Wai 2200, #A163

Muaupoko Land Alienation and Political Engagement Report

Jane Luiten with Kesaia Walker

A report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Porirua ki Manawatu inquiry (Wai 2200)

August 2015

ii

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 1 War and Resettlement, 1820 – 1845 ...... 11

1.1 Early settlement ...... 12 1.2 Tuwhare to Waiorua, 1820-1826 ...... 14 1.3 Waiorua to Haowhenua, 1826-1833 ...... 21 1.4 Haowhenua to Crown colony, 1835-1845 ...... 28 1.5 Reflections on war and resettlement ...... 40 Chapter 2 ‘Loose empire’, 1845 – 1866 ...... 43

2.1 Muaupoko at Horowhenua ...... 44 2.2 Hector McDonald’s lease ...... 47 2.3 Crown purchase ...... 49 2.4 Colonial wars ...... 59 2.5 Reflections on early colonial engagement ...... 60 Chapter 3 Contesting Horowhenua, 1867 – 1873 ...... 63

3.1 Disputed boundaries ...... 63 3.2 Towards Native Land Court adjudication ...... 84 3.3 Title determination: Manawatu-Kukutauaki ...... 94 3.4 Title determination: Horowhenua ...... 104 3.5 Reflections on Muaupoko’s 1873 title ...... 108 Chapter 4 Kemp’s stewardship, 1873 – 1886 ...... 114

4.1 Ngati Raukawa’s interests ...... 116 4.2 Kawana Hunia and Ngati Pariri ...... 123 4.3 Towards Subdivision and Sale ...... 130 4.4 1886 Partition ...... 148 4.5 Reflections on the 1886 partition ...... 171 Chapter 5 Breaking up the tribal estate, 1887 – 1896...... 174

5.1 Horowhenua 2: the township block ...... 175 5.2 Horowhenua 3: the individual 100-acre landholdings ...... 184 5.3 Horowhenua 6: the rerewaho ...... 191 5.4 Horowhenua 11: the tribal heartland ...... 194 5.5 Horowhenua 12: the Tararua ranges ...... 236 5.6 Horowhenua 14: the ‘Waiwiri’ block ...... 237 5.7 Horowhenua Commission, 1896 ...... 243 5.8 Reflections on 1890s litigation ...... 258 iii

Chapter 6 Individualisation/Partition, 1897 – 1903 ...... 261

6.1 Native Appellate Court 1897 ...... 262 6.2 Horowhenua 14 ...... 263 6.3 Horowhenua 11: Relative interests ...... 271 6.4 The Cost of Litigation, Debt and Horowhenua 6 ...... 294 6.5 Horowhenua 11 Partition, 1898-1901 ...... 300 6.6 Kawiu Partition, 1901 ...... 313 6.7 Reflections on nineteenth-century land alienation ...... 319 Chapter 7 Twentieth Century Issues ...... 324

7.1 Historical context for 20th century alienation ...... 324 7.2 Crown appropriation: Hokio Native Township, 1902 ...... 328 7.3 Land to Liability: early Kawiu alienation ...... 345 7.4 ‘Closer settlement’ ...... 354 7.5 Crown purchase of Horowhenua 11B42C, 1926 ...... 362 7.6 Title consolidation ...... 366 7.7 The ‘return’ of leased land, rates and land alienation ...... 377 7.8 Reflections on twentieth century land alienation and political engagement ...... 386 Overview ...... 390

Bibliography ...... 397

List of Tables

Table 1: Muaupoko claims ...... 2 Table 2: ‘. Muaupoko; Place. Horowhenua’, 1845 ...... 31 Table 3: Survey costs of 1886 partition ...... 174 Table 4: The 81 owners of Horowhenua 11 ...... 291 Table 5: South-western partition ...... 303 Table 6: Mairua partition ...... 305 Table 7: Eastern Shores Partition ...... 309 Table 8: 1901 Kawiu subdivision ...... 315 Table 9: Kawiu B36 lands vested for debt ...... 350 Table 10: Sales of Kawiu B36 lands by May 1911 ...... 352 Table 11: Kawiu B36 lands leased by May 1911 ...... 353 Table 12: Alienations of Horowhenua 11B41 by May 1911 ...... 353 Table 13: McDonald family landholdings in Horowhenua 11 ...... 359 Table 14: Taueki lands under Consolidation, 1946 ...... 369 Table 15: Taueki consolidated lands: the five ‘family farms’ ...... 379 Table 16: Taueki consolidated lands: the fate of the residential sections ...... 381 Table 17: Horowhenua 11 ‘Europeanised’ lands ...... 384

iv

List of Figures

Figure 1: Porirua ki Manawatu Inquiry District ...... 10 Figure 2: Muaupoko rohe at Horowhenua by the 1860s ...... 36 Figure 3: The 1842 NZ Company ‘purchase’ at Horowhenua ...... 37 Figure 4: Te Rae o Te Karaka, Lake Horowhenua, 1864...... 46 Figure 5: ML4903 Plan of Muaupoko’s claim created for the 1873 title investigation ...... 106 Figure 6: Charges against Horowhenua, 1872-1878 ...... 133 Figure 7: The proposed Taitoko township, June 1886 ...... 145 Figure 8: Taitoko township memorandum of agreement, June 1886 ...... 146 Figure 9: WD 508A, showing 1886 Horowhenua partitions as surveyed in 1888 ...... 154 Figure 10: the 1886 partition considered by the Horowhenua Commission, 1896 ...... 155 Figure 11: WD508a showing Horowhenua 2, the township block ...... 180 Figure 12: Hoani Puihi and Winara Te Raorao’s within Horowhenua 2 ...... 182 Figure 13: the 1890 partition of Horowhenua 3 ...... 187 Figure 14: WD 508a showing Horowhenua 6 ...... 191 Figure 15: WD 508a showing Horowhenua 11 ...... 195 Figure 16: WD 837: Valuation plan of the proposed State farm offer, August 1893 ...... 219 Figure 17: McKenzie v. Buller: the battle over Horowhenua ...... 235 Figure 18: WD508a showing Horowhenua 12, the eastern end of the Horowhenua Block ...... 236 Figure 19: WD508a showing Horowhenua 14, after survey ...... 239 Figure 20: The very public feud between McKenzie and Buller over Horowhenua 14...... 268 Figure 21: 1898 Horowhenua partition ...... 301 Figure 22: Village partition of Te Rae o Te Karaka, 11B1-B26 ...... 302 Figure 23: The southern partition: Otaewa, Kohuturoa, Ta Te Arero, Mahoenui, 11A2-A15 ...... 304 Figure 24: Mairua Partition, 11B27-35 ...... 305 Figure 25: Kawiu and Eastern Lakeside Partitions, 11B36-B40 ...... 309 Figure 26: Residual/Outer Block, 11B41 & 11B42 ...... 312 Figure 27: Kawiu Partition, 1901 ...... 317 Figure 28: Plan of the Native Township of Hokio ...... 333 Figure 29: The 1923 partition of Horowhenua 11B42 ...... 337 Figure 30: Horowhenua 11B42A partitions, 1924 (above), with current aerial perspective (below). 339 Figure 31: Palmerson and Scott’s 1887 survey, ML837 ...... 340 Figure 32: Atkinson’s 1900 survey, ML1654, with coastal chain strip depicted as road ...... 341 Figure 33: Foster’s 1923 survey plan, ML3726 ...... 342 Figure 34: Proposed Crown purchase of 11 B42C on behalf of Park and Best ...... 364 Figure 35: Location of Taueki lands under consolidation, shaded blue, 1946 ...... 369 Figure 36: Current Maori Land in the Horowhenua Block ...... 385

v

Abbreviations

AJHR: Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives BPP: British Parliamentary Papers GIS: Geographic Information Systems MB: Minute book (of the Maori Land Court) ML: Maori Land NZPD: Parliamentary Debates

A note on document banks cited in this report

[CFRT DB] refers to document banks prepared by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust for the Porirua ki inquiry. The following CFRT document banks have been cited in this report:

 Crown and Private Land Purchasing Records and Petitions Document Bank, Wai 2200, #A067, A67(a) & A067(b); and  Maori Land Court Records Document Bank, Wai 2200, #A70(a) to A70(g).

For example, [CFRT DB, A67(b): 12808] refers to page 12808 of #A67(b), the Crown and Private Land Purchasing Records document bank.

[DB] refers to the supporting papers prepared for this report. For example [DB:1984] refers to page 1984 of the supporting papers.

[WT DB] refers to original archival scans of the MA 13 files in the Waitangi Tribunal’s MA 13 research aid (Wai 2200, #A159(c)). For example, [WT DB, MA 13/75a: 458] refers to page 458 of the archival scans for MA 13/75a. Page 458 can be found by opening a copy of the archival scans (Wai 2200, #A159(c)) and performing a word search for ‘MA 13/75a’. This will bring you to the relevant index. Scroll past the index until you reach page 458 of the scans. Page numbers can be located at the bottom right hand corner of each page.

1

Introduction

… the Horowhenua Block is not an ordinary block. It has from the very earliest period stood out as a block with a peculiar history.

John McKenzie, Minister of Lands, 18971

The purpose of this research project is to provide a substantive overview of Muaupoko’s relationship with the Crown, and the impacts of Crown policies and legislation on Muaupoko authority over its communities and tribal estate; and its relationships with other iwi within Porirua ki Manawatu from 1840 to the end of the twentieth century.2 This report represents ten months of work, following on from the scoping report completed by the same author in July last year.3

Proof of Horowhenua’s ‘peculiar history’ lies in the sheer volume of historical records it generated. The remaining estate of a people dislocated through pre-Treaty war and resettlement, Horowhenua took centre-stage in the contest between tangata whenua and tangata heke groups from the late 1860s onwards. Having won title in 1873, Muaupoko’s tribal estate remained largely intact until 1886, at which point it was partitioned and ‘opened’ to Pakeha settlement. In the 1890s, Horowhenua again became a battleground of litigation between the two men in whom the tribal block had been vested, the Crown joining the fray in order to gain possession of the land. By the beginning of the twentieth century, Muaupoko’s tribal homeland resembled that of others: partitioned into individual titles, and vulnerable to well-rehearsed alienation pressures.

I. 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

1 J McKenzie, AJHR 1897 sess 2, G-2a, p. 2. 2 Direction commissioning research, 12 December 2014, Wai 2200 #2.3.6. 3 Jane Luiten, ‘Muaupoko Land and Politics Scoping Report’, Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 2200, #A55. 2 the mana of Muaupoko, resulting in grave social, economic, spiritual, physical and environmental consequences for their people.

Table: Muaupoko claims

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 The imposition of European land tenure concepts, practices, and systems of (Muaupoko Tribal individual ownership in preference to traditional concepts of collective trusteeship Authority) and possession. Wai 108 Tama-i-uia Ruru Seeking investigation as to the confused ownership of Muaupoko lands, and the for descendants of impact of public works takings, land-locked lands, reserves and ownership of Tanguru a Muaupoko forestry lands.

The offer back of Kohitere Institute to Muaupoko Tribal Authority without notification to rightful beneficiaries.

Rejects Queen’s chain around Horowhenua as a legal construct that has enabled local government to allow activities which have polluted and denigrated the Horowhenua lakes and ecosystems. Seeks finding that waters be part of the lake bed, and deletion of clause reserving public access to dewatered area and chain strip; that Crown and local authorities fund the restoration of the lake. Wai 237 Ron & William Native Land Court system failed to protect te tino rangatiratanga over core lands of Taueki for descendants of Taueki/Muaupoko whakapapa – including award of tribal land to individuals in Taueki and Muaupoko ki 1873, and further partitions in 1886. Horowhenua, ‘Taueki/Muaupoko That the Native Land Court system resulted in large tracts of Taueki/Muaupoko Whakapapa Tino Whakapapa land being awarded to one or two owners. As a result, much of the land Rangatiratanga’ was alienated against the wishes of the tribe, including the gifting of 1200 acres to Te Whatanui; the agreement to the 4000-acre town site and 76 acres for railway; and ongoing court partition and alienation from 1886.

Failure to recognise and protect Taueki/Muaupoko rangatiratanga in the 1886 partitions, or again with regards to the Horowhenua Commission in 1895. Under the 1896 Act, the Crown purported to replace the whakapapa of Taueki/Muaupoko with a Crown-authorised whakapapa which has resulted in marginalisation in consultation and management processes.

Failure of management systems to protect rivers and waterways, especially Lake Horowhenua, Lake Papaitonga and the Hokio stream from erosion, pollution and encroachment. Wai 493 Tom Waho, for For the areas of Hokio Native Township and the Waitarere forest, which were once Hokio A Lands Trust & part of the Hokio block. Hokio Maori Township Trust, for descendants of original 81 owners Wai 623 John Paki & Crown failure to recognise rangatiratanga by the imposition of a western style of others for descendants of land tenure without recognition of Maori land tenure. Muaupoko Native land legislation enabled the Crown to alienate claimants land without their consent. In particular the Native Land Acts and the Horowhenua Block Act did not protect claimant interests and promoted the alienation of claimant land.

Crown failure to consult claimants over legislation which impacted on claimant land; failure to allow claimants to control or participate in Native Land Court 3

Claim Issues processes which impacted directly on claimants’ land.

Crown failure to protect Maori interests from improper and unfair actions of its land agents.

