource loss and degradation ...... 153 Table 9: Outstanding Muaupoko claims ...... 158

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map showing the geography and land blocks within the Wai 2200 Porirua ki Manawatu inquiry district ...... 5

Introduction

This Scoping Report was commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal and represents 14 weeks of work, beginning in February 2014. The purpose of the report was to define the main issues arising from Muaupoko’s claims relating to land and politics; to scope out the extent of historical records relating to such issues, and to recommend how the substantive research might be structured. The commission itself is set out in the Appendix.

A draft report was circulated to claimants for comment on 30 April 2014, and on 13 May I met with them in Levin to discuss what was proposed. I would like to thank all claimants for their very engaged and thoughtful response to the draft, and I appreciate also the support from the staff of the Waitangi Tribunal on this occasion. The feedback from these hui, together with the QA review, has materially affected the final result.

For scoping purposes, Muaupoko’s claims have been organised into the themes of rangatiratanga, land alienation, Lake Horowhenua, resource loss and degradation, and outstanding matters. The scoping report largely follows a chronological order, dealing first with Muaupoko’s ancestral rights in the district and the very complex issues wrought by historical events which preceded the Crown’s coming. The consideration of land alienation that follows has been divided into two: the sweeping nineteenth century Native Land Court processes of title determination and partition, together with the direct intervention of the Crown in the late 1890s; and the more piecemeal attrition of Muaupoko’s remaining estate since 1900. The issues surrounding Muaupoko’s prized fishery of Lake Horowhenua is considered in its own section. The report then briefly considers other resource loss issues and outstanding matters, and how these may be dealt with. Bibliographies for each section have been prepared as fully as possible.

Each section begins with a brief historical narrative, with the aim of providing context for the claims and issues that follow. Given the scoping nature of the project and the time constraints, this narrative has necessarily been drawn predominantly from secondary sources, drawing criticism that the scoping report serves only to regurgitate the received versions of history that Muaupoko object to so strongly. This applies particularly to the first part of the report dealing with the nature and extent of Muaupoko customary rights following war and the influx of other iwi. I would stress that it is a scoping report, and that Muaupoko claimants will have the opportunity to have their stories fully considered in the substantive report.

I have a BA (Honours) degree from the University of Waikato, and I have been researching and writing for the Waitangi Tribunal process in different capacities since 1990, in between raising my

3 family. In the last six years I have focussed on the impact of local government on Maori communities within the inquiry districts of the East Coast and of Te Rohe Potae. I live and work in Gisborne.

Jane Luiten June 2014

Waitangi Tribunal WAI2200

NI!.C Title Investigations", ea~y o CrONn purchases & other areas • Ot;oi~ Otamakapua Mangoira • -- Parae Karetu "''' ~

Whanganui Ri,,:r ,

•

-" -.' - ... - •• Geography of the Porirua ki Manawatu inquiry district

Figure 1: Map showing the geography and land blocks within the Wai 2200 Porirua ki Manawatu inquiry district (Source: Tribunal Staff, July 2010)

1. Muaupoko Ancestral Rights, 1820-1870

Muaupoko’s experience of colonisation cannot be understood without the historical context of developments in the region that preceded the Crown’s coming. Many of their claims relate to the undermining of Muaupoko mana – te tino rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, ancestral rights – by Crown actions or Crown neglect. In making such claims, particularly about events in the decades just after the Treaty of Waitangi, Muaupoko claimants are up against an established historical narrative which portrays them as a defeated people, with greatly reduced interests as tangata whenua in their once-vast domain. In the subsequent era of Native Land Court title determination, it is claimed that the mana of those who kept Muaupoko fires burning at Horowhenua was ignored or side-lined by the Crown.

As the Te Tau Ihu Tribunal points out, while the Tribunal is not a judge of customary rights per se, it is expected to judge what the Crown duties were with reference to issues of customary usage and ownership, and whether it fulfilled them in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi.1

Te Tini o Muaupoko

Muaupoko are said to have emerged as a distinct and powerful entity by the early eighteenth century, from closely-woven whakapapa developed over centuries of largely undisturbed occupation within Te Upoko o te Ika.2 The overview of Robyn Anderson and Keith Pickens suggests a geo-political region of old encompassing Te Whanganui a Tara, the Wairarapa and the Manawatu districts. They speak of a tangata whenua population by the early nineteenth century comprising Ngai Tara, Ngati Apa, Rangitane, Muaupoko and Ngati Ira, characterised by much intermarriage and little real conflict.3 Angela Ballara, drawing on the works of Carkeek and McEwen as well as Land Court records, relates that by 1800 Muaupoko’s many hapu occupied territories along the coast from Horowhenua to Titahi Bay, and on Kapiti and Mana islands.4 Muaupoko claimants maintain that Muaupoko mana extended to Wellington by virtue of their Ngai Tara whakapapa, and certainly Rod McDonald, born at the Hokio river mouth in the late 1860s, was brought up on stories of Muaupoko’s past eminence

1 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui: Report on Northern South Island Claims, 3 volumes, (Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2008), p.19. 2 See for example J.M. McEwen, Rangitane: A Tribal History, (Auckland, Heinemann Reid, 1986), chapter 31. McEwen relied principally on the 1898 Native Appellate Court hearing of the Horowhenua Block, and credits the children of Te Mou (of Ngai Te Ao) and those of Ngaitoko (of Hamua) as being the origins of Muaupoko. 3 Robyn Anderson and Keith Pickens, Wellington District: Port Nicholson, Hutt Valley, Porirua, Rangitikei, and Manawatu, Rangahaua Whanui District 12, (Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996), pp.4-5. 4 Angela Ballara, Taua. ‘Musket wars’, ‘land wars’ or tikanga?: Warfare in Maori Society in the Early Nineteenth Century, (Auckland, Penguin Books, 2003), p.315.

6 encompassing the whole of the western side of the Tararua ranges, from Rangitikei to Wellington.5 On the other hand, Ballara’s account of early Maori settlement around Te Whanganui a Tara settlement does not mention Muaupoko specifically, listing instead Rakai-Whakairi, Ngati Kahungunu, Ngati Ira, Ngati Kahukura-awhitia and Hamua/Rangitane.6

The Kapiti coast was a prized location, not only in terms of its rich resources of forest, lake and sea, but also as the strategic hub of inter-island traffic and communications. The ability of Muaupoko to hold this territory over many generations suggests a tribe of considerable mana. Further testimony to both their innovation and numbers lies in the artificial islands constructed on Lake Horowhenua.

War and migration 1820-1840

From 1819 onwards, Muaupoko became caught up in wider phenomena at work in the country.7 A Ngapuhi taua armed with few muskets ventured as far south as Wellington and two years later, in 1821, a similar long-ranging expedition of allied iwi armed with traditional weapons, known as Te Amiowhenua, was said to have been repulsed at the Muaupoko stronghold of Raia te Karaka, at Horowhenua.8 Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata were Ngati Toa chiefs who had taken part in the Ngapuhi taua of 1819. In 1822 they decided to move their people south for good. Having made it to Horowhenua in relative peace, the killing of Te Rauparaha’s children on the island pa of Papaitonga under the guise of friendship marked the beginning of Te Rauparaha’s personal vendetta to ‘slaughter the Muaupokos from the rise of the sun to its setting.’9 His retaliatory strike on the community of Lake Horowhenua resulted in great loss of life, after which Ngati Toa fell back to the stronghold of Kapiti, which had been taken from Muaupoko in a separate fight.

A counter-attack was mounted by an allied tangata whenua force against Kapiti in 1824, but the battle known as Te Waiorua proved another defeat. Ngati Toa then called on their allies in the north: Ngati Raukawa relations at Maungatautari, and Ngati Awa in Taranaki to reinforce their tenure in the district. Over the next decade, numerous heke arrived on the Kapiti coast: Ngati Tama, Ngati Whakatere, Ngati Kura, Te Atiawa and Ngati Raukawa among the various waves of newcomers making themselves at home on the mainland. During this period Ngati Toa is said to have kept up their relentless campaign against Muaupoko. Former coastal communities were destroyed, the

5 See for example Wai 52, #1.1(e) Fifth Amended Statement of Claim; E. O’Donnell, Te Hekenga Early Days in Horowhenua: Being the Reminiscences of Mr. Rod McDonald, (Palmerston North, G. H. Bennett & Co. Ltd, nd), p.5. 6 Angela Ballara, ‘Te Whanganui a Tara: phases of Maori occupation of Wellington Harbour c.1800-1840’ in The Making of Wellington 1800-1914, edited by David Hamer and Roberta Nicholls, (Victoria University Press, 1990). 7 This section primarily relies on Ballara’s account in Taua. The wars and heke have been the subject of Tribunal inquiries at Te Whanganui a Tara and at Rekohu, and are also described in a number of reports filed with the Te Tau Ihu Tribunal, see those cited at Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka, p. 30. 8 O’Donnell, p.10. 9 Cited in O’Donnell, p.8.

7 survivors either fleeing the district altogether, or retreating into the ngahere, living in clearings hidden within the forest of Horowhenua.10

Te Whatanui and his heke of some 600 Ngati Raukawa arrived in 1828/29, after resettlement at their preferred choice on the eastern seaboard had failed. Te Whatanui and his family made one of their homes at Raumatangi, by the Hokio Stream outlet of Lake Horowhenua, the prime location for the rich eel fishery. Rather than adopt Te Rauparaha’s hard-line policy, the Ngati Raukawa chief instead chose a conciliatory approach towards the tangata whenua. The historic agreement between Te Whatanui and Muaupoko rangatira Taueki allowed for both iwi to reside openly at Horowhenua, and at peace.

From 1829, the theatre of Ngati Toa war and conquest moved to the South Island. On the Kapiti Coast, it was friction between the new immigrant groups (ongoing heke arriving all the while) that eventually culminated in the battle of Haowhenua at Waikanae in 1834, the conflict between Ngati Raukawa and Te Rauparaha on the one hand, and Te Atiawa on the other, enduring for almost a year. The same underlying tensions are said to have been behind renewed hostilities in 1839, in a battle between Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Awa known as Te Kuititanga. In these episodes of conflict in the 1830s, Muaupoko are said to have fought as allies of Ngati Raukawa. In 1833, a large ope of tangata whenua (including Muaupoko, Rangitane, Ngati Apa and Ngati Te Upokoriri) had been invited to a hakari at Waikanae, where they were instead attacked and killed by their Ngati Awa hosts. Referred to as ‘the battle of the pumpkins’, this was the last occasion of large-scale loss of life suffered by Muaupoko at the hands of the newcomers.

Te Tiriti, Christianity, 1840 – 1860

Phil Taueki relates that the ‘Tauheke’ signatory to Te Tiriti o Waitangi circulated on the Kapiti coast by Henry Williams in the autumn of 1840 is that of his tupuna, Taueki.11 Early limited census information summarised by Raeburn Lange describes a Muaupoko entity based at Horowhenua throughout the 1840s and 1850s, numbering around 100.12 H.T. Kemp’s 1850 estimate of 122 is somewhat higher.13 The most detailed breakdown of Muaupoko found to date from this period, dated 24 May 1852 at Horowhenua, groups 269 ‘Muaupoko’ individuals into the 18 hapu of Ngati Hine, Ngati a Kahu, Ngati Waiorehua, Ngati Puri, Ngati Tairatu, Ngati Pariri, Atirangi, Ngati Whano, Ngati Kuratuauru, Ngati Pa, Hamua, Ngati Kaitangata, Ngati Manuhiri, Ngati Tumatakokiri, Ngati

10 Rod McDonald spoke of six such clearings within a mile of Lake Horowhenua, O’Donnell, p.13. 11 The signatories on the fourth Treaty copy, 'Te Wharangi Tuawha', are set out in Miria Simpson, Nga Tohu o te Tiriti: Making a Mark (National Library, 1990), pp.82-115. 12 Raeburn Lange, ‘The Social Impact of Colonisation and Land Loss on the Iwi of the Rangitikei, Manawatu and Horowhenua Region, 1840-1960’, (CFRT, 2000), Wai 2200, #A1. 13 H. T. Kemp to Colonial Secretary, 10 March 1850, ‘Further Papers Relative to the Affairs of New Zealand’, British Parliamentary Papers (BPP) VII, p.326.

Korongaawhenua, Nga Potiki, Ngati Puta, and Ngati Tamure.14 Of interest is the fact that these names appear to have been collected under the auspices of Kawana Te Hakeke, for the purposes of receiving payment from Donald McLean for tribal interests at Te Taitapu, Golden Bay.

Muaupoko appear to have shared in many of the innovations of this period, such as more fixed village settlement; experiments with agriculture and Christianity; and the production of flax and pigs for sale. By 1850 for example, the community at Horowhenua was described as predominantly Anglican, with both a church and a school, and 30 acres under cultivation in both introduced crops such as wheat, maize and potatoes, as well as kumara.15 While certainly more modest than those of their neighbours, these statistics nonetheless off-set the impression given by Rod McDonald of a tribe, by virtue of their ‘enforced isolation’, almost entirely precluded from participation in the new ideas and technology filtering in from the Pakeha world.16

According to McDonald, his father’s farming lease of land north of the Hokio from Muaupoko began in the 1850s.17 Muaupoko were also included in the payment for the Crown’s land purchase of both Waikanae (in 1858) and Te Awahou (in 1859).18 The following decade they were included in the payment for the Crown’s purchase of the Rangitikei-Manawatu block. Along with other tribal entities on the coast, Muaupoko took part in the ‘rent days’ on which their Pakeha lessees handed over the rent; and ‘race days’ on which they gambled and cheered on their own racehorses.

Reasserting mana: 1860s – 1870s

Rod McDonald’s childhood memory of Raia te Karaka, the principal place of Muaupoko settlement, was of a ‘regular fortified pa’ still intact in the 1870s, comprising some 50 whare inside the palisades, and a half dozen without.19 He notes that there were other Muaupoko settlements around the lake at this time – Te Hou, Otaiwa and Kouturoa – but maintains that the majority of the population of 200 or so were concentrated at Raia Te Karaka, occupying an area of 200 acres which was not part of the McDonald lease, with a further 100 acres in cultivation. He named Taueki, Himiona Te Haupo, and Te Rangi Rurupuni as the principal chiefs of this time.

By 1864 Muaupoko were part of the Resident Magistrate’s circuit. Under this government initiative to graft British jurisprudence on to traditional runanga authority, Noa Te Whata was appointed assessor,

14 ‘Te tokomaha o nga tangata o Muaupoko, nga tangata kua whakaae hei tango i nga utu o te Taitapu’, MS-Papers-0032- 0676C-10, Alexander Turnbull Library. 15 Table no.3 – District of Otaki, Manawatu, and Rangitikei, in Kemp to Colonial Secretary, 10 March 1850, (BPP) VII, p. 243. 16 O’Donnell, based on McDonald’s reminiscences, maintained that as a result of their subjection to Ngati Raukawa, Muaupoko were cut off to a great extent from communication with Pakeha, and had therefore maintained their old ways longer than other tribes, O’Donnell, p.2. 17 Ibid, pp.22-23. 18 Diana Morrow, ‘Iwi Interests in the Manawatu, c.1820- c.1910’, (Office of Treaty Settlements, 2002), Wai 2200 #A6, p.144; Searancke to McLean, 6 August 1858, Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR) 1861, C-1, p. 279. 19 O’Donnell, pp. 36-38.

9 with Te Wirihana Tawhati and Ihaka Te Rangihouhia both acting as karere.20 Muaupoko’s carved whare runanga at Raia Te Karaka was called Te Rongo Kahu. McDonald’s reminiscences suggest that the practice of muru prevailed to resolve issues like infidelity and domestic violence in this public forum, under the leadership and mediation of leaders like Taueki.21 McDonald also commented on the absence of any security issues for the few Pakeha living in the district.

In a district which in 1863 was said to contain a large proportion of Kingitanga supporters, during the New Zealand wars of the 1860s a number of Muaupoko men provided military service for the Crown under the leadership of Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, or Major Kemp.22 Although confined to other places, these colonisation wars nonetheless impacted on iwi dynamics on the coast. Tangata whenua assertions of mana manifested throughout the 1860s, in growing demands to control land lease and purchase agreements for example, were given a hard edge by their hold on government guns and ammunition. The Native Land Court decisions in 1869 with respect to the Rangitikei-Manawatu block, that Ngati Raukawa had neither rights through ‘dominion’, nor any larger tribal interest through occupation, both reflected and added to the flux of relative mana.23

Muaupoko were part of this dynamic, conflict between the tribe and a considerably reduced Ngati Raukawa presence at Raumatangi becoming the flashpoint of inter-tribal manouvering from 1870- 1874. In this period, runanga adjudication, a government-sponsored inquiry, and Native Land Court title determination were not enough to quell the dispute, outright fighting in 1874 said to have been only narrowly averted through the mediation of Native Minister Donald McLean. Muaupoko’s reassertion of mana appears to have been spearheaded by two men – Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke and Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui – both of whom had Muaupoko whakapapa, but neither of whom ever lived permanently at Horowhenua. Hunia, son of the renowned Ngati Apa fighting chief Te Hakeke, is credited with much of the fracas, organising for example the April 1870 hui at Muaupoko’s newly built whare runanga near the Hokio stream outlet in order to advance their claims there. Throughout 1872 he also appears to have led Muaupoko reaction to the provincial government survey, and in December 1873 he was at the forefront of an arson attack of Ngati Raukawa’s homes at Horowhenua.24 For his part, due to his personal mana and no doubt to his exemplary military career, Meiha Keepa – Major Kemp – emerged in the late 1860s as the tribal representative in negotiations with the Crown and in terms of Native Land Court title to Muaupoko land.

20 ‘Return of All Officers Employed in Native Districts, January 1864’, AJHR 1864 E-7. 21 O’Donnell, pp. 64-66. 22 AJHR 1863 E-4, pp, 72-3. Notwithstanding this support, Rod McDonald maintained there was also a Hauhau element at Raia Te Karaka, p. 125. 23 Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 90, relates that for Ngati Apa, under the leadership of Hunia Te Hakeke, this process had begun by 1863, after the death of Ngati Raukawa rangatira Nepia Taratoa the previous year, p.127. 24 Ibid, p.221.

Claims

As the summary of claims set out below shows, the phrases ‘te tino rangatiratanga’ and ‘full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession’ of Te Tiriti/the Treaty have been expressed by claimants in various ways: rights, title, mana, te tino rangatiratanga, mana whenua and mana moana, ancestral and customary use and occupation, customary title and rights, kaitiakitanga.

The assumption behind such claims is that as of 1840, Muaupoko were a distinct people of mana, occupying a known territory, and manifesting their mana in customary practices of kaitiakitanga, manaakitanga and rangatiratanga in their relationships with each other, the wider tribal landscape and their environment. The fundamental substance of claim is that Crown actions and omissions have progressively undermined and trampled the mana of Muaupoko, resulting in grave social, economic, spiritual, physical and environmental consequences for their people.

Within Muaupoko itself there appear to be at least two different perceptions of the geographical extent of their mana as of 1840. These differences are reflected in the claims themselves, and were also evident at the Korero Tuku Iho hearing at Kawiu Marae in February 2014. On the one hand, the Muaupoko Tribal Authority (Wai 52) and others base their claims on continuous occupation from ancient times, tracing their long-standing status as Ngai Tara/Muaupoko tangata whenua back to Kupe, the Kurahaupo waka, and their eponymous ancestor Tara.25 The ancestral lands of Ngai Tara/Muaupoko are said to be the Tararua ranges, and all associated lands and rivers. Although ‘severely depleted’ as a result of conflict with Ngati Toa, the claimants deny that they were ever conquered, and maintain that as at 1839, with the exception of some areas, Ngai Tara/Muaupoko remained in possession and occupation of their ancestral rohe from Te Whanganui a Tara to Horowhenua.26

For others, their basis of claim rests on whakapapa and more recent events of the early nineteenth century within the rohe of Horowhenua. While acknowledging that Muaupoko ancestral rights extended throughout Te Upoko o Te Ika, it is emphasised that it is within their rohe at Horowhenua that Muaupoko mana remained undisputed throughout. This is particularly so for those claimants who descend from Taueki (Wai 237, 1629, 2284, and 2306). Taueki was there, it is claimed, when Te Rauparaha arrived. And he stayed when others fled in the face of Te Rauparaha’s onslaught. It was Taueki who ensured Muaupoko fires were kept alight at Horowhenua, neither killed nor enslaved in battle. And it was Taueki who forged a relationship with the newcomers – notably Te Whatanui and his Ngati Raukawa hapu – based on the mutual recognition of mana, rather than conquest or servitude.

25 Wai 52, #1.1(e). See also Wai 1490 of Mario Te Pa, Tanua Rose and Maria Tukapua-Lomax on behalf of Ngati Whanokirangi, who similarly claim an interest throughout the wider district. 26 Ibid, p. 8.

There are undoubtedly other claimants who sit somewhere between both positions: who may support claims to the wider rohe, but who nonetheless acknowledge a Muaupoko ‘heartland’ at Horowhenua, or who claim interests at Horowhenua through whakapapa to other tipuna.

Table 1: Muaupoko claims relating to loss of ancestral rights

Claim Issues Wai 52 J Broughton & Failure to recognise and uphold the rights, title and mana of Ngai Tara/Muaupoko others for Ngai Tara/Muaupoko (Muaupoko Tribal Authority) Wai 237 Ron & Native Land Court system failed to protect te tino rangatiratanga over core lands of William Taueki for Taueki/Muaupoko whakapapa – including award of tribal land to individuals in 1873, descendants of Taueki and further partitions in 1886. and Muaupoko ki Failure to recognise and protect Taueki/Muaupoko rangatiratanga in the 1886 Horowhenua, partitions, or again with regards to the Horowhenua Commission in 1895. Under the ‘Taueki/Muaupoko 1896 Act, the Crown purported to replace the whakapapa of Taueki/Muaupoko with a Whakapapa Tino Crown-authorised whakapapa which has resulted in marginalisation in consultation and Rangatiratanga’ management processes. Wai 623 John Paki & Crown failure to recognise rangatiratanga by the imposition of a western style of land others for descendants tenure without recognition of Maori land tenure. of Muaupoko Wai 770 Edward Failure to recognise mana whenua Karaitiana for the whanau of Karaitiana Te Korou Wai 1490 Mario Te Pa Failure to recognise ancestral, customary and historical associations with the land and & others for resources descendants of Failure to consult to maintain autonomous hapu status. Whanokirangi Wai 1621 Mark Crown usurped and undermined the kaitiakitanga of Muaupoko by asserting Stevens for management and control over the environment and by delegating powers of Lake Horowhenua management and control over same. Trust and Muaupoko ki The usurpation by central and local government agencies of the exercise of Horowhenua kaitiakitanga by Muaupoko over the environment, marginalising Muaupoko from effective participation in management of Lake Horowhenua. Wai 1629 Vivienne Crown failure to recognise and provide for customary title and rights of Muaupoko to Taueki for descendants their rivers, streams and other water resources; taking such rights without consultation of Taueki and or Muaupoko consent. Muaupoko never knowingly or voluntarily relinquished their Muaupoko ki tino rangatiratanga or ownership and control over the rivers, streams, lakes and other Horowhenua fresh water resources within their rohe. Crown’s application of ad medium filum aquae common law principle in respect of riparian lands without knowledge or consent of Muaupoko, resulting in loss of ownership and ability to exercise tino rangatiratanga over the beds of river and other water resources when riparian lands were sold or otherwise alienated from them. Crown’s failure to recognise and protect Muaupoko tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga in respect of cultural taonga – particularly Kowhai Park site Crown failure to recognise and provide for Muaupoko kaitiakitanga over traditional fisheries Wai 2045 Kahumaori Loss of tino rangatiratanga over land and resources since 1840 Pene for Muaupoko Wai 2048 Te Loss of customary rights within traditional rohe Rautangata Kenrick for Tamarangi hapu Wai 2050 Marina The Crown’s abrogation of claimants interests in ancestral lands of Horowhenua, such Williams for interests being mana whenua, gathering of kai, wahi tapu, traditional customary use. Te Kapa Trust, Ihaia

Claim Issues Taueki, and Muaupoko Wai 2052 James Mana moana, mana whenua. Kenrick for Muaupoko Loss of customary use, occupation of lands Disassociation from ancestral lands Failure to recognise kaitiakitanga, rangatiratanga in relation to land Lack of fair process to resolve issues with Crown. Wai 2139 Dennis Crown’s intentional abrogation of claimant’s rights of tino rangatiratanga, mana Greenland for whenua, mana moana, and kaitiakitanga to Muaupoko resources and assets (including Muaupoko Tribal lands, minerals, gases and petroleum, forests, fish, waters, themselves), therefore Authority stripping claimants ability to be economically self-sufficient Muaūpoko resources include their traditional lands, minerals, gases and petroleum, forests, fish, and their waters including foreshore and seabed, oceans, rivers and streams, and lakes. The amended statement of claim concerns tribal inability to be economically self- sufficient and independent, ie Muaupoko’s tino rangatiratanga with wider nationally recognised framework. Itemises Muaupoko land and resource loss from 1840. Intentional abrogation achieved through Native Land Court system, policy and practice; Crown land purchasing tactics; 1886 Native Lands Administration Act which rejected the right of communal Maori land ownership; 1893 Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act designed to speed up purchase of Maori land; Resource Management Act 1991 which fails to fully impose on local government and the Crown full and proper recognition of Muaupoko rights to their resources and assets. Wai 2175 Francis Claimant’s interests in their mana whenua to their ancestral lands, gathering of kai Brown for Muaupoko from lands (including harvesting of whales), wahi tapu on their lands, traditional customary use of lands, and Crown’s abrogation of claimant’s interests in their ancestral lands by various legislation, policy and practice. The loss of ability to exercise mana whenua, kaitiakitanga, rangatiratanga over ancestral lands and waters, including ability to collect kai, wahi tapu, burial of tupapaku on beach lands. The second amended statement of claim particularises customary rights and use of whale by Maori on the western coast of Horowhenua/Manawatu. The Crown failure to protect tino rangatiratanga over their taonga, the whale, including rights of ownership and use; and the extinguishment of Maori customary rights to use food and medicinal resources.

Issues

The extent of Muaupoko ancestral rights

Controversy over the extent and nature of relative mana operating within the wider Porirua ki Manawatu district as a result of pre-Treaty warfare and migration is as old as title investigation itself. Writing in 1850 in his capacity as Native Secretary, H.T. Kemp explained his understanding of the relative status of the Horowhenua community:

The inhabitants are a remnant of the original occupants of the soil, called “Te Muaupoko,” and have been allowed to remain there ever since the country was taken possession of by the Ngatiraukawas. Horowhenua was the favourite residence of the late Te Whatanui, one of the principal chiefs of the Ngatiraukawa; and to him the individuals composing the tribe of Muaupoko in a great measure owe their existence.27

27 H. T. Kemp to Colonial Secretary, 10 March 1850, BPP, vol. VII, p. 326.

The received history of Muaupoko, repeated in historical accounts in modern times, is one of a vanquished people at 1840, the ‘remnants’ living within a demarcated area at Horowhenua by the grace and under the protection of Te Whatanui. Rod McDonald, brought up at Lake Horowhenua from the late 1860s saw it this way:

The position of these Muaupokos was curious. They were not ‘makai’ [sic]; perhaps the situation may be summed up briefly by saying that, their land having been conquered and occupied, they had been given back a corner of it on which to live in semi-independent fashion –neither fowl, flesh nor good red herring.28

McDonald’s closing reference to food is unfortunate: what was meant was that the relationship between the two iwi did not fit within any paradigm known to him. On the other hand, he too, was adamant that Muaupoko ‘occupied their limited domain through the forbearance of Ngati-Raukawa; they had no rights, but only such privileges as were allowed them by the toleration of that tribe.’29

Muaupoko claimants repudiate any assertion of conquest or subsequent state of subjugation. The ‘conquest’ of Muaupoko, it is contended, was a fabrication of the tangata heke who subsequently transacted the land, which gained credence with time and repetition because doing so legitimated the Crown’s tenure. For those asserting continued Muaupoko customary interests throughout Te Upoko o Te Ika, it is contended that the Crown’s constant stigmatisation of Muaupoko as a small conquered iwi whose interests had been reduced through conflict to Horowhenua, enabled the Crown to ignore the tribe’s interests in the wider region at the time of Crown purchase, manifested, for example, in the lack of provision of reserves for Muaupoko from the transactions for Tararua, Wainui, Awahou, Rangitikei Manawatu and Aorangi.30 For those asserting uninterrupted Muaupoko mana at Horowhenua, they reject any notion that Ngati Raukawa ‘invaded’ Horowhenua, or that any Muaupoko rights were ceded: Te Whatanui, they maintain, came in peace and Taueki responded with good will. This relationship was based on the mutual recognition of mana; the mana of Muaupoko being the basis of their continued occupation of their ancestral rohe.31 This tangata whenua viewpoint is essentially unchanged since it was first expressed before the Native Land Court in November 1872.32

Recently in the Te Tau Ihu Inquiry, which shares many parallels with that of Porirua ki Manawatu, the Tribunal has grappled with similar issues. The Kurahaupo peoples in the north of the South Island, too, bore the brunt of warfare from Ngati Toa and others from Waiorua onwards: rendered largely

28 O’Donnell, p.36. 29 Ibid, p.20. 30 Appendix 2 in Memorandum of Counsel for the Muaupoko Tribal Authority, Nga Korero Tuku Iho Presentation Material, 4 April 2014, Wai 2200, #A26. 31 This view was articulated by claimants at the Korero Tuku Iho hearing in February, at the feedback hui at Kawiu marae in May, and is set out in Anne Hunt, ‘Legend of Taueki’, Wai 2200, #A018. 32 See for example Morrow’s summary of the Manawatu-Kukutauaki evidence of 1872, pp.41-47.

‘voiceless’ in the new political order and subsequently categorised as either ‘fugitives’ or ‘slaves’.33 In that inquiry, the Tribunal accepted that tangata whenua had been defeated in battle, but not the argument that rights deriving from conquest precluded the continuation of rights based in ancestry. In the context of Te Tau Ihu the tribunal found:

Rights based in ancestry could not be sundered in so short a time as had elapsed in the case of Te Tau Ihu. The Treaty came so soon after these events that the rights of conquerors had not had sufficient time to fully develop so that they were grounded in ancestral association, nor those of the defeated to be fully submerged. The Kurahaupo iwi retained a separate identity and a number of their own rangatira, even though the migrant leaders were now recognised as the principal men of the district.34

Nor did the tribunal feel bound by the ‘1840 rule’ applied by the Crown and the Native Land Court in land title determination. Like the Rekohu tribunal before it, the Te Tau Ihu Tribunal considered ‘that to freeze rights at that point prevented the natural emergence of rights as they would have otherwise evolved and was in itself uncustomary.’35 While acknowledging that the capacity of defeated peoples to insist on the recognition of their rights increased with Christianity, the Treaty and European law, the Tribunal argued that customary law nonetheless allowed for the recovery of mana.36

At the draft stage of this scoping report it was proposed that research effort be directed towards establishing documentary evidence of Muaupoko’s customary interests (expressed as the manifestation of mana) such as kainga, mara, mahinga kai, kaitiakitanga, rangatiratanga, manaakitanga, whanaungatanga etc, throughout the wider district, from 1820 onwards. This was to comprise the first Part of the substantive report, before any consideration of Crown actions or omission, and it was justified by the very different outcomes for tangata whenua claimants in the Wellington and Te Tau Ihu District Inquiries.

Feedback from claimants however, gives one pause for thought before taking such an approach. The Tuia Group acting for the Muaupoko Tribal Authority took exception to any attempt to define the mana of Muaupoko through historical evidence. The Tuia Group are engaged in their own research projects, including a cultural mapping exercise, which they believe will be of more value for their settlement negotiations with the Crown. They indicated that they would not support any research approach which perpetuates the limiting of Muaupoko interests to Horowhenua. For their part, those claimants who attended at Kawiu Marae under the auspices of the Muaupoko Claimant Cluster expressed their preference to focus research on the community and events within the rohe of Horowhenua, which they regard as the bastion of ancestral rights to the wider district. In their view, sifting through the historical record for evidence of Muaupoko customary interests in the wider

33 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka, p. 24. 34 Ibid, p. 85. 35 Ibid, p.22. 36 Ibid, pp. 86; 64.

15 district seems somewhat redundant, when the proof of their uninterrupted tenure at Horowhenua is evidenced by their continued presence there. Any research into the documentary record to establish rights to the wider district was regarded by these claimants as secondary, or supplementary, to that of Horowhenua.

Muaupoko claimants take their ancestral rights as a given, but there is still a need to assess the nature and extent of such rights in light of the claims that have been made against the Crown. As set out in the following section on nineteenth century land alienation for example, it is claimed that Crown actions in this early period regarding its treatment of New Zealand Company land claims and its own early land purchases in the district ignored such customary interests, in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is also alleged that the Crown’s purchase operations in this period impacted on Muaupoko’s own settlement and authority at Horowhenua. Rather than focus research effort on the somewhat nebulous task of establishing the extent of Muaupoko’s customary interests in the district per se, a more relevant approach would be to look for evidence of Muaupoko customary interests in so far as they may have been impacted by the activities of the Crown.

Muaupoko and the Crown, 1840 – 1870

The fact that ‘real empire’ as James Belich refers to it was kept within the town limits of Wellington and Wanganui at each end of the Porirua ki Manawatu rohe for perhaps the first three decades following Te Tiriti, does not mean that communities within what was essentially a ‘Maori’ district were impervious to it.37 Against the complex tribal landscape still reshuffling itself after relatively recent war and migration, the extent to which Muaupoko were impacted by Crown policies and practices during this period requires further research. The New Zealand Company’s nominal purchases for example, both pre- and post-1840, included the Manawatu, with the Crown beginning its own purchase activities in the district from 1847 (see 2.1, 2.2). Muaupoko engaged with the government’s ‘new institutions’, and became involved in the colonial warfare of the 1860s. While there appear to be no Muaupoko claims regarding the wars themselves, the conflict does appear to have had a considerable impact on the relative standing of iwi within the district, and the ability of these iwi to control the pace and extent to which ‘real empire’ was then rolled in by the Crown.

In taking on this research task, it is arguable whether the impact of Crown policies and practices on Muaupoko can be fully understood without the wider context of inter-tribal relationships. Diana Morrow’s study of iwi interests in the Manawatu for example, suggests there were important dynamics at work during this period of resettlement on the coast, citing examples of ongoing

37 James Belich, Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders From Polynesian Settlement to the End of the Nineteenth Century, (Penguin, 1996), pp.192, 229.

16 movement and migration within the district.38 Unsurprisingly, the large influx of tangata heke seems to have united tangata whenua entities.39 More unexpectedly perhaps, land court evidence presented by Morrow also indicates that the prevalence of amicable and harmonious relationships – manifested by intermarriage for example – extended to the new migrant communities in the decades prior to the Native Land Court title determination of the 1870s. With respect to Himatangi for example, she concludes there was generally a very high degree of inter tribal affiliation between Ngati Apa, Rangitane, Muaupoko, Ngati Kauwhata/Wehiwehi, Ngati Upokoriri and Ngati Raukawa.40

Inter-tribal relationships may seem of less interest to a tribunal charged with assessing Crown actions in terms of the Treaty, and claimants too, may well consider such issues to be of less significance. Yet Crown policies with respect to land acquisition for example appear to have been influenced by the complex tribal landscape operating within Porirua ki Manawatu, and any analysis of Crown practice would ideally take this into account. As far as possible within the constraints of time and resources, Muaupoko’s experience of interaction with the Crown needs to be seen in the context of the wider tribal landscape, and the wider Crown objectives for the region. Part of this context may well be supplied by the District Overview of Nineteenth Century Tribal Land and Politics project commissioned by the Tribunal.41

Methodology

Research within this period of ‘loose empire’ should be directed at two purposes:

1. To provide evidence of the extent of Muaupoko ancestral interests (insofar as they relate to Crown activities); and the extent to which such ancestral interests were asserted and could have been known to the Crown; and 2. To assess the political, social and economic impacts on Muaupoko of Crown policy and practice in this period.

Research will also need to consider pre-Treaty events in order to provide relevant historical context. In particular, the substantive Muaupoko Land and Politics Research Project might look at the following:

 What was the impact on Muaupoko of war with Ngati Toa?

38 Diana Morrow, ‘Iwi Interests in the Manawatu, c.1820- c.1910’, (Office of Treaty Settlements, 2002), Wai 2200 #A6. For example, Ngati Kauwhata’s movement to Upper Aorangi as late as 1852 was recounted by Hamuera Te Raikokoritia in 1878, p.8. 39 Ibid, p.43: see for example Peti Te Aweawe’s 1873 testimony: ‘There is no boundary between Rangitane and Muaupoko we were all one Tribe’, a unity, he maintained, which had developed from their common cause against the enemy from the north. 40 Ibid, p. 190. Similarly, with regard to Aorangi, Morrow relates that testimony from the 1878 rehearing tell of strong bonds between elements of Rangitane, Ngati Tauira and Ngati Kauwhata, p. 34. 41 The project is being undertaken by Terry Hearn, and is directed at investigating, among other things, the transfer of authority over land titles from hapu and iwi to the Crown through the actions of Crown land purchasers.

What do we know of Muaupoko conflict with Te Rauparaha? What evidence is there of the scale of casualties? Of dislocation? What evidence is there of ongoing occupation?

 What was the impact on Muaupoko of the subsequent migration of iwi into their rohe before Te Tiriti?

What do we know about the agreement between Taueki and Te Whatanui? Who was living at Horowhenua in this period? What evidence is there of Muaupoko’s relationship with Te Whatanui? Of relations with each other?

 What was the impact on Muaupoko of colonisation in the 1840s-1850s?

To what extent were Muaupoko involved in innovations such as Te Tiriti, Christianity, land purchase and leasing, trade, agriculture, government-sponsored runanga or Kohimarama?

To what extent were Muaupoko interests considered in the Crown’s treatment of old land claims and New Zealand Company purchases within the Porirua ki Manawatu inquiry district? What was the impact of the Spain Commission on Muaupoko?

To what extent did Muaupoko assert their interests with respect to early Crown purchases? To what extent were such interests recognised and provided for by the Crown? What was the impact of these purchases on Muaupoko settlement?

 What was the impact on Muaupoko of colonisation in the 1860s?

What was Muaupoko’s response to the Kingitanga? To the outbreak of war? To what extent, if any, were Muaupoko involved? What was the impact of these colonial wars on Muaupoko settlement and authority at Horowhenua?

To what extent did Muaupoko assert their interests with respect to Crown purchasing in this decade? With respect to Rangitikei-Manawatu? To what extent were their interests recognised and provided for by the Crown? What was the impact on Muaupoko of Crown purchasing in this period?

 What evidence is there of Muaupoko rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, manaakitanga throughout this period?

Finding evidence relating to Muaupoko is problematic. Muaupoko’s own history became a casualty of the war and dislocation of the 1820s, while the early historical record by European travellers, Crown officials, and scholars was largely based on the perspectives of the new migrants in control of the

18 district, rather than those who were dispersed or marginalised in the new order.42 Recent attempts by historians to counter this imbalance by drawing on Land Court evidence are still only partially successful, bearing in mind the long delay between the events and the court record, and the fact that the court itself became the arena for battle over mana. Working from such records with respect to Te Upoko o te Ika for example, Angela Ballara has challenged earlier historical narratives of ‘sudden total massacres and expulsion of tribes’ as being exaggerated or over-simplified. ‘In the Maori accounts available the occupation … was a gradual, untidy affair, a series of short sharp clashes and consequent occupation re-adjustments as Ngati Ira gradually conceded territory.’43 Gleaning new insight from the dearth of documentary records has received fresh impetus from the growing recognition that our interpretation of history has been influenced by reductionist views of mana – couched in simplistic terms of ‘might is right’ for example, or wielded by feudal-like rangatira – which arguably say more about the colonisers than the colonised.

The secondary sources listed below are of limited value with regard to Muaupoko’s experience for the reasons outlined above. The Waitangi Tribunal’s Wairarapa ki Tararua Report (2010) provides a useful summary of Crown purchase policy in this early period. Similarly, both the Te Whanganui a Tara Report (2003) and the Te Tau Ihu o te Waka Report (2008) have useful background on the New Zealand Company purchases and the Spain Commission. Researchers are also directed to the relevant contributing research reports undertaken for these inquiries.

In terms of primary sources, Morrow’s study of iwi interests in the Manawatu suggests that Native Land Court evidence from early hearings may be a fruitful source of information about post-Treaty Muaupoko settlement. The 1872/1873 Manawatu Kukutauaki hearing, in which allied tangata whenua groups collectively mounted a counter claim, has already been noted above. Unfortunately with regard to Horowhenua, both the 1873 title investigation and the 1886 partition generated scant minutes. What might prove of more use are the records generated by court proceedings over Horowhenua in the 1890s amounting to more than 2000 pages, notwithstanding the generation of delay in the telling.

Correspondence from both Pakeha and Maori individuals living in the district during this period has been identified in the Alexander Turnbull Library. There is no real shortcut through this correspondence, and no guarantee of reward, but it may prove the best source of information for details of where people were located, and what the issues of the day were. The Crown’s purchase activities in the district in the 1860s also generated a voluminous body of records, held in the MA 13/ special files at National Archives, Wellington. These have been collated, indexed and summarised by

42 Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p.3. Anderson and Pickens explain for example that S Percy Smith and A Shand were primarily interested in the waves of Taranaki migration; Tamihana Te Rauparaha’s memoirs give a Ngati Toa perspective; while both Te Ati Awa and Ngati Toa views of occupation are also reflected in the Spain commission records. W Carkeek’s The Kapiti Coast is primarily a history of Ngati Toa and Ngati Raukawa. The perspective of Ngati Raukawa is also found in the work of T. L. Buick and W. L. T. Travers. See also Chapter 2, Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka. 43 Ballara was referring to the works of S. Percy Smith, Alexander Shand, T. W. Downes and Elsdon Best, ‘Te Whanganui a Tara…’, p. 19.

CFRT and Tribunal staff, and over 6000 pages have been scanned to PDF. Those thought to be of particular relevance to Muaupoko are listed in the bibliography below. Although this material already forms the basis of relatively recent secondary accounts of Muaupoko’s story like that of Anderson and Pickens, the details of this historical record have not been scrutinised with their issues in mind. Close attention to the signatories of Muaupoko correspondence in this period, for example, may provide an insight into the resident community at Horowhenua, and those who were recognised as tribal representatives on the ground.44

What also became clear from talking to claimants is that Muaupoko have their own stories about their experience of pre-Treaty war and dislocation that are not corroborated by existing historical accounts. These stories should be fully considered in any appraisal of this period. One approach would be to incorporate these stories within any Muaupoko Oral and Traditional History Project. Doing so, however may tend to render Muaupoko once again ‘voiceless’ in the proposed technical Land and Politics Research Project. The best way forward may be to plan for research visits with claimants where these stories can be recorded, and drawn on. The claimants themselves may have their own ideas about how their understandings may be incorporated into the research.

44 See for example the 27 signatories of Muaupoko to Richmond, 5 April 1869, in MA 75/1/5.

1.1. Muaupoko 1820-1870 Bibliography

Secondary sources, published: Robyn Anderson and Keith Pickens, Wellington District: Port Nicholson, Hutt Valley, Porirua, Rangitikei, and Manawatu, Rangahaua Whanui District 12, (Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996). G. Leslie Adkin, Horowhenua. Its Maori Place-names and their Topographic and Historical Background, (Wellington, 1948). Angela Ballara, ‘Te Whanganui a Tara: phases of Maori occupation of Wellington Harbour c.1800-1840’ in The Making of Wellington 1800-1914, edited by David Hamer and Roberta Nicholls, (Victoria University Press, 1990). Angela Ballara, Taua. ‘Musket wars’, ‘land wars’ or tikanga?: Warfare in Maori Society in the Early Nineteenth Century, (Auckland, Penguin Books, 2003). G. Biltcliff, ‘Ngati Pariri: The Genealogies of this Sub-Tribe of the Muaupoko, With Some Considerations of the Link Between This People and the Better Known Tribes of the Heke’, Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol.55, 1946, pp.40-80. Patricia Burns, Te Rauparaha: A New Perspective, (Wellington, AH &AW Reed, 1980). W. Carkeek, The Kapiti Coast: Maori History and Place Names, (Wellington, 1966). J. M. McEwen, Rangitane: a Tribal History, (Auckland, 1986). E. O’Donnell, Te Hekenga Early Days in Horowhenua: Being the Reminiscences of Mr. Rod McDonald, (Palmerston North, G. H. Bennett & Co. Ltd, nd). Waitangi Tribunal, Te Whanganui a Tara me ona Takiwa: Report on the Welllington District, (Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2003). Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui: Report on Northern South Island Claims, 3 volumes, (Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2008). Waitangi Tribunal, Wairarapa ki Tararua Report, 3 volumes, (Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2010).

Secondary sources, unpublished: David Armstrong, ‘“A Sure and Certain Possession”: The 1849 Rangitikei/Turakina Transaction and its Aftermath’, (Te Runanga o Ngati Apa, 2004) Heather Bauchop, ‘Ngati Ira and Rangitane in Te Whanganui-a-Tara to 1865’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 1997), Wai 145 #H5 Penny Ehrhardt, ‘Te Whanganui a Tara: Customary Tenure, 1750-1850’, Waitangi Tribunal Research Series, 1993, Wai 145 #A41 Victoria Fallas, ‘Rangitikei/Manawatu Block’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 1993) Wai 52 #A3 BR Farthing, ‘Forest Lakes’, Otaki Historical Society vol.1, 1978. Bryan Gilling, ‘A Land of Fighting and Trouble’: the Rangitikei-Manawatu Purchase’, (CFRT, 2000), Wai 2200, #A9. Bryan Gilling, ‘Ihaia Taueki and Muaupoko Lands: an Interim Report for the Ihaia Taueki Trust’. R. N. Grove, ‘Te Whatanui: Traditional Maori Leader’, MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1985. Terry Hearn, ‘The Waitangi Tribunal Porirua ki Manawatu Inquiry District; A Technical Research Scoping Report’, (Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2010). Anne Hunt, ‘Legend of Taueki’, Wai 2200, #A018. Raeburn Lange, ‘The Social Impact of Colonisation and Land Loss on the Iwi of the Rangitikei, Manawatu and Horowhenua Region, 1840-1960’, (CFRT, 2000), Wai 2200, #A1. J. Luiten, ‘Exploratory Report on Early Crown Purchases on the West Coast of the North Island’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 1992). Diana Morrow, ‘Iwi Interests in the Manawatu, c.1820- c.1910’, (Office of Treaty Settlements, 2002), Wai 2200 #A6.

Anthony Patete, ‘Rangitane Interests in the Manawatu; Report of the Research Assistant for the Office of Treaty Settlements’, (Wellington, TOWPU, 2001). Alan Ward, ‘Maori Customary Interests in the Port Nicholson District, 1820s to 1840s: An Overview’, 1998, Wai 145 #M1.

Primary sources, published: Thomas Bevan, Reminiscences of an Old Colonist, (Christchurch, Kiwi Publishers, 2001 edition). (Originally published in the Evening Post in eight instalments from 18 March to 27 May 1905.) Walter Buller, The Horowhenua Commission: address of Sir Walter Buller as counsel from Major Kemp Te Rangihiwinui and the Muaupoko tribe, April 1896 (Wellington, R. Coupland Harding, 1896) Walter Buller, The Horowhenua Case, (Wellington, 1897) Walter Buller, Sir Walter Buller’s objections to the report of the Horowhenua Commission (Wellington, W Buller, 1895) Walter Buller, Sir Walter Buller at Bar of the House and and the history of the Horowhenua block, (Wellington, W Buller, 1895) Ernst Dieffenbach, Travels in New Zealand, vol. 1 (London, 1843) N. C. Taylor (ed.), The Journal of Ensign Best, 1837-43, (Wellington, Government Printer, 1966) ‘Report upon the Country lying between Wellington and Manawatu’, New Zealand Journal, no.65 (9 July 1842) John Rochfort, Adventures of a Surveyor in New Zealand (London, 1853) John Rochfort, ‘Journal of Two Expeditions to the West Coast of the Middle Island of New Zealand in the Year 1859’, Journal of the Royal Geographic Society (32, 1862), p. 294-303. Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, Major Kemp at the bar of the Legislative Council, (Wellington, Govt Printer, 1896) H H Turton, (editor), An Epitome of Official Documents relative to Native Affairs and Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand, (Wellington, George Didsbury, 1883), available online at http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz) E. J. Wakefield, Adventure in New Zealand from 1839 to 1844, (Christchurch, 1908)

Newspapers For early Kemp and Te Hakeke correspondence (mentioned in Ross Galbreath) try, Te Karere o Poneke, 1857- 1858, and Te Manuhiri Tuarangi and Maori Intelligencer, 1861. (A “Muaupoko’ word search at niupepa:maori newspapers, available online at www.nzdl.org/niupepa gave the following: Te Karere o Poneke 1857-1858: Volume 1, No. 45: 6; Te Karere o Poneke 1857-1858: Volume 1, No. 45: 5)

Research Assistance Projects: Newspapers Document Bank (CFRT)

The Crown Forestry Rental Trust has undertaken a newspapers index and document bank as one of their research assistance projects for the Porirua ki Manawatu Inquiry District. The index contains references to over 1500 articles from district newspapers between 1840 and @1910. The following have been extracted as having potential relevance to Muaupoko in this period.

New Zealand Spectator CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase [Provincial statistics] 15 Feb 1845 2 13 Economy: Statistics: Population, Manawatu agriculture, etc [Report from Horowhenua] 3 May 1845 2 16 Maori/Pakeha Issues: War & Rauparaha, Wata Nui Horowhenua, Manawatu Security Concerns [Provincial statistics] Waikanae, Otaki, 6 Mar 1850 2(4) 20-23 Economy: Statistics: Population, Manawatu, Rangitikei agriculture, etc

New Zealand Spectator CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase [Flax Trade] 22 Jun 1850 2(2) 25-26 Economy: Developing or Manawatu, Otaki Potential Industries

22 Jun 1850 2(4) 27-30 [New Zealand Company Issues] Fox Rangitikei

26 Jun 1850 2(3) 31-33 [New Zealand Company Issues] Fox Rangitikei

29 Jun 1850 2(5) 34-38 [New Zealand Company Issues] Fox Rangitikei

6 Jul 1850 2(7) 39-45 [New Zealand Company Issues] Fox Rangitikei

10 Jul 1850 2(4) 46-49 [New Zealand Company Issues] Manawatu

27 Jul 1850 2(4) 50-53 [New Zealand Company Issues] George Grey Rangitikei

31 Jul 1850 2(2) 54-55 [New Zealand Company Issues] Manawatu

[Blue Book Statistics] Waikanae, Porirua, 7 Sep 1850 2(4) 56-59 Economy: Statistics: Population, Kemp Otaki, Manawatu, agriculture, etc Rangitikei [Meat Supply] 28 Dec 1850 2 60 Economy: re Maori: crops, stock, Luxford Otaki farming, labour, trade

24 Mar 1852 2(3) 63-65 [Resident Magistrates] Durie Waikanae

3 Apr 1852 2(8) 66-73 [Land Claims] Porirua, Rangitikei

[Payment of Last Instalment] Rangitikei, Wanganui, 9 Jun 1852 2(2) 74-75 McLean, Ngati Apa Land: Government Purchasing Manawatu [Land Regulations] 16 Mar 1853 2(6) 76-81 Land: Selling and Settling Lands Rangitikei Purchased from Maori [Purchase negotiations] Kemp, Ngati Awa, Ngati Rakawa, Otaki, Waikanae, 21 Sep 1853 3(4) 90-93 Land: Government Purchasing Rangihaeata, Taratoa Manawatu Waitere Katatore, Rawiri Waiaua, Rawiri Puaha, Wi Tako, Hereuine Te Tupe, Rangihaeata, Honiana Puni, [Re inter-tribal conflict] 132- Matene te Whiwhi, Tamihana te Arapawa, Waikanae, 13 Jun 1855 2(2) Maori/Pakeha Issues: War & 133 Rauparaha, Hukiki te Ahukaramu, Otaki Security Concerns Hohepa Tamahangia, Horomona Toremi, Matenga te Matia, Teretiu Tamiaka, Hone te Ware, Wiremu [The North-West Road] Waikanae, Otaki, Ohau, 11 Aug 1855 2 134 Economy: Infrastructure: Roads, Manawatu, Rangitikei, Railways, Telegraph, etc Turakina, Wangaehu [Waste Lands] 8 Nov 1856 2 136 Land: Commentary on Need to Manawatu, Rangitikei acquire from Maori [Land available for Selection] Rangitikei, Waikanae, 20 Jul 1859 2 138 Land: Selling and Settling Lands Matiahuka block Purchased from Maori Stokes, Turton, Matene Te Whiwhi, [Turton re the Hoisting the King's Hoani, Makaho, Te Warioa, Te Flag] 6 Apr 1861 2 178 Moroati, Heremaia, Hapi, Dodd, Manawatu, Otaki Political: Local Maori and the Hukiki, Roera, Te Ngarara, Hoani King Movement Tuatete, Nerehana, Rawiri te Wanui Wi Tako, Matene Tamihana, Nepia Native Meeting At Rangitikei Taratoa, Ngati Apa, Ngati Raukawa, Matai-iwi Pah, 20 Jul 1861 3 181 Political: Local Maori and the Nga Tipikiau, Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Rangitikei, Porirua King Movement Awa, Ngati Toa, Honi, Nga Waka, Prani, Aperama, Prauapa, Epia,

New Zealand Spectator CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase Erewia, Unia J. Waitera, Nepia Taratoa, Matene, Tamihana, Horomona, Hoepa, Wi Kanae, Ropeta, Wi Prota, Ihakara Stokes, Tamihana te Rauparaha, [Maori letters re King Movement] Matene te Whiwhi, Ngati Raukawa, 187- 10 Dec 1862 2(3) Political: Local Maori and the Ngati Awa, Hukiki, Wi Tako, Waitere Otaki, Waikanae, Ohau 189 King Movement Rangikaharuru, Mere, Warihi, Ropiha, Heremaia 255- [Superintendant settles disputes] 29 Oct 1864 2(2) Ngati Apa, Ngati Rakawa, Rangitane, Rangitikei 256 Land: Government Purchasing [Superintendent's Visit to West 262- 12 Nov 1864 3(2) Coast] Ngati Apa, Ngati Rakawa, Rangitane Rangitikei block 263 Land: Government Purchasing 264- Manawatu River, 23 Nov 1864 2(2) [Cultivatation seen as threat] Ngati Kahungunu, Ngati Raukawa 265 Rangitikei River Native Intelligence 266- 10 Dec 1864 2(3) Political: Local Maori and the Rewi, Pehi, Topia Haimona Hiroti 268 King Movement

Wanganui Chronicle CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase The Native Meeting at Otaki Hadfield, Rauparaha, Heremia, Hape, 845- 21 Mar 1861 3(3) Political: Local Maori and the Wi Tako, Taratoa, Manihera, Otaki, Manawatu 847 King Movement Matene,Ngati Awa, Ngati Kahungunu The Manawatu Ohau, Horowhenua, 18 Apr 1861 2 848 Maori/Pakeha Issues: War & Wi Tako Poroutawao, Manawatu, Security Concerns Oroua, Rangitikei Wi Tako, Matene, Tamihana, Nepia Taratoa, Honi, Nga Waka, Prani, Native Meeting at Rangitikei Aperama, Prauapa, Epia, Erewia, Unia 18 Jul 1861 2 851 Political: Local Maori and the J.Waitera, Horomona, Hoepa, Wi Porirua King Movement Kanae, Ropeta,Wiprota, Ihakara, Ngati Apa, Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Pikiau, Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Awa, Ngatitoa. 853- Maori Runs 17 Oct 1861 2(2) Manawatu 854 Land: Maori Leasing Resident Magistrate's Court Ropata, Piripi, Tepine, Pauapa, Kawana 859- Pakapakatea pa, 19 Dec 1861 2(2) Political: Local Maori and the Hunia, Hamuera, King Matutaere, 860 Rangitikei King Movement Horace Broughton Durie, Heretuia Te Tihi, Wi Tako, The Pakapakatea Case Ngatata, Hapi Paneiti Hohepa, 9 Jan 1862 2 862 Political: Local Maori and the Otaki, Horowhenua aperahama, Te Huruhura, Nepia King Movement Winiata, Kawana Hunia, Tiripa, Ropata [Discussion on Endowments during which a Manawatu grant 2- 870- 13 Mar 1862 is mentioned] Manawatu 3(3) 872 Economy: Comments on District's Potential or Progress Ngati Kahungunu, Ngati Tama, Ngati [Rehoisting the King Flag] 873- Waiwetu, Ngati Pito-one, Ngati Toa, 20 Mar 1862 3(2) Political: Local Maori and the Otaki, Oroua 874 Ngati Awa, Ngati Raukawa, Ngati King Movement Ruanui, Ngati Pikiahu, Ngati Wahatene [Ngati Apa seek to block visit 884- of Ngati Raukawa] Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Apa, Fox, Buller, Turakina, Tataraimaka, 18 Jun 1863 3(2) 885 Political: Local Maori and the Aperahama Tipae, White, Pehi, Epiha, Otaki King Movement [Disputes between Manawatu Ngati Raukawa, Rangitane, Ngati Apa, 892- and Rangitikei Maori over Manawatu, Rangitikei, 27 Aug 1863 2(2) Nepia Taratoa, Buller, Fox, Tamihana te 893 receival of rentals] Otaki, Rauparaha, Grey, Scott, Curl, Hassard Land: Maori Leasing

Wanganui Chronicle CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase The Rangitiki Dispute 4 Feb 1864 2 900 Ngati Apa, Ngati Raukawa Rangitikei, Manawatu Land: Maori Leasing Manawatu, Muhinui, [The Annual Speech] 25 Jun 1864 2 903 Horowhenua River, Ohau Land: Government Purchasing River Resident Magistrate's Court Te Hira, J.Williams, Ngati Apa, Ratana, 30 Jul 1864 2 904 Maori & Law/Order Issues: Rangitikei Ngati Raukawa Civil Cases The Natives 909- Ngati Kahungunu, Waikato, Ngati 16 Nov 1864 3(2) Political: Local Maori and the Manawatu, Rangitikei 910 Raukawa King Movement [Report on the Rangitikei Land Ngati Apa, Ngati Raukawa, Rangitane, 935- Manawatu, Rangitikei 18 Oct 1865 2(4) Dispute] Ngati Whakature, Buller, Te Kepa, 938 River, Parawhenua Land: Maori Leasing Hamlin Native Meeting Buller, Ngati Apa, Aperahama Tipae, 17 Mar 1866 2 963 Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Turakina, Manawatu, Ngati Raukawa, Rangittane Government Land Purchasing The Manawatu Block 21 Apr 1866 2 980 Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Featherston, Ngati Apa, Buller Manawatu block Government Land Purchasing The Manawatu Purchase 12 May 1866 2 981 Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Apa Rangitikei, Manawatu Government Land Purchasing Touching the Manawatu 19 Sep 1866 2 1004 Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Buller, Nepia Taratoa, Ngati Apa Manawatu, Turakina Maori Protest or Opposition Manawatu Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Apa, Rangitane, 29 Sep 1866 2 1006 Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Hunia te Hakeke, Mete Kingi, Manawatu block Government Land Purchasing Featherston The Manawatu 12 Dec 1866 2 1013 Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Hori Kingi, Mete Kingi, Kemp, Government Land Purchasing The Manawatu Money 19 Dec 1866 2 1014 Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Hori Kingi, Mete Kingi, Kemp, Government Land Purchasing [Featherston's meeting with 1027- Manawatu Maori] Ngati Apa, Ngati Raukawa, 18 Jul 1867 2(2) Manawatu 1028 Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Featherston, Fox Government Land Purchasing Parakaia Te Ponepa, Ngati Apa, Rangitane, Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Toa, Native Land Court Otaki, Himatangi, 1059- Te Rauparaha, Roera Rangihena, 30 Ap 1868 2(2) Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Rangitikei, Manawatu, 1060 Pitihira te Kuru, Hakopa te Tahe, Nirai Land Court Hearings Ahuaturanga, Airahau Taraotia, Anuiria Taraotea, Kipa te Whitu, Mirika te Kunu Manawatu Ngati Raukawa, Parakaia, Ngati Apa, Manawatu Block, 2 May 1868 2 1063 Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Rangitane, Fox, Hadfield, Williams Himatangi Block Land Court Hearings Our Native Allies Ngati Apa, Hunia, Turo Turo Mokai, 13 Aug 1868 2 1084 Maori/Pakeha Issues: War & Manawatu Haultain Security Concerns Rangitikei Natives for Peace Ngati Apa, Ratana Ngahina, Kawana 10 Dec 1868 2 1105 Maori/Pakeha Issues: War & Rangitikei, Turakina Hunia Security Concerns The Manawatu Purchase 7 Aug 1869 2 1126 Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Travers, Ngati Raukawa Manawatu Land Court Hearings

British Parliamentary Papers (BPP) ‘Reports by Commissioner of Land Claims on Titles to Land in New Zealand: No 1 – Port Nicholson; No 5 – Porirua; No 6 - Manawatu’, 31 March 1845, BPP vol 5 (1846-1847), pp. 95-122.

Report of Commissioner Spain, 12 September 1843, ‘Appendix to Report from Select Committee on New Zealand, app. 9, BPP vol.2, pp.296-305. H. Tacy Kemp, ‘Report no.3. Otaki. Manawatu, and Rangitikei Districts’, 10 March 1850, BPP vol. 7, p. 240-

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR)

AJHR Title Volume 1861, C-1 Reports of the Land Purchasing Department Relative to the Extinguishment of Native Title 1862, E-9 Further Papers Relative to Governor Sir George Grey’s Plan of Native Government, Report of Officers, Section 9 - Wellington West Coast District 1863 E-4 Papers Relative to Native Districts’, Section XI – Wellington West Coast District; 1863 E-10 Return of All Officers Connected with the Native Minister’s Department, on 1st October 1863 1864 E-7 Return of all officers employed in native districts in January 1864, pp 25-26 1865, E-2 Papers Relative to the Rangitikei Land Dispute inc copies of Buller’s report re land dispute, copies of letters to Chiefs, correspondence between Buller & Native Affairs Minister 1865, E-2A Papers Relative to Bringing Lands in the Manawatu District under the operation of ‘The Native Lands Act, 1892’; various correspondence 1865, E-2B Correspondence relating to the Manawatu Block, August 1865-September 1865 1865, G-4 Petition of Ihakara & Other Natives Praying that their territory may be brought under the operation of the ‘Native Lands Act, 1862 1866, A-4 Further Papers Relative to the Manawatu Block (In continuation of Papers Presented 29 September 1865); various authors, April-July 1866 1866, A-15 Correspondence Relative to the Manawatu Block (Return to an Order of the HoR, dated 12 July 1866)

1867, A-19 Return of Correspondence Relative to the Manawatu Block 1868, A1 Te Kepa Rangihiwinui to the Government, 19 February 1868, and others, pp. 51-54, 59 1868, A-19 Copy of Reply to Application of Non-selling Ngatiraukawa Claimants For the Hearing of their cases in Wellington; letter from Henry Halse to Ngatiraukawa Delegates, 6 July 1868 1869, A-3 Papers Relative to Military Operations Against the Rebel Natives, pp. 8-11. 1870, A-1B, Copy of Despatch from G. F. Bowen to Earl Granville re final judgement of NLC in case of Rangitikei- vol.1 Manawatu land claims (from Despatches from the Secretary of State and the Governor of New Zealand), pp.55- 56 1870, A-25, Memorandum on the Rangitikei-Manawatu Land Claims vol.1

H H Turton, Maori Deeds of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand: Volume Two, (Wellington, George Didsbury, 1878) (Available online at http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz).

Deed Date Description

Horowhenua, no. 8 5 Jul 1842 Discussion about the reserves made in the Horowhenua, p.3. Deed of Ngati Kahungunu's acknowledgement of the extinguishment of their claims in Porirua and Wellington for 100 pounds in te reo Maori and translated by McLean. Signed by Ngairo, Hiu te Miha o te rangi, Ko te Wereta Kawakairangi, Ko te Kaninamu Hanaiwa, te Wereta te Inaki and unsigned by Na Raniera te Iho, Hemi te- Miha, Manihera te Kehu, Na Iraia te Ama, Ko Maika Meha, Wiremu Tamihana Porirua, no.87 29 Aug 1853 Hiko, Wiremu Tutere te Nai, pp.266-267. Extinguishment of Ngati Toa interests at Papakowhai in Porirua for 210 pounds in te reo Maori and translated into English. Signed by Hohepa Tamaihengia, […]and Ko Porirua, no.24 28 May 1862 Hanita, pp.131-132.

Rangitikei-Manawatu; Deed of sale for Rangitikei-Manawatu District. Muaupoko are mentioned as one of Muaupoko Ngarara, no.70 13 Dec 1866 the tribes privy to the deed, pp.214-230.

Deed Date Description Deed receipt for the sale of a block of land at Waikanae in 1858 in te reo Maori and with an English translation.Notes that it was produced before the Native Land Court Whareroa - Waikanae; at Waikanae on 1873-05-22 at the investigation of claims to "a block called Muaupoko Ngarara 20 Apr 1858 Muaupoko within the Ngarara Block", pp.128-9

H H Turton, (editor), An Epitome of Official Documents relative to Native Affairs and Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand, (Wellington, George Didsbury, 1883) (Available online at http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz).