Disposal of Crown lands – Kohitere Institute, lands in Levin township, railways lands, school lands. Seek return of all Crown land Wai 624 John Paki & The disposal of Crown lands including the Kohitere Institute, Levin township lands, other Kemp Hunia and railway and school lands. Trustees for Muaupoko and hapu of Ngati Ao, Public works takings from Muaupoko land. Pariri, Ngarue and Whano ki Rangi. Wai 770 Edward Crown failure to recognise mana whenua Karaitiana for the whanau Land alienation through system of land control that did not protect interests. of Karaitiana Te Korou The alienation of Karaitiana Te Korou’s interests in Horowhenua 4B. Wai 1490 Mario Te Pa & Crown failure to recognise ancestral, customary and historical associations with the others for descendants of land and resources Whanokirangi Failure to consult to maintain autonomous hapu status. Wai 1491 Eugene Henare, Demarcation of roadway along coastline through Horowhenua block and the for Hokio A beneficiaries recording of the same on survey plans to the present day. Laid off late 1800s, never and Muaupoko 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 1621 Mark Stevens Crown usurped and undermined the kaitiakitanga of Muaupoko by asserting for Lake Horowhenua management and control over the environment and by delegating powers of Trust and Muaupoko ki management and control over same. Horowhenua The exclusion of Muaupoko from participation in decision-making or adequate information and consultation with regard to local body activities on the lake. Crown’s failure to fund Lake Horowhenua trust to enable engagement with local bodies and exercise kaitiakitanga 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 Crown failure to recognise and provide for customary title and rights of Muaupoko Taueki for descendants of to their rivers, streams and other water resources; taking such rights without Taueki and Muaupoko ki consultation or Muaupoko consent. Muaupoko never knowingly or voluntarily Horowhenua relinquished their tino rangatiratanga or ownership and control over the rivers, streams, lakes and other fresh water resources within their rohe.

Crown failure to recognise and provide for Muaupoko kaitiakitanga over traditional fisheries

Crown’s failure to recognise and protect Muaupoko tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga in respect of cultural taonga – particularly Kowhai Park site.

Hokio Maori Township – Crown failure to adequately consult with Muaupoko and the descendants of Taueki about the offer back of Hokio Boys School under the Public Works Act 1981; appointment of new trustees without consulting existing 4

Claim Issues owners. The land returned is a significant liability and a drain on the financial resources of Muaupoko.

That the management system implemented by the Crown over Lake Horowhenua involved inadequate definitions of the lake’s ownership; taking away Muaupoko kaitiakitanga; substituting instead conflicting and confusing responsibilities for the Trust Board and Domain Board; and failed to protect lake from degradation through run-off, rubbish disposal and bush felling. Wai 1631 Charles Rudd The loss of rights and privileges in Lake Horowhenua, Hokio stream and beach, Beneficial owners of citing in particular Conservation Act, Local Government Act. Lake Horowhenua Failure to ensure water quality. Ongoing contamination of waterways, in particular 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. 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 aqua fill of above waterways - farm run-off, bores. Wai 2045 Kahumaori Loss of tino rangatiratanga over land and resources since 1840. Pene for Muaupoko Wai 2048 Te Rautangata Loss of customary rights within traditional rohe. Kenrick for her children and mokopuna of Loss of land through actions and policies of Native Land Court, including Muaupoko and surveying, partition, and the imposition of rates, which was designed to dispossess Tamarangi claimants from ancestral lands. Wai 2050 Marina The Crown’s abrogation of claimants interests in ancestral lands of Horowhenua, Williams for such interests being mana whenua, gathering of kai, wahi tapu, and customary use, Te Kapa Trust, Ihaia through legislation, policies and practices of the Native Land Court. Taueki, and Muaupoko Wai 2052 James Kenrick Loss of customary use, occupation of lands; disassociation from ancestral lands. for Muaupoko Failure to recognise kaitiakitanga, rangatiratanga in relation to land. Lack of fair process to resolve issues with Crown. 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. 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. 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 Muaupoko Tribal (including lands, minerals, gases and petroleum, forests, fish, waters, themselves), Authority therefore stripping claimants ability to be economically self-sufficient Muaupoko 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 5

Claim Issues and assets. Wai 2175 Francis Brown Claimant’s interests in their mana whenua to their ancestral lands, gathering of kai 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. Wai 2306 Phillip Taueki Lake Horowhenua, Arawhata stream: Crown failure in duty to protect taonga of 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. Wai 2326 Peggy Gamble The Crown’s alienation of Muaupoko land and resources, particularly those of Hopa for descendants of Hopa Heremaia. Heremaia

Muaupoko’s claims concerning Lake Horowhenua and associated waterways are listed above for completeness, but are more specifically addressed by research undertaken by Paul Hamer.4 There are also additional Muaupoko claims relating to local government, health and education, which are not listed above: at the scoping stage of the research project these claims were considered best dealt with on a generic, district-wide level.5 In the time available it has not been possible to address specific issues relating, for example, to the land interests of Karaitiana Te Korou in Horowhenua 4B, or the alienation of Hopa Heremaia’s land. Nor has this report been able to address claims relating to the more contemporary issues surrounding the disposal of Crown lands.

As explained in the scoping report, within Muaupoko there appear to be at least two different perceptions of the geographical extent of tribal 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

4 Paul Hamer, ‘A Tangled Skein’: Lake Horowhenua, Muaupoko, and the Crown, 1898-2000’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 2015), Wai 2200, #A150. 5 See Wai 2054, Wai 1622, Wai 2051, Wai 2053, Wai 2173, Wai 2046 and Wai 2056, summarised in Luiten, Wai 2200 #A55, pp.158-160. 6 tangata whenua back to Kupe, the Kurahaupo waka, and their eponymous ancestor Tara.6 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.

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 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 of Ngati Raukawa – based on the mutual recognition of mana, rather than conquest or servitude. 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.

As Hearn relates in his district overview, 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 has been reflected in competing narratives within the historiography of the region, still largely at work within differing tribal perspectives today.7 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.8

6 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. 7 T J Hearn, ‘One past, many histories: tribal land and politics in the nineteenth century’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 2015), Wai 2200, #A152, pp.51-67. 8 E O’Donnell, Te Hekenga; early days in Horowhenua, being the reminiscences of Mr. Rod. McDonald, (G H Bennett, , 1929), p.36. 7

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.’9

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.10 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.11 This tangata whenua viewpoint is essentially unchanged since it was first expressed before the Native Land Court in November 1872.

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 , too, bore the brunt of warfare from Ngati Toa and others from Waiorua onwards: rendered largely ‘voiceless’ in the new political order and subsequently categorised as either ‘fugitives’ or ‘slaves’.12 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.13

9 Ibid, p.20. 10 Appendix 2 in Memorandum of Counsel for the Muaupoko Tribal Authority, Nga Korero Tuku Iho Presentation Material, 4 April 2014, Wai 2200, #A26. 11 This view was articulated by claimants at the Korero Tuku Iho hearing in February, and at the feedback hui at Kawiu marae in May 2014. 12 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui: Report on Northern South Island Claims, (Te Tau Ihu Report), Wai 785, (, Legislation Direct, 2008), vol. 1, pp. 23-24. 13 Ibid, p. 85. 8

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.’14 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.15

II. Methodology The major focus of this report is nineteenth century events which set Muaupoko’s experience apart from any other. A comparatively large proportion of time has been devoted to unravelling the relationships within Muaupoko itself, as revealed in the minutes of the Native Land Court and Native Appellate Court, and the Horowhenua Commission of 1896, in order to make sense of the dynamics behind these events. Notwithstanding the well-known shortcomings of land court evidence, the emphasis on these minutes has also been a deliberate attempt to bring Muaupoko voices to the fore in considering their history. For in addition to chronicling the tribe’s major experiences of land alienation and interaction with the Crown, this report seeks to unravel and challenge what continues to be the dominant discourse of a marginalised people ‘saved’ by strong men, whether Te Whatanui, Kemp, or Kawana Hunia, and to examine the extent to which the Crown contributed or utilised this narrative for its own ends. Ngati Raukawa’s perspective has only been included to the extent that it informs Muaupoko’s story.

I have tended to use ‘Te Upoko o Te Ika’ rather than ‘Porirua ki Manawatu’ to describe Muaupoko’s geographical location. Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, known from the late 1860s as Major Kemp, is referred to in footnotes of his court testimony by his Maori name; in the narrative itself I have preferred his English name. Given the tension within Muaupoko about mandate arising from nineteenth-century circumstances, particular care has been taken to note, wherever possible, individuals associated with early correspondence. Similar attention has been paid with regards to the testimony of individuals to the Native Land Court. In a number of instances, further discussion surrounding events has been relegated to footnotes to minimize the disruption to the narrative. As a rule, I have not attempted to change the grammar or idiom of directly cited sources, whether in English or Maori, particularly where the original lends important context (such as Hector McDonald’s correspondence). Where contemporary translations are available, I have used them. Otherwise I have translated from Maori to English myself. Macrons to denote long vowels have not been used.

14 Ibid, p. 22. 15 Ibid, p. 86, see also discussion, pp. 62-76. 9

The report has been completed in a very tight timeframe. There was not time to consult early correspondence and other sources identified in the scoping exercise which may or may not have added to what we know of Muaupoko’s colonial experience up to the mid-1860s.16 There are also further archives that would add to the story of the period 1890-1910 which have not been consulted in the time available.17 Twentieth-century issues account for just one chapter, largely guided by available government archives and the records of the Maori Land Court. There was insufficient time to undertake the full twentieth century land alienation project contemplated at the time of scoping, however Chapter 7 does address the main processes of land alienation on a case study basis. Given the short timeframe, Kesaia Walker was commissioned to undertake the twentieth-century component of the report and has provided the background research. I, however, take full responsibility for the report as a whole. The prediction that political engagement between Muaupoko and the Crown and its delegated authorities in the twentieth century would centre primarily on the struggle over Lake Horowhenua has proved correct. Chapter 7 draws on Paul Hamer’s work, but readers are encouraged nonetheless to read the two reports together to fully appreciate the issues of political engagement.

Consultation with claimants has been another casualty of the time constraints. Other than a meeting to discuss progress with claimants at Kawiu Marae and Pakipaki in January 2015, and another to discuss the draft report at Kawiu Marae in July 2015, there has been regrettably little engagement with claimants. Heoi ano, he mihi atu tenei ki a koutou, ki a Muaupoko; it has been a privilege to walk among your tupuna for the past ten months.

I would also like to acknowledge the tremendous assistance of Kesaia Walker, particularly, but not only, with regard to research for Chapter 7. I thank Tribunal staff Andrew Francis, Cathy Marr, Rauhina Scott-Fyfe, Noel Harris, Jeff Abott, and Craig Innes for their support.

III. About the author I have a BA Honours degree in history 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 family. In the last six years, my work has focused 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.

16 See for example correspondence identified at Alexander Turnbull Library and Donald McLean’s diaries and notebooks (Series 5) for the period 1848-1858, in Luiten, Wai 2200 #A55, pp. 28-33. 17 Indicated in the bibliography. 10

Waitangi Tribunal WAI2200 ¥ 1700,000 NZM G Projection NZ Topo M ap Oat a N ~ C Title Investigations, early ° 5 19 15 20 25 30 ;: Crown purchases & other areas .M[]MDMi:::::=:Ji... -===._C:::::::Ji Kilometers ~

01airi :-MII:lM-=:iM~==::Ji_"_:==~i Miles .:: 0, 5 10-. 15 20 '" Ohaumoko " '"" Parae Karetu II.M-7'-''- (-

1~ oj 'u.h(J.iu ... Whaingllpuna

Usmore Sand Forest

Rangmkel RIver

Manawatu River

Waita ngi Ttib lEl al Unit '" Jl! ~2 01 0 Geography of the Porirua ki Manawatu inquiry district

Figure 1: Porirua ki Manawatu Inquiry District 11

Chapter 1

War and Resettlement, 1820 – 1845

…an old chief asked those who escaped if they understood their language, they say Emara Emara their weapons throw out fire from their mouths, the old man then said when you are wounded, do you see the blow inflicted, they said no the first we know is when the blood spurts out, the old man said these are bad weapons, let us go. Kawana Hunia, 22 November 187218

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, 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.

The period of the ‘musket wars’ has been considered by previous Tribunal panels with respect to the impact of the unprecedented scale of conflict on the tangata whenua entities of Te Tau Ihu, Te Whanganui a Tara and Rekohu.19 Angela Ballara’s study too, is recognised as an authoritative account of events.20 However even with the benefit of historical revision, all these accounts invariably rely on primary sources weighted in favour of the ‘winners’. This chapter considers evidence about Muaupoko’s pre-Treaty experience of war, dislocation and resettlement predominantly from testimony of witnesses in the nineteenth century: the 1872 Kukutauaki title investigation; the 1873 Horowhenua title investigation; the 1890 Horowhenua 11 partition; the 1891 partition rehearing; the 1896 Horowhenua Commission and the 1897 Native Appellate Court hearing. The following narrative assumes that readers have background knowledge of the time period, restricting discussion to explore events Muaupoko themselves considered important. Piecing together a history from the fragments contained in land court minutes spanning thirty years has been difficult, particularly in the time

18 Kawana Hunia was speaking of his people’s first encounter with guns at Turakina, 22 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, pp. 59-60. 19 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu Report; Rekohu: A Report on and Ngati Mutunga Claims in the , (Wai 64, 2001); Te Whanganui a Tara me ona Takiwa: Report on the Wellington District, (Wai 145, 2003). The wars and heke have been described in a number of reports filed with the Te Tau Ihu Tribunal, see those cited at Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu Report, vol.1, p. 30. 20 Angela Ballara, Taua. ‘Musket wars’, ‘land wars’ or tikanga? Warfare in Maori Society in the Early Nineteenth Century, (Auckland, Penguin Books, 2003). 12 available. There are also of course well-known problems associated with the reliability of the minutes as historical records, particularly when so much of it was contested and all of it delivered many years, and in some cases generations, after the event. On the other hand, the minutes do give voice to those who were otherwise largely silenced, offering a fresh perspective on tired understandings about this period. An essential prerequisite to such understanding is the somewhat basic starting point, that all of these events took place in a Maori world regulated by the imperatives of tapu and mana.

1.1 Early settlement

Most of what little we know of early Muaupoko settlement comes from the minutes of the Native Appellate Court hearing in 1897 which, for reasons set out in this report, was the first time the tribe’s ancestral occupation was articulated, or at least recorded, in any depth. Rangitane was apt to remind Muaupoko that ‘All the Muaupoko were at one time Rangitane’.21 Another truism among the tribe was that ‘[a]ll the ancestors came from Ngatikahungunu’.22 Muaupoko emerged from key marriages between tangata whenua entities of Te Upoko o Te Ika and newcomers from the east as a distinct and powerful entity in their own right from the mid-eighteenth century. Tribal members in the late nineteenth century based their claims on their continuous occupation from the time of founding Muaupoko ancestors six to seven generations before. Moving back in time, adults caught up in the war and displacement of 1820-1833 were the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these eponymous tipuna. The Muaupoko homeland was generally regarded as encompassing the western seaboard from Manawatu to Pukerua.23 Evidence about the first encounter with Amiowhenua from 1820 set out below suggests communities of some scale at Pukerua, Kapiti and Horowhenua.

The 1897 court hearing was a contest of ancestral rights to Horowhenua in particular, and evidence was tailored to this end. Muaupoko claims here generally began with the union of Te Mou and Puaki Te Ao, and the Ngai Te Ao dynasty (along with other descendant hapu) created at Horowhenua by their off-spring, sons Tireo (written sometimes as Te Reo, or Otereo), Ruatapu, Potangotango, Te Koa, and daughter Te Riunga, all born and raised at Te Koropu pa at Otaewa on the shores of Lake Horowhenua.24 Te Mou’s father Te Uira was said to have been part of a large hapu called Punahau

21 Kerei Te Panau, himself ‘a Rangitane and a Muaupoko’, 13 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p.49. 22 Makere Te Rou, 20 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p.132. Paki Te Hunga maintained that Muaupoko and Hamua ancestors came to the western seaboard from Ihuraua, near Eketahuna, Paki Te Hunga, 26 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p.67. 23 See for example Wirihana Hunia, 1 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p.78. As set out in the scoping report, this view coincides with Muaupoko claimants themselves, and the works of Robyn Anderson and Keith Pickens, and Angela Ballara, Luiten, Wai 2200 #A55, pp.6-7. 24 See for example Te Raraku Hunia, 7 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p.36. Ngai Te Ao were named after Puaki Te Ao (Paki Te Hunga, 25 May 1897, p.64, Te Rewanui Apatari, 11 May 1897, p. 44); Ngati Te Riunga from Te Riunga; Ngati Hine descended from Potangotango and Ngati Whano from Potangotango’s child, Whanokirangi (Ria Raikokiritia, 28 June 1897, pp.92-94); Ngati Tairatu from Ruatapu’s son, Tairatu (Paki Te Hunga, 25 May 1897, p. 64); Ngati Puri, another resident hapu at Horowhenua, named after Puri who was the same generation as Tairatu and others, and himself described as Ngati Hine (Paranihia Riwai, 20 May 1897, p.59). Note, the partition hearing of 1890 was the first occasion Keepa Te Rangihiwinui was obliged to make an ancestral claim, and he did so through tangata whenua Parangi, the parent of Te 13 that occupied the wider district,25 and his sibling Haupo, by her marriage to Te Ngarue, also married into the tangata whenua.26 However the family also built on relationships from outside. Puaki Te Ao herself had Rangitane and Ngati Apa parentage, and was equally renowned in the Manawatu. Potangotango’s wives were from and from Ngati Apa.27

Another important whakapapa within Muaupoko arose from the union of Ngataitoko and his Hamua wife Te Hikaotaota, their three daughters Te Rongopatahi, Kawainga and Pariri becoming the eponymous ancestors of Muaupoko hapu. Pariri married Te Hukui, a resident of the west coast, but her daughters in turn chose Hamua husbands, who lived with their wives in the west.28 Whakapapa from the court minutes indicates that Te Mou, Puaki Te Ao, Pariri and Te Hukui were contemporaries. Indeed, Te Uira is said to have brought Te Hikaotaota west to Horowhenua; he is also said to have been killed by Ngataitoko there when Te Mou was an infant.29

Ngai Te Ao descendants spoke of Potangotango and Tireo’s success at rebuffing attempts from other Kahungunu migrants to establish a foothold at Horowhenua;30 and of Te Riunga’s sheltering of Kahungunu fugitives at Papaitonga.31 In the following generation, quarrelling at Horowhenua with established tangata whenua entities like Ngati Kokopu is said to have escalated into conflict that led to their defeat at the hands of Ngai Te Ao and their Muaupoko allies from the south.32 It is this generation who are attributed with building the artificial islands on Horowhenua. It is also among these grandchildren we find important marriages uniting the whakapapa of the emergent hapu on the coast, fostering in turn a shared Muaupoko identity. The union of Ruatapu’s son Tairatu to Pariri’s

Ngarue and Te Rangiwhakarara, rather than the newcomer Puaki Te Ao. By the following year however, Puaki Te Ao was the key tipuna through which the ancestral case of Muaupoko was argued. 25 Hoani Puihi, 7 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 108. 26 Ibid, 1 July 1897, p. 99. Another important marriage between the newcomers and tangata whenua was said to be that of Te Riunga to Parangi’s grandson Taniwha, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, pp. 280-281. 27 Wirihana Hunia, 27 May 1897, p. 70; Te Rewa Apatari, 12 May 1897, p. 45; AJHR 1898 G-2a. 28 Wirihana Hunia recounted the arrival of Te Raikapua’s sons Te Angiimua, Hura Te Papa, Puanga and Turanga from east of the ranges. Te Angiimua and Hura Te Papa married Pariri’s daughters Hineitohua and Tui; Turanga married Te Riunga’s daughter, Te Wairoto. Wirihana Hunia, 31 May 1897, p. 75; 5 June 1897, p. 89, AJHR 1898 G-2a. 29 Te Raraku Hunia, 8 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 39. 30 At least two groups from Kahungunu were expelled from Horowhenua in this period: Ngataikaka under Te Ngana o Tu, who were living at Te Reti pa at the mouth of the Hokio and who were attacked after tampering with Potangotango’s pa tuna, see for example Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 5 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p.31; and a visiting ope led by Te Uamairangi, who were similarly ousted, Kerehi Mitiwaha, 17 July 1897, p.127. It was after the fight with Ngataikaka that Tireo was said to have installed the pou called Te Mou in the Hokio Stream, Te Raraku Hunia, 10 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G- 2a, p. 41. 31 Known as ‘Te Wharetutaki o Te Riunga’. Tokouru and his Ngati Kahungunu party were said to have fled to Papaitonga after killing Kawainga’s son Pahuki at . Ngati Rangi enlisted the help of Potangotango and Ruatapu at Horowhenua to catch the killers. Tokouru was killed in the resulting fight at Pito o Pitorea. The survivors were saved by sheltering in Te Riunga’s house at Papaitonga, eventually returning home to the east. AJHR 1898 G-2a: Raraku Hunia, 7 May 1897, p. 36; Hoani Puihi, 6 July 1897, p. 107; Kerehi Mitiwaha, 19 July 1897, p. 128. 32 This conquest was said to have ended the mana of various tangata whenua entities led by Ngamaihi on the coast north of Hokio – Ngati Kura, Ngai Tapuiti, Ngati Pouwhenua, Ngati Maikuku and Ngati Ngarue – in addition to Ngati Kokopu. The quarrel was said to have begun over a tinderstick belonging to Te Piro, a chief of Ngati Hine, which Ngamaihi threw into the Manawatu River. AJHR 1898 G-2a: Rawinia Ihaia, 8 July 1897, p.111; Raniera Te Whata, 23 July 1897, p.138; Kerehi Mitiwaha, 15 July 1897, p. 123. 14 granddaughter Maewa is a case in point.33 The marriage of Potangotango’s son Tapuwae to Te Rongopatahi’s granddaughter Te Kuraituhi is another.34 Their child was Taueki.

What was at issue by the late nineteenth century was the extent of Pariri and Rongopatahi’s ancestral rights at Horowhenua, a claim spearheaded by members of the Hunia family but having too, a modicum of local support. Those from Te Mou and Puaki Te Ao lines claimed that the three Hamua sisters and their descendants belonged in the south, associated with Pukerua, Paekakariki, Waikanae, Otaki, Pukehou and Waitawa, only moving to Horowhenua as spouses.35 Some like Kemp refused to acknowledge Ngati Pariri as a hapu at all, while others like Te Raraku Hunia, the daughter of Kawana Hunia and Hereora, Taueki’s daughter, maintained the hapu’s presence at Horowhenua was the result of being driven out of their homelands by Te Rauparaha.36 On the other hand there were individuals within the Muaupoko camp who maintained that both Pariri and Te Rongopatahi had occupied at Horowhenua, and who based their own rights on descent from these women.37 The mana of Te Ngarue, whose occupation pre-dated that of Te Uira, was also widely acknowledged. As Makere Te Rou, an authority within Muaupoko saw it, ‘Te Ngarue, Potangotango, and Pariri all had rights on this land. They were not all of one family. They did not live together; their descendants have. They lived amicably near each other. There was no boundary between them.’38 Te Rou was not referring here to Ngati Pariri from Otaki and elsewhere, but those descendants of Pariri who had occupied at Horowhenua.39

What is striking from the scrutiny of whakapapa recorded in 1897 is the extent of cohesion and stability, both within Muaupoko itself and with neighbouring iwi as far away as Te Wai Pounamu and Whanganui, manifest in the high incidence of intermarriage.40 Numerous Muaupoko on the coast came to rely on this whanaungatanga to escape the onslaught unleashed by Te Rauparaha from 1821.

1.2 Tuwhare to Waiorua, 1820‐1826

The ‘Amiowhenua’ Ngapuhi’s introduction to muskets by the late 1810s seems to have spawned a new phenomenon of large-scale, long-distance, multi-tribal taua with no particular take in mind.41 The first to reach Te

33 Wirihana Hunia, 28 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 71. 34 Te Raraku Hunia, 8 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 39. 35 Ibid, 7 May 1897, p. 36. 36 Ibid. 37 Rawinia Ihaia, Makere Te Rou, and Kerehi Mitiwaha were three such witnesses. 38 Makere Te Rou, 20 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p.132. 39 Ibid, 22 July 1897, p.134. 40 Te Rewanui Apatari highlighted the extent of intermarriage in this geopolitical region to prove his own ancestral rights as Rangitane, 12 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, pp. 44-46. 41 Ballara, p.303. 15

Upoko o Te Ika around 1820 was that of Hokianga chiefs Tamati Waka Nene and Patuone, said to be 340-strong.42 Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata with 30 others joined this expedition at Kawhia. This ‘amiowhenua’, as these roving expeditions came to be called, was remembered by Muaupoko however, as that of Ngati Roroa chief Tuwhare.43 At Oroua, Ngati Apa’s first encounter with the pu had them dispersing to the bush: Te Pikinga and others were captured.44 Proceeding south via the coast, the taua turned in at Hokio towards Horowhenua, where another fight took place.

According to Kawana Hunia’s 1872 account, the skirmish took place on the island pa of Waikiekie, near the Hokio outlet, with few casualties.45 Hunia related that those hit were left ‘scratching their skins’ – Ngapuhi’s muskets loaded with shot rather than ball – the attack ultimately fended off with traditional weapons and reinforcements from neighbouring islands, allowing the community to reach the sanctuary of the bush on the mainland. Hunia’s account is important, not least because it explains the relationship formed between Te Rauparaha on the one hand, and Taheke and Toheriri of Ngati Te Riunga on the other, which came into play during Te Rauparaha’s subsequent heke. According to Kawana Hunia, Te Rauparaha did not follow the main body of the taua towards Horowhenua, but wandered with his companions instead towards Papaitonga, where they overcame Taheke. Taheke was reassured of their peaceable intent and persuaded to take the men home with him. At Papaitonga the strangers were well received, with Toheriri offering to escort them to the island pa of Waipata, to meet Muaupoko there. At Waipata, they found the main body of Ngapuhi was already at Waikiekie, where food was being prepared for them.46 When a messenger arrived with news of novel weapons, Toheriri and Taheke decided to join proceedings there with their new friends, over the caution of Te Rangihouhia. According to Hunia, it was while they were paddling towards Waipata that they heard the rifles being fired, prompting Te Rauparaha to declaim, ‘It is not my fault paddle away as quick as you can.’47 The single casualty of the fight at Waikiekie was removed by Muaupoko, who also withdrew their canoes. Tuwhare’s taua moved on the same day.