Official Correspondence in Reference to Native Affairs in the North Island of the Colony of New Zealand

Muaupoko Ngarara, A list of "Maori Tribes and Chiefs" is a very crude census of the Maori population in no.36, pp. 185-6 17 May 1868 1868. Porirua; Wainui – Discusses settlement of the New Zealand Company's Claims in the Wellington region, Waikanae, no.21, including Porirua, and notes that "bonafide possession" belonged to "Ngatitoa". Also pp.172-3 26 Mar 1847 discusses the lack of title which belonged to the NZ Company in Wainui as well.

Whareroa – Waikanae, no. 2, p.120 30 Nov 1843 Note on possible migration of Maori from Waikanae to Taranaki.

Whareroa – Waikanae, Letter regarding the impending migration of "Ngatiawa" and their desire to sell no.10, p.131 26 Jul 1847 because "Ngatitoa" will surely settle the land as soon as they leave to Taranaki.

Whareroa – Waikanae, Petition of the Provincial Council of New Plymouth discusses the migration of Wiremu no. 21, pp.136-139 19 May 1858 Kingi from Waikanae and its alleged effect on land sales in New Plymouth.

Whareroa – Waikanae, no.22, pp.139-140 9 Jun 1858 Browne discusses the effect of migration from Waikanae. Official Documents in reference to Native Reserves Letter regarding back rents and Maori reserves for the Rangitikei-Manawatu block among other memoranda related to the block, pp.62-62. Featherston also noted that he guaranteed to "Kawana Hunia (the representative of the Ngatiapa)…and his tribe 1,000 acres at Papakatea, 500 acres at Tawhirihoe, and 10 acres at Te Awahou." at P. 62. The Rangitikei-Manawatu; pre-European settlement of Kapiti and the Horowhenua is also discussed and migration Te Awahou; and actions of Muaupoko. In Buller's letter on the migration of "Ngatiraukawa" "Te Horowhenua; Rauparaha allotted Waikawa to the Ngatiwehiwehi and Ohau to the Ngatipare." Maori Muaupoko Ngarara; inhabitants around the Oroua River are noted in the same memorandum. In another Ohau; Waikawa; memorandum members of Ngati Raukawa at Oroua are alleged not to have signed a deed Oroua; Kapiti, no. 112 27 Jul 1867 of sale. Indicates that 300 acres were reserved for Maori in Porirua as well as 3,400 acres in the Porirua; Horowhenua, Horowhenua and that "the wants of the Natives, real and imaginary, are numerous, and no. 5 11 Apr 1842 their applications to me incessant: some of these are met, and some I resist”, p.2. Rangitikei-Manawatu, no. 121 5 May 1871 Estimate of the population in "Rangitikei and Manawatu Districts", p. 74-75. On the Tenure of Native Lands Part of a long despatch regarding the history of the situation in Taranaki, pp. 36, 37, Whareroa - Waikanae; 41-43. Browne discusses Wiremu Kingi and his changing situation in Waikanae as Kapiti, no. 11 4 Dec 1860 well as the situation in Kapiti in the first half of the 19th century.

Primary sources, unpublished: Maori Land Court minutes

Nb. According to Dr Diana Morrow, Anthony Patete, Iwi Interests in the Manawatu, vols 1-6, (Wellington, Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit , 2001) is a collation of Native Land Court minutes relating to early title investigations in the Manawatu, and relevant Maori Land Court, Wanganui archival material.

Block Case type Start date No. Minute Book reference pp Himatangi 1868 Otaki MB 1C, D, E Manawatu Title 13 Nov 1872 170 Otaki 1A: 11-184

Block Case type Start date No. Minute Book reference pp Kukutauaki Ngarara Investigation Manawatu Title 13 Mar 1873 2 Otaki MB 1A:195-97 Kukutauaki No.1 Investigation Horowhenua Title 11 Mar 1873 85 Otaki 01A: 184-7, 195, 244-67; Otaki 02: 1-54, 59-65, investigation 80 Horowhenua Partition 12 Nov 1886 19 Otaki 07: 142, 160, 182-86, 188-96, 199-200, 203 Horowhenua 11 Partition, then 14 Jan 1890 500 Otaki 13: 1, 75, 78, 82-93, 95-6, 98, 100-02, 106, 142, rehearing and 144-45, 147, 151, 156-279; partition Otaki 14: 6, 86-219, 250-92, 294-330; Otaki MB 15: 1-22, 122-124; Otaki 21A: 41-50, 252-76, 278-399 Horowhenua 3A, 3B Rehearing and 19 Feb 1891 154 Otaki 14: 7-85; partition Otaki 21A: 50-126 Horowhenua 12, Appeal 9 Apr 1897 810 Otaki 33: 195-254, 339-82 Horowhenua 6, Otaki 34: 1-379; Horowhenua 11 Otaki 35: 1-303, 344-57, 367-83 Horowhenua 14 Appeal 25 Feb 1897 671 Otaki 32: 1-382; Otaki 33: 1-194, 255-338; Otaki 35: 318, 320-23, 325-29, 333-38, 384, Levin Appellate Court MB 01: 1-106 Horowhenua 11 Partition 21 Sep 1898 147 Otaki 36: 215, 238-43, 249-54, 260-61, 300, 337-56, 362, 366-78; Otaki 37: 1-2, 9-33, 40, 47-49, 54-65, 68-72, 90, 91, 185-90, 195-205, 217-33 Horowhenua 11 Appeal and 15 Sep 1898 145 Otaki 40: 49-194 relative interests Horowhenua 11B41 Investigation 3 Jul 1908 10 Otaki 49: 197-202, 203a-d, 204 Horowhenua 11B41, Partition 2 Feb 1909 53 Otaki 50: 206-7, 224, 232, 234-42, 246-48, 264-65, 267- 11B42 73, 282-83, 329-34, 351-56, 362-64, 366-79; Wellington 16: 259-64, 271a-c; Otaki 51: 64-65, 91-94, 99-103, 106-33, 135-36, 139, 155-71, 175, 216

Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington Reference Description qMS 0891 James Grindell, Journal 8 Jul 1857 – 31 Jul 1858 qMS 0897 Octavius Hadfield, Papers vol.1, Outward correspondence, 1833-1844, qMS 0898 Octavius Hadfield, Papers vol.2, Outward correspondence, 1845-1851 qMS 1984-1999 Richard Taylor, Journal 1833-1873. 16 volumes of typescripts, indexed. qMS-2247 Samuel Williams, Reports of the Rev Samuel Williams on Otaki and the surrounding districts, 1847-1858, 1 vol, typescript qMS-2210 William Bertram White, ‘Reminiscences’, (of experiences around Otaki and Hutt, 1842- 1848) MSZ-0080-0085 Church of the Province of New Zealand, Wellington Diocese: Central and Parish records/ Church register of male and female population – He Tuhituhinga o nga tangata o te Hahi Contains a census of the Anglican Maori population of the Kapiti and Horowhenua areas, with occasional notes about various individuals Micro-MS-0323 Hammond, Richard: Porirua land claims, Wellington, 1850-53 MSX-9073 Notebook relating to Horowhenua Maori history (Part of Cowan, James, 1870-1943: Papers) MSY-2086 Waiata and traditions/Various writers, ?-1854 Mss by Te Rangi Topeora, Wiremu Maihi Te Rangikaheke (relates to events in Horowhenua). Part of Grey, George (Sir), 1812-1898: Maori manuscripts 84-251-1/04 Proceedings from Maori Land Court re Horowhenua Block [ca 1873] by WL Buller, court transcript, probably in Buller’s hand. Restricted – access limited by conservation requirements.

Reference Description MS-Papers-1579 McDonald, Hector Hughes, 1856-: Papers Account of Maori history and customs entitled, ‘The Maori past and present, reminiscences of Old Noa (Noa Te Whata) Rangiriri and Ruta Te Kiri from Horowhenua District’. MS-Papers-6571-004 Farm Records and whakapapa, 1907-1918, by Hoani Paraone Tunuiarangi. Including diary notes from series of hui in Horowhenua and Wellington involving Hoani Tunuiarangi. Part of Te Whaiti family: Papers 89-249-9/12 Alex McDonald Awahuri – Reminiscences, 1904 ‘A True History of the Horowhenua Block by Alexander McDonald being a reply to Sir Walter Buller’s pamphlet (typescript of the letter published in the Manawatu Farmer and Horowhenua County Chronicle, 4 Mar 1896). Part of Bagnall, Austin Graham, 1912- 1986: Further Papers MSX-3917 Whakapapa Including narratives of Wairarapa Maori and events in Horowhenua. McDonnell, Alexander Francis, 1866-1938: Papers/Inward letters in Maori MS-Papers-0151-01 MS-Papers-0151-01-11 To Governor Grey from Te Rangirurupuni and others, at Horowhenua, 15 Jun 1862 MS-Papers-0151-01-22 To Governor Grey from Te Kepa Tanguru, Noa Te Watamahoe, at Horowhenua, 12 Aug 1862. MS-Papers-0151-01-39 To Governor Grey from Noa Te Wata, at Horowhenua, 23 Sep 1862. MS-Papers-0151-03-13 To Governor Grey from Noa Te Wata, at Horowhenua, 30 Mar 1865. White, John, 1826-1891: Papers MS-Papers-0075 MS-Papers-0075-009C Letters in Maori, July 1862. Contains letter from Maori to Governor Grey, including one from Muaupoko elder Te Rangirurupuni requesting payment from Ngati Toa for their lands. MS-Papers-0075-092 Legends and waiata, Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke, 1880. Also includes letter by Kawana Hunia to Puihi (Muaupoko) discussing a land matter. MS-Papers-0075-031B Letters in Maori, 1864 Containing references to increasing tensions between Ngati Apa, Muaupoko and the Ngati Raukawa in the Horowhenua. Restricted access, use MS-Copy-Micro-0765-04 MS-Papers-0075-031C Letters in Maori, by Te Runanga o Raukawa, 1865 including report from a meeting between Governor Grey, Major Kemp and various hapu from Whanganui. Restricted access, use MS-Copy-Micro-0765-04 Mantell family: Papers. MS-Papers-0083 MS-Papers-0083-221 Administration of native affairs, Aug 1863. Contains correspondence with new and rumours about activities and plans of Wairarapa, Wellington and Horowhenua Maori affiliated to the Kingitanga. Restricted access – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0483-18. MS-Papers-0083-235 Papers concerning Walter Buller, Resident Magistrate. Jul 1863. Correspondence regarding various topics including assessment of inter-tribal relations in the Horowhenua-Manawatu, and imminent conflict between the Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Apa tribes. Restricted access – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0483-19. MS-Papers-0083-281 Inward correspondence – William Fox 1863. Correspondence including concern about escalating tension among the Horowhenua-Manawatu tribes particularly Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Apa/Muaupoko/Rangitane. Restricted access – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0483-20. Buller, Walter Lawry (Sir), 1838-1906: Papers. MS-Papers-0048 MS-Papers-0048-11 Maori letters mainly concerned with land claims, 1864-1881 Contains letters from Maori to Buller, in his capacity as lawyer, with regard to Maori land tenure and transactions, in particular Manawatu and Horowhenua. Access restricted – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0686-02 MS-Papers-0048-12 Maori letters mainly concerned with land claims, 1856-1876 Contains letters from Maori to Buller, in his capacity as lawyer, with regard to Maori land tenure and transactions, including long letter from Hunia Te Hakeke about his role in NZ wars. Access restricted – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0686-02

See CFRT Maori language sources, p.75 reference to Folder 08 28. ‘A history of events in Manawatu’ April 30 1870 Kawana Hunia speaker [only 2 pages of Maori text].

Donald McLean, Papers Staff advise that the most user-friendly way to search the Donald McLean collection is from the URL http://mp.natlib.govt.nz. Many of the following documents are viewable online. Itemised files were identified using digital word searches on ‘Muaupoko’, ‘Grindell’, ‘original inhabitants’, ‘Manawatu’, ‘Horowhenua’, ‘Rogan’. Where correspondence is not itemised, it would pay to check the whole folder.

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 1 Inward letters (English) John M Best 3 pages from John M Best, Manawatu, 26 October 1850 MS-Papers-0032-0161 Walter Lawry Buller 3 pages from WL Buller, Wellington, 23 October 1858 MS-Papers-0032-0190 Thomas Cook 10 letters from Thomas Cook, Manawatu, 1851-1875 MS-Papers-0032-0225 James Duncan 18 letters from Rev James Duncan, Manawatu and Hutt Valley, 1849-1867 MS-Papers-0032-0252 Isaac Featherston 62 letters from I E Featherston, 1859-1876 MS-Papers-003200266 Sir William Fox 43 letters from Fox, 1870-1871 MS-Papers-0032-0279 James Grindell 27 letters from Grindell MS-Papers-0032-0304 Samuel Locke MS-Papers-0032-0393 Hector McDonald 14 letters written from Horowhenua, 1868-1876 MS-Papers-0032-0409 Surnames, McDonnell, #1019502, 4 pages written 22 Dec 1871 by unknown author in Wanganui MS-Papers-0032-0412 W N Searancke 60 letters from WN Searancke, including from Otaki and Manawatu, 1858-1859. MS-Papers-0032-0565 W N Searancke 62 letters from W N Searancke, including undated letters from Otaki and Manawatu,, MS-Papers-0032-0566 also undated map from Kukutauaki to Paekakariki.

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 2 Inward letters (Maori) MS-Papers-0032-0668 -01 Letter from Te Waka to Kawana, 16 Mar [1846?] -08 Letter from Hoera to Kawana, 23 Jun 1844 MS-Papers-0032-0672A -01 Letter from Kawana Hunia to McLean (with translation), Jan 1848 -02 Letter from Kawana Hunia to McLean (with translation), Jan 1848 MS-Papers-0032-0672B -01 Letter from Kawana Hakeke to McLean, Apr 1848 MS-Papers-0032-0672C -06 Letter from Kawana Hakeke to McLean, Aug 1848 MS-Papers-0032-0672D -01 Letter from Kawana Te Hakeke to McLean, Oct 1848 -07 Letter from Whaitere to McLean, 19 Oct 1848 -09 Letter from Wairarapa chiefs to Eyre, 27 Oct 1848 MS-Papers-0032-0672E -01 Letter from Kawana Hunia to McLean, Nov 1848 -02 Letter from Anaru Rongotua to Kawana Hea, 5 Nov 1848 -03 Letter from Raniera Te Iho to Kawana Hea, 6 Nov 1848 -08 Letter from Hakaraia Te Rangiwakatakaura, Te Retimana to Te Kepa and Te Pere, 28 Nov 1848 -09 Letter from Hoera Wakatahe to Te Kepa and Te Pere, 29 Nov 1848 -10 Letter from Hoera Whakataha, Te Harawira Te Tatere to Te Keepa and Te Pere, 29 Nov 1848 MS-Papers-0032-0672F -01 Letter from Kawana Te Hakeke to McLean, Dec 1848 -08 Letter from Hoera Whakataha to Te Keepa and Kawana, 12 Dec 1848 -09 Letter from Hamuera Pakaiahi and Te Rahui to Te Keepa and Kawana, 19

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 2 Inward letters (Maori) Dec 1848 MS-Papers-0032-0673A -07 Letter from Ngairo to George Grey (with translation), 15 Feb 1849 MS-Papers-0032-0673B -02 Letter from Matiu Retimoana Te Korou to Te Puni, Ihaka and Kawana, 18 Mar 1849 -07 Letter from Aperahama Tipae to Kawana, 19 Apr 1849 -11 Letter from Anaru Rongotua to Te Keepa and Kawana, 13 May 1849 -14 Letter from Hakaraia Pouri to Raka (Locke) (with translation), 14 May 1849 -15 Letter from Wereta Kawekairangi to George Grey, 18 May 1849 -17 Letter from Wereta Kawekairangi to Edward Eyre (Hea), 21 May 1849 -18 Letter from Te Reihana to McLean, 28 May 1849 MS-Papers-0032-0673C -02 Letter from Paera to McLean, 3 Jun 1849 -07 Letter from Hone Pumipi to McLean, 6 Sep 1849 -10 Letter from Aperahama Tamaipurea to McLean, 18 Dec 1849 MS-Papers-0032-0674A -03 Letter from Tamati Te Tuhi to McLean, 13 Jan 1850 MS-Papers-0032-0674D -01 Letter from Te Kawana Te Hakeke to McLean, Aug 1850 MS-Papers-0032-0674B -01 Letter from Te Tati to George Grey (with translation), 1 May 1850 -04 Letter from Kawana Te Hakeke to McLean, 14 May 1850 -06 Letter from Rawiri Rauponga, Hopa Teroro, Panapa Porutu to Edward Eyre, 17 May 1850 MS-Papers-0032-0674C -03 Letter from Te Hapuku and Hori Niania to McLean, 17 Jun 1850 -05 Letter from Te Ngahuru to McLean, 19 Jun 1850 -09 Letter from Parata, Reihana and McLean to Wiremu Te Tauri, 19 Jul 1850 MS-Papers-0032-0674D -01 Letter from Te Kawana Te Hakeke to McLean, Aug 1850 -08 Letter from Paora to McLean, 5 Sep 1850 MS-Papers-0032-0675A -05 Letter from Te Waka Rewharewha and Hoani Waikato to Hori Te Hanea and all other chiefs, 29 Jan 1851 MS-Papers-0032-0675B -01 Letter from Ropata Te Waeriki and Te Wirihana to McLean, 3 Feb 1851 -02 Letter from Ihakara to McLean, 6 Feb 1851 -13 Letter from Reihana to McLean, 30 Feb 1851 MS-Papers-0032-0675C -01 Letter from Ropata Te Waeriki and Te Wirihana to McLean, 3 Mar 1851 -02 Letter from Ropata Te Hapuku and Karanema Te Nahu to McLean and Te Haurangi, 5 Mar 1851 -12 Letter from Kawana Te Hakeke to McLean, 21 Apr 1851 -14 Letter from Te Waka to McLean, 28 Apr 1851 MS-Papers-0032-0675D -07 Letter from Panapa to McLean, 10 May 1851 -11 Letter from Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke to Governor, 13 May 1851 -17 Letter from Hoani Wiremu Hipango to McLean, 23 May 1851 -19 Letter from Noa Te Whata to Hori Kingi, 26 May 1851 MS-Papers-0032-0675F -01 Letter from Hamuera Taumaru to McLean, 6 Jul 1851 MS-Papers-0032-0675H -02 Letter from Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke to Governor & McLean, 1 Sep 1851 MS-Papers-0032-0676B -07 Letter from Herewini Te Kanawa Hunia Te Hakeke to McLean, 15 Mar 1852 MS-Papers-0032-0676C -02 Letter from Te Tahana and others to McLean and George Grey, 5 May 1852 -10 Proposal from Muaupoko to McLean, 24 May 1852 -15 Letter from Te Harawira to Kawana Hunia (with translation), Jun 1852 -18 Letter from Perihe to McLean, 2 Jun 1852 MS-Papers-0032-0676D -16 Letter from Hapurana Tokikura to McLean, 12 Sep 1852 MS-Papers-0032-0679A -08 Letter from Te Maera to Tahana [?] 4 Oct 1855 MS-Papers-0032-0681B -10 Letter from Te Moananui to McLean, 20 Jul 1857 -12 Letter from Wiremu Eruera Te Tauri to McLean, 26 Jul 1857 -19 Letter from Harehare and Rewiti to McLean and Kawana, 16 Nov 1857 MS-Papers-0032-0682A -02 Letter from Tareha to McLean, 6 Feb 1858 -05 Letter from Reihana Wiremu Paikawa to McLean, 22 Feb 1858 -08 Letter from Hone Patene Putama to McLean, 13 Mar 1858 MS-Papers-0032-0683B -01 Letter from Te Kepa to McLean, 4 May 1859 -12 Letter from Te Amomaunu to McLean, 6 Sep 1859 MS-Papers-0032-0683C -10 Letter from Tahana Tahau, Henare Tahau to McLean, 4 Nov 1859

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 2 Inward letters (Maori) MS-Papers-0032-0684A -02 Te Hiriwanu Kaimokopuna to McLean, 18 Jan 1860 MS-Papers-0032-0685B -10 Letter from Kuraho Rangimaru to McLean, 21 Mar 1861 MS-Papers-0032-0685C -03 Letter from Hoera to McLean (with translation), 6 Apr 1861 MS-Papers-0032-0685D -16 Letter from Te Tahana to Rarete, 25 Jul 1861 MS-Papers-0032-0686A -18 Letter from Wiremu to Raorao to McLean, 20 Jan 1862 MS-Papers-0032-0687A -02 Letter from Te Wirihana to McLean, 5 Jan 1863 -12 Letter from Hiriwanu Kaimokopuna to McLean, 17 Feb 1863 MS-Papers-0032-0687C -10 Letter from Winiata, Ngawaka Taiaho, Keremihana, Wiremu to McLean, 2 Jul 1863 MS-Papers-0032-0687D -02 Letter from Hori Te Aroatua to McLean, 13 Aug 1863 -07 Letter from Te Teira Te Paea to McLean, 24 Aug 1863 MS-Papers-0032-0687E -04 Letter from Hori Te Aroatua to Raka (Locke), 13 Oct 1863 MS-Papers-0032-0688A -03 Letter from Apiata to McLean, 7 Jan 1864 -12 Letter from Nopera Kuikainga to McLean, 30 Jan 1864 MS-Papers-0032-0688C -07 Letter from Nopera Kuikainga to Te Kupa (Cooper?), 27 Jun 1864 MS-Papers-0032-0689C -09 Letter from Wiremu Pukapuka to McLean, 17 Apr 1865 MS-Papers-0032-0690B -10 Letter from Rangitane and Muaupoko Maori to McLean, 19 Apr 1866 -11 Letter from Hoera Rautu to McLean, 26 Apr 1866 MS-Papers-0032-0690F -08 Letter from Utiku Te Angi, Ripeka Naira to McLean, 10 Sep 1866 MS-Papers-0032-0690G -04 Letter from Hunia Te Hakeke to McLean, 13 Nov 1866 MS-Papers-0032-0691C -04 Letter from Karaitiana to McLean, 9 Jun 1867 MS-Papers-0032-0692C -12 Letter from Maaka Te Rangihatea to McLean, 24 Aug 1868 MS-Papers-0032-0693G -20 Letter from Wiremu to Te Kepa Taitoko, 27 Aug 1869 -26 Letter from Wiremu Kaingatira to McLean, 30 Aug 1869 -22 Letter from Hori Kerei Paipai to McLean, 31 Aug 1869 -24 Letter from Kawana Paipai, Peraniko Taiawio and others to McLean, Aug 1869 MS-Papers-0032-0693H -06 Letter from Kawana Pukutohe to McLean, 16 Sep 1869 MS-Papers-0032-0694A -20 Copy of letter from Te Kaiaka to Te Apiha, Te Keepa and Hohepa Tamamutu, 26 Feb 1870 MS-Papers-0032-0694D -14 Letter from Hori Kerei to Major Keepa, 27 Sep 1870 MS-Papers-0032-0694E -09 Letter from Meiha Kepa Te Taitokokiteuru to McLean, 21 Oct 1870 MS-Papers-0032-0694F -05 Letter from Kawana Hunia to McLean, 16 Nov 1870 MS-Papers-0032-0702B -06 Undated letter from Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke to McLean [circa 1850-1869] -07 Letter from Hamahona, Raruke, Hone Waitere and others to McLean, 26 May [circa 1850-1869] MS-Papers-0032-0702G -05 Letter from Kawana Hakeke to McLean, 27 Nov [ca 1850-1869] -07 Undated letter from Kawana Te Hakeke to McLean, [ca 1850-1869] -08 Letter from Kawana, Kinihori Te Hanea, Hamuera to McLean, 5 Jul [ca 1850-1869] -10 Note relating to transfer of land by Kawana Hunia and others, [ca1850-1869] -12 Undated letter from Hunia to Te Kepa, [ca1850-1869] MS-Papers-0032-0702H -01 Letter from Kingi Hori te Hanea to McLean, 19 Jan [ca1850-1869] -02 Letter from Kingi Hori and Hapurona to McLean, 27 Jan [ca1850-1869]

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 3 Letterbooks qMS-1205 #1018437 Private letters and Native correspondence [@1847] qMS-1206-1212 Police and Native Land Purchase Departments – Letter books qMS-1210 #1032119 Official letter book (Native land and Police), 12 Dec 1848-7 Aug 1849 qMS-1211 #1032463 Official letter book (Land purchase), 27 Feb-23 May 1849 qMS-1212 #1032562 Official letter book (Police and Land purchase), 9 Aug 1849-30 Oct 1850

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 5 Diaries and notebooks MS-1220 #1030504 Diary, Maori notes and draft letters, 4 Mar-13 May 1848, 16 Mar-8Apr

1849 MS-1221 #1030920 Notebook –Maori history, letter drafts, name and hapu lists, Mar-Apr 1848 MS-1222 #1030957 Diary, May-Jul 1848, Dec 1848-Jan 1849 MS-1224 #1032831 Diary, 12 Jan-17 Mar 1849 MS-1225 #1032034 Diary, 4 Apr-11 May, 1-16 Jun 1849 MS-1226 #1031416 Diary and Maori notes, 17 Jun-17 Aug 1849 MS-1229 #1031441 Diary and notebook, 19 Jul-12 Oct 1850 MS-1230 #1031846 Diary, 13 Oct-13 Dec 1850 MS-1233 #1031703 Diary and Maori notes, 3 May-9 Nov 1851 MS-1236 #1030856 Diary, draft letters and Maori notes, ca Oct 1851-Oct 1853 MS-1238 #1030729 Notes – Native land claims, 1855 MS-1245 #1031563 Diary and notes, Mar-Apr 1858

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 7 Official papers Protector of Aborigines – Papers #1016796 George Clarke to McLean, 2 Aug 1844 MS-Papers-0032-0001 Native Land Purchase Commissioner – Papers #1009898 McLean, 15 March 1849 MS-Papers-0032-0003 #1006648 McLean, 1 Oct 1849 #1027444 Unknown author to McLean, 20 Jan 1849 #1012386 McLean, 17 Mar 1849 #1016516 McLean to wgtn, 21 Mar 1849 #1023371 Dommett, 2 Oct 1849 #1022817 Unknown author from Manawatu to McLean #1011698 McLean to Wgtn, 11 April 1849 #1012907 Eyre to Dommett, 2 Oct 1849 #1017680 Eyre to Dommett, 6 Sept 1849 #1008288 Eyre, 15 Oct 1849 #1016549 McLean, 9 Nov 1849 Native Land Purchase Commissioner – Papers #1026611 Eyre to Dommett, 20 Jun 1850 MS-Papers-0032-0003A #1017786 Eyre to Dommett, 20 Ju 1850 #1016819 Eyre to Dommett and McLean, 3 Jul 1850 #1007445 Eyre and McLean to Dommett, 1850 #1027018 Eyre and McLean, Manawatu, 23 Sep 1850 Native Land Purchase Commissioner – Papers, #1021322 McLean to Grindell, 14 Mar 1853 1851-1857 MS-Papers-0032-0004 #1022042 McLean #1020560 McLean to Featherston, 21 Oct 1853 Native Land Purchase Commissioner – Papers, #1013418 1857-1859 MS-Papers-0032-0005 Native Land Purchase Commissioner – Papers, #1018404 McLean 1860-1864 MS-Papers-0032-0006 Native Land Purchase Commissioner – Papers, #1004943 No item description 1862-1866, MS-Papers-0032-0007 Native Land Purchase Commissioner – Papers, #1003960 McLean, 20 May 1863 1863-1868, MS-Papers-0032-0008 #1000686 McLean Secretary, Native Department – Administration of #1022742 20 pages to James Grindell native affairs MS-Papers-0032-0009 #1016320 McLean, 6 Jan 1857

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 7 Official papers #1011873 McLean, 4 Sep 1856 Secretary, Native Department – Administration of #1014465 CH Strauss and FR Ferguson to McLean, native affairs 18 Oct 1860 MS-Papers-0032-0010 #1008063 McLean, 5 Jul 1860 #1004130 McLean to Gore Browne and Richmond, 9 Jun 1860 Secretary, Native Department – Administration of #1001244 Bishop W Williams, 5 Jun 1861 native affairs MS-Papers-0032-0011 Secretary, Native Department – War in Taranaki #1017458 McLean, 25 Apr 1860 and Waikato and King Movement MS-Papers-0032-0012 #1007877 McLean, 30 April 1860 Secretary, Native Department – War in Taranaki #1023690 McLean to Gore Browne, 22 Mar 1861 and Waikato and King Movement MS-Papers-0032-0013 Miscellaneous native affairs #1023812 Eyre to Dommett, 12 Sep 1849 MS-Papers-0032-0016 #1005311 Eyre to Domett, 21 Sep 1849 Superintendent, Hawkes Bay and Government #1013114 Grindell to McLean, 14 Aug 1865 Agent, East Coast – Papers MS-Papers-0032-0019

Archives New Zealand, Wellington

The MA13 Special files contain records relating to a variety of aspects of Maori land both in general and in relation to particular blocks. MA 13/69-75 relate to the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase and the Horowhenua. A comprehensive index of these files has been prepared by CFRT, and over 6000 pages scanned to PDF. Where documents have been copied and collated, the page numbers to the CFRT document bank are given in the right-hand column. For the purposes of this scoping report, I was provided with access to summaries of these records prepared by Tribunal staff, and both the CFRT index and Tribunal summaries will be available on the Record of Inquiry. Listed below are files which appear to be of particular relevance to Muaupoko, along with the summary prepared by Tribunal staff.

MA 13/16 Newspaper articles about conquest/protection.

MA 13/69a CFRT DB Hunia Hakeke Agreement to lease land between the Manawatu and Rangitikei MA 13/69a Pt. 1 2-05-1861 rivers. 13948-9 MA 13/69a Pt. 1 1856 Letter entirely in te reo Maori. 2844-46 Ihakara Tukumaru Letter regarding a meeting at Parewanui held between Ngati 13950- MA 13/69a Pt. 2 23-05-1863 Raukawa, Ngati Apa and Rangitane. 56 Hoani Wiremu Hipango (John Williams) to Featherston. An account of Featherston's meeting with Ngati Apa and Whanganui, where Ngati Apa's right MA 13/69a Pt. 3 16-01-1864 to sell is defended. 2855-66 Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke to Featherston. Letter defending their sale and warning Featherston and the Crown not to be scared off from selling by Ngati MA 13/69a Pt. 3 20-01-1864 Raukawa's opposition. 2867-72 Hunia Te Hakeke and others to Grey & Featherston. Letter conveying that "all MA 13/69a Pt. 3 25-01-1864 have consented to sell our land to you." 2877-84 ? to Featherston. This letter refers to money received by Panopa (?) of Ngati Apa MA 13/69a Pt. 3 26-01-1864 for land in the Rangitikei. The writer of the letter claimed that the land was not 2885-86

MA 13/69a CFRT DB Ngati Apa's to sell.

Hoani Meihana, Ihahaka Tukumaru, Te Peeti Te Aweawe and others to Featherston. Opposed to the sale of land by Ngati Apa, Ngati Raukawa and MA 13/69a Pt. 3 27-01-1864 Rangitane claim that their land is being without their consent. 2887-92 Te Rei Paehua & Aperahama Te Huruhuru to Featherston claiming that Ngati Apa have been instigating Ngati Raukawa and that it wouldn't be long until MA 13/69a Pt. 3 10-04-1864 violence ensued. 2895-97 Ihakara Tukumaru; Hoani Meihana Te Rangiotu; Aperahama Te Huruhuru and others to Featherston advising that they (Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Apa and Ngati Rau) placed the land in Featherston's hands to sell to the government but that the price paid and reserves made would require careful discussion. Featherston wrote MA 13/69a Pt. 3 17-09-1864 that he agreed to accept their offer and their condition. 2924-30 Hunia Te Hakeke to Featherston claiming that Ihakara had given him his Mere pounamu as a symbol of "his goodness" and that Aperahama, Hori Kingi or MA 13/69a Pt. 3 22-09-1864 Mete had "all heard about it". 2937-39 Hunia Te Hakeke to Featherston regarding the upcoming sale of land and was pleased that there was now co-operation between tribes in favour of selling the MA 13/69a Pt. 3 24-09-1864 land. 2955-58 Hunia Te Hakeke, Aperahama Tipae, Mohi Mahi and others to Featherston that Ngati Raukawa had received some rent money and this alarmed Ngati Apa. They request to immediately travel to Whanganui to see he could be told "the history MA 13/69a Pt. 4 17-05-1865 of the Rangitikei Land question." 3135-37 Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke to Featherston advising he should come to MA 13/69a Pt. 4 13-06-1865 Whanganui because they still desired to sell their lands. 3174-80 Hoani Meihana, Te Peeti and others to Featherston about their desire to sell land in the Wairarapa but also mentions some aspects of the negotiating process, as MA 13/69a Pt. 4 21-06-1865 well as installments paid for the Rangitikei-Manawatu block. 3184-87 Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke to Featherston asking that he come to Whanganui to MA 13/69a Pt. 4 22-06-1865 talk about land sales because that is where they reside. 3194-96 Hoani Meihana to Featherston on the movement of "hauhau" as well as a MA 13/69a Pt. 4 1-07-1865 meeting where opposition to land sales were espoused. 3209-12 MA 13/69a Pt. 4 5-07-1865 Hunia Te Hakeke to Featherston on those opposed to land sales. 3213-17 Te Peeti Te Aweawe; Warena Mahuri to Featherston demanding an immediate MA 13/69a Pt. 4 12-07-1865 investigation of the land sales in the Rangitikei- Manawatu. 3218-21 Te Peeti Te Aweawe and others to Featherston regarding the sale of land in the Rangitikei. Te Peeti demanded that the rents be released as they were distinct from the land sold, and that all of those residing in Rangitikei had not agreed to MA 13/69a Pt. 4 2-08-1865 sell their land. 3239-42 Te Peeti Te Aweawe to Featherston demanding payment be given for the land he MA 13/69a Pt. 4 2-08-1865 had sold at Eketahuna. 3243-48 Hetariki Matao; Te Matenga Tinotahi and Ngatara te Rawahi requesting that when Featherston and McLean visit the Manawatu that they should also visit the Horowhenua because they knew which lands had been bought by the Crown and MA 13/69a Pt. 4 08-1865 which had been left as reserved and their precise boundaries. 3267-69 MA 13/69a Pt. 4 31-10-1865 Hoera: Hemeima was still awaiting payment for land that she had sold. 3324-27

MA 13/69a Pt. 4 31-10-1865 Hoera Rautu offfering to sell 200 acres to Dr. Featherston. 3328-29 MA 13/69a Pt. 4 ? Hoera: "This is the commencement of those lands." 3330-35 MA 13/69a Pt. 4 27-11-1865 James Hamlin to Featherston on the sale of Mana Island and the Muhunoa block. 3355-56 Featherston, Notes of a meeting with Rangitane Maori regarding the sale of the MA 13/69a Pt. 4 6-12-1865 Rangitikei. 3374-84 Ngati Apa to Buller and Major McDonell, List of names of men who would be sent to "carry the sword of the Government against the evil doers of this Island MA 13/69a Pt. 4 23-12-1865 that is the Hauhau." 3466-71 Notes of various meetings held with the "several tribes engaged in the Rangitikei MA 13/69a Pt. 5 03/04-1866 Land Dispute." 3402-46

MA 13/69a CFRT DB Tamati Puna; Aperamiko Rangikikitia and others to Featherston regarding a 3447- meeting of Whanganui tribes in Wellington in which most (except for Parakaia) 50, MA 13/69a Pt. 5 17-05-1866 were alleged to agree to the alienation of the Rangitikei-Manawatu. 3568-73 Kapane Poari Kurumate to Richard Watson on movements of "Hauhau" along MA 13/69a Pt. 5 27-01-1866 with the situation in the Rangitikei. 3476-82

MA 13/69a Pt. 5 20-02-1866 Holdsworth? List of men who had returned from fighting. 3497-98 Hunia Hakeke to Featherston, List of the rangatira of Ngati apa who "consented MA 13/69a Pt. 5 27-03-1866 to go fight" and who now expected some payment. 3511-12

MA 13/69a Pt. 5 20-04-1866 Te Peeti Te Aweawe to Featherston Letter entirely in te reo Maori. 3527-28 Te Peeti Te Aweawe to Featherston requesting that surveyors be sent and MA 13/69a Pt. 5 11-05-1866 confirmation that he and his people had consented to part with the Rangitikei. 3551-55 Hunia Te Hakeke to Featherston claiming that Muaupoko will only sign the deed MA 13/69a Pt. 5 11-06-1866 of purchase for the Rangitikei when the money is brought to Wharekura. 3585-87 Hoani Puihi; Hanita Takiari and others to Featherston wanting to ensure that the MA 13/69a Pt. 5 22-06-1866 alienation of Rangitikei was proceeding even with the opposition of Parakaia. 3588-90 MA 13/69a Pt. 5 6-07-1866 Buller, memorandum regarding the intricacies of the sale of the Rangitikei. 3591-96 Te Peeti Te Aweawe; Kerei Te Panau and others to Featherston, that they desired MA 13/69a Pt. 5 13-07-1866 to survey their own boundaries. 3609-10

MA 13/69b

MA 13/69b Pt. 1 (24-27) 13-09-1866 Te Peeti Te Aweawe & Kerei Te Panau to Featherston affirming their intention to sell. MA 13/69b Pt. 1 Hoani Meihana Te Rangiotu warning Featherston not to purchase any of his lands from (32-36) 13-09-1866 others claiming to have title. MA 13/69b Pt. 1 (40-41) 17-09-1866 Te Peeti Te Aweawe reminding Featherston was going to give Te Aweawe a gun. Aperahama Tipae; Hapurona?; Mohi Mahi; Rihimonda Tuawhea; Te Waitene Marumaru MA 13/69b Pt. 1 to Featherston commenting that Kawana Hunia had negotiated the price of the Rangitikei (42-44) 20-09-1866 and that he would visiting Featherston soon. Te Hiriwanu? Kaimokopuna; Wirihana Kaimokopuna; Tiweta; Huru; Te Warena to MA 13/69b Pt. 1 Featheston requesting if the money for the land was being given to "Governor Hunia." (45-47; 56-57) 22-09-1866 and a letter asking for a reserve. MA 13/69b Pt. 1 Hoani Meihana (includes Rangimairehau) to Feathesrton in support of an investigations (63-67) 22-10-1866 of title before further purchases are made. (two English translations) MA 13/69b Pt. 1 (81-84) 5-11-1866 Buller to Featherston, memo regarding Rangitikei purchase. MA 13/69b Pt. 1 (85-88) 7-11-1866 Buller to Featherston, update on the negotiations regarding the Rangitikei purchase. MA 13/69b Pt. 1 26?-11- (88-97) 1866 Buller’s writing, petition opposing the sale of land in the Rangitikei-Manawatu. MA 13/69b Pt. 1 Buller to Richmond, report on the sale of the Rangitikei including a discussion of (98-109) 14-11-1866 purchase prices.

MA 13/69b Pt. 2 Featherston to Richmond, draft of a report on the land purchased, prices paid and (11-43) 23-03-1867 reserves that were negotiated.

MA 13/69b Pt. 2 (2) 24-?-1867 Letter entirely in te reo Maori.

MA 13/69b Pt. 2 Te Peeti Te Aweawe & Kerei Te Panau and others regarding the boundary of the (46-49) 29-03-1867 Rangitikei-Manawatu block. MA 13/69b Pt. 2 (5-6) 13-03-1867 Hunia Te Hakeke/ ? Te Kiore. Letters entirely in te reo Maori.

MA 13/69b Pt. 3 Kawana Hunia and others to Fox, Featherston, stating that he could not go to the (17-20) 20-11-1868 arbitration court because he was busy fencing his land. MA 13/69b Pt. 3 Hunia Te Hakeke Te Peeti Te Aweawe and others to Featherston that McDonald had (24-26) 15-12-1868 visited Hunia and others regarding payment for land.

MA 13/69b Pt. 4 (100-101) 9-07-1869 Hunia Te Hakeke to Featherston inquiring about payment in te reo Maori. MA 13/69b Pt. 4 (107-109) 17-07-1869 Hoani Meihana to Featherston regarding the distribution of payment. MA 13/69b Pt. 4 Hoani Amorangi and others to Featherston indicating that McDonald had visited Hunia (2-4) 4-02-1869 and others regarding payment for land. MA 13/69b Pt. 4 Hoani Puihi, Heta Te Whata, Tamati Maunu and 12 others. Needs translating, with three (5-6; 12, 16) 11-02-1869 other letters ‘Hector McDonal was placed on the land by Muaupoko in 1857’ Wiremu Waka Te Rangi and others to Featherston. Hoani Meihana did not want a survey MA 13/69b Pt. 4 completed until 4400 pounds was paid for his share of the land. Rangimairehau is at (17-18) 11-02-1869 Puketorara MA 13/69b Pt. 4 Hector McDonald (for Whatanui ) to Featherston, McDonald wrote a letter for Whatanui in (30-31) 25-02-1869 support of their claim to the land on which McDonald's house was built. MA 13/69b Pt. 4 19 July Metariki Matao on behalf of Muaupoko Want to work on telegraph line ‘in their district’ (110) 1869 but ‘afraid of trouble’ MA 13/69b Pt. 4 Kararaina Neketini to Featheston claiming ownership of land on which Hector McDonald (32) 1-03-1869 resides MA 13/69b Pt. 4 (59-62) 21-04-1869 Whiti Patato, opponent of land sales complaining about harassment by soldiers. MA 13/69b Pt. 5 Three letters in te reo Maori, one long, two short and the end of a report by a Crown (4-27) ? official.

MA 13/70c Buller, Memorandum regarding the process of obtaining consent from Manawatu Maori to the sale of land. Also enclosed are a couple of supporting letters from Nepia MA 13/70c (28-47) 15-11-1866 Taratoa and Tamati Puna and others Richmond to Featherston forwarding letters from Rangitane who claim that their share MA 13/70e (43-49) 20-03-1867 of the purchase money was far too small. Featherston to Richmond reporting on the land purchased, prices paid and reserves that were negotiated; notes of a meeting in December 1866 between the Maori groups and Dr. Featherston; a deed of cession; notes of "Native Leases"; memoranda with Rangitane and Ngati Apa as to reserves; notes of a meeting of Rangitane in January 1867; Deed contains 68 Muaupoko signatures, for which they share equally in payment MA 13/70f (2-50) 22-03-1867 of £1400 with Rangitane. At pp.25-26 he lists ‘principal men’ with hapu affiliation Rolleston to Featherston forwarding February 1867 letter from Te Peeti Aweawe MA 13/70f (63-65) 16-04-1867 regarding Rangitane's payment.

2-12(?)- Letter in te reo Maori, with some English in the end regarding the sellers and non- MA 13/70g (45-47) 1871 sellers of the Rangitikei-Manawatu block. MA 13/70g (49-62) ? Letter in te reo Maori. MA 13/70g (8-29) ? Rough draft of a memorandum regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu sale.

MA 13/71 Buller, Notes of evidence regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu claims in the Native Land MA 13/71 14-19 Jul 1869 Court, mainly to do with pre-purchase history customary interests so it was not copied.

MA 13/72a

MA 13/72a (148- Two copies of the proceedings of a meeting held between Maori groups and McLean 190) 22-11-1870 regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase at Buls. MA 13/72a (196- 202) 21-11-1870 McLean, Memorandum regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase. MA 13/72a (203- 204) 21-11-1870 Memorandum regarding a visit by Mr. McDonald to see McLean. Two copies of the proceedings of a meeting held between Maori groups and McLean regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase. Peeti Te Aweawe: don’t listen to Raukawa, especially the claims they are making about Horowhenua, which he considers to be his. Accepts the claim of Raukawa ‘who were left there by Whatanui along with the Muaupoko’, he promises to fight everyone else. P.25 Meeting at 70-mile bush 2-3 MA 13/72a (23- December 1870. Third issue – question of payment of Peeti to Kemp for his share in the 55) 10-11-1870 sale of the Manawatu block. MA 13/72a (241) 29-11-1870 Notes of a short meeting held in McLean's quarters at the Whanganui Hotel. MA 13/72a (242- Notes of meetings held from 29 Nov to 2 Dec at Putiki Waranui with Ngati Apa and 268) 29-11-1870 others. MA 13/72a (274- 280) 29-11-1870 Notes of a meeting between Buller and other members of Ngati Apa in Whanganui. Three copies of the proceedings of a meeting held between Maori groups and McLean regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase at Oroua. P.105 McLean warns them of MA 13/72a (74- developments south of Manawatu, to be termperate and avoid angry disputes (directed at 147) (307-340) 18-11-1870 Hunia and Kemp). MA 13/72a (349- 351) 30-10-1868 Young to Featherston regarding sellers and non-sellers.

MA 13/72b Ng.Apa using armed intimidation over Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase, before Horowhenua. Featherston’s admission that NgApa might never have attempted a trial of strength with the Ngati Raukawa in the absence of the powerful support of their Wanganui allies’ (who receive £2000 of purchase payment). MA 13/72b (18- 19, 24-26) 21-08-1867 Te Peeti Te Aweawe to Buller regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase. MA 13/72b (2- 5) 05-12-1870 Notes of a meeting between McLean and Pakakohi women. Featherston to Richmond. A different copy of the report on the land purchased, prices paid and reserves that were negotiated and enclosed with it are: notes of a meeting in December 1866 between the Maori groups and Dr. Featherston; a deed of cession; memoranda with Rangitane and Ngati Apa as to reserves; notes of a meeting of Rangitane in January 1867. In MA 13/72b (35- this copy the notes of the December 1866 meeting are much longer than those contained in 139) 23-03-1867 MA 13/70f and there is also a January 1867 letter from Rolleston to Koore Te One. p.55-109 Featherston’s notes of purchase meeting at Parewanui – he lists ‘Runanga chiefs’ – 60 of them to discuss distribution. Deadlock over distribution is insightful. See Ihakara’s proposal of distribution – Rangitane and Muaupoko would be in southern portion with Raukawa, leaving Apa with Whanganui. Rangitane want it split three ways: Raukawa, Apa, Rangitane. Then Kawana’s proposal £5000 split five ways: Ng.Apa (Rangitikei); Ng.Apa (Turakina, Whangaehu); Ng.Raukawa/Ng.Toa; Rangitane/Muaupoko; Whanganui. Muaupoko accepts this, Raukawa doesn’t. Featherston’s counter offer: £15,000 to Apa allies (in which he includes Rangitane and Muaupoko), and £10,000 to Raukawa allies. Muaupoko fit into either party. Te Keepa urges Kawana to accept. Who is actually representing Muaupoko? Kawana’s stance: ‘I will drive Ngati Raukawa off the land. Let them hold it if they can.’

MA 13/73a MA 13/73a (107-111) 08-10-1866 Wiriharai, Wiremu Kingi and others to Grey, list of opponents to the sale of the Rangitikei. MA 13/73a J T Edwards to Russell forwarding affidavit from a group of Maori (unnamed) who opposed (124-126) 6-11-1866 the sale.

MA 13/73a Featherston to Richmond. A different copy of a similar report to that directly above except this one is signed by Featherston and contains a couple of tables regarding the different MA 13/73a claims. ‘Remote claimants’ includes Muaupoko, together with ‘approximate strength of (135-152) 14-11-1866 tribe’. Muaupoko ‘unanimous in favour of sale’.

MA 13/73b MA 13/73b McDonald to ? Report of a meeting of "hauhau" at Wi Hapi's, although the first (121-123) 68-1821 19-12-1868 page is missing. MA 13/73b James Bull to Cooper respecting actions taken by Kawana Hunia regarding his (124-126) 68-1823 17-12-1868 will. MA 13/73b McDonald to Stafford, that Ngati Apa be restrained from interfering with the (127-129) 68-1824 17-12-1868 work of James Bull. Alexander McDonald (who appears to be writing on behalf of the Ngati Raukawa non-sellers) warns that ‘unless the Govt take some active measures to restrain the impetuosity of Kawana Hunia the peace of the district will entirely be broken.’ In spite of the Government’s guarantee to the non-sellers ‘that no part of the land will be taken possession of until the whole question has been finally determined by competent authority’ (that is, by the Native Land Court), ‘Kawana Hunia has taken possession of Pakapakatea’ while Rangitane have staked their claim to Puketotara. After setting fire ‘to the whares of two or three Ngatiraukawa residents . . . Kawana Hunia gave Mr James Bull notice that he was going to destroy the steam mill erected by the latter with the full consent of all the tribes at Pakapakatea.’ According to McDonald, Hunia was only prevented from ‘actually tearing down the premises . . . by the expressed determination of the Ngatiraukawa not to permit the act.’

Describing Kawana Hunia as ‘strutting about with a Govt revolver slung over his shoulder, declaring his intention to complete the destruction of the mill unless his title to the land is immediate acknowledged’, McDonald ‘most earnestly and respectfully’ begs the Government not to permit the patience of Ngatiraukawa to be tried in this matter.’ ‘Kawana Hunia’, McDonald insists, ‘must wait like other people until his rights are ascertained by law.’

The final page and possibly others are missing from this letter. Kawana Hunia and others to Bowen defending their sale of the Manawatu block MA 13/73b and asked that the claims of Ngati Raukawa not be referred to the Native Land (185-191) 21-11-1868 Court again. MA 13/73b (23- 28) 11-03-1868 A letter regarding the Native Land Court and the Manawatu block. Featherston to Richmond regarding reserves for Rangitane, Ngati Apa and MA 13/73b others, speaks ill of McDonald. Also attached is a 2/10/68 draft of a letter from (239-243) 68-1573 23-10-1868 Richmond to Featherston. Alexander McDonald to Richmond, attached letters from Ngati Raukawa non- MA 13/73b sellers Rawiri Te Wanui and Akapita Te Tewe providing him with authority to (244-249) 68-1448 26-09-1868 represent them in Court. alleging that Featherston has been encouraging Ng.Apa to breach the peace, disrupt squatters (with purchase in mind) – the destruction of Ng.Raukawa sheep ‘Ngatiapa having repeatedly stated that they were acting under the authority of the Commissioner Dr Featherson’.p.245. Peeti Te Aweawe to Grey, that Featherston had promised to get back the 4400 MA 13/73b pounds stolen by Ngati Apa from Peeti Te Aweawe and his people. If (269-273) 67-150 27-02-1867 Featherston could not recover the money he should pay Peeti himself. MA 13/73b Wiremu Waka Te Rangi to Rolleston, that Rangitane were set to receive 5000 (274-277) 67-66 02-1867 pounds but had only received 600. They demanded the remaining 4400. The signatories of this letter write of the ‘great trouble’ they are in as a result of having ‘lost’ the greater part of their share of the payment for the Rangitikei-Manawatu block. They have only received £600 of the £5000 they expected to be paid. They inform the Native Secretary and Minister that they publicly addressed Featherston on the matter on 19 January 1867 insisting that he should ‘make good’ to them they were supposed to have received. The signatories also note that they wrote to Featherston on 11 February 1867 informing him of their objection ‘to the land being surveyed’ until their money ‘was forthcoming.’ In addition to Wiremu Waka Te Rangi, the letter is signed by:

Karanama Te Ra Renata Hiha Pauroa Te Ripo Heihana Te Rangi Hekanaiaha Paeroa

MA 13/73b Heta Parie Ihaka Te Aweawe Te Rangimairahau Te Waitere Kakiwa Raiura Te Aweawe Matiu Te Rangi Miriama Te Rangi Kararaina Te Ra Ripeka Hiha Hoani Meihana Te Rangiotu to Rolleston, that he was pleased to hear that the government would investigate the discrepancy of the purchase money paid to MA 13/73b Rangitane. Also attached was a 23/02 letter from Rolleston to Featherston (278-279, 281) 67-44 27-01-1867 regarding Hoani. MA 13/73b Meihana to Rolleston, claiming that he and his tribe had been cheated out of their (282-285) 31-12-1866 share of the purchase money for the Manawatu block. MA 13/73b Parakaia Te Pouepa to Richmond asking that the government take away the arms (285-290) 15-07-1868 and ammunition in the possession of Ngati Apa. Parakaia calls upon the Minister to ‘fetch away’ from Ngati Apa ‘your guns and the powder and the caps.’ Parakaia is writing from outside ‘the pa of Ngati Apa’. He and Major Kemp have have attempted to get Kawana Hunia to give up his government issued arms and ammunition but he refuses to do so. At the urging of Major Kemp, Ngati Raukawa went to the Ngati Apa pa to discuss the issue. Once inside, however, Parakaia was ‘caught and thrown outside the earthworks.’ Parakaia writes that he asked Ngati Apa to ‘put an end to killing the sheep, stop at the 500 already killed & leave the 700 alive, let the Pakehas kill them.’ Kawana apparently replied that Featherston had told him ‘to eat up all the sheep.’ Parakaia accuses Ngati Apa of having ‘made permanent the land feud’ between them and Ngati Raukawa. MA 13/73b Rolleston, memo about a meeting of the Native Land Court regarding the (291-293) ? Manawatu and notes about Ngati Apa's rights of occupation in the region. MA 13/73b Native Office to Fox Regarding the payment to claimants for their expenses (315-319) 29-03-1870 while attending NLC hearings. Akapita Te Tewe to Richmond explaining the reasons why Akapita had MA 13/73b requested payment for the government for his expenses while attending the NLC (320-323) 69-20 07-01-1869 hearings. MA 13/73b (324-329) 69-48 01-02-1869 Hunia Te Hakeke toRichmond stating that he had not built a new pa. Hunia writes to inform the new Secretary for Native Affairs G. S. Cooper that he has ‘no newly built pa.’ The previous year he completed a pa at Pakapakatea, a location that he says was ‘owned by us Ngatiapa of old.’ Hunia assures the Secretary that he and his tribe ‘are not inciting that mad tribe Ngatiraukawa to fight.’ He asks Cooper to ‘issue orders’ to Alick McDonald whom he claims is deceiving Ngati Apa and teaching Ngati Raukawa ‘what they are to say.’ Ngati Apa, the letter insists, are ‘very much troubled’ by ‘the work’ of McDonald who is claiming that Ngati Apa have no right to live on the south side of the Rangitikei River, ‘that Ngatiraukawa alone are to live there.’ Te Peeti Te Aweawe & Kerei Te Panau and others to Richmond & Featherston MA 13/73b asking that the Rangitikei rents be equally divided between Ngati Apa, Ngati (351-352) 10-05-1869 Raukawa and Rangitane. MA 13/73b Te Peeti Te Aweawe to Cooper, wishing the government to pay for grazing his (366-369) 69-227 21-07-1869 horses while they are occupied by the NLC hearings. Members of Ngati Apa to Fox regarding the rents accruing for the Rangitikei MA 13/73b block. Also attached is a letter from J C Williams to Fox stating that he would (379-388) 69-386 02-10-1869 only act as an agent for Ngati Raukawa under certain conditions. Buller? Receipt regarding the payment of 1623 pounds to Ngati Apa for rent payments in the Rangitikei-Manawatu block. Also attached is 21-07-1881 memo MA 13/73b for the Colonial Treasurer regarding rent that had been paid to the "Natives of (420-428) 07-03-1870 Manawatu" in 1869 and 1870. MA 13/73b Buller to Cooper requesting further funds for Manawatu claimants attending the (452) 69-886 10-08-1869 NLC hearings. MA 13/73b (453-454) 25-10-1869 E. Clark? Regarding the payment of expenses to Maori for attending the NLC. Buller to Cooper requesting another 200 pounds for claimant's expenses and complained that McDonald had not given any of the funds given to him for that MA 13/73b purpose to Maori claimants attending the hearings. Also attached is a schedule of (465-470) 69-991 02-09-1869 rents paid and owed regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu district. MA 13/73b 26to28-11- Te Peeti Te Aweawe; Kerei Te Panau and others, series of letters all entirely in te (543-559) 1870 reo Maori. MA 13/73b 69-653 23-06-1869 McDonald to Cooper, that he could not state how or by whom non-sellers would

MA 13/73b (706-713) be represented in the NLC. Also contains 10-07-1869 receipts of advances made to McDonald for Manawatu claimants' expenses. MA 13/73b Morgan Carkeek to Halse forwarding tracing of the land given to Pongahuru. (748-749) 71-1030 06-02-1871 (not attached) MA 13/73b Pongahuru, that he and his children be reserved 340 acres within the Rangitikei- (750-754) 71-186 20-03-1871 Manawatu block. Pongahuru to McLean, that Kemp and Carkeek had gone to see Pongahuru to MA 13/73b survey his land be had sent them away because he wanted 300 acres reserves for (755-759) 71-21 22-12-1870 him and his family. Carkeek forwards to Halse ‘a tracing showing the land given to Pongahuru and others by the Native Minister, also a piece given to the same natives by Mr Kemp, to include some graves.’ Together, ‘the two pieces . . . contain about 170 acres including flooded land.’ Pongahuru writes concerning the reserve that McLean has promised him. He asked McLean for 340 acres and he would like the Government to ‘really’ give him that.

In notes written on the reverse side of the translation Morgan Carkeek writes that McLean had given 100 acres ‘for Pongahuru & other residents at Maramaihoea’. Carkeek has surveyed this land and ‘shown the boundaries to Pongahuru.’

MA 13/75a MA 13/75a Buller to Halcombe, with copy of the reserves promised to Maori in the Rangitikei- (191-206) 69-346 12-1869 Manawatu block. MA 13/75a (210-212) 09-1869 Buller, memos regarding the payment of funds for the Manawatu block. Richmond to Featherston, received letter from Heremia and Whiti that stated their MA 13/75a intention to occupy dispute lands in the Manawatu. Richmond asked that Featherston (218-220) 69-130 9-02-1869 ensure they didn't. Pages 218 to 219. Letter (in English) from J C Richmond [Native Minister] to Dr Featherston [Superintendent, Wellington], Wellington, 9 February 1869. (NS 69.130) Richmond forwards to Featherston ‘a copy of a letter from Heremia and Whiti, in which they threaten to kill any sheep that may be depastured on land in the Rangitikei district at present in dispute.’ He asks the Superintendent ‘to prevent occupation of the land referred to by Heremaia, and other lands within the block until the existing disputes are settled.’

Page 220. Copy of a translation of a letter from Heremia and Whiti to Alick [Alexander McDonald?], Kaiwi, 31 January 1869. This is the letter referred to by Richmond in the previous document. Heremia and Whiti write ‘in respect of the pieces of land which are in dispute between the Government and the Hauhau.’ They warn that ‘if the sheep are sent to that place, they will be killed and it will be same in all disputed places.’ Contrary to what Richmond says in the previous letter, the land referred to by Heremia and Whiti does not appear to be within Rangitikei-Manawatu but rather ‘at Horowhenua’ where it is being leased ‘by Muaupoko and Ngati Huia.’ Halse to Akapita Te Tewe; Hunia Te Hakeke, asking in separate but very similar letters MA 13/75a 11-12 Jul to refrain from taking any action with regards to their claims until the government was (236-240) 1868 finished its investigation. Pages 263 to 264. ‘No 10’, untranslated document in Te Reo Maori from Wiremu Pukapuka, Tamihana Whareakaka, Tapa Te Whata, Terea Te Toko, Tarekanma Te Arahori [?], and Toi Pongahuru to Te Petatone Huparateneti [Superintendent Featherston] and Te Pura Komihana [Commissioner Buller], 17 Aperira 1866. This is the tenth of the applications for land listed by Buller in his ‘Analysis of Applications for Grants of Land in the Manawatu- Rangitikei’ by those he has identified as Ngati Raukawa (see document 94). This document does not appear to have been translated. According to Buller the application sets out the ‘boundaries of the Maramaihoea Settlement.’[p 243] MA 13/75a 18-11- (321-322) 1869 Buller to Featherston regarding payments to Ngati Apa.

Maori Affairs (MA) MA series 23 15/25 Register of chiefs, nd MA series 24/21 Miscellaneous official correspondence, 1840-42, 1844, 1863-66, 1870 (includes material on Mana Island)

Old Land Claims Commissions (OLC) ACFC 16153 OLC1/48 OLC 906-911 Case files [New Zealand Company, Wellington, Nelson, Porirua and Manawatu, Wanganui, Taranaki], nd ACFC 16153 OLC1/46 OLC 908 parts 1-3 Case files [New Zealand Company, Porirua and Manawatu], nd ACFC 16153 OLC1/71 OLC 1374 Case files [Family of Thomas Uppadine Cooke, Manawatu], nd ACFC 16153 OLC1/5 OLC 130 Case files [Daniel Cooper, James Holt and William Barnard Rhodes, Otaki and Waikanae], nd ACFC 16153 OLC1/45/942 OLC 906, parts 1-3 Case files [New Zealand Company, Wellington] Case 374 [1 item separated from file as SEP No. 942], nd ACFC 16153 OLC1/76/942 OLC 906/1 Case files [New Zealand Company, Wellington] Case 374 - Oversize sheets [SEP No. 942], nd ACFC 16153 OLC1/45 OLC 906 parts 4-5 Case files [New Zealand Company, Wellington], nd ACFC 16153 OLC1/45 OLC 906-907 Case files [New Zealand Company, Wellington and Nelson], nd ACFC 16153 OLC1/46 OLC 906-909 Case files [New Zealand Company, miscellaneous papers that had become detached from file]

See also: Wellington Provincial Council WP series 3 General inwards correspondence, 1856-76, 1864/530 (re Muhunoa block) WP series 4/86

Maori Affairs Department (Wanganui District Office) MA-Wang 1/4, 1/9, 1/11 Inwards Correspondence, Woon, 1870-80

Wanganui Regional Museum ‘Kemp file’, Kemp ms, Whanganui Regional Museum

Catholic Archdiocese of Wellington The Diocesan Archives in Wellington hold records relating to early Marist priests working in the Manawatu district from 1844 onwards. These archives were not consulted for this scoping report, and no digital finding aids are available. Research is possible Monday to Friday, 10am to 4pm, at 219 Thorndon Quay, Wellington. Contact Brother Gerard Hogg, Chief Archivist, at [email protected].

2. Nineteenth Century Land Alienation

The focus on nineteenth century land alienation begins with the Crown’s response to the New Zealand Company purchases, and its own early purchases in the district before the advent of the Native Land Court. Muaupoko appear on the periphery of these transactions, the impact of which remains to be determined. From the 1860s, a decade of colonial warfare and increasing Crown land purchase, the tribe’s stake at Horowhenua gradually assumed centrestage in the struggle over land and control. Muaupoko was awarded title to Horowhenua by the Native Land Court in 1873, but legal title was vested in a single man, Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, a major in the colonial army. The partition of the Horowhenua block in 1886 marked the beginning of large-scale alienation: portions taken for railway and the Levin township, or to pay Te Keepa’s legal debts; individual allotments quickly sold to private interests; and Muaupoko’s tribal homeland was further reduced by the Crown’s purchase for a State Farm. A commission of inquiry into these transactions in 1896 resulted in further alienation, while Native Land Court determination of relative interests and partition in 1898 marked the end of any collective, tribal tenure over the remaining lands in Muaupoko ownership.

2.1. Old Land Claims/New Zealand Company Purchases

The New Zealand Company’s activities and the Crown’s response have been considered by the Te Whanganui a Tara Tribunal, albeit with a primary focus on the Port Nicholson deed.45 Early Crown and New Zealand Company dealings have also been dealt with at length by the Te Tau Ihu Tribunal.46 The Kapiti deed was one of three sweeping transactions undertaken by the company months before the Treaty, in which Ngati Toa chiefs purported to cede a vast rohe defined in terms of latitudinal boundaries, amounting to some 20 million acres. A further New Zealand Company deed was transacted by William Wakefield with Ngati Raukawa in the summer of 1841-42 for land between the Rangitikei and Horowhenua.

The company’s claim based on the Kapiti deed was subsequently disallowed by the Spain Commission (a decision which ultimately led to the government ‘purchase’ of Porirua in 1847). In March 1843 Commissioner Spain and his interpreter, together with Sub-Protector of Aborigines George Clarke Junior, travelled up the west coast, discussing the company claims with Maori at Porirua, Waikanae, Otaki, Horowhenua and Manawatu. In the official hearing over the Manawatu claim, Te Whatanui, Te Ahu Karamu and Taratoa conceded the purchase, while others made it clear

45 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Whanganui a Tara me ona Takiwa: Report on the Wellington District, (Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2003). 46 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka, chapter 4.

43 they had neither consented nor received any payment. Spain was amenable to the company’s Manawatu claim but when he and Clarke returned with Wakefield in January 1844 with £3000 to complete the transaction, Ngati Raukawa refused to accept the payment. In the face of this opposition, and since there was no deed or authority for the post-1840 purchase under which Spain could issue a grant, the company’s claim here failed except for one hundred acres at Horowhenua, called ‘Te Taniwa’, which Te Whatanui and Te Huri transferred by deed to the company on 25 April 1844.47 In addition, in view of what he considered to have been a partial sale, Spain recommended that the company be given a right of pre-emption to lands between the Rangitikei and Horowhenua rivers.