At Kapiti, Tuwhare was given a mere pounamu and as a result, according to Hunia, no fighting took place.48 At Pukerua on the other hand, the suspicious community were lured out of their pa, disarmed

42 Kawana Hunia, 22 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 60. 43 AJHR 1898 G-2a: Te Rewanui Apatari, 12 May 1897, p.47; Raniera Te Whata, 23 July 1897, p. 138; Te Raraku Hunia, 7 May 1897, p. 36. 44 Kawana Hunia, 22 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, pp. 60-61. 45 Ibid, pp. 63-64. The essence of Hunia’s account was corroborated in later recollections of the 1890s, see for example that of Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, pp. 282-283. 46 In his 1891 account Kemp too maintained that the Waikiekie community had been assured of the party’s peaceful intentions and had therefore ferried them across to the island, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 282. Hunia’s 1872 recollection of Waipata being the pa of Te Rangihouhia and Te Rangiwhakaotia is important in the context of the controversy over Ngati Pariri’s ancestral claims by the 1890s, Otaki MB 01A, pp. 61-63. 47 Kawana Hunia, 22 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 63. 48 Ibid, p. 64. 16 by the haka and songs of the travellers, and then killed in great numbers.49 Te Matenga Tinotahi was said to have been one of few survivors who then made his way south to warn Kekerengu and the community at Palliser Bay. As a result, Ngapuhi were ambushed there with loss, and moved on to Wairarapa where they encountered further resistance. According to Hunia, the taua returned in canoes from Wairarapa and landed at Rangitikei. Peace was made at Te Awamate between Te Rangihaeata and Ngati Apa: Iria, who had been captured on the way down, was returned, while Pikinga remained with Te Rangihaeata, returning to Kawhia as his wife. According to both Hunia and Matene Te Whiwhi, the departing Kawhia chiefs had future resettlement in mind at this time.50 The following year another long-ranging expedition of allied Waikato and Ngati Raukawa iwi armed with traditional weapons swept through the district. Muaupoko remembered this as the taua of Pehi Tukorehu, numbering ‘thousands’.51 Arriving at the shores of Horowhenua via Wairarapa, this taua found Muaupoko secure on their island strongholds.52 In 1897 Tanguru (Kemp’s father), Te Rangihouhia (Kawana Hunia’s uncle) and Te Rangiwhakaotia were variously attributed with taking the fight to Tukorehu, in which Tapuwae, the father of Taueki, is said to have been killed and many others captured.53 Muaupoko women led by Taueki’s wife Kahukore were credited with saving the day: the strength of their ngeri and the beating of paddles against their canoes alarming the attackers into thinking reinforcements had arrived, causing them to flee without their captives.54 According to Muaupoko witnesses, the outcome was a resounding victory with 100 of the Waikato enemy killed.55

Te Rauparaha’s heke Even as Tukorehu’s amiowhenua returned northwards, Te Rauparaha and his people of Ngati Toa, Ngati Koata and Ngati Rarua had begun their slow migration south towards the Kapiti coast, wintering over at a place called Tihou between Patea and Whenuakura river, before pushing on again

49 Ibid, p. 65. See also Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, pp. 282-3. Kemp called the occupants at Pukerua Ngati Rangi. In 1897 Hoani Meihana’s wife, Tiripa Te Raiura, was said to be the only living representative of the hapu occupying south of Waikanae, Paki te Hunga, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 63. Ballara writes that a number of chiefs taken in battle at Waimapihi and Pukerua were brought to Kawhia as guests rather than slaves, Ballara, Taua, p. 303. Te Matenga Tinotahi eventually resettled at Horowhenua, marrying Hinerangi, Tamati Maunu’s sister, see for example Rihipeti Nireaha, 6 May 1897, p.33 and 18 May 1897, p. 57, AJHR 1898 G-2a. 50 Hunia, 23 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 67; Matene Te Whiwhi, 3 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 136. 51 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 159. See also Te Raraku Hunia, p. 36; p. 40; Wirihana Hunia, p. 74; Rawinia Ihaia, p. 116; Makere Te Rou, p. 133; AJHR 1898, G-2a. Based on Smith’s Maori Wars, Ballara mentions only a ‘brief clash’ with Muaupoko at Otaki and another confrontation at Whanganui, p. 322. 52According to Kemp, enemy tactics of encircling the lake, and even damming the Hokio Stream mouth to flood the island communities came to nothing, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, pp. 283-284. One of his favourite anecdotes was about how his father and Taueki came across two of the enemy cooking food and killed them. Te Rangimairehau told the Horowhenua Commission that the enemy occupied the shores ‘for many days and months’ before Muaupoko decided to attack, 14 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.87. 53 Wirihana Hunia, 28 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 74; Te Raraku Hunia, 7 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 36. The prominence of these men in the testimony of 1897 of course reflected the continuing contest between Kemp and Hunia as the ‘strong men’ of Muaupoko. 54 Ibid, see also Paki Te Hunga, 25 May 1897, p. 64. 55 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 19 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 28; Te Rangimairehau, 14 March 1886, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 87; Wirihana Hunia, 12 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 47. 17 southwards in the spring of 1822.56 On the strength of relationships created two years before, Te Rauparaha’s people were escorted by Ngati Apa to Te Awamate at Rangitikei, where the heke lived for more than two months. From here, they were again escorted by Ngati Apa into Rangitane’s rohe of Manawatu.57

Muaupoko were forewarned of the migration. According to Kemp, while Te Rauparaha was still at Waitotara, visiting Whanganui chief Pehi Turoa had encouraged Muaupoko to kill the Ngati Toa chief, a proposition which was not supported by the people.58 Te Rauparaha was nonetheless warned by Ngati Apa to proceed carefully. Almost immediately however a woman of rank, Waimahi, was killed at Manawatu and consumed.59

The Ngati Toa chiefs were heading for Kapiti with its potential for European contact. At the Ohau River Te Rauparaha was hosted by Toheriri, both men anticipating Muaupoko’s assistance to help his people cross over to Kapiti.60 In the meantime however, Waimahi’s murder at Manawatu was discovered, and Muaupoko decided instead to retaliate. The ensuing attack against Te Rauparaha at Te Wii, and in particular the killing of his children, is widely accepted as the ‘taketake mate’61 of Te Rauparaha’s alleged genocidal campaign against Muaupoko, described in the idiom of the day, to ‘slaughter the Muaupokos from the rise of the sun to its setting.’62 The ‘kohuru’ committed by Muaupoko, repeated relatively recently in Ballara’s account for example, is commonly portrayed as a stealthy, duplicitous attack against Te Rauparaha’s immediate family, undertaken before daylight as they lay sleeping in the home of their Muaupoko hosts.63 In this popular version, of the family party of eight, only Te Rauparaha and his brother in law Te Rakaherea are said to have escaped alive.

By contrast, Kemp testified during the Kukutauaki hearing of 1872 that Te Rauparaha’s party killed at Te Wii numbered 60.64 Matene Te Whiwhi disputed this tally, initially stating that 17 had been killed, revising this upwards the following day to 30.65 In 1890 Kemp also denied the allegation that Te Rauparaha was ‘living at the Pas of Muaupoko’ when his children were killed, arguing that the massacre was justified by the need to avenge Waimahi.66 The following year he made the point that

56 Ballara, pp. 322-23. The two parties fought each other at Ngapuketurua in . 57 According to Ballara, Rangitane’s response to the uninvited visitors was to withdraw upriver, Ballara, p. 327. 58Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 19 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 25; 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 285. 59 Matene Te Whiwhi recounted that Waimahi (alternatively spelt in court minutes as Waimai and Waimaia) was killed in anger by Nohorua over the theft of his canoe at the Manawatu, Matene Te Whiwhi, 3 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 137. 60 Wirihana Hunia, 28 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 71. 61 Ballara, p. 376. 62 Cited in O’Donnell, p.8. 63 Ballara, p. 328. Nb Ballara locates the attack at Papaitonga. 64 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 19 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 26. 65 Matene Te Whiwhi, 3-4 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, pp. 137; 150. 66 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 13 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 179. In his 1891 testimony Kemp explained that Te Rauparaha was at Ohau to retrieve a canoe. 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 286. 18

Te Rauparaha’s children were adults at the time.67 Kemp also testified in 1890 that 100 Muaupoko took part in this fight: in 1891 he singled out Tanguru, Rangihiwinui, Taueki and Ngawhakawa who went from Horowhenua.68 Others identified in the Native Appellate Court of 1897 in connection with this fight adds to the impression of widespread support among Muaupoko for the action.69

Just as our received understanding of Muaupoko’s ‘kohuru’ may need adjusting to acknowledge the purposes this story served, so too we might reconsider the narrative of events the attack at Te Wii allegedly unleashed. According to most accounts Te Rauparaha’s campaign against Muaupoko was an unrelenting vengeance, exacted for more than a decade. Once again, this storyline is juxtaposed against the experience of Muaupoko as related by them in court.

Waikiekie to Waiorua, 1823‐1826 Te Rauparaha’s first retaliatory strike was made on the community at Horowhenua, his men dragging canoes up the Hokio stream to take the island defences of Waikiekie, Te Roha a Te Kawau and Waipata. Up against the musket, Muaupoko had little choice but to flee. Those unable to get off in canoes were killed, others shot as they fled.70 Tamihana Te Rauparaha estimated 170 killed: Muaupoko witnesses numbered their dead at 30.71 Ballara relates that by perhaps January 1823 Kapiti, too, had been secured by Te Peehi Kupe, providing Ngati Toa with an important refuge from which to launch their attacks against the mainland.72 In this period the campaign against Muaupoko was continued north to Hotuiti pa on the Manawatu River where, under the guise of peace-making, a large number of Rangitane and Muaupoko chiefs including Tokipoto ‘the keel of Kurahaupo’ were instead killed.73 Te Rauparaha then proceeded north again to attack Ngati Apa hapu at the mouth of the Rangitikei.74 Other Muaupoko rangatira captured during this period included Te Kotuku and Peeti Te Aweawe, neither of whom was killed, and both of whom subsequently escaped.

The bloodshed in this early period was by no means one-sided. In 1872 Kemp spoke of retaliatory attacks at Pukerua by Tanguru and Toheriri, killing 20; a Ngati Toa defeat at Waimapihi; a combined

67 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 285. 68 Ibid, see also 10 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 159. 69 According to Muaupoko witnesses in 1897, rangatira involved in the strike included Te Rangihiwinui, Tanguru, Ngarangiwhakaotia, Warakihi, Ngawhakawa, Tawhati a Henga, Tawhati a Tumata, Te Aweawe, Te Rangihouhia, Paetahi, Tamati Maunu and Te Uirangi (Te Rangimairehau’s father), see AJHR 1898 G-2A: Kerei Te Panau, pp.49-50; Wirihana Hunia, p. 71; Te Rewanui Apatari, p.47; Rawinia Ihaia, p.116. 70 Wirihana Hunia, 28 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, pp. 71-72. 71 Ballara, p. 329. See for example Wirihana Hunia, 28 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 71. In 1872 Matene Te Whiwhi put the numbers killed at Waikiekie at 40, 3 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 137. Kemp noted that Rangihiwinui’s wife Tawhana was captured at this fight. 72 Ballara, pp. 330-331. 73 Te Rewanui Apatari, 12 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 44. 74 Ibid. According to Apatari’s account, Te Rauparaha induced Rangitane chief Mahuri to fetch Tokipoto and others to visit and promptly had them killed. 19 attack on Ngati Toa at Waimea, near Waikanae, Te Peehi Kupe’s children among the 100 killed; and another fight at Paekakariki.75 At this court hearing Matene Te Whiwhi conceded 100 Ngati Toa casualties at Waimea and 70 at Waimapihi, but denied any others.76 All of these events happened before February 1824, the month that Te Peehi Kupe, distraught over the loss of his family, embarked on the Urania becalmed in the waters of Cook Strait and talked the captain into taking him to England on what proved to be a four-year mission to procure guns.77

Many Muaupoko were compelled by the conflict to seek refuge among distant kin. The largest such deliberate exodus was ‘Te Tira o Kotuku’, named after its principal leader, which departed for Arapaoa in Te Tau Ihu probably during 1824.78 Kotuku was the well-known son of Tairatu (Puaki Te Ao’s grandson) and Maewa (the daughter of Kopani, Pariri’s youngest child). He had been captured at Kukutauaki by Te Peehi Kupe, and kept as a slave until his escape shortly after Te Peehi’s departure for England. In 1891 Kemp estimated this migration of ‘koura mawhitiwhiti’ at 200, half of the total Muaupoko community.79 According to Rawinia Ihaia in 1897, most of Kopani’s descendents took part in this migration from the Kapiti coast, suggesting that the group was a relatively large one.80 This is further borne out by Muaupoko’s reference to this exodus as the ‘taitai nunui’.81 The decision of Taueki and others to remain, ‘to take shelter among the rata-trees on his own land’, was just as deliberate.82

From Arapaoa, Kotuku is credited with recruiting tangata whenua entities from both sides of Cook Strait in a concerted attack to oust Te Rauparaha from Kapiti. The allied force of between 1000 to 3000 men launched their offensive from Waikanae at night, counting on the element of surprise. In spite of overwhelming numbers however, the attacking force was defeated with severe loss, many of the casualties from drowning. As Ballara recounts, the battle of Waiorua as it came to be known was a resounding loss of mana and morale for tangata whenua on both sides of the strait.83 It also marked

75 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 19 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 26. 76 Ibid, Matene Te Whiwhi, 4 December 1872, p. 150. 77 Ballara, p. 333. Note, Ballara says Te Peehi’s daughters, rather than sons, were killed. Matene Te Whiwhi told the court in 1872 that it was his four sons who were killed at Waimea, Matene Te Whiwhi, 4 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 150. 78 In Te Tau Ihu Report, Kotuku is described as a Ngati Apa chief and referred to by his other name, Te Rato. The report recounts that Kotuku resided with kin Tutepourangi at Arapaoa, Te Tau Ihu Report, vol. 1, pp. 30-32. 79 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 3 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 314. Some Muaupoko attributed the phrase to Taueki’s farewell address, ‘Haere e te koura mawhitiwhiti’, see for example Hoani Puihi, 2 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.102. ‘Te tira o kotuku were the koura mawhitiwhiti’, Rawinia Ihaia, 8 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 110. 80 Rawinia Ihaia, 8 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 110. Te Kotuku’s people were known as Ngati Tairatu after their paternal ancestor. Those identified by Te Raraku Hunia and Wirihana Hunia in 1897 as having left for Arapaoa with Te Kotuku included: Tairatu; Ngawhakawa, Noa Te Whata and his wife Pirihira; Paki Te Hunga’s parents; Tauhinu and his son Mahuika; Rewiri Te Whiumairangi; Muruahi; Tupou; Rihari Tarakihi; Te Herewini Rakautihia; Hoani Puihi and his mother, Whakahinga; Hopa Te Piki and Nati Amorangi’s parents. 81 AJHR 1898 G-2A: Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 29 July 1897, p. 150; Kerehi Te Mitiwaha, 15 July 1897, p. 122; Raniera Te Whata too, an infant when his parents left for Arapaoa, maintained that Kotuku had proposed that the whole of Muaupoko should go, 23 July 1897, p. 138. 82 Te Raraku Hunia, 7 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 36. 83 Ballara, p. 337. 20 the turning point of fortunes on the coast, encouraging new northern migrants to settle the district, and to explore fresh territories across the water in Te Tau Ihu and beyond.