The Commission also considered a number of private individual land claims around Porirua, Kapiti and Mana Islands based on pre-Treaty transactions.48

Claims

Wai 52 on behalf of Ngai Tara/Muaupoko and Wai 1490 on behalf of Ngati Whanokirangi both make similar claims with respect to Crown’s actions over the New Zealand Company purchases. In particular, it is alleged that:

 The Crown failed to recognise the claimants’ ancestral, customary and historical associations with lands and resources in the Port Nicholson and Kapiti purchase deeds, and consequently failed to consult or deal with them prior to issue of Crown grants in 1845;  The Crown failed to investigate or recognise the same with regard to the Spain Commission, with regard either to process or subsequent arbitration and compensation, and Crown grant;  The Crown failed to set aside reserves for the claimants in Whanganui a Tara; and  The Crown failed to ensure sufficient land and resource retention; failed to protect iwi interests in the context of rapidly increasing settler population; failed to consult and; failed to protect claimants’ wahi tapu within Te Whanganui a Tara.49

It will be noted that such claims relate to Te Whanganui a Tara, an area that has already been the subject of Tribunal inquiry. On that occasion, in the absence of any evidence of Muaupoko occupation or resource use within the Port Nicholson block after and immediately before 1840, the Tribunal considered that the tangata whenua of Te Whanganui a Tara had lost their lands by raupatu before the advent of the Crown, and that it is not in the power of the Crown to restore rights lost in such a way.50 The above claims however, stand with regard to Muaupoko/Ngai Tara and Ngati Whanokirangi interests in the wider Porirua ki Manawatu Inquiry District.

In their feedback to the project brief, counsel for the Muaupoko Claimant Cluster indicated that old land claims, scrip and surplus lands, including the Crown’s investigation of these pre-Treaty

47 Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, pp.30-32; 38-39. 48 Ibid, pp. 32-3. 49 Wai 52, #1.1(e); Wai 1490, #1.1.1. 50 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Whanganui a Tara me ona Takiwa, pp. 37-8

44 transactions, together with the 1844-1846 pre-emption waiver claims should be the focus of research. It was stated that old land claims have traditionally been a contentious issue for which evidence is scarce.

Issues

It is widely accepted that tangata whenua were not party to the original Company transactions, and nor were their interests represented to or considered by the Spain commission.51 At the risk of perpetuating the marginalisation of Muaupoko interests, given the prominent role of tangata heke groups in these transactions it is suggested that the details of these early transactions are better dealt with in the substantive reports of Ngati Raukawa and Te Ati Awa/Ngati Awa. It is considered that research effort would be better directed at establishing what impact, if any, the New Zealand Company claims had on Muaupoko interests, as set out in the previous section, rather than repeating the detail of the transactions themselves.

2.2. Early Crown Purchases, 1840-1870

The Crown’s first land purchase in the Inquiry District was that of Porirua, from Ngati Toa chiefs in April 1847. Purchase was Governor Grey’s strategy to resolve ongoing conflict between company settlers and Maori in the region, and to safeguard Wellington from future attack. The same strategy was used at the New Zealand Company settlement of Wanganui where, in May 1848 after two months of ‘hard talking’, Donald McLean succeeded in transacting a deed transferring some 86,000 acres to the Crown. Pleased with this outcome, in December 1848 McLean was instructed to continue purchasing ‘the whole of the Native claims to the country between Porirua and Whangaehu…’.

The Crown’s subsequent purchases in the Porirua ki Manawatu Inquiry District are summarised in the following table:52

Table 2: Early Crown purchases in Porirua ki Manawatu

Block Date Acreage Land Purchase Officer Signatories Rangitikei-Turakina Jan-May 1849 225,000 Donald McLean Ngati Apa Whareroa April-Nov 1858 34,000 William Searancke Ngati Toa Te Awahou Nov 1858 – May 37,000 Searancke Ngati Whakakore and others 1859 Wainui Feb-June 1859 30,000 Searancke Ngati Toa Muhunoa May 1860 - ? Searancke, Isaac Featherston, Te Roera Hukiki, Karaipi Te Walter Buller Puke; Ngati Raukawa Papakowhai May 1862 Featherston Ngati Toa Ahuaturanga July 1864 250,000 Featherston, Buller Rangitane, Ngati Kauwhata, Ngati Tumokai

51 Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p.29. 52 Taken from J. Luiten, ‘Exploratory Report on Early Crown Purchases on the West Coast of the North Island’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 1992). Note that important background on the policy and practice of Crown’s purchasing in this period is contained in Waitangi Tribunal’s Wairarapa ki Tararua Report, Wai 863, 3 volumes, (Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2010), vol 1, chapter 3a.

Block Date Acreage Land Purchase Officer Signatories Te Awahou reserves: Paretao June – Dec 1864 280 Featherston Te Rei Paehua and others Haumiaroa 1243 Te Rei Paehua and others ‘Wereta’s block’ 440 Wereta Te Waha and others Mana Island Dec 1865 Featherston Ngati Toa Rangitikei-Manawatu May 1858 – Dec 250,000 James Grindell, Searancke, Ngati Toa, Ngati Raukawa, 1866 Featherston, Buller, McLean Rangitane, Muaupoko, Te Ati Awa, Whanganui

On the one hand, the competing and complex tribal interests at work on the coast initially appeared to frustrate the purchase ambitions of the Wellington Provincial Government and the general government. In his early role as district purchase officer, McLean was all too aware of such interests and saw little point in proceeding with purchases that were strongly contested. McLean successfully negotiated the Rangitikei-Turakina purchase in May 1849, having first secured a concession from other interested iwi of Ngati Apa’s right to transact. But he baulked at instructions to proceed with the purchase of the Manawatu, on account of the ‘conflicting interests of the several tribes concerned that must be handled with delicacy and caution…’, and similarly discontinued negotiations over Whareroa until Ngati Toa and Te Ati Awa had resolved their issues over the right to sell.53

In 1854 McLean was promoted to Chief Land Purchase Commissioner, and no further transactions took place under his successors G S Cooper and William Searancke until April 1858, when a deposit was made on account of Whareroa. Searancke seemed less concerned with reconciling underlying interests as a prerequisite to purchase, with mixed results. He did obtain a deed for the Te Awahou block at the mouth of the Manawatu river, a transaction that was ‘disputed inch by inch and was only completed under considerable difficulty’,54 but similar efforts to obtain the wider Manawatu fell through. In 1860, convinced that purchase payments were being sent to help the war effort in Taranaki, land purchase operations were discontinued altogether.

By the mid-1860s on the other hand, Crown purchase was increasingly touted to resolve escalating tribal conflict over lease and sale rights. The importance attached to acquiring land in the district is indicated by the appointment of the provincial superintendent, Dr. Isaac Featherston, as land purchase commissioner in 1862. On the west coast he was assisted by the Resident Magistrate at Manawatu, Walter Buller. The deed and payment for Rangitikei-Manawatu was transacted in 1866, but McLean was compelled to return subsequently to conciliate the widespread dissatisfaction over the purchase, including the objections of non-sellers, complaints about reserves, and the distribution of the purchase payment. Purchasing the complex interests in the Rangitikei-Manawatu had taken more than a decade, and some interests remained unsettled. From 1868 onwards, Crown policy was directed instead to the purchase of blocks and interests which had first been determined by the Native Land Court.

53 McLean to Eyre, 25 October 1849, Ms-papers 32 (3), Alexander Turnbull Library, cited in Luiten, p. 21. 54 Memorandum by Wm Searancke, 5 July 1861, Le 1/1861/229, Archives NZ Wellington, cited in Luiten, p.30.

Claims

There appear to be no specific Muaupoko claims about the Crown’s early purchases in the Inquiry District. Wai 52 claimants make a general claim about the alienation of Ngai Tara/Muaupoko land, and its ‘transfer’ to other iwi, but this could equally be about title determination. The only purchases referred to directly in their Statement of Claim are those between 1874 and 1881 by Ngati Raukawa.55

However, the Tribunal has since received speaking notes from Sandra Williams submitted as a result of the February 2014 Korero Tuku Iho hearings at Kawiu marae.56 Mrs Williams contends that Muaupoko still lived in their traditional areas in Te Waipounamu, Kapiti Coast, Manawatu, Tararua and Horowhenua post-1840. It is contended that Muaupoko identified their interest in a number of blocks which were purchased by the Crown between 1852 and 1872. In particular it is claimed that the Crown was aware of Muaupoko interests in Te Taitapu (Golden Bay), Wainui, Awahou, Rangitikei Manawatu, Tararua and Aorangi blocks (also known as Taonui/Oroua and Tuwhakatupua), but that despite being deed signatories, and in some cases receiving part payment, no reserves were provided for Muaupoko in such land alienation. It is claimed that the lack of provision contributed to landlessness, transiency, and the concentration of Muaupoko in their remaining Horowhenua block, eventually resulting in raruraru with the permanent residents when Horowhenua was partitioned.

In their feedback on the scoping project brief, counsel for the Muaupoko claimant cluster identified Crown acquisitions from 1840 to the present as something that required quantifying and assessing.

Issues

For the same reasons as those given above with respect to the Old Land Claims and Company Claims, it is suggested that the details of Crown purchases are better dealt with in the historical issues project for tangata heke groups. This does not mean the various Crown purchases would be entirely ignored in the substantive Muaupoko Land and Politics Report. Rather, as set out in the previous section, Muaupoko participation or exclusion in the various purchases would be considered in terms of the extent to which their interests were recognised and provided for by the Crown. There is evidence, for example, that the tribe participated to some degree in the purchases of Te Taitapu, Porirua, and Rangitikei-Manawatu. Noa Te Whata informed Featherston of his interest in Muhunoa in June 1864, which may have been a factor behind the protracted negotiations.57 But there does not seem much point in duplicating research effort and reporting on the details of the purchases themselves. Research would also establish, as far as possible, the impact of Crown purchase on Muaupoko settlement

55 Wai 52, #1.1(e), 21; 27. 56 Appendix 2 in Memorandum of Counsel for the Muaupoko Tribal Authority, Nga Korero Tuku Iho Presentation Material, 4 April 2014, Wai 2200, #A26. 57 Noa Te Whata to Featherston, 16 June 1864, in MA 13/75a, Archives NZ Wellington.

47 patterns, bearing in mind Sandra Williams’ contention above, together with Diana Morrow’s study, which suggests that purchase was a factor behind ongoing movement within the district.

2.3. Native Land Court Title and Partition, 1872-1886

The Native Land Court was initially kept out of the district, pending the Crown’s purchase negotiations of the Rangitikei-Manawatu block. It was then introduced to determine the interests of the Ngati Raukawa ‘non-sellers’ who objected to the Crown purchase. These early hearings hinged on the ‘conquest’ debate, and the court’s decisions were hugely controversial. The Himatangi decision of 1868 found that Ngati Raukawa shared equally with tangata whenua, and only to the extent of people ‘in actual occupancy to the exclusion of all others’. The following year the court found further that Ngati Raukawa as a whole had not gained dominion of the Rangitikei-Manawatu block, nor any interest through occupation. Rather three hapu, Ngati Kahoro, Ngati Parewahawaha and Ngati Kauwhata were found to have accrued rights, with the consent of Ngati Apa.58

Horowhenua Block Title 1873

Native Land Court determination of title got underway in earnest in 1872. Initial Muaupoko resistance both to the court and to the prerequisite survey reported by James Grindell in June 1872 appears to have been temporarily overcome by July with the promise to Kawana Hunia that the tribe could put up their ‘posts and markers’ and conduct a survey ‘wherever they chose’, which they promptly did at Otaki.59 By September however the survey was once again stopped, Grindell attributing Muaupoko’s resistance throughout to Hunia’s influence.

In the event, the investigation of title to Horowhenua was not of Muaupoko’s making. Rather, Horowhenua was part of an application by Ngati Raukawa in 1872 for title to the larger Manawatu- Kukutauaki block, to which a counter claim was mounted by a tangata whenua alliance including Rangitane, Ngati Apa, Whanganui, Ngati Kahungunu and Muaupoko. On this occasion, in the face of Te Keepa and Kawana Hunia’s refusal to take part, Hoani Meihana claimed to have been nominated by Muaupoko to represent their interests in the block.60 In the result, Horowhenua was excluded from the award of Kukutauaki to Ngati Raukawa, on the basis that Muaupoko had ownership rights there which were yet to be determined.

Ngati Raukawa were again the applicants, and Kemp representing Muaupoko, the reluctant counter- claimants, for the subsequent title investigation for Horowhenua heard in Foxton from 25 March to 5 April 1873. The whole was awarded to Muaupoko on the basis that ‘Muaupoko was in possession of the land at Horowhenua when Te Whatanui went there, that they still occupy these lands, and that

58 Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, pp. 127-134. 59 Ibid, p. 176. 60 Morrow, p. 42.

48 they had never been dispossessed of them.’61 Halfway through the hearing the court had adjourned to inspect the boundaries in the company of Te Keepa, at which point the southern coastal boundary was extended to Waiwiri, encompassing an area occupied by Te Whatanui’s people. The certificate of title for Horowhenua was awarded under s.17 of the Native Lands Act 1867 to Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, on behalf of 143 Muaupoko registered owners. There are allegations in government archives from the time that the owners’ list was compiled and handed in by Te Keepa without consultation with Muaupoko, and that the list included military comrades with no rights to the land.62

The Horowhenua decision was hotly contested, particularly by the Ngati Raukawa residents at Raumatangi. Applications for rehearing were ignored by the government. Tension at Horowhenua escalated when Ngati Raukawa homes were set alight in December 1873, the conflict widening to include supporters on both sides. In January 1874 Native Minister Donald McLean stepped in to mediate a solution. At Otaki McLean refused to reopen the question of title, instead encouraging the aggrieved Ngati Raukawa parties to leave matters with him to settle. In a subsequent deal in Wellington, McLean secured Te Keepa’s agreement to give over 1300 acres at Lake Horowhenua for the descendants of Te Whatanui and a reserve on the southern boundary between Papaitonga and the sea. Other aggrieved Ngati Raukawa were placated with further payments and promises of reserves.63

The extent to which Muaupoko interests were recognised by the court outside of Horowhenua has yet to be determined. The Tararua block is one such block (outside the inquiry district) that Muaupoko appear to have asserted rights to throughout the 1870s.64 The Muaupoko Ngarara block is another obvious target for research. There is also the possibility that even though Muaupoko interests may not have been openly acknowledged in Native Land Court judgements in this period, these interests may nonetheless have been reflected by the inclusion of Muaupoko tribal members in the ownership lists resulting from any title investigation. An analysis of ownership lists to determine the extent of any such interest would require a familiarity with Muaupoko names.

Horowhenua Block Partition 1886

For more than a decade following the determination of title of Horowhenua the block remained intact, neither Crown nor private purchase agents able to effect an alienation of Muaupoko’s land. The decision to partition Horowhenua Block in 1886 appears to have been driven by a number of factors.

61 Important Judgments Delivered in the Compensation Court and Native Land Court 1864-1879, Auckland, 1879, p. 136 cited in Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p.214. 62 In ACIH 16082 MA 75/2/14. Te Whatahoro (Jack Jury), Te Keepa’s lieutenant, and Te Mawae, were singled out as two individuals who had been rewarded in this way. 63 Set out in Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, pp. 222-24. 64 The Tararua block falls into the Wairarapa ki Tararua Inquiry District, and researchers are directed to that inquiry district’s record of documents for further information on the title investigation and purchase of this block. Muaupoko were reportedly present in the tribal gathering at Waipawa in 1870 that preceded the Native Land Court’s investigation of title to the northern bush lands, for example (Waitangi Tribunal, Wairarapa ki Tararua, vol.2, p.441), and archive files suggest that Muaupoko continued to press their claim to Tararua lands throughout the 1870s.

There were the external pressures from both the government and the government-sponsored Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company, both of which sought land for specific projects. Crown interest in purchasing within the Horowhenua Block was first signalled in 1878 by the proclamation under the Native Land Purchase Act 1877 prohibiting private purchase, but the government’s land purchase officers had been seemingly thwarted by the restrictions on alienation which applied to the Horowhenua title. By law, Te Keepa was apparently unable to sell, mortgage, gift or even lease the block for more than 21 years, even had he wanted to.

As Phil Taueki points out, the railway line was built and the first train up and running before the land court hearing in November 1886.65 From at least 1881 Alec McDonald had been employed by the Wellington-Manawatu Railway Company to obtain the land required for the line along the coast, using the Native Land Court process with ‘almost unexampled celerity’ to this end.66 Walter Buller also acted as counsel for the company during this time. In early 1886 McDonald was directed by the company to secure title to the line through Horowhenua. McDonald was well aware of the restrictions on alienation over Horowhenua, and he became instrumental in urging Te Keepa to consider partition, not only with the railway strip in mind, but also increasingly with regard to government aspirations to purchase land for a township. On an all-expenses paid trip to Wellington, McDonald encouraged Te Keepa to set down his vision for the proposed town, a set of terms which was subsequently agreed to by Native Minister Ballance, and which became the basis of the chief’s agreement to apply for partition. A government advance of £300 was received by Te Keepa in September on account of this agreement.67

Under the terms of agreement, the town was to be called Taitoko, after Te Keepa, and situated on 4000 acres flanking the railway. One hundred acres would be reserved as a park on the shores of Lake Horowhenua, together with a four-acre town square; and 10 acres set aside to provide for schools. The remainder would be sold to the Crown, at a price to be agreed, and surveyed at once, every tenth section returned to those Maori owners deemed by Te Keepa to be entitled. Te Keepa had divided such owners into five classes. The reservation of Lakes Horowhenua and Papaitonga, and their outlets to the sea, was also part of the deal. Te Keepa, already alive to the impact of drainage, stipulated that a one-chain strip encircling both lakes also be reserved.68

Internal pressures too, may well have been part of the decision. Months after the award in 1873 Hunia Te Hakeke and others had sought to subdivide the block, and in 1878, Te Hakeke and Ngati Pariri

65 The Manawatu Standard’s ‘special reporter’ was invited on a special trip in April 1886, by which time the line ran south through the Horowhenua block as far as Ohau, see Manawatu Standard, 27 April 1886. One of the highlights of the excursion was the walk to Horowhenua Lake from the railcar. 66 ‘The Wellington-Manawatu Railway’, Evening Post, 19 November 1881, p.2. 67 Horowhenua Commission, AJHR 1896, G-2, p.7. 68 Ibid, p.6.

50 again approached Native Minister Sheehan to have the block surveyed and subdivided.69 Te Hakeke’s subsequent attempt in August 1879 to force the issue by fencing off a portion was effectively stymied by Muaupoko, but the government’s interpreter on the ground at this time nonetheless reported that everyone bar Te Keepa wanted the land divided.70 Horowhenua by this time was one of the few large blocks to remain undivided, and Muaupoko may have welcomed the prospect of partition in order to engage in the new economic order, on their own terms, without Te Keepa’s power of veto. With regard to the individualised 105-acre sections for example, Te Keepa later testified ‘I allowed the men to have this land to satisfy them, and to keep the block by the lake as a place where we would live for ever.’71 It is evident that Te Keepa himself was under financial pressure, reflected by his request to Muaupoko at the partition hearing to set aside land in his name to satisfy legal debts incurred with respect to other land holdings.

The partition hearing took place before Judge J.A. Wilson in Palmerston North in late 1886. According to McDonald, the court was adjourned to allow the tribe to arrange matters themselves. Judge Wilson later testified that these out-of-court arrangements subsequently presented by Te Keepa were accepted by the court without further question.72 McDonald was also closely involved in the partition process itself, ostensibly ‘acting’ for Te Keepa in court and advising Muaupoko outside, but paid for his services nonetheless by the company. Te Keepa and Muaupoko were accommodated throughout on the property of McDonald’s son-in-law, a Mr Palmerston, a surveyor who also took part in the tribal discussions by depicting the situation of the various partitions as they were discussed on a tracing of the block which had been made from the court record.73

As a result of the hearing, Horowhenua was divided into 14 blocks:

Table 3: The Horowhenua Block partitions, 1886

Block No. Name and description Block 1 The railway block. Containing 76 acres, in a strip running north-south the length of the railway line. The certificate of title was issued in Te Keepa’s name in order to facilitate the transfer of the land to the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company. The land was said to be a gift, in exchange for which Te Keepa was similarly gifted company shares.

Block 2 Levin township. Containing 4000 acres east of Lake Horowhenua, earmarked for the township negotiated between Te Keepa and Native Minister Ballance. Once again, the block was awarded to Te Keepa alone, in order to facilitate a ready transfer to the Crown.

69 Hunia and 21 others to Smith, 8 December 1873; Hunia and others to Sheehan, 13 April 1878, MA 75/14 cited in Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p.257. 70 Baker to Ward, 7 June 1879, MA series 75/14, cited in Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 258. 71 AJHR 1896 G-2, p.27. 72 Ibid, p.5; McDonald, p.73. 73 Evidence of McDonald, p. 74.

Block No. Name and description Block 3 Individualised Muaupoko titles. Containing some 12,000 acres east of the lake, to be cut up into 105-acre sections for each of the 106 listed owners to whom title was awarded.74 According to Te Keepa and McDonald in 1896, five acres from each section were intended for roads, giving each tribal member their own 100 acres.75 Muaupoko were also told that the survey costs of this partition would be met by the payment received from the government for the township block.

Blocks 4, 5, 7, 8 Subdivisions for others. These subdivisions were all set apart for specific individuals who, ‘though members of the tribe, were not interested in the tribal lands to the same extent as the remaining members’; and awarded ‘in full satisfaction of their claims.76

Block 4, of 512 acres, awarded to Hirote Teihi and 29 others. Block 5, of 4 acres, awarded to Tamati Taopuku and Tupii Kotuka. Block 7, of 311 acres, awarded to Waata Tamatea, Te Peeti te Aweawe, and Hoani Meihana. Block 8, of 264 acres, awarded to Mere Karena Te Manaotuwhaki, Ruakota, and Karena Tarawhao.

Block 6 The ‘Rerewaho’. Containing 4620 acres, adjoining Block 3 to the south. Like Block 3, Block 6 was intended to provide individualised, 105-acre sections for 44 people who had been inadvertently left out of the list of owners drawn up in 1873. In 1896 John Broughton, a member of Muaupoko, testified that the identity of entitled ‘rerewaho’ in 1886 had resulted from collective tribal deliberation over ‘four or five hours’, the list of names then submitted to Te Keepa for the court.77 Even so, title was awarded to Te Keepa, not the listed owners.

Block 9 Te Whatanui’s descendants. Containing 1200 acres intended for the descendants of Te Whatanui. This partition was based on the agreement reached between Te Keepa and Native Minister McLean in February 1874, in order to settle the conflict with Ngati Raukawa over the disputed territory. Although Muaupoko had not been party to this deed, they nonetheless agreed to honour it in 1886. Once again, title was issued to Te Keepa to facilitate the transfer.

Block 10 Te Keepa’s debt. Containing 800 acres adjoining the southern boundary of the township site. This was awarded to Te Keepa in order to meet legal debts he had incurred. Muaupoko were said to have known and endorsed the award for this purpose.

Block 11 Muaupoko’s tribal estate: kainga and fishery. Containing nearly 15,000 acres on the seaward half of the block, on which were the ‘pas, cultivations, burying-places, and fishing-places of the [Muaupoko] tribe’, including Lakes Horowhenua and Papaitonga.78 Te Keepa intended to have this tribal estate awarded to himself solely, as kaitiaki, but in the face of objections from Kawana Hunia’s hapu, Warena Hunia was added to the certificate of title along with Te Keepa. Block 12 Muaupoko tribal estate: the Tararua mountain forest. Containing 13,000 acres of mountainous ngahere on the eastern end of the block, intended as a tribal estate and awarded to Ihaia Taueki, as kaitiaki.

Block 13 Wiremu Matakara’s square foot. A provision for an owner registered in 1873 that no

74 These individuals are set out at AJHR 1896, G-2 p.282. The 143 individuals are said to be listed on the back of the Certificate of Title, Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p.257. 75 Evidence of Te Keepa, p.27; McDonald, p.74, AJHR 1896, G-2. 76 AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 8 77 Ibid, evidence of John Broughton, p. 258. By 1896 the list of names had been lost, so the Horowhenua Commission took it upon itself to arrange a replacement list of individuals ‘agreed upon’ by the ‘Natives and their professional advisors’ at the hearing, p. 22. 78 Ibid, p. 11.

Block No. Name and description one could identify in 1886. Title to one square foot of land on the Tararua ranges was duly awarded by the court to Wiremu Matakara.

Block 14 A second Ngati Raukawa award? This was another 1200 acre block of land allegedly awarded to Te Keepa to satisfy the 1874 agreement with McLean with respect to Ngati Raukawa’s interests in the block. It was originally situated east of the railway, on the southern boundary of the block but was subsequently extended to the western shore of Papaitonga. According to McDonald, this was the area first offered to Ngati Raukawa, at his suggestion, because of its proximity to their block to the south. It was however rejected, and so the second area, Block 9, was made instead, by Te Whatanui’s home at Raumatangi.79

The immediate effect of the partition was the loss of some 4367 acres from the tribal estate: in terms of the blocks awarded for the railway; to other interested parties; to Ngati Raukawa; and to Te Keepa for his bills. The alienation of 4000 township acres to the Crown also represented further land loss, except the tribe was under the impression they would retain an important stake in this block.

Of more significance for the future, the certificates of title for all of these partitions conferred on the listed owners the full and unrestricted rights of ownership, including the ability to sell the land without reference to any other person.

Claims

Table 4: Muaupoko claims relating to Native Land Court title and partition

Claim Issues Wai 52: James The imposition of European land tenure concepts, practices, and systems of Broughton & others for individual ownership in preference to traditional concepts of collective trusteeship Ngai Tara/Muaupoko, and possession. (Muaupoko Tribal Authority) Wai 237: Ron & That the Native Land Court system resulted in large tracts of Taueki/Muaupoko William Taueki for Whakapapa land being awarded to one or two owners. As a result, much of the land descendants of Taueki was alienated against the wishes of the tribe, including the gifting of 1200 acres to and Muaupoko ki Te Whatanui; the agreement to the 4000-acre town site and 76 acres for railway; and Horowhenua ongoing court partition and alienation from 1886. Wai 623: John Paki & Native land legislation enabled the Crown to alienate claimants land without their others for descendants of consent. Muaupoko In particular the Native Land Acts and the Horowhenua Block Act did not protect claimant interests and promoted the alienation of claimant land. Failure to consult claimants over legislation which impacted on claimant land; failure to allow claimants to control or participate in Native Land Court processes which impacted directly on claimants’ land. Crown failure to protect Maori interests from improper and unfair actions of its land agents Wai 770: Edward Land alienation through system of land control that did not protect interests. Karaitiana for the whanau of Karaitiana Te Korou Wai 2048: Te Loss of land through actions and policies of Native Land Court, including partition, Rautangata Kenrick for which was designed to dispossess claimants from ancestral lands.

79 Ibid, McDonald’s evidence, p. 75.

Claim Issues Tamarangi hapu Wai 2050: Marina Crown’s abrogation of interests in ancestral lands through legislation, policies and Williams for Te practices of the Native Land Court. KapaTrust, Ihaia Taueki, and Muaupoko Wai 2093: Jean Brownie Native Land Court process, including surveying and partition, designed to ensure for Muaupoko claimants lost control of the process.

Issues

Horowhenua Block Title

The Horowhenua block title investigation was Muaupoko’s first experience of concepts like surveyed boundaries and fixed interests, or even ‘ownership’ of land. What did the tribe understand by this process? What did they seek to accomplish?

There are at least two ways of viewing the 1873 award. At the time, the 52,000-acre court award to Muaupoko was widely regarded as a victory for the tribe, the judgement arguably heavily influenced by political factors rather than the merits of the case. In this light, the issue becomes focussed on the award of this tribal entitlement for legal purposes to a single grantee, Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui. As some Muaupoko today see it, Te Keepa not only managed to win Horowhenua from Ngati Raukawa, he also won it from those Muaupoko who had defended and occupied the land, and were rightfully entitled.80 On the other hand, within Muaupoko there are those who view the 1873 award as a means of confining the wider interests of Muaupoko within the Inquiry District to Horowhenua.

The historical narrative of this episode might address:

 To what extent did Muaupoko support the process of title investigation? To what extent was it imposed upon them by a Crown intent on land purchase in the district?  What were the factors behind the Horowhenua award to Muaupoko?  To what extent did the court process allow Muaupoko to be involved in the decisions regarding their title to Horowhenua? With respect to representation in court? With respect to the award of title to Te Keepa solely? With respect to those included in the list of registered owners? How were subsequent arrangements made between the Crown and Te Keepa regarding Ngati Raukawa’s interest?  What was the nature of conflict at Horowhenua? What was the role of the Crown or its agents in that conflict or its origins?  What was the basis upon which the Court recognised the entitlement of the 143 registered owners?

80 Anne Hunt, ‘Legend of Taueki’, p. 33.

 What was the practical effect and impact on Muaupoko of being awarded Crown title to Horowhenua?

Horowhenua Partition 1886

The 1870s-1880s was a period of rapid change in the district, with widespread Crown and private purchasing, followed by Pakeha settlement. Archive files suggest that there was considerable interest in purchasing Horowhenua, particularly in the years just after the the 1873 decision. However during this period Te Keepa seems to have become disillusioned with the Crown’s land purchasing practices. In 1883 he also petitioned Parliament about the costs associated with Native Land Court adjudication, asking that lawyers be prohibited from the court.81

Both Te Keepa and Muaupoko’s activities between 1873 and 1886 require more research, as a background to understanding the partition that followed.

Muaupoko at Horowhenua do not appear to have been party to the negotiations undertaken by Te Keepa prior to the partition hearing, in terms of the township, the railway, or even the deed of conveyance to Ngati Raukawa. Rather, these matters appear to have been presented to them for the first time by Te Keepa and McDonald at the partition deliberations. It was later generally accepted that the tribe endorsed these arrangements. In terms of the railway for example, the 1896 Horowhenua Commission found that Block 1 was ‘voluntarily’ given to Te Keepa by the tribe for the purposes of the railway. This was no doubt based on evidence from tribal members Te Rangimairehau and Hoani Puihi to this effect. Nonetheless the evidence also suggests that it was presented as a fait accompli to the tribe at the time.

 What were the circumstances leading up to the partition of Horowhenua?  To what extent did Muaupoko understand and consent to the partition proposals before them?  To what extent were they involved in the formulation of these proposals? What did they hope to gain from partition?  To what extent did their sanction depend on the promises outlined by Te Keepa and McDonald?  What was the basis of entitlement to Blocks 3 to 8?  To what extent were Muaupoko aware of the implications of individual title? With regard to the intended 105-acre partitions in Blocks 3 and 6? With regard to the tribal estates of Blocks 11 and 12?

81 Petition of Meiha Keepa Rangihiwinui and 278 others, AJHR 1883, I-2, p. 11, no.197. Te Keepa’s efforts to establish a trust to manage tribal lands at Murimotu in this period were being undermined by the Crown’s purchase activities. Important background on Te Keepa’s work can be found in Michael Macky, ‘Kemp’s Trust’, Wai 1130 #A55, and Nicholas Bayley, ‘Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiu 1860-2000’, Wai 903 #A56.

Railway

The arrangement regarding title to the railway line seems odd, particularly in light of an 1877 petition by Muaupoko protesting about the activities of the road board and county council on their land.82 From his home at Parewanui, from 1878 Kawana Hunia made it clear that progress with the railway line was contingent on the partition of Horowhenua. Divide the land into four, he wrote, ‘after which there will be no difficulty about land for railway purposes.’83 McDonald testified to the 1896 Commission that the company had already obtained a deed of transfer which had been transacted between Te Keepa and Buller, for which payment was stipulated to be 15 fully paid-up Company shares. This deed was produced in court in 1886, causing a falling out between Te Keepa and McDonald at the time. McDonald knew full well that any such transaction would not be recognised by the court, which is why he promoted the sole award and transfer course instead.

 Was the court process used to validate a done deal which was, under the terms of the 1873 certificate of title, unlawful?  What was the basis of the railway construction through Horowhenua, in terms of the arrangement between the company and the Crown, and the actual formation of the track?  To what extent were Muaupoko consulted about this development? To what extent did they consent?

Levin Township/issues of good faith

In the event, the government did not proceed with the purchase of Block 2 until July 1887. There are allegations that the delay was a deliberate strategy to force a beleaguered Te Keepa to accept a low price per acre, which was paid out in instalments over the next four years.84 Alternatively, the delay has also been explained in terms of the Crown’s reluctance to transfer the land to the railway company, under the terms of agreement that expired shortly before this date.

In addition to the imposed low price none of Te Keepa’s conditions, to which Native Minister Ballance supposedly agreed, were met. Muaupoko did not receive every tenth surveyed section of Levin, nor were the stipulated parks and reserves made. In 1896 Te Keepa told the Horowhenua Commission that Ballance subsequently ‘objected to all these things’ on the grounds that ‘it would not do’ for Maori and Pakeha to live together.85 And neither was the money received on account of the township, amounting in all to £6210, expended on the survey of Muaupoko’s individual allotments as promised to the tribe at partition.

82 Report on Petition of Members of the Muaupoko Tribe, 16 November 1877, AJHR 1887, I-3, p. 46. 83 Kawana Hunia, 28 July 1878, 8 May 1879, in MA 75/2/14. 84 See for example, Bryan Gilling, ‘Ihaia Taueki and Muaupoko Lands: An Interim Report for the Ihaia Taueki Trust’ (1994), p. 78. 85 Evidence of Te Keepa, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.31.

 What were the circumstances behind the negotiations between Te Keepa and the Crown for the township?  To what extent was Muaupoko party to these negotiations? To what extent did this agreement influence their position regarding partition?  Did the Crown uphold the terms agreed with Te Keepa and, if not, why not?

Conflicts of interests/protection of interests

The role that Te Keepa and Kawana Hunia assumed with regard to Muaupoko’s interests at Horowhenua, and the acceptance, and even promotion of such a role by the Crown, raises a number of issues. Claims have been made that those who kept Muaupoko fires alight at Horowhenua during the tribe’s darkest days were subsequently ‘shunted aside’ or ignored by the Crown, in favour of less entitled tribal members.86 To some, for example, Te Keepa is a tribal hero, a visionary who secured and held the Horowhenua block for the people of Muaupoko.87 To others, these same actions are seen as a flagrant usurpation of tangata whenua rights.88 One of the fundamental issues of concern to claimants within the Muaupoko Claimant Cluster in this period of introduced concepts of land tenure, is the extent to which the Crown transacted Muaupoko’s tribal lands with these two individuals, to the exclusion, and at the expense, of the resident Muaupoko tangata whenua community.

Te Rangihiwinui Te Keepa’s father was Tanguru, of Muaupoko; his mother Rere o Maki of Wanganui one of the few women signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi.89 Te Keepa is thought to have been born at Tuwhakatupua, on the Manawatu River, in the early 1820s, but he was raised with his mother’s people at Putiki, near the mouth of the Wanganui River, the family forced out of their Muaupoko homeland by Ngati Toa’s aggression. At Putiki, Te Rangihiwinui received a missionary education, and was baptised Te Keepa (Kemp). He was employed by the Crown from early adulthood, beginning as a constable under Major Durie at Waikanae and at Wanganui; the carrying of mail along the coastal route between Wanganui and Wellington among his duties. He was also an assessor for part of this time under Grey’s ‘new institutions’ scheme from the late 1850s, and was appointed Native Land Court assessor in 1865. When war developed among the iwi of the Wanganui River in 1864, Te Keepa defended the town of Wanganui in the battle of Moutoa. The following year he enlisted in the Native Contingent, the beginning of six years military service in support of the government. Te Keepa had an exemplary military career: promoted to major in November 1868; presented with the Queen’s sword of honour in June 1870; awarded the New Zealand Cross in 1874; and the New Zealand War Medal in 1876. Te Keepa not only commanded the loyalty of his Native Contingent, many of whom

86 Memorandum of Phil Taueki, 5 May 2011, Wai 2200, #3.1.225. 87 See for example korero of Kerehi Wi Warena, Korero Tuku Iho hui, 17 February 2014. 88 See for example korero of Phil Taueki, Korero Tuku Iho hui, 17 February 2014. 89 The following is taken primarily from Anthony Dreaver, ‘Te Rangihiwinui, Te Keepa’, from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, online at http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies, updated 30 October 2012.

57 were Muaupoko, his pursuit of Titokowaru in 1869 was also the first time Pakeha officers and soldiers chose to fight under a Maori leader.

In 1871 Te Keepa was employed as a land purchase officer at Wanganui, on a salary of £300. According to Anthony Dreaver, this appointment was suspended as a result of his threat of military intervention in the 1873 court award of Horowhenua, but Te Keepa was reappointed the following year. In 1876 he unsuccessfully ran for the Western Maori seat in Parliament. From the 1880s Te Keepa increasingly experimented with the idea of land trusts as a means to retain tribal control over tribal lands. At Wanganui, his efforts to halt land alienation led to an armed stand-off at Murimotu, near Waiouru, (an incident in which his Muaupoko soldiers were also said to have been involved), and which cost him his government jobs as assessor and land purchase officer.

Ballance is said to have had considerable respect for Te Keepa, reinstating him in 1884 to his official positions when he became Native Minister in 1884. As Wanganui’s newspaper editor and politician, it can be assumed that the men knew each other, perhaps even well. From 1888 Te Keepa instigated a new movement of tribal solidarity known as Te Kotahitanga, calling for equality and the partnership promised by the Treaty of Waitangi. The Te Kotahitanga conference held at Orakei in March 1889 was attended by 500 Maori and senior Pakeha politicians, including the premier, Harry Atkinson.

Kawana Hunia was the son of Te Hakeke, a chief of Ngati Apa, another tangata whenua signatory of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kawana Hunia’s mother was Muaupoko, a sister to the Muaupoko chief Te Rangihouhia, who is said to have lived at Otaki until the strife of the 1820s.90 Kawana Hunia is also said to have been married at one time to Hereora, Ihaia Taueki’s sister, with whom he had at least one child.91

Kawana Hunia described himself as the ‘kai rapu tikanga o Muaupoko Ngati Apa me etahi iwi atu o oku e piri ana mai ki a hau’ in 1878.92 Hunia seems to have embraced innovations such as literacy with enthusiasm, being an early correspondent to Maori newspapers in Wellington in the early 1850s. The 1852 list of Muaupoko names prepared by Kawana Hunia for Donald McLean with regard to their interests at Te Taitapu indicates an early, active involvement in Muaupoko affairs. A ‘Register of Chiefs’ thought to have been compiled by the Native Department in the mid-1860s noted that Hunia had ‘rendered Mr McLean valuable assistance fifteen years ago’, although it did not specify how.93 Kawana Hunia had initially supported the Kingitanga, but in 1864 he took the oath of allegiance and was appointed an assessor.

90 O’Donnell, p. 160. 91 Ibid, O’Donnell named this child as Pora; Bryan Gilling named their offspring as Raraku Hunia, Gilling, ‘Ihaia Taueki and Muaupoko Lands’, p.24. 92 ‘The decision-maker with regards to Muaupoko, Ngati Apa and other tribes who associate themselves with me’ (my translation), see correspondence 22 October 1878, in MA 75/2 14, New Zealand Archives, Wellington. 93 Register of chiefs, MA23 15/25, Archives NZ, Wellington

Even in the absence of any open Muaupoko opposition to these men’s authority (and in the case of Kawana Hunia, in 1879 such opposition was explicit), the fact that throughout these decades of Native Land Court adjudication, multiple decisions affecting Muaupoko land appear to have been private deals, arranged well away from Horowhenua, should be examined as to whether this could be considered contrary to customary practice around decision making. McLean’s private arrangement with Te Keepa in Wellington in 1874 over the ‘gift’ of land at Raumatangi for example, led Muaupoko residents at Horowhenua to protest about rumours that their land was ‘kua pakaru’, which was translated as ‘subdivided’: ‘kei a matou ano nga ritenga kaha mo tenei whenua’.94 Again, with regard to the arrangements over partition, Muaupoko appear to have been at the receiving end of decisions that were already cut and dried, arrived at between the Crown and Te Keepa, who appears to have been in the Crown’s employ for much of this period as a Land Purchase Officer. In the same way, McDonald’s role in the 1886 partition presents an apparent conflict of interests.

The relationships operating within Muaupoko are not the focus of Tribunal concern. What is of primary relevance however, and what needs further research, is the extent to which the Crown dealt with these individuals as tribal representatives to achieve its own ends, and the extent to which the wider Muaupoko iwi was excluded from the process. One of the fundamental issues throughout this period is the extent to which the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua were involved in, and consented to, the developments affecting their land.

 To what extent was Te Keepa’s role as kaitiaki for Muaupoko endorsed by the tribe?  What was the nature of Kawana Hunia’s role within Muaupoko?  To what extent were the resident Muaupoko community at Horowhenua consulted about the decisions that affected their lands? To what extent did they support these decisions?  Who benefitted from the arrangements surrounding partition?  In dealing with Te Keepa as the representative of Muaupoko, what measures were taken by the Crown to ensure that Muaupoko interests were protected?

2.4. Land Alienation, 1886-1900

In addition to the areas lost at the point of the Horowhenua partition in 1886, the effect of partition was to enable future alienation of Muaupoko’s remaining estate: Blocks 3, 6, 11, 12 and 14. In the case of Block 3, intended to provide individual land holdings for listed tribal members, Rod McDonald’s recollections suggest that the process of survey and title was carried out with scant regard for existing rights, or protecting owners from the ‘horde of land-hungry settlers’ that followed in its wake. Whether through outright sale, or sales obtained first through grazing rights and advances,

94 ‘It is up to us to decide what happens to this land’ (my translation), Hoani Amorangi and others to McLean, 28 March 1874; H. Amorangi to Clarke, 27 April 1874, in MA75/2 14, Archives NZ, Wellington.

‘it was not long before hardly a single Maori remained in possession of his 105 acre block which he had accepted so hopefully.’95

In partitioning the land, Muaupoko had followed the same course as before: vesting the blocks in single representatives on behalf of the tribe: Te Keepa, Warena Hunia and Ihaia Taueki. Without the safeguards preventing alienation however, within ten years Muaupoko’s tribal estate was seriously compromised. The Crown was heavily involved in this process: purchasing land in spite of the controversy over the status of these trustees; taking land to pay for the costs of its own commission of inquiry; and directing that individual interests in the remaining tribal estate be determined.

The following narrative has been summarised principally from Anderson and Pickens’ account in the Tribunal’s Rangahaua Whanui series, Wellington District: Port Nicholson, Hutt Valley, Porirua, Rangitikei, and Manawatu, and in Ross Galbreath’s biography of Walter Buller, which illuminates much of the political manouvering by Crown ministers behind the Horowhenua Commission of 1896.96

Trusteeship v. ownership

While Te Keepa may have intended Block 11 to remain an undivided tribal estate, Warena Hunia, the other listed owner, was now legally empowered to realise the partition ambitions his father and a segment of Ngati Pariri had been harbouring since the 1870s. In early 1890 his application for partition of Horowhenua 11 was successful: Parts A and B awarded to himself and Te Keepa respectively.97 Te Keepa petitioned for a rehearing on the grounds that a tribal trust had been intended over the block. In May 1891, although the Native Appellate Court judges agreed that an injustice was being done to Muaupoko, they nonetheless upheld the partition decision on the basis of law. In their report of the controversial decision to the Chief Judge, they reiterated that the real owners of Block 11 were undoubtedly Muaupoko, but that the legal effect of the 1886 certificate was to grant the land absolutely to Te Keepa and Hunia. Impressed neither with Te Keepa nor Hunia in their capacity as trustees, the judges suggested that should steps be taken to determine who the ‘real owners’ were so that legal title to the land could be restored to them, a task undertaken ‘by some impartial tribunal … and not left to the caprice or favouritism of either of the so-called trustees.’98 They also mentioned that Block 12, similarly intended as a tribal estate but vested in Ihaia Taueki, was in the same position.

The partition of Horowhenua 11 in 1891 sparked a number of petitions: from Te Keepa to restore to Muaupoko their equitable rights in the block; from Muaupoko in support of Te Keepa; and from

95 O’Donnell, p. 182. 96 R Galbreath, Walter Buller: The Reluctant Conservationist, (Wellington, GP Books, 1989) 97 Heard in Palmerston North before Judge Trimble, Otaki MB 13, p. 101. 20 Feb, 5 March 1890. 98 Memorandum for Chief Judge Native Land Court: Horowhenua No 11, 11 May 1891, MA 1369 box 17, cited in Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 262.

Warena Hunia, seeking affirmation of his status as the absolute owner.99 All three were referred to the government. Te Keepa later related that efforts were made during this period to resolve the dispute outside of court, but that Warena’s proposal to relegate the tribe to the useless, sandy portion of the block, keeping the best land for the two ‘owners’, had been unacceptable to him.100 In the meantime, the Native Land Court Amendment Act 1891 provided that the three Horowhenua blocks held by individuals but intended for the tribe – Blocks 6, 11, and 12 – be inalienable until the end of the 1892 parliamentary session. As this deadline drew near, things got more complicated. In order to prevent Hunia from selling, Te Keepa’s lawyer, Walter Buller, is said to have persuaded the Premier, Richard Seddon, to have Block 11 proclaimed under the Native Land Purchase Act 1892, declaring a government interest in the block.101 At the same time Buller also had a document drawn up releasing Te Keepa from any obligations to account for any rental he had received as a trustee, and began collecting Muaupoko signatures. Warena Hunia then countered by offering part of the block to the government.

The State Farm

The government was well aware of the dispute over the legal ownership of Block 11 when it nonetheless decided to proceed with Hunia’s offer.102 In August 1893 Wi Parata asked Minister of Lands John McKenzie if the rumours about a government purchase at Horowhenua were true, and, if so, would the Government ensure it had the consent of the Muaupoko beneficiaries before it completed the purchase? McKenzie replied that purchase was indeed under consideration and reassured the House that:

If the Government did negotiate for the purchase of that block they would take very good care, before a purchase was made, or before any money was paid over, that the interests of the beneficiaries should be protected, and that they should get the proper value for this land.103

In fact, an agreement to purchase 1500 acres for the State farm from Block 11 for £6000 was executed the following month between Warena Hunia and the Crown without the knowledge or consent of Muaupoko. The Under Secretary for Native Affairs justified it at the time:

In purchasing 1,500 acres of land from Warena Hunia, the Land Purchase Department was not unaware of the alleged trust, but the view taken of the matter was that, under any

99 ‘Report of Native Affairs Committee,’ AJHR 1892, I-3, p.16, in Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 262. 100 See Bryan Gilling, ‘Ihaia Taueki and Muaupoko Lands’, p. 80, citing Horowhenua Commission, p. 171. 101 Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 263, citing the 1896 Horowhenua Commission, explain that a £5 deposit from the government land purchasers was enough have a block proclaimed, which effectively debarred private purchase. 102 Gilling relates that the State farm project was spearheaded locally by Donald Fraser, J.G. Wilson and John Stevens, the local MP, Gilling, pp. 85-7, citing NZPD vol 86, (1894) 1086-1087. Galbreath explains that Hunia was indebted to Fraser, Seddon’s agreement to proceed with the purchase being the sweetener to induce Fraser to stand for the Liberals in the 1894 election, Galbreath, p. 199. 103 4 August 1893, NZPD, vol. 80, p. 461, cited in Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 264.

circumstances, Warena’s undivided interest in the land was at least equal to the area conveyed.104

The first the tribe knew of the sale was when a working party turned up on the ground a short time later. Te Keepa obtained a caveat prohibiting further dealings with the land until the issue of trusteeship had been heard by the Supreme Court and in January 1894 a Muaupoko deputation travelled to Wellington to protest the sale. Premier Seddon, however, refused to void the sale, or impound the purchase money, or acknowledge that there was anything wrong with the transaction. Indeed, Seddon threatened to lift the proclamation over the entire block, removing the restrictions on private sale, if Muaupoko did not withdraw their opposition.105

During the October 1894 Supreme Court hearing on the issue of trusteeship, it was revealed that the government had paid a deposit of £2000 on account of purchase the previous month, despite the legal challenge over title, the court caveat prohibiting further dealings, and its own reassurances repeated until July 1894 that no payments would be made until the interests of the beneficiaries had been protected. In November 1894 the Supreme Court ruled in Te Keepa’s favour, finding that a trust did indeed exist over Block 11, from which the State farm had been taken. Warena’s appeal was rejected by the Appeal Court in May 1895.

The Supreme Court had overthrown all previous judgements except that granting title of ownership. Until the relative interests of Muaupoko were determined, the caveats against dealings were retained, and Hunia was required to account for the monies already paid to him. The Court of Appeal further required Te Keepa to account for any income he had received from the block, and recommended a Commission of Inquiry. Faced with a purchase it could not now complete, payments for which it could not recover, the Government resorted to legislation.

The Horowhenua Commission 1896

The Horowhenua Block Act 1895 directed that a commission be appointed to inquire into the dealings of Horowhenua, including the circumstances surrounding the trust status of the blocks. Muaupoko had not asked for the inquiry, and the issue of trusteeship over Block 11 had been decided by the highest court in the land. Historians have suggested that the inquiry was pursued at least partly because of the grudge held by the Minister of Lands, John McKenzie, towards Walter Buller over the State Farm fiasco. Buller had secured a mortgage from Te Keepa over Horowhenua 14 on the eve of the Supreme Court action in 1894. If a trust applied to Block 11, the argument ran, did Te Keepa hold similar trusteeship over Block 14? This was one of the substantial issues to be decided by the Commission. Significantly, the costs of the commission were to be charged against the Horowhenua blocks.

104 Under Secretary Native Affairs to Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, 12 July 1894, cited in AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 13. 105 Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 307.

The State farm transaction was considered by the Commission. Despite agreeing that Block 11 was held by Te Keepa and Hunia in trust for Muaupoko, a fact that Crown officials were well aware of when negotiations commenced, the commissioners nonetheless concluded:

It was admitted on all sides that the purchase of the State farm was an excellent thing for the district, and that the price, £4 per acre, was a fair one. No complaint was made by the Natives as to the sale or the price; what they objected to was to Hunia receiving the purchase-money. The farm does not interfere with any of the dwellings or cultivations of the Natives, and the land, covered as it was with bush, was practically useless to them before the Crown took possession of it. Under all the circumstances we have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that the best thing for all persons interested would be to complete the purchase, treating the farm as Kawana Hunia’s share in the block.106

Section 8(c) of the Horowhenua Block Act 1896 duly provided for the issue of a certificate of title for the State Farm to the Crown, on the payment of the balance of £4000 to the successors of Kawana Hunia.

Te Keepa steadfastly maintained that, unlike Block 11, Block 14 had never been intended as a tribal estate: it was his to deal with as absolute owner. Originally situated on the southern boundary of the larger Horowhenua block east of the railway, on survey the western boundary had been extended to the shores of Waiwiri. The 1896 Horowhenua Commission heard evidence that in 1892 Te Keepa had sold just under 11 acres of the lake frontage in two separate transactions to his lawyer Walter Buller, also leasing the remainder of the block in two separate leaseholds to Buller for 21 years. In October 1894, on the eve of his Supreme Court case to prove the trust over Block 11, Te Keepa had been required to pay his stand-in lawyer Edwards a £500 retainer. Unable to pay, Walter Buller had stepped in, offering to pay the retainer, and any other monies owed to himself by Te Keepa besides, in exchange for a mortgage over Block 14. Buller then moved fast to have the mortgage certified by the Trust Commissioner.

The Horowhenua Commission was critical of Buller’s behaviour with regard to Block 14:

It seems to us a matter of grave doubt whether the Courts would not hold, apart from any question as to whether Sir Walter Buller had or had not notice that the property was trust property, that as Kemp had not independent legal advice, as the parties were not at ‘arms length,’ as the rental is greatly under the real annual value, and as the mortgage was given when Kemp was in a position which practically left him no option, and was given to secure unknown amounts, Sir Walter Buller’s position with Kemp was such that the leases and mortgages (except as to the £500 advanced when it was given) must be set aside.

The Horowhenua Commission of 1896 concluded that most of the problems surrounding Horowhenua lay with the trust idea itself. In the commission’s opinion, it was inherently unsatisfactory for one

106 AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 13.

63 person to hold legal title on behalf of others who had not had their share determined, and who had no legal say concerning the land. Under the resulting Horowhenua Block Act 1896, the Native Appellate Court was to determine the ownership of Blocks 6, 11, and 14. Block 12 – the forested Tararua ranges – was vested under the same Act in the Crown, to pay for the costs of the commission. In 1898 Block 14 was found by the Native Appellate Court to be Te Keepa’s personal property. Buller was able to re- register his titles and other claims to Block 14 in January 1899.107 In the same year the Crown purchased 4363 acres of Horowhenua Block 6 – the Rerewaho block.

Claims

Many of the claims set out in the previous section are equally relevant to this period.

Table 5: Muaupoko claims relating to land alienation, 1886-1900

Claim Issues Wai 52: James The imposition of European land tenure concepts, practices, and systems of Broughton & others for individual ownership in preference to traditional concepts of collective trusteeship Ngai Tara/Muaupoko and possession. (Muaupoko Tribal Authority) Wai 237: Ron & Failure to recognise and protect Taueki/Muaupoko rangatiratanga with regards to William Taueki for the Horowhenua Commission in 1895. Under the 1896 Act, the Crown purported to descendants of Taueki replace the whakapapa of Taueki/Muaupoko with a Crown-authorised whakapapa and Muaupoko ki which has resulted in marginalisation in consultation and management processes. Horowhenua Wai 623: John Paki & Native land legislation enabled the Crown to alienate claimants land without their others for descendants of consent. Muaupoko In particular the Native Land Acts and the Horowhenua Block Act did not protect claimant interests and promoted the alienation of claimant land. Failure to consult claimants over legislation which impacted on claimant land; failure to allow claimants to control or participate in Native Land Court processes which impacted directly on claimants’ land. Crown failure to protect Maori interests from improper and unfair actions of its land agents Wai 770: Edward Land alienation through system of land control that did not protect interests. Karaitiana for the whanau of Karaitiana Te Korou Wai 2048: Te Loss of land through actions and policies of Native Land Court, including partition, Rautangata Kenrick for which was designed to dispossess claimants from ancestral lands. Tamarangi hapu Wai 2050: Marina Crown’s abrogation of interests in ancestral lands through legislation, policies and Williams for Te practices of the Native Land Court. KapaTrust, Ihaia Taueki, and Muaupoko Wai 2093: Jean Brownie Native Land Court process, including surveying and partition, designed to ensure for Muaupoko claimants lost control of the process, and which imposed considerable financial burdens.

107 Summarised from Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, pp. 268-71. Te Keepa died the day after the Appellate Court decision. At the time he owed Buller nearly £7000. Te Keepa’s heir, Wikitoria, decided to let Buller exercise his rights as mortgagee. Block 14 was sold by public auction in May 1899, McKenzie’s last-ditch effort to out-bid Buller unsuccessful.

Issues

In the fifteen year period from 1886 to 1900 Muaupoko’s tribal estate disintegrated, either taken or purchased by the Crown outright, or reduced through the more piecemeal process of individual title determination inevitably leading to fragmented land holdings and accelerated alienation. Special attention has been called to the petition of Ihaia Taueki in this period, praying for the halting of any land alienation until the dispute regarding trusteeship was settled.108

There are a number of Crown actions in this period that, on the basis of existing research, present major issues:

 The Crown’s purchase of 1500 acres of Block 11, the controversy over trusteeship, and the opposition of the other legal owner and the Muaupoko people to the alienation.  The Crown’s compulsory taking of Block 12 – 12,000 acres – to pay for the Horowhenua commission.  The Crown’s implementation of the Horowhenua Commission’s recommendations, apparently without further consultation with Muaupoko.

In addition there are at least two other issues which have not yet been subject to research:

 The Crown’s purchase of Block 6, in light of other purchases of the tribal estate.  The alienation of Block 3. Rod McDonald’s account suggests that little regard was given by the Court as to the allocation of individual interests; and that little regard was given by the Crown to protect Muaupoko interests in the rush of land purchase that followed. Private purchasing of Maori land in this period occurred under a legislative framework that ostensibly provided Maori with some degree of protection: Trust Commissioners were to ‘as far as possible, inquire into the circumstances attending every alienation’ and also ‘inquire as to the amount of the consideration paid’. Anderson and Pickens refer to details supplied to the Horowhenua Commission which suggest that over 1000 acres of Block 3 was alienated in just two years between 1892 and 1894. They also suggest that big profits were made by private individuals from the transacting of Maori land in this time.109

Te Keepa’s actions in dealing with Block 14 as his own property raises the same issues of granting individual title to communal land.

Native Appellate Court: determination of interests and partition, 1898

As a result of the Horowhenua Commission and the Horowhenua Block Act 1896, the Native Appellate Court was directed to determine the individual interests of the remaining Muaupoko tribal

108 Petition no. 522, Ihaia Taueki and 75 others, AJHR 1893, I-3. 109 Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 314.

65 lands. The ownership of Block 11 was heard from April to July 1898, the court decision given in September, whereupon the partition of the block was considered, resulting in 61 separate Partition Orders.110 In doing so, some areas – Lake Horowhenua and the Hokio stream, and the coastal frontage of the block (apart from 210 acres on the southern boundary awarded to Ngati Raukawa, Horowhenua A1) – were regarded as being for the common benefit of Muaupoko, and were vested in 81 owners found to be entitled by the court.

There are issues surrounding the aspirations of Muaupoko to continue to hold their tribal estate intact and collectively, if this indeed was the case, and the Horowhenua Block Act 1896, which instead directed the determination of individual interests. Of issue is the extent to which Muaupoko controlled or consented to this process, and the extent to which it was imposed on them by the Crown:

 To what extent were Muaupoko consulted about, or support the individualisation and partition of Horowhenua 11? To what extent did the court’s decisions reflect their own aspirations for their land?  What was the basis of title determination and partition of Horowhenua 11? What was the basis of entitlement of the ‘81 owners’? To what extent were the women and children of Muaupoko included in this list?  How do the various lists of Muaupoko tribal members or landowners generated from 1873 to 1898 compare and contrast? Is this significant? To what extent did the court’s list of owners reflect the views of the Muaupoko resident community?  What was the impact of the 1898 partition? In terms of costs? In terms of land ownership? In terms of practical effects?

In this period it is Muaupoko’s interests in the Horowhenua block that form the main focus of research. Much of what is known about this time is drawn from the legal wrangle in the 1890s over the status of Block 11 and the Horowhenua Commission of 1896, the voluminous minutes of which were printed in official parliamentary records. And while the archival record forms the basis of historical narratives such as Anderson and Pickens Wellington District and Ross Galbreath’s biography of Walter Buller, no secondary work to date has fully dealt with the detail pertaining to Muaupoko issues contained in the sheer volume of these sources. The research task is one of piecing together relevant information from a close reading of a vast primary record: in addition to the Horowhenua Commission records (both the minutes of evidence and the government archives held in MA 75/- files); the MA 13/- special files concerning government activities in the district in the early 1870s and McLean’s correspondence in the same period; there are over 2000 pages of Native Land

110 Partition of Horowhenua No.11, Otaki MB 36: 215, 238-243, 249-254, 260-1, 300, 337-356, 362, 366-378; Otaki MB 37: 1-2, 9-33, 40, 47-49, 54-65, 68-72, 90-1, 185-190, 195-205, 217-233; Otaki MB 40, pp. 49-194

Court evidence from the partition hearings of the late 1890s that may provide a fresh insight into this period from the perspective of Muaupoko.

2.5. Nineteenth Century Land Alienation Bibliography

Secondary sources, published: Robyn Anderson and Keith Pickens, Wellington District: Port Nicholson, Hutt Valley, Porirua, Rangitikei, and Manawatu, Rangahaua Whanui District 12, (Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996) G. Leslie Adkin, Horowhenua. Its Maori Place-names and their Topographic and Historical Background, (Wellington, 1948) G. Biltcliff, ‘Ngati Pariri: The Genealogies of this Sub-Tribe of the Muaupoko, With Some Considerations of the Link Between This People and the Better Known Tribes of the Heke’, Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol.55, 1946, pp.40-80 W. Carkeek, The Kapiti Coast: Maori History and Place Names, (Wellington, 1966) R Galbreath, Walter Buller: The Reluctant Conservationist, (Wellington, GP Books, 1989) J. M. McEwen, Rangitane: a Tribal History, (Auckland, 1986) E. O’Donnell, Te Hekenga Early Days in Horowhenua: Being the Reminiscences of Mr. Rod McDonald, (Palmerston North, G. H. Bennett & Co. Ltd, nd) Waitangi Tribunal, Te Whanganui a Tara me ona Takiwa: Report on the Welllington District, (Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2003) Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui: Report on Northern South Island Claims, 3 volumes, (Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2008) Waitangi Tribunal, Wairarapa ki Tararua Report, 3 volumes, (Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2010)

Secondary sources, unpublished: David Armstrong, ‘“A Sure and Certain Possession”: The 1849 Rangitikei/Turakina Transaction and its Aftermath’, (Te Runanga o Ngati Apa, 2004) Nicholas Bayley, ‘Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiu, 1860-2000’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 2004), Wai 903 #A56. Victoria Fallas, ‘Rangitikei/Manawatu Block’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 1993) Wai 52 #A3 BR Farthing, ‘Forest Lakes’, Otaki Historical Society vol.1 1978, (may have information on the alienation of Block 3). Bryan Gilling, ‘A Land of Fighting and Trouble’: the Rangitikei-Manawatu Purchase’, (CFRT, 2000), Wai 2200, #A9. Bryan Gilling, ‘Ihaia Taueki and Muaupoko Lands: an Interim Report for the Ihaia Taueki Trust’, R. N. Grove, ‘Te Whatanui: Traditional Maori Leader’, MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1985 Terry Hearn, ‘The Waitangi Tribunal Porirua ki Manawatu Inquiry District; A Technical Research Scoping Report’, (Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2010) Anne Hunt, ‘Legend of Taueki’, Wai 2200, #A018 Raeburn Lange, ‘The Social Impact of Colonisation and Land Loss on the Iwi of the Rangitikei, Manawatu and Horowhenua Region, 1840-1960’, (CFRT, 2000), Wai 2200, #A1. Michael Macky, ‘Kemp’s Trust’, (Crown Law Office, 2005), Wai 1130, #A55, Diana Morrow, ‘Iwi Interests in the Manawatu, c.1820- c.1910’, (Office of Treaty Settlements, 2002), Wai 2200 #A6. Anthony Patete, ‘Rangitane Interests in the Manawatu; Report of the Research Assistant for the Office of Treaty Settlements’, (Wellington, TOWPU, 2001)

Primary sources, published: Walter Buller, The Horowhenua Commission: address of Sir Walter Buller as counsel from Major Kemp Te Rangihiwinui and the Muaupoko tribe, April 1896 (Wellington, R. Coupland Harding, 1896) Walter Buller, The Horowhenua Case, (Wellington, 1897)

Walter Buller, Sir Walter Buller’s objections to the report of the Horowhenua Commission (Wellington, W Buller, 1895) Walter Buller, Sir Walter Buller at Bar of the House and and the history of the Horowhenua block, (Wellington, W Buller, 1895) Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, Major Kemp at the bar of the Legislative Council, (Wellington, Govt Printer, 1896) H H Turton, (editor), An Epitome of Official Documents relative to Native Affairs and Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand, (Wellington, George Didsbury, 1883), available online at http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz)

Warena Hunia v. Meiha Keepa, NZLR 14 AC

Newspapers

Paperspast (http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz) enables digital word searches to be made from the following newspaper sources: Dominion, available online 26 Sep 1907 – 31 Dec 1920 Evening Post, available online 8 Feb 1865 – 31 Dec 1945 Feilding Star, available online 17 Jun 1882 – 31 Dec 1920 Horowhenua Chronicle, available online 1 Mar 1910 – 31 Dec 1920 Manawatu Herald, available online 27 Aug 1878 – 30 Dec 1900 Manawatu Standard, available online 1 Jan 1883 – 31 Dec 1912 Manawatu Times, available online 3 Jan 1877 – 30 Dec 1911 Wanganui Chronicle, available online 1 Jan 1874 – 31 Dec 1919 Wanganui Herald, available online 3 Jun 1867 – 31 Dec 1909 Wellington Independent, available online 2 Apr 1845 – 30 Jun 1874

Research Assistance Projects: Newspapers Document Bank (CFRT)

Wanganui Chronicle CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase Mete Kingi, Ihakara, Te Horo, Hoani, Horowhenua, Otaki, Muaupoko Ngati Raukawa, Rauparaha 1144- The Horowhenua Land Case Manawatu, Porotawha, 3 Jan 1874 2(2) Karanama, Kawana Hunia, Poera 1145 Land: Disputes between Maori Horowhenua, Hokio, Kukuki, Te Watene, Te Puke, McLean, Mahoenui Ngati Apo, Ngakawa The Horowhenua Dispute 9 Jan 1874 2 1146 Horowhenua Land: Disputes between Maori The Horowhenua Dispute Ngati Raukawa, Muaupoko, Booth, 13 Jan 1874 2 1147 Horowhenua, Parawanui Land: Disputes between Maori Hunia, Watene Hunia, Emohi, Matene, Hakaraia, Matiaha, Utiku, Te Hemara, Rihimona, Te Ropiha, Waipouri, Ratana, Hori, 1148- The Horowhenua Dispute Tamihana, Booth, Tamariki, Ngariki, 13 Jan 1874 2(2) Horowhenua 1149 Land: Disputes between Maori hoani, Rewiri, Ihaia, Ihaka, wirihana, Te Mate, Te Manihera, Te Herewini, Kawana Hunia, Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Wehiwe The Horowhenua Dispute 14 Jan 1874 2 1150 Horowhenua Land: Disputes between Maori

Wanganui Chronicle CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase [Adjustment of dispute] 1212- Booth, Kemp, Rangitane, Wi Parata, Manawatu, Oroua 29 Sep 1875 2(2) Maori/Pakeha Issues: Resource 1213 Mainwaring,George Grey, Buller Bridge, Palmerston North Use, Access, Public Works

Evening Post CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase [Manawatu Purchase] 522- Rangitikei-Manawatu 22 Sep 1870 2(3) Kemp, Hunia Manawatu, Rangitikei 524 Block: General Comments by Pakeha The Manawatu Case Manning, Ngati Raukawa, Fenton, Ngati 525- Rangitikei-Manawatu Apa, Ngati Kahoro, Ngati Parewahawaha, 24 Sep 1870 2(6) Manawatu 530 Block: Land Court Ngatikowhata, Featherston, Buller, Wiri Hearings Harai, Travers The Manawatu Purchase 540- Rangitikei-Manawatu 12 Jan 1871 2(2) McLean, Kemp, Featherston, McDonald Manawatu 541 Block: General Comments by Pakeha [Manawatu Difficulty] 553- West Coast, Manawatu 8 Jul 1871 2(2) Land: Disputes between Edwards, Ngati Raukauwa, Ngati Apa 554 River, Horowhenua Maori [Manawatu Difficulty] Featherston, Edwards, Ngati Maniapoto, 19 Jul 1871 2 555 Land: Disputes between West Coast, Manawatu Ngati Apa, Kemp Maori [Manawatu Difficulty] 556- Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Apa, Kemp, Hunia, 5 Aug 1871 2(2) Land: Disputes between Horowhenua 557 McLean, Edwards Maori Ngati Apa, Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Toa, [Manawatu Difficulty] Horowhenua, Ohau stream, 571- Rangitane, Muaupoko, Kawana Hunia, 10 Oct 1871 2(8) Land: Disputes between Rangitikei-Manawatu, 578 Featherston, Buller, Te Whatanui, Kemp, Te Maori Otaki, Kapiti Watene [Manawatu Difficulty] 579- Rangitikei-Manawatu Rangieikei, Himatangi, 13 Oct 1871 2(5) McLean, Featherston, Kemp 583 Block: Reserves for Oroua Maori [Provincial Government purchasing efforts being James Grindell, McLean, Thomas Williams, Otaki, Manawatu, 633- 10 Jul 1872 2(6) interferred with] Hadfield, Wyld, Hunia, Kemp,Ngati Horowhenua, 638 Land: Government Raukawa, Rangitane, Booth Tuwhakatupua Purchasing [Editorial discussion of Wi Parata, Mete Kingi, Ngati Toa, Ngati Maori parliamentarians] 647- Raukawa, Ngati Awa, Rauparaha, Te Pehi 17 Dec 1872 2(6) Political: Maori 652 Kupe, Whatanui, Rangitane, Ngati Apa, Representation/Participati Muaupoko on [Hui to consider NLC 657- judgment re Kukutauaki] Ngati Raukawa, Kemp, Hunia, Tamihana te 8 Apr 1873 2(3) Foxton, Kukutauaki Block 659 Land: Native Land Court: Rauparaha, Ahikara, Pete Sittings, Related Issues [Rumour of disturbance among Maori over Otaki, Manawatu, 13 Dec 1873 2 660 Horowhenua land] Ngati Raukawa, Muaupoko Horowhenua Land: Disputes between Maori [Challenge from 662- Wanganui Maori] 9 Feb 1874 2(2) Ngati Raukawa Horowhenua 663 Land: Disputes between Maori [Drunken fight] 25 Feb 1874 2 664 Maori & Law/Order Hapimau, George Hori, Kemp Horowhenua, Otaki Issues: Assault

Evening Post CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase 680- [Lease of Murimotu] 22 Sep 1874 2(2) Kemp, Ngati Kahungunu, Renata Murimotu 681 Land: Maori Leasing Another "Native Outrage" Horowhenua, Otaki, 1 May 1879 2 773 Maori/Pakeha Issues: Kawana Hunia Foxton, Rangitikei Resource Use, Access, Public Works [Survey Work Stopped] 777- Maori/Pakeha Issues: Horowhenua, Manawatu, 31 May1879 2(2) 778 Resource Use, Access, Otaki, Foxton Public Works Threatened Bloodshed at Otaki 4 Jun 1879 2 779 Kawana Hunia Horowhenua Land: Disputes between Maori Napier 24 Mar 1880 2 792 Land: Disputes between Buller, Kemp Murimotu, Horowhenua Maori Settlement of the Murimotu difficult Land: 28 Apr 1880 2 805 Huika te Rongo, Kemp, Ranata, Buller Murimotu Disputes between Maori

Native Affairs 30 Apr 1880 2 806 Land: Disputes between Buller, Renata Kawepo, Ngatiwhiti, Kemp Murimotu Maori

Wanganui (Evening) Herald CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase The Manawatu Question 1295- Fox, Travers, Featherston, Ngati 10 Sep 1870 2(2) Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Manawatu Block 1296 Raukawa, A. McDonald Maori Protest or Opposition The Manawatu Question Manning, Ngati Raukawa, Fox, 1301- 21 Sep 1870 2(2) Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Featherston, Travers, Miritana, Buller, Manawatu Block 1302 Government Land Purchasing Ngati Apa, A. McDonald Richmond, Kooro te One, Downes, Ngati Kauwhata, Mathew, A. Interruption of the Survey at McDonald, Hepi, Herini, Teara te Tahu, 1303- Manawatu Takana, Timona, Ariti Kihu, Reuben, 21 Sep 1870 2(4) Manawatu Block 1306 Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Wirihana, Kariana, Marakai, Mikirooki, Maori Protest or Opposition Hoeta, Ahitana, Tapa te Whata, Arita Pekama, Travers, Simon, Takana's, James Smith, Margaret [Disputed Land Question] 12 Jul 1871 2 1334 Martin Otaki, Horowhenua Land: Disputes between Maori [Discussions proceeding over Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Apa, Meiha 15 Jul 1871 2 1335 Horowhenua dispute] Foxton, Horowhenua, Otaki Kepa, Hunia, R.W.Woon Land: Disputes between Maori Latest from Horowhenua 19 Jul 1871 2 1336 R.W.Woon, Kemp, D. McLean Horowhenua Land: Disputes between Maori Mete Kingi on the Signs of the 1337- Mete Kingi, Kawana Hunia, Ngati Apa, 21 Jul 1871 2(2) times Horowhenua 1338 Ngati Raukawa, Thomas McDonnell Land: Disputes between Maori [Manawatu Question Continues] Ngati Raukau, Kawana Hunia, Ngati Manawatu, Oroua, 18 Jan 1872 2 1361 Rangitikei-Manawatu Block: Raukawa Horowhenua Maori Protest or Opposition Foxton, Manawatu River, Decision of Native Lands Court 1383- Grindell, Ngati Raukawa, Muaupoko, Tuwhakatupua, 12 Mar 1873 2(3) Land: Native Land Court: 1385 Ngati Toa, Ngati Awa, Rangitane, Horowhenua, Wainui, Sittings, Related Issues Waikanae

Wanganui (Evening) Herald CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase Decision of Native Lands Court Horowhenua Block, Ngati Raukawa, Muaupoko, Te 16 Apr 1873 2 1386 Land: Native Land Court: Manawatu Kukutauaki Whatanui, Te Rauparara, Sittings, Related Issues block, Raumatangi, Foxton 1387- Te Watanui, Ngati Raukawa, Buckley, 16 Apr 1873 2(3) Land: Native Land Court: Foxton 1389 Muaupoko, Young, Cash Sittings, Related Issues [Native Land Court 1392- Terminated] Horowhenua, Otaki, 28 May1873 2(3) Tamihana Tekaupamha [sic] 1394 Land: Native Land Court: Waikanae Sittings, Related Issues

Manawatu Herald CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase Ihakara Tukumaru, Moroati Kiharoa, Horomona Toremi, Matene te Wiwi, Maori Christianity Wanganui, Rangitikei, 15 Apr 1879 2 2143 Karanama Kapukai, Hoani Taipua, Religious and Spiritual Issues Wairarapa, Manawatu Takarei te Nawa, Hoani Meihana, Ropata te Ao Criminal Cases Kawana Hunia, B. Stickles, Himiona 6 Jun 1879 2 2150 Maori & Law/Order Issues: Kowhai, McDonald, Roach Civil Cases Native Trouble Ahead Whakatere, Manawatu River, 29 Aug1879 2 2154 Land: Native Land Court: Moutoa, Palmerston, Sittings, Related Issues Horowhenua Mr Ward's Report on the 2214- Native in this District Ward, Ihakara Tukumaru, Horomona 26 Jul 1881 2(3) Foxton, Otaki 2216 Socio-Economic: General Torenui Condition of Local Maori Manawatu, Wharangi, Foxton, Papangaio, Ngaio, Awahuri, Tepaikotuku, 2277- Ancient Maori Names Paretao, Manukapa, 4 Dec 1902 2(3) Nye, Seifert 2279 Haumeroa, Koputoroa, Shannon, Makaruirua, Mukaka, Motoa Swamp, Mukuku

Rangitikei Advocate CFRT Title/description Names of Date pg Placenames DB Subject keyphrase people [Maori Oppose Fencing] 10 Jun 1879 2 1541 Kawana Hunia Horowhenua Land: Disputes between Maori [Assault Charge] 26 Jun 1879 2 1544 Kawana Hunia Foxton, Horowhenua Maori & Law/Order Issues: Assault [Electoral districts] 6 Sep 1879 2 1548 Rangitikei, Horowhenua Political: Maori Representation/Participation [Maori Oppose Drainage Work] 25 Mar 1880 2 1556 Maori/Pakeha Issues: Resource Use, Access, Public Works [Railway Passes Through Native Land] 15 Nov 1881 2 1603 Wellington-Mamawatu Maori/Pakeha Issues: Resource Use, Access, Public Works

Manawatu (Evening) Standard CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase Decadence of the Maori Race Manawatu Block, Rangitikei, 2077- 18 Feb 1884 2(5) Socio-Economic: General Condition Buller, Featherston Otamakapua Block, Otaki, 2081 of Local Maori Manawatu River, Waikanae

Manawatu (Evening) Standard CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase [Cattle Stealing] Wirihana Hunia, Hoani 13 Aug 1884 2 2085 Maori & Law/Order Issues: Theft, Horowhenua, Wanganui Meihana, Kemp Larceny, Robbery 2092- [Death of a Maori Chief] Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke, Parewanui, Rangitikei- 23 May 1885 2(2) 2093 Ngatiapa, Muaupoko Manawatu, Bulls, Turakina Commission Loughnan, Armstrong, 24 Oct 1901 2 2103 Maori/Pakeha Issues: Resource Use, Luxford, Hocken, Mitchell, Levin, Awahuri Access, Public Works Cribb, Hughes, Moore Flax 30 Oct 1901 2 2104 Economy: Developing or Potential Manawatu, Foxton, Kereru Industries [Addmission Charge for Horowhenua Lake] 13 Feb 1902 2 2107 Horowhenua Maori/Pakeha Issues: Resource Use, Access, Public Works [Flaxmills] Wellington, Manawatu, 18 Jul 1903 3 2117 Economy: Developing or Potential Makerua Swamp Industries

Feilding Star CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase [Western Maori Election] Ropata te Ao, Ngarangi Katitia, 10 Nov 1896 2 1732 Political: Maori Representation/Participation Taitoko Keepa, Hone Pumi [A Large Maori Meeting ] 14 Apr 1904 2 1798 Political: Hui with Government J. Carroll Representatives

Manawatu (Daily) Times CFRT Title/description Date pg Names of people Placenames DB Subject keyphrase Porotawhao, Levin, 9 Mar 1901 2 2007 [Tangi held] Rongowhitiao Foxton Goffe, Wunu Rangi Werohia, Manawatu, Oroua, [Census Return] Hera Tuku Hangahanga, Horowhenua, Rangitikei, 30 Mar 1901 2 2009 Economy: Statistics: Population, Ngatahuia, Kerei te Pauau, Whangaehu, Katihiku, agriculture, etc Rangatane Otaki, Awapuni [Native Land Court sitting] 11 Dec 1901 2 2013 Land: Native Land Court: Sittings, Related Otaki, Levin Issues [Government urged acquire Te Kawiu block for development] 27 Jul 1903 2 2029 Field Horowhenua, Te Kawiu Land: Commentary on Need to acquire from Maori

See also Wellington Independent CFRT Title/description Date pg DB Subject keyphrase Native Lands Court 10 Ap 1873 3 n/a [description of after-court function at Foxton hosted by Kemp, record of speeches

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR)

AJHR Title CFRT Volume DB 1870, A-1B, Copy of Despatch from G. F. Bowen to Earl Granville re final judgement of NLC in case of vol.1 Rangitikei-Manawatu land claims (from Despatches from the Secretary of State and the Governor of New Zealand), pp.55-56 1870, A-25, Memorandum on the Rangitikei-Manawatu Land Claims vol.1 1871, F-8, Papers Relative to Horowhenua (Being Return to an Order of the HoR, No.44 of the 4th October vol.2 1871) Copies of all Correspondence concerning the disputed land claim at Horowhenua, including reports by Major Edwards and Mr M. Clark, pp.1-33 1871 G-10 Nominal Roll of the Civil Establishment of New Zealand on 1st July, 1871

1871, I-1, Petition of Tamihana Te Rauparaha & Others Re dispute talked about as the Horowhenua question; vol.2 re collect arms and ammunition from other tribes; cause men to return to their permanent places of residence so we can live in peace 1872, F-8, Further Correspondence Relating to the Manawatu-Rangitikei Purchase vol.2 1872, G-19, Papers Relating to the Purchase of Land in the Manawatu District by Colonel. Feilding and the vol.3 Wanganui Bridge tolls 1875, H-11 Nominal Roll of the Civil Establishment of New Zealand on the 30th June 1875

1877, G-1 Reports from Officers in Native Districts, p.21 1877, I-3, Report on Petition of Members of the Muaupoko Tribe pray that Road Board and County laws vol.2 should have no effect over the Native title to which has not been extinguished and object generally to laws affecting Native lands [not recommended to alter laws to exempt Native lands from local rates; not necessary to offer opinion on more general objection of petition], p.46 1881, G-3 Papers Relating to the Census of the Maori Population, 1881 1883, I-2, Petition 197 of Meiha Keepa Rangihiwinui & 278 Others Petitioners express alarm at lawyers’ costs vol.3 in the NLC, and state that several blocks have been swallowed by these expenses. They pray that lawyers should be prohibited from practicing in Land Courts, refer to case in Waikato leaving Maori £100 in debt [As there is now a Bill under consideration of Parliament dealing with the NLC and the employment of solicitors and agents therein, the Committee would call the immediate attention of Government to this petition], p.11 1886, G-12 Papers Relating to the Census of the Maori Population 1890 I-3, p.6, Petition 11, of Meiha Keepa and 63 others, complaining of the position Major Kemp holds as trustee 7360 for Block 11 at Horowhenua, and asks Parlt to decide his position in the matter [After a lengthened hearing of witnesses, the Committee has come to the conclusion that a trust was understood to be created when the Block was vested in Major Kemp and Warena Hunia, and Major Kemp himself states this was the understanding; re proceedings at Supreme Court; the necessary legislation should be provided to authorise a rehearing of the block, with the object of subdivision among the several parties concerned] 1890 I-3, p.9 Petition 12 of Kipa Te Whatanui and 76 others, praying for a Royal Commission to inquire into the 7361 truth of the allegation of the petitioners and that the Horowhenua Block be declared absolutely inalienable until the expiration of three months after the rising of the net session of Parliament [in view of the probably early prorogation of Parlt, it is inadvisable to enter upon the consideration of this petition]

1892 I-3, p.5, Petition 12/1890 & 156/1891 of Kipa Te Whatanui and others, praying that their claims to portions 7385 of Horowhenua Block may be heard, and relief granted [Committee is of opinion the Government should be recommended to take the whole questions affecting the Horowhenua Block into their consideration, and if possible, to institue legislation to settle all disputes]

1892 I-3, p.16 Petition 123/1891 and 201/1892 of Major Kemp and others, alleging that a block of land known as 7388 Horowhenua No.11 was vested in Major Kemp and Waren Hunia in trust for the Muaupoko Tribe, and not in absolute ownership, as claimed by Hunia. They pray that legislation may restore the equitable rights of the tribe and free Major Kemp from certain liabilities consequent on the present position of affairs [See no.241, 1891 & 635 1892]

AJHR Title CFRT Volume DB 1892 I-3, p.16 Petition 253 & 381of Rangimairehau and 62 others and Tamatea Tohu and 3 others, that they, as 7388 members of the Muaupoko Tribe, and being fully aware of the prayer of Kemp’s petition, give their support to the same. [See no.241, 1891 & 635 1892]

1892 I-3, p.16 Petition 452/1891 & 634/1892 of Warena Te Hakeke (Warena Hunia), alleging that Horowhenua 7388 No.11 was vested in Major Kemp and Warena Hunia as absolute owners, and not as trustees, and prays that he (Hunia) may be allowed to appear before the Committee by counsel, in order to refute Kemp’s allegations. [See no.241, 1891 & 635 1892]

1892 I-3, p.16 Petition 241/1891 & 635/1892 of Himiona Kowhai & 17 otheres, and Hoani Amorangi & others, as 7388 members of Muaupoko Tribe, praying that the original judgement in connection with the Horowhenua Block may be allowed to stand. [Report for all four petitions-- As the above petitions all refer to the one subject, they should all be referred to the Govt for consideration]

1893 I-3, p.15 Petition 351 of Hera Te Upokoiri, praying that alienation of any portion of Horowhenua Block may 7393 be stopped until satisfactory arrangements are made in regard to the alleged trust in connection therewith [Govt before purchasing any portion should cause inquires to be made as to alleged trust in connection with the same, if satisfied that trust was implied, legislation should be introduced to protect the interests of the tribe] 1893 I-3, p.19 Petition 522 of Ihaia Taueki and 75 others, praying that alienation of Horowhenua Block may be 7394 stopped until disputes re trust are settled [Committee has dealt with similar petition this sess (No.351) no further recommendation to make] 1894 I-3, p.6 Petition 104 of Kipa Te Whatanui, praying that recommendation of the Native Affairs Committee in 7397 1892, on a petition presented by himself, may be given effect to [Committee begs to repeat the recommendation made in 1892 make by Committee, i.e. Govt should be recommended to take the whole questions affecting Block into their consideration & settle all disputes]

1894 I-3, p.14 Report on Bill, Native Affairs Committee 7399 Re Native Land Claims and Boundaries Adjustment and Titles Empowering Bill; committee recommends bill be allowed to pas as amended- provision made to prevent any more of Horowhenua land being sold until after next session (re Warena Hunia & judgement against him); That a Royal Commission be appointed to investigate disputed land in Horowhenua Block 1894 J-1, pp. Petition of Major Kemp Te Rangihiwinui 7400- 1-8 Copy of long petition & Maori translation re Horowhenua Block [ref to petition no.11, 1890- Kemp 7404 & 63 Others] 1894 I-3, Petition 54 of Meiha Keepa Te Rangihiwinui (Major Kemp) (No.1), praying that legislation be 7396 pp.4-5 passed to enable Native Land Court to further inquire into trust of Horowhenua No.11 and to ascertain who are people beneficially entitled to participate in blocks subdivision [Committee is of opinion it should not proceed further with this petition, as there is a suit pending in the Supreme Court] 1894 I-3, p.5 Petition 121 & 215 of Hoani Nahona & Others and Haana Ruta & Others, praying that necessary 7396 legislation may be passed to enable a rehearing to be made of the partition of the Horowhenua Block No.6 [Major Kemp admits he is trustee of land mentioned in petition, but does not admit the claimants to be those properly entitled; Committee is of opinion that legislation should be passed to allow some NLC to settle who are the persons entitled to the land] 1895 I-3, p.23 Petition 464 of Neville Nicholson, praying that land in Horowhenua (No.9) set apart for him and his 7408 relatives by arrangement with McLean in 1874 and since awarded to others, may be returned to them [should be referred to Govt with a view to relief being granted] 1895 I-3, p.25 Report on Bill, Native Affairs Committee 7409 Re Horowhenua Block Bill; Committe have considered bill and are of opinion it should be allowed to procees subject to amendments as shown on copy of Bill attached hereto] 1896 G-2 Report and Evidence of the Horowhenua Commission, 344 pp in total, report copied (23pp); further 7438- evidence not copied 7449 1896 I-3, p.24 Petitions 84, 102, 161 & 172 of Sir W. L. Buller; Ru Reweti (Louis Davis); Meiha Keepa te 7458 Rangihiwinui; and Kipa te Whatanui, protesting against the finding of the Horowhenua Royal Commisssion and pray for further investigation [recommend these petitions be referred] 1896 I-3, p.26 Petition 517of Meiha Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, praying that he may be heard at the bar of the House 7459 on the subject of the Horowhenua Block [petition should be referred for consideration]

AJHR Title CFRT Volume DB 1897 G-2 The Horowhenua Block: Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence in the Native Appellate Court under 7460- the Provisions of ‘The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896, in relation to Division XIV. of the Said Block 7462 Levin, 25th February, 1897 to 8th April, 1897. (152pp, only copied title page)

1897 G-2A Horowhenua Case. Memorandum by the Hon. The Minister of Lands in Connection with Section 7462- XIV. of the Horowhenua Block 7465 1897 G-2B The Horowhenua Block. Memorandum Re Proceedings in the Supreme Court under the provision of 7465- section 10 of ‘The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896’ 7473

1897 I-3, Report on Bill, Native Affairs Committee 7475 pp.8-9 Report on the Horowhenua Block Act Amendment Bill [Committe have considred Bill and are of opinion that it should be allowed to pass without any amendment]

1897 I-3B Native Affairs Committee (Report of, on the Horowhenua Block Act Amendment Bill, Together 7477- with Minutes of Proceedings) 7480

1898 G-2 The Horowhenua Block. Minutes of Proceedings in the Supreme Court and Judgements on the 7485- Special Case Stated by the Native Appellate Court (Vide G-2, Sess. II, 1897, pp.136-140. (50pp) 7488 Have copied Chief Justice & Justice Connoly's Judgements (pp.47-50) 1898 G-2A The Horowhenua Block: Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence in the Native Appellate Court Under 7488 the Provisions of the ‘Horowhenua Block Act, 1896’ [In continuation of G-2, Sess, II., 1897.] (184pp) have copied title page

1898 G-2B The Horowhenua Block-- Minutes of Proceedings in the Ntative Appellate Court on the Applications 7489- of Hetariki Matao and Others for an order declaring Keepa te Rangihiwinui to be a trustee for 7491 divison No.14, and for other relief 1898 I-3, p.4 Petition 27/1897 of Meiha Keepa Te Rangihiwinui (No.1), praying that certain evidence refuting 7492 statements of witnesses before the Horowhenua Royal Commission may be laid on the table of the House [as all evidence relating to Horowhenua up to 8 April 1897 was laid on table, and as remainder is being printed, no recommendation]

1898 I-3, p.4 Petition 344/1897 of Meiha Keepa Te Rangihiwinui (No.2), praying that he be heard, by his counsel, 7492 at the bar of the House, in opposition to the Horowhenua Block Act Amendment Bill [in consequence of the death of the petitioner, the Committee has no recommendaton to make] 1898 I-3, Petition 155/1897 of Kipa Te Whatanui, praying for rehearing of Horowhenua Block, in order that 7492- pp.4-5 descendants of Te Whatanui may obtain their rights therin [Committee finds petitioners case was 7493 exhaustively examined by Committee in 1892 & 1894, and Committee of LC in 1896, all recommendations strongly in favour of petitioner; Committee recommends his case the urgent and favourable consideration of the Govt] 1898 I-3, Petition 125 of Hera Te Upokoiri, claiming to be enititled to a further sum of f200 4s in connection 7496 p.12 with the sale of the State farm at Levin, and prays that may be paid sum with interest [no recommendation] 1901 I-3, p.14 Petition 354 & 389/1898 of Ruihi Wuunu & Rihipeti Nireaha & 22 Others 7518 Pray for rehearing in connection with Horowhenua Block [no recommendation] 1900 I-3, p.13 Petition 334/1899 of Wikitoria Keepa, praying for compensation sustained by her late father (Meiha 7510 Keepa) in connection with the settlement of title to the Horowhenua Block [no recommendation] 1901 I-3, p.4 Petition 285/1899 of Wirihana Hunia, alleging that there has been a miscarriage of justice in the 7513 settlement of the Horowhenua disputes and prays for a reinvestigation [petition should be referred to Govt for consideration]

H H Turton, Maori Deeds of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand: Volume Two, (Wellington, George Didsbury, 1878) (Available online at http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz).

Deed Date Description Horowhenua; Muaupoko Ngarara, no. 6 deed Deed for "Horowhenua Block (Ngatiraukawa Claims)". The gift by Keepa Te receipts 7 Feb 1874 Rangihiwinui and Muaupoko of 1300 acres to the descendants of Te Whatanui. Muaupoko Ngarara 3 Jun 1875 Deed of sale for Muaupoko Block, pp 199-200.

Deed Date Description Judgement of the Native Land Court on whose interests reside in the Muhunoa No. 3 Muhunoa 16 Apr 1874 Block, p.161.. Deed of sale for Muhunoa Block No. 4 in English and translated into te reo Maori, Muhunoa, no.205 9 Feb 1875 pp.419-420.

Deed of sale for Muhunoa Block No. 3 in English and translated into te reo Maori, Muhunoa 4 Aug 1875 pp.159-161. Index for Deeds has Porirua at 22 (1847); Whareroa - Waikanae at 23 (1858); Wainui - Waikanae at 23A (1859); Mana Island at 25 (1865)Rangitikei-Turakina noted at 69 (1849); Te Awahou noted at 51 (1858), 56 (1867), 57 (1872); Kaweka at 26 and 30 (1859); Muhunoa No. 3 43, (1875)and "Ahuaturanga" at 53 (1864); Rangitikei-Manawatu at 12, P. XVI and 70 (1866); Ngakaroro at 32 (1875, 2B), 39 (1875, 2D), 46 (1876, 2C) and 207 (1876, 2A); Manawatu-Kukutauaki at 29 (1873, 2G), 33 (1875, 4A), 34 (1875, 4G and part 4B); 41 (1875, 4E), 58 (1873, 2), 61 (1873, 4), 66 (1875, 3), 68a (1876, 7B), 208 (1876, 2F); Ngawhakangutu No. 2 at 68 (1876); Waihoanga 4 at 31 (1874), 2B, 2A, at 44-45 (1875); Pukehou 35-38 (1875, 1, Te Awahou; Rangitikei- 3, 5B, 2); 40 (1875, 5D) 42 (1875, 5E); Ohau and Waikawa Ferry at 29 (1855); Turakina; Ahua Turanga; Maunganui (part of Ngarara) at 26 (1874); Upper Aorangi (part of) at 60 (1873). Wainui - Waikanae; Index for Deed Receipts has Whareroa - Waikanae at 197, P. XVI; Wainui - Muhunoa; Rangitikei- Waikanae at 10, P. XVI; Waihoanga 2A, 2B, 3D, 4, Reserve in 4 at 272, 266, 281, 2, Manawatu; Horowhenua; 359, P. XVI; Rangitikei-Turakina at 7 (1850) and 8 (1851), Horowhenua at 6 Ngakororo; Manawatu- (1874), P. IX and 27, P. XVII; Ngakaroro at 276, P. XV; Manawatu-Kukutauaki at Kukutauaki; Pukehou; 21, P. XIV (2) and 285, P. XV (7c); Ngawhakangutu No. 2 at 271, P. XV; Wainui - Ohau; Waikawa; Waikanae noted at 10 (P. XVI); Ohau and Waikawa Ferry at 30, P. XVI; Maunganui Waihoanga; Aorangi; (part of Ngarara) at 48, P. XV; Upper Aorangi (part of) at 132, P.XVI (twice) and Ngarara; Kaweka 1878 "Ahuaturanga" at 13, P. XIII; Kaweka at 70, 72, P. XX.

Official Correspondence in Reference to Native Affairs in the North Island of the Colony of New Zealand Muaupoko Ngarara, no.59, p.209 17 Dec 1873 A despatch which details the alleged "violent conduct of the Muaupoko" in Otaki . Report of a visit to the Rangitikei and Manawatu districts noted that "large purchases Rangitikei-Manawatu; of land have of late years been made from the Maoris in this quarter, and colonization Horowhenua, no.58, is steadily advancing in a very satisfactory manner." Also noted "a fiercely-debated pp.208-9 6 Dec 1872 quarrel" over Lake Horowhenua. . Reports of the Land Purchase Department relative to the Extinguishment of Native Title Donald McLean, Statement to the House regarding the acquisition of Maori land. Table of transactions in Wellington province indicates the amount of land purchased and to be purchased in Waikanae at P. 225. In the detail of expenditure to 30th June, No. 68, including 1875 under the heading "Part 1.-Negotiations Completed" at 201, P. 233 Muaupoko, at Horowhenua: 211, P. 233. Under "Negotiations in Progress" Muhunoa is mentioned at 207, P. 240, " Muaupoko Ngarara 10 Aug 1875 Horowhenua at 240, P. 241; . Richard Gill. In this detail of expenditure on land purchases and leases in the north island Under the heading "Negotiations in progress" Kowaroa "a reserve in Te No. 65, including Awahou" (165, p. 214); Muhunoa 1-4 (pp.169-172, p. 214); and Horowhenua (212, p. Horowhenua 29 Jul 1874 215) are noted. Donald McLean. Statement to the House regarding the acquisition of Maori land. P. No. 69, including 251, Muhunoa 3-4, 234, 335, P. 252-253, Muaupoko at 258, P. 253, Under Horowhenua; negotiations in progress Muhunoa is also mentioned at 235, P. 260, Horowhenua at Muaupoko Ngarara 1876 253, P. 261 List of lands which "have been declared Waste Lands of the Crown" on which negotiations have been completed notes a " Muhunoa 3-4 at 226-227, P. 267, Under No. 70, including the heading negotiations in progress Muhunoa 1 is mentioned at 198, P. 273; and Horowhenua 18 Sep 1878 Horowhenua at 209, P. 274. Official Documents in reference to Native Reserves Rangitikei-Manawatu, no. 121 5 May 1871 Estimate of the population in "Rangitikei and Manawatu Districts", p. 74-75. Rangitikei-Manawatu, no. 135 16 Jul 1874 Report "in respect of the Manawatu Reserves", pp. 90-92

Primary sources, unpublished: Maori Land Court minutes

Block Case type Start date No. Minute Book reference pp Himatangi 1868 Otaki MB 1C, D, E Manawatu Title 13 Nov 1872 170 Otaki 1A: 11-184 Kukutauaki Ngarara Investigation Manawatu Title 13 Mar 1873 2 Otaki MB 1A:195-97 Kukutauaki No.1 Investigation Horowhenua Title 11 Mar 1873 85 Otaki 01A: 184-7, 195, 244-67; Otaki 02: 1-54, 59-65, investigation 80 Horowhenua Partition 12 Nov 1886 19 Otaki 07: 142, 160, 182-86, 188-96, 199-200, 203 Horowhenua 11 Partition, then 14 Jan 1890 500 Otaki 13: 1, 75, 78, 82-93, 95-6, 98, 100-02, 106, 142, rehearing and 144-45, 147, 151, 156-279; partition Otaki 14: 6, 86-219, 250-92, 294-330; Otaki MB 15: 1-22, 122-124; Otaki 21A: 41-50, 252-76, 278-399 Horowhenua 3A, 3B Rehearing and 19 Feb 1891 154 Otaki 14: 7-85; partition Otaki 21A: 50-126 Horowhenua 12, Appeal 9 Apr 1897 810 Otaki 33: 195-254, 339-82 Horowhenua 6, Otaki 34: 1-379; Horowhenua 11 Otaki 35: 1-303, 344-57, 367-83 Horowhenua 14 Appeal 25 Feb 1897 671 Otaki 32: 1-382; Otaki 33: 1-194, 255-338; Otaki 35: 318, 320-23, 325-29, 333-38, 384, Levin Appellate Court MB 01: 1-106 Horowhenua 11 Partition 21 Sep 1898 147 Otaki 36: 215, 238-43, 249-54, 260-61, 300, 337-56, 362, 366-78; Otaki 37: 1-2, 9-33, 40, 47-49, 54-65, 68-72, 90, 91, 185-90, 195-205, 217-33 Horowhenua 11 Appeal and 15 Sep 1898 145 Otaki 40: 49-194 relative interests Horowhenua 11B41 Investigation 3 Jul 1908 10 Otaki 49: 197-202, 203a-d, 204 Horowhenua 11B41, Partition 2 Feb 1909 53 Otaki 50: 206-7, 224, 232, 234-42, 246-48, 264-65, 267- 11B42 73, 282-83, 329-34, 351-56, 362-64, 366-79; Wellington 16: 259-64, 271a-c; Otaki 51: 64-65, 91-94, 99-103, 106-33, 135-36, 139, 155-71, 175, 216

Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington Reference Description qMS 1984-1999 Richard Taylor, Journal 1833-1873. 16 volumes of typescripts, indexed. MSX-9073 Notebook relating to Horowhenua Maori history (Part of Cowan, James, 1870-1943: Papers) MSY-2086 Waiata and traditions/Various writers, ?-1854 Mss by Te Rangi Topeora, Wiremu Maihi Te Rangikaheke (relates to events in Horowhenua). Part of Grey, George (Sir), 1812-1898: Maori manuscripts 84-251-1/04 Proceedings from Maori Land Court re Horowhenua Block [ca 1873] by WL Buller, court transcript, probably in Buller’s hand. Restricted – access limited by conservation requirements. MS-Papers-1579 McDonald, Hector Hughes, 1856-: Papers Account of Maori history and customs entitled, ‘The Maori past and present, reminiscences of Old Noa (Noa Te Whata) Rangiriri and Ruta Te Kiri from Horowhenua District’. MS-Papers-6571-004 Farm Records and whakapapa, 1907-1918, by Hoani Paraone Tunuiarangi.

Reference Description Including diary notes from series of hui in Horowhenua and Wellington involving Hoani Tunuiarangi. Part of Te Whaiti family: Papers 89-249-9/12 Alex McDonald Awahuri – Reminiscences, 1904 ‘A True History of the Horowhenua Block by Alexander McDonald being a reply to Sir Walter Buller’s pamphlet (typescript of the letter published in the Manawatu Farmer and Horowhenua County Chronicle, 4 Mar 1896). Part of Bagnall, Austin Graham, 1912-1986: Further Papers f-89-301-5 Legal papers, 1875-1946. Including documents relating to Muaupoko tribe and Horowhenua block (1895). Part of Brandon Brookfield: Legal Papers. Restricted access. MSX-3917 Whakapapa Including narratives of Wairarapa Maori and events in Horowhenua. White, John, 1826-1891: Papers MS-Papers-0075 MS-Papers-0075-092 Legends and waiata, Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke, 1880. Also includes letter by Kawana Hunia to Puihi (Muaupoko) discussing a land matter. Buller, Walter Lawry (Sir), 1838-1906: Papers. MS-Papers-0048 MS-Papers-0048-11 Maori letters mainly concerned with land claims, 1864-1881 Contains letters from Maori to Buller, in his capacity as lawyer, with regard to Maori land tenure and transactions, in particular Manawatu and Horowhenua. Access restricted – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0686-02 MS-Papers-0048-12 Maori letters mainly concerned with land claims, 1856-1876 Contains letters from Maori to Buller, in his capacity as lawyer, with regard to Maori land tenure and transactions, including long letter from Hunia Te Hakeke about his role in NZ wars. Access restricted – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0686-02 MS-Papers-0048-13 Maori letters mainly dealing with land claims, 1877 Contains letters from Maori to Buller, in his capacity as lawyer, with regard to Maori land tenure and transactions, including copy of petition calling for rehearing with regard to land at Horowhenua. Access restricted – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0686-02 MS-Papers-0048-14 Maori letters mainly dealing with land claims, 1878 Contains letters from Maori to Buller, in his capacity as lawyer, with regard to Maori land tenure and transactions, including copy of petition calling for rehearing with regard to land at Horowhenua. Access restricted – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0686-03 MS-Papers-0048-15 Maori letters mainly concerned with land claims, Jan-June 1879 Contains letters from Maori to Buller, in his capacity as lawyer, with regard to Maori land tenure and transactions, related financial matters, accounts for services provided. Access restricted – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0686-03 MS-Papers-0048-17 Maori correspondence concerned mainly with land claims, 1880 Contains letters from Maori to Buller, in his capacity as lawyer, with regard to Maori land tenure and transactions, related financial matters, accounts for services provided. Access restricted – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0686-05 MS-Papers-0048-18 Maori correspondence concerned mainly with land claims, 1881-1882 Contains letters from Maori to Buller, in his capacity as lawyer, with regard to Maori land tenure and transactions, related financial matters, accounts for services provided. Access restricted – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0686-04 MS-Papers-0048-19 Maori correspondence concerned mainly with land claims, 1883-1884 Contains letters from Maori to Buller, in his capacity as lawyer, with regard to Maori land tenure and transactions, related financial matters, accounts for services provided. Access restricted – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0686-04 MS-Papers-0048-20 Maori letters mainly concerning with land claims, 1885-1889 Contains letters from Maori to Buller, in his capacity as lawyer, with regard to Maori land tenure and transactions, related financial matters, accounts for services provided. Access restricted – use microfilm MS-Copy-Micro-0686-05

See CFRT Maori language sources, p.75 reference to Folder 08 28. ‘A history of events in Manawatu’ April 30 1870 Kawana Hunia speaker [only 2 pages of Maori text].

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 1 Inward letters (English) Thomas Cook 10 letters from Thomas Cook, Manawatu, 1851-1875 MS-Papers-0032-0225 Isaac Featherston 62 letters from I E Featherston, 1859-1876 MS-Papers-003200266 Sir William Fox 43 letters from Fox, 1870-1871 MS-Papers-0032-0279 Sir William Fox #1022470, 3 pages written 16 Jany 1874 MS-Papers-0032-0280 James Grindell 27 letters from Grindell MS-Papers-0032-0304 Samuel Locke MS-Papers-0032-0393 Hector McDonald 14 letters written from Horowhenua, 1868-1876 MS-Papers-0032-0409 Surnames, McDonnell, #1019502, 4 pages written 22 Dec 1871 by unknown author in Wanganui MS-Papers-0032-0412 W N Searancke 62 letters from W N Searancke, including undated letters from Otaki and Manawatu,, MS-Papers-0032-0566 also undated map from Kukutauaki to Paekakariki.

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 2 Inward letters (Maori) MS-Papers-0032-0694A -20 Copy of letter from Te Kaiaka to Te Apiha, Te Keepa and Hohepa Tamamutu, 26 Feb 1870 MS-Papers-0032-0694D -14 Letter from Hori Kerei to Major Keepa, 27 Sep 1870 MS-Papers-0032-0694E -09 Letter from Meiha Kepa Te Taitokokiteuru to McLean, 21 Oct 1870 MS-Papers-0032-0694F -05 Letter from Kawana Hunia to McLean, 16 Nov 1870 MS-Papers-0032-0695A -04 Letter from Te Herekiekie to McLean (with translation), 5 Jan 1871 MS-Papers-0032-0695B Mar-April 1871. Letters re land disputes in Horowhenua and Manawatu MS-Papers-0032-0695E -13 Letter from Meiha Kepa Te Taitokokiteuru to McLean, 24 Aug 1871 (may be others) MS-Papers-0032-0695F Sep-Oct 1871 correspondence including request to McLean not to confirm land sales in Horowhenua because not all owners had agreed. MS-Papers-0032-0696A -07 Letter from Te Ratana Ngahina to Ngawaka Taurua, 27 Mar 1872 MS-Papers-0032-0696H -11 Letter from Meiha Kepa to Rihari Woon, 1872 -12 Letter from Wiratana Te Rangi to McLean, 1872 MS-Papers-0032-0697A Reports on land dispute in Horowhenua, Jan-March 1873 MS-Papers-0032-0697D -03 Letter from Kawana Hunia to McLean, 28 Jul 1873 MS-Papers-0032-0698A -02 Letter from McLean to Te Rona, Hoani Puihi and Muaupoko, 15 Jan 1874 (may be others) MS-Papers-0032-0699B -02 Letter from Hunia Te Hakeke to McLean, 26 July 1875 -11 Letter from Meiha Kepa Rangihiwinui to McLean, 14 Dec 1875 -12 Letter from Hunia Te Hakeke to McLean, 28 Dec 1875 MS-Papers-0032-0700C -11 Letter from Meiha Keepa to McLean, 18 Nov 1876 MS-Papers-0032-0702B -06 Undated letter from Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke to McLean [circa 1850-1869] -07 Letter from Hamahona, Raruke, Hone Waitere and others to McLean, 26 May [circa 1850-1869]

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 6 Telegrams Native Minister – Inward telegrams #1007692 Grindell to McLean, 11 Nov 1872

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 6 Telegrams MS-Papers-0032-0074 #1016248 Grindell to McLean, 22 Nov 1872 #1019054 Rogan to McLean, 21 Nov 1872 #1024230 Rogan to McLean, 21 Nov 1872 #1010704 Rogan to McLean, 13 Nov 1872 #1025944 Rogan to McLean, 23 Nov 1872 #1017148 Rogan to McLean, 27 Nov 1872 #1010219 Rogan to McLean, 28 Nov 1872 #1008271 Rogan to McLean, 3 Dec 1872 #1014467 Rogan to McLean, 4 Dec 1872 #1005850 Rogan to McLean, 5 Dec 1872 Native Minister and Minister of Colonial #1021285 McLean to Grindell, 5 Jun 1872 Defence – Outward telegrams MS-Papers-0032-0075 Native Minister – Outward telegrams #1024197 McLean to Rogan, 6 Nov 1872 MS-Papers-0032-0076 #1006734 McLean to Grindell, 10 Nov 1872 #1012773 McLean to Rogan, 7 Nov 1872 #1022511 McLean to Rogan, 8 Nov 1872 #1024918 McLean to Rogan, 10 Nov 1872 #1019258 McLean to Rogan, 12 Nov 1872 #1011414 McLean to Rogan, 13 Nov 1872 Native Minister – Outward telegrams #1018121 McLean, 18 Nov 1872 MS-Papers-0032-0077 #1004722 McLean to Rogan, 19 Nov 1872 #1007514 McLean to Grindell, 15 Nov 1872 #1016240 McLean to Grindell, 16 Nov 1872 #1023236 McLean to Grindell, 19 Nov 1872 #1003168 McLean to Grindell, 22 Nov 1872 #1018217 McLean to Rogan, 15 Nov 1872 #1021142 McLean to Rogan, 16 Nov 1872 #1004722 McLean to Rogan, 19 Nov 1872 #1024960 McLean to Rogan, 19 Nov 1872 #1007639 Unknown to Rogan, 25 Nov 1872 Native Minister – Outward telegrams #1004079 McLean to Rogan, 20 Dec 1872 MS-Papers-0032-0078 Native Minister – Inward telegrams #1013477 Grindell to McLean, 20 Jan 1873 MS-Papers-0032-0079 Native Minister and Minister of Colonial #1000996 McLean to Grindell, 20 Jan 1873 Defence – Inward telegrams MS-Papers-0032-0080 Native Minister and Minister of Colonial #1032986 T W Lewis to McLean, 28 Feb 1873 Defence – Inward telegrams MS-Papers-0032-0082 #1032978 Rogan to McLean, 26 Feb 1873 #1032992 Rogan to McLean, 28 Feb 1873 Native Minister and Minister of Colonial #1003666 McLean to Rogan, 22 March 1873 Defence – Outward telegrams MS-Papers-0032-0083 #1004355 McLean to Rogan, 22 Mar 1873 #1017326 McLean to Rogan, 27 Mar 1873 Native Minister and Minister of Colonial #1017051 Rogan to McLean, 4 Mar 1873 Defence – Inward telegrams MS-Papers-0032-0085 #1020656 Rogan to McLean, 6 Mar 1873 #1024369 Rogan to McLean, 5 Mar 1873 #1004578 Rogan to McLean, 6 Mar 1873

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 6 Telegrams #1003979 Rogan to McLean, 8 Mar 1873 #1010198 Rogan to McLean, 11 Mar 1873 #1013969 Rogan to McLean, 11 Mar 1873 #1016067 Rogan to McLean, 23 Mar 1873 #1026396 Rogan to McLean, 25 Mar 1873 #1005288 Rogan to McLean, 26 Mar 1873 #1015628 Rogan to McLean, 29 Mar 1873 Native Minister and Minister of Colonial #1012892 Rogan to McLean, 11 Apr 1873 Defence – Inward telegrams MS-Papers-0032-0086 #1017323 Rogan to McLean, 15 Apr 1873 #1019669 Rogan to McLean, 17 Apr 1873 #1002844 Rogan to McLean, 17 Apr 1873 #1027340 Rogan to McLean, 17 Apr 1873 #1000333 Rogan to McLean, 19 Apr 1873 #1004952 Rogan to McLean, 23 Apr 1873

Donald McLean, Papers. Series 7 Official papers Native Minister – Native land claims and #1003218 Grindell to McLean, 25 May 1872 purchases, MS-Papers-0032-0035A #1008966 24 pages

Archives NZ, Wellington

In addition to MA 75/- files which relate specifically to Horowhenua, there is a vast amount of correspondence regarding Crown activities in the Manawatu district in the special files of MA 13/-. As set out earlier, the files have been indexed and scanned to PDF by CFRT, and summarised by Tribunal staff. Records from this index which look most promising, together with the Tribunal summaries, have been extracted from the index and listed below. Documents which have already been copied by CFRT and collated into a document bank are indicated by page numbers in the last column of the tables in the following bibliography.

CRFT MA 13/1d DB Parliamentary papers, reports and petitions regarding Manawatu Kukutauaki MA 13/1d 1908-1913 and Horowhenua 3860-65

MA 13/16 Newspaper articles about conquest/protection.

MA 13/51d

ACIH 16046 Removal of Restrictions on Alienated Land - Correspondence in Maori and translated - Grants relating to MA13 51/29d land at Tolaga Bay - Wellington - Wairarapa and Manawatu Railway Company, 1883-87

MA 13/70c

MA 13/70g (35-38) 7-02-1872 McLean, draft of a memorandum regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu sale. Major Kemp, Hunia Te Hakeke, Hoani Puihi and others Deed of sale for a part of the Rangitikei-Manawatu block. Affadavit signed on 2 December giving up claims to land MA 13/70g (39-44) 2-12-1871 in Wairarapa for £300. Similar affidavit signed by Peeti Te Aweawe. 2-12(?)- Letter in te reo Maori, with some English in the end regarding the sellers and non- MA 13/70g (45-47) 1871 sellers of the Rangitikei-Manawatu block. MA 13/70g (49-62) ? Letter in te reo Maori.

MA 13/70g (8-29) ? Rough draft of a memorandum regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu sale.

MA 13/72a

MA 13/72a (148- Two copies of the proceedings of a meeting held between Maori groups and McLean 190) 22-11-1870 regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase at Bulls. MA 13/72a (196- 202) 21-11-1870 McLean, Memorandum regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase. MA 13/72a (203- 204) 21-11-1870 Memorandum regarding a visit by Mr. McDonald to see McLean. Two copies of the proceedings of a meeting held between Maori groups and McLean regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase. Peeti Te Aweawe: don’t listen to Raukawa, especially the claims they are making about Horowhenua, which he considers to be his. Accepts the claim of Raukawa ‘who were left there by Whatanui along with the Muaupoko’, he promises to fight everyone else. P.25 Meeting at 70-mile bush 2-3 December 1870. Third issue – question of payment of Peeti to Kemp for his share in the MA 13/72a (23-55) 10-11-1870 sale of the Manawatu block. MA 13/72a (241) 29-11-1870 Notes of a short meeting held in McLean's quarters at the Whanganui Hotel. MA 13/72a (242- Notes of meetings held from 29 Nov to 2 Dec at Putiki Waranui with Ngati Apa and 268) 29-11-1870 others. MA 13/72a (274- 280) 29-11-1870 Notes of a meeting between Buller and other members of Ngati Apa in Whanganui. Three copies of the proceedings of a meeting held between Maori groups and McLean regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase at Oroua. P.105 McLean warns them of MA 13/72a (74-147) developments south of Manawatu, to be termperate and avoid angry disputes (directed at (307-340) 18-11-1870 Hunia and Kemp). MA 13/72a (349- 351) 30-10-1868 Young to Featherston regarding sellers and non-sellers.

MA 13/72b (2-5) 05-12-1870 Notes of a meeting between McLean and Pakakohi women.

MA 13/73b MA 13/73b Rolleston, memo about a meeting of the Native Land Court regarding the (291-293) ? Manawatu and notes about Ngati Apa's rights of occupation in the region. MA 13/73b Native Office to Fox Regarding the payment to claimants for their expenses (315-319) 29-03-1870 while attending NLC hearings. Akapita Te Tewe to Richmond explaining the reasons why Akapita had MA 13/73b requested payment for the government for his expenses while attending the NLC (320-323) 69-20 07-01-1869 hearings. Buller? Receipt regarding the payment of 1623 pounds to Ngati Apa for rent payments in the Rangitikei-Manawatu block. Also attached is 21-07-1881 memo MA 13/73b for the Colonial Treasurer regarding rent that had been paid to the "Natives of (420-428) 07-03-1870 Manawatu" in 1869 and 1870. MA 13/73b 26to28-11- Te Peeti Te Aweawe; Kerei Te Panau and others, series of letters all entirely in te (543-559) 1870 reo Maori. MA 13/73b Morgan Carkeek to Halse forwarding tracing of the land given to Pongahuru. (748-749) 71-1030 06-02-1871 (not attached) MA 13/73b Pongahuru, that he and his children be reserved 340 acres within the Rangitikei- (750-754) 71-186 20-03-1871 Manawatu block. Pongahuru to McLean, that Kemp and Carkeek had gone to see Pongahuru to MA 13/73b survey his land be had sent them away because he wanted 300 acres reserves for (755-759) 71-21 22-12-1870 him and his family. Carkeek forwards to Halse ‘a tracing showing the land given to Pongahuru and others by the Native Minister, also a piece given to the same natives by Mr Kemp, to include some graves.’ Together, ‘the two pieces . . . contain about 170 acres including flooded land.’

MA 13/73b Pongahuru writes concerning the reserve that McLean has promised him. He asked McLean for 340 acres and he would like the Government to ‘really’ give him that.

Maramaihoea is on the east bank of the Rangitikei, south of Bulls near Matahiwi. Pongahuru has prevented the carrying out of McLean’s instructions with regards to the reserve he has been granted. Pongahuru is holding out for the 300 acres he requested. He says that he is waiting to receive a letter from the Native Minister and a visit from Te Wiremu Pukapuka before carrying out McLean’s ‘word.’ Halse would like to know what has been done for Pongahuru who he believes ‘belongs to Muaupoko.’ MA 13/73b (782-788) June &Aug 1871 McLean to Fox, telegrams regarding the arbitration of the Manawatu block. This is the first of a series of telegrams concerning the dispute between Ngati Raukawa (on one side) and Ngati Apa and Muaupoko led by Kawana Hunia and Kepa Te Rangihiwinui (on the other) over Horowhenua (south of the Manawatu River). McLean wires that Ngati Raukawa ‘have at last appointed arbitrators’ including himself, ‘Paerama & Hone & Peti.’ The arbitrators nominated by Ngati Raukawa were to be part of ‘a court or runanga of chiefs and Pakeha nominated by both parties’ to rule on the Horowhenua dispute.111 Page 783. Telegram (in English) from M Clarke to D[onald] McLean, No Date [1871] M Clarke of the Native Department reports regarding the Horowhenua dispute. Kemp and his party are planning to ‘leave for Whanganui on Monday.’ Clarke urges that Wiremu Pomare ‘be immediately sent for he is the greatest claimant to [the] disputed land.’ Page 784. Telegram (in English) from M Clarke to D[onald] McLean, Otaki, 28 August 1871. Clarke seeks the Native Minister’s approval for his proposals to defuse conflict between Ngati Huia and Muaupoko concerning cattle in Horowhenua. Page 785. Telegram (in English) from M Clarke to D[onald] McLean, Otaki, 26 August 1871 Clarke reports on the situation in Horowhenua. ‘There is not’, he wires, ‘so much excitement as there was a week ago.’ Pages 786-787. Telegram (in English) from Donald McLean to W. Fox, Premier, Napier, 30 June 1871. ‘Matene Te Whiwhi has reported the case of House burnings at Horowhenua.’ McLean has ‘advised that they should have the matter settled by law.’ He will telegraph Kemp and Kawana Hunia ‘at once’.

In a note on the back of the telegram H Halse writes that Major Edwards ‘has been requested to go to Horowhenua to arrange the dispute amongst the natives.’ 371/ 13 July 1871 attack by Hunia and Te Kepa imminent at Horowhenua. Poss. 389? Pages 816 to 818. Telegram (in English) from H Halse [Assistant Under Secretary, Native Department] to [Donald] McLean [Native Minister], 13 July 1871. Assistant Under Secretay Halse is telegaphing the Native Minister about the Horowhenua dispute. Wi Tako has written to Ihaia Paretu ‘stating that an attack by Hunia and Te Keepa is imminent. . . . that the Ngatiraukawa have borne a great deal, that their proposal to have a Judicial Investigation has not met with favour at the hands of Kemp and Hunia so now it has been agreed to fight.’

Te Watene has also written ‘on [the] same subject. . . . and believes that the muzzle of the gun will be used by Kemp and Hunia.’

MA 13/74a MA 13/74a James Thomson to Grindell, forwarding letter from Muaupoko which stated that if he (122-125) 04-07-1872 went further than the Ohau river with his survey there would be trouble. Surveyor Thomson encloses a note sent to him the previous morning ‘by the Muaupoko’ warning that if he goes ‘north of the Ohau River’ with his survey ‘there will be trouble.’ Thomson was about to start the survey of Roera Hukiki’s claim (which apparently lies north of the Ohau) but ‘went instead to the boundary between the Waikawa and Ohau natives between which and the Ohau River’ he ‘may possibly find work enough until the Muaupoko are constrained to withdraw their opposition.’

Pages 124 to 125. Letter in Te Reo Maori from Hoani Puihi, Noa Te Whata, Rawiri Te Wiumairangi, Ihaiai Taueki, ‘Heoi na te iwi nui tonu’ to Te Karini and Tamihana, Horowhenua, 2 Hurae 1872.

This appears to be the ‘note’ referred to by James Thomson in the previous document. A translation of this letter appears on page 126 of this file (document 55).

Pages 126 to 127. English translation (by James Grindell) of a letter in Te Reo Maori from Hoani Puihi, Noa Te Whata, Rawiri Te Waiumairangi, Ihaia Taueke ‘and from all the [Muaupoko] tribe’ to Mr Grindell & Mr Thompson (Surveyor), Horowhenua, 2 July 1872.

111 Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 180.

MA 13/74a This is James Grindell’s translation of the letter described directly above. The correspondents demand that Thomson ‘cease’ his survey ‘at Ohau’ and not ‘advance further.’ They say that this is ‘the positive determination of the Runanga’ and ‘trouble will ensue’ if it is not respected.

In a ‘memo’ written directly beneath the translation Grindell writes that he has ‘telegraphed Mr Thompson to await further instruction before attempting to survey in opposition to the wishes of the natives.’ He notes that ‘the Muaupoko agreed to have their claims decided by the Court,’ and surmises that ‘they are now evidently acting by the instigation of Kawana Hunia.’

Pages 128 to 129. English translation (by James Grindell) of a letter in Te Reo Maori from Te Watene Tiwaewae to James Grindell, Horowhenua, 15 July 1872. (NS72-609) Te Watene Tiwaewae (of Ngati Pareraukawa and a nephew of Whatanui)112 asks whether Grindell has received the letter he sent informing him ‘of the obstructions raised by Muaupoko, their threat to break the chain & the theodolite.’ Muaupoko’, he writes, ‘are waiting on the beach for the purpose of seizing the chain when the survey approaches.’

Te Watene tells Grindell that ‘for two weeks more we shall abide by your advice to await for Kemp to come and settle the matter.’ After that, however, he will ‘carry out the survey of Mahoenui.’ If Muaupoko ‘cause trouble (interfere)’, he warns, ‘we too shall give trouble (to them).’

Mahoenui was located just above Lake Papaitonga, about one-and-three-quarters of a mile north of the Ohau River (in the Horowhenua).113

Pages 131 to 132. English translation (by James Grindell) of a letter in Te Reo Maori from Te Watene Tiwaewae to Mr Grindell and to all the Government, Horowhenua, 4 July 1872. (NS 72-608)

This appears to be the letter Te Watene Tiwaewae was referring to in his letter of 15 July 1872 (see above). In this letter, Te Watene warns that ‘the Muaupoko are now creating much trouble.’ They have ‘proposed to break the chain and the theodolite’ which are being used by the European surveyors and Ngati Raukawa. Te Watene warns that if this is done Muaupoko ‘will have to suffer for it.’

Page 133. ‘Memo’ (in English) by James Grindell, 6 July 1872.

Grindell writes that he had promised Muaupoko ‘that no survey would be made’ of Horowhenua ‘until Major Kemp’s return from Auckland’ and had ‘instructed the surveyors accordingly and set them to work in other localities.’

Pages 136 to 137. English translation of a letter in Te Reo Maori from [Te] Watene Tiwaewae to Donald McLean, Horowhenua, 17 June 1872. (NS72-55)

Te Watene Tiwaewae writes to tell the Native Minister that ‘we the Ngatiraukawa’ approve of what James Grindell has done in the Horowhenua. They have agreed to Grindell’s request to have their land surveyed and have ‘given him’ their ‘boundaries.’ Although initially agreeable to Grindell’s proposal, Muaupoko –according to Te Watene – are now opposed to the survey and ‘wanted to cut the chain and smash the theodolite belonging to the European [surveyor].’

Pages 33 to 34. ‘Memo for His Honor the Superintendent’ [William Fizherbert], (in English) by James Grindell, Native Department, 11 September 1872. (NS72-937) Grindell has heard ‘that a portion of the Muaupoko natives have written to Mr Alzdorf one of the Government Surveyors on the West Coast threatening to break the chain if he does not desist from surveying some boundary claimed by Ngatiraukawa north of the Ngatihuia settlement at Poroutawhao.’ Grindell considers ‘it necessary’ that he ‘should proceed to the West Coast without delay to endeavor to set the matter right.’ Superintendent Fitzherbert responds that Grindell should ‘go up the coast, in order to avoid complication in this important negotiation with which the late Government’ had entrusted him.

MA 13/74a McDonald to McLean, that his temporary appointment to look after "native affairs" (148-149) 72-389 24-01-1872 had ended the previous November. 71-1324 MA 13/74a 71-1323 McDonald to McLean, series of letters related to McDonald's appointment by the (150-156) 71-1322 29-08-1871 government to look after "native affairs" in the district. MA 13/74a (157-159) 71-1321 25-08-1871 McDonald to McLean, asking government to lend his clients 1800 pounds.

112‘Mahoenui Kainga, Ohau’, http://horowhenua.kete.net.nz/site/topics/show/2492‐mahoenui‐kainga‐ohau; ‘The Horowhenua Arson Case,’ Wanganui Chronicle, 24 January 1874, p. 3, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi‐ bin/paperspast?a=d&d=WC18740124.2.10&l=mi&e=‐‐‐‐‐‐‐10‐‐1‐‐‐‐0‐‐ 113 ‘Mahoenui Kainga, Ohau’, http://horowhenua.kete.net.nz/site/topics/show/2492‐mahoenui‐kainga‐ohau

MA 13/74a 72-191 Kawana Hunia and others, series of letters related to Hunia's desire to sell the land at MA 13/74a 72-190 09, 16, 17, Ruapuka, that Ngati Kauwhata have nothing to do with the land and that he would (177-193) 72-189 23-01-1872 personally supervise the survey. MA 13/74a (243-248) 72-540 08-02-1872 Carkeek to McLean, with list of reserves for the Manawatu block. MA 13/74a Carkeek to McLean, memo regarding the difficulties being experienced while (313-318) 71-1536 23-10-1871 surveying in the Rangitikei-Manawatu block. MA 13/74a (35- Matene Te Whiwhi to McLean, attempting to address Wi Parata's complaints 39) 72-937 02-09-1872 regarding the Muaupoko. Matene Te Whiwhi is responding to Wi Parata’s complaint that ‘Muaupoko and Mr Grindell’ had gone to mark out the boundaries they were claiming ‘on the beach . . . extending to Pukahu.’ He explains that Ngati Raukawa at Otaki had allowed the survey to take place not because they ‘considered the boundaries claimed’ by Muaupoko ‘to be correct, but as a concession to soften matters so that the work might proceed.’ Tamihana Te Rauparaha and the author had agreed with Major Kemp ‘that both sides were to survey’ the boundaries they claimed before presenting the matter to the Native Land Court which was to ‘definitely settle it.’

Pages 44 to 45. English Translation of a letter in Te Reo Maori from Hunia Te Hakeke to Wi Tako and Wi Parata, Parewanui, Rangitikei, [27 August 1872]. (NS1872-898) Hunia Te Hakeke writes regarding ‘the peg that Muapoko [sic] and Rangitane have set up at Pukaahu.’ He has ‘only now’ become ‘aware that the peg is out of place.’ Hunia warns Wi Tako and Wi Parata that ‘the post’ at Pukahu ‘will be thrown out of our survey’ and that ‘the only places’ that he will allow to be included in the survey map ‘are the places between Kukutauaki and the Manawatu River’.

Pages 48 to 49. English translation of letter from Hunia Te Hakeke to Mr Cooper [Colonial Under-Secretary and Under Secretary Native Department], Parewanui, Rangitikei, 24 August 1872. (NS72-873)

This letter concerns the survey of Horowhenua. Hunia Te Hakeke complains that while his side has been have been prevented from surveying the contested land ‘through the delay of surveyors’, Ngati Raukawa ‘have already surveyed most of the land commencing at Kukutauaki as far as the Awa Hau.’ He states that ‘Ngatiraukawa’s survey should cease at the river Ohau’ while he ‘should carry on the survey on this side of the river as far as Manawatu.’

Pages 53 to 54. English translation of a letter from Marakaia Tawaroa to Mr McLean, Horowhenua, 22 August 1872. [NS72-872]

This is another letter concerning the contested survey of Horowhenua lands. Writing on behalf Muaupoko, Ngati Hamua, Rangitane, and Ngati Apa, Marakaia Tawaroa warns that there will be trouble should Ngati Raukawa ‘alone’ be allowed to ‘see the survey carried through the district of Ohau to Horowhenua, to Wairawa and to Manawatu.’ MA 13/74a Memorandum on Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase and history of the area before the (494-517) ? purchase. MA 13/74a McDonald to Henry ? Notes of a meeting on the 25th of July of Maori with (765-778) 73-4290 29-07-1873 grievances related to the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase. MA 13/74a Major Willis toNative Minister, notes of a meeting on the 25th of July of Maori with (781-790) 73-4149 26-07-1873 grievances related to the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase. MA 13/74a (86- 6to7-02- McLean, random notes regarding claims in the Manawatu. Also attached is a draft of 89) 1872 a letter to Kawana Hunia in te reo Maori. According to the note in the margin, this untranslated draft letter in Te Reo Maori concerns the dispute over Horowhenua. MA 13/74a (90- Kawana Hunia to Bowen, that he and his people agreed to their lands being 95) 72-803 29-07-1872 surveyed. Also attached was a memo Hunia's letter by James Grindell. Page 90. English translation of a letter in Te Reo Maori from Kawana Hunia & others to Governor Sir George Bowen, Horowhenua, 29 July 1872. (NS72-503) Writing from Horowhenua, Kawana Hunia asks Governor Bowen to influence Native Minister McLean to send him a surveyor ‘so that the survey of my lands may be clear and satisfactory.’ Kawana tells the Governor that ‘my hand alone must guide the surveyor. I object to other parties surveying before me.’ Pages 91 to 92. ‘Memo’ (in English) by James Grindell (Native Department), No Date [probably early August 1872] James Grindell responds to the contents of Kawana Hunia’s letter to the Governor (see directly above). He reports that the matter raised by Kawana had been thoroughly discussed ‘in the presence of a portion of his own tribe Ngatiapa, and also Muaupoko, Rangitane, and Ngati Kahungunu’ when Grindell had been a Horowhenua on 23 and 24 July. ‘Kawana Hunia,’ Grindell maintains. ‘has already obtained everything he now asks for.’ Having first obtained the agreement of Ngati Raukawa ‘that they would not interfere’, Grindell had ‘accompanied a party of Muaupoko & Ngatiapa (chosen by Kawana Hunia . . .) to erect posts at certain points claimed by them but in the occupation of Ngatiraukawa.’ Grindell had ‘introduced’ the survey party ‘to Matene Te Whiwhi & others at Otaki who’, he writes, ‘received them cordially and told them to survey where they thought proper.’

MA 13/74a

Page 95. ‘Memo’ (in English) by James Grindell (Native Department), No Date [August 1872]. Grindell’s memo concerns the surveying of the contested lands at Horowhenua. He writes that ‘all that is required at present is one map for Rangitane, Muaupoko, & Ngatiapa, [and] another for Ngatiraukawa & Ngatitoa and one for the Court.’ Grindell will ‘see that this is done.’ Ngati Awa ‘do not require a separate map as in their case there is only one boundary in dispute.’