Ngati Toa’s recollections of their conquest of the Kapiti coast tend to track their ascendancy from this early period, but this was arguably a product of hindsight. Their arms advantage was limited by the relatively few weapons in their possession at this time, a point borne out by Te Peehi’s drastic expedition to call on King George. Kapiti was an important strategic location, but it lacked the food resources and gardens of the mainland, which, as experience showed, could only be had at some peril.84 The newcomers certainly brought war and distress to the coast, but their stronghold on Kapiti at this time scarcely amounted to a wholesale conquest of the mainland opposite.

Any boasting about numbers of Muaupoko slain in this period also needs to be weighed against similar stories of tangata whenua receding into their landscape, with which they were much more familiar than any pursuers.85 Both sides later made reference to feasting before new migrants groups were established: Matene Te Whiwhi in terms of Ngati Toa’s domination and Kemp in terms of peace-making. Matene Te Whiwhi spoke of the rivalry between Ngati Toa chiefs as to who could provide the best hakari, culminating in Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata adding 20 people taken at Ohau to the feast of Horeraumati.86 Kemp on the other hand described a period of reciprocal food exchanges, beginning with the prisoners of Ngati Toa bringing baskets of fish to Horowhenua, which Muaupoko responded to with eels: ‘there was peace at this time.’87 Ngati Toa then prepared a large feast at Waikanae, which Muaupoko went and collected. A return hakari of birds and eels was prepared by Muaupoko at Tapuaemiratu, Horowhenua, which in turn was collected by Ngati Toa and taken to Ohau to eat. In the early hours of the morning however Ngati Toa returned and attacked, with many Muaupoko ‘treacherously killed’ and others captured.88 ‘The fighting in large parties ceased then’, Kemp told the court in 1891, ‘generally speaking Muaupoko lost their people singly.’89

84 Ballara, p.362. 85 See for example Ballara, pp. 331-3. On the one hand Ballara relates that after the death of Te Peehi’s daughters ‘the attackers disappeared’ and there was no one from whom to exact utu, while on the other hand she writes of Ngati Toa chiefs vying with each other for the largest feast. This is no doubt based on Matene Te Whiwhi’s 1872 testimony to the same effect. Matene spoke of crossing to the mainland to ‘hunt’ Muaupoko, watching for giveaway smoke from their fires. By the same token, with the exception of Papaitonga, he claimed that Ngati Toa were unable to obtain satisfaction for their loss at Waimea because ‘there was no one at Porirua or any where about they had all gone across to the middle island.’ Matene Te Whiwhi, 3 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, pp. 138-139. 86 Matene Te Whiwhi, ibid. 87 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 19 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 27. Note that Ballara also speaks of a partial ‘breathing- space’ of peace on both sides of the strait at this time, although she maintains this did not extend to Muaupoko, Ballara, pp. 337-338. 88 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 287. In the initial 1872 title investigation Kemp stated Ngati Tama and Ngati Awa were involved in the attack; in 1891 he spoke only of Ngati Toa, stating that Ngati Awa arrived after this attack. 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 287. Kemp also briefly mentioned this incident in the 1890 partition hearing, see Otaki MB 13, p. 161. Kemp’s recorded statement that 400 were killed at this attack seems to be an error: he did not subsequently repeat it and Matene Te Whiwhi spoke of 20 killed. In 1891 Kemp named Te Haana as one of those killed. 89 Ibid. 21

1.3 Waiorua to Haowhenua, 1826‐1833

The darkest years for Muaupoko within Te Upoko o Te Ika were arguably those following Te Waiorua, when the balance of power became tipped very much in Te Rauparaha’s favour, and the arrival of new migrant groups promised to cement the new regime in place. From 1827 onwards Te Rauparaha had ready access to guns and ammunition from the Pakeha traders established at Kapiti, which became the port for the growing whaling industry.90 This one-sided monopoly of firepower ensured Te Rauparaha could meet the growing demand for products such as pigs, potatoes and dressed flax – all requiring a large slave workforce – and the more grisly market for preserved tattooed heads. The predominant discourse is one of Te Rauparaha’s allies (with the exception of Te Whatanui) joining the relentless campaign against Muaupoko, presumably in a bid to gain vacant possession of a new homeland. Certainly some newcomers did just that. However it is suggested that this simplified narrative sits oddly with Maori realities of mana, while nineteenth century testimony hints at something much more complex: an influx of autonomous tribal entities jostling with each other for location, and all of them seeking to legitimise their tenure through relationships with tangata whenua.

Nga heke Matene Te Whiwhi recounted in 1872 that after Waiorua, a band of Ngati Toa crossed over to Te Tau Ihu to make peace with Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Ira: ‘the news of this went all over and the people knew that Rauparaha had defeated all these Tribes.’91 Ngati Toa’s victory sparked a decade of migration to the coast from Taranaki and Upper Waikato, the waves of tangata heke washing up at Kapiti varying in size and tribal configurations, and carrying too an array of relationships with each other and reasons for coming. Establishing a foothold in the foreign landscape was a dynamic, complex process, with ever-shifting relationships between the tangata heke groups themselves and the tangata whenua they usurped.

Te Puoho of Ngati Tama, together with Ngati Whakatere, a Ngati Raukawa hapu, were among the first to arrive, returning the following summer for good, and wreaking fresh terror on the Muaupoko enclaves inland.92 On their way down the coast, these newcomers are said to have turned inland at the Manawatu River, capturing Te Rangihiwinui and Maru of Muaupoko, and killing them both before moving on to Oroua and Tokatea where Ngati Apa captives were taken to Kapiti, including Te Hakeke’s Muaupoko wife Kaewa, Kawana Hunia’s mother.93 In the course of a similar inland diversion at Ohau, one of their number was killed by Muaupoko, resulting in a retaliatory attack

90 Ballara refers to one estimate of 2000 muskets among the various iwi associated with the island by 1828, Ballara, p. 338. 91 Matene Te Whiwhi, 3 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 141. 92 According to Ballara this heke was known as Te Nihoputa, Ballara, p. 338. 93 Henare Te Herekau, 5 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 156. 22 against the Papaitonga community, in which Taheke and others were killed.94 At the 1872 Kukutauaki title investigation Henare Te Herekau painted a harrowing picture of the raids these new migrant groups took against Muaupoko communities now in hiding. At Horowhenua, he maintained, exploratory parties hunted down and killed anyone found in the bush: ‘when they could find no more people they went back to Kapiti.’95 One particular expedition was continued inland as far as the Manawatu, after which a pa was built on the mainland at Otaki, the aggressors waiting for a reprisal which never came. Ngati Tama are said to have occupied Otaki and Ohau for perhaps 18 months, subdividing the land between them, before they were ousted by Ngati Toa, and moved back to Kapiti.96 Ballara relates that after another row with Ngati Rarua there which led to fighting, Ngati Tama left Kapiti for Ohariu, and afterwards moved to Te Whanganui a Tara.97

Ngati Raukawa from Maungatautari arrived in a succession of migrations. Te Whatanui’s heke to the Kapiti coast is said to have been the largest, and thought to have taken place in 1829, after an unsuccessful attempt to settle in Hawkes Bay. Kemp made his point to the court in 1872 that Ngati Raukawa’s presence in Te Upoko o Te Ika was the last resort of a defeated tribe: ‘they thought it would be best for them to come here because they had been killed in Whanganui & Hawkes Bay & had no where else to go.’98 Ngati Raukawa were welcomed by their Ngati Toa relations, the promise of land said to have been held out by Te Rauparaha’s sister Waitohi to induce Ngati Raukawa chiefs on a reconnoitring trip to return in numbers to live.99 Before Te Whatanui’s arrival, Ngati Awa occupying at Otaki and Ohau were said to have been told by Ngati Toa to move ‘as they wanted all the land between Manawatu to be kept for Ngatiraukawa’, a demand Ngati Awa is said to have acceded to.100 Notwithstanding such testimony, Te Whatanui and his people lived at Kapiti for 18 months before moving to the mainland to take up residence at Otaki. Ngati Ruanui from northern Taranaki also arrived in this period and were said to have been assigned lands by Te Rauparaha at Waimea and Waikanae, Te Uruhi and Whareroa.

In 1832, after a long battle with at Pukerangiora pa, Waitara, Te Ati Awa hapu also made their way south to join their kin already at Waikanae. As Ballara relates, upon arrival these new Taranaki migrants clashed with Ngati Raukawa, relatives of their late Tainui enemies, helping themselves to

94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. Note that in the context of that hearing the underlying motive behind Henare Te Herekau’s evidence was to prove Ngati Raukawa conquest. 96 Matene Te Whiwhi, 4 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 145. 97 Ballara, p. 339. See also above. 98 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 19 November 1892, Otaki MB 01A, p. 31. The same point was repeated by Kawana Hunia at this hearing: ‘I think the boasting of this Tribe had better stop’. 23 November 1872, Otaki MB01A, p. 71. 99 Matene Te Whiwhi, Otaki MB 01A, p. 145. 100 Ibid, p. 146. 23 food and cutting boundaries to lay claim to lands already settled by the earlier migrants.101 The tension between tangata heke entities eventually led to the defining battle of Haowhenua in 1834.

In this period Ngati Toa themselves were occupied with war expeditions in the South Island. In the first major raid against Rangitane in the Marlborough Sounds and Wairau, 1500 were said to have been killed, and many prisoners taken back to Kapiti.102 In their second combined taua across the strait, dated by Ballara at 1831, Muaupoko who had earlier migrated to escape the escalating violence were killed at Te Taitapu, including Kotuku himself and his son Komakorau. Raniera Te Whata, a Muaupoko kaumatua by the court battles of the 1890s, was among those captured and taken back to Kapiti.103

The allocation of lands to migrants groups, and the subjugation of tangata whenua entities, was of course the predominant discourse among the tangata heke, which gained ground as time went on. Some areas of Te Upoko o Te Ika were devoid of their former communities, particularly in the south, where the impact of early amiowhenua had hit hardest.104 A large proportion of Muaupoko captured on both sides of the strait in this period were ‘enslaved’ by their captors: ‘Nearly all Muaupoko were hereheres before Christianity’, Rihipeti Nireaha told the Native Appellate Court in 1897.105 Just what this entailed however is difficult to determine from the little that Muaupoko witnesses spoke about the experience. Hoani Puihi for example, born at Otaki, was one of the ‘koura mawhitiwhiti’ captured at Arapaoa and taken to Wainui. Puihi lived ‘a long time’ among his captors, moving between Wairaka, Wainui and Kapiti. In 1890 he described Te Peka at Wairaka as his ‘master’, but insisted that he was no ‘mokai’.106 Raniera Te Whata, too, spoke of his time after his capture at Arapaoa at Te Uruhi: ‘Te Tote was my ariki there.’107 In a reverse migration, Te Rangimairehau recounted how he was taken with Ngati Tama and Ngati Awa when they decided to migrate to the South Island.108 In the Native Appellate Court hearing of 1897, with regards to Te Whatanui, Wirihana Hunia made a distinction between ‘tangata’ status, and that of ‘pononga’, or worse, ‘taurekareka’, but his evidence was largely directed at maligning Muaupoko’s claim of autonomy.109 It is reasonable to assume that in the context of the potato and flax trade Muaupoko were compelled to work for their masters, and if the Bay of

101 Ballara, p. 347. 102 Ballara, p.363. 103 Ballara, p.376; Raniera Te Whata, 23 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, pp. 137-138. 104 Hoani Meihana testified in 1890, for example, that Te Rauparaha had slain most of Ngati Moewaka, 25 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 240. Ngati Te Riunga at Papaitonga were also said by Kemp to have been all killed, bar Raniera, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 18 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 194. 105 Rihipeti Nireaha, 18 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 56. 106 Hoani Puihi, 25 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, pp. 240-241. 107 Raniera Te Whata, 10 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 206. Raniera spoke of being ‘fetched’ from Te Uruhi to Horowhenua by his grandfather Te Atua before Haowhenua. Significantly, the subsequent attempt of his ‘ariki’ Te Tote to retrieve him was not successful: ‘Te Atua would not let me go’. 108 Te Rangimairehau stated that Ngawhakawa was with him, 18 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 195. 109 Wirihana Hunia, 4 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 88. 24

Islands experience is anything to go by, this may have extended to the sex industry at the growing port, although the traffic never reached Northland volumes.

There is also evidence that tangata whenua chiefs moved around this changing world as free men, as Kawana Hunia put it in court in 1872: ‘I was not found by Ngatiraukawa in a state of subjection I was found walking about doing what I liked’.110 In 1872 Kemp maintained that Te Kekerengu was living at Porirua on friendly terms with Te Rauparaha when Te Whatanui and Te Heuheu first arrived there. Taiweherua (Kotuku’s younger brother) was also there.111

Finally, there were tangata whenua communities that were never captured or beaten in battle. As Karaitiana Tarawai testified in 1891, Muaupoko at Horowhenua were harassed ‘at times & they went to the forest, & came out again.’112 This grim period of concealed living within their seems to have been over by the time of Te Whatanui’s arrival around 1830, for his meeting with Taueki is said to have taken place on the island of Te Namuiti (see pp.25-26 below). These communities continued to live as autonomous entities on their traditional lands: Muaupoko under Taueki and others at Horowhenua; Rangitane under Mahuri and others in the Manawatu; and Ngati Apa further north. The Muaupoko community at Horowhenua was relatively small: those identified in the hearings of the 1890s as resident at this time included Taueki, Tanguru, Te Matangi, Te Atua, Te Rangihouhia, Amorangi, Tawhati a Tai, Tawhati a Henga, Tawhati a Tumata, Te Raorao, Uenuku, Tomo, Te Anewa, Tauwharauhaki, Kawa, Marangaiururangi, Mahanga, Te Maro, Wi Perahama, Matene Pakauwera, Pirihira Hautapu, Te Rau, Motai Taueki, Haerepo, Te Waitere Kakiwa, Pitawai, Te Aweawe, Wereta, Himiona Taiweherua, Pirihira Te Arahura, Tohu, Warakihi, Tori and Tarawahi.113 Some of these people, like Te Rangihouhia, had made their way to the sanctuary of Horowhenua from other places.114 Others like Taueki had never left. The report now turns to consider the evidence of an alternative discourse of continued tangata whenua mana to that of total tangata heke hegemony.