Pages 96 to 97. English translation (by James Grindell) of a letter from Kawana Hunia & Hoani Meihana to the Hon D. McLean, Horowhenua, 29 July 1872. (NS72-736) Kawana Hunia and Hoani Meihana report on the outcome of ‘the native gathering at Horowhenua of Muaupoko & Rangitane.’ It has been ‘arranged’ that Muaupoko and Ngati Raukawa will ‘carry on their own surveys without interrupting each other.’ The meeting agreed to ask that ‘separate maps be prepared – one for Muaupoko & Rangitane and one for Ngatiraukawa.’

Page 100. Summary (in English) by James Grindell (translator) of a letter from ‘Muaupoko, Hamua, Rangitane & Ngatiapa’ to Donald McLean, Horowhenua, 29 July 1872. (NS72-735) ‘By desire of Kawana Hunia & Major Kemp’, Muaupoku, Hamua, Rangitane & Ngati Apa ‘have had a meeting at Horowhenua.’ They would like to have a survey map ‘for themselves and insist that the Native Land Court ‘must sit at Horowhenua.’

Pages 101 to 104. Letter in Te Reo Maori from ‘Te iwi nui tonu’ [the large iwi] signed by Tawhao and 86 others [description of letter in Maori says ’38 others’] to Te Makarini [Donald McLean], Horowhenua, 29 Hurae 1872.

This is the Te Reo Maori letter summarized by James Grindell in the previous document (38). It concerns the requests or demands made by the meeting of Muaupoko, Hamua, Rangitane and Ngati Apa called by Kawana Hunia and Te Keepa. The letter has not been translated.

Page 105. Summary (in English) by James Grindell (translator) of a letter from ‘Muaupoko & Ngatiapa’ to Donald McLean, Horowhenua, 29 July 1892. (NS72-733)

This is a summary of the letter in Te Reo Maori that is reproduced on pages 107 and 108 of this file (document 42). According to Grindell’s summary Ngati Apa and Muaupoko ask that the Native Land Court sit at Horowhenua ‘in the house called “Kupe.” They also ‘want a separate map prepared for themselves’ and ‘desire to chain the beach with their own hands from Ohau to Manawatu’. They threaten to give trouble if their requests are not granted.

Page 106. Memo (in English) from James Grindell (Native Department), No Date [probably early August 1872] Responding to the letter he summarized in the previous document (40), Grindell says that he has already agreed that Muaupoko and Ngati Apa ‘should go with the surveyor to survey the beach from Ohau . . . to Manawatu.’ He does not, however, ‘think that it will be convenient for the Court’ to have two maps. Grindell notes that a number of the names listed as signatories to this and other letters belong ‘to persons who are absent in the Wairarapa.’

Page 109. Summary (in English) by James Grindell (translator) of a letter from Matene Te Whiwhi to Donald McLean, Otaki, 27 July 1872.(NS72-730)

Te Whiwhi has been visited by Muaupoko and Mr Grindell. ‘He approves of the proceedings of Mr Grindell and his friends Hoani Meihana, Peeti & Huru.’

Page 111. Summary (in English) by James Grindell (translator) of a letter from the Muaupoko tribe to Donald McLean, Horowhenua, 29 July 1872. (NS72-724) The signatories to this letter ‘ask for a separate [survey] map to be prepared for Muaupoko, Rangitane, Hamua & Ngati Apa.’ They ask for the Native Land Court to sit at Horowhenua.

Page 115. Summary (in English) of a letter from Ngati Apa to Donald McLean, Horowhenua, 29 July 1872. (NS72-696) Ngati Apa have come with Kawana Hunia ‘to overrule the obstinacy of Muaupoko and to arrange matters’ concerning Horowhenua. Hunia has decided that ‘the beach should be chained from Waitohu to Manawatu.’ The signatories request a survey map ‘to themselves’ and insist that ‘Hunia himself must conduct the surveyor to Manawatu.’

Page 116. Note (in English) by G S Cooper [to Henry Halse, Assistant Under Secretary, Native Office], 9 August 1872. Cooper forwards ‘a whole batch of letters from Ngatiapa, Rangitane & Muaupoko [see pages 90 to 119] saying they have decided upon leaving the Horowhenua question to adjudication of Native Land Court.’ Noting that the correspondents have ‘with one voice’ asked for a separate map to lay before the Court’, Cooper suggests ‘that as one surveyor is doing all the work . . . a copy of his map showing clearly the claim of both contending parties should be given to each & then they can fight it out fairly in Court.’

Page 117. ‘Memo’ in English by James Grindell (Native Department), 12 August 1872. Responding to the letter from Ngati Apa concerning the survey of the contested land at Horowhenua (see pages 115 and 118 to 119) Grindell notes that he has directed the government surveyor ‘to survey Muaupoko boundaries wherever they require, and Ngatiraukawa have consented.’ Grindell has also gone ‘with a party of Ngatiapa chosen by Hunia to erect posts along [the] beach to [the] Southern most boundary.’ He introduced the party to Matene Te Whiwhi who ‘told them to survey anywhere.’ ‘The claims of

MA 13/74a all parties will be shown on the same map.’

Pages 118 to 119. Letter in Te Reo Maori from Mohi Mahi, Hamuera Taumaru, Wiremu Mokomoko, Rihimona, Te Rata, Te Rophia, Matene, Hakaraia, Utiku, Nahona, Wirihana Hunia, Warena Hunia, Te Mokena, Hori Te Mohiu, Tamehana Tuawhoa [?], and Kawana Ropiha [all of Ngati Apa] to Te Makarini [Donald McLean], Horowhenua, 29 July 1872.

Pages 182 to 190. Letter in Te Reo Maori from Hunia Te Hakeke and 49 members of Rangitane and 65 members of Ngati Apa to Taiktoko [Major Keepa?], 9 Hanueri 1872, Parewanui. (NS 72-190)

This letter does not appear to have been translated. According to the brief summary in English the letter is ‘from Kawana Hunia to Major Kemp about Manawatu lands.’ Hunia would like to sell the land from the ‘Manawatu River to Ruapuha.’ Page 261. English translation of a letter in Te Reo Maori from Te Peeti Te Awe Awe to Henry Halse, Puketotara, 1 January 1872. NS 72-20. Responding to a letter from Halse, Te Awe Awe insists that Muaupoko ‘have no right to ask for money’ on a block of land that he and his friends have been declared owners of by the Native Land Court at Masterton. The block in question appears to be the Manawatu-Wairarapa block. This block was located on the Wairarapa side of the Tararua ranges.

Page 263. Translation of a letter in Te Reo Maori from Peeti Te Awe Awe to Henry Halse, Puketotara, 1 January 1872. [NS 72-18] Peeti Te Awe Awe condemns Hohepa Paewai and Nireaha [Tamaki]’s application for a rehearing by the Native Land Court of the Manawatu-Wairarapa block. (Hohepa Paewai and Nireaha Tamaki were Rangitane chiefs from the eastern side of the Tararua ranges.)

Pages 1037 to 1040. Letter (in English) from Thomas McDonnell to William Fitzherbert (Wellington, Superintendent), Wanganui, 16 February 1872.

Thomas McDonnell reports ‘some of [the] Rangitane and Muaupoko tribes ‘have ridden into Whanganui to see him and to ask whether Fitzherbert ‘had purchased the back country [of] Tararu[a] and Horowhenua.’ They would like to have ‘a long talk’ with the Superintendent ‘on the subject of land and selling.’

MA 13/74a MA 13/74a (33-34) 72-937 11-09-1872 Grindell, memo regarding the movement of Muaupoko claimants. 73-15 73-5 70-1121 70-775 70-632 70-578 70-502 70-326 70-251 MA 13/74a 70-1 (402-492, 69-3213 581-585); 69-3197 Swainson to Buller, correspondence related to the back rents that were owed by MA 13 75a 69-3167 settlers Swainson, Taylor, Jordan and Watt for the Rangitikei-Manawatu block. (473-485) 69-3111 24-12-1872 Correspondence dates from as early as 1867 but mainly 1869 and 1870. Hoani Puihi, Te Whata and others to Grindell & Thompson objecting to the MA 13/74a surveying of land in the Horowhenua. Also attached were a memo by Grindell and a (126-127) 72-610 02-07-1872 note by McLean. Matene Tiwaewae to Grindell, asking whether Grindell had received his warning that Muaupoko were obstructing the survey of the Horowhenua. Also attached are MA 13/74a 72-609/72- his earlier warnings that Muaupoko would be stopping the survey and a memo by (128-139) 606/72-551 15-07-1872 Grindell. MA 13/74a Hunia Te Hakeke to Wi Tako & Wi Parata, regarding the survey of land at (44-47) 72-898 27-08-1872 Horowhenua. MA 13/74a Kawana Hunia to Cooper, objecting to Ngati Raukawa carrying out a survey on his (48-52) 72-873 24-08-1872 land in the Horowhenua. 72-736 Grindell to McLean, that Kawana Hunia and Hoani Meihana had accepted that 72-735 surveys should proceed on the West Coast but that the NLC should sit at MA 13/74a 72-733 Horowhenua. Also attached are letters from Muaupoko, Rangitane and Ngati Apa as (96-119) 72-730 29-07-1872 well as individually from Mohi Mahi and Matene Te Whiwhi to McLean from the

MA 13/74a 72-724 same day. 72-723 72-696 Fitzherbert to McLean, acknowledging the receipt of additional instructions for MA 13/74a 71-1837 Carkeek and stated that additional surveys were at the disposal of the government. (359-371) 71-1836 01-12-1871 Also attached two recent letters from Hunia Te Hakeke. Te Peeti Te Aweawe to Halse, that Muaupoko could have attended the NLC at MA 13/74a 72-20 Masterton but neglected to do so. He did not approve of any of the payment for (261-264) 72-18 01-01-1872 Puketotara being paid to them. Page 191. Survey plan by M. [Morgan] Carkeek of reserves on the Rangitikei River made by Donald McLean and Henry Tacy Kemp, [No Date]. This survey shows the reserve of 100 acres ‘given by’ Native Minister McLean ‘to Pongahuru and others’ at Maramaihoea and the 40 acres reserve made by ‘Mr Kemp . . . for Ngatikahoro and Ngatiparewahawaha.’ Both reserves abut on to the Rangitikei River.

Page 257. Notes (in Alexander Mackay’s handwriting) on Maramahoea, 147 acres, 19 January 1884. The notes include a list of names

MA 13/75a MA 13/75a Major Kempto Featherston, that Ngati Apa, Rangitane, Muaupoko, Ngati Kauwhata (360) 02-1871 and others would be going to Wanganui "on Monday next". Page 360. Telegram (in English) from Major Kemp [Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui] to I E Featherston, Wanganui, 1 February 1871. Ngati Apa, Rangitane, Muaupoko, Ngati Kauwhata ‘& other tribes are coming to Wanganui’ to vote for Major Kemp in the General Election. Kemp asks his ‘Parent Petatone’ to ‘instruct the Toll Bar keeper at Blythes Flat’ to allow ‘the Maori voters’ to pass free of charge ‘in a body.’ MA 13/75a 26-07- (403-410) 71-328 1871 McDonald to Fitzherbert, Report No. 1 on "claims of natives to land at Manawatu". MA 13/75a McDonald to Fitzherbert, Report No. 2 on "claims of natives to land at Manawatu" and (411-419) 71-328 2-08-1871 random memo to Featherston. MA 13/75a 15-09- (420-440) 71-421 1871 McDonald, Account of a meeting of "Rangitikei natives". Page 450-454. Telegram (in English) from Donald McLean [Native Minister] to William Fitzherbert [Wellington Superintendent], Opunake, 17 February 1872.

Translation of telegram just received from Major Kemp of Wanganui respecting some rumours that Tamihana Te Rauparaha was dealing about land at Tararua. Utmost caution required in any negotiations at present. South of Manawatu where there are so many conflicting interests of different tribes. Tamihana Te Rauparaha is selling the land to the Superintendent of Wellington on Tuesday at Otaki. McLean recommends stopping the sale as Ngati Raukawa lands are around Otaki where their fires have burnt. MA 13/75a (455-462); MA Grindell, telegrams regarding the grievances of Ngati Raukawa in relation to the 13/75b (37-39) 04-1873 Horowhenua decision. Page 455-456. Telegram (in English) from James Grindell [Interpreter] to William Fitzherbert [Wellington Superintendent], Foxton, 9 April 1873.

Natives applying for orders for certificates. Good deal of confusion about boundaries. Hope Court will have patience. Rogan anxious to facilitate govt negotiations. Effect of some native applications would be to restrict lands from sale through ignorance of proper procedure – too many names on application. Smith does not seem to care to set them right. I have applied to Rogan who promises to set things right. Fear Kemp will get order as tribal right which would restrict sale until subdivided. He wishes to hold on until road formed to get higher price. Some of grantees of 7,000 acre block which Grindell has bought are in bush. Grindell will go after them and return via Wairarapa and could get signatures still wanting to seventy mile bush.

Page 458-461. Letter (in English) from James Grindell [Interpreter] to William Fitzherbert [Wellington Superintendent], Foxton, 9 April 1873.

Ngati Raukawa being so disgusted with the Horowhenua decision had determined not to go into Court for orders in favour of grantees. They appear to have been led by Matene te Whiwhi who seems to do as Kemp likes – he has no spirit. They are disappointed that Mr Buckley didn’t stay to discuss matters with them. Grindell persuaded some principal men to go to court to apply for orders fixing grantees. They expect settlers will follow and intend to apply for a releasing for Horowhenua, but Grindell hopes to induce them to get orders for all the rest. If they do not, the progress of the district will be stayed for a year or more. Hare Wirihake insists on orders for any land in which he is interested. He was authorised by the court to represent Ngati Raukawa, not Matane.

MA 13/75a Page 481. Telegraph (in English) from John Davis Ormond [Minister of Public Works] to Donald McLean [Native Minister], Napier, 2 April 1872. Message received from Kemp [Te Rangihiwinui Kepa]“It is rumoured that the Superintendent is about to make arrangements for lease by province of Wellington of large blocks of land at Murimotu and Wanganui River. Such a course will interfere with action of general Govt in purchase of waste lands. As part owner of Murimotu and Wanganui I shall oppose any attempts on the part of the province to lease those lands” – Meiha Keepa 72- Hamlin; Halse; Parakaia Pouepa; Eru Tahitangata, Ngati Raukawa desired to sell a part MA 13/75a 304/72- of the Muhunoa block. Associated files dated back to 1864 (06-08,10-1864 file, MA (502-516) 508 03-1872 13/75a [517-568]). Page 504-507. Precis notes on Muhunoa, Papapaetonga land sale by Henry Halse (Assistant Native Secretary), 15 March 1972

February 1864 - Roera Hukiki and 29 other Otaki natives agreed to sell a piece of land at Muhunoa, Papaitonga to the Crown. Dr Featherston is named in the agreement, purchase money not stated. 25 August 1864 - Te Puke Ngahunga writes to Dr Featherston for the money for Muhunoa and to set apart some of the thousands that remain for Te Keepa, Hunia and all the tribe. October 1864 - Te Puke and Roera ask Dr Featherston to divide the money for Muhunoa. £700 to be paid for the part which is not disputed and £300 to be detained for the disputed part. Should Dr Featherston not be pleased with this arrangement the money of the government will be lost at Muhunoa. 8 July 1864 - Ururoa and 35 other Otaki natives inform Dr Featherston that they desire to lease their land and have tried for 8 years to let it. Tamihana would not agree and says Dr Featherston supports him, we have agreed with pakeha to take the land. 5 July 1864 – Matene Te Whiwhi and Tamihana Te Rauparaha caution Dr Featherston not to hearken to a letter from Natanahira and others offering land for sale because the people in general do not consent to sell the land. They wish to retain it as a place of residence for their children. 2 August 1864 – Te Puke and Tuinimaku ask Dr Featherston to advance them some of the Muhunoa money. 23 September 1864 – Matene Te Whiwhi, Te Roera and five other Otaki natives apply to Dr Featherston for money for Muhunoa as they are expecting visitors. 9 November 1863 – Te Roera and Te Puke acknowledge receipt of a letter from Dr Featherston on the subject of Muhunoa and state that Hukiki received £50 for the land. They wished some Europeans to look at the land. 16 June 1864 – Noa Te Whata of Horowhenua reminds Dr Featherston of a conversation about the money for Muhunoa and asks for £200 out of £1100 supposed to be the amount promised for the land. 17 July 1864 – Te Puke informs Dr Featherston that natives are making the division line between his land and Roera’s, Asks for a surveyor to be sent to mark off the land. There is a dispute about the £100 paid by Dr Featherston. Sketch of Muhunoa Block. 10 February 1872 – Eru Tahitangata and Henare Te Hutete informed the Superintendent they had agreed to survey their land and then give certain portions of it into his land. Ask for an advance to pay for survey of land. 13 February 1872 Parakaia Ponepa asks the Superintendent to pay him for land at Paraetai, called Te Kauri.

The information contained in these papers does not support the statement in the précis forwarded by the Provincial Secretary or the information of the Native Minister. It seems that the price agreed upon for Muhunoa was £1100 and that the native sellers acknowledge the receipt of £150 for the land. The original receipts or certified copies of them should be furnished by the Provincial Government to show the actual amount paid for the land in question.

Page 527-531. Letter (in Te Reo) from Noa te Whata to Dr Featherston [Wellington Superintendent], Muhunoa, 16 June 1864

Notes in English: Requests £200 for Muhunoa as his share. Translation in English. Separate £200 for us and give the Ngati Raukawa £900, when you come let Te Kepa te Rangihiwinui of Whanganui know. MA 13/75a (94-98) 28-03-1872 McDonald to McLean, memo for the Native Minister regarding the NLC hearing.

MA 13/75b

73-378, MA 13/75b 387, (119-125) 389, 393 1-07-1873 Booth to Fitzherbert, various telegrams reated to surveys in the region. 73-589, 591, MA 13/75b 595, 11to12- Booth to Fitzherbert, various memos and telegrams related to recent NLC hearings (170-176) 634, 635 1873 held at Otaki. MA 13/75b (87- Wardell to Fitzherbert, report on claims within the Manawatu-Kukutauaki block. 96) 10-6-1873 Mr Wardell paid Te Rangirurupuni and Hoani Amorangi of Muaupoko £5 on account of lands between the boundary of Crown land in Wairarapa and the Ngarara block. The land had not passed the Court. He paid Hoani Meihana £5 on account of services rendered to Mr Grindell and himself (Mr Wardell). Further disbursements were for expenses of witnesses in the Ngarara claim and incidental matters

MA 13/75b

31-03- MA 13/75b (2) 73-156 1873 Grindell to Fitzherbert, report on the Horowhenua matters at the NLC. The business was proceeding in Court slowly, but Mr Grindell trusted the result would be satisfactory and permanent. No orders had been made appointing grantees to any of the block, so he had not made any advances. Mr Buckley proposed to abstain from any further negotiations with Māori in respect of the land he wanted to acquire at Horowhenua, on condition of the Government not opposing his purchasing of the Himatangi block (5,500 acres) instead. The Superintendent’s views were sought on this matter. From: J. Rogan, Judge of the Native Land Court. To: J. L. Cooper [?] Place: Foxton Date: 19 March 1873 (another date of 15 August appears). Title or subject: Order of Court followed judgment in favour of Raukawa. Kemp was to oppose. New Zealand telegraph. The state of affairs in the Court at the then present time was as he may have gathered from the newspapers. That is, an Order of the Court followed the judgment of 4 March in favour of Raukawa admitting Ngāti Awa and Ngāti Toa excepting the Horowhenua block around 50,000 acres, which would be called for hearing. Kemp and his people would appear in Court to oppose Raukawa. This hearing would decide the land question on the West Coast either one way or the other. He believed the result would be favourable to the district – 2,000 acres of land at Manawatū had been granted, 21,000 acres would be ordered on the day of writing, and they all were prepared to grant the balance of the block already given to Raukawa should Māori apply.

He had heard that Grindell had advised the acknowledged owners not to take certificate, with a view of buying it up for the province on one block to keep out speculations and to save his time and trouble in drawing up one deed. On other business – a preamble for money or something wise if the different sections of Raukawa did not get grants for their perspective blocks of land marked on the map.

A note appended, dated 19 March 1873, stated that it was forwarded for the perusal of The Superintendent, by direction of the Court Secretary. 22 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 11 April 1873 Title or subject: Rangitane’s agreement to sell 30,000 acres. New Zealand telegraph. Rangitane had several meetings with Kemp about the 62,000 acre block. They agreed to sell 30,000 acres, which was to be gazetted for subdivision by the Court first. Mr Grindell was going to meet Hich [?] on the subject. Hinu Peeti and Hoani Meihana did not approve of Kemp. Page no: 23-24 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 10 April 1873 Title or subject: Mr Rogan and Māori applications. Kemp’s application for a Horowhenua grant. New Zealand telegraph. Judge Smith was going to town, but would return again. Mr Rogan got another Māori assessor to supply Māori applications crowding in, and everything was going right. Kemp was applying for a Horowhenua grant in his name alone with people of his tribe to be entered, which would bring it under section 17 [?] restricted. At the same time he had asked that it might not be restricted. Mr Grindell was pleased with Mr Rogan’s conduct of the matters. Page no: 25-30 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 9 April 1873 Title or subject: Māori applications for certificates.

Māori, vexed and disgusted with the Horowhenua decision, would have suffered the Court to be adjourned without opposition, had Matene Te Whiwhi made his application as he and Major Kemp were going to do. They did see Rogan privately on the subject and told him they would ask for an adjournment. Mr Grindell got Ihakara and one other together and they had a long talk on the subject. They came over to get Mr Grindell’s ideas on the matter. Mr Grindell sent them to reason with the people and ask them to apply for orders of certificate. Several hapū agreed to apply for orders. A number went to Court and applied in writing. The Court adjourned for a short period to give them time to arrange grantees.

Ngāti Whakatere’s application had about 1,000 signatures. Mr Smith looked at it as an application for an order in favour of the tribe, which would have brought it under section 17 of the Act of 1867, making it inalienable until sub-divided. He served another

MA 13/75b application in the same way. Mr Grindell said that the intention of Ngāti Whakatere’s application was to ask the Court not to adjourn until it had finished their business, and that the 100 names was only to give their request more weight – that they names for the grants prepared, and that Mr Alzdorf had divided the block. He persisted in saying the order would be a tribal order and that he would not order certificates for grants. Mr Grindell said that if Māori ignorantly used the wrong form to apply for what they did not want, the Court would set them right. He said that the Court did not do it, the law did it. Mr Grindell explained the matter to Mr Rogan, who said he would set it right. Mr Rogan said that the Act had never been translated for Māori, so it was expected that they would make mistakes.

Māori had made a number of applications for certificates, and Mr Grindell would see in Court that there was no mistake about their intentions. He thought he could probably get liens, but would probably want £1,000 more. Mr Grindell did not give Karaitiana £50 on the land in Wairarapa, as it was leased for 21 years with a purchase clause. Liens taken on the 62,000 acre block were producing the effect expected. They were unanimously determined to sub-divide and go for Crown grants, and they would sell them. He presumed the land would need to be gazetted before being sub-divided. It was preferable for another sitting of the Court, to get the 62,000 acre lot sub-divided. Two or three of the grantees of the 7,000 acre block at the gorge, of which he effected a purchase, were in the bush. He would go home via Wairarapa to get them on his way. He could also get signatures to complete the deed of the 70 Mile Bush in the province. Page no: 40 From: Hunia Te Hakeke To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Not stated Date: 23 April 1873 Title or subject: Translation. Hunia Te Hakeke did not address the Superintendent at Major Kemp’s dinner, and would wait at Foxton until the Court closed. The five tribes were not going to survey at that time. [Note, the translator stated that the telegram (see below) was not correct, but he had translated as much as was possible].

Hunia Te Hakeke did not address the Superintendent at the dinner for which a collection was made by Ngāti Apa and Muaupoko – the dinner given by Major Kemp and at which the good [?] was mentioned. He was waiting until the work of the Government ceased. Mr Grindell had given money to Ngāti Apukara [?]. He wished to advise that the five tribes were not going to survey at that time. MA 13/75b 04-04- (226-228) 74-96 1874 McLean to Fitzherbert, memo regarding purchases and the NLC on the West Coast. Gisborne to Fitzherbert regarding the confiscation of land in the province of MA 13/75b 05to06- Wellington that was to be returned to Maori but then reacquired through Waste Lands (356-361) 72-453 1872 and Public Works Acts. MA 13/75b (3- David Lewis to Minister of Justice? Memo regarding the NZ Company's claims in the 6) 6-10-1870 Manawatu. MA 13/75b 72-492, (384-385, 392- 513, 6,13,19- Grindell to Fitzherbert regarding the survey of Muaupoko and Ngati Raukawa land as 395, 397) 526, 536 06-1872 well as opposition to surveys from Ngati Huia. Also a report of "his doings at Otaki". 374. From Worgan to Fitzherbert, Wanganui, 25 May 1872 Questions for Hon. Fitzherbert regarding proposal to bring Wirihana [?], and papers and maps for a meeting at Horowhenua. Asked whether Hon. Fitzherbert was likely to detain him, preventing his return by the Monday’s coach. Asked also whether his proposal to bring Wirihana [?] met his approval. The meeting at Horowhenua was to collect the majority of the people they desired. Asked if he required any papers or maps.

384. From James Grindell to Superintendent, Wellington, Otaki, 7 June 1872 Mr Grindell was to offer one surveyor to Muaupoko to act for them alone in the survey of their boundaries at Horowhenua. If all turned out well, he was to put the surveyor on there at once to get the district finished. 392-395. From Grindell to Superintendent, Wellington, Otaki, 13 June 1872 Māori in Otaki were generally united in the view of going in for the whole district as a tribal right against Ngāti Apa, Whanganui, Rangitane and Ngāti Kahungunu claimants, leaving their own internal divisional boundaries to be settled at a later date. They therefore objected to any but the outer boundaries being surveyed. Ngāti Huia were the principal movers in the scheme, and did not allow Mr Thompson to commence to traverse the Otaki River. Mr Grindell advised them that the Court would not sit until the map was completed, and insisted the survey be made. They agreed to allow the survey. Mr Thomas Williams had recommended them to this course of action. Ihakara Tukumaru was to hold a meeting with Māori.

Mr Grindell proposed going to Horowhenua to offer Muaupoko one of the surveyors to enable them to survey their boundary independently, and to offer the same for Ngāti Raukawa in that district.

The survey from Wainui and Waikanae block to Otaki was completed. Mr Bunny advised that Mr Denman would assist in carrying on the survey.

397. From Grindell to Superintendent, Wellington, Foxton, 19 June 1872 Muaupoko were divided about allowing survey of internal boundaries. It could have been done but under protest of opponents it was

MA 13/75b not advisable to force it. So, it was left until Kemp arrived. The survey was completed from Whaumauku to Otaki. There were a number of surveyors, one working from Manawatū downwards, one at Otaki, and one working up to Waikawa. Ngāti Apa and friends were going in against Ngāti Raukawa for the whole district from Whaumauku to Manawatū. Both sides objected to any but the outer boundaries. Subdividing would occur afterwards. Mr Grindell got them to agree. Ngāti Raukawa were very reasonable. Muaupoko were very unreasonable. Mr Thomas Williams had been trying to prevent a sale but it was no use. Page no: 411-433 James Grindell to Superintendent, Wellington, 2 July 1872 Report of his visit to Otaki.

As instructed, Mr Grindell visited Otaki and had interviews with Māori, including Tamihana Te Rauparaha. Māori generally opposed any sub-divisional boundaries being surveyed between the claims of various hapū. The idea was to unite against Ngāti Apa the others opposed to them, with a view of getting their right as a tribe to the entire coast district first investigated by the Lands Court before entering into disputes about internal claims amongst themselves. Mr Thompson was stopped in his survey inland of Otaki River by a section of Ngāti Huia. Mr Grindell advised them that the Court would not sit until a proper map was prepared, leaving the matter unsettled and the Government could not buy any land they wished to sell. He insisted the survey be made. There could be no objection to their taking up the question as to tribal right, but the map had to be prepared so each section of the tribe could go in for its claim at the same sittings of the Court. Eventually the survey was permitted.

Tamihana Te Rauparaha, Rakapa and others advised that Mr Thomas Williams was displeased with them for preparing to sell their lands to the Government. He advised them to collect money to refund any advances made to them by the Government on account of land, as the Government would seek to purchase all of their land, not just the mountains. Mr Williams proposed a 21 year lease of a valuable block of land in Otaki, but Māori did not acquiesce.

Mr Wyld, a licensed surveyor, was at Otaki and engaged in surveying one or two small blocks in the locality. He was also trying to influence Māori against complying with Government surveyors, saying that the Government would have a lien on the land for expenses of survey and ultimately obtain possession of the land.

Mr Grindell advised that the mountains alone would not be of use to the Government, as a strip of flat land would be necessary for a road and locating settlers. They agreed to part with a sufficient portion of level land for those purposes. With respect to the Government claiming a lien on the land for surveys, Mr Grindell advised that the Government would make them charge for surveys. The Government agreed to the survey work in the district to preserve peace amongst Māori and to settle difference by law, and employed their own surveyors. With respect to the Government obtaining all the land, Mr Grindell advised that not an inch would be alienated without a price agreed and the full and free consent of all interested. It was not the object of the Government to render them homeless, but to improve their condition. With respect to other tribes, Mr Grindell advised that the court was open to all claimants, and impartiality would be shown to all and even handed justice done.

Mr Dennan, surveyor, was to carry out work south of Otaki, for which Mr Thompson had been engaged. The latter was to traverse the beach north of Otaki River. (Mr Grindell then went to meet with Muaupoko regarding the survey of internal boundaries in dispute with Ngāti Raukawa). Mr Grindell’s intention was for both gentlemen to be set to work at Horowhenua if Muaupoko were willing for the survey to proceed. He met with Mr McDonald, who had used every endeavour to bring Muaupoko to reason and induce them to let the surveys proceed. But Muaupoko were found to be obstinate and unreasonable. Kawana Hunia of Ngāti Apa was absent, but some of his people were present, also Ngatuere of Wairarapa and some Ngāti Kahungunu. They claimed the whole coast, and said Ngāti Raukawa had no right to any part of it. They refused to allow the country to be surveyed. Mr Grindell advised that the Government did not pretend to say to whom the land belonged, and if they established their claim in Court to the whole coast then they had nothing more to say. But those in occupation, Ngāti Raukawa, had offered to sell a portion of land to the Government and asked for title to be investigated. If they forcibly interrupted the survey and broke the chain as threatened, they would be in opposition to the law, which Kemp supported and was an upholder. They then allowed the outer boundaries being surveyed, but they would accompany the surveyor. Mr Grindell could not agree to this in opposition to the wishes of others, including Rangitane, who wished to subdivide. Mr Grindell said he would leave a surveyor with them, and another with Ngāti Raukawa. They could put in a post north and south, which the surveyor would show on a map. But Muaupoko seemed to want nothing less than acknowledgement of them as owners of the country.

Eventually, Te Rangirurupuni, their chief, said he saw no objection to Watene (of Ngāti Raukawa) surveying the boundary claimed by him, and said the survey should proceed. This led to division and dispute amongst themselves. Mr Grindell abandoned the survey for the meantime, and said he would not proceed with the survey of the boundaries of Horowhenua until Major Kemp returned from Auckland. He would also employ surveyors to lay the boundaries of Ngāti Raukawa north and south of the district. The majority agreed. The following day Te Rangirurupuni said Mr Grindell could proceed with Te Watene’s boundary, and that a party would come to protect against it. There would be no forcible interruption. Mr Grindell adhered to his promise to wait for Major Kemp.

Mr Grindell advised Watene of Ngāti Raukawa the result of interactions with Muaupoko. Their houses were burnt down months prior by Kawana Hunia, as being within the boundary line claimed by Muaupoko at Horowhenua. They said Ngāti Raukawa had been very patient, and would again wait patiently until Major Kemp returned as Mr Grindell desired. If after that Muaupoko were still obstinate, they would ask the Government to allow them to settle the dispute themselves in their own way.

Mr Grindell called at Poroutawhao and informed Ngāti Huia of the arrangements made in respect of the survey of Horowhenua. He

MA 13/75b advised Mr Alzdorf would work from Manawatū south, and they were prepared to traverse their boundaries with Mr Alzdorf.

Mr Grindell, with Mr Alzdorf, visited the Ngāti Whakatere section of Ngāti Raukawa at Hikaretu. An advance of £200 worth of provisions was made to them on account of Kaihinu Nest block. He had no difficulty with them. They were anxious for the survey to commence. Mr Alzdorf was arranged to commence the survey of the block (which adjoined the Ahu-o-Turanga block) and work south to Horowhenua.

Mr Grindell went to Oroua, a Rangitane settlement. They were allies of Muaupoko of Horowhenua. As a number of people were absent, he returned to Foxton. Hoani Meihana sent a message to those absent requiring them to meet Mr Grindell at Oroua, and also to Ngāti Raukawa at Papakiri. A deputation met Mr Grindell at Foxton to ask whether they should attend the Rangitane meeting at Oroua, or if it was just an idea of Rangitane. Mr Grindell wanted to meet, and they proceeded to Oroua. At the meeting, each party pointed out to the surveyor their boundaries as claimed, leaving the final decision to the Lands Court.

Mr Grindell met with Ihakara Tukumaru. They had attended a meeting of Ngāti Raukawa for the purpose of consolidating and strengthening their union against the outside claimants – Ngāti Apa and others. It was determined at the meeting that all internal claims and divisions should be dropped until the Court had adjudicated on their claim as a tribe to the whole district between Manawatū and Kukutauaki. They claimed by right of conquest and occupation in opposition to Rangitane, Ngāti Apa, Whanganui, Muaupoko and Ngāti Kahungunu, who all claimed by right of ancestry. After the question was decided, they were to be prepared to go in for subdivision amongst themselves. They seemed disinclined to allow internal divisional boundaries being surveyed for fear of dissension amongst themselves. Mr Grindell arranged with Ihakara to send men to show the surveyor the boundaries of their block.

Mr Grindell met with Peeti Te Awe Awe and Huru Te Hiaro, of Rangitane. They condemned the course adopted by Muaupoko and were to reason with Kawana Hunia on the subject. Haami Meihana had spent some days at Horowhenua discussing the question, and they had authorised him to forward an application to the Court to investigate their title.

Manawatū Ngāti Raukawa claimants of Tuwhakatupua and other blocks complained that Mr Booth had advanced money to certain Rangitane people on account of these block, while their applications on account of the same blocks were refused on the ground that the title had not been investigated by the Court. They saw this as recognising the claims of Rangitane to the prejudice of Ngāti Raukawa. Mr Grindell advised some small sums had been advanced, as had been done to Ngāti Raukawa on other blocks, to be accounted for when the land was purchased by the Government. But he could not see how Mr Booth had advanced money on account of Tuwhakatupua as that block was within the boundaries of the district allocated to Mr Grindell. Mr Grindell since found that Mr Booth was advanced £200 on account of that block, and fixed the price to be given per acre. The right to the block was a moot point between Ngāti Raukawa and Rangitane. It was scarcely probable that Ngāti Raukawa, in succeeding in establishing their claim, would take on a less price than that offered to Rangitane. An advance of money on land by an officer, the negotiation for which had been instructed to another, was highly objectionable.

Mr Grindell interviewed Māori at Ohau and Waikawa on his way back to Wellington. Surveys were arranged to proceed. While in Ohau, where Mr Thompson was surveying, a deputation of three from Muaupoko arrived to protest the survey, saying the work was not to proceed without their consent. Ngāti Raukawa advised that they offered the land to the Government, whose surveyor was engaged on it. Therefore, they should talk to the Government. Mr Grindell advised Muaupoko that the survey was being undertaken at the request of the people occupying the land. Further, he promised to leave the portion occupied by them until Kemp’s return. They eventually withdrew.

Mr Grindell then Matene Te Whiwhi and others at Otaki and answered questions relating to surveys of disputed boundaries, procedures of Court, reserves, road making, advantages of European population, and so forth. They promised not to obstruct surveyors. Raera Hukiki and others appeared disposed to carry out surveys by force if Muaupoko opposed. Mr Grindell advised them to tell Muaupoko that they desired peace, and would therefore communicate with the Government before taking any further steps.

Three men were engaged in the survey of the district, with work expected to be completed the following September. To conclude, Ngāti Raukawa had been forbearing and anxious to submit every dispute to the decision of the Court, while Muaupoko had been unreasonable and interfering with surveys. He believed Kawana Hunia of Ngāti Apa was the principal instigator of the disturbance between the tribes. Rangitane were also anxious that the surveys proceed and the question settled by the Court. Page no: 438-444 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Wellington Date: 29 July 1872 Title or subject: Report on doings.

Mr Grindell went to meet Major Kemp at Horowhenua, who had advised he would endeavour to induce Muaupoko and Ngāti Apa to withdraw their opposition to surveys on the West Coast generally, and Horowhenua in particular. Major Kemp was absent due to illness. Others had also been waiting for Major Kemp (and for Kawana Hunia), including Hoani Meihana, Te Peeti, Huru, Kerei Te Panau, and others from Rangitane, Ngāti Apa and Ngāti Kahungunu.

MA 13/75b

Kawana Hunia eventually arrived, and Mr Grindell spent two days talking with him on the subject. Kawana Hunia was much more reasonable than expected. He found Mr Grindell’s responses to questions about the surveys and the intentions of the Government satisfactory. He spoke in favourable terms of Ngāti Raukawa and the protection extended to Muaupoko by Te Whatanui was not forgotten. He spoke of Ngāti Toa and Ngāti Awa with rancour and bitterness. He had been determined that their claim to Horowhenua be maintained, but as he saw Muaupoko were inclined to submit the matter to the Lands Court, he would no longer oppose the survey. If Muaupoko lost the last it would be of their own seeking. He intended to apply to have the case tried in the Supreme Court.

It was settled that all opposition to the survey by Ngāti Raukawa of their claims at Horowhenua or elsewhere should be withdrawn on the condition that Muaupoko also should be permitted to point out their boundaries to the surveyors, even on lands occupied by Ngāti Raukawa, and that should be shown on the map. Mr Grindell advised that Ngāti Raukawa had no objection to that arrangement and offered to conduct a party of them with Mr Thompson, the surveyor, to erect posts at the points claimed. A party of five or six were chosen by Kawana Hunia to accompany Mr Grindell as far as Wainui and Waikanae block to erect posts on the beach.

Mr Grindell explained to Matene Te Whiwhi and others the arrangements made with Muaupoko, and introduced the party of Muaupoko and Ngāti Apa who accompanied him from Horowhenua. Matene Te Whiwhi assured them that Ngāti Raukawa did not object to their surveying where they chose, as they would leave the question of their right and title to English law.

Hoani Meihana and his friends helped to bring about a satisfactory conclusion, by their influence with Muaupoko. Major Kemp probably influenced people too, saying that they would not be supported by Whanganui. Mr Grindell suggested measures be taken to have a sitting of the Lands Court advertised at once for November at Otaki Page no: 458 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Otaki Date: 12 July 1872 Title or subject: Everything settled with Kawana Hunia and people. New Zealand telegraph.

Kemp was expected the following day. Hoani Meihana was present. Hinu Peeti had gone back as he was tired of waiting. Ngatuere of Wairarapa was present and in favour of surveys. Page no: 459 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington, and G. S. Cooper Place: Otaki Date: 26 July 1872 Title or subject: Everything going well with Kawana Hunia and his people.

Everything was arranged with Kawana Hunia and his people. There had been no further interruption on his part. He fully agreed to abide by the decision of the Court. Mr Grindell was introduced to Matene Te Whiwhi and Ngāti Raukawa at Otaki, a party of Ngāti Apa and Muaupoko. He was to put in Muaupoko posts between ‘this’ and Wainui. Mr Mitchell was to accompany him and Thompson to give some points. Matters never looked so well. Page no: 460 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington, and G. S. Cooper Place: Foxton Date: 24 July 1872 Title or subject: Putting in posts with Hunia south of Otaki, to be shown on map. Surveyors set to work on Ngāti Raukawa’s boundaries.

As at July 23, Kemp was yet to arrive in Horowhenua. Mr Grindell settled his business with Kawana Hunia and his people. He could not return as he had to go with Hunia and others to prevent Ngāti Raukawa from interfering with them while putting in posts on the beach south of Otaki, which were to be shown on the map as theirs. Everything was thought to be all right. He did not want Kemp when Hunia’s posts were going in. He was to set surveyors to work on Ngāti Raukawa boundaries. MA 13/75b (40- 23-04- Hunia Te Hakeke to Fitzherbert? explaining why he had not addressed Fitzherbert at 42) 73-201 1873 the dinner recently put on my Major Kemp.

MA 13/75b (43- 24-04- 53) 73-202 1873 Grindell to Fitzherbert, reporting on land purchasing activities in the area. The Court’s business had been retarded due to Māori not agreeing about their boundaries, and disputes about what names to be inserted on the grants. Mr Grindell’s negotiations were not sufficiently advanced to enable him to forward the report which the Superintendent required. He hoped to send a favourable report by the following Friday. He enclosed two abstracts to show progress

MA 13/75b made, and the amount of money expended. Mr Rogan, who saw the Native Minister about adjourning the Court to Waikanae, was expected back. He hoped the Orders of Court appointing grantees for the block in which he was negotiating would be at once made. He hoped to state in his report that he obtained liens on all blocks mentioned in the accompanying abstracts . He hoped to obtain liens for other blocks that passed the Court also. The lien on the Manawatū Kukutauaki no 3 block (11,550 acres) was to be executed the following day, and the Waikawa block (12, 670 acres) the day afterwards.

Mr Grindell had several meetings with Rangitane about the 62,000 acre block in 70 Mile Bush. Advances made, which amounted to £480, created jealousy and excitement. The block passed the Court in Masterton in the name of Rangitane, and a number of affiliates of Rangitane claimed to that tribe and asserted their rights to sell. Of these, Muaupoko and some Wairarapa Māori were principal. They were headed by Major Kemp and Kawana Hunia, and joined by a section of Rangitane who advocated the sale. They were opposed by Huru and Te Peeti, who disputed their rights. They had tried to get an advance from Mr Grindell on account of the block, and asked for £500. He said that before any money was paid, orders for certificates of title were needed from the Lands Court. The order at Masterton was a tribal order, and the land needed to be sub-divided prior to selling, which they intended to do. They had sent an application to Mr Fenton, Chief Judge. Huru and Peeti and Hoani Meihana accepted £100 on the block, and given a lien on it. They did not want that known to the others present, and promised to make arrangements for sale, but Mr Grindell did not believe Huru. Huru wanted a bonus promised to him privately, so he could bring about the sale. He did not succeed in this. There was no doubt his party were principal owners, but if his opponents went to Court it would effectively break up the block. A purchase could then be effected. It was probable Muaupoko and offshoots from Rangitane, being able to obtain money from Mr Grindell, would apply to the Government for an advance. He urged, however, that no further advances were given as it would exasperate the proper owners, and the money would probably be lost when the land was divided. He would write to Mr Craston, lest they obtained it from the Native Minister. Grindell to Fitzherbert reporting on the survey of Maori lands in the Manawatu and MA 13/75b 16-08- attached letters from Hector McDonald, Ngatuere (from the Wairarapa) and Kerei Te (461-481) 72-698 1872 Panau and others, Wereta Te Waha, Kapariere Te Mahirahi and others. Forwarded a letter received from Mr Hector McDonald, who stated Kawana Hunia was likely to give more trouble about the survey. Mr Grindell did not believe Hunia would interfere with the Ngāti Raukawa survey, and he and his people wrote a letter to the Native Minister and the Governor affirming the arrangements made at Horowhenua about the surveys. They asked for a separate map. Letters were being written informing them that there was to be no objection to their having a separate map for their use in the Court when the surveys were completed, approving of the arrangement made regarding the surveys, and requiring them not to interfere with the Ngāti Raukawa survey. Watene, from Horowhenua stated that Muaupoko spoke of cultivating the ground claimed by him. Kawana Hunia said he had not cultivated there and would he allow it, pending the decision of the Court.

Another letter contained an application for food as an advance on land. It was from a section of Ngāti Raukawa residing at Papakiri, a few miles below Oroua bridge at Manawatū. Mr Grindell did not recommend that it be granted. Caroline Nicholas, mentioned in Mr McDonald’s letter, was a sister of Matene Te Whiwhi’s wife Tauteka. She telegraphed Mr McLean for food on account of land.

Earlier, Mr Thompson forwarded a letter from Te Roera Hukiki, of Ngāti Raukawa, and a principal claimant of Muhunoa requiring him to discharge of his men or otherwise at once desist from the survey of Muhunoa. Mr Grindell informed Roera that the man in question was merely a labourer and his business was to work, and Thompson was not to be interfered with. Nothing more had been heard since.

Judge Smith of the Native Lands Court agreed Foxton was the most suitable place for the sitting of the Court, being neutral ground and midway between the two tribes. The Court could be adjourned to Otaki to hear Waikanae claims. Wairarapa Māori had petitioned Parliament that no more advances be made on account of Tararua. The petition was referred to the Committee of Native Affairs, and Mr Grindell reported on it.

As a post-script, Mr Grindell noted he received another letter, also enclosed, addressed to himself and Hoani Meihana. Haami answered that no arrangement had been made, namely, that Ngāti Raukawa were to stop their survey at Ohau. Rather, the services of a surveyor were at the disposal of each party, and each party was not to interrupt the other.

Page no: 467 From: Noa Te Whata, Ngatuera (of Wairarapa) and others To: Mr Grindell and Hoani Meihana Place: Horowhenua Date: 12 August 1872 Title or subject: Surveying of inland boundaries.

They understood that Roera Hukiki intended to survey from Ohau up to Manawatū, including inland boundaries. They wanted to be allowed another surveyor. If the Roera and Mr Thompson surveyed from their side up to Manawatū there was not to be any trouble, because they all decided that Ngāti Raukawa were to stop the other side of Ohau. They were to survey from their side up to Manawatū, including inland boundaries. [Note, the Māori version appears at page 468 below].

Page no: 469-472 From: H. McDonald

MA 13/75b To: James Grindell Place: Horowhenua Date: 15 August 1872 Title or subject: Dealings with Kawana Hunia. Ngāti Raukawa’s objection to the survey.

Advised that Kawana Hunia wanted to have something to do with the survey from Ohau to Manawatū. He said Ngāti Raukawa to date had it all, but he must have it the rest of the way. Mr McDonald spoke to Kawana Hunia about it but could do nothing. He spoke with Matene Te Whiwhi about what Hunia had said, who said Ngāti Raukawa would not agree to give up the survey and trouble would occur. Hunia was going to Wanganui to see Kemp. McDonald asked him to telegraph Mr Grindell about what day he would be able to meet, and Thompson and Mr McDonald were ready to start work if the weather was fine.

Mr McDonald heard that Caroline Nicholson has been given an advance on Whatanui’s land at Manawatū and Watene was going to draw some. He advised Pomare and his wife were the right owners. Watene was only looking after the place for Pomare and his wife. Māori were said to tell lies, and Mr McDonald’s name was not to be mentioned in the area.

MA 13/75b 18-10- Hemi Warena to Fitzherbert, a member of Rangitane asked that a ton of flour and ten (516-517) 72-786 1872 bags of sugar be sent to him and his people.

MA 13/75b McDonald to Fitzherbert stating it was necessary for him to visit Wellington to receive (518) 72-792 3-10-1872 instructions after his most recent meeting with Maori in the region.

MA 13/75b 26-09- Grindell to Fitzherbert, telegrams regarding the completion of surveys on the West (519-522) 72-816 1872 Coast. All surveys were completed except one internal boundary at Mahoenui. Muaupoko all agreed it should be done on the condition of their survey of the beach to Manawatū was without interruption from Ngāti Raukawa. They did this, and also their internal boundary between them and Ngāti Huia and elsewhere. Hunia agreed fully to this and gave authorisation to go on with it. Kemp also agreed. He telegraphed that Ngāti Raukawa had been promised they would do theirs. If Ngāti Raukawa were told they must not do it, after submitting so patiently to Muaupoko, they would have cause for complaint. It would be a breach of the promise made publicly by Hunia and Kemp. Hunia drew a plan on the sand pointing out boundaries to be surveyed with the full consent of his people.

Hunia’s subsequent actions in Wellington were deceitful. Hoped Mr Fitzherbert would reconsider the matter. All could not be explained in a telegraph, but the survey could be finished in a few days. Stopping work, at the request of Hunia, would be in direct opposition to the pledge he made, and would create dissatisfaction and complication. He interviewed Karanama Kaputai at Otaki and told him no further interruption would be offered and he told the author he could depend on his words.

MA 13/75b 27-09- Grindell to Cooper, after claiming that all had been sorted with Kawana Hunia, Hunia (523-524) 1872 had arrived into Wellington making more demands. Hunia’s actions in Wellington labelled as a barefaced breach of faith. Hunia’s words to Mr Grindell was ‘Ka whakaae pono au inaianei, no te mea kua ata kimi matou ko toku iwi kei mea koe he parau naku’, essentially saying that he agreed. Mr Grindell knew Hunia was acting without the knowledge of Muaupoko, and acted in opposition to their desires. Rangipurupuru, chief of Muaupoko, knew about it.

Hunia had drawn a map on paper of internal boundaries that he approved of for use of the surveyors. Muaupoko’s own internal boundaries were done and it would be unjust not to allow Ngāti Raukawa to finish theirs.

The only boundary Hunia objected to was Tau o te Puru, saying he would consider that he had not forgotten Whatanui’s kindness to Muaupoko, and Mr Grindell consented to leave it. Herbert Wardell, TE Young, Grindell, McDonald to Fitzherbert, regarding provisions for those attending the NLC as well as information related to the general flow of MA 13/75b proceedings and its eventual adjournment. Complaints about McDonald causing (557-599, 602- trouble for the Court. Also attached is Grindell's report on hearing at Foxton. Series of 609, 647, 651- 72-860, 11to12- letters from Maori Court attendees anxious about having food arranged while they are 662) 886 1872 at the Court. Note 1 – Recommendation that provisions should be sent. There would be a Court of 500 or 600 Māori, and there for one month to six weeks. Note 2 – From Mr Fitzherbert, dated 31 October 1872. Recommended to order for the Court at Foxton 50 tons of flours, 20 tons of sugar and 5 tons of rice. Note 3 – Saw no object to supply the food.

Page no: 566 From: J. A. Buckley To: The Superintendent, Wellington

MA 13/75b Place: Foxton Date: 4 December 1872 Title or subject: Adjournment of Court. Food in short supply. New Zealand telegraph. A short adjournment was probable after a tribal decision. A suggestion came from both sides that Māori had no food. The Superintendent’s presence was thought to be of not much good unless he was prepared to grant an unlimited supply of provisions.

Page no: 647 From: James Grindell and Herbert Wardell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Wellington Date: 16 December 1872 Title or subject: Enclosed vouchers for approval for provisions supplied by Mr Cook to Māori at a sitting of the Native Land Court at Foxton. Submitted vouchers for approval for provisions supplied by Mr Cook to Māori attending the Native Land Court at Foxton. It amounted to £423-5, and another voucher amounting to £1-5.

From: T. Cook To: James Grindell Place: Foxton Date: 25 October 1872 Title or subject: Shortage of food. Unless some provided, Māori unable to attend Court. New Zealand telegraph. Māori were anxious about food. Unless some was provided, they would be unable to attend Court. If Mr Cook received authority, he would get some by steamer and supply it when required. Questioned if the last lot had been paid for

Page no: 652 From: James Grindell (translator) To: Not stated Place: Poroutawhao Date: 21 October 1872 Title or subject: Translation of a letter from Hohaia and Ngāti Huia.

Letter from Hohaia and others of Ngāti Huia to the Superintendent, asking for an advance of 5 tons of flour, 1 ton of rice, and 1 ½ tons of sugar. Offered to pay for it with the land surveyed by Mr Alzdorf at Poroutawhao. [Note, the Māori version appears at page 655 below]. James Grindell added a memo, which stated it would not be safe unless private parties were prevented from interfering.

Page no: 654 From: Hoani Taipua and others To: ‘Te Karini’ Place: Otaki Date: 17 October 1872 Title or subject: Request for food. Request for Mr Grindell to ask the Superintendent to advance them ½ ton of flour, 3 bags of sugar, 1 bag of rice, and 1 bag of tea for their use at Foxton sittings of the Court. They had no food and could not use the potatoes growing so early in November. They offered to pay for it in land at Otaki, called Waha o te Marangai, Tuapaka, and Makahuri. [Note, the English translation appears at page 653 above].

Page no: 658 From: James Grindell (translator) To: Not stated Place: Manawatū Date: 30 September 1872 Title or subject: Request for food for sittings of the Native Land Court. Letter from Ihakara Tukumaru to Mr Grindell asking for 2 tons of flour, 10 bags of sugar, 1 box of tea, and a cask of preserved birds Mr Cook had for sale. Promised payment with land belonging to him at Manawatū which had been surveyed by Mr Alzdorf. Provisions were required for sitting of the Lands Court in November. Memo from James Grindell stated he did not consider it safe to make further advances since restriction had been taken off land and private parties permitted to purchase. [Note, the Māori version appears at page 659 below].

Page no: 660-661 From: Wereta Te Waha, Arapata Te Whioi, Roiri Rangiheuea, Pitihira Te Kuru, Roera Rangiheua and Pineaha Mahauariki. To: ‘Te Karini’ (Mr Grindell)

MA 13/75b Place: Manawatū Date: 30 September 1872 Title or subject: Request for food for sittings of the Native Land Court. Request for 1 ton of flour, 5 bags of sugar and 1 ton of potatoes, for sittings of the Lands Court at Foxton. They had no food at all. [Note, the English translation appears at page 662 below]. 73-230, MA 13/75b (57- 231, 60, 67) 232, 249 05-1873 Letters from Rogan and Grindell about Grindell's "misconduct". MA 13/75b 14-11- (602-609) 1873 Grindell to Fitzherbert, report on proceedings at the NLC in Foxton

Presumed Mr Wardell had advised of Kemp and Hunia’s opposition to the land passing the Court. They were afraid of Ngāti Raukawa substantiating their claims, and so threatened to stay the proceedings of the Court. Kemp had been corresponding with Mr McLean, and at one stage Mr Grindell feared Mr McLean would look to get the Court adjourned. Wi Parata telegraphed to ask the Government not to take such action, as did Wi Parata and Hare Wirikaka (Ngā Puhi chief). Mr Grindell advised Mr McLean that if proceedings were stayed, tribes supporting Ngāti Raukawa (Ngā Puhi, Te Arawa and others) would say that the Government stopped the investigation to favour Kemp’s party to the prejudice of Ngāti Raukawa.

Rangitane and Ngāti Kahungunu of Wairarapa went to Court, and Muaupoko were also anxious to go. If Mr McLean and the Court remained firm, there was no doubt that they would do so. Although Kemp threatened, Mr Grindell did not believe he intended to go to those extremes, and he told Mr Rogan so. Kemp knew that his actions would oppose law and order (which he supported), and while Ngāti Raukawa would have the sympathy of the tribes, he would have none.

Mr Grindell was suspicious of what A. McDonald was saying to Māori. Mr Hill refused to acknowledge Mr Grindell at all. Mr Hill said he had told Mr Bunny he would not take instructions from Mr Grindell. Asked the Superintendent to instruct Mr Hill to leave.

There were 1,000 Māori in Foxton, provisions for which the Superintendent authorised. If the Court lasted for one month or six weeks longer, it would be necessary for more provisions to be supplied.

It was thought not to be difficult to come to an agreement with Mr Buckley about the line of road spoken about. Mr Grindell explained to Māori the benefits of talking to the Government about the shape of roads, population and lands retained by them. He advised Māori that the Government would not take the hills alone. MA 13/75b 12-12- (636-637) 72-921 1872 Grindell to Fitzherbert, report on proceedings at the NLC in Foxton. The Native Land Court commenced sitting at Foxton on 5 November, but in consequence of action taken by tribes opposed to the claims of Ngāti Raukawa, the real Court business did not commence until the 13th. From then the Court engaged in evidence of the general tribal claims of Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Awa and Ngāti Toa, and of their opponents Muaupoko, Ngāi Apa, Rangitane, Wanganui and Ngāti Kahungunu, until it completed on the 9th. The Court adjourned until 4 March to give its judgment. Afterwards, the investigation of several claims comprised within the general one would be proceeded with.

Mr Grindell and Mr Wardell were unable to take steps towards the purchase of the land, as instructed. They supplied the claimants with general provision amounting to £423-5, for which vouchers would be submitted. In addition to the provisions supplied under the Superintendent’s authority, £100 worth was presented to Māori by the authority of the General Government. MA 13/75b 73-61, McDonald to Fitzherbert, report of armed Ngati Apa massed at Parewanui. Also a (692-694) 67 9-02-1873 telegram that Hunia would "take no steps" without first consulting Major Willis. Mr McDonald found armed party of Ngāti Apa at Parawanui ready to start to Opua [?] at daylight. Numerous old grievances started but an alleged insult was the immediate cause of the sudden demonstration. He persuaded Hunia to leave his arms and meet Ngāti Kauwhata in a peaceable manner. The latter requested Mr McDonald to send a message to invite Mr Fox to attend a meeting. Mr Fox declined as he had no authority. The meeting took place and ended by a formal declaration of immediate hostilities by Ngāti Apa and acceptance by Ngāti Kauwhata. At Mr Fox’s request, he telegraphed the Native Minister, and hoped instant steps would be taken to preserve peace. Mr McDonald thought Hunia’s object was to create disturbance to prevent the sitting of the Native Lands Court on 4 March.

694, 10 February 1873 Mr McDonald laid the information before Major Willis, who had seen Hunia that morning. Hunia promised to take no further steps except through Major Willis. This was satisfactory.

MA 13/75b 29-07- (438-444) 72-636 1872 Grindell to Fitzherbert, on Grindell's "doings on the West Coast." MA 13/75b 23-07- (458-460) 72-635 1872 Grindell to Fitzherbert, that matters had been settled with Kawana Hunia. MA 13/75b 17,21,25- Grindell to Fitzherbert, telegrams about the time Grindell had spent trying to convince (501-503) 72-756 09-1872 Kawana Hunia to stop obstructing surveys.

MA 13/75b

MA 13/75b (18- 17-03- Grindell to Fitzherbert, on the NLC's hearings that dealt with Ngati Raukawa. Also a 21, 713-716) 73-127 1873 report related to the Himatangi block. Acknowledgement of receipt of letter of the 12th, which advised that Mr Alzdorf had been instructed to place himself under Mr Grindell’s directions, to survey certain boundaries at Horowhenua without delay. Mr Grindell responded that no further surveys had been required to be made in that locality, and thought that the Superintendent had misinterpreted his meaning. At that stage of the proceeding, judgment had been given in favour of Ngāti Raukawa for the whole block, except a piece for Muaupoko at Horowhenua and a piece for a section of Rangitane at Tuwhakatupua. The boundaries of neither were fixed by the Court. His meaning was that until the Court did, it would be inexpedient to open negotiation with Māori. Mr Alzdorf would be wanted to give evidence in Court respecting the survey.

In Mr Grindell’s letter of the 12th, he questioned the policy of dealing with Ngāti Raukawa in the face of Kemp’s notice of application for a rehearing. He was under the impression that Ngāti Raukawa intended to apply for a certificate for the land, in one entire block, signed by the Government eastward of the proposed line of each – subdividing only that portion to the westward. That would have kept out private speculators. But the various hapū wanted to have separate claims, from that back of the summit to the hills. Ngāti Whakatere hapū applied for an order for their claim of Kaihinu block, about 66,000 acres, which would be made when they arranged who to be grantees. Then they could enter a legal contract. Mr Grindell feared private speculators could make offers that would embarrass the Government. To prevent this, one course was to make advances on the various blocks as they passed the Court, each set of grantees exacting a deed which would give the Government a lien on the land. The purchase would be completed afterwards. The deeds could be registered at once, and the Government would be secure while the boundary line or road was being arranged, and until Māori accepted whatever price was offered.

Mr Grindell was unsure what effect an advance to Ngāti Raukawa would have on Kemp’s party. He feared they would say the Government predetermined to refuse their application for a rehearing. But if the Government did not make advances, private parties probably would. In effect, no real inquiry would be done via this course. If a rehearing was granted, the decision would be the same as the one already given in favour of Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Toa and Ngāti Awa. He saw no other viable course to follow, except for the Government putting a restriction on the sale of land to private individuals, which was the best plan. In such a case, negotiations could be delayed, pending the result of Kemp’s application and they would have no reason to complain of unfair treatment.

If he decided to make the advances, Mr Grindell required the requisite funds - £1500 in £1 notes. He asked Mr Buckley to forward him forms of deeds to give Her Majesty a lien on land for advances made without a definite price being stated.

MA 13/75b 13-10- Hetariki Matao and others to Fitzherbert, informing of his claim to the reserve at (156-160) 73-505 1873 Mangatainoka. They had heard Commissioner Booth was to visit, bringing money for the reserve at Mangatainoka. Requested confirmation, as Hetariki Matao had a claim to the land. It was also heard that the reserve would be thrown open. A note stated that the land referred to (in the above correspondence) was within the 62,000 block. Mr Booth advised that at the time of purchase, the claims of the writer would be [?]. MA 13/75b 15-09- (138) 1873 Booth, notes of a meeting of Rangitane at Puketotara on 19 Jan 1867. MA 13/75b 25-10- (161-166) 73-523 1873 Booth to Fitzherbert, report on the completion of the purchase of the Tararua block. Sums of money paid out of the amount of £1749-10, given to Major Kemp and other Māori interested in the Tararua purchase. To Makaha Mokau and others - £54-10 To Rangirurupuni and others - £17-0 To Hoani Meihana and others - £17-0 The total was £88-10, which left a balance of £1661-0-0. MA 13/75b 04-10- Booth to Fitzherbert, notes of a meeting hosted by Major Kemp and Kawana Hunia at (139-151) 73-494 1873 the Princess Hotel in Wellington. Report on a meeting held at the Native Hostelry on the 4th. A consequence of that meeting was Major Kemp and Rawana Hunia giving a dinner on the Saturday evening at the Princess Hotel. The approximate 50 guests were from two parties. One headed by Henare Matua, forming a portion of the ‘Komiti’, which seemed to correspond with the old land league. The other was the land selling party, headed by Kemp, Manihera and Kawana Hunia. The meeting was satisfactory. Māori wished to carry on the negotiations regarding the purchase of Tararua.

It was noted in the margin that a copy of the letter was sent to the Native Minister.

100

MA 13/75b A meeting was called as Retimana Te Rorou had asked for an advance of money on account of Tararua. At the meeting, Retimana Te Rorou wanted the advance as he had not received his share of money for Ruamahanga and Wairarapa. The portion for which he wanted the advance was the Tararua mountains between the Ngāti Raukawa boundary and Government purchased land boundary eastward.

Karaitiana Rorou said at the sitting of the Native Land Court at Foxton that they protested against Ngāti Raukawa lines joining the Wairarapa purchased block. Lands on the mountain had been offered deceitfully, with instances provided. Kemp invited speakers, and also said that it was for Retimana to say who had offered the land for sale in Retimana’s absence. Three men said that they were owners of Tararua. Peeti Te Awe Awe said a court at Masterton saw the land on the map. Rangitakaiwaho offered the land. Matiaha Mokai also spoke about selling, that nothing had been done and the owners had never all been together. Karaitiana said he had not before heard of what Peeti spoke about. Manihera Rangitakaiwaho spoke at Court saying that the people should be in one mind regarding the land for sale. They needed to be united to prosper.

Kemp said his great opponents had been the men of his own tribe, and invited Ngāti Kahungunu chiefs to a dinner to talk about the matter. Kemp said Karaitiana was correct – he wished to dispose of Ngāti Raukawa claims first, then arrange with his own tribe for the rest of the land. He was astonished that his own tribe had been appropriating the land and pushing him to the West Coast. However, Karaitiana said they did not wish to dispose of Muaupoko, that was the Court’s decision.

Ihaia Whakamainu wished for Kemp to have the west of the mountain, and him and his tribe the east. Matiaha confirmed Peeti’s stance, that Rangitane were at Masterton. At Court, Manihera asked Hoani and Peeti where their selling cased, to which they replied that they had no boundary. Manihera suggested their boundary be the source of Ohau to the sea on the West Coast, but they did not agree. Hoani Meihana said Matiaha had a claim in common with Muaupoko and therefore they should not be absent when the land was to be sold. He suggested that Tararua should have gone through the Court, to which Ormond agreed. It was proposed that a line would be drawn for a reserve at Awariki.

Karaitiana stated that when he had heard Rangirurupuni had got an advance on account of the land, he said that Muaupoko and Rangitane could therefore hold Court at Wellington and dispose of Wairarapa lands amongst themselves. This was because he found that Rangirurupuni’s boundaries comprised all the land which he had supposed belong to his own tribe. Hoani Meihana confirmed that the block was shown on a map. Muaupoko had cause for complaint as much as anyone else, because those that offered the land for sale had no knowledge of the owners.

The meeting was then postponed to the Princess Hotel. Kawana addressed his guests after dinner and stated that they were invited to talk over the selling of the Tararua Range, which was outside the block awarded to Ngāti Raukawa by the Native Land Court. He made known their intention to sell that land, to the representatives of the ‘Komiti’, who were opposed to all land selling.

Peeti Te Awe Awe made it clear that he would not give up his right to deal with his own land to Ngāti Kahungunu. He would retain the right to dispose of his own property. He was to watch the working of the Komiti first, before committing to selling. Ngatuere announced that the word of the Komiti was to not interfere with the land at Tuwhakatupua and Tararua, although Rangirurupuni had given the land to men (Kemp and Kawana Hunia) to dispose of. He asked the Komiti not to oppose the sale of the land.

Karaitiana Te Korou had said most of his tribe were members of the Komiti, but he did not belong to it. Manihera Te Rangitakaiwaho said he was looked upon as a bad man, by the Komiti, because he favoured selling land. He was previously an opponent of the Native Land Court, but now warned the Komiti not to interfere with their wish to sell. It was for the owners of the property to dispose of their own land.

Major Kemp brought the guests together so they could understand the disagreement. When he visited the tribes earlier to discuss the matter, Mr McLean proposed Ngāti Raukawa and his claim should be tried by the Court. Rather than Kemp needing a judge, he suggested Mr McLean needed to be judged for advancing money on land which was yet to pass through the Court. Kemp was angry with Peeti and Hoani Meihana for secretly selling Kaihinu. He was asked by the Māori King to try to resolve the difficulty with Ngāti Raukawa. In response, Kemp said that Ngāti Raukawa’s object was to sell his land on the Coast, then return to their land in the Waikato.

After the Court judgment at Foxton, a petition was sent from the five tribes against the decision of the Court. Kemp heard that Rangirurupuni and Te Korou had sold land belonging to a number of people. The five tribes had resolved not to sell, and the resolution sent to the Komiti. Some of the principal members of those tribes sold the land. The evil was not in the law, or the Pākehā, but in members of his own tribe. So, Kemp chose to speak out on the subject before the five tribes. Kemp saw on a map in Mr McLean’s room a small portion of Tararua which Rangirurupuni took money on account of. Kemp asked Mr McLean not to advance him any further money until all claimants met together, which he agreed.

Kawana Hunia confirmed Major Kemp’s statement about the five tribes’ agreement to oppose the sale of land, and further advised that he and Kemp were chosen to conduct the case in the Native Land Court at Foxton. He felt that sooner or later they would have to give way before the Pākehā dominated the island.

101

MA 13/75b Harawira Te Patera simply asked the guests to do as they thought best with their own land. Henare Matua asked people not to interfere with lands before the Court. According to him, the voice of the Komiti, the Komiti did not ask for the petition sent from the five tribes at Foxton.

Manihera wished to sell. Ropiha Te Akau said on behalf of Hamua that they were a land selling tribe. Rangirurupuni wished for the land to be sold, so that the men could live. Matiaha Mokai sent the petition to the Komiti. He had a claim to the land east and west of Tararua, and argued to stop selling the land, and instead give it to the Komiti.

Major Kemp asked the Komiti that the names of Muaupoko as non-sellers could be returned to him, that is, that their names be withdrawn from the agreement signed by them and sent to the Komiti to the effect that no further land was to be sold. Rather, they were now in favour of selling.

Hapimaua of Turanga wished for the retention of land in their own possession. Manihera asked for the Komiti to say whether or not they would agree to Kemp’s request, to have the Muaupoko names struck out of the agreement. Personally, he did not agree with the work of the Komiti.

Kawana Hunia opposed the sub-division of the land, and would break the surveyors chain should they drag their chain over land near Waiwiri. Hoani Meihana did not think Kawana Hunia’s words were wise.

The meeting broke up at 12am on the understanding that Tararua would be sold, and the claimants were to have withdrawn from all connection with the Komiti. MA 13/75b (260-263) 21-05-1874 Hector McDonald, letter regarding the Horowhenua block. Advised that everything had been going well. Mr McDonald was at Otaki for a meeting of the Land Court, and Māori were satisfied with the decision of the Court, except one, Rakapia [?] who claimed all the land between the Otaki river and Kukutauaki.

At a further meeting, Mr McDonald understood that the Superintendent was to attend at Otaki. Mr McDonald therefore did not attend. He had since been told that all the work that had been done by Judge Rogan was illegal and of no use. Rakapia was pleased to hear that. Many Māori were sorry if that was the case though, as they were pleased with what was done. It was not only a great pity, but it was to cause great dissatisfaction amongst Māori. Some were trying to stop the sale of land, like Henare Matene and others.

Mr McDonald requested that the Superintendent let the parties know if he intended to go to Horowhenua and when. [Note, parts of the letter are unclear, and further summarising may be required]. [Note, the letter also appears to be incomplete, as the author had not signed the letter]. MA 13/75b 73- (700-702) 113 10-03-1873 Grindell to Fitzherbert, on the decision of the NLC in relation to Muaupoko's claim. Halse to McLean, telegrams regarding the movement of Ngati Raukawa towards MA 13/73b Horowhenua and the potential for trouble. Also attached is a proclamation from (816-821) 13-07-1871 Featherston regarding the Carnarvon block. MA 13/75b 72- Grindell to Fitzherbert, arrangments between Otaki and Manawatu, and dealings with (293-294) 343 24-04-1872 Ngati Raukawa and Muaupoko

Mr Grindell had arranged everything between Otaki and Manawatū. He had a good deal of trouble with Muaupoko at Horowhenua about Ngāti Raukawa pointing out their boundary there. Muaupoko were said to be stupid and ignorant. Ngāti Raukawa were said to be more reasonable. Another difficultly had cropped up. Wi Parata did not allow a boundary at Waikanae to be surveyed. MA 13/75b 72- (297-310) 345 25-04-1872 Grindell, report of his "doings" on the "West Coast". Report on the progress of the arrangements made with Māori for the survey of their lands on the West Coast, preparatory to the submission of their claims to the Native Land Court for investigation.

Mr Grindell started in Foxton, with the surveyor Mr Thompson, and a half-caste to assist with the survey and to act as interpreter. A postscript from the Chief Surveyor, dated 2 May 1872, noted that an estimate of the probable contents of the lands under negotiation was 310,000 acres. He waited there to meet Tamihana Te Rauparaha, Matene Te Whiwhi and others. Major Keepa informed him that Muaupoko were at Horowhenua and sought a survey. They were opponents of Ngāti Raukawa, who occupied the lands to be surveyed. Mr Grindell was concerned that their presence with him would cause disputes, so he called on Hoani Meihana alone to accompany him to Horowhenua.

He went up river to Hikaretu, the Ngāti Raukawa settlement, to introduce Mr Thompson as the surveyor, and no difficulty was experienced. They unanimously agreed for the survey to commence as soon as possible. Mr Grindell then met with Ihakara at Foxton, resulting in obtaining an application from them for their claims to be investigated in Court. Their land adjoined Kaihinu on the south.

Tamihana Te Rauparaha and Matene Te Whiwhi returned from Whanganui, and advised that Major Keepa wanted to carry the

102

MA 13/75b survey right up to the boundary with Ngāti Raukawa. Tamihana did not object, and was willing to stand by the decision of the Court. He then saw Hoani Meihana, and arranged for Meihana would stay with the surveyor, Mr Thompson, when the survey approached the disputed boundary at Horowhenua. He was to remain with Mr Thompson until the survey was completed, for the purpose of keeping Muaupoko in order.

They passed through Poroutawhao, where Ngāti Huia, a section of Ngāti Raukawa, resided. Their territory adjoined that of Muaupoko on the North. Mr Grindell explained to them everything that was being done, and they were willing for the survey to proceed at once. They determined that they would submit everything to the Court. The following day they spoke with Muaupoko, who hesitated about allowing the survey. Mr Grindell advised that Major Keepa and other tribes in confederation against Ngāti Raukawa had sent in a general application for the investigation of their title in respect of the whole district, in opposition to Ngāti Raukawa, but before an investigation took place, a survey needed to be made. Ngāti Raukawa had put in a claim for the whole coast, therefore it was necessary for them to send in a similar application for the portion they occupied. Mr Grindell explained that the Court would decide the boundaries, not the surveyor. Their principal chief, old Rangirurupuni, said he was anxious that the dispute be settled, and was in favour of the survey so the Land Court could decide the question. It was decided that when their absent friends returned, they would consent together and forward an application to Mr Grindell in Wellington. It was suspected that they wanted to wait for Kawana Hunia.

They then went to the settlement of Watene Tiwaewae and other Ngāti Raukawa west of the lake. Their houses had been burned down previously by Kawana Hunia for being within the disputed boundary. They were anxious for survey to go on. Their next meeting was with Ngāti Raukawa at Otaki, and with some principal men of Waikawa and Ohau, and arrangements were made for the survey of their several claims. Tamihana Te Rauparaha advised that Wi Parata, acting for Ngāti Awa, had declared he would resist the survey at Kukutauaki. This was the southernmost point claimed by Ngāti Toa and Ngāti Raukawa, while Ngāti Awa claim to a point further north. Wi Tako, however, had not heard Wi Parata say anything of the kind, but did wish to point out to the surveyor the proper boundary. On meeting Wi Parata, he gave an assurance he would not interfere with the survey of the boundary claimed by Tamihana Te Rauparaha, but feared Tamihana would not have the same level of forbearance towards him. It was decided the land should be surveyed and passed through the Land Court, and they signed an application form.

The applications therefore included the whole of the land in the occupation of Māori on the West Coast from Manawatū River and Te Ahu o Turanga block in the north, to the Crown land south of Waikanae, and the 70 Mile Bush purchase on the east.

Mr Thompson was instructed to commence the survey at Wharemauku, and then to Manawatū. He was provided with all the boundaries as described by Māori in their applications. An interpreter was provided. Mr Grindell was confident that the survey would be completed without interruption. Regarding Muaupoko at Horowhenua, Hoani Meihana was to be present for the survey.

Māori generally appeared to desire Otaki and Manawatū to be the sitting places of the Court. Judges they favoured the most were the Chief Judge and Mr Rogan, and assessor Pariama, and Hemi Tautari to accompany the judges.

72- MA 13/75b 383, 25to29-04- McDonald to Fitzherbert regarding money to be paid to "natives" and its relation to the (315, 352-355) 448 1872 survey of their lands. MA 13/75b 72- West Coast settlers to Fitzherbert, petition requesting that Maori previously resident in (316-319) 406 04-1872 the region not be allowed to return. Settlers and others resident in the North-Western districts of the Province of Wellington believed that should Māori return to the district, there would be a risk of renewed hostilities. They urged the Superintendent to avoid a calamity by peopling the Coast speedily with a large body of European settlers. The petitioners saw an immediate need for the Land Purchase Commissioner to acquire as far as practicable all of the Native Reserves, and to obtain any land remaining un-alienated, so that individuals could acquire large blocks of land as runs, to strengthen their position. Signatures on pages 317-319

MA 13/75b 72-413, 23-05- (320-324) 443 1872 McDonald to Fitzherbert, regarding reserves for Maori in the Manawatu. MA 13/75b 20-05- Te Raranginui; Te Hare Reweti and others to Grindell, offering to sell land at (325) 72-438 1872 Parikawau at the price of 2 pounds per acre. 73-100, 101, 116, 121, 136 MA 13/75b 138-139, (695-697, 706- 142, 143, 712, 720-730) 148, 152 03-1873 Grindell to Fitzherbert, report on Native Land Court hearings at Foxton. A decision was made in favour of Ngāti Raukawa accepting [?] a block to Muaupoko at Horowhenua and a block to Rangitane at Tuwhakatupua on the bank of the Manawatū, the boundaries of which were not decided. Whanganui, Ngāti Apa and Wairarapa Māori’s claim was not allowed except to Horowhenua by notice of relationship to Muaupoko. The boundary lines required were to be intersected by Muaupoko boundaries at Horowhenua. Mr McDonald was to try to get those boundaries determined before commencing negotiations. He was to deal separately with each party, and suggested the Court adjourn until the opposition claimants had time to take their position. Mr Rogan was willing to do this and to remain in Foxton in the interim. Kemp turned pale when the

103

MA 13/75b decision was given. Court was to sit again the following morning. Page no: 700-702 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 10 March 1873 Title or subject: Enclosed copy of decision of the Native Land Court and stated the necessity for certain boundaries to be defined.

Enclosed copy of Native Land Court decision of the 4th. The portion conceded to Muaupoko at Horowhenua was to intersect the block which the Superintended wanted to acquire. Until the boundaries were defined, it would be useless to open negotiations with Maori, as that part needed to be purchased separately from Muaupoko. On the 5th, Whanganui and Ngāti Apa applied for an adjournment until the 10th, which was granted.

On the 10th, instead of going into the question of boundaries, Mr Cash (solicitor for Whanganui and Ngāti Apa) gave notice on application to the Governor for a rehearing and required further proceedings of the Court to be stayed. The Court said the decision given was preliminary, and held the order was to be completed before a rehearing could be granted. Mr Cash objected.

Mr Grindell advised Māori the position they would be in by allowing the matter to proceed in the event of a rehearing not being granted. In the event of it being granted, they would not have prejudiced their case by going to Court and supporting their claims at Horowhenua. There seemed an inclination to return to their homes and have the Court decide boundaries at Horowhenua on the evidence of Ngāti Raukawa alone, which would have been unsatisfactory. No land could be purchased pending the result of the application for rehearing.

Muaupoko were not taking part in the proceedings of the Court. Page no: 707 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 11 March 1873 Title or subject: Request for rehearing. Court refused a stay of proceedings. New Zealand telegraph. Kemp applied for a rehearing through Mr Cash, who required that the proceedings were stayed. The Court refused. Kemp and his party left Court, leaving himself to proceed ex parte. Mr Grindell reasoned with him and Hunia was unsure and wavering.

Page no: 709-710 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 13 March 1873 Title or subject: Enclosed a copy of suggestion made by the Court in Foxton.

Enclosed copy of a suggestion made by the Court to counsel for the claimants, which was accepted and an order was made. Mr Grindell considered that any attempt to purchase from Ngāti Raukawa would interfere with the good understanding between Kemp’s party and the Government, and generally complicate matters. The opposing tribes would say the Government was taking advantage of them by forging a sale regardless of their interests and application for a rehearing.

It was possible for the matter to be disposed of before the sitting was over. The judges were inclined to prolong their stay so long as there was a chance of getting matters settled. Mr Grindell suggested he should try to make preliminary arrangements with Māori about the boundaries of the block to be sold, and also to gain their general feelings. It would be necessary to detain Mr Thomson there for a time.

Requested to be sent the Deed of Purchase of the 70 Mile Bush. Some applications to be heard at the sitting were respecting land in that locality.

Page no: 711-712 From: Not stated To: Not stated Place: Not stated Date: Not stated Title or subject: Kukutauaki.

The Court considered the application for an Order in favour of Ngāti Raukawa for a Certificate of Title to the block claimed excluding certain portions – Tuwhakatupua and Horowhenua referred to in the judgment as excepted from the block in which sections of Ngāti Raukawa declared an interest.

104

MA 13/75b

The Court did not make the Order as to do so would amount to a decision on ex parte evidence of the question of the boundaries of the land owned by Muaupoko at Horowhenua. They did not feel justified to make such an Order, but were prepared to make an Order in the terms of the judgments already delivered.

Proposed a portion of the block be excepted from the Order, namely that portion which would be included within a line drawn from north of the Waiwiri Stream to Pukemoremore on the Tararua Range, and a line drawn from Waingaio to Ngatokorua, then to Pouotehuia, in a line parallel with the south boundaries of the Tararua Range.

In proposing that the block should be excluded for the Order to be applied for, they did not intend to indicate an opinion on ownership, beyond that expressed in the judgment previously given. Nor did they propose to fix the boundaries of the land owned by Muaupoko. The object was to except land that Muaupoko were yet to be heard as claimants.

Page no: 722 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 21 March 1873 Title or subject: Booth at Foxton. Presence doubtful with Kemp. New Zealand telegraph. Booth was at Foxton, and Mr Grindell was doubtful of the effect of his presence with Kemp and party.

Page no: 723 From: James Grindell To: Mr Cooper, and the Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 25 March 1873 Title or subject: Real question heard on the next day – Horowhenua, Muaupoko at Court. New Zealand telegraph. The real question at issue was to go on the next day, namely, that Horowhenua, Muaupoko were going to the Court. MA 13/75b (703-705) ?-1873 Akapita Te Tewe and others, on Ngati Raukawa's claim to Kukutauaki. A claim of Akapita Te Pewe and others, representing sections of Ngāti Raukawa to a block of land between the Manawatū River and Kukutauaki Stream, from the coast to the Tararua Range. The boundaries included lands which had been investigated and decided by the Court, and therefore excepted from the present enquiry. The claimants applied to the Court to Order Certificates of Title in favour of individuals and sections of Ngāti Raukawa. Ownership was asserted on conquest and continuous occupation since 1840.

The claim was opposed by Te Kepa Rangihiwinui and others representing Muaupoko, Rangitane, Ngāti Apa, Whanganui and Ngāti Kahungunu, who said Ngāti Raukawa acquired no rights of ownership and the land belonged to them.

Both parties were heard on the general tribal question.

The Court found: -that sections of Ngāti Raukawa acquired rights over the land, and constituted them owners thereof, together with Ngāti Toa and Ngāti Awa whose joint interest was admitted by the claimants. -that rights were not acquired by conquest but by occupation with the acquiescence of the original owners. -that such rights were established in 1840, when Ngāti Raukawa were in undisputed possession of the land except only two portions of it.

1. A portion (boundaries not defined) was at Horowhenua and claimed by Muaupoko, who appeared to have retained possession from the time of their ancestors. 2. A portion (boundaries not defined) was at Puwhakatupua on the Manawatū River), claimed by a section of Rangitane, whose interests were admitted by the claimants.

The Court also found: -that Ngāti Apa, Whanganui and Ngāti Kahungunu had no separate tribal rights as owners of any portion of the block, nor any interests beyond their connection with Muaupoko. -that Rangitane had no rights as owners, nor any interests beyond their connection with Muaupoko, or with that section of Rangitane whose claims at Puwhakatupua were admitted by the claimants.

MA 13/75b Booth to Fitzherbert, regarding purchase of a block of land inland from Waikanae (216, 229-231) 74-9 6-01-1874 containing an estimated 16,100 acres for the sum of 500.0.0.. Page no: 115 From: James Booth To: The Superintendent, Wellington

105

MA 13/75b Place: Wanganui Date: 11 July 1873 Title or subject: Murimotu judgment, and Kemp’s intention to shut up the land for the meantime. New Zealand telegraph.

The Murimotu case had finished, with judgment in favour of Kemp’s claimants Ngāti Rangi. Kemp intended to shut up the land until he could get the whole of that country surveyed, at which point he would sell or lease to the Government. The reason for shutting it up was to keep out private speculation.

Page no: 484 From: Wi Waka and 14 others To: Mr Fitzherbert Place: Not stated Date: 20 August 1872 Title or subject: Request for Court sittings in Masterton and Horowhenua. Requested the Government move promptly to set a Court for September at Masterton, for their land at Wangaehu, Tutaekara, Hawera, Pohatu and Karihi. Requested that the Court sit quickly, then sit at Horowhenua. The authors, Māori of Wairarapa, wished to be present. [Note, the Māori version appears at page 485 below].

Page no: 501 From: James Grindell To: H. Bunny Place: Otaki Date: 25 September 1872 Title or subject: Warning not to give Heta anything as the land did not belong to him. New Zealand telegraph. Mr Grindell had heard that Heta had tried to get money on account of a trig station at Horowhenua. Old Rangi had said the land did not belong to him. Mr Grindell said to give him nothing.

Page no: 503 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 17 September 1872 Title or subject: Meeting with Kawana Hunia. Request to stay until danger over. New Zealand telegraph. Mr Grindell had seen Kawana Hunia, and they were both to meet Muaupoko the following day at Horowhenua. Work was to be resumed. Mr Grindell suggested he wait until the work was finished, or at least until the danger was over, if the Superintendent approved. Page no: 580 From: Herbert Wardell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 16 November 1872 Title or subject: Ngāti Raukawa’s appearance in Court. New Zealand telegraph. Kawana Hunia, Kemp and tribes opposing the claim of Ngāti Raukawa appeared in Court that day. No arrangement had been made between Rangitane and Ngāti Raukawa.

Page no: 581 From: A. McDonald To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 16 November 1872 Title or subject: Tararua case proceeding. Mr McDonald and Utiku to go to Napier. New Zealand telegraph. All tribes had agreed to submit claims to Court. Case Tararua was going on. Mr McDonald was with Utiku and would proceed to Napier. Utiku provided much assistance. Hunia was to go on with the case.

Page no: 584 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 15 November 1872 Title or subject: Adjournment granted to allow time for Kemp and Hunia to appear.

106

MA 13/75b New Zealand telegraph. Mr Grindell applied, on behalf of the Government, for an adjournment to allow Kemp and Hunia time to come in. Adjournment was granted until the following day. Immediately after a letter from Hunia was sent in and made an order of Judge stating their intention of coming to Court. Page no: 590-591 From: Herbert Wardell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 13 November 1872 Title or subject: Ngāti Raukawa’s prima facie case was made out. New Zealand telegraph. Ngāti Raukawa’s prima facie case was made out. Rangitane claimants admitted Ngāti Raukawa’s title to land occupied by them but claimed to be admitted joint owners with them in other portions of the block. Mr Buckley held a meeting of Ngāti Raukawa, and would advise them to consent. If they did, difficulties would be lessened if they admitted the joint claim of Muaupoko. Buckley pledged himself to endeavour to effect this.

Page no: 597 From: Herbert Wardell To: The Superintendent, Wellington Place: Foxton Date: 12 November 1872 Title or subject: Adjournment of Court refused. New Zealand telegraph. Court sat that morning. An application made by Muaupoko and associated tribes for adjournment was refused. The applicants for adjournment left the Court. The Court was to proceed to hear the claims.

Page no: 598 From: James Grindell To: The Superintendent, Wellington and Mr Bunny Place: Foxton Date: 10 November 1872 Title or subject: Whanganui, Muaupoko and Rangitane’s opposition to hearing of claims. New Zealand telegraph. Tribes of Whanganui, Muaupoko and Rangitane opposed hearing of the claims. They stated that if the hearings proceeded they would take possession of the land and declare war with Ngāti Raukawa. Mr Grindell communicated with the General Government. Mr Cooper asked what the wishes of the Provincial Government were, and needed a reply by the following morning.

Department of Maori Affairs

Horowhenua commission MA 75/- CFRT DB ACIH 16082 Notes of a meeting of the Rangitane Tribe with Dr Featherston and Mr Buller at 3904-14 MA75/1/3 Puketotara - 19 January - Native Office file. 1867 ACIH 16082 Objection to surveying a boundary on certain land at Horowhenua - Native Office 3915-18 MA75/1/4 file. 1869 ACIH 16082 Various papers of the Native Office relating to Horowhenua including "A brief MA75/1/5 sketch of the Horowhenua Case" - Native Office file. 1869-1871 ACIH 16082 Papers relative to Horowhenua (printed), 1871 MA75/1/6 ACIH 16082 Bundle of telegrams relating to Horowhenua - to and from Donald McLean, 1871 13968- MA75/1/7 14040 ACIH 16082 Kukutauaki Block: copy of proceedings of Native Land Court at Foxton, MA75/2/8 November 1872, with notes of evidence used by Commission. 1872 ACIH 16082 Reports on dispute between Ngatikauwhata Tribe and Kawana Hunia - Native MA75/2/9 Office file. 1871-1873 ACIH 16082 Disposal of Porotawhau, adjoining Horowhenua - Native Office file. 1873 3919-21 MA75/2/10 ACIH 16082 Judgement of Native Land Court, concerning Horowhenua - Native Office file, 3922-45, MA75/2/11 1874. 4396-401 Nb this file contains correspondence which indicates the government may have began a purchase of Horowhenua in 1874. ACIH 16082 File of Native and Defence Department papers, mostly records of meetings

107

Horowhenua commission MA 75/- CFRT DB MA75/2/12 between Government and Maoris - (Printed and unprinted) - Native Office file. 1874 ACIH 16082 File containing papers relating to Horowhenua - Native Office file, 1873-1886 MA75/2/14 ACIH 16082 MA75/3/15 1890 File containing papers relating to Horowhenua - Justice file. Letter from H Te Upokoiri requesting that land at Horowhenua be prevented from MA 75, 3*15 93/1276 being alienated. 4136-55 Report regarding the valuation of Horowhenua block no. 11 which indicates that 92/2086; Warena Te Hakeke (Hunia) had sold 1500 acres to the Crown. Various other MA 75, 3*15 94/169 correspondence which mentions the sale and the events leading up to it. 4156-227

MA 75, 3*15 94/1416 Orders to cease any payments to Hunia for the state farm. 4228-41 Report on Block No. 6 with some discussion about the alienation of previous blocks by Major Kemp and also a letter from Kipa Te Whatanui stating that he MA 75, 3*15 94/1651 should be receiving payment for the State Farm as well as Hunia. 4242-58 Minutes of Proceedings and evidence in the Native Appellate Court, Levin, under ACIH 16082 the provisions of the "Horowhenua Block Act, 1896", in relation to Division XIV MA75/3/16 1897 of the said Block - February-April - (Printed, with an index in pencil) ACIH 16082 General file relating to Horowhenua (see also Part One bibliography) MA75/4/21 1890-99 CFRT research assistance project indicates this contains: 80/794 Letter from Hunia Te Hakeke proposing the sale of 10000 acres to the government, 1880. 83/13 Letter from Kemp indicating he is the only person who has the right to sell any portion of the Horowhenua block, 1883 84/60 Inquiry from Kemp of why a proclamation to purchase land in Horowhenua was made without contacting him, 1884. 86/234 from Kemp, conditions of a proposed sale to the government of a block of land at Horowhenua for a township, 1886 86/244 Memorandum reporting on an interview with Kemp regarding the sale of land, 1886. 86/465 Memos and reports regarding the alienation of some land by Kemp to the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company to settle an outstanding debt. 86/479 Cabinet considers it inadvisable to buy land in Horowhenua. 87/239 Report on a valuation of Block no. 2 and a copy of the agreement of sale with Major Kemp for the aforementioned block which contains 4000 acres. 88/192 Report showing subdivisions of block in 1886 as well as information on payment for portions of the Horowhenua. 88/302 Maori owners claimed that their lands should have been excluded from the 4,000 acres sold by Kemp for Block no. 2 89/74 Request that section 20 of the Horowhenua block be reserved from the sale as it contains houses and cultivations. 90/129 MA 75, 4*21 & others Kemp requesting payment for Block no. 2. 4056-70 MA 75, 4*21 90/2456 Hoani Amorangi request regarding their sections in Levin township. 4071-73 Emiri Ngawakawaka Mahuri Te Matai Offering her share in Horowhenua block MA 75, 4*21 91/238 no. 3 at 5 pounds per acre. 4074-85 J M Fraser On behalf of Ihaia Taueki Fraser offered for sale Section 12 of the MA 75, 4*21 91/223 Horowhenua block. 4086-90 Warena Hunia Te Hakeke Hunia asked that the proclamation be removed from his MA 75, 4*21 93/76 portion of block no. 11. 4091-114 MA 75, 4*21 93/90 Warena Hunia Te Hakeke Hunia offerred 1500 acres of block no. 11 for sale. 4115-19 MA 75, 4*21 93/150 Valuation of 1500 acres of block no. 11. 4120-28 The sale of 1500 acres could not be registered until the caveats on the title have MA 75, 4*21 93/239 been removed. 4129-35 MA 75, 4*21 Proof of payment of 4000 pounds to the descendants of Warena Hunia. 4259-63

MA 75, 4*21 96/180 Wishes to sell Horowhenua block no. 7. 4264-66 Authorizing an advance of 250 pounds to Raraku Hunia for her shares in the sale MA 75, 4*21 98/91 of the State Farm at Levin. 4268-71 MA 75, 4*21 98/118 Request for early payment for those with shares in Block no. 6. 4272-89

108

Horowhenua commission MA 75/- CFRT DB A list of Rakera Hunia's debts and some papers on the progress of purchase with MA 75, 4*21 99/39 regards to Block no. 6. 4290-317 ACIH 16082 1898 File containing summary of Law Accounts re Horowhenua; report of the Public Petitions A to L MA75/4/22 Committee on the petition of Sir Walter Buller, with evidence and appendix - (printed) Sale of Horowhenua Subdivision No. 14, including the dramas of Sir Walter MA 75, 4*24 99/11 Buller. (30) Also attached are some letters from Hunia about being ready to sell. 4318-55

MA 75, 4*24 1899 Report to Native Affairs Committee regarding the petition of Hunia. 4356-63 A Mrs Agnes McDonald (the wife of Alexander McDonald?) from Feilding MA 75, 4*24 1900/69 inquiring about land promised to her by Maori at Horowhenua. 4364-70 MA 75, 4*24 1901/12 Kerei te Panau "wishes to sell his interests" in Horowhenua block No. 3. 4371-75 MA 75, 4*24 1901 Draft of a response to the petition of Hunia and others. 4376-81 MA 75, 4*24 1902 Seeking certificates for land because they sought to sell it. 4382-84 MA 75/12 Acc Horowhenua Land Dispute, Summary of evidence taken by Thomas Locke Travers in 1369 box 4 reference to the Horowhenua land dispute,

ACIH 18593 MAW1369 ACIH 18593 MAW1369/27 1872/272 Te Watene Tiwaewae wants to sell part of Horowhenua, does Mr McLean still desire that arbitration should take place? (Letter and attachments). 1872-73 ACIH 18593 MAW1369/27 1890/1531 Horowhenua Block telegrams

87/2354, Maretini Tuainuku inquired about land at Horowhenua. 87/1311 89/1753 Horowhenua did not need to be adjourned because Kemp would probably be healthy enough to attend shortly 89/1637 Kemp's requests that the Horowhenua case be adjourned until next summer. 89/1403 Kemp requested that Hunia's claim for Horowhenua be heard at Palmerston North 90/1531 Correspondence related to who was awarded Horowhenua Block no. 9. 90/1212 Kemp's application regarding who's interests reside in Horowhenua Block no. 11. 90/1035 Copy of Muaupoko petition. 90/37 Major Kemp's request that Judge Ward and Hikurangi be appointed to hold a hearing on Horowhenua ACIH 18593 MAW1369/27 1896/22 Horowhenua Block return of The District Land Register to the order of the Royal Commission ACIH 18593 MAW1369/27 [86] Statement of Warena Te Hakeke with regard to the Horowhenua block ACIH 18593 MAW1369/27 [87] Horowhenua Memorandum for Native Land Court Chief Judge re Horowhenua no.11 ACIH 18593 MAW1369/28 [88] Horowhenua Commission (report and evidence) AJHR 1896 g 2 ACIH 18593 MAW1369/28 [89] Horowhenua Commission 1896 (clerks notes) ACIH 18593 MAW1369/28 [90] Horowhenua correspondence. Declaration of Warena Hunia in te reo Maori and English including a statement that he had sold some land to the Crown. ACIH 18593 MAW1369/28 [91] Horowhenua Block: minutes of proceedings in Native Appellate Court (AJHR 1897 G2) ACIH 18593 MAW1369/29 [92] Typed copy of minutes from Native Appellate Court, Levin 15 Sept 1898 on Horowhenua sub division 11. ACIH 18593 MAW1369/29 [93] loose papers re Horowhenua Block ACIH 18593 MAW1369/29 [94] Horowhenua no 12 amounts unpaid

ACIH 16036 MA 1/176 [Native Reserves] Horowhenua Land purchase officer forwarding money to be paid to the successors of Kawena Hunia for his interests in the State Farm at Levin. 96/2406; Correspondence between Public Trustee and Stafford regarding the MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 96/2604 Horowhenua Bill and the upcoming deliberation. 724-758 Request from Stevens, the Hunia lawyer, for the sum of 1500 pounds MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 96/755 for Kawena Hunia's interests. 759-763 Request by a Hunia relative, Hera te Upokoiri, for her share of Kawena MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 96/764 Hunia's interests. 764-771

109

ACIH 16036 MA 1/176 [Native Reserves] Horowhenua Opinion regarding the issuing of a writ of summons against Sir Walter Buller and Major Kemp. Special authority provided by Hera te MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 96/820 Upokoiri for Mr Scannell to receive her share of the money. 772-791

MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 96/64; 97/21 Charging orders and costs charged against Hunia's share of the money. 792-794

96/822; Request by Rakera Hunia to cancel the order to have Stevens receive as MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/13 trustee the Hunia share of the sale of the State Farm at Levin. 795-808 Special authority provided by Rakera Hunia in favour of Thomas Fox MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/65 and David Scannell to receive the Hunia share. 809-812 Stafford requesting further instructions with reference to him acting as MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/119 legal counsel for the Public Trustee. 813-823

MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/229 Letter from Stafford. 824-829

MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/240 Letter from Wirihana Hunia. 830-838 Letters regarding Wirihana Hunia's costs and questions to be posed to MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/247 Sir Walter Buller. 839-853 Warena Te Hakeke wishes to know whether he can receive his share of MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/262 the Horowhenua money. 854-856 Orders of 3 payments for shares in State Farm to Rangipo Mete MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/278 Paetaki,Reupena Mete Kingi and Rawea Utiku. 857-865

MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/279 Regarding Kemp and Buller's statement of claim. 866-888

MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/302 Request by Raraku Hunia to only be paid his shares in person. 889-893 List of successors to Horowhenua Block from the Native Appellate MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/307.302 Court. 894-897 97/345.325 Rakera Hunia inquired about why he had not received his share of the MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/325.324 money for the sale of his father's land in Levin. 898-918 97/487.461 MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/462.447 Correspondence requesting that Wirihana Hunia's costs be met. A copy of notes regarding what transpired in the chambers of the Chief MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/576.487. Justice on 16 July 1897.

MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 97/577 Inquiry regarding the parameters of the trial.

MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 1 Memoranda from Stafford regarding what the Buller case is regarding.

MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 2 Amended statement of claim of Kemp and Buller. 919-925

MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 2 Article in the Guardian regarding developments in the Horowhenua. 926-928 Report to the Minister of Lands regarding the proceedings between MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 2 himself and Kemp and Buller 991-1036 Memoranda of the Public Trustee and correspondence with Stafford MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 2 regarding the case 938-990 Decree of judge in Kemp and Buller v. Trustee case in favour of Kemp MA 1, 176, 6/14, Part 2 and Buller 929-932

Native Land Purchase Department (MA-MLP) series AECZ 18714 N&D1877/4385 From: Hunia Te Hakeke and Others, Horowhenua Date: 24 October 1877 Subject: MA-MLP1/24/s Regarding sale by them of Tararua purchase money of which was received by others etc AECZ 18714 N&D1878/455 From: Ihaia Tauweki and Others, Horowhenua Date: 25 January 1878 Subject: Complain MA-MLP1/24/s that a portion of the Horowhenua Block has been included in the Tararua purchase AECZ 18714 PW1872/873 From: Watene Tiwaewae and Others, Horowhenua Date: 1 April 1872 Subject: Asks that MA-MLP1/1/bh surveyors be sent up at once to mara [?] off the land described in their applications to the native land commissioner [Correspondence written in Maori]. 1872 MA-MLP 1 1873/96 Grindell to John Knowles. Report on gathering of Maori at Otaki in concert against ‘Ngati

110

Apa, Whanganui and Ngati Kahungunu’ MA-MLP 1 1873/98 Grindell to Minister of Public Works. Report on visit to Otaki in the beginning of June. AECZ 18714 1873/103 From: Te Watene Tiwaewae, Horowhenua Date: 4 April 1872 Subject: For a reply to MA-MLP1/1/bh previous letter asking for surveyor to be sent accounts - Mr Thompson is there but Muaupoko are making a fuss about him as he is working privately - If government authorise Mr Thompson it will be all right - Asks for a speedy reply [Correspondence written in Maori] AECZ 18714 1873/112 From: James Grindell, Wellington Date: 29 July 1872 Subject: Report on his visit to MA-MLP1/1/bl Horowhenua to arrange for surveys of native lands AECZ 18714 1873/120 From: James Booth, Wanganui Date: 29 March 1872 Subject: Forwards application for MA-MLP1/1/bz selling of native lands court in May at Horowhenua AECZ 18714 1879/626 From: Richard Booth, Wanganui Date: 13 December 1879 Subject: He visited MA-MLP1/5/ct Horowhenua on the 10th November last in order to obtain signature of Manihera Te Rau to "Waihoanga 3 C" deed, 1879 AECZ 18714 1882/255 From: James Wallace Secretary Wellington Manawatu Railway Company, Wellington MA-MLP1 53/i R23907646 Date: 17 July 1882 Subject: Requesting particulars respecting payments on account of Tuwhakatupua Aorangi Horowhenua and any other blocks within area of allocation with the purchase of which Government does not intend to proceed, 1882 AECZ 18714 From: Hector H McDonald, Horowhenua Date: August 1883 Subject: Application for an MA-MLP1/14/ao 1883/252 appointment as Land Purchase Commissioner, 1883 AECZ 18714 1890/136 From: T W Lewis, Wellington Date: 24 April 1890 Subject: Memo of instructions to Mr MA-MLP1/27/q Butler to endeavour to settle dispute between Kemp and Hunia regarding Horowhenua AECZ 18714 1895/66 From: Matira Karaitiana and another, Masterton Date: 4 February 1895 Subject: Want to MA-MLP1/36/at sell shares in Horowhenua No 4 block [Written in Maori with translation] AECZ 18714 1895/87 From: W J Butler, Otaki Date: 12 February 1895 Subject: Direct descendants of Te MA-MLP1/37/h Whatanui offer Horowhenua No. 9 block at 20s.0d per acre AECZ 18714 1894/331 From: A Knocks, Otaki Date: 23 November 1894 Subject: Heni Kipa wishes to sell her MA-MLP1/37/h interest in Horowhenua No. 9 block AECZ 18714 1894/390 From: Waata Tehu, Tutaekara Date: 13 December 1894 Subject: Wants to sell his share in MA-MLP1/36/t Horowhenua No 7 AECZ 18714 1895/454 From: Messrs Cash and Cohen, Solicitors, Marton Date: 15 November 1895 Subject: MA-MLP1/39/t Asking Government to purchase the interest of Rakera Potaka in Horowhenua 3E and also advice regarding Henderson Bros' lease AECZ 18714 1900/57 From: Minister of Lands Date: 9 July 1900 Subject: [Memorandum, Governor advised to MA-MLP1/59/h sign Proclamation declaring certain lands acquired by Her Majesty from the former Native owners to be Crown lands - Utakura, Ruatahi, Ketetangariki, Te Karaka, Oteao, Tutukau East, Puketarata, Horowhenua, Waimarino]

Maori Land Court – Papers of Judge Alexander Mackay AEGV 19110 MLC8/2/4 Copies of papers - Cases stated by Native Appellate Court to Supreme Court re Horowhenua Block, 1886-1898. Contains notes of clerks, statements of claim as well as the final judgment. Rt. Hon. Richard John Seddon ACHW 8634 SEDDON2/6/25 New Zealand Miscellaneous - Horowhenua Block purchase papers, 1897

Legislative Department LE 1/341/1896/10 1867 [161] Meiha Keepa (petition re Himatangi) AEBE 18507 1869/5 Committees - Horowhenua Land Claims,1869 LE1/61 AEBE 18507 252/ 1886/161 Accounts and Papers - Wellington and Manawatu railway Company, Correspondence R17686697 relative to purchase and sale of debentures of Company by Government, 1886 AEBE 18507 1894/159 Accounts and Papers - Native Affairs, Horowhenua Block number 2, copy of T LE1/335 Kennedy Macdonald's report thereon AEBE 18507 1896/146A Accounts and Papers - Native Affairs, Horowhenua Commission, cost of LE1/345

LE Petitions LE1/341 /1896/10 Horowhenua 1896 [259] Mary Barnett- copy of petition 10326-10329 LE1/342 /1896/10 Horowhenua 1896 [352] Ihaka Paka- petition & short memos 10434-10441 LE1/342 /1896/10 Horowhenua 1896 [401] Hemi Te Rakaherea & 6 Others- copy of petition 10442-10446 LE1/342 /1896/10 Horowhenua 1896 [503] John Dawson (Hone Tukate) 10447-10458 LE1/342 /1896/10 Horowhenua 1896 [517] Meiha Keepa- copy of petition 10459-10461

111

LE1/428 /1907/10 Ngarara 1896 [813] Kerehi Manupiri - copy of memos & NLC 10637-10681 LE1/342 /1896/10 Horowhenua 1897 [521] Mere Hira Paerau- copy of petition 10462-10466 LE1/348 /1897/9 Horowhenua 1897 [269] Thomas Thoms - copy of petition 10383-10385 LE1/348 /1897/9 Horowhenua 1897 [299] Maremare Reupene & 63 Others 10377-10382 LE1/348 /1897/9 Horowhenua 1898 [318] Raiha Puoha & Others 10368-10376 LE1/348 /1897/9 Horowhenua 1898 [320] Winia Petera Pukuatua 10361-10367 LE1/348 /1897/9 Horowhenua 1898 [326] Hoani Meihana Te Rangiotu 10358-10360 LE1/348 /1897/9 Horowhenua 1899 [344] Major Kemp 10355-10357 LE1/348 /1897/9 Horowhenua 1899 [345] Metapere Ropata 10348-10354

Ministry of Works and Development, Wellington District Office AAOD W3273 R18059375 and The Wellington and Manawatu Railway Co Ltd - Map of Country opened by Rai R18059376 Company [copy]

Justice Department ACGS 17314 R3205730 Wellington District Land Registrar - WTL Travers, Wellington - Re: Delay in W2781 obtaining CTs of the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company Ltd, 1886 ACGS 17314 WLR 1889/13 Wellington District Land Registrar - Commissioner of Crown Lands - Re: Alteration W2781 13/- R3205850 of restrictions on Titles issued to Wellington, Manawatu Railway Company, 1889

NZ Railways ADQD 17422 8/R10559862 Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company Limited] - Annual Report - 1884 W2278 ADQD 17422 8/R10559863 [Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company Limited] - Annual Report - 1889 W2278 8/1900/2117 pt 4 [Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company Limited] - Supplement to the New R10559856 Zealand Times 27 January 1881 ADQD 17422 1900/2117 pt.5 Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company Limited] - Memorandum and Articles W2278 R10559857 of Association - 1881 and 1883 ADQD 17422 8/1900/2117 pt 5 Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company Limited] - "The Last Spike" - W2278 R10559858 supplement to the Evening Press - 6 November 1886

Treasury ADRK 17405 T19 1908/2208 Railway purchase papers, Wellington-Manawatu Railway Company, 1885-1908 8/24

Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington District Office ADXS 19483 LS-W1/13 512 J T Stewart - Foxton; regarding supply of trig bearings for use of surveying railway line between Horowhenua and Palmerston, 1880 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/41 1763 Horowhenua Block, 1884 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/41 1764 Manawatu Gorge and Horowhenua Block, 1884 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/52 2157 Tracings of Horowhenua Block and portions of Mangatainoka, 1885 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/55 2139 Manawatu Kukutauaki No 7D Section 1; Rangitatau Block; Pukehou 4H Block; Horowhenua and Aorangi No 2 Blocks, 1885-1887 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/85 Roads to be taken under proclamation in the Horowhenua County. 1891 3657 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/86 3740 Horowhenua, No 12 Block. 1891 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/88 3911 Horowhenua E No 1, E No 3, E No 8 - description of blocks for sale. 1891 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/91 4028 Waiohanga, Pukehou, Horowhenua. 1888 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/94 4154 Horowhenua Block. 1888-1889 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/102 4472 Relative to roads through Horowhenua Block. 1890 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/111 4754 Horowhenua Block. 1889-1890 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/123 5075/1 Horowhenua Block [includes several subdivisions]. 1889-1896 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/123 5075/2 Horowhenua Block 3 E No. 5. 1897-1916 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/123 5081 Roads in Horowhenua County. 1890 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/158 6810 Liens of Horowhenua 3 B No's 1-5. 1892 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/165 7273 Horowhenua 3c Nos.1, 3, and 4. 1892-1897 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/171 7807 Horowhenua No 14. 1892-1899 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/173 7927 Gladstone road through Horowhenua Block. 1892-1917 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/223 9786 For a map of Horowhenua No 3

112

Land Information NZ, National Office ABWN 8102/320 WGN 27 Horowhenua - Rangitikei Manawatu, 1874 ABWN 8102/341 WGN 667 Horowhenua 2 – Otaki, 1883 ABWN 8102/344 WGN 750 Horowhenua No. 11B – Otaki. 1893 ABWN 8102/345 WGN 778 Horowhenua No. 11 (Part) - Otaki [Certificate Of Title Reference: 85/84]. 1896

Land Information NZ, Wellington Processing Centre AFIH 22381 W5692/62 RP 480 West Coast [Wellington Land District] and Horowhenua Native Land Claims - Survey Office Plan SO 11037 c. 1850- c.1900 AFIH 22381 W5692/63 RP 481 Horowhenua Native Land Claims - Survey Office Plan SO 11038. 1880 AFIH 22381 W5692/63 RP 482 Horowhenua Native Land Claims - Survey Office Plan SO 11013. 1872 AFIH 22381 W5692/63 RP 483 Horowhenua Native Land Claims - Survey Office Plan SO 11039. 1872

Department of Survey and Land Information, Head Office AAFV 997/126 W136 Horowhenua - Subdivisions of Block XII - scale 20 chains: 1 inch - Head Office, Lands and Survey. 1899

Maori Affairs Department (Wanganui District Office) MA-Wang 1/4, 1/9, 1/11 Inwards Correspondence, Woon, 1870-80

Wanganui Regional Museum ‘Kemp file’, Kemp ms, Whanganui Regional Museum

113

3. Twentieth Century Land Alienation

By 1900, with the Crown’s purchase of most of Block 6, the extent of Muaupoko land was reduced to individual sections in Block 3 which had not yet been alienated, and the now-partitioned Block 11. A cursory look at Maori Land Online indicates that land alienation has continued to be a significant feature of the twentieth century.

As shown by the fate of the Horowhenua 3 allotments, the individualisation of tribal land interests facilitated rapid alienation. The fundamental ill-fit of applying individual tenure to tribal lands in turn created new problems over time: title fragmentation through succession; ‘uneconomic’ holdings through ongoing partition; and ‘land-locked’ titles with no road access are among the well- documented complexities of Maori land ownership today. Every partition too, had associated survey costs which, if not paid, were charged as liens against the land. David Alexander’s research reveals that unpaid survey charges against Horowhenua 11B42C were satisfied by the award of land to the Crown in 1928.114

In August 1902, just under forty acres of the coastal frontage (labelled Horowhenua 11B42) at the Hokio road-end was declared to be a native township, the lease of the 59 township sections publicly tendered in January 1903.115 The Native Townships Act 1895 authorised the Crown to lay out native townships on Maori-owned land. Contrary to the name, the legislation was designed to facilitate closer Pakeha settlement, particularly in areas where Maori land owners proved reluctant to ‘open up’ their estate through more conventional means. Under the native township regime, Maori retained nominal ownership of their land, but lost both control and enjoyment of such lands themselves: the sections in any township (with requisite survey and infrastructure costs loaded onto the land), were leased to Pakeha, and the whole process managed by the Crown.116

For the first two decades or so, the Ikaroa Maori Land Board’s administration of the township appears to have been quite lax, the ‘township’ little more than a cluster of baches occupied over the summer months, with few amenities.117 From about 1920 however, increasing traffic to the beach and a corresponding growing interest in ‘Levin’s marine suburb’, was reflected in the Levin Chamber of Commerce ambitions to secure an adjoining 50 acres to the township, with tighter regulations over the

114 David Alexander, ‘Final Historical Report dated June 2008. Filed in the Maori Land Court. Application by Hokio A and Part Hokio Land Trusts’, supplied to Waitangi Tribunal, p. 35. 115 Alexander, p. 27. 116 The implementation of the native townships legislation has been examined in Suzanne Woodley, ‘The Native Townships Act 1895’, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series Theme S, 1996. The impact of the legislation has also been assessed in other inquiry districts, see for example H Bassett and R Kay, ‘The Impact of the Native Townships Act in Te Rohe Potae: Te Kuiti, Otorohanga, Karewa, Te Puru & Parawai’, (CFRT, 2010), Wai 898, #A62. 117 See Horowhenua Chronicle newspaper reports set out in bibliography.

114 standard of housing. These ambitions may lie behind the subsequent Crown purchase of a further 1088 acres of Horowhenua 11B42C1 in 1927.118

From 1904 Maori land was also under increasing pressure by local government for rating revenue, although the government baulked at enforcing the ultimate penalty of sale until the 1950s. Archive files suggest that rating had become an issue at Horowhenua in the early twentieth century, and pressure from rates may well lie behind the 1904 decision of some Muaupoko land owners to place their Kawiu lands under the administration of the Aotea District Maori Land Board for public leasing.119 Maori Land Court block files, copied in a research assistance project by CFRT, confirm that rating charges were applied for by local government. Anderson and Pickens’ Wellington District Report refers to two sections in Horowhenua Blocks 3 and 11 which were vested in the Maori Trustee in the 1960s and sold to pay outstanding rates. The second of these, Horowhenua 11B36/5 of almost an acre, had 100 potential successors. Rather than vest such a small area in so many owners, on the advice of the Levin Borough Council the section was vested in the Maori Trustee for sale. Under the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967, incorporated Maori land and Maori land with one of two owners became vulnerable to a change of status to general land, enabling the recovery of rates debts in the general courts, potentially increasing the risk of forced sale.

The whole paradigm of rating rests on the economic use of land. By the 1920s under Ngata’s influence, polemic about the ‘Maori rating problem’ increasingly focussed on developing remaining Maori land into farms. Although arguably well-intended, this State initiative in turn created a whole new raft of pressures and problems for Maori land owners, including the loss of ownership and control over lands and title consolidation. Many of the Maori development schemes run by the State became profitable economic ventures which were eventually returned to an incorporated group of Maori owners. Often however this has been at the cost of close and traditional associations with the land. Horowhenua lands appear to have been included in this State initiative – indicated by the existence of archival records for ‘Horowhenua Consolidation’ – but there do not appear to be any specific claims relating to this.120

Claims

Muaupoko claims about land alienation, the imposition of foreign land tenure systems, and the individualisation of title, have been set out previously. The Hokio Native Township is the subject of Wai 493 of Tom Waho on behalf of the Hokio A Lands and Maori Township Trusts. The Crown’s

118 Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 307. 119 AAMA W3150 619 box 13 20/59 part 3, Wellington-Horowhenua Alienation Notices, 1900-1904. 120 See for example, ‘Horowhenua Consolidation, 1946-1951’, ACIH 16036 MA1/584 29/7/4; ‘Taueki Consolidation Scheme - Final proposals (Horowhenua Consolidation), 1947-1960, ACIH 16036 MA1/584, 29/7/4/1, Archives NZ, Wellington.

115 subsequent return of the Hokio Boys School is a subject of claim. There do not appear to be any claims relating to title consolidation or land development.

Table 6: Muaupoko claims relating to land alienation, 1900-2014

Claim Issues Wai 108 Tama-i-uia Ruru for The offer back of Kohitere Institute to Muaupoko Tribal Authority without descendants of Tanguru a notification to rightful beneficiaries. Muaupoko Seeking investigation as to the confused ownership of Muaupoko lands, and the impact of public works takings, land-locked lands, reserves and ownership of forestry lands. Wai 493 Tom Waho, for Hokio A For the areas of Hokio Native Township and the Waitarere forest, which were Lands Trust & Hokio Maori once part of the Hokio block. Township Trust, for descendants of original 81 owners Wai 623 John Paki & others for Effect of land legislation, Crown purchasing, public works takings descendants of Muaupoko Disposal of Crown lands – Kohitere Institute, lands in Levin township, railways lands, school lands. Seek return of all Crown land Wai 624 John Paki & other Kemp The disposal of Crown lands including the Kohitere Institute, Levin township Hunia Trustees for Muapoko and lands, and railway and school lands. hapu of Ngati Ao, Pariri, Ngarue Public works takings from Muaupoko land. and Whano ki Rangi. Wai 770 Edward Karaitiana for the The alienation of Karaitiana Te Korou’s interests in Horowhenua 4B. whanau of Karaitiana Te Korou Wai 1491 Eugene Henare, for Demarcation of roadway along coastline through Horowhenua block and the Hokio A beneficiaries and recording of the same on survey plans to the present day Muaupoko Laid off late 1800s, never formed, never used. Taken without consent or compensation. Prejudices the legal right of direct access to foreshore by the Maori owners of the riparian lands; and their right to claim accretions to foreshore, (particularly at river mouths, and that of Hokio stream); rather, the Crown has claimed such accretions as Crown land, as accretions to the roadway. Wai 1629 Vivienne Taueki for Hokio Maori Township – Crown failure to adequately consult with descendants of Taueki and Muaupoko and the descendants of Taueki about the offer back of Hokio Boys Muaupoko ki Horowhenua School under the Public Works Act 1981; appointment of new trustees without consulting existing owners. The land returned is a significant liability and a drain on the financial resources of Muaupoko. Wai 2048 Te Rautangata Kenrick Loss of land through actions and policies of the Maori Land Court including for her children and mokopuna of surveying, partition and the imposition of rates. Muaupoko and Tamarangi Wai 2093 Jean Brownie for The Native Land Court system, including surveying and partition, designed to Muaupoko ensure claimants lost control of the process and which imposed considerable financial burdens. Wai 2326 Peggy Gamble for The Crown’s alienation of Muaupoko land and resources, particularly those descendants of Hopa Heremaia of Hopa Heremaia.

Issues

Roadway through Hokio A (Wai 1491)

Eugene Henare’s claim on behalf of the Hokio A Trust relates to the demarcation of a roadway along the coastline when the Horowhenua 11 partitions were surveyed in 1900. This is part of a complex web of issues regarding land title and status issues at the Hokio river mouth, prompting an application

116 for a determination of status to the Maori Land Court in 2004. These issues have been the subject of research for the court by David Alexander, from which the following summary is drawn.121

At the point of initial partition in 1898, a coastal road was not referred to in the court minutes, nor ever subsequently defined as a roadway: court records show Horowhenua 11B42 extending to mean high water mark. Lands and Survey Department records from this time on the other hand show Horowhenua 11B42 as stopping one chain short of mean high water mark, with a one-chain road along its western boundary, even though the road was never formed or used. This was reiterated on survey plans when Horowhenua 11B42 was partitioned in 1923, the surveyor on this occasion extending a one-chain road strip along the sea coast of 11B42, north and south of the Hokio Stream.122 Alexander notes that the judge’s approval of the partition plan in September 1924 had the effect of superseding any earlier intentions of the Court, even though the status of the one-chain strip was never declared to be a roadway.123 Subsequent diagrams for Horowhenua 11B42A, B, C and D all show the coastal one-chain strip as road. In 1954, and again in 1962 and 1965, portions of this coastal chain strip fronting Horowhenua 11B42A were recommended by the court to become public roads under Section 422 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953.124 Hokio A was created in 1963 through the amalgamation of three coastal blocks. Based as it was on existing surveys, Hokio A does not extend to the sea coast, but rather is separated from the coast by the one-chain strip. Alexander comments that no decision has been made by the court about the status of the coastal road fronting Horowhenua 11B42C, but that the most likely decision is that it is not a Maori roadway.125

Claimants maintain that the Crown’s treatment of the chain strip as roadway, and therefore Crown land, prejudices the legal right of direct access to the foreshore by the Maori owners of the riparian lands, and their right to claim accretions to such lands, particularly at the Hokio river mouth.

Mr Henare relates that the Maori Land Court’s decision regarding the status determination of the roadway has not yet issued.126

Hokio Native Township

Public works and other compulsory takings are envisaged to be dealt with in a generic, district-wide project. However the gazettal of Hokio Native Township begs to be placed in the context of the ongoing attrition by the Crown of Muaupoko’s tribal estate. Moreover, the arbitrary grafting of settlement at the mouth of the Hokio stream established a public interest in Muaupoko’s tribal

121 David Alexander, ‘Final Historical Report …’. Alexander’s document bank has not been supplied, but would prove useful to for any further research project 122 Ibid, p. 33. 123 Ibid, p. 34. 124 Ibid, p. 36. 125 Ibid. 126 Personal communication, 13 May 2014.

117 domain, which only increased over time, impacting on the tribe’s own enjoyment, occupation and control of their lands.

Alexander’s research reveals that ministerial interest in establishing the Hokio Native Township was kindled by local Levin residents in early 1901, in order to gain a public foothold at the beach.127 At no time from the point of first proposal and the gazettal two years later do the Maori owners of Horowhenua 11B42 appear to have been consulted about the development, much less granted consent. Any argument that the abrogation of property rights on this occasion was necessitated by a larger ‘national’ interest seems very thin given both the modest size of the township, and the fact that as originally proposed, only 20 quarter-acre sections were surveyed, the balance of a larger 100-acre ‘township’ area left undivided.128

Despite their complete exclusion from the process, the costs associated with establishing a township were nonetheless borne by the Maori landowners, charged against the township lands and deducted from the annual rental. In the case of Hokio Native Township, Muaupoko landowners appear to have paid for survey twice. The 1901 survey directed and authorised by the Assistant Surveyor General was rejected by the Surveyor General on the grounds that the Native Townships Act 1895 required that the whole of the township site should be divided into allotments. As a result, a smaller area was partitioned into 59 allotments, and this amended plan became the basis of the gazetted township. Alexander relates that most of these lots were leased ‘off the plan’, as the office-based exercise of expanding the number of lots from 20 to 59 had not been followed through by pegging and survey on the ground.129 The survey of the revised plan was begun in 1903, with the last of the sections not surveyed until 1924.

The extent to which Muaupoko landowners benefitted economically from the Crown venture is questionable. Alexander writes that the initial cost of establishing the town was £51-0-10, the annual rental received in 1904 amounting to £6-18-6.130

Research in other inquiry districts has demonstrated that the initial leasing provisions under the Native Townships legislation were but the thin end of the alienation wedge, and that pressure was soon brought to bear by lessees to gain the freehold. The extent to which this occurred with regard to the Hokio Native Township has yet to be determined. Newspaper accounts suggest that public interest in the township increased once the road was improved around 1920, sparking, for example, Chamber of

127 Alexander, pp.19-22, 27 128 Ibid, p.26. 129 Ibid, p.28. 130 Alexander, p. 28.

118

Commerce interest in improving and expanding the township.131 This in turn appears to have resulted in an application to partition two 100-acre blocks from Horowhenua Block 11B42 in March 1923, on either side (north and south) of the township.132 Alexander relates that the 100-acre area to the south of the township (Horowhenua 11B42A) was indeed cut up into residential sections, with the requisite road access, in March 1924, although few details of the arrangement have yet come to light. With regard to the original native township allotments, the Ikaroa Maori Land Board files listed below suggest that half of them were sold between 1924 and 1926, in 21 separate transactions.

One interesting facet of the Hokio Native Township that has not been explored relates to the perception voiced at the Korero Tuku Iho hui that the township at Hokio was in fact instigated by local and national politicians in a bid to keep Maori out of Levin, and that Maori lived at Hokio beach because they were not wanted in town.133 The social exclusion of Maori from public facilities is thought to be best addressed within a district-wide project on socio-economic issues, rather than as a Muaupoko-specific research issue.

Twentieth-century land alienation

A study of twentieth-century land loss of Muaupoko’s remaining estate, following the trail of partition and title fragmentation, would provide an insight into the issues faced by the tribe in this period, including ongoing pressure on their land resource through the following:

 private purchases;  Crown purchases;  District Maori Land Board and Maori Trustee administration;  public works takings;  the extent and impact of survey liens;  the extent and impact of rates compromises of the 1930s and rates charging orders;  forced ratings sales;  title consolidation; and  the impact of any changes of status to general land after 1967.

As well, a study of remaining Muaupoko holdings, in terms of numbers of owners, area, land use, road access, and administration would be insightful as to the ongoing complexities facing the tribe with respect to their ancestral lands. Confining the study to Horowhenua 11 would make the task

131 The Chamber of Commerce proposal was set out in the Horowhenua Chronicle, 28 September 1920, p.3; 29 October 1920, p.2; and 24 November 1920, p.2, although archives files suggest that propositions of this kind were first expressed much earlier, in 1913. 132 Alexander relates that the southern 100-acre partition became Horowhenua 11B42A, p. 31. The partition to the north became Horowhenua 11B42B, and was actually only 98.5 acres because a small, 1.5-acre area became a separate partition, Horowhenua 11B42D awarded to a single person. 133 See for example korero of Uruorangi Paki, who maintained that her elders referred to this unofficial discrimination as ‘the colour bar’.

119 manageable. Particular attention could be paid to the lands of Hopa Heremaia, the subject of Wai 2326 claim of Peggy Gamble. Research could also focus on the alienation of Horowhenua 4B, with the claim of Edward Karaitiana (Wai 770) in mind.

Such a land alienation project requires systematic data capture, analysis, and geographical mapping. Land alienation projects have been undertaken for other inquiries which, though much bigger in scope, could provide useful models for undertaking such work. In the case of the Tauranga Inquiry for example, the land alienation project worked from the Maori Land Court’s own accounting of alienation, partition and status changes using Block Record Sheets to build a systematic framework of land alienation, identifying and concentrating further research effort on filling gaps in the resulting tables.134 The general legislative development and historical context behind such alienation would be included only in so far as necessary to provide the context to any patterns of alienation that are found. Researchers would be able to draw on the wealth of knowledge built up from research in other inquiry districts for such context.

Twenty-first century land alienation

At the consultation gathering with claimants at Kawiu Marae, attention was called to the omission in the draft scoping report of any consideration of ongoing land alienation issues facing the tribe, particularly those associated with the disposal of Crown land to Muaupoko. As indicated above, such issues form the subject of claim in Wai numbers 108, 623, 624, and 1629. What appears to be at issue is the return of lands without consultation with the beneficial owners, and the return of land with significant associated costs. There has not been sufficient time to assess the viability of research into what are essentially contemporary claims. Relevant government records are unlikely to have been transferred to archives, and for this reason these issues may best be tackled as a discreet research project.

134 A helpful discussion of possible approaches to a land alienation project is set out in Adam Heinz, ‘Scoping Report. Quantifying Maori Land Alienation in the Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 2008).

120

3.1. Twentieth Century Land Alienation Bibliography

Secondary sources, unpublished

David Alexander, ‘Final Historical Report dated June 2008. Filed in the Maori Land Court. Application by Hokio A and Part Hokio Land Trusts’ Adam Heinz, ‘Scoping Report. Quantifying Maori Land Alienation in the Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 2008). Jane Luiten, ‘Local Government in Te Rohe Potae’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011) Suzanne Woodley, ‘The Native Townships Act 1895’, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series Theme S, 1996.

Primary sources, published

Newspaper articles (Papers Past):

‘Sand Drift. Mr. W. H. Field’s Experiments’, Evening Post, 10 January 1910, p.8 ‘Hokio Township’, letter to editor, Horowhenua Chronicle, 14 August 1913, p.2 ‘Hokio Beach’, Horowhenua Chronicle, 20 March 1919, p. 3 ‘Improving Hokio Beach’, Horowhenua Chronicle, 16 August 1920, p. 3 ‘The Hokio Beach’, Horowhenua Chronicle, 6 September 1920, p.3 ‘Horowhenua Township Extension’, Horowhenua Chronicle, 24 September 1920, ‘Model Township at Hokio’, Horowhenua Chronicle, 28 September 1920, p.3 ‘Hokio Beach. New Township Proposal’, Horowhenua Chronicle, 29 October 1920, p.2. ‘Hokio Township. Proposed Extension Scheme’, Horowhenua Chronicle, 24 November 1920, p.2

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives, (AJHR)

Volume Description CFRT DB 1901 I-3, p.4 Petition 285/1899 of Wirihana Hunia, alleging that there has been a miscarriage of justice in 7513 the settlement of the Horowhenua disputes and prays for a reinvestigation [petition should be referred to Govt for consideration]

1901 I-3, p.4 Petition 337/1899 of Wirihana Hunia, praying that the portion of Horowhenua No.11 situate 7513 between Horowhenua No.9 and the Hokio Stream be not included in the Ngatiraukawa title [recommends petition be referred to Govt for consideration]

1901 I-3, p.26 Petition 428/1899 of Rihipeti Tamaki & Others, praying for amendment in the law to enable 7522 them to obtain a readjustment of interests in the Horowhenua No. 11 Block [Committee recommends this matter should be referred for inquiry, if mistake found to be made legislation should be passed next session, but if found to have no mistake such steps should be taken to finally dismiss the case] 1901 I-3, p.27 Petition 783 of Wirihana Hunia, objecting to part of Horowhenua No.11 being included in 7522 Horowhenua No.9 and prays that subsection (a) & (b) of clause 8 of the “Horowhenua Block Act, 1896” may be rendered void and of no effect [Committee recommends this matter should be referred for inquiry, if mistake found to be made legislation should be passed next session, but if found to have no mistake such steps should be taken to finally dismiss the claim] 1903 I-3, p.6, Petition 185/1901 of Kipa Te Whatanui, claiming on behalf of his hapu to be interested in the 7531 Horowhenua Block, and prays for hearing. [no recommendation] 1907 I-3, p.3, Petition 550/1905 of Areti Nahona & Another, of Levin, praying for legislation to enable 7562 inquiry into succession to certain deceased owners in Horwhenua No.11A & No.11B Blocks [no recommendation]

121

Volume Description CFRT DB 1909 I-3, p.12 Petition 367 of Christina Prouse, of Wellington, praying that the Validation Court may be 7575 empowered to hear and determine an application in respect of a transfer of Native Land in Horowhenua Block [petition should be referred to Govt for favourable consideration]

1910 I-3, p.13 Petition 557 of Eruera Neketini, of Ngatiraukawa, praying for rehearing with regard to 7578 Horowhenua Block [petition should be referred to Govt for favourable consideration] 1911 I-3, p.17 Parliamentary Paper 183 G (Referred to the Committee under section 26 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1910.) [Committee has no recommendation to make with regard to above- mentioned paper] 1911 G-14E, Native Claims Adjustment Act, 1910 (Report and recommendation under section 28 of the) 7585- on petition No.397/1909, relative to Horowhenua 3E No.2 Block; Christna Prouse, praying 7586 for validation of a sale to her of an interest in said land.