War and peace Te Whatanui came to the Kapiti coast inland via Turakina, and there were casualties in the Manawatu as the heke passed through. Although this was not the calculated hunting of earlier raids, according to tangata whenua witnesses it was enough to provoke Ngati Apa and Rangitane to form a taua, with support at Horowhenua, to pursue the heke to avenge the deaths.115

110 Kawana Hunia, 23 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 72. 111 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 19 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 31. 112 Karaitiana Tarawai, 10 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 215. 113 See for example Te Rangimairehau, 18 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 195; Hoani Puihi 1891, p. 287; Te Raraku Hunia, 7 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 36. 114 Te Rangihouhia was said to have sought refuge at Horowhenua after killing a Ngati Raukawa man, Hotoke, at Pukehou, which in itself was part of the tangata whenua case in 1872, see Kawana Hunia, 27 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 97; Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 12 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, pp. 172-173. 115 According to Kawana Hunia, Ngati Apa chiefs Waraki and Tamatawhiti were killed by Te Whatanui’s heke and Kiore captured, Kawana Hunia, 23 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p.71. 25

The peace-making at Karekare, near present-day Foxton, between Te Whatanui and tangata whenua entities was one of the central stories in the tangata whenua case of 1872, and its significance endured for Te Hakeke’s descendents till the 1897 hearing into relative interests at Horowhenua. It was related that while Te Hakeke was busy recruiting allies for his taua at Horowhenua, Te Whatanui had travelled back up the coast and come across the unprotected women and children at Te Paiaka and Hotuiti.116 Te Whatanui is said to have sent one of these women – Konihi, Taiweherua’s wife – to the taua at Horowhenua with a message of peace, and Taiweherua and Te Hakeke were credited in 1897 with arranging the resulting accord with the Ngati Raukawa chief. Once again what happened at Karekare became a matter of interpretation: Muaupoko called it both a peacemaking – a ‘solemn compact’ – and a defeat.117 Matene Te Whiwhi called it an act of kindness on the part of Te Whatanui.118 Most of the women were returned to their husbands, although Kaewa, Te Hakeke’s wife, was not. She was taken to Kapiti as the wife of Te Pua of Ngati Whakatere, a renowned carver, and was later said to have slipped away back to Te Hakeke when Te Pua was carving at Horowhenua. Pirihira Arahura of Muaupoko was also taken as wife by Pita Te Pukeroa of Ngati Raukawa and, after Haowhenua, by his brother Manihera Te Rau. Both men moved to live with her people at Horowhenua: Manihera Te Rau was a valued community member for the rest of his life there. Te Whatanui is said to have returned to Kapiti after the Karekare peacemaking, the arrangement sorely tested by Te Rangihaeata’s last ambush on the people of Papaitonga, in which Muaupoko brothers Takare and Paipai were killed.119

A second peacemaking of local significance to Horowhenua was that made between Te Whatanui and Taueki at Horowhenua. Kemp shared the tribal story about the exchange between the two men at the partition hearing of 1890:

Are you to be the rata tree that will shade me? All that you will see will be the stars that are shining in heaven above us; all that will descend on you will be the rain drops that fall from above.120

116 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 20 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, pp. 32-33; Kereopa Tukumaru, 17 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 53. 117 Kawana Hunia, 23 November 1872; Otaki MB 01A, p. 72; Te Raraku Hunia described Karekare as a defeat, 10 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 40. Kereopa Tukumaru of Ngati Raukawa claimed the women who were captured were ‘taken possession of’ before being returned to their men, 7 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 53. 118 Matene Te Whiwhi, 5 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 152. 119 Kemp described this in 1872 as ‘a murder and a very foul one’ on account of the participation in the ambuscade of a Ngati Raukawa man who had been living with Muaupoko since the peace at Karekare. He maintained that peace was later made between Te Rangihaeata and Taiweherua. Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 20 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, pp. 33-34. Hengahenga, Tawhati a Tumata’s mother, was also said to have been killed on this occasion, Te Raraku Hunia, 10 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 42. See also Kerei Te Panau, 13 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 49. 120 AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 26. Although the quote is taken from the minutes of the Horowhenua Commission, Kemp did share the story in court in 1890, see Otaki MB 13, p.163. At the partition rehearing the following year he was moved to explain that this exchange did not mean that Te Whatanui was to be Muaupoko’s protector, Otaki MB 21A, p. 316. 26

It is this exchange, more than the one at Karekare, which forms the basis for subsequent historical accounts of Te Whatanui’s ‘protection’ of Muaupoko, together with the tribe’s confinement within a demarcated rohe from Tauateruru to the sea. As this report sets out however, from the late 1860s Muaupoko publicly disputed Ngati Raukawa’s claim that Taueki and Te Whatanui had laid down a boundary at this time (see Mahoenui dispute discussion, pp. 64-65). Rather, from the initial title determination in 1872 onwards, early spokespeople like Kawana Hunia, Manihera Te Rau, Kemp, and later the elder generation of Muaupoko themselves, maintained that what Taueki had given Te Whatanui was the eel weir of Raumatangi and the stand of kahikatea called Mauri, both near the mouth of the Hokio stream. After this peace, the two men are said to have arranged the clearing and planting of a garden together at Te Whatutua.

It is important to see the agreement between Te Whatanui and Taueki in the context of the times, as illuminated by similar arrangements between tangata heke and tangata whenua entities. The first point is that such agreements were relatively common, beginning with Te Rauparaha’s early peace with Ngati Kahungunu after Waiorua. There was an element of protection in these arrangements: with regard to the same compact with Ngati Kahungunu for example, Te Rauparaha was said to have called the Tararua ranges the backbone of Rangihaeata, ‘to prevent any tribes interfering with Wairarapa people.’121 This did not mean Ngati Kahungunu was reduced to servitude, or obliged to concede territory as a result. Peacemaking inevitably involved a cession of some kind: of women or key resources, but in doing so the mana of both groups was arguably enhanced. Building relationships with tangata whenua was desirable, a means to both secure and legitimise the tenure of newcomers to the district, and to obtain access to key resources in a fast-filling landscape. Along lines very similar to Taueki, Rangitane chief Mahuri is said to have given Ngati Tama chiefs Te Whetu, Te Puoho and Purangi their own places to catch eels in the Manawatu.122 In the case of at least Te Puoho, this relationship was confirmed through marriage.

The same dynamic that made such relationships necessary, also made them fraught. In 1872 Matene Te Whiwhi spoke of a compact between Tuhaingane and Muaupoko predating that of Te Whatanui, in which the Ngati Awa chief had declared ‘you can occupy your land without molestation no one can override my mana.’123 On the strength of this reassurance Muaupoko are said to have come down from the hills to reoccupy Papaitonga and Horowhenua, at which point they were again attacked by Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata, Toheriri among those killed.124 Annoyed by this affront to his mana, Tuhaingane is said to have made war on Ngati Kahungunu in retaliation. A similar dynamic seems to have been at work with the last massacre of tangata whenua in 1833, when Mahuri, who had

121 Matene Te Whiwhi, 4 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 144. 122 Peeti Te Aweawe, 28 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, pp. 107-108. 123 Matene Te Whiwhi, 4 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 144. 124 Ibid. 27 formed a relationship with Te Puoho, ignored warnings not to proceed to his brother-in-law’s hakari at Waikanae. The invitation extended to tangata whenua appears to have been genuine, the banquet of corn and pumpkin prepared at Waikanae intended to reciprocate Rangitane’s feast of birds and eels Te Puoho and Ngati Tama had enjoyed, called Mahurangi. However this public display of largesse took place in the context of fresh Te Ati Awa immigration described above. Mahuri is said to have brushed aside the numerous warnings about attending the feast with the adage: ‘it is the boast of Puoho that he will not have his forehead smeared with blood,’ meaning that no one should harm him while he remained under Te Puoho’s protection, ‘this is why I am going. I want to see what his authority is to put his words to the test.’125 Although the details about who and why remain unclear, between 200 and 400 men women and children who partook in Te Puoho’s feast at Waikanae were then killed, including Mahuri, and among them Muaupoko chiefs Ngarangiwhakaotia and Taiweherua.126 The Horowhenua community later tended to minimise the impact of this tragedy, claiming that most of those killed were Rangitane. However there seems little doubt that the loss at the time was keenly felt, as Kemp said in1872, ‘our numbers were very much reduced.’127 The massacre at Waikanae was said to have been a factor in Muaupoko’s decision to fight for Ngati Raukawa at Haowhenua shortly after.128 Te Puoho is said to have been so shamed he left for the South Island, where he met his death.129

Haowhenua The tensions between migrant groups described above came to a head in 1834 in a drawn-out conflict known as Haowhenua between Te Ati Awa hapu (with their Ngati Toa allies) on the one hand, and Ngati Raukawa hapu (with their Ngati Toa and tangata whenua allies) on the other. As a result of the fighting, the line between these two entities was drawn at the Kukutauaki stream, Ngati Raukawa north, and Te Ati Awa south. The support of the ‘five tribes’ for Ngati Raukawa in this conflict was an important strand in their case in the Kukutauaki title investigation of 1872. The claim was made that Ngati Raukawa would have been defeated without the assistance of the five tangata whenua iwi (which included Whanganui) together with the people of Taupo, and that the conflict marked the end of Ngati Toa and Ngati Awa mana in the north. Kemp himself was taken to this fight as a boy by his father Tanguru.130 Raniera Te Whata, who also took part, named Tanguru, Taueki, Tumata and Tawhati a Tai as the contingent from Te Namuiti.131

125 Peeti Te Aweawe, 28 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 108. 126 Te Waitere Kakiwa too, was said to have gone but escaped alive. In 1890 Kemp claimed that between 20-30 Muaupoko were ‘saved’, and returned to Horowhenua, 11 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 164. 127 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 20 November 1872, Otaki MB01A, p. 35. 128 Ihakara Tukumaru, 2 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 128. 129 Peeti Te Aweawe, 28 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 108. 130 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 288. Kemp said he was aged seven or nine at the time. 131 Raniera Te Whata, 10 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 206. 28

Kawana Hunia and others argued in court that as a result of Haowhenua, tangata heke groups dispersed: Ngati Ruanui back to Taranaki; Ngati Awa to the South Island and to the Chatham Islands; and those under Wharepouri and Te Puni to Wellington. Ngati Raukawa hapu, he claimed, came north, making their homes among Muaupoko at Horowhenua, Rangitane in the Manawatu, and Ngati Apa at Oroua and Rangitikei. ‘After the battle of Haowhenua’, claimed Hamuera Te Raikokiritia of Ngati Apa, ‘Ngatiraukawa occupied land between Horowhenua & Rangitikei they did not come to take land they came because they were hungry after the fight at Haowhenua they came where they could grow food…’132 Significantly, both Te Raikokiritia and Peeti Te Aweawe placed Taueki’s gift of Raumatangi to Te Whatanui in the context of similar gestures made in the aftermath of Haowhenua:

After the fighting at Haowhenua the Ngatiraukawa came to the Manawatu on their arrival here Tukumaru was pointed out to Ngatiwhakatere by Nikaera Poutawa. Meti Timutimu pointed out Kopiro an eel weir to Ngapari of which Te Puni Rangiriri was the Chief[.] Keheroa & Matea asked Awe Awe for Waitamatao a Karaka grove both on the South of the Manawatu[.] Rangiheurea a Chief a Ngatiraukawa asked Awe Awe for a place to put a house on he gave him Manawapo also on the South side part of Oroua was given to Te Wata. Porotawhao was given by Tawhati a Muaupoko chief to Ngatihuia[.] Raumatangi was given by Tauwheki to Whatanui[.] Poutu at Rangitikei was given by Hakeke to Taratoa those were the only tribes or hapus of Ngatiraukawa to whom we the owners of the land gave land on account of their having kept to the terms of the peace making …133

Hamuera Te Raikokiritia expressed the tangata whenua argument, shared by Muaupoko, that Ngati Raukawa’s claims within the district had expanded from these site-specific gifts over time: ‘those pieces which our people gave were very small and now these people have grown ambitious and claim the whole of the land as their Own.’134

1.4 Haowhenua to Crown colony, 1835‐1845

The decade following Haowhenua was one of change and resettlement, for tangata heke communities shaken up by the conflict as much as for tangata whenua. In the general reshuffling on the coast, Muaupoko seems to have strengthened diplomatic relations with Ngati Raukawa. They were among the tangata whenua entities who attended Waitohi’s tangi at Mana Island, for example, choosing however to abstain from joining Ngati Raukawa in the renewal of hostilities with Ngati Awa that

132 Hamuera Te Raikokiritia, 27 November 1872, Otaki MB01A, p. 100. 133 Peeti Te Aweawe, 28 November 1872, ibid; see also ibid, p. 101. 134 Ibid, Te Raikokiritia, p. 101. 29 followed shortly after, the conflict referred to as Te Kuititanga.135 It is in this period that Te Whatanui with a large contingent of followers took up residence at Horowhenua, and Ngati Huia moved in at Poroutawhao.