1911 G-14H, Ikaroa District Maori Land Board 7589 Native Claims Adjustment Act, 1910 (Report and recommendation under section 28 of the) on petition No.133/1910, relative to Horowhenua 3E No.2 Block”; Arthur Drake praying for valuation of a transfer of part of the said block (undated) 1916 I-3, p.30 Petition 251 of Hema Henare & 35 Others 7615 Praying that a clause in the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Bill, re Hokio Stream & Horowhenua Lake, be not allowed to proceed [with this petition having been considred in connection with the above mentioned bill, no recommendation] 1917 I-3, p.22 Petition 217 of Hori te Pa & Others 7617 Praying for succession to Rora Korako (deceased) in re Horowhenua XIB 36, Section 3F, No.2. [Petition should be referred to Govt for inquiry]

1919 I-3, p.6 Petition 63/1918 of Hanita Henare & 46 Others, praying that Horowhenua XI, 41 Block be 7621 transferred to the petitioners [should be referred to Govt for consideration]

1920 I-3, p.31 Petition 129/1920 of Hanita Henare & 87 Others, praying for the rescinding of the Native 7630 Appellate Court in 1912 in reference to Horowhenua XI B, No.41 Block [should be referred to Govt for consideration]

1923 I-3, p.7 Petition 347/1922 of Heeni Kipa, praying for reinvestigation of the order of the Court re 7639 Horowhenua XI Block [no recommendation]

1923 I-3, p.8 Petition 77/1922 of Heni Hoani Kuiti & Another, praying for investigation by the Native 7640 Land Court of the interest of each person in Horowhenua XIB 42E, XIB 41A, and Horowhenua 9A [no recommendation]

1924 I-3, p.17 Petition 23 of Ekene Himiona & 8 Others, praying for inclusion of their names in list of 7644 owners of Horowhenua 11B 42 Block [no recommendation]

1924 I-3, p.17 Petition 20 of Heeni Kipa, praying that a Commission be set up to inquire into claims of 7644 descendant of Te Whatanui (deceased) to interests in Horowhenua No.11 Block [no recommendation]

1924 I-3, p.34 Petition 174 of Hema Henare & 4 Others, praying that the judgement of the Native Appellate 7645 Court regarding Horowhenua XIB, 41, be annulled and the NLC be empowered to ascertain who are the rightful owners of the said block [should be referred to Govt for consideration]

1926 I-3, p.15 Parliamentary Paper No.203G - Report and Recommendation on Petition No.154/24, of Rere 7650 Nicholson, relative to Raumatangi (Horowhenua) Block [paper should be referred to Govt for consideration]

1927 I-3, p.13 Petition 227 of Hautawaho Perawhiti & 2 Others, praying for rehearing and readjustment of 7652 interests in Horowhenua 11B (A 42E 41A, Raumatangi and Oturoa Blocks [no recommendation] 1929 I-3, p.17 Petition 302 of Heni Hoani Kuiti, praying for rehearing as to individual interests in 7656 Horowhenua XIB Subdivisions, Raumatangi and Oturoa Blocks [as petitioners have not exhausted their legal remedies the Committee has no recommendation to make]

122

Volume Description CFRT DB 1926 G-6E Native Land Court 7649 Native Claims Adjustment Act, 1910 (Report and recommendation under section 28 of the) on petition No.154 of 1924, of Rere Nicholson, Relative to Raumatangi (Horowhenua) Block”; praying that the Native Land Court be empowered to determine the persons properly entitled to the Raumatangi Block

Primary sources, unpublished:

Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington

Field, William Hughes, 1861-1944: Papers 73-128-099 Clippings, mostly relating to Parliamentary career, 1900-1930 Including reports of Field’s meetings and those of other politicians, (rates paid by Maori, Horowhenua County Council meetings). 73-128-196 Copies of various documents, 1859-1866 Relating to Maori land. 73-128-099 Clippings, mostly relating to Parliamentary career, 1900-1930 Including reports of Field’s meetings and those of other politicians, (rates paid by Maori, Horowhenua County Council meetings). Field family: Field and Hodgkins family papers. Series-0982 15 Letterbooks of William Hughes Field, 1891-1944 (38 volumes, indexes in all but three). Field’s political and business correspondence, including official letters written when Field was Member of the House of Representatives (MHR) for Otaki, including: Letter book (8), 25 Sep 1901 – 3 Jul 1902, qMS-0734 Letter book (9), Jul 1902 – Mar 1903, qMS-0735 Letter book (10), Mar 1903 – Jun 1904, qMS-0736 Letter book (11), Jun 1904-Sep 1905, qMS-0737 Letter book (12), Sep 1905- Jan 1906, qMS-0738 MS-0747-0771 Field, William Hughes, 1861-1944: Diaries. 25 volumes of WH Field’s diaries, between 1883-1944, narrative entries, usually brief. Restricted access, by special permission. For 1905 period, this collection includes: MSX-2590: Ledger, 1899-1905 MSX-2591: Ledger, ca 1902-1907,

MS-Papers-0407-32 Diary, Jan-Oct 1920. From Keys, Ben 1878-1951, of travels through country, including Horowhenua, as Native land agent.

Archives NZ, Wellington Department of Maori Affairs

ACIH 16036 ACIH 16036 MA1/72 5/5/47 Horowhenua 3C No.2. Waiopehu Survey District - Proposed purchase by the Crown, 1947-1948 ACIH 16036 MA1/79 5/5/114 Horowhenua 7B - Crown purchase, 1954-1955 ACIH 16036 MA1/149 5/13/254 Petition No.1/1956 - Kehu Maraku and 87 others - Manawatu and Horowhenua Lands, 1956 ACIH 16036 MA1/176 6/14/1 [Native Reserves] – Horowhenua, 1896-1897 ACIH 16036 MA1/176 6/14/2 Native Trust Office – Horowhenua, 1897 ACIH 16036 MA1/177 6/14/3 Native Reserves – Horowhenua, 1897-1903 ACIH 16036 MA1/462 21/4/12 Horowhenua 11A 4A 1 and 2 and 11A3 Section 2 - Application under Section 298/1931 - Land Vested in Rangi Broughton and others, 1933-1935 ACIH 16036 MA1/584 29/7/4 Horowhenua Consolidation, 1946-1951 ACIH 16036 MA1/584 29/7/4/1 Taueki Consolidation Scheme - Final proposals (Horowhenua Consolidation), 1947- 1960 ACIH 16036 MA1/613 30/3/147 Correspondence with Palmerston North Hospital regarding housing conditions - Horowhenua and Manawatu Districts, 1954-1956

123

ACIH 16036 ACIH 16036 MA1/756 54/18/26 Maori Trustee - Horowhenua 11B36 No.5 - Vesting under Section 438/53, 1963 ACIH 16036 MA1/760 54/18/247 Maori Trustee - Horowhenua X1B42B Block - Vested under Section 438, 1963-1969 ACIH 16036 MA1/765 54/22/12 Maori Trustee - Horowhenua A5E - Vested under Section 109, Rating Act 1925, 1961-1968 ACIH 16036 MA1/877 1906/308 Received: 5th July 1906. - From: Prendergast and Harper, Levin. - Subject: Horowhenua 3E No. [Number] 2 Subdn. [Subdivision] 5. For removal of restrictions (recommended by Aotea District Maori Land Council). Sale to D. Hannan. 1904- 1911 ACIH 16036 MA1/890 1906/756 Received: 4th September 1906. - From: Native Affairs Committee, H of R [House of Representatives]. - Subject: Petition 550/05, Areta Nahona and others. For report. Horowhenua No. [Number] 11A and 11B Blocks. Rehearing as to succession to certain deceased owners. 1905-1906 ACIH 16036 MA1/898 1906/1087 Received: 19th October 1906. - From: Parata and Co., Wellington. - Subject: Horowhenua 3C No. [Number] 2 (314:1:24). For consent to lease to Peter Leslie Arcus and E.J. Prendergast. (Aotea). 1906 ACIH 16036 MA1/899 1906/1140 Received: 26th October 1906. - From: Parata and Co., Wellington. - Subject: Horowhenua No. [Number] 11A Sub 6 (part) (70 acres). For consent to lease. Hoani Puihi to R.R. Harris of Levin. 1906 ACIH 16036 MA1/908 1906/1430 Received: December 1906. - From: Hanita Henare, Levin. - Subject: Horowhenua No. [Number] 11A No. [Number] 7. For Order in Council exempting from Sec. [Section] 117 1894, 1899-1906 ACIH 16036 MA1/912 1907/108 Received: 7th March 1907. - From: Stafford and Treadwell, Wellington. - Subject: Horowhenua 11B No. [Number] 36 Section 4A. Transfer Ahuru Porotene to B.R. Gardener. 1905-1907 ACIH 16036 MA1/932 1907/661 Received: 31st October 1907. - From: Prendergast and harper, Levin. - Subject: Horowhenua 3E No. [Number] 2 Section 1A. Mortgage Retter and Snow and another. (Governors consent attached). 1905-1907 ACIH 16036 MA1/944 1908/150 Received: 3rd April 1908. - From: Aotea Maori Land Board. - Subject: Horowhenua 3E No. [Number] 2 Lots 10A and 10B. Sale Warena Hunia and Rakera Hunia to Christine Prouse. Board’s recommendation (2). (Grey Phillips). 1907-1909 ACIH 16036 MA1/945 1908/203 Received: - From: Aotea Maori Land Board. - Subject: Horowhenua 11B Sub 36 Section 2JA Lease to Hannan. Calling attention to deed having been altered in an incomplete state by Stipendiary Magistrate Baker Licensed Interpreter and others. 1908 ACIH 16036 MA1/971 1909/127 Received: 22nd March 1909. - From: Aotea Maori Land Board. - Subject: Horowhenua 3E No. [Number] 5B. Sale Himiona Kohai and others to Mayor etc of Borough of Levin. Board’s recommendation. Harper and Harper. 1908-1909 ACIH 16036 MA1/971 1909/141 Received: 6th April 1909. - From: Under Secretary Lands and Survey. - Subject: Horowhenua No. [Number] 7. Mortgage to Mrs C.H. Izard. Notice of foreclosure. ACIH 16036 MA1/972 1909/167 Received: - From: Aotea Board. - Subject: Horowhenua 11B. 36. 2D. 1B. Lease 8000. Native to Owens. Harper and harper to be called on to explain certain alterations made in lease since Board’s approval was endorsed. 1909 ACIH 16036 MA1/977 1909/302 Received: 8th July 1909. - From: Aotea Board. - Subject: Horowhenua No. 11. Draft deed of mortgage of rents of parts of block as security for advance of £1000. 1905- 1909 ACIH 16036 MA1/978 1909/316 Received: 10th July 1909. - From: J.J. McGrath, Wellington. - Subject: Horowhenua 11B Sub 36 3G No. [Number] 2. (Kawiu). Hoani Nahona to D. Hannan. Re application now before Aotea Board. 1909-1911 ACIH 16036 MA1/993 1909/774 Received: 9th December 1909. - From: Honourable Thomas Mackenzie, Wellington. - Subject: Estate of late Tom Stickles of Levin, (Horowhenua Lands?). For information as to interests coming to J.D. McLachlan and family to Anna McLachlan. 1909-1910 ACIH 16036 MA1/1009 1910/4040 Received: 27th January 1910. - From: G. Harold Smith (Smith and M. Sherry), Pahiatua. - Subject: Horowhenua 11B Sub 26 No. [Number] 1A. Chas. Rether V. Maata Huikirangi and others. Claim for damage through land having been leased to Hannan prior to second lease to plaintiff. For information as to validity of Hannan's lease. ACIH 16036 MA1/1018 1910/4293 Received: 9th September 1909. - From: Crown Law Office. - Subject: Forwarding Crown Solicitor's bill of costs in reference to a result of proceedings in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal for a Writ of certiorari against the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court Horowhenua No. [Number] 11. 1909-1911 ACIH 16036 MA1/1036 1910/4900 Received: 14th October 1910. - From: Government Printer. - Subject: fee 1/1/. For translation of Horowhenua County Council Notice in Kahiti of 13.10.10. ACIH 16036 MA1/1042 1910/5075 Received: 5th December 1910. - From: Government Printer. - Subject: £1.1.0 Fee for translation of Kahiti Notice 8th November, Horowhenua County. ACIH 16036 MA1/1045 1911/80 Received: 30th January 1911. - From: Field, Luckie and Toogood, Wellington. -

124

ACIH 16036 Subject: Mrs. Cristina Prouse's Petition re Horowhenua 3E No. [Number] 2. Application under Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1910 to refer matter to Ikaroa Maori Land Board. [Includes: 1909/650, M 1909/2796, 1911/80.] 1909-1911 ACIH 16036 MA1/1053 1911/314 Received: 8th June 1911. - From: President Ikaroa Maori Land Board. - Subject: Horowhenua 11B 36 Section 4B. Application for confirmation of transfer Norenore Kerehi and Ngapera Taueki to Honora Hannan. Reports as to evidence of fraud by G.J. Stevens, Solicitor and other partner concerned. ACIH 16036 MA1/1064 1911/775 Received: - From: Public Trustee, Wellington. - Subject: Horowhenua 11B 41 Section G. Estate of Raraku Hunia, (Lunatic). Owing to conflicting interests suggests Government should acquire block. 1911-1912 ACIH 16036 MA1/1086 1912/3314 Received: 4th October 1912. - From: Keita and Tamati Hetariki, Levin. - Subject: Horowhenua 2a. Allege that by some mistake a portion of the land awarded to Mereana Matao was left out and pray for rectification of boundaries. ACIH 16036 MA1/1103 1913/2703 Received: 25th June 1913. - From: Registrar Native Land Court, Wellington. - Subject: As to identity of Ariki Marehua with Ariki Takarangi of Putiki. Owner in Horowhenua 3A No. [Number] 2. ACIH 16036 MA1/1109 1913/3490 Received: 25th August 1913. - From: Parker and Vincent, Levin. - Subject: Horowhenua B 42. asks if any regulations prohibits partition. ACIH 16036 MA1/1137 1914/3869 Received: 7th December 1914. - From: registrar Ikaroa District, Wellington. - Subject: Horowhenua 3A No. [Number] 2. Mortgage Ariki Marehua to Edith Fraser. Board recommends consent under Section 230/1909. 1914-1915 ACIH 16036 MA1/1139 1915/688 Received: 15th March 1915. - From: Honourable Dr. Pomare, Wellington. - Subject: Horowhenua XIB, 36 3H No. [Number] 4. John Broughton's complaint as to refusal by Ikaroa Board to confirm sale. ACIH 16036 MA1/1182 1918/98 Received: 26th March 1918. - From: President, Ikaroa District Maori Land Board, Wellington. - Subject: Horowhenua XI B 36 (Kawiu). Re leases issued to J.R. McDonald Junior of Levin. Apparently a case of evasion of the law prohibiting aggregation of Maori Lands. [Includes: M 1917/362, 1916/4164]. 1916-1919 ACIH 16036 MA1/1235 1920/150 Received: 10th May 1920. - From: Chief Judge, Native Land Court, Wellington. - Subject: Forwarding report on petition No. [Number] 217/1917 re succession to Rora korako, deceased, in Horowhenua XIB 36 Section 3F 2 Block. [Includes: 1917/331]. 1917-1920 ACIH 16036 MA1/1308 1923/52 Received: 15th March 1923. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - Subject: Horowhenua XIB 41 North A 1F and Horowhenua XIB 36 2L No. [Number] 4A. Mortgage, Kahukore Hurinui and Hurinui Tukapua to John Rider. For consent under Section 230/09. 1923-1935 ACIH 16036 MA1/1310 1923/84 Received: 7th April 1923. - From: The Registrar, Ikaroa District Maori Land Board, Wellington. - Subject: Horowhenua XIB 41 South G Section 4 and Horowhenua XIB 41 South G Section 6. Mortgage. Kawana Hunia te Mana alias Hunia Wirihana to W.H. Clapham and J.M. Wells. For consent under Section 230/09. 1922-1925 ACIH 16036 MA1/1346 1924/415 Received: 29th October 1924. - From: Clerk, House of Representatives, Wellington. - Subject: Order. House of Representatives. That petition No. [Number] 174/22 of Hema Henare and others re Horowhenua XI B, 41 be referred to the Government for consideration. [Includes: 1918/349, 1919/536, 1920/302, 1920/553, 1922/227, 1922/198, 1924/206]. ACIH 16036 MA1/1381 1926/68 Received: 25th February 1926. - From: The Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - Subject: Section 7. Block VIII on D.P. 522 Kaitawa S.D. [Survey District] Application for loan. Board to Horowhenua Sawmilling Coy., for consent under Section 19/22. ACIH 16036 MA1/1404 1926/550 Received: 17th December 1926 - From: Tukumata Katea, Levin - Subject: Pt Horowhenua Block, near Lake - Application for payment of money held by the Ikaroa Maori Land Board under Section 92/13 ACIH 16036 MA1/1484 1929/225 Received: 14th May 1929 - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington - Subject: Horowhenua XIB 41 South E - Mortgage: Kawaurukuroa Hanita and another to Noel McNair Thomson for consent under Section 230/09. ACIH 16036 MA1/1497 1929/454 Received: 9th September 1929. - From: Clerk, Native Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Wellington. - Subject: For report on Petition No.[Number] 302/29 of Heni Hoani Kuiti and others for reinvestigation of title to Horowhenua XI B No.[Number]: 9A, No.[Number]42E and No.[Number] 41A, Raumatangi and Oturoa Blocks.[Includes: 1908/569; 4721; 1922/382; 1924/203; 1924/317; 1925/353; 1926/403; 1927/285]. 1908-1930 ACIH 16036 MA1/1513 1929/670 Received: 13th December 1929. - From: Secretary, Horowhenua County Patriotic Association, Levin. - Subject: Horo Karauti - Indigent Native - requires assistance.

125

Department of Maori Affairs ACIH 16082 MA75/4/23 1904-05 Disposals of sub-divisions of Horowhenua No. II B, No. 36, Kawiu

ACIH 16082 MA75/4/24 1893- Miscellaneous papers, including a sketch plan of subdivisions of No. II Block, 1905 Horowhenua, 1893, 1896-1905 MA 75, 4*24 1904-05 Maori desiring to sell their land in the Horowhenua block because they can't afford the rates on it. ACIH 18593 MAW1369/27 1904/97 Ria Hamuera of Parewanui near Bulls wishes to sell 50 acres of Horowhenua ACIH 18593 MAW1369/29 [97] Horowhenua no 1 (map) nd. ACIH 18593 MAW1369/29 [98] Kawiu (Horowhenua no 11b no 36), 1899-1903 ACIH 16046 MA13/1/1d Parliamentary Papers, Special File No.90 - General Correspondence relative to Waikato- Maniapoto, King Country, Kaiapoi, Mokai-Mohakatino, Awakino District - Reports and Petitions to Manawatu, Horowhenua, Opau, Kaiti, Whakanenekeneke and Waimarino Blocks. 1908-1913 MA 13/1d Horowhenua; Manawatu 1908-1913 Parliamentary papers, reports and petitions 3860- regarding Manawatu Kukutauaki and Horowhenua 3865

Department of Maori Affairs (re Hokio Native Township) ACIH 16046 Sale Plans, Special File No. 92 - Ikaroa District Maori Land Board - Plan of Hokio Native MA13/8/6x Township - Plan of Parata Township, Otaki - Including Plans ACIH 16036 1913/3490 Received: 25th August 1913. - From: Parker and Vincent, Levin. - Subject: Horowhenua B MA1/1109 42. asks if any regulations prohibits partition. ACIH 16036 1924/289 Received: 29th September 1924. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1341 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Section 19. Sale to Frances Louisa Bebbington. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1924/345 Received: 29th September 1924. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1342 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Section 19. Sale to Frances Louisa Bebbington. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1924/424 Received: 23rd October 1924. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1347 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Sections 1 and 2. Sale to William Collins. For consent under Section 23 of the Native townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1924/447 Received: 6th November 1924. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1348 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Section 9. Sale to Kekeke Taueki. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1924/448 Received: 6th November 1924. - From: registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1348 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Sections 12, 13 and 14. Sale to James Percival Prouse and Herbert Stanley Prouse. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1924/449 Received: 6th November 1924. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1348 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Section 20 and Block IV Section II. Sale to Maud Annie Clark. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910 ACIH 16036 1924/459 Received: 18th November 1924. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1349 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Section 3. Sale to Christina Prouse. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910 ACIH 16036 1925/50 Received: 25th February 1925. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Native Land Court, Wellington. - MA1/1355 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Sections 5 and 6. Sale to Charles Blenkhorn. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1925/73 Received: 27th March 1925. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1356 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Section 4. Sale to Lucy Mary McGregor. For consent under section 23 of the Native townships Act, 1910 ACIH 16036 1925/74 Received: 1st April 1925. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1356 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Section 17 and Block III. Section 2. Sale to William Gace Vickers. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 Received: 17th November 1925. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1373 1925/448 Subject: Hokio Native Township South Eastern Block IV Pt Section 13. Sale to J.F. Young. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910 ACIH 16036 1925/449 Received: 18th November 1925. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1373 Subject: Hokio Native Township North Western Block IV Pt. Section 13. Sale to E.P. Blacklaws. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1925/450 Received: 27th November 1925. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1373 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block IV Section 8. Sale to Eveline Harvey. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1926/8 Received: 7th January 1926. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1377 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block IV Section 17. Sale to Annie Hayes. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910.

126

Department of Maori Affairs (re Hokio Native Township) ACIH 16036 1926/9 Received: 8th January 1926. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1377 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block IV Sections 7, 14, 15 and 16. Sale to Alexander Gilmour Mitchell. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1926/16 Received: 15th January 1926. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1378 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Section 8 . Sale to D.C. Malcolm. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1926/17 Received: 15th January 1926. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land board, Wellington. - MA1/1378 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Sections 15 and 16. Sale to F.E. Parker. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1926/18 Received: 15th January 1926. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1378 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block III Section I. Sale to T.R. Hall. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1926/19 Received: 20th January 1926. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1378 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block IV Section 12. Sale to David Foster. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1926/321 Received: 4th August 1926. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1392 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block III Section 3. Sale to Clara Ann Prouse. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1926/363 Received: 25th August 1926. - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington. - MA1/1394 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Section 7. Sale to David Collier Malcolm. For consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act, 1910. ACIH 16036 1929/107 Received: 9th March 1929 - From: Registrar, Ikaroa Maori Land Board, Wellington - MA1/1477 Subject: Hokio Native Township Block II Section 5 - Sale to Lucy Mary McGregor for consent under Section 23 of the Native Townships Act 1910

Department of Maori Affairs, Head Office AAMK 869 W3074 AAMK 869 W3074/56/h 5/5/332 Maori Trust Mortgages - Horowhenua 11B 41 - South - 1 Section 2B. 1972-1973 AAMK 869 W3074/57/i 5/5/350 Maori Trust Mortgages - Horowhenua 4B and 3D6 Blocks. 1974 AAMK 869 W3074/63/b 5/9/41 Maori Trust Mortgages - Vested Lands - Horowhenua XIB, Section 2L 4A - Native Reserve (see MA [Maori Affairs] 21/3/174) - Horowhenua XIB 36 Subsections 1B1, 1B2, 1D1, 1D2, 2L4A (Pt) [Part] 2L4E, 2L5A, 2L5B and 2L6. 1947-1968 AAMK 869 W3074/74/p 5/9/161 Maori Trust Mortgages - Horowhenua 11B 42A: 1B/1C/1J/1K; 11b 42A: 3A1/3A2/3A3/3A4 - Ohinekakeao 1C2. 1960-1962 AAMK 869 W3074/396/j 12/1/924 Maori Trustee Appointed Agent - Horowhenua XIB41A2. 1951-1955 AAMK 869 W3074/396/k 12/1/925 Maori Trustee Appointed Agent - Horowhenua XIB41 North B3 No. 2B. 1951- 1955 AAMK 869 W3074/397/d 12/1/956 Maori Trustee Appointed Agent - Horowhenua 11B39A2. 1952-1955 AAMK 869 W3074/730/d 21/1/428 Burial Ground Reserves, Reservations and School Sites - Horowhenua A5G (Burial Ground). 1978-1979 AAMK 869 W3074/1197/q 54/18/52 Maori Trustee - Horowhenua X1B36 - 2L 1B1 - Vested under Section 438. 1963- 1964 AAMK 869 W3074/1202/g 54/18/188 Maori Trustee - Horowhenua X1B 41 North D2A Block - Vested under Section 438/1953. 1965 (restricted) AAMK 869 W3074/1202/o 54/18/197 Maori Trustee - Horowhenua X1B41 North A 2B2B2B Block - Vested under Section 438. 1964-1967 (restricted) AAMK 869 W3074/1203/g 54/18/210 Maori Trustee - Horowhenua X1B41 North E2 - Vested under Section 438/1953. 1965 (restricted)

Iwi Transition Agency, Head Office AAVN 869 W3599/246 54/22/13 Horowhenua X1 B42 A3B. 1926-1971 AAVN 869 W3599/240 54/18/4/1 Horowhenua X1B 36L4E (Part). 1976-1984 part 1

Maori Affairs – Maori Trustee AECW 18683 1898/2085 Native Reserves - Regarding monies paid to Taimona te Ahuru for shares in the MA-MT1/77 sale of Horowhenua 3C No. 4 Block AECW 18683 1899/1559 Native Reserves - Query regarding certificates for Tama te Niato and Tata MA-MT1/79 Pehira in the Horowhenua No. 6 Block MA-MT 1/80 98/2754; Request from Roka Hanita whether money had been received for Para 135-155 1900/878 98/2868 Matakatea and Winara Matakateao's interests in Horowhenua 3D, No. 2 block. Mr. Roe forwarded a cheque of 120 pounds for Horowhenua 3D, No. 2 Block. AECW 18683 1900/878 Native Reserves - Regarding monies paid to Wirihana Wirihana, a minor, for

127

Maori Affairs – Maori Trustee MA-MT1/80 shares in the sale of Horowhenua 3D No. 2 AECW 18683 1913/584 Native Reserves - Regarding monies paid to Hanita Henare for shares in the sale MA-MT1/93 of Horowhenua IX A Section A and Block I Waiopehu Survey District MA-MT 1/108 1913/252; Money for the purchase of Horowhenua 11B 36 2L No. 1E had been received. 461-468 1917/1252 1915/1252 Also, the purchase of 30 acres from Akeneki Himiona is mentioned in this correspondence. MA-MT 1/93 1913/584 Correspondence related to the payment of money to Hanita Henare for her 469-482 1913/584 shares in Horowhenua 11A Sec. A MA-MT 1/108 1917/946 Correspondence related to the payment of money to Ani Wiremu Matakatea for 550-592 1917/946 her shares in Horowhenua 3E No. 2 Sub. 5.

MA petitions MA1 890 Received: 4th September 1906. - From: Native Affairs Committee, H of R [House of 8126-39 1906/756 Representatives]. - Subject: Petition 550/05, Areta Nahona and others. For report. Horowhenua No. [Number] 11A and 11B Blocks. Rehearing as to succession to certain deceased owners. MA1 1911/80 Received: 30th January 1911. - From: Field, Luckie and Toogood, Wellington. - Subject: 8787-806 Mrs. Cristina Prouse's Petition re Horowhenua 3E No. [Number] 2. Application under Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1910 to refer matter to Ikaroa Maori Land Board. [Includes: 1909/650, M 1909/2796, 1911/80.] MA1 1235 Received: 10th May 1920. - From: Chief Judge, Native Land Court, Wellington. - Subject: 9121-47 1920/150 Forwarding report on petition No. [Number] 217/1917 re succession to Rora korako, deceased, in Horowhenua XIB 36 Section 3F 2 Block. [Includes: 1917/331]. MA1/1346 Received: 29th October 1924. - From: Clerk, House of Representatives, Wellington. - 9364-427 1924/415 Subject: Order. House of Representatives. That petition No. [Number] 174/22 of Hema Henare and others re Horowhenua XI B, 41 be referred to the Government for consideration. [Includes: 1918/349, 1919/536, 1920/302, 1920/553, 1922/227, 1922/198, 1924/206]. MA1/1497 Received: 9th September 1929. - From: Clerk, Native Affairs Committee, House of 9443-591 1929/454 Representatives, Wellington. - Subject: For report on Petition No.[Number] 302/29 of Heni Hoani Kuiti and others for reinvestigation of title to Horowhenua XI B No.[Number]: 9A, No.[Number]42E and No.[Number] 41A, Raumatangi and Oturoa Blocks.[Includes: 1908/569; 4721; 1922/382; 1924/203; 1924/317; 1925/353; 1926/403; 1927/285]

Maori Trust Office, Head Office, Wellington (restricted) ABOG 869 54/18/4/2 Maori Trustee - Maori Trustees Appointment as Trustee for Land - Section 438 Maori Affairs W5004/46 Act 1953 - Muaupoko Trust - Horowhenua X1B362L6. 1982 ABOG 869 54/18/4/3 Maori Trustee - Maori Trustees Appointment as Trustee for Land - Section 438 Maori Affairs W5004/46 Act 1953 - Muaupoko Trust - Horowhenua X1B362L4A2C. 1982-1984 ABOG 869 54/18/4/4 Maori Trustee - Maori Trustees Appointment as Trustee for Land - Section 438 Maori Affairs W5004/46 Act 1953 - Muaupoko Trust - Horowhenua 3E22B. 1982-1983

Native Land Purchase Department AECZ 18714 1902/81 From: H G Seth Smith, Auckland Date: 13 November 1902 Subject: Report on petitions of MA-MLP1/65/s Wirihana Hunia (2) Rihipeti Nireaha regarding Horowhenua AECZ 18714 1903/96 From: A McDonald, Wellington Date: 15 September 1903 Subject: Wants copy of report MA-MLP1/68/g of Mr Seth-Smith regards Horowhenua AECZ 18714 1906/9 From: W H Field, Member of the House of Representatives, Wellington Date: 11 January MA-MLP1/76/d 1906 Subject: Forwarding tracing of land adjoining Horowhenua lake proposed to be acquired under the provisions of the Horowhenua Lake Act 1905 AECZ 18714 1907/16 From: J B Wither, Solicitor, Palmerston North Date: 7 May 1907 Subject: Asking if MA-MLP1/79/h Government will take over Survey liens on Horowhenua lands to facilitate winding up of estate of W Parker Smith, deceased AECZ 18714 1911/133 Horowhenua 11B Section 2L2, 2K and 3G1. Horowhenua 11B 42. Re Purchase by Crown MA-MLP1/103/v AECZ 18714 1913/23 Horowhenua 3A No.2, re-purchase and quarter of ownership and title MA-MLP1/121/e AECZ 18714 1914/87 From: H Hiroti, Wanganui Date: 29 June 1914 Subject: Horowhenua 3C 3B C D E F and MA-MLP1/147/k G Asking if the Crown will purchase AECZ 18714 1927/20 From: Under-Secretary for Lands, Wellington Date: 1 December 1927 Subject: MA-MLP1/256/e Horowhenua 9A 2 - As to acquisition of portion to give Road Access for J M Hill to Lots 1 and 2, D.P.7245 being Subdivision of Horowhenua 9B Numbers 1 and 2 AECZ 18714 1916/71 From: Parker and Vincent, Hon Secretaries for Levin Residents, Levin Date: 1 November

128

MA-MLP1/169/i 1916 Block: Horowhenua 11B 42 Subject: Asking that Crown acquire 50 acres of block adjoining Hokio Native Township for subdivision into allotments

MA Maps Map of Horowhenua North subdivisions showing some valuation and purchase status MA-MLP 1/1911/133 information (pencil tracing) Map of Block XIII Mt Robinson SD showing cadastral info and some valuation and MA-MLP 1/1911/133 ownership info for land near Lake Horowhenua on Oero and Kawiu Roads Map of Horowhenua Pt B41 block surrounding western shore of Lake Horowhenua, MA-MLP 1/1911/133 with land nearby land under Buller's name MA 75/4/24 1893-1905 MAPS. NOT COPIED MA 13/42e 1898 Map of part of the Rangitikei-Manawatu block, 1898.

Legislative Department AEBE 18507 1911/258 Legislative Council - Schedule of Accost and Papers - Report of the Native Land Court on LE1/522 Horowhenua 3E number 2 Block AEBE 18507 1912/181 Accounts and Papers - VII - Schedule of Accounts and Papers laid upon the table - Session LE1/545 II, 1912 - Flax-Mills in the Manawatu and Horowhenua Counties, reports on accommodation and sanitation of the

Le petitions LE1/348 /1897/9 Horowhenua 1908 [350] M K Kapukai 10334-46 LE1/101 /1874/9 Ahuaturanga 1909 Memos re Horowhenua Case 9983-94 LE1/348 /1897/9 Horowhenua 1909 [355] Merehira Paerau 10330-33 LE1/347 /1897/9 Horowhenua 1922 [155/97 sess II] Kipa Te Whatanui- copy of petition 10413-15 LE1/347 /1897/9 Horowhenua 1922 [190] Kipa Te Whatanui re Te Waka - copy of petition 10416-21 LE1/347 /1897/9 Horowhenua 1922 [259/97] Hone Tuhata (John Damon) - copy of petition & memos 10422-33 LE1/371 /1900/14 Muhunoa 1922 [264] Riria Aperahama & 17 Others - petition LE1/355 /1898/11 Horowhenua 1924 [206, 301] Wi Mahuri Mataitaua- petition & memo 10482-93 LE1/355 /1898/11 Horowhenua 1924 [297] Wairiri Renata - copy of petition & memos 10494- 502 LE1/594 /1914/9 Raumatangi 1924 [228/14] WW Hipango - copy of petition & report 11174-84

Justice Department ACGS 17314 1926/64 Registrar-General of Lands - Re: Parawai 2A 3B 4B Block; Horowhenua XI B, 42A, JW2781/3 Section 3A. 1926-1927

Department of Lands and Survey, Head Office ACGT 18190 LS1/1608 16/3144 Roads - Horowhenua X 1B 36. nd ACGT 18190 LS1/1367 48337 (1) Subdivision 12, Horowhenua Block, Blocks VII, VIII, XI, Waiopehu Survey District, nd AADS W3740/F175 363 Wellington Land District: Hokio Native Township AADS W3740/F181 481 Wellington Land District: Hokio Native Township

Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington District Office ADXS 19483 LS-W1/197 8872 Horowhenua No11. 1892 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/258 11794 Horowhenua Block, 1894-1896 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/349 16975 Horowhenua Village Settlement. 1896-1897 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/358 17778 Horowhenua Road Reserves. 1898 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/374 18947 Horowhenua County Council - road through Ihakara's Reserve (construction). 1899 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/380 19345 1 Horowhenua No 6, 1899-1900 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/380 19345 2 Horowhenua No 6 Block. 1900-1901 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/380 19345 3 Horowhenua Block Surveys. 1901-1902 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/380 19345 4 Horowhenua No 6 Block. 1902-1904 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/615 10/68 Horowhenua 6A Block. 1919 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/574 28153 Road though part Horowhenua No 3 Block II Waiopehu. 1912 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/585 28657 Commissioner Crown Lands - Regarding Exchange for 6A, Horowhenua Block.

129

1913-1914 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/589 28807 Subdivision of Part Horowhenua 3B No 1 2B, Waiopehu. 1912-1913 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/590 28852 Subdivision of Part G, of Horowhenua 3D No 2 Block, Block VI, Waiopehu Survey District. 1913 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/609 29714 Access to Horowhenua 3a No2. 1914

Land Information New Zealand, National Office ABWN 8102/347 WGN 805 Horowhenua No. 6A - Manawatu [Certificate Of Title Reference: 102/13]. 1899 ABWN 8102/347 WGN 812 Horowhenua No. 3E No. 5 - Otaki [Certificate Of Title Reference: 107/106]. 1932 ABWN 8102/347 WGN 813 Horowhenua No. 6C - Otaki [Certificate Of Title Reference: 106/295]. 1932 ABWN 8102/351 WGN 972 Horowhenua 11B (Part) 38 & Part 39 - Otaki [Certificate Of Title Reference: 165/241]. 1905

Land Corporation Ltd, Wellington District Office AAMA 619/4 4/1008/1 Wellington: Offer of Property - Horowhenua 11B 41, 11B 26. 1958 AAMA 619/4 2 Wellington: Horowhenua Farm Settlement. 1961-1965 AAMA 619 W3150/13 20/59 3 Wellington - Horowhenua Alienation Notices, 1900-1904 AAMA 619 W3150/13 20/59 4 Record Missing Wellington - Horowhenua Alienation Notices. 1900-1954 AAMA 619 W3150/13 20/59 5 Wellington - Horowhenua Alienation Notices. 1909-1912 AAMA 619 W3150/13 20/59 6 Wellington - Horowhenua Alienation Notices. 1911-1912 AAMA 619 W3150/13 20/59 7 Wellington - Horowhenua Alienation Notices, 1915-1921 AAMA 619 W3150/13 20/59 8 Wellington - Horowhenua Alienation Notices. 1920-1953 AAMA 619 W3150/13 20/59 9 Wellington - Horowhenua Alienation Notices. 1925-1928 AAMA 619 W3150/13 20/59 10 Wellington - Horowhenua Alienation Notices. 1928-1939 AAMA 619 W3150/13 20/59 11 Wellington - Horowhenua Alienation Notices. 1939-1951 AAMA 619 W3150/13 20/59 12 Wellington - Horowhenua Alienation Notices. 1951-1953 AAMA 619 W3150/1 20/235 Wellington - Horowhenua 1894-1942 AAMA 619 W3150/20 20/387 Wellington - Horowhenua XI and XIA. 1955-1975 AAMA 619 W3150/20 20/389 Wellington - Horowhenua XIB and XIB41. 1965-1977 AAMA 619 W3150/20 20/390 Wellington - Horowhenua XIB36 and XIB42. 1965-1978 AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/78 Wellington – Hokio Native Township 1901-1947

Ministry of Works and Development Residual Management Unit, Head Office AATE W3410/45 16/727 Roads and Bridges - Horowhenua - Levin - Hokio Beach Road

Maori Land Court, Aotea District, Wanganui

Crown Forestry Rental Trust, ‘Maori Land Court Records: Document Bank Project. Porirua ki Manawatu Series’, (CFRT 2088, Taihape: Rangitikei ki Rangipo (Wai 2180) and Porirua ki Manawatu (Wai 2200) Inquiry Districts Research Assistance Projects)

Important correspondence, memorial schedules and other relevant documents from the following files held by the Maori Land Court have been collated and copied by CFRT. Page references to the CFRT Document Bank are given in the far-right column.

Vol. VI Hongoeka to Horowhenua CFRT DB Horowhenua Correspondence Oti 83 32-34 Horowhenua Correspondence 35-78 Horowhenua (Prt Sec 10) General land Oti 83 79-83 Horowhenua Miscellaneous General land Oti 83 84-92 Horowhenua (subs 11B41 South I-K) General land Oti 83 93-132 Horowhenua (Subs A1-A5) General land Oti 83A 133-224 Horowhenua (Subs 1-3) General land Oti 83B 225-318 Horowhenua (Subs 3C, 3D) General land Oti 83 C 319-419 Horowhenua (Subs 3D2-5, 3E1) General land Oti 83D1 420-487 Horowhenua (Subs 3B1-2, 3E1) General land Oti 83D2 488-511 Horowhenua (Subs 3E2-5) General land Oti 83E 512-616

130

Vol. VI Hongoeka to Horowhenua CFRT DB Horowhenua (Subs 4A, 6A-D et al) General land Oti 83F 617-700 Horowhenua (Subs 11A1, A2, A4, A6) General land Oti 83G vol.1 701-762 Horowhenua (Subs 11A6-14) General land Oti 83G vol.2 763-827

Vol. VII Horowhenua CFRT DB Horowhenua (Subs 11B5, 10-12 et al) General land Oti 83H vol.1 1-43 Horowhenua (Subs 11B26-28) General land Oti 83H vol.2 44-63 Horowhenua (Subs 11B29-38) General land Oti 83J 64-121 Horowhenua (Subs 11B36 1A-1E) General land Oti 83K 122-210 Horowhenua (Subs 11B36 2J-2L) General land Oti 83L 211-301 Horowhenua (Subs 11B36 3F-3G General land Oti 83M 302-346 Horowhenua (Subs 11B36 3G-5) General land Oti 83N 347-410 Horowhenua (Subs 11B41 Nth) General land Oti 83O 411-473 Horowhenua (Subs 11B4A Nth) General land Oti 83P 474-512 Horowhenua (Subs 11B1 Sth D) General land Oti 83Q 513-578 Horowhenua (Subs 11B41 Sth L) General land Oti 83R (2) 579-629 Horowhenua (Subs 11B41 A1-Z General land Oti 83T 630-687 Horowhenua (Subs 11B42 A1B-D) General land Oti 83U 688-772 Horowhenua 10 (Part) General land 773-779

Vol. VIII Horowhenua CFRT DB Horowhenua (Miscellaneous) Block Order Oti 83 vol.1 1-40 Horowhenua (Land Transfer Search) Block Order Oti 83 vol.2 41-99 Horowhenua (Duplicate file 1919-1921) Block Order Oti 83 vol.3 100-148 Horowhenua (Duplicate file 1885-1915) Block Order Oti 83 vol.4 149-200 Horowhenua (Subs 3C-E) Block Order Oti 83 vol.5 201-255 Horowhenua (Subs 3E2B-C) Block Order Oti 83 vol.6 256-281 Horowhenua (Subs 3, 4, 4B) Block Order Oti 83 vol.7 282-304 Horowhenua (Subs 5-6, 9) Block Order Oti 83 vol.8 305-362 Horowhenua (Subs 11 et al) Block Order Oti 83 vol.10 426-482 Horowhenua (Subs 11A 1-5C) Block Order Oti 83 vol.11 483-583 Horowhenua (Subs 11A 5D-F et al) Block Order Oti 83 vol.12 584-669 Horowhenua (Subs 11B 1-8 & 11) Block Order Oti 83 vol.13 670-699 Horowhenua (Subs 11B 9-13 Block Order Oti 83 vol.13A 700-715 Horowhenua (Subs 11B 14-15, et al Block Order Oti 83 vol.14 716-750 Horowhenua (Subs 11B 24-25, 36) Block Order Oti 83 vol.15 751-789 Horowhenua (Subs 11B 36 1B-1E) Block Order Oti 83 vol.16 790-828

Vol. IX Horowhenua to Iwitekai (Te) CFRT DB Horowhenua (Subs 11B36 1E & 2L) Block Order Oti 83 vol.16A 1-16 Horowhenua (Subs 11B36 2L) Block Order Oti 83 vol.19 17-44 Horowhenua (Subs 11B36 2L) Block Order Oti 83 vol.20 45-54 Horowhenua (Subs 11B36 3H, 39A-B) Block Order Oti 83 vol.21 55-81 Horowhenua (Subs 11B41 A & E) Block Order Oti 83 vol.22 82-167 Horowhenua (Subs 11B39-40) Block Order Oti 83 vol.23 168-199

131

Vol. IX Horowhenua to Iwitekai (Te) CFRT DB Horowhenua (Subs 11B41) Block Order Oti 83 vol.24 200-207 Horowhenua (Subs 11B41 Z & Nth) Block Order Oti 83 vol.25 208-288 Horowhenua (Subs 11B41 Nth B3) Block Order Oti 83 vol.26 289-333 Horowhenua (Subs 11B41 Nth B3-4) Block Order Oti 83 vol.27 334-360 Horowhenua (Subs 11B41 Nth C-D) Block Order Oti 83 vol.28 361-382 Horowhenua (Subs 11B41Nth E, Sth F) Block Order Oti 83 vol.28A 383-407 Horowhenua (Subs 11B41 Sth G, H, I) Block Order Oti 83 vol.29 408-472 Horowhenua (Subs 11B41 Sth N, P) Block Order Oti 83 vol.30 473-484 Horowhenua (Subs 11B41 Sth V & 42) Block Order Oti 83 vol.31 485-497 Horowhenua (Subs 11B42A) Block Order Oti 83 vol.33 498-551 Horowhenua (Subs Miscellaneous) Block Order Oti 83 vol.34 552-593 Horowhenua (Subs 11B42 A5-13) Block Order Oti 83 vol.35 594-619 Horowhenua (Subs 11B42 A13-14) Block Order Oti 83 vol.36 620-627 Horowhenua (Subs 11B42 B) Block Order Oti 83 vol.37 628-635 Horowhenua (Subs 11B42 C1-2) Block Order Oti 83 vol.38 636-650 Horowhenua (Subs A2-A6) Block Order Oti 83 vol.39 651-700 Horowhenua (Duplicate file 1916-19) Block Order Oti 83 701-725

Maori Land Court minutes

Block Case type Start date No. pp Minute Book reference Horowhenua Title investigation 11 Mar 1873 85 Otaki 01A: 184-7, 195, 244-267; Otaki 02: 1-54, 59-65, 80 Horowhenua Partition 12 Nov 1886 19 Otaki 07: 142, 160, 182-86, 188-96, 199-200, 203 Horowhenua 11 Partition, then 14 Jan 1890 500 Otaki 13: 1, 75, 78, 82-93, 95-6, 98, rehearing and 100-02, 106, 142, 144-45, 147, 151, partition 156-279; Otaki 14: 6, 86-219, 250-92, 294-330; Otaki 21A: 41-50, 252-76, 278-399 Horowhenua 3A, 3B Rehearing and 19 Feb 1891 154 Otaki 14: 7-85; partition Otaki 21A: 50-126 Horowhenua 12, Appeal 9 Apr 1897 810 Otaki 33: 195-254, 339-82 Horowhenua 6, Otaki 34: 1-379; Horowhenua 11 Otaki 35: 1-303, 344-57, 367-83 Horowhenua 11 Partition 21 Sep 1898 147 Otaki 36: 215, 238-43, 249-54, 260- 61, 300, 337-56, 362, 366-78; Otaki 37: 1-2, 9-33, 40, 47-49, 54-65, 68-72, 90, 91, 185-90, 195-205, 217- 33 Horowhenua 11 Appeal and relative 15 Sep 1898 145 Otaki 40: 49-194 interests Horowhenua 11B41 Investigation 3 Jul 1908 10 Otaki 49: 197-202, 203a-d, 204 Horowhenua 11B41, Partition 2 Feb 1909 53 Otaki 50: 206-7, 224, 232, 234-42, 11B42 246-48, 264-65, 267-73, 282-83, 329- 34, 351-56, 362-64, 366-79; Wellington 16: 259-64, 271a-c; Otaki 51: 64-65, 91-94, 99-103, 106- 33, 135-36, 139, 155-71, 175, 216

132

Websites

Te Kooti Whenua Maori, Maori land online, at http://www.maorlandonline.govt

133

4. Lake Horowhenua

Lake Horowhenua, known by some Muaupoko as Te Waipunahau or Punahau, has been the prized taonga of Muaupoko from ancestral times, not only because of its abundance as the tribal food basket and the corresponding mana this bestowed, but also as the spiritual wellspring of the people and an integral part of their identity, created over centuries of close association. The Hokio Stream, being the lake outlet, was a vital part of the tribal waterway, in which eels in their thousands were caught in numerous pa tuna on their annual run out to sea. Early European visitors recorded, too, the breathtaking beauty of the lake set amongst forest that extended to its shores.

The battle over ownership and control of Lake Horowhenua has already been traversed to some extent in the Tribunal’s ‘Rangahaua Whanui’ series, from which the following has been summarised.135 Claimants have also undertaken significant research on their own initiative.136

When the Horowhenua Block was partitioned in 1886, the lake was part of Block 11, tribal estate which was nonetheless vested in Te Keepa and Warena Hunia.137 As a result of the Horowhenua Commission in 1896, individual title to Block 11 was determined by the Native Appellate Court in 1898, after which partition took place. As a result of this process, Lake Horowhenua and the Hokio Stream, together with a one chain strip around the lake and running along the north bank of the Hokio Stream were reserved as a fishing easement, to be vested in trustees for the 81 owners of Horowhenua 11. The lake was formally vested in October 1898, but it appears the same arrangement intended for the Hokio Stream was never carried out.

In his study on the history of ownership and control of inland waterways, Ben White remarks that the vesting of the lake in Muaupoko was somewhat of a departure from the normal Crown practice of asserting such rights for itself, through either common law assumptions or through legislation if necessary.138 Indeed, even as title was being determined the government was under pressure to obtain the lake for the general public, to be placed under local body control. The lake was a popular boating spot for Pakeha before the turn of the century, a pastime which nonetheless relied on the good-will of

135 Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District; Ben White, ‘Rangahaua Whanui National Theme Q: Inland Waterways: Lakes, (Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 2008) 136 Anne Hunt, ‘Legend of Lake Horowhenua’, nd. While not a claimant herself, Hunt’s work is supported by claimant Phil Taueki. ‘Legend of Lake Horowhenua’ is not referenced, but it does provide a starting point for further research, using newspaper resources to good effect, for example, for information on Domain Board activities from 1910-1930. 137 When Hunia succeeded in having Block 11 partitioned in 1890, it seems the court split the lake in two, and the Hokio Stream too, awarding the northern portion to Te Keepa and the southern portion to Warena Te Hakeke. In the wake of the Horowhenua Commission recommendations six years later however, these titles were cancelled. See David Alexander, ‘Final Historical Report dated June 2008 … Filed in the Maori Land Court Application by Hokio A and Part Hokio Land Trusts’, p. 12. 138 White, chapter 1; p.63.

134

Muaupoko. In 1903 James Cowan reported that the issue of public access had been a source of friction between local Maori and Pakeha ‘for a number of years’. Cowan had been sent by the Department of Tourist and Health Resorts to assess the lake, seemingly with the idea of taking it under imminent scenery preservation legislation. He supported setting the lake and environs aside as a scenic reserve, so long as Maori fishing and hunting rights were guaranteed.139 The matter was kept before Parliament every year from 1903 to 1905 by local MP, W. H. Field.

The struggle over ownership and use rights has continued ever since. In 1905 Ministers of the Crown intervened to secure a public stake-hold in the lake: a meeting at Horowhenua between Prime Minister Seddon and Native Minister Carroll and Muaupoko was said to have been the basis of the Horowhenua Lake Act 1905. However a 1904 petition from Hoani Puihi, lake trustee, and 31 others objecting to any change in the lake title, together with a parliamentary question in 1905 from Southern Maori Member T Parata claiming that the lake owners’ consent had not been obtained, throws doubt on the legitimacy of the Crown’s actions.140

The 1905 Act declared the lake to be a public recreation reserve under the control of a Domain Board, subject to the provision that the Muaupoko owners ‘shall at all times have the free and unrestricted use of the lake and of their fishing rights over the lake but so as not to interfere with the full and free use of the lake for aquatic sports and pleasures’. At least one-third of the controlling board were to be Maori, appointed by the governor. The Act also provided for the Crown’s acquisition of ten acres next to the lake for boatsheds. Anderson and Pickens relate that the legislation of 1905 was much less drastic than Scenery Preservation Committee plans with regard to the lake, which were abandoned as a result. Field’s subsequent attempt to expand the area of acquired foreshore in 1906 was not supported by Native Minister Carroll.

The effect of the legislation was to create the perception in Pakeha minds that Horowhenua was in fact public property, a presumption that was reflected in the gradual attrition of Muaupoko’s interests. No longer content with picnics and boating, by 1911 the exclusivity of Maori fishing rights at Horowhenua was being challenged. A Crown Law opinion in 1914 publicised in local media argued that the lake had ‘probably’ once belonged to the adjoining landowners but that currently there was no Maori claim to any part of the lake bed. Encouraged by another opinion that the ‘aquatic sports and pleasures’ intended by the 1905 Act included fishing, by 1917 the Domain Board was promoting the introduction of exotic fish species.141

139 James Cowan, ‘Report on Lake Horowhenua to Department of Tourist and Health Resorts’, AJHR 1908, H-2a, discussed in Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 271-2. 140 The Heads of Agreement are set out in White, p. 71 which is in turn sourced to NZPD 1905, vol. 135, p.1206; Petition no 891, AJHR 1904, I-3, p. 19, see also Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, pp.274-5. 141 Hunt, ‘Legend of Lake Horowhenua’, p.26.

135

Under the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1916, the minimum Maori third of Domain Board members was transformed into a maximum, while the control of the Board was extended to the Hokio Stream and the one-chain reserve lining both the lake and the north bank of the stream, without consulting the land-owners.142 Significantly, the Domain Board was deemed to be a local authority in terms of land drainage with respect to the reserve under its control (s.97(7)). Two years later a similar Act transferred to the control of the board the 13-acre area of lakefront land acquired by the Crown.143

Pressure to drain Lake Horowhenua and surrounds, together with Muaupoko’s steadfast opposition to such a course, is evident from at least 1911.144 Despite their minority status, it appears that the Domain Board’s powers from 1916 to undertake drainage were curbed by the opposition of its Maori members. A board proposal in 1919 to reduce the lake waters to a permanent level by clearing and deepening the Hokio outlet caused one Muaupoko board member to threaten a legal injunction against any works that would injure the tribe’s fishing rights.145

The stalemate within the Domain Board may have been behind the constitution of the Hokio Drainage Board in 1925. The steadfast opposition of Muaupoko to interference with their fishery once again caused the government to step in and intervene.146 Local legislation in 1926 made it incumbent on the newly-constituted Board to have regard for the protection of Maori fishing rights and public use rights in any proposed drainage works.147 The specific references in the legislation to widening or deepening the Hokio Stream, removing or replacing eel weirs, and any works that would lower the level of the lake lend to the impression that these were all matters which had already excited opinion against the constitution of the drainage board in the first place. By the time of the legislation however, the damage had already been done: a deep narrow channel cut at the outlet and all but two of the pa tuna destroyed. In the face of Muaupoko concern about their diminishing fishery, in 1931 the chief inspector of fisheries, A.E. Hefford, was asked to report. Hefford attributed diminishing eel numbers to the decrease in lake area from the drainage works which had dropped the lake level by four feet; the deposit of silt on the lake bottom from drain run-off, and the impact of acclimatised perch devouring

142 Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Bill 1916, discussed in ‘Wellington District: Rangahau Whanui’, p. 275. A petition from Hemi Henare and 33 others objecting to the Bill was considered by the Native Affairs Committee, which made no recommendation. See also File 142 Horowhenua Lake Domain Board correspondence, 1906-1923, Central Archives Feilding. 143 Note the suggestion in 1956 that this land may have been taken without compensation, Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 276. 144 Hunt, ‘Legend of Lake Horowhenua’, p. 28. 145 Ibid, pp.29-30. 146 Ibid, p.37. According to later testimony given in 1934, at the time 105 lake owners had written to Native Minister Coates praying that the Hokio Stream should not be interfered with. Details surrounding the establishment of the drainage board, the protest over the proposed lake lowering, the 1926 agreement brokered by Private Secretary Balneavis, and the accusations from Maori that the domain board had subsequently breached this agreement by deepening the channel rather than merely clearing it are contained in Hokio Drainage Board Correspondence file, 1924-1928, Central Archives Feilding. 147 Local Legislation Act 1926, s.53, discussed in Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 276

136 young eels.148 The permanent lowering of the lake had also left a de-watered area prone to stock damage, and ambiguity over the ownership and control of this area.

The commission appointed in 1934 to look into the issue of rights with respect to the lake and chain strip appears to have been instigated by local body interest in developing the lake, and ongoing ill- feeling between these authorities and Muaupoko. The Domain Board aspired to develop the lake and waterfront beyond the 13 acres of domain but as things stood, it could not even make improvements on the adjacent chain strip without attracting objections from the Maori owners. Muaupoko were represented at the commission, adamant that the lake and surrounding land remained their property. It was pointed out that the 1905 Act had given the public use rights and nothing more, and that subsequent legislation that purported to include the chain strip as part of the Domain Board reserve had been enacted without Muaupoko consent, and in breach of the 1905 agreement. They also outlined their protest in more recent years over the adverse impact of drainage board operations, not only on their fishery, but also on the diminishing income from flax at the lake edge.

In his report, Native Land Court Judge Harvey considered there was clear evidence that the lake and chain strip were considered to be Maori property up to the 1916 legislation and that of 1926: ‘it may be that these amendments have taken away the Natives’ title if so they have done it [in] a subtle manner mystifying alike to Domain Board and Natives’.149 His suggested compromise was to have the Domain Board control the surface of the lake, subject to fishing rights, and to vest the lake bed in trustees for the owners of Horowhenua 11. In this scheme the dewatered area and chain strip along the Levin side of the lake would be vested in the Domain Board, the balance of both areas vested in trustees for the tribe. The ‘Harvey scheme’ became the basis of Crown negotiations with Muaupoko on several different occasions over the next 15 years or so. These terms were rejected by the tribe who instead sought the repeal of the 1905 and 1916 Acts and the ownership of the lake and foreshore ‘returned’ to the original owners. In this period the Domain Board ceased to function, apparently due to the break-down in relations.

Anderson and Pickens relate that in the 1950s a new series of negotiations over the lake commenced. By now it appears that government officials accepted that the lake and chain strip were Maori property.150 In 1956 new legislative provisions regarding the ownership and control of Lake Horowhenua were enacted, repealing all previous legislation.

The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1956 reiterated that the lake bed and islands, the dewatered area, the chain strip, and Hokio stream bed and the chain strip on its north bank belonged to the Muaupoko owners of Block 11, and vested these areas in the trustees of Block 11 who had been

148 A.E. Hefford, 12 February 1931, in Hokio Drainage Board Correspondence file, 1929-1945, Central Archives Feilding. 149 ‘Judge Harvey’s Report to the Honourable The Minister of Lands’, 10 October 1943, MA accession W2459 5/13/173 p.3 in Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p.279 150 Anderson and Pickens, Wellington District, p. 281. The relevant archive file is MA W2459 5/13/173

137 appointed by the Maori Land Court five years before (ss.2, 3). However the lake waters, the Crown’s 13-acre domain, and the Muaupoko-owned area between this land and the lake (part chain strip and part dewatered area) was declared to be a public domain under the control of a new Domain Board to be appointed by the Minister of Lands (ss.5, 7). Four of the eight-member board were to be appointed on the recommendation of Muaupoko, three on the recommendation of interested local bodies (the Horowhenua County Council and Levin Borough Council), with the commissioner of Crown Lands acting as chair.

Under the Act, the Hokio Drainage Board was abolished, its drainage functions and responsibilities taken over by the Manawatu Catchment Board, including the maintenance of the lake waters at a stipulated level (30 feet above mean low water spring tides at Foxton Heads). The Catchment Board was also required to obtain the prior consent of the Domain Board to any proposed works (s.10).

Minister of Maori Affairs Ernest Corbett told Parliament that the new legislative arrangement fully met the wishes of the Maori owners. The legislation itself claimed to be the result of agreement reached between the Maori owners and other interested bodies regarding ownership and control of the lake and environs. On the face of it, the 1956 Act affirmed Muaupoko ownership of the lake, a property right that had been increasingly questioned for half a century, while the constitution of the revamped Domain Board, together with the board’s power of veto over any drainage works, suggests that representation on the controlling body had been an issue for Muaupoko. For both these reasons, Muaupoko may have welcomed the legislation.

On the other hand, confining their proprietary interest to the beds of the lake and stream has arguably led to further ambiguity over Muaupoko interest in the lake as a whole. Ben White discusses the curious separation under English common law between a lake bed and its waters, and the tacit assertion of ownership underlying Crown presumptions of the right to control such waterways. The Act itself remains ambiguous on the issue: the declaration of the surface waters to be a public domain may appear to imply a Crown presumption of ownership, but the same public domain also included areas of Maori land with no similar presumptions about any changed status of ownership. Maori fishing rights were acknowledged, but only in so far as they did not interfere with ‘the reasonable rights of the public’, to be determined by the Board.

At Kawiu Marae in 1958 a written agreement was entered into by the Lake Trustees, Prime Minister Nash, the Lake Domain Board members, and ten tribal members regarding the development of Muaupoko Park for recreation.151 In 1961 the Crown obtained a lease in perpetuity for 32 perches of lake bed adjacent to the park, which was also placed under Domain Board control, although the peppercorn rental was never charged, nor paid. Claimant research indicates that the Horowhenua Boat

151 This agreement is held at Central Archives, Feilding.

138

Club’s aspiration to erect a boatshed and clubhouse was behind this development, the land sub-leased by the Domain Board to the club for 21 years, with another 21-year right of renewal.152 In 1981 the Domain was classified as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, and the Domain Board became the Horowhenua Lake Reserve Board. At this point it appears the Ministry of Lands role on the Board was transferred to the Department of Conservation.

The worst degradation of the lake has occurred within the last 50 years, without any apparent consultation, consent or even consideration of the Muaupoko lake owners. By the time of the 1956 legislation, local government had already begun to pump treated sewerage into Lake Horowhenua, a practice that continued until 1987. According to Phil Taueki, although the Horowhenua District Council now pipes treated sewerage to its land disposal site on Maori-owned land, two emergency discharges, in 1998 and 2008, have further contaminated the lake. Levin’s stormwater too, continues to be discharged into Lake Horowhenua without treatment or filtering, the council’s own asset management plan admitting that the quality of stormwater in the first flush of a storm will typically exceed the levels considered safe for contact recreation.153 Apparently, this discharge does not have, or require, resource consent. A planned upgrade of Levin’s Stormwater Mains produced in 2001 was not adopted because of the significant cost, estimated at $10.4 million. Nor has any funding been allocated towards this in the Council’s current 10-year plan. In more recent years the water quality has been further degraded by nutrient runoff from the intensification of farming in the area. In 2007 the Council objected to Horizon Regional Council’s Draft Regional Plan stipulation requiring resource consent for discharges, on the basis of the $2.4 million cost involved.

The clear waters and abundant kai that were available to Muaupoko within living memory are no more. In 1969, in response to local concern, the medical officer of health recommended that no shellfish be taken, nor swimming permitted in the lake as a result of the contamination from the sewerage outfall.154 Ongoing Maori concern about the pollution is documented in local government archives held in Feilding, including litigation by lake trustees against the Levin Borough Council in 1964, and similar objections to the extension of the council’s right to discharge treated effluent in 1986.155

Lake Horowhenua is still used for recreational boating, but little else. An environmental opinion elicited by Phil Taueki agrees that the lake is highly polluted.156 The two major risks to losing the

152 Hunt, ‘Legend of Lake Horowhenua’, p.48. 153 Hunt contends that the Horowhenua District Council’s authority to discharge storm water rests on the consent of Lake Trustees’ obtained in 1971, which had not in fact been signed, nor the council’s assurances met. This 40-year old agreement was apparently ratified by Horowhenua District Council in October 2013. Ibid, p. 55. 154 Lake Horowhenua, Horizons Regional Council 00024:32:916 1969-1976 (pollution), Central Archives Feilding. 155 Information about this and subsequent concern is contained in Litigation with Horowhenua Lake Trustees 1980-84; Lake Horowhenua (sewerage discharge) 1986-87, Central Archives Feilding. 156 3 November 2013, Chrisholm Associates, certified environmental practitioner, in Hunt, ‘Legend of Lake Horowhenua’, attachments.

139 amenity values of the lake altogether have been identified as the poor water quality and the introduction of exotic, invasive weed species from other lakes, carried to Horowhenua on unwashed boats and trailers. In recent times, the discovery of purple loosestrife in the lake has been treated by the Horizons Regional Council by chemical spraying.

Kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga over the lake is a contemporary issue which continues to divide the community. Those like Phil Taueki are deeply angry at the way the lake owners have been, and continue to be, excluded from decisions affecting the health of their lake. To the long history of degradation, Taueki points to modern day examples of local government actions which, he maintains, demonstrates ongoing negligence on the one hand, and expensive and offensive initiatives on the other. Mr Taueki’s application for urgency regarding proposed planning decisions concerning Lake Horowhenua by the Horizons Regional Council was declined by the Tribunal in February 2011.157 This claim relates to changes in the council’s proposed regional plan, known as the ‘One Plan’, with respect to Lake Horowhenua and the Arawhata Stream, which Mr Taueki alleges will lead to further contamination of the lake. When the One Plan was first notified in May 2007, Lake Horowhenua was included in a Table of ‘Water Management Sub-zones’, in which land use activities considered to be the predominant cause of high nutrient and faecal contamination – dairy farming, cropping, market gardening and intensive sheep and beef farming – would be controlled activities, for which resource consent would depend on managing aspects like nutrient loss. As a result of the public submission and hearing process however, dairy farming was the only intensive land use activity recommended to be regulated by such provisions, while Lake Horowhenua was recommended to be deleted from the Table of protected water zones on the basis that horticulture was no longer to be regulated in the same way. A further source of grievance in the proposed One Plan was the designation of the Arawhata Stream as a drain, which Mr Taueki claims has and will further result in a marked increase in the level of pollution discharged into the stream and lake. In the last five years or so, Mr Taueki has also challenged head-on the legality and the sanction by the Crown and local government of long-held presumptions about use and occupation rights on the lake, including the right of local rowing and sailing clubs to occupy buildings by the lake, and the practice of launching unwashed boats.

Claims

Table 7: Muaupoko claims relating to Lake Horowhenua

Claim Issues Wai 108 Tama-i-uia Rejects Queen’s chain around Horowhenua as a legal construct that has enabled local Ruru for descendants government to allow activities which have polluted and denigrated the Horowhenua of Tanguru a lakes and ecosystems. Muaupoko Seeks finding that waters be part of the lake bed, and deletion of clause reserving

157 Decision of the Presiding Officer on an Application for Urgency filed by Mr Philip Taueki, 23 February 2011, Wai 2306 #2.5.3. The decision sets out the background to the issue, including both the applicant and Crown’s response.

140

Claim Issues public access to dewatered area and chain strip; that Crown and local authorities fund the restoration of the lake. Wai 237 Ron & Failure of management systems to protect rivers and waterways, especially Lake William Taueki for Horowhenua, Lake Papaitonga and the Hokio stream from erosion, pollution and descendants of Taueki encroachment. and Muaupoko Wai 1621 Mark The exclusion of Muaupoko from participation in decision-making, or adequate Stevens for Lake information and consultation with regard to local body activities on the lake. Horowhenua Trust and Crown’s failure to fund Lake Horowhenua trust to enable engagement with local Muaupoko ki bodies and exercise kaitiakitanga Horowhenua The failure of local bodies to protect sacred waters from harmful discharge, or obtain adequate information about effects of discharges. The Crown down-graded conservation status of lake and environs in early 1990s, without consultation with Muaupoko. The Crown’s usurpation of kaitiakitanga with a management system that involved inadequate definitions of the lake’s ownership and the degradation of Lake Horowhenua, all its tributaries, and Hokio stream from run-off, sewage, rubbish disposal, bush felling; and excessive draining of water from the Lake Horowhenua catchment. Destruction of kakahi and eel habitats, lowering of lake levels Wai 1629 Vivienne That the management system implemented by the Crown involved Taueki for descendants  inadequate definitions of the lake’s ownership; of Taueki and  taking away Muaupoko kaitiakitanga; Muaupoko ki  substituting instead conflicting and confusing responsibilities for the Trust Horowhenua Board and Domain Board;  failing to protect lake from degradation through run-off, rubbish disposal and bush felling. The Crown provided for establishment of drainage boards that were empowered to construct, maintain, and repair drains and watercourses; failing to provide adequately for consultation with Muaupoko. Crown failure to adequately respond to Muaupoko concerns about Hokio Drainage Board interference with Hokio Stream, or about destruction of wahi tapu and natural resources. In addition to altered ecology from lowered lake levels, Muaupoko found themselves embattled with Pakeha farmers as to rights to dewatered area. As lake margins were not fenced, farmers of riparian lands grazed stock on dewatered zone, causing further damage to lake margins, especially flax; reducing the economic opportunity of Muaupoko to derive income from sale of flax. The inclusion of owners who did not whakapapa to lake on the Certificate of Title to the lake bed under Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1956. Current management structure does not represent customary rights to the lake. Under current environment management regime, local bodies continue to fail to protect these sacred resources by permitting harmful discharges; fail to obtain adequate information about effects of discharges; or adequately consult with claimants. Inadequate consultation about control and management of introduced flora in Hokio stream. Crown’s application of ad medium filum aquae common law principle in respect of riparian lands without knowledge or consent of Muaupoko, resulting in loss of ownership and ability to exercise tino rangatiratanga over the beds of river and other water resources when riparian lands were sold or otherwise alienated from them. Horowhenua District Council’s purchase of Maori land Hokio A for landfill, and permission of discharge to surrounding land from the landfill. Horowhenua District Council’s lease of 27 acres of Hokio A for sewerage treatment plant. HDC’s continued use of property as sewerage treatment plant despite expiry of five year lease. Claimants have no record of council ever applying to renew lease, or paying any money under the lease. Wai 1631 Charles The loss of rights and privileges in Lake Horowhenua, Hokio stream and beach, Rudd citing in particular Conservation Act, Local Government Act.

141

Claim Issues Beneficial owners of Failure to ensure water quality. Ongoing contamination of waterways, in particular Lake Horowhenua close situation of waste water treatment plant to shores of Lake Horowhenua, effluent from which is sprayed onto land (at end of Hokio Sands Road), through which runs Waiwiri stream to the ocean. Effluent affects both the stream and the beach. Oxidation ponds at Kohitere and Kimberly Hospital affect ground water. Six listed drains which carry pollution to above waterways; depletion of lake waters; pollution from eight listed land-fill sites; other activities which affect the aquafill of above waterways - farm run-off, bores Wai 2306 Phillip Lake Horowhenua, Arawhata stream: Crown failure in duty to protect taonga of Taueki for Muaupoko Muaupoko. Crown empowered agencies to pollute and damage Lake Horowhenua and surrounding environment, causing spiritual degradation (in particular from sewage treatment plant on Makomako Rd Levin (Horizons Regional Council), discharge of raw sewage. Application for urgency (Wai 2306 #3.1.1) regarding changes to the Horizons Regional Council’s proposed ‘One Plan’ which removes Lake Horowhenua from a proposed list of Water Management Sub-zones, and designates the Arawhata Stream as a drain. Failure to protect the lake from a marked increase in pollution.

Issues

The more than century-old struggle over the lake, in which the once-abundant fishery has been destroyed and the life-giving waters polluted to the point of near-collapse, presents fundamental issues about both our colonial past, and our post-colonial present. Such issues are significant enough to warrant a stand-alone report, quite apart from Muaupoko’s Land and Politics Report or the generic report on environmental impacts. To a large extent, Muaupoko’s twentieth-century struggle to retain ownership, control and enjoyment of their fishery also represents the ‘political’ element missing from the proposed research regarding twentieth-century land loss. In the historical bird’s eye-view presented above, Muaupoko have emerged from this battle with their ‘ownership’ of the lake intact in terms of legal title to the lake bed and tangata whenua status, but with seemingly negligible control over factors which seriously impact on the lake. The nub of Lake Horowhenua’s story, which remains as pertinent as it ever was, is the extent to which the Crown has protected the interests of tangata whenua in the development of the nation:

 To what extent has the Crown presumed rights of access and enjoyment over Lake Horowhenua?  To what extent has the Crown presumed rights of use and control over Lake Horowhenua?  In exercising this presumption, through the sponsoring of public access and enjoyment, and through the delegation of powers to local authorities, what weight was given to the interests of Muaupoko? What promises were made by the Crown to Muaupoko? In what way and to what extent have they been honoured?

As Ben White has noted, although the Crown has assumed the right to pass legislation governing the use and control of inland waterways, including the right to discharge, to divert, to drain, and from 1993 to allocate, in terms of the law it is still not clear who ‘owns’ them. As Crown Law solicitor S E

142

Kenderdine remarked in 1989 regarding Horowhenua, there has not yet been an authoritative decision from ‘the superior courts’ in New Zealand as to exactly what customary Maori rights in relation to lakes and rivers are.158 Since then, the Tribunal has found in a number of Maori claims of Treaty breach in relation to waters that such claims are well-founded, and that Maori rights in relation to waters of significance are in the nature of ownership.159 In its recent interim report on the National Freshwater and Geothermal Claim, for example, the Tribunal has found that ‘the proprietary right guaranteed to hapu and iwi by the Treaty in 1840 was the exclusive right to control access to and use of the water while it was in their rohe’.160 Notwithstanding this growing body of opinion, the Supreme Court has recently summed up the prevailing legal position, that the ‘[r]ecognition of Maori interests in water is clearly still a work in progress.’161

A more particularised issues-based approach may look like this:

1. Muaupoko customary association, use, enjoyment of Lake Horowhenua  What was the nature of Muaupoko use and enjoyment of this resource in terms of kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga?  What other associations did Muaupoko have with the lake in terms of identity and in terms of historical events?

2. Crown title  What were the circumstances surrounding the granting of Crown title to the lake in 1898 and the reservation of the fishery easement?  What were Muaupoko’s expectations and understanding regarding the same?

3. Horowhenua Lake Act 1905  What was the nature of the agreement between Crown ministers and Muaupoko preceding this Act? What were Muaupoko’s expectations and understanding regarding the same?  To what extent did the Act reflect the agreement? What were the implications of this Act? How was the status of public recreation reserve reconciled with its status as a reservation for fishing?  What was the extent of Muaupoko opposition to this Act?  To what extent did the Crown’s plans with regard to scenic preservation influence the agreement?

4. Crown assertions of control, 1905 – 1956  What were the circumstances surrounding the Crown’s acquisition of 13 acres for the Domain Reserve?

158 S E Kenderdine to Director General of Conservation, 13 July 1989, discussed in White, pp. 84-5. 159 A useful synopsis of Tribunal findings with respect to fresh waters, as well as recent legal submissions regarding this issue are set out in the Supreme Court’s decision about the proposed sale of shares in Mighty River Power, The New Zealand Maori Council v The Attorney-General [2013] NZSC 6. 160 Emphasis in original, Waitangi Tribunal, The Stage 1 Report on the National Freshwater and Geothermal Resources Claim, (Wai 2358, 2012), at appendix VII, cited in above, at [11]. 161 The New Zealand Maori Council v The Attorney-General [2013] NZSC 113.

143

 What were the circumstances surrounding the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1916? Why was the Muaupoko majority on the Domain Board changed?  What were the reasons for the delegation of authority over drainage to the Domain Board in 1916?  What was the nature and extent of Domain Board drainage activities? In terms of projects? In terms of rating? Was there any Muaupoko opposition to such activities?  To what extent were Muaupoko interests in the lake recognised by the Crown and its delegated authority?  What were the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Hokio Drainage Board?  What Crown assurances were given to Muaupoko at this time? Were they kept?  What was the nature and extent of Hokio Drainage Board activities? In terms of projects/impact? In terms of rating? In terms of the impact on the fishery?  What was the nature of Muaupoko opposition to the Board’s activities? To what extent were Muaupoko interests and concerns met by the Crown and its delegated authority? Who benefitted from the drainage of the lake?  What was the basis and nature of on-going negotiations over ownership and control from 1930-1956? To what extent did the Crown support local government aspirations at the expense of Muaupoko property and customary rights?  To what extent were Muaupoko interests in the lake recognised by the Crown and its delegated authority in this period?  To what extent were Muaupoko included in the ‘public’ use and enjoyment of the lake? To what extent were they marginalised for their stance regarding ownership?

5. The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1956  What was the nature of the agreement between Crown ministers and Muaupoko preceding this Act? How did Muaupoko understand this agreement?  To what extent did the Act reflect the agreement? What were the implications of this Act? In terms of representation on the Domain Board?  What was the nature of Domain Board control? To what extent have Muaupoko interests been recognised by the Board?  What was the nature of the meeting at Kawiu Marae in 1958?  What were the circumstances surrounding the 21-year lease of 32 perches of lake bed to the Crown in 1961?  What was the impact of transferring the drainage functions to the Manawatu Catchment Board? In terms of representation? In terms of environmental impact? In terms of rating? To what extent were Muaupoko interests recognised by the Crown and its delegated authority from this period?  What were the circumstances behind the declaration of the lake as a recreation reserve in 1981?

6. Sewerage and Storm Water Discharges  What were the circumstances surrounding the discharge of treated sewerage into Lake Horowhenua in 1952? Were Muaupoko lake owners consulted? Did they consent?  What was the extent and impact of the discharge? To what extent were Muaupoko interests recognised by the Crown and the responsible local authority in this period?

144

 What was the nature of Muaupoko opposition to the discharge? What was the Crown response?  What were the circumstances surrounding the discharge of storm water into Lake Horowhenua? Were Muaupoko lake owners consulted? Did they consent?  What was the extent and impact of the discharge? To what extent were Muaupoko interests recognised by the Crown and the Horowhenua District Council?  What were the circumstances surrounding the Horowhenua District Council’s purchase of Hokio A for landfill, and permission to discharge waste onto the surrounding land?  What were the circumstances surrounding the Horowhenua District Council’s lease of Hokio A for a sewage treatment plant? What is the current status of the lease?

7. Contemporary issues  What is the current position regarding the governance and administration of Lake Horowhenua? How are the interests of Muaupoko lake owners recognised and provided for today?  What are the current provisions regarding the management of Lake Horowhenua? To what extent are Muaupoko represented on these authorities? To what extent do Muaupoko lake owners participate in decisions affecting their lake?  What is the nature and extent of ongoing pollution and how does this relate to the actions of the Crown’s delegated authority? With respect to drainage into the Arawhata Stream? To what extent are Muaupoko interests in the lake recognised by the Crown and its delegated authorities?  What has been the result of recent court cases with respect to the lake?

Phil Taueki has further issues regarding his arrest in 2011 for trespass at Lake Horowhenua, in view of his status as a lake owner, the direct descendent of Taueki, and Treaty guarantees of full, exclusive and undisturbed possession.162 In effect, Mr Taueki argues that if the courts and police are acting within the parameters of the existing law, then current legislation is not consistent with the principles in Article 2. At issue too, is another trespass order against him laid by the Horowhenua District Council, which has allegedly prevented him from attending Lake Domain Board meetings and Maori Land Court sittings held at the council chambers, which Mr Taueki claims breaches Article 3.163 Including such complex issues in the project is problematic. On the one hand, Phil Taueki’s trespass case is arguably a legal matter for legal submission, as are the Treaty issues he raises, and recent court decisions on a criminal matter cannot be reviewed by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the story of Lake Horowhenua is an unfolding one, of which recent developments form a part.

162 ‘Urgent and Contemporary Claim of Phil Taueki’, 13 July 2011, Wai 2306, #1.1.1(a) . 163 Ibid, paras 59-61

145

4.1. Lake Horowhenua Bibliography

As proposed, the Lake Horowhenua report would involve three different kinds of research:

1. Muaupoko’s customary use of Lake Horowhenua (using Maori Land Court minutes, secondary sources like E O’Donnell, Te Hekenga and G L Adkin, Horowhenua, Korero Tuku Iho evidence). 2. Increasing Crown and local body control from 1898 to 1989 (tracing the history of the lake management through archives files, newspaper reports etc). Further research incorporating local government records held at Feilding as well as the papers of William Field MP will undoubtedly build on the accounts already undertaken by Anderson and Pickens, and Ben White. 3. Modern day developments, reporting on current resource management issues, environmental impacts, and legal developments (with the purpose of providing the Tribunal with the context for contemporary issues, bringing together current policies and practices by local and central government agencies with regard to management and resource protection.)

Secondary Sources

Robyn Anderson and Keith Pickens, Wellington District: Port Nicholson, Hutt Valley, Porirua, Rangitikei, and Manawatu, Rangahaua Whanui District 12, (Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996). David Alexander, ‘Final Historical Report dated June 2008 prepared by David Alexander Filed in the Maori Land Court Application by Hokio A and Part Hokio Land Trusts (A20050009249) Bryan Gilling, ‘The Ownership of Lake Horowhenua’, (Maori Land Court evidence, 2005) Anne Hunt, ‘Legend of Lake Horowhenua’, nd. Other material has also been supplied to the Tribunal by Phil Taueki regarding current issues surrounding water quality and resource management. Ben White, ‘Rangahaua Whanui National Theme Q: Inland Waterways: Lakes, (Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 2008). Otaki Historical Society, ‘Revitalising Horowhenua: conserving the Lake Horowhenua and Hokio Stream Wetlands’, 15 (1992), p.21 Di Lucas, ‘Restoration. Ancient Lake to Live Again’, XXI (1998) Ministry for Environment, ‘Case Study 3: Waipunahau (Lake Horowhenua): restoring the mauri’, in Managing waterways on farms: a guide to sustainable water and riparian management in rural New Zealand, (Wellington, Ministry for the Environment, 2001) Waitangi Tribunal, Wairarapa ki Tararua Report, 3 volumes, (Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2010) Waitangi Tribunal, Te Urewera, (2012) Waitangi Tribunal, Mohaka River Report 1992, (Wai 119, 1992) Waitangi Tribunal, The Whanganui River Report, (Wai 167, 1993) Waitangi Tribunal, Te Ika Whenua Rivers Report, (Wai 212, 1998) Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims, (Wai 1200, 2008) Waitangi Tribunal, The Stage 1 Report on the National Freshwater and Geothermal Resources Claim, (Wai 2358, 2012)

New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [2012] NZHC 3338 New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [2013] NZSC 6

146

Primary Sources, published

New Zealand Parliamentary Debates (NZPD) Stevens 1897, vol. 100, p. 143-4. Field 1903, vol. 124, p. 477; 1904, vol. 128, p. 141; 1905 vol. 133, pp. 551-2; Rigg 1905, vol. 135, p. 1206. Parata, 1906 vol. 137, p. 508; Field 1906, p.510-15; Carroll 1906, vol. 137, p. 523. Corbett 1956, vol. 310, p. 2712

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR) 1906 C-6, p.6 Scenery Preservation, Department of Lands 1908 H-2A James Cowan, ‘Report on Lake Horowhenua to Department of Tourist and Health Resorts’

Newspapers The following are searchable on Papers Past: Horowhenua Chronicle, 1910-1920 Wanganui Chronicle, 1874-1919 Evening Post, 1865-1945 Dominion, 1907-1920

Primary Sources, unpublished

Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington

Field, William Hughes, 1861-1944: Papers 73-128-076 Papers relating to national matters, 1885-1902. Includes correspondence and reports relating to drainage acts. 73-128-084 Papers relating to national matters, 1912-1919. Including Horowhenua Lake Bill. 73-128-099 Clippings, mostly relating to Parliamentary career, 1900-1930 Including reports of Field’s meetings and those of other politicians, (rates paid by Maori, Horowhenua County Council meetings). 73-128-117 Local issues, Jun-Oct 1905 Including letter from Seddon on local issues. 73-128-120 Local issues, Mar-April 1906 Including Horowhenua Lake Domain Board. 73-128-121 Local issues, May-Jun 1906 Including Horowhenua County Council resolutions regarding drainage and revised clause for the 1886 Counties Act. 73-128-123 Local issues, Sept 1906 Including land purchase at Lake Horowhenua. 73-128-124 Local Issues, 1911-1916 73-128-126 Local Issues

Field family: Field and Hodgkins family papers. Series-0982 15 Letterbooks of William Hughes Field, 1891-1944 (38 volumes, indexes in all but three). Field’s political and business correspondence, including official letters written when Field was Member of the House of Representatives (MHR) for Otaki, including: Letter book (8), 25 Sep 1901 – 3 Jul 1902, qMS-0734 Letter book (9), Jul 1902 – Mar 1903, qMS-0735 Letter book (10), Mar 1903 – Jun 1904, qMS-0736 Letter book (11), Jun 1904-Sep 1905, qMS-0737 Letter book (12), Sep 1905- Jan 1906, qMS-0738 MS-0747-0771 Field, William Hughes, 1861-1944: Diaries.

147

25 volumes of WH Field’s diaries, between 1883-1944, narrative entries, usually brief. Restricted access, by special permission. For 1905 period, this collection includes: MSX-2590: Ledger, 1899-1905 MSX-2591: Ledger, ca 1902-1907,

Archives NZ, Wellington

Department of Maori Affairs ACIH 16036 MA W2459 5/13/173 1 Lake Horowhenua 1929-1943 MA 24/9 Petitions before Native Affairs Committee, 1883-1912 MA 1/1346 1924/415 (petitions) Horowhenua: Received: 29th October 1924. From: Clerk, House of 9364-427 Representatives, Wellington. - Subject: Order. House of Representatives. That petition No. [Number] 174/22 of Hema Henare and others re Horowhenua XI B, 41 be referred to the Government for consideration. [Includes: 1918/349, 1919/536, 1920/302, 1920/553, 1922/227, 1922/198, 1924/206] ACIH 18593 MA W1369/29 [96] Horowhenua Lake (report to Dept Tourist and Health Resorts, AJHR 1908 H-2a) AECZ 18714 MA-MLP 1/76/d 1906/9 WH Field MP 11 Jan 1906: Forwarding tracing of land adjoining Horowhenua lake proposed to be acquired under the provisions of the Horowhenua Lake Act 1905

Tourist and Publicity Department AECB 8615 TO1/142 20/148 1 Tourist Resorts – Lake Horowhenua – General

Legislative Department LE 1/353/1898/11 Horowhenua Lake 1917 [125] Hera Te Upokoiri – petition and memos 10467-474

Department of Lands and Survey, Head Office AADS W3562/251 1/220 parts 1-2 Horowhenua Lake Domain, 1889-1925

Nature Conservation Council AAZU W3619/13 31/11/71 Lake Horowhenua: Pollution, 1971-1979 AAZU W3619/45 39E/2/83 Horowhenua United Council: Regional Planning, 1983 AAZU W3619/46 39E/2/83 Regional Planning Schemes – Horowhenua, 1981-1983

Ministry for the Environment, Head Office AAUM W4043/146 HST 1/8/Z 1 Horowhenua, 1981-1985 AAUM W4043/221 NRS 3/6/Z 1 Lake Horowhenua, 1975-1985

Horowhenua District Council ADKM W5905/1 closed file 5209 Horowhenua Lake Domain Newspaper Articles, 1958 ADKM 619 W5905/1 8/3/144/1 2 Recreation reserves: Horowhenua Lake Domain Board: Horowhenua Boating Club (Yachting), 1979-1991 ADKM 619 W5905/1 8/3/144/2 Recreation reserves: Horowhenua Lake Domain Board: Horowhenua Rowing Club, 1957-1971 ADKM 619 W5905/1 8/3/144/6 Recreation Reserves: Horowhenua Lake Domain: Horowhenua Obedience Dog Training Club, 1972-1987 ADKM 619 W5905/1 8/3/144/13 Recreation Reserves: Horowhenua Lake Domain: Navy League, 1972-1987 ADKM 619 W5905/1 8/3/144/23 1 Recreation Reserves: Horowhenua Lake Domain Board: Levin Waitarere Surf Lifesaving Club Inc, 1986-1987

Department of Conservation, Head Office AANS 6095 W5491/158 1/220 pts1-3 Recreation Reserves - Horowhenua Lake [Domain], 1925-1975 AANS 7613 W5491/563 RES 7/2/50 1 Reserves - Horowhenua Lake Domain - Horowhenua County, 1975-1981 AANS 7613 W5491/564 RES 7/2/50 2 Reserves - Horowhenua Lake Domain - Horowhenua County, 1981-1982

148

AANS 7613 W5491/599 RES 7/2/50 3 Reserves - Horowhenua Lake Domain - Horowhenua County, 1982-1985

Ministry of Justice, Tribunals Unit AADM 7538 W5064/24 TCP 0218/87 Horowhenua Lake Trustees, 1987-1990

Marine Department ADOE 16612 M1/74 1/7/53 Eels: Lake Horowhenua: Request for information on alleged disease, 1923-1924 ADOE 16612 M1/76 1/7/102 Eels: Weirs in Lakes Horowhenua: As to effect on them and on eels by proposed drainage operations and consequent lowering of lake level, 1930-1931 ADOE 16612 M1/178 2/12/133 1 Sea Fisheries - Horowhenua Lake - Suitable Fish for, 1917 ADOE 16612 M1 25/3067 Record Missing Lake Horowhenua - Maori title: Declaration as Public Domain, 1956-1968 ADOE 16612 MW2402/9 25/3067 Miscellaneous - Lake Horowhenua - Maori title - Declaration as Public Domain, 1956-1968

Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington District Office ADXS 19483 LS-W1/402 20768 Land for quarter acre sections west side, Horowhenua Lake, 1911

Department of Scientific and Industrial Research AEKN 19619 SIRW2622/21 15/42/ 1 Horowhenua Lake Domain Board, 1958

In addition there is a raft of planning archives which may or may not prove fruitful, see: Ministry of Works, Town and Country Planning Division ABOB W4261/257 2-10 Horowhenua County, 1976, 1983 ABOB W4261/258 12, 13 & 17 Horowhenua County, 1984-1985 ABOB W4261/259 18-22 Horowhenua County, 1986-1987 ABOB W4261/311 TP 11/0 pts 1-6 Horowhenua County, Review and Requirements, District Scheme Changes, 1970-1988 ABOB W4261/256 TP 11 1 Horowhenua County, 1974-1976 ABOB W4261/334 TP 11/3 pts 1-4 Horowhenua District Scheme - Review Number 2 Objections, 1977-1979 ABOB W4261/258 TP 11 16 Horowhenua County, 1983-1986

Ministry of Works and Development Residual Management Unit, Head Office AATE W4920/1 T.P.4825s Horowhenua County District Scheme - Levin Section, September 1959

Land Corporation Ltd, Wellington District Office AAMA 619 W3098/11 6/155 V1 Town and Country Planning Act 1953: District Scheme - Horowhenua County Council, 1955-1977

Archives NZ, Auckland BAIE 1178/135/h 10/126 [Chief Drainage Engineer Correspondence] - Hokio Drainage District (Horowhenua County), 1926-1928

Archives Central, Feilding.

Archives Central hold pre-1989 records of the Horowhenua District Council and Horizons Regional Council, including the records of the former local government entities of Horowhenua County Council, Levin Borough Council, Hokio Drainage Board, Lake Horowhenua Domain Board and the Manawatu Catchment Board.

Horowhenua District Council records HDC 00022 Minutes of Council Meetings, Levin Borough Council 1906-1989, 18 bound volumes HDC 00023 Minutes of Council Meetings, Horowhenua County Council, 1885-1989, 25 bound volumes HDC 00008 Correspondence Files, unregistered 1924-1947, Levin Borough Council Includes HDC 00008/2/14 Levin Park Domain; 00008/3/23 Reserves

149

Horowhenua District Council records HDC 00010 Correspondence Files (1st series), Levin Borough Council, 1907 - 1965 The first numbered correspondence files of the Levin Borough Council. Subseries that may be of use are 10/- Domains; 11/- Easements, 24/- Rating, 25/- Reserves and Parks, 26/- Sewerage, 32/- Town and Country Planning. HDC 00012 Borough Engineers Correspondence files (2nd series), Levin Borough Council, 1965 - 1988 Second series of the Levin Borough Council Engineers Correspondence files. Includes 12/1/3 Horowhenua Lake Domain; 12/1/4 Lake Horowhenua; 12/1/11 Reserves; 12/1/12 Reserves - Reports; 12/1/13 Sewerage – Disposal; 12/1/14 Sewerage – Pipes and Distribution; 12/1/15 Sewerage Treatment. HDC 00009 : 22 : 6/8 Domains and Lands held in trust as Reserves: Lake Horowhenua Domain Levin Borough Council, 1975 – 1983 HDC 00009 : 22 : 6/8 Domains and Lands held in trust as Reserves: Lake Horowhenua Domain 1970-1974 Levin Borough Council, 1970 – 1989 HDC 00009 : 22 : 6/8 Domains and Lands held in trust as Reserves: Horowhenua Lake Domain,1965-1970 Levin Borough Council, 1965 – 1978 HDC 00009 : 22 : 6/8 Domains and Lands held in trust as Reserves: Lake Horowhenua Domain Levin Borough Council, 1984 – 1987 HDC 00009:48:14/23 Land: Acquisition of Land Between Queen Street West and Lake Horowhenua Levin Borough Council, 1968 – 1976 HDC 00009 : 83 : 23/2 Stormwater Drainage: Horowhenua Lake Control Scheme (Disposal of Sewerage) Levin Borough Council, 1983 – 1984 HDC 00009 : 82 : 22/15 Sewerage: Litigation with Horowhenua Lake Trustees Levin Borough Council, 1964 – 1980 HDC 00009 : 86 : 23/15 Stormwater Drainage: Lake Horowhenua, Levin Borough Council, 1987 – 1987 HDC 00009 : 83 : 23/2 Stormwater Drainage: Horowhenua Lake Control Scheme (Disposal of Sewerage) Levin Borough Council, 1985 – 1985 HDC 00009 : 83 : 23/2 Stormwater Drainage: Horowhenua Lake Control Scheme (Disposal of Sewerage) Levin Borough Council, 1982 – 1984 HDC 00009 : 83 : 23/2 Stormwater Drainage: Horowhenua Lake Control Scheme (Disposal of Sewerage) Levin Borough Council, 1978 – 1982 HDC 00009 : 83 : 23/2 Stormwater Drainage: Horowhenua Lake Control Scheme (Disposal of Sewerage) Levin Borough Council, 1976 – 1981 HDC 00009 : 86 : 23/9 Stormwater Drainage: Horowhenua Lake Control Scheme Levin Borough Council, 1964 – 1976 HDC 00009 : 185 : 32/3 Borough Administration - General: Lake Horowhenua Levin Borough Council, 1980 – 1988 HDC 00009 : 185 : 32/3 Borough Administration - General: Ministry of Enviroment Lake Horowhenua Levin Borough Council, 1987 – 1989 HDC 00009 : 186 : 32/3 Borough Administration - General: Ministry of Enviroment Lake Horowhenua Levin Borough Council, 1989 – 1989 HDC 00010 : 6 : 10/11 Domains: Horowhenua Lake Domain Levin Borough Council, 1930 – 1964 HDC 00012 : 1 : 4 Lake Horowhenua Levin Borough Council, 1976 – 1977 HDC 00012 : 1 : 3 Horowhenua Lake Domain Levin Borough Council, 1970 – 1970 HDC 00018 : 97 : 23/6/1 Reserves and Domains: Lake Horowhenua Horowhenua County Council, 1982 – 1986 HDC 00018 : 97 : 23/6 Reserves and Domains: Horowhenua Lake Domain Horowhenua County Council, 1970 – 1976 HDC 00018 : 97 : 23/6/1 Reserves and Domains: Lake Horowhenua Part 2, Horowhenua County Council, 1987 – 1988 HDC 00018 : 97 : 23/6/1 Reserves and Domains: Lake Horowhenua Horowhenua County Council, 1975 – 1982 HDC 00018 : 97 : 23/6 Reserves and Domains: Horowhenua Lake Domain, Horowhenua County Council, 1977 – 1989 HDC 00018 : 97 : 23/6 Reserves and Domains: Horowhenua Lake Domain Horowhenua County Council, 1953 – 1968 HDC 00018 : 97 : 23/6/1 Reserves and Domains: Lake Horowhenua Horowhenua County Council 1988 – 1989

150

Horizons Regional Council records HRC 00020 : 11 : 347 Subsidy Claims - Hokio Drainage - Levin Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1959 - 1971 HRC 00024 : 32 : 9/6 Pt 1 Lake Horowhenua Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1969 – 1976 HRC 00024 : 32 : 9/5 Horowhenua Coastal Lakes - Waitawa - Kopuriherehere - Wairongomai - Papaitonga Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1973 - 1989 HRC 00024 : 33 : 9/6/1 Lake Horowhenua - Steering Committee Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1987 - 1989 HRC 00024 : 33 : 9/6 Pt 2 Lake Horowhenua Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1976 - 1977 HRC 00024 : 33 : 9/6 Pt 3 Lake Horowhenua Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1977-1980 HRC 00024 : 33 : 9/6 Pt 5 Lake Horowhenua Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1984 - 1988 HRC 00024 : 33 : 9/6 Pt 4 Lake Horowhenua Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1980 - 1983 HRC 00024:33:9/6a Lake Horowhenua – Domain Board Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1958 HRC 00024 : 34 : 9/6/2 Lake Horowhenua - Technical Committee HRC 00024: 57: 19/10 Pt 3 Hokio Drainage District - General Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1968 - 1980 HRC 00024 : 57 : 19/10 Pt Hokio Drainage District - General 1 Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1947 – 1964 HRC 00024 : 57 : 19/10 Pt Hokio Drainage District - General 2 Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1964 – 1968 HRC 00024 : 57 : 19/10 Pt Hokio Drainage District - General 4 Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1981 – 1989 HRC 00024 : 115 : 30/AU Rating - Hokio Drainage HRC 00024: 177: 53/11/B River Classification - Hokio Stream - Lake Horowhenua - Lake Papaitonga Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1971 – 1971 HRC 00028 : 1 : 1/13 Agreement: Hokio Drainage Scheme, Manawatu Catchment Board and the Horowhenua County Council and Levin Borough Council Manawatu Catchment Board and Regional Water Board, 1965 – 1965 HRC 00077 Hokio Drainage Board Minute Book Minutes of the meetings of the Hokio Drainage Board, 1925-1955. Hokio Drainage Board, 1925 – 1955 HRC 00074 Hokio Drainage Board Cash Book Cash book used by the Hokio Drainage Board from 1926 to 1957. Hokio Drainage Board, 1926 – 1957 HRC 00076 : 1 : 4 Horowhenua County Council/Hokio Drainage Scheme Hokio Drainage Board, 1964 – 1965 HRC 00076 : 1 : 3 Horowhenua County Council/Hokio Drainage Scheme Hokio Drainage Board, 1959 – 1960 HRC 00076 Hokio Drainage Board Correspondence Files Hokio Drainage Board, 1924 – 1965 HRC 00075 Hokio Drainage Board Rate Books, 2 bound volumes (the first of which is rates arrears). Hokio Drainage Board, 1927 – 1956 HRC 00076 : 1 : 5 Classification - Papers to Mr Hay Hokio Drainage Board, 1926 – 1927 HRC 00076 : 1 : 7 Statistics, Agendas, Electoral, Estimates, Correspondence Hokio Drainage Board, 1946 – 1957 HRC 00075 : 0 : 2 Rate book Hokio Drainage Board, 1948 – 1956 HRC 00076 : 1 : 8 Audited Balance Sheets Hokio Drainage Board, 1926 – 1957 HRC 00076 : 1 : 1 Correspondence Hokio Drainage Board, 1924 – 1928 HRC 00076 : 1 : 2 Correspondence Hokio Drainage Board, 1929 – 1945 HRC 00027 : 49 : 1991 Water Right: Lake Fly Petition Committee - Lake Horowhenua - Levin Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council, 1988 – 1989 HRC 00027 : 52 : 2067 Water Right: Levin Borough and Horowhenua County Councils - Lake Horowhenua Midge Control - Levin Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council, 1987 – 1990

151

Horizons Regional Council records HRC 00027 : 42 : 1676 Water Right: Horowhenua Lake Trustees - Levin Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council, 1983 - 1984 HRC 00027 : 52 : 2068c Water Right: Levin Borough Council - Lake Horowhenua sewage discharge, Hokio sand Road sewage discharge Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council, 1986 – 1987 HRC 00027 : 102 : 3883 Water Right: Wellington Amateur Rowing Association - Lake Horowhenua - Levin Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council, 1976 - 1988

In addition to the catalogued files above, there are uncatelogued records including:

H12 Lake Horowhenua: Progress report on water quality investigation, 1976 H13 Lake Horowhenua: current condition, nutrient budget and future management, 1978 Lake Horowhenua Domain Board minute book, 1906-1923

Maori Land Court Minutes

Block Case type Start date No. Minute Book reference pp Horowhenua Title 11 Mar 1873 85 Otaki 01A: 184-7, 195, 244-67; Otaki 02: 1-54, 59-65, investigation 80 Horowhenua Partition 12 Nov 1886 19 Otaki 07: 142, 160, 182-86, 188-96, 199-200, 203 Horowhenua 11 Partition, then 14 Jan 1890 500 Otaki 13: 1, 75, 78, 82-93, 95-6, 98, 100-02, 106, 142, rehearing and 144-45, 147, 151, 156-279; partition Otaki 14: 6, 86-219, 250-92, 294-330; Otaki MB 15: 1-22, 122-124; Otaki 21A: 41-50, 252-76, 278-399 Horowhenua 3A, 3B Rehearing and 19 Feb 1891 154 Otaki 14: 7-85; partition Otaki 21A: 50-126 Horowhenua 12, Appeal 9 Apr 1897 810 Otaki 33: 195-254, 339-82 Horowhenua 6, Otaki 34: 1-379; Horowhenua 11 Otaki 35: 1-303, 344-57, 367-83 Horowhenua 14 Appeal 25 Feb 1897 671 Otaki 32: 1-382; Otaki 33: 1-194, 255-338; Otaki 35: 318, 320-23, 325-29, 333-38, 384, Levin Appellate Court MB 01: 1-106 Horowhenua 11 Partition 21 Sep 1898 147 Otaki 36: 215, 238-43, 249-54, 260-61, 300, 337-56, 362, 366-78; Otaki 37: 1-2, 9-33, 40, 47-49, 54-65, 68-72, 90, 91, 185-90, 195-205, 217-33 Horowhenua 11 Appeal and 15 Sep 1898 145 Otaki 40: 49-194 relative interests

Horowhenua District Council Documents (Available online at http://www.horowhenua.govt.nz) Annual Plan, 2013-2014 District Plan: Operative District Plan 1999, Proposed District Plan 2013, District Plan Review (including Proposed District Plan Submissions, Hearings, Decisions, Appeals), Documents Incorporated by Reference Long Term Plan 2012-2022

152

5. Resource Loss/Degradation

Maori claims about resource loss and degradation are associated in the first instance with land alienation. In addition to the Pakeha concept of sole and exclusive occupancy, which precluded any existing Maori access or resource use rights, nineteenth century land owners were largely free to do what they wanted with their land: deforest it, drain it, dump on it, without any need to consider prior customary interests. Secondly, even where Maori managed to retain ownership of the land, over time the Crown’s increasing appropriation and delegation of resource management functions to local government has arguably produced a system without adequate provision for the protection of Maori customary interests in such resources. As the claims below indicate, there are numerous strands within this resource management paradigm, and the degree to which Maori interests have been incorporated in decisions about environmental management in the Horowhenua is an issue for this inquiry. Those relating to Lake Horowhenua have not been repeated in this section.

Claims

Table 8: Muaupoko claims relating to resource loss and degradation

Claim Issues Wai 52 J Broughton & Desecration of wahi tapu others for Ngai Degradation of resources and waters Tara/Muaupoko (Muaupoko Tribal Authority) Wai 108 Tama-i-uia Degradation of waterways and kaimoana, particularly toheroa beds, ongoing Ruru for descendants of degradation of kaimoana in their lakes, rivers, streams, sands, seabed and foreshore Tanguru a Muaupoko Crown’s failure to protect has lead to coastal erosion and accretion of sand dunes resulting in loss of pingao and harakeke. Seeks return of the Kohitere and Waitarere forests Seeks preservation of Muaupoko’s fishing rights, off-shore boundaries, and protection of the toheroa. Wai 1490 Mario Te Pa Desecration of wahi tapu, pollution of air and waterways. & others for descendants of Whanokirangi Wai 1629 Vivienne Usurpation of Muaupoko kaitiakitanga over species of toheroa, pipi, tunaheke, kakahe, Taueki for descendants kahawai, hapuka, koura, burial grounds, maunga, clearings, manmade islands, waka of Taueki and landings. Muaupoko ki Failure to protect Moutere burial sand dune. Failure of local bodies to adequately Horowhenua protect Moutere, or adequately consult with claimants about beach front development. Failure to protect ground water, local body failure to adequately research alternative water supply and waste water solutions, despite ground water resources currently being under severe strain. Local body testing and studies of groundwater without adequate consultation with claimants about appropriate treatment of their wahi tapu. Horowhenua District Council’s purchase of Maori land Hokio A for landfill, and permission of discharge to surrounding land from the landfill. Horowhenua District Council’s lease of 27 acres of Hokio A for sewerage treatment plant. HDC’s continued use of property as sewerage treatment plant despite expiry of five year lease. Claimants have no record of council ever applying to renew lease, or

153

Claim Issues paying any money under the lease. Crown’s expropriation of claimants property rights in rivers, streams and other water resources without consultation and consent. Crown’s application of ad medium filum aquae common law principle resulting in loss of ownership of river beds and other water resources when riparian lands were sold or otherwise alienated. Coal Mines Amendment Act 1903 vesting bed of navigable rivers in Crown. Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967, vesting all rights to use water in Crown Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 vesting legal and beneficial title in Crown, without consent or compensation (this is set out at length) Failure to protect cultural taonga. In particular taonga disturbed at Kowhai Park Site.

Native Land Acts introduced a system of ownership based upon the individualisation of communally-held interests which failed to provide for the exercise of kaitiakitanga (citing 1873 Horowhenua block award to one person) Native Land Court failure to recognise Muaupoko kaitiakitanga over waahi tapu within Horowhenua block. In more recent times, the Maori Land Court system has failed to protect the waahi tapu of Muaupoko from environmental degradation, or allowed Muaupoko to exercise kaitiakitanga over the natural resources. The appointment of new trustees for Hokio A, without consulting existing owners. ‘Horowhenua District Council informed the existing owners that they had no existing relationship with the new Hokio A partition’.

The Crown usurpation and undermining the kaitiakitanga of Muaupoko and the descendants of Taueki by asserting management and control over the environment and by delegating powers of management and control to the detriment of Muaupoko, in particular:  Crown assertion of management and control over indigenous flora and fauna since 1840  Crown enactment of legislation which empowers it or its delegated bodies to manage and control the environment, and delegation of same  The marginalisation of Muaupoko participation and kaitiakitanga by such delegated bodies  Inadequate provision for Muaupoko representation, and participation in decision making  Continuing Crown control over harvesting of indigenous flora and fauna through the Animals protection and Game Act 1921-22, the Wildlife Act 1953, the Plant Varieties Act 1987 and the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 without regard for Maori concerns or Treaty guarantees  Failure to provide a role for Muaupoko in management of exotic flora and fauna, nor adequately consulted about need for environmental protection arising from the introduction of such species.  The failure of the current system to sufficiently recognise customary Maori systems of authority, nor provide for effective involvement in management and preservation of indigenous ecosystems  Under the current management system local bodies have failed to adequately inform themselves of Muaupoko tikanga with respect to their natural resources  Local bodies have also failed to use good faith in their dealings with claimants Wai 1631 Charles Rudd The loss of rights and privileges to the Hokio stream and beach, citing in particular for beneficial owners of Conservation Act, Local Government Act. Lake Horowhenua Failure to ensure water quality. Ongoing contamination of waterways from effluent which is sprayed onto land through which runs Waiwiri stream to the ocean. Effluent affects both the stream and the beach. Oxidation ponds at Kohitere and Kimberly Hospital affect ground water. Wai 2048 Te Rautangata Loss of customary rights within traditional rohe Kenrick for Tamarangi

154

Claim Issues hapu Wai 2050 Marina The Crown’s abrogation of claimants interests in ancestral lands (Horowhenua), such Williams for Te Kapa interests being: mana whenua, gathering of kai, wahi tapu, traditional customary use. Trust, Ihaia Taueki and Muaupoko Wai 2052 James Kenrick Mana moana, mana whenua. for Muaupoko Loss of customary use, occupation of lands Disassociation from ancestral lands Failure to recognise kaitiakitanga, rangatiratanga in relation to land Lack of fair process to resolve issues with Crown. Wai 2139 Dennis Crown’s intentional abrogation of claimants’ rights of tino rangatiratanga, mana Greenland for whenua, mana moana, and kaitiakitanga to the Muaupoko resources and assets Muaupoko Tribal (including lands, minerals, gases and petroleum, forests, fish, waters, themselves) Authority Wai 2175 Francis Brown Crown’s abrogation of the claimants’ interests in their ancestral lands and waters, for Muaupoko particularly the rights and use of whale on the west coast, citing Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 with its restrictions on rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga, extinguishment of Maori rights customary rights to use for food and medicine; and the compromised knowledge of such practices as a result. Wai 2284 Hapeta Taueki Claiming all Crown land, waters, forests, fisheries Wai 2326 Peggy Gamble Crown acquisition of land and resources, particularly those of Hopa Heremaia. for descendants of Hopa Heremaia

Issues

The Tribunal panel has indicated that environmental/natural resource issues and local government issues will be covered in a generic, district-wide project.164 Such a report would no doubt cover the legislative framework behind many of the resource issues identified by Muaupoko in the claims above, including the Crown appropriation of resource use and control rights through legislation and common law assumptions; the delegation over time of controlling authority over resources to local government; and the structural barriers against Maori participation in the same. On the one hand, these issues are common to claimants throughout the inquiry district. On the other hand, at the consultation gathering at Kawiu marae, claimants emphasised that their ancestral connection to the natural world within their rohe traces back over centuries, and that their status as tangata whenua therefore differentiates their experience of loss from that of more recent residents. Deforestation was but one example of resource loss they maintained was felt keenly by Muaupoko.

There seems no reason why the status of Muaupoko as tangata whenua cannot be encapsulated within a generic environmental/resource issues project. Such a project might consider their particular claims as case studies:

 Crown action/neglect with regards to wahi tapu, specifically the Moutere sand dune.  Crown action/neglect with regards to coastal erosion, specifically the impact on coastal resources.

164 Wai 2200, #2.5.58.

155

 Crown action/neglect with regards to kaimoana, particularly toheroa and other customary shellfish.  Crown action/neglect with regards to off-shore fishing rights, particularly customary rights to the whale fishery.

The Tribunal panel has also envisaged a generic, district-wide inland waterways research project. Again, such a project could address the legislative developments surrounding the Crown’s appropriation of rights to use and manage water and property rights issues with respect to rivers; the issues surrounding water quality; and the impact of drainage activities on cherished eel fisheries, with particular regard to the specific issues raised by Muaupoko.

As set out in the previous section, it is recommended that Lake Horowhenua be considered as a stand- alone research project. With regard to the pollution of waterways, the claims about the Horowhenua District Council’s purchase of Hokio A for landfill, and its discharge on surrounding land, together with the lease of Hokio A for a sewage treatment plant and its continued use of this land despite the expiry of the lease are issues which seem related to the general disregard for Muaupoko interests in their Horowhenua homeland, and is therefore recommended to be part of the proposed Lake Horowhenua report. Similarly, claims about the ongoing contamination of waterways from sewage treatment close to Lake Horowhenua, from oxidation ponds at Kohitere and Kimberley Hospital, through discharges into drains, and from landfill sites could equally be dealt with as part of the Lake Horowhenua report.

5.1. Resource Loss/Degradation Bibliography

Archives New Zealand, Wgtn

Ministry of Works and Development Residual Management Unit, Head Office AATE W3392/32 96/0/8/2 Soil Conservation/River Control - Irrigation – Horowhenua. 1974-1980 AATE W3392/34 96/0/14/3/1 Soil Conservation/River Control - Horowhenua - Ground Water. 1982-1984 AATE W3392/42 96/0/17/3/1 Soil Conservation/River Control - Coastal Erosion – Horowhenua. 1976-1978 AATE W3392/42 96/0/17/3/2 Soil Conservation/River Control - Coastal Erosion – Horowhenua. 1978-1981 AATE W3392/42 96/0/17/3/3 Soil Conservation/River Control - Coastal Erosion – Horowhenua. 1982-1985 AATE W3392/44 96/0/18/2/2 Soil Conservation/River Control - Horowhenua Scheme. 1981-1983

Landcorp Farming Ltd, Head Office AAMX 6095 10/95/50 Forestry - Horowhenua - Part 3E - No. 5 - Section 7A - Block VII - Waiopehu Survey W3156/24 District. 1935-1959 AAMX 6095 26/6090 Horowhenua XI B4 South D, Waitohu Survey District. 1919-1960 W3430/52

Ministry of Works and Development, Head Office ADXS 19483 LS-W1/405 21021 Gravel Pit , Horowhenua 3A Block. 1901-1904 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/405 21023 Related to milling in Horowhenua No 6. 1901 ADXS 19483 LS-W1/482 24556 Proposed Scenery Reserve Moutere Mountain [Hill], Horowhenua Block 11 Part B 41. 1906

156

Department of Internal Affairs, Head Office AAAC W3536/13 40/7/1 Manawatu-Horowhenua Area Scheme. 1970-1971 AAAC W3536/14 40/7/1 Manawatu-Horowhenua Area Scheme. 1971-1972 AAAC W3536/13 40/7 Manawatu-Horowhenua Area Scheme. 1971-1972 AAAC W3536/13 40/7 Manawatu-Horowhenua Area Scheme. 1972-1975 AAAC W3536/13 40/7/6 Manawatu-Horowhenua Area Scheme - Press Clippings. 1966-1974

Department of Lands and Survey, Head Office (There are 12 more of them 1892-1901) AADS W3740/F161 81A Wellington Land District: County: Horowhenua. 1895 AADS W3740/F169 Wellington Land District: County: Horowhenua. 1900 259

Ministry of Works, Town and Country Planning Division (18 more files like this, 1976-1986) ABOB W4261/257 10 Horowhenua County. 1983 ABOB W4261/258 12 Horowhenua County. 1984

Ministry of Works and Development Residual Management Unit, Head Office AATE W4920/1 T.P.4825s Horowhenua County District Scheme - Levin Section, September 1959

Land Corporation Ltd, Wellington District Office AAMA 619 W3098/11 6/155 V1 Town and Country Planning Act 1953: District Scheme - Horowhenua County Council. 1955-1977

Department of Conservation, Wanganui Conservatory AFIE 8/5/222 1 Horowhenua District Council. 1977-1990 619/112

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Head Office AAFZ 7174 W1624/5 20649 Noxious Weeds Act - Horowhenua County Council. 1903-1969 AAFZ 7174 W1624/5 20649A Noxious Weeds Act - Horowhenua County Council. 1970-1975

Local Government Commission AANX 7536 W5027/13 LGC/1/2/34 1 Local Government Commission - County Series - Horowhenua County. 1968- 1985 AANX 7536 LGC/1/2/34 2 Local Government Commission - County Series - Horowhenua County. 1985- W5027/159 1988 AANX 7536 W3126/3 LGC 2/4/2/3 1 Regions - Horowhenua - Community of Interest study. 1976-1977 AANX 7536 W3126/3 LGC 2/4/2/3 2 Regions - Horowhenua - Community of Interest study. 1977 AANX 7536 W3126/3 LGC 2/4/2/3 3 Regions - Horowhenua - Community of Interest study. 1977-1978

157

6. Outstanding Muaupoko Claims

As well as claims about land and resource loss, there are a number of Muaupoko claims against the Crown about more generic issues.

Table 9: Outstanding Muaupoko claims

Local Government and Rating Legislation

Claim Issues Wai 2054 Bella Moore Failure of Crown to incorporate the claimants in local government, in particular in for Muaupoko relation to representation, and policies affecting the claimants and public works. Crown permitted local government to purposely omit consultation with the claimants. Establishment of national rating system which failed and still fails to take account of different cultural values in respect of claimants land, causing land loss and unfair financial burden of Maori rate payers. Failure to ‘add’ constitutional and valuation issues of rating to the Independent Enquiry on Rating of 2007; and failure to address constitutional and valuation issues raised in that report. Failure to develop a co-ordinated and consistent approach to rates remissions policies for the claimants land

Health: Mental and Physical Wellbeing

Claim Issues Wai 1622 Mervyn General claim against impact of colonisation/Acts of Parliament particularly with Taueki-Ransom regard to customary Maori beliefs – cites Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 Wai 2051 Whetu Maori mental health – Crown failure to adequately address disparities between Kenrick for her Maori and non-Maori, in terms of numbers affected, access to services, utilisation of whanau and for Ngati services, connection between income and mental health, and Crown’s failure to Mihiroa and address these issues since 1840. Muaupoko Wai 2053 Mona Kupa Maori health. Creation of system resulting in severe disparities in terms of increased and Hera Ferris for exposure to determinants of ill-health (education, income, housing, income support, Muaupoko judiciary, health literacy, deprivation); lack of responsiveness to needs (citing diabetes screening, management; under-representation of Maori in health workforce), fostering a system based on Western Scientific models – citing Tohunga Suppression Act 1908. Wai 2173 Bruce Prejudicial health effects and disparities through destruction of traditional Murray for Muaupoko Muaupoko structures and mechanisms of healing and health care; devastation of traditional land ownership and disturbance of iwi, hapu and whanau relationships; and through criminalisation of traditional healers (Cites Tohunga Suppression Act 1908.) Widespread alienation of land and the ensuing socio-economic deprivation increasing exposure of Maori to determinants of ill-health (lack of access to education, employment, income, housing, income support, justice, health literacy, deprivation). Lack of health-system responsiveness to the needs of Muaupoko. Low standards of housing and absence of basic resources such as clean water and sanitary arrangements (and poor nutrition, substandard, overcrowded housing; nicotine, alcohol) Differential access to health care. Inequities in care and preventative education

158

(citing 1918 influenza epidemic, outbreaks of typhoid, tuberculosis) Systemic racial discrimination within the health system. Wai 2046 John The impact of land loss on the economic, spiritual and physical wellbeing of Kenrick & others for Muaupoko Ngati Mihiroa, Ngati Marginalisation – social, economic, health, judicial – as a result of land loss. Ngarengare and Muaupoko

Education

Claim Issues Wai 2056 Henry Crown’s implementation and maintenance of a system of education which has had a Williams for detrimental effect on Muaupoko: by destroying traditional Maori knowledge and Muaupoko systems of learning, discarding Maori values, practices and structures, in particular reo; and replacing this with an enforced school system based on Pakeha dominance and worldview; by failing to intervene in subsequent crisis of educational underachievement experienced by Muaupoko, leading to ongoing low socio- economic position. Led to domination, oppression, exploitation, marginalisation of Muaupoko Failure to address disparities

Wahine Maori

Claim Issues Wai 2140 Hinga Crown actions and policies which have damaged the wairua, tapu, mana of Wahine Gardiner for wahine Maori, and whakapapa of all Muaupoko. Maori o Muaupoko  Role of wahine Maori within Muaupoko, as kaitiaki, peacemakers, bearers of future generations, taonga.  Policies that Maori women could not own land etc, derogatory perceptions of Pakeha and the Crown towards Muaupoko women

Issues

It is proposed that most of the matters set out above would be best dealt with in the generic, district- wide research projects envisaged by the Tribunal panel. In addition to environmental/natural resources issues and local government issues discussed in the previous section, the proposed research projects include:

 Inland Waterways project;

 Reports on any outstanding specific claim issues not otherwise covered in the above projects.

It is suggested that health and education are two such topics that could be dealt with on a generic, district-wide level, with the specific experience of Muaupoko highlighted within such a report wherever this is apparent from the evidence. Some claimants have indicated the need to make the connection between land loss and resource loss with Muaupoko’s current state of wellbeing.

Regarding Wai 2140, it has already been decided that because of its generic nature, Mana Wahine claims fall outside the scope of this inquiry district.165 Notwithstanding this decision, the topic might

165 ‘Memorandum-Directions (no.7) of Deputy Chief Judge C L Fox …’, 3 December 2010, Wai 2200 #2.5.18, p.13. It was stated that such issues would be inquired into as part of a Tribunal’s generic inquiry, if and when one occurs in the future.

159 be included in the project brief for the substantive Land and Politics Report, to the extent that the researcher could be tasked to consider the issue of mana wahine throughout the project as a whole, identifying, for example, the extent to which women were included in any Crown negotiations with the tribe, or in any Crown-created lists of tribal membership, or land ownership.

160

7. Scoping Recommendations

It is proposed that Muaupoko’s claims set out in this scoping report be treated in three different research projects:

1. A Substantive Muaupoko Land and Politics Project

A substantive land and politics project tracing the history of Muaupoko since colonisation, in terms of the impact of Crown activities, to modern times. Such a history seems to fall quite naturally into three distinct time periods, which provides a useful structure for the project:

Part One: Muaupoko, 1840-1870, the era of ‘loose empire’

Research would be directed at establishing Muaupoko’s place within the tribal landscape of Porirua ki Manawatu in the period in which iwi exercised authority over the district, in so far as Crown activities were concerned. In general, research would seek to establish as far as possible the extent to which Muaupoko ancestral interests were asserted and could have been known to the Crown, together with the impact of Crown activities on Muaupoko. Pre-Treaty events need to be included in order to provide relevant historical context. An itemised list of issues has been set out earlier. To summarise, the research project would seek to establish:

 The impact on Muaupoko of war and migration in the decades before Te Tiriti;  The nature and extent of Muaupoko settlement and customary interests within the district, with a particular focus on relationships at Horowhenua, and the extent to which Muaupoko ancestral interests were recognised by the Crown;  The extent to which Muaupoko participated in social, political and economic innovations within the tribal landscape, such as Christianity, land lease, agriculture and trade; and  The relationship between Muaupoko and the Crown: examining the extent to which Muaupoko were engaged in Crown activities affecting the rohe, such as Te Tiriti, the Spain Commission, Crown purchase, the ‘new institutions’ and Kohimarama; as well as developments such as the Kingitanga and the New Zealand wars;  The impact of these Crown activities on Muaupoko within the context of the tribal landscape.

Part Two: Muaupoko, 1870-1900, the arrival of ‘real empire’

In this thirty year period, tribal control and ownership of the Porirua ki Manawatu rohe was brought to an end through the processes of the Native Land Court, Crown purchase, and rapid Pakeha settlement. Research would be directed at establishing how this process occurred with respect to Muaupoko, with

161 regard to the tribal award of the Horowhenua block. Once again, an itemised list of issues has been set out previously. To summarise, the Land and Politics substantive report would:

 Establish the circumstances leading up to the 1873 Native Land Court title determination of Horowhenua, with particular regard to the experience of Muaupoko;  Explore the factors behind, and the impact on Muaupoko of, the title determination of Horowhenua, including the award to Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui on behalf of the tribe;  Establish as far as possible the factors behind the partition of the Horowhenua block in 1886, with particular focus on the deals between Te Keepa, the government, and Muaupoko with respect to the railway, the township lands, and the provision of land for Te Whatanui’s descendants;  Establish the extent to which Muaupoko were involved in the partition and subsequent dealings with their lands, including the Crown’s State Farm purchase, and the struggle over ownership;  Explore the factors behind the Horowhenua Commission 1896, and the impact of the commission on Muaupoko at Horowhenua, including the Native Land Court’s determination of interests in 1898; and  Establish the extent of land alienation at Horowhenua by 1900 through ongoing Crown and private purchase.

Of central importance throughout these events, is the relationship between the Crown and Muaupoko, the extent to which Muaupoko had any knowledge or control over these processes, and the impact on the tribe as a result.

Part Three: Twentieth century land alienation

It is proposed that the third part of the report track the extent of ongoing attrition of Muaupoko’s tribal estate, identifying the processes by which Horowhenua 11 passed out of Muaupoko control and ownership. What is envisaged is a mini-Land Alienation Project, a graphic presentation of the major patterns of land alienation which would:

 Examine a range of alienations and factors contributing to them, including the use of meetings of assembled owners provisions; the purchase of undefined, undivided individual interests; the application of the 1909 Native Land Act purchase provisions; rates pressures; survey liens; ‘uneconomic shares’; vestings in the Maori Trustee for lease or sale; title consolidation, and the ‘Europeanisation’ of Maori title.  Describe the current status of land ownership of remaining Muaupoko lands within Horowhenua 11, and include reference to Muaupoko aspirations for land management and

162

utilisation (including reserves, housing, agricultural development, leasing in preference to sale etc), which would inform the issues facing Muaupoko land-owners.  Establish the factors behind the Hokio Native Township, and the impact of this on Muaupoko tenure in terms of loss of ownership and control, the costs involved, and subsequent Maori Land Board administration.  Deal with specific claims, such as the roadway in Hokio A, the alienation of Hopa Heremaia’s land interests, and those of Karaitiana Te Korou in Horowhenua 4B.

Such a project would involve systematic data capture, analysis and geographical mapping, together with a narrative which provides the context for the processes which are identified, and research into specific alienations where records exist. Tribunal staff have indicated that such a project is viable. As proposed, this third part lacks any meaningful dimension of political engagement between Muaupoko and the Crown. However this scoping exercise indicates that much of Muaupoko’s relationship with the Crown in this century centred on the struggle over Lake Horowhenua, which will be a major focus in that report.

The extent to which this substantive report can address contemporary concerns about the disposal of Crown lands has not been scoped. These are current issues which may be considered to fall outside the scope of an historical report based predominantly on an archival record. On the other hand, claimants feel strongly that such contemporary issues be included for the Tribunal’s consideration.

Researching Muaupoko’s experience of colonisation poses a challenge. On the one hand, the dearth of the historical record in the early colonial period relating to the tangata whenua of Porirua ki Manawatu, means that the researcher will have to cast a wider net, with no guarantee of results. The Maori correspondence to Donald McLean held at Turnbull Library is a case in point. Paradoxically, the sheer volume of records generated by the controversy over Horowhenua from around 1870 onwards presents an equally daunting task: not only of piecing Muaupoko’s experience of these events together from the literally thousands of pages of published and unpublished correspondence and court minutes, but of making sense of this experience in the context of the wider tribal landscape. The outline of Muaupoko’s plight in the latter nineteenth century is relatively well-known, thanks to secondary accounts like Anderson and Pickens, and the Horowhenua Commission itself. There is, however, much more detail to be gleaned from the rich source of government archives and land court minutes, which promise to further illuminate the issues raised by Muaupoko claimants.

In undertaking such a research task, it should be remembered that Muaupoko claimants themselves are deeply engaged with the issues and events under scrutiny. Any researcher would be advised to maintain a good working relationship with claimants: periodic opportunities for consultation and feedback on research should be built into the project timetable.

163

A single researcher working full-time over 12 months might complete the project, but research assistance with regard to the technical aspect of the twentieth century land alienation section is recommended. A research assistant would also be of use to comb through primary records for the first part of the report, and to maximise the results from the rich primary records which form the basis of the second part.

2. A Substantive Lake Horowhenua Research Project

A separate report on Lake Horowhenua is warranted in view of the century-long struggle over ownership and control, together with the wealth of local body records that have been identified. Such a research project would encompass:

 The extent of Muaupoko’s customary interests in the lake and Hokio Stream, and the importance of this eel fishery;  The history of increasing Crown and local body control of the lake since 1898; and  The impact of management regimes with respect to the lake, the associated waterways, the fishery, and surrounds.

An itemised list of issues has been set out previously. The inclusion in such a report of legal history surrounding the ownership of the lake waters, and the extent of Muaupoko rights with regard to the lake would add to such a report. While such issues arguably fall outside the scope of an historical report, bringing all these issues before the Tribunal in a single report, including a description of current legal and environmental practice and decisions, and indeed its own recent findings with respect to Wairarapa and Waikaremoana, may prove helpful as context.

Although most of the historical sources appear to have been located, making sense of the current situation adds to the complexity of the project. A timeframe of six months for one researcher is tentatively suggested.

3. Inclusion in District-wide Research Projects

It is recommended that the remaining Muaupoko claims be considered within the generic, district- wide research projects envisaged by the Tribunal, as proposed below:

Environmental/natural resources and local government issues

 Claims regarding the loss and degradation of resources (other than Lake Horowhenua), including claims regarding Crown action/neglect with regards to wahi tapu, coastal erosion, kaimoana, off-shore fishing rights.  Claims about local government and rating.

164

Inland waterways research project

 Claims concerning the Crown’s appropriation of rights to use and manage water, property rights issues with respect to rivers, and the impact of drainage and pollution (other than Lake Horowhenua).

Muaupoko claims about health and education appear to fall within the same generic, district-wide approach. And as set out earlier, claims about Mana Wahine are deemed to fall outside the scope of the district inquiry altogether. It may nonetheless prove useful to task the researcher to bear such issues in mind throughout the project, considering, for example, the extent to which Muaupoko women were included or excluded from land decisions and politics. Such an approach could prove useful to any future generic inquiry on Mana Wahine.

165

166

Appendix: Commission

IOFFICIALI

Wai 2200, #2.3.1

WAITANGI'TRIBUNAL Wai2200

CONCERNING the Treaty of Wailangi Act 1975

the Porirua ki Mana1N310 District Inquiry

DIRECTION COMMISSIONING RESEARCH

1. Pursuant to clause SA of the second schedule of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Tribunal corrvnissions Jane Luiten , historian, to prepare a seoping report on MuaOpoko land and politics claim issues for the Porirua ki ManawalO district inquiry. The report""';l1 evaluate 'lYhal technical research is needed 10 address the claim issues raised by and on behalf of MuaOpoko and make recorrmendations as to how this should be undertaken. The corrvnissionee will consult with MuaOpoko as and v.nen necessary to fulfillhe terms of this commission.

2. In particular, the seoping report should:

a) define the key research questions arising from claims registered by and on behalf of MuaQpoko and, after consultation with them, consider how these can best be answered by technical research ;

b) make specific recommendations as to how the main research report or reports into Ihese questions can best be organised;

c) make recommendations on the number of researchers and the time required to complete the resea rch:

d) give an oulline of topics wtlich any main reports recommended should cover;

e) examine what sources should be used 10 address the research questions; and

f) provide a detailed bibliography of relevant sources and their locations_

3. The commission commenced on 3 February 2014. A complete draft of the report is to be submitted by 30 April 2014 and will be distributed to MuaQpoko claimants and the Crown for comment.

4. The commission ends on 6 June 2014, at wtlich time one copy of the final report m.Jst be submitted to the Registrar for filing in unbound form, together 'Nith indexed copies of any supporting documents or transcripts. All electronic copy of the report and any supporting documentation should also be provided.

5. The report may be received as evidence and the author may be cross-examined on it.

167

6. The Registrar is to send copies of this direction to Jane Luiten Claimant counsel for MuaOpoko and unrepresented MuaOpoko claimants Chief Historian and Tribunal Advisor, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Principal Research Analyst, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Manager - Research and Inquiry Fa ci litation, Waitangi Tri bunal Unit Inquiry Facilitator, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Solicitor General, Crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements Chief Executive, Crown Forestry Rental Trust

DATED at Gisborne this 12" day of March 2014

Deputy Chief Judge C L Fox Presiding Officer WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

168