In this period of re-establishment, both tangata whenua and tangata heke entities were also confronted with major associated innovations heralded by Christianity, colonisation and company land purchases. The Treaty of Waitangi scarcely featured in the nineteenth century court testimony, other than being used to locate specific individuals at Horowhenua. Kemp testified in 1890 and 1891 that Williams did not bring the Treaty to Horowhenua.136 Raniera Te Whata, a young man at the time, recalled in 1891 seeing Williams with the Treaty at the Hokio river mouth.137 Taueki was one of six people to add his mark to Henry Williams’ facsimile on 26 May 1840.138

Te Whatanui at Horowhenua It was after Haowhenua that Te Whatanui moved to live at Horowhenua. Henare Te Herekau was part of the Ngati Raukawa community there from 1835 to 1843. In 1872 Te Herekau testified that the move was preceded by gardening on the southern lakeshores, and that he lived with 50 others at Panuiomarama from 1835, the other Ngati Raukawa pa being at Raumatangi.139 According to Te Herekau, Te Whatanui left for Taupo soon after the move to Horowhenua, returning in 1836 with a following of 100, who settled between Titirangi and Tatearero on the south-eastern shores of the lake. The following year houses were built at Kohuturoa. Te Herekau maintained that in 1838 a large body of Ngati Raukawa helped Te Whatanui build a pa on the island of Waikiekie, at the Hokio outlet.140

The large Ngati Raukawa presence at Horowhenua however does not seem to have endured past 1843. Te Whatanui himself seems to have moved between his two homes at Horowhenua and Otaki before his death in 1845.141 As set out below, church records compiled in 1845 indicate that Ngati Raukawa’s presence at Horowhenua by then amounted to Te Whatanui’s immediate household, which was

135 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 20 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, pp. 37-38. According to Kawana Hunia his father was at Kapiti to trade pigs for guns and was reluctant to engage in more war, Kawana Hunia, 25 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 77. 136 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 18 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 193; 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 289. Kemp maintained that his father Tanguru was at Horowhenua at this time. 137 ‘I remember [the] Treaty of Waitangi I saw Mr. Williams I saw him at mouth of Hokio going to Otaki’. Raniera Te Whata, 10 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 207. 138 ‘Sheet 4. Henry Williams treaty’, Archives NZ, Wellington. In addition to ‘Tauheke’, the other signatories on this occasion were ‘Te Ota’, ‘Paturoa’, ‘Te Tohe’, ‘Te Wete’, ‘Pakau’ (Matene Pakauwera?) and ‘Witiopai’ (Tawhati a Tai?). In the absence of any other information the identity of these signatories as Muaupoko men known to have been at Horowhenua at this time, apart from Taueki, remains speculative. 139 Henare Te Herekau, 3 April 1873, Otaki MB 2, pp. 35-37. 140 Ibid, p. 36. 141 Te Whatanui was listed in church records for example at both communities, Church of the Province of NZ, Wellington Diocese: Central and Parish records/Church register of male and female population, MSZ–0080-0085 Alexander Turnbull Library. Kemp claimed that Te Whatanui only resided at Kohuturoa for two years before returning to Otaki, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 27 March 1873, Otaki MB1A, p. 255 30 regarded by the clergy as part of the Muaupoko community there. Matene Te Whiwhi too, a vocal proponent of Te Whatanui’s mana at Horowhenua, could name few other Ngati Raukawa individuals who had actually lived there.142 From the early 1840s on then, other than Te Whatanui’s household, the nearest Ngati Raukawa neighbours of any size were Ngati Huia to the north, who Tawhati of Muaupoko was credited with locating at Porotawhao in 1841,143 and the Ngati Raukawa community at ‘Muhunoa Horowhenua’ to the south (discussed below).

Muaupoko at Horowhenua, 1835‐1845 For Muaupoko on the other hand, the decade following Haowhenua was a time of regrouping at Horowhenua. By the time of the battle, the tribe was once again living on their island pa, on Te Namuiti and Waipata.144 In the 1890 partition hearing Hoani Puihi suggested that the island communities reflected hapu differences: Ngati Pariri living on Waipata and Te Pukeiti at the southern end of the lake under the leadership of Te Rangihouhia, Tamati Maunu, Wi Perahama and Marangaiururangi; with Ngai Te Ao and Ngati Hine at Te Karapu and Te Namuiti towards the north under chiefs Taueki, Te Atua, Tawhati a Tumata, Tawhati a Henga and Tanguru.145

Christianity was spoken of, particularly in the 1870s title investigations, as a new epoch of peace which reached the community before Octavious Hadfield’s arrival in November 1839.146 For Muaupoko, the phenomenon was manifested both in the move from their island pa to take up residence on the lakeshores – primarily at Te Rae o Te Karaka and Toi – and the return of tribal members taken in war. Te Rangimairehau claimed that the island pa were deserted by 1839, and that Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ao were living at Toi ‘several years before the Treaty of Waitangi’.147 Himiona Te Hopa was the first Muaupoko catechist associated with the Church of England minister, with a church at Toi erected by Muaupoko by 1842. A second church built by Tanguru and his son Kemp at this time was connected with the Wesleyan efforts of Reverend Mason.148

142 Under cross-examination by Cash, Matene Te Whiwhi identified Te Whatanui’s wife Tauteka, his sons Te Haua and Tutaki, his niece Hineporangi and another person, Te Awheawhe, Matene Te Whiwhi, 3 April 1873, Otaki MB 2, p. 33. 143 Tawhati’s ‘gift’ of Poroutawhao to Ngati Huia in 1841 was mentioned by Kemp, Peeti te Aweawe and Heta Te Whatamahoe in the title investigation and not refuted by Ngati Raukawa at this time, see Peeti Te Aweawe, 28 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 109; Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 27 March 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p. 256; Heta Te Whatamahoe, 26 March 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p. 263. 144 Kemp attributed the restoration at Te Namuiti to his father, Tanguru, and Taueki and Tawhati, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 11 March 1890, Otaki MB13, p. 164. Manihera Te Rau claimed the four island pa of Waikiekie, Te Roha a Te Kawau, Karapu and Te Namuiti were occupied when he began living with Muaupoko just after Haowhenua, 19 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 208. 145 Hoani Puihi, 24 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 234. 146 Kemp told the court in 1891 that it was introduced by Paora Matuahu, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 289. 147 Te Rangimairehau identified the residents as Tamati Maunu, Taueki, Te Atua, Kawa, Te Uenuku, Tawhati a Henga, Tawhati a Tumata, Ihaka Pakiha, Te Anewa, Tomo, Te Kapua, Wi Perahama, Marangaiururangi, Tanguru ‘and many others’, 18 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 198. 148 Manihera Te Rau, 19 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 210; Kemp told the court in 1891 that Hadfield had been angry about the presence of two churches, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, pp. 289-290. One tangible sign of Muaupoko ‘conversion’ was the adoption of biblical names. Mokinokino became Raniera Te Whata; Whatukituki became 31

From the early 1830s onwards, Muaupoko appear to have directed their efforts to ‘fetching’ individual members back to Horowhenua. Raniera Te Whata seems to have been one the earliest, the 10 year boy ‘fetched’ from Te Uruhi by his grandfather Te Atua at the time of the Putikiwharanui battle.149 His brother Heta Te Whata, born in exile at Arapaoa, told the 1873 court that he and his father, Noa Te Whata, were ‘fetched’ after the Karekare peacemaking.150 Most of this ‘fetching’ however, seems to have occurred after the advent of Christianity. Hoani Puihi stated he was ‘fetched’ by his older brother Te Amorangi, again at an age when he was still too young to walk all the way.151 Te Rangimairehau was brought back with a number of others from Waikanae after Te Kuititanga; Paki Te Hunga returned to Horowhenua in the early 1840s; Hopa Te Piki in 1845.152 Te Rangirurupuni, living at Waikanae at the time of Te Kuititanga, was also at Horowhenua by 1845.153 In 1897 Rihipeti Nireaha singled out Warakihi, Tanguru, Tamati Maunu and Ngarangiwhakaotia as primarily instrumental in bringing Muaupoko together at Horowhenua, but acknowledged they were not alone: ‘All Muaupoko assisted in bringing about a better state of things.’154 For her part, Te Raraku Hunia credited her grandfather Taueki with this role: ‘He welcomed all those who returned during his lifetime, and never questioned their rights to the land.’155

The most reliable evidence of the extent of resettlement at Horowhenua by 1845 is the Church of England Register compiled that year. This lists Muaupoko at Horowhenua with a total population of 98: 53 males and 45 females. In this census, Te Whatanui together with his wife and two sons were recorded as part of the Muaupoko community. The following table sets out the Muaupoko individuals registered, the comments in brackets part of record.

Table 1: ‘Iwi. Muaupoko; Place. Horowhenua’, 1845156

Males Females Te Watanui (died 4 Aug 1845. Insane. Te Kohewa Old age) Te Haua (son of Watanui) Wakatangi Tanguru Tiri Tauheki Puru Te Atua Hupoki Te Tahuri (eldest son of Watanui) Waiwiri

Wi Perahama. Muaupoko parents also chose Christian first names for their offspring, such as Ihaka Te Rangihouhia and Ihaia Taueki. 149 Raniera Te Whata, 10 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 206; AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 136. 150 Heta Te Whatamahoe, 26 March 1873, Otaki MB1A, p. 263. 151 Hoani Puihi, Otaki MB 21A, p. 288. 152 Te Rangimairehau, Otaki MB 13, p. 195; Paki Te Hunga, Otaki MB13, p. 220; Hopa Te Piki, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 97. 153 Te Rangimairehau, 7 April 1891, Otaki MB21A, p. 346. 154 Rihipeti Nireaha, 18 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 56. Note that Ngarangiwhakaotia was killed at Mahurangi, circa 1833. 155 Te Raraku Hunia, 10 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 42. 156 Church register of male and female population, MSZ–0080-0085, Supporting Papers for this report [DB:1-6].

32

Males Females Tawati Wakahaunga Te Kapua Nukenuke Kapeto Hinerangi Pioka Wairangi Mahanga Te Haumaringiringi Uenuku Kokopu (died 30 March 1845, Broke Blood vessel on the Lungs) Rakuraku Konihi Te Raorao Turuki Tauarohaki Ruhiha Tinotahi Tata Tarawahi Te Maarika Maunu Ngapori Kohai Raroraro Paki Kokoa Te Rangirurupuni Ngarewai Tohu Te Hekeitewai Te Niho Wakapono Kawa Minaora Te Anewa Kohana Pakeha Wakatunga Pakawera Pakura Warakihi Pirere Te Mata Taiata Mokinokino Karukaru Te Kekeke Katau Te Puihi Kakariki Waharoa Te Ha Rere Tame Niore Tarewa Pitawai Taraiti Koti (died December 1845) Te Umupaukena Putangahau Tomo Kirikau Whanau (bap. Haratiera) Kahukore Taiweherua Te Maro Maru Harepo Hanuhanu Tura Te Hopu (baptised Himiona, Native Raorao (born August 1845) Teacher of Horowhenua) Kaiinanga Tauteka (Te Watanui) Marangaiururangi Ngarangikapikia (baptised Riwai, lapsed) Tiraha Tohutahanga Porekereke Mingoi Piritaka Waeriko

The church register also provides a valuable insight into the dynamics in the district as a whole: the total recorded population of 2,341 broken down into 14 communities from Waikanae to Te Maire, Manawatu. The biggest population centres by far were Ngati Raukawa at Otaki (population 546, including Te Whatanui, who appears to have been counted twice) and Ngati Awa at Waikanae (population 469). As a tribal entity, Muaupoko comprised only 4 per cent of the total population, but 33 they were by no means the smallest community in the district, outnumbering their closest Ngati Raukawa neighbours at this time: the Wairarawa community to the north (population 78), and the Muhunoa community to the south (population 74). The settlement patterns and population indicated in the church register, it is suggested, provides important context with which to weigh up subsequent competing claims about relative mana at Horowhenua.

Te Whatanui and Muaupoko Most nineteenth century witnesses stressed the good relations that existed between Muaupoko and Te Whatanui in this period. Manihera Te Rau stated that from the time of his arrival to the Treaty of Waitangi, the chiefs of Muaupoko – Tanguru, Taueki, Te Atua, Tawhati a Tai, Te Matangi and Tamati Maunu – lived peaceably on the land.157 Both Te Whatanui and Muaupoko shared an enthusiasm for Christianity: Muaupoko’s church-building has been mentioned above, while Te Whatanui is said to have had a house built for Hadfield and the ‘Native teachers’ at Horowhenua by 1841.158 Witnesses also spoke of the hakari called Te Arero Whatero prepared by Muaupoko at Horowhenua for Ngati Raukawa in the early 1840s.159

Once again however, there were differences in interpretation about just what this good will was based on. At one end of the spectrum, those like Matene Te Whiwhi claimed that ‘Whatanui lived there constantly and the Muaupoko bore the same relation to him as the eels in the weirs.’160 Henare Te Herekau testified that in his time at Horowhenua, visitors and war parties often called on Te Whatanui there, and that Muaupoko were directed to feed these manuhiri: ‘My eyes have seen the Muaupoko gathering the eels in the streams for Whatanui’ he testified in 1873, adding that they received only the head and bones from any such catch, ‘I have constantly seen this in the period I have lived there.’161 Ihakara Tukumaru, too, claimed that Muaupoko cultivated food for Ngati Raukawa under Te Whatanui’s directive, ‘I am unable to count how many times’.162 There is also testimony which indicates that despite the good will, the respective communities kept to themselves. Wiki Tauteka who was raised at Horowhenua later claimed she only saw Muaupoko when they came to work for Te Whatanui, after which they returned to their own places.163 Hare Reweti of Ngati Raukawa too, claimed in 1890 that while good relations existed between Te Whatanui and Muaupoko, the two did not live together, and their cultivations were separate.164 The almost complete absence of intermarriage between the two entities is striking. From the initial title investigation of 1873 onwards,

157 Manihera Te Rau, 19 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 211. 158 Henare Te Herekau, 3 April 1873, Otaki MB 2, p. 36. 159 Hare Reweti, 27 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, pp. 252-253. Both Kemp and Manihera claimed to have been present, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 7 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 347; Manihera Te Rau, 8 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 374. 160 Matene Te Whiwhi, 31 November 1873, Otaki MB01A, p. 26. 161 Henare Te Herekau, 3 April 1873, Otaki MB 2, p. 37. 162 Ihakara Tukumaru, 3 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p.134. 163 Wiki Tauteka, 4 April 1873, Otaki MB 2, p. 47. 164 Hare Reweti, 1890, 27 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 251. 34 the point was repeatedly made that Te Whatanui assumed possession and control of the pa tuna in the Hokio Stream, Muaupoko men Hanita Kowhai and Noa Te Whata having to purchase rights to two such eel weirs from Te Whatanui Tahuri in the late 1840s.165

For their part, Muaupoko did not deny what they referred to in 1869 as the ‘wairua’ of Te Whatanui at Horowhenua, but they saw this as the personal right of the chief’s immediate family.166 As set out in Chapter 3, after the death of the last of Te Whatanui’s sons, resident at Horowhenua, in the late 1860s, Muaupoko resisted the claims of Te Whatanui’s whanaunga, and Ngati Raukawa in general, to Horowhenua (see pp. 64-67). Hopa Te Piki’s explanation in 1897 perhaps best sums up the state of things from Muaupoko’s perspective:

Taueki gave Te Raumatangi and Te Mauru [sic] to Whatanui; he took possession of a much larger area, down as far as Rakauhamama, without the consent of Taueki. Kawana Hunia and all Muaupoko treated Whatanui as a trespasser outside of Raumatangi. It was not Kawana Hunia alone who did so. All Muaupoko did, and were justified in doing so, when they were strong enough. While they were weak they had to submit. They acquired strength themselves.167

One of the crucial aspects of this relationship which continued to be argued throughout the nineteenth century and beyond was that of boundaries. The common claim of tangata heke groups, expressed for example by Matene Te Whiwhi in 1873, was that Muaupoko had been confined by Te Whatanui north of the lake, from a line drawn from Tauateruru. Indeed, Ngati Raukawa’s claim to Horowhenua in that title investigation, and indeed earlier at the intertribal runanga deliberations in 1870, was based on boundaries running from Tawhitikuri on the coast to Tauateruru at the lake edge, crossing the lake to Waitui and running inland as far as Weraroa, turning north to Pouahuia, then westward towards the coast again to Ngatokorua, meeting the shoreline at Ngamana. According to Ngati Raukawa claimants like Hohua Te Ruinui, this was the pocket in which Muaupoko were allowed to live: the southern boundary of Tauateruru having been set by Te Whatanui ‘a long time ago’, the northern Ngamana/Ngatokorua boundary by his son Whatanui Te Tahuri ‘lately’, in 1858.168 In 1873 Manihera Te Rau, part of the resident Muaupoko community and witness for the tangata whenua case for

165 Watene Te Waewae, 4 April 1873, Otaki MB 2, p. 45; Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 3 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 301; Te Rangimairehau, 7 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 347; Paki Te Hunga, 15 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 266. In 1897 Rawinia Ihaia stated that while it was true pa tuna near Hokio were not worked by Muaupoko in this period, those further downstream were, 8 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 112. 166 In 1869 correspondence to Native Minister Richmond, the Muaupoko community acknowledged the ‘wairua’ of Riria Te Whatanui, wife of the late Te Whatanui Tutaki (see pp. 64-67). The following year they proposed to Pomare that the ‘wairua’ of Te Whatanui and Muaupoko be united within the rohe from Mahoenui to Ngatokorua (see pp. 70-71). 167 Hopa Te Piki, 29 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 96. 168 Hohua Te Ruinui of Ngati Huia, 11 March 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p. 185; 4 April 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p. 43. Henare Te Herekau related that Te Whatanui’s initial pou at Tauateruru was erected in 1844, Henare Te Herekau, 3 April 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p. 40. 35

Horowhenua, conceded Te Whatanui’s post at Tauateruru, but denied any ‘line’ as such.169 By the late nineteenth century, just what had been given to Te Whatanui by Taueki at their historic peace accord was a bone of contention among Muaupoko themselves. In the lengthy litigation over Horowhenua 11 elderly tribal members like Makere Te Rou, Kerehi Te Mitiwaha, Raniera Te Whata and Rawinia Ihaia clung to their view that Taueki had given up only the eel weir of Raumatangi and the kahikatea stand of Te Mauri, and that outside of these areas, Te Whatanui was to be regarded as a trespasser. Others of a younger generation like Te Raraku Hunia, claimed they had been told of Taueki’s gift of land south of the Hokio Stream, the boundaries of the rohe left to Muaupoko extending in a corridor from the coast to the Tararua ranges (6.3.11).170 Muaupoko claimants such as William Taueki today view the ‘pouwhenua’ of Tauateruru and Ngatokorua as an integral part of the pre-Treaty peacemaking between Taueki and Te Whatanui.171 As Chapter 2 explores, boundary ‘lines’ as such were arguably the creations of leasing arrangements from the 1850s, any ‘confinement’ of Muaupoko within such borders arguably a post-Treaty development, and contested by the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua from the outset. This however still begs the question of just what the pouwhenua at Tauateruru represented.

169 Manihera Te Rau, 31 March 1873, Otaki MB2, p. 22 170 Others, for the reasons set out in Chapter 5, maintained that Muaupoko enjoyed no autonomy whatsoever, living as taurekareka completely subject to Te Whatanui. 171 Expressed at claimant hui, 2 July 2015, Kawiu Marae. This view is not inconsistent with the statement of Kipa Te Whatanui to the Horowhenua Commission in 1896 that Te Whatanui and Taueki ‘both laid down a boundary – Tauateruru – and the Muaupoko and Whatanui resided peaceably on the land’, Kipa Te Whatanui, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 225. 36

Figure 2: Muaupoko rohe at Horowhenua by the 1860s172

Te Whatanui’s sale of Horowhenua Edward Wakefield was one of a number of Pakeha impressed by Te Whatanui, describing him as ‘one of the native chiefs who best appreciated the value of the White man’s presence and brotherhood.’173 The chief’s agreement to sell the New Zealand Company 25,000 acres at Horowhenua may have contributed to Wakefield’s warm regard. Anderson and Pickens relate that negotiations took place between Ngati Raukawa and company officials at Otaki in December 1841, at the instigation of Te Whatanui. On that occasion, Ngati Raukawa rejected the payment offered as inadequate, and Wakefield promised that more goods should be sent from Wellington. Two months later some 300 Ngati Raukawa gathered again to receive the payment for the land. Goods were apparently set aside for absentees, but subsequently ransacked.174 Hearn relates that the purchase was vehemently opposed

172 Map by Noel Harris, based on ML 4903 (see Figure 5). 173 E J Wakefield, Adventure in New Zealand, (London, John Murray, 1845), vol. 2, pp. 240-241. 174 Dr Robyn Anderson and Keith Pickens, ‘Rangahaua Whanui District 12; Wellington District: Port Nicholson, Hutt Valley, Porirua, Rangitikei, and Manawatu’, (Waitangi Tribunal, Rangahaua Whanui Series, 1996). Little new has been discovered about this transaction other than what has already been set out in Anderson and Pickens, which in turn is based on Spain’s report, ‘Reports by Commissioner of Land Claims on Titles to Land in New Zealand: No 6 – Manawatu’, British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), vol. 5, pp. 101-106. 37 by Ngati Toa chiefs Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata.175 An 1842 survey map prepared by company surveyor Charles Kettle shows the extent of the purchase, or, perhaps more accurately, the extent of the company’s ambitions, lying between the Hokio Stream and the Manawatu River.

Figure 3: The 1842 NZ Company ‘purchase’ at Horowhenua176

Commissioner Spain investigated the company’s claim in March 1843, taking evidence at Horowhenua and Manawatu on his way to and from Whanganui. Te Whatanui, Te Ahukaramu and Taratoa were all said to have admitted the sale; others repudiating any consent to the deal or receipt of any payment. Despite thinking Wakefield’s post-Treaty purchase had ‘altogether exceeded’ Hobson’s concession that the government would sanction any equitable and unforced arrangement to induce Maori to give up their land, Spain did consider that the Manawatu claim might be settled with further compensation. In January 1844 Spain, Protector Clarke and Wakefield proceeded up the coast with

175 Hearn, p. 76. 176 Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland Libraries, NZ Map 5510, available online at http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz. 38

£3000 to complete the purchase. Ngati Raukawa however refused to accept it, a change of heart the commissioner attributed to the influence of Te Rauparaha.177 Given the lack of authority for the post- 1840 transaction under which Spain could issue a grant, the company’s claim to Manawatu failed, except for a 100-acre block called ‘Te Taniwa’ at Horowhenua which Te Whatanui and his son transferred by deed to the company on 25 April 1844. Spain explained that the area encompassed the house of a Mr Yule (or Youill), a company settler, who wished to take his 100-acre selection there and had paid Te Whatanui £10 to do so.178 Although Spain maintained this block lay within the boundaries claimed by the Company, the reference to Otaiwa in the boundaries of the deed suggest the 100 acres was in fact south of the Hokio Stream. In the event Yule did not stay at Horowhenua, and nor does his title ever seem to have been confirmed by a Crown grant.179 With regard to the larger Manawatu purchase, Spain concluded that a partial sale had taken place, and recommended that the company be given a right of pre-emption to the lands between the Rangitikei River and Hokio Stream.180

As Hearn relates, tangata whenua entities including Muaupoko were not party to either the transaction or Spain’s subsequent investigation.181 Te Whatanui’s land sale was later used by Ngati Raukawa in the title investigation as an argument against tangata whenua mana. ‘I never heard’, Ihakara Tukumaru stated as he opened their case for Kukutauaki in November 1872, ‘whether Rangitane Muaupoko or Ngati Apa were in favour of selling or not or had any thing to do with it either one way or the other.’182 Nor did Muaupoko receive from Ngati Raukawa, added Tamehana Te Rauparaha as the Horowhenua case came to a close in March 1873, ‘so much as a pipe a pin or a bit tobacco or a ring’ from the payment for the land.183 In their defence, both Kemp and Hunia maintained that tangata whenua entities on the coast had not been notified of the transaction – ‘an improper sale and a secret one’ – finding out about it only once payment had been made. Nor, maintained Kemp, were they told of Spain’s investigation:

some of the Tribes did not know Mr Spain was investigating questions respecting their lands no notice was given it was not notified to those that an investigation of a certain piece of land would be heard. Europeans saw names to the deeds & thought those

177 Anderson and Pickens, p. 30. 178 Dr Bryan Gilling, ‘Ihaia Taueki and Muaupoko Lands’, (Ihaia Taueki Trust, 1994), Wai 237 #A4, p. 15. Witnesses in 1872 remembered the deal as that of a Hughes, see for example Tamehana Te Rauparaha, 3 April 1873, Otaki MB2, p. 30. 179 In 1890 and 1891 Donald Fraser recalled Youill’s offer of sale of this 100- acre section to his father, D Fraser, 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 272; 1891 Otaki MB 21A, p. 20. 180 ‘Reports by Commissioner of Land Claims on Titles to Land in New Zealand: No 6 – Manawatu’, BPP vol. 5, p. 104 cited in Anderson and Pickens, p. 39. 181 Hearn, pp. 76-78. 182 Ihakara Tukumaru, 13 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 12. Tukumaru used the same argument in Travers’ 1871 inquiry, (see p. 82). 183 Tamehana Te Rauparaha, 31 March 1873, Otaki MB 2, p. 27. 39

were the persons interested now matters are more clear people can attend themselves.184

According to Kemp, on finding out Te Whatanui had received goods for the land, Tanguru and Te Rangihouhia approached the chief for a share, and received gunpowder, 4 shovels, 2 pots, 2 cloaks and 2 double-barrelled guns.185 He also maintained that Muaupoko drove away the surveyors at Horowhenua, first taking their billhooks, and that Rangitane did the same at the Manawatu, his testimony corroborated by Hunia. Although Ihakara Tukumaru denied knowledge of any obstruction to the survey, Kemp’s testimony provides a possible explanation for the large area of native reserve laid off at Horowhenua in the company’s settlement scheme shown above (the sections coloured yellow).

The title investigation minutes raise other issues about the transaction. In his 1843 investigation of the purchase for example, Spain reported that the locals referred to the land being sold as ‘Raumatangi’.186 This might indicate confusion in Maori minds about just what was being discussed by the commissioner: the vast area south of Manawatu, or the much smaller location at the Hokio river outlet which Taueki had gifted to Te Whatanui. As Kemp explained: ‘We did not know in those days the boundaries of the land sold and what part was given in consideration of Wakefields goods.’187

Ihakara Tukumaru claimed that the sale was not completed because of Ngati Raukawa’s opposition. Another aspect of this deal which receives only slight mention in official records, is the subsequent pressure from Crown officials to induce Maori in the district to give up land in satisfaction of the payment that they had received from Wakefield. Ihakara Tukumaru claimed that at Governor Grey’s insistence, conveyed by Donald McLean, land was given up north of the Manawatu, where settlers Robinson, Burn, Kebble and Cook were occupying, ‘and I got my land back.’188 Kawana Hunia too, spoke of negotiations Spain, Meurant and Wakefield had with Hunia Te Hakeke, in which his father was told to ‘try and arrange some place in consideration for the goods given.’189 According to Hunia, after pointing out Rangitane and Muaupoko’s absence from the meeting, his father advised Commissioner Spain ‘for the future, do nothing of this kind secretly on the other side of the Manawatu.’190 As set out in Chapter 2, Hearn relates that in 1850 McLean returned to the district to negotiate over small blocks of land on behalf of Company settlers, which may have been the

184 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 20 November 1872, Otaki MB01A, p. 40; Kawana Hunia, 22 November 1872, Otaki MB01A, p. 56. 185 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui,ibid, p. 40. 186 Anderson and Pickens, p. 30. 187 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 20 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 41. 188 Ihakara Tukumaru, 13 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 12. 189 Kawana Hunia, 22 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 58. 190 Ibid. 40 substance of Hunia’s recollections.191 While the Company ‘purchase’ as envisaged did not go ahead, it continued to have significant ramifications in the district. Settler aspirations with regard to New Zealand Company land orders at Manawatu continued to be pursued into the 1860s, used, for example, as the rationale behind the district’s exemption from the Native Lands Act 1862, precluding title investigation by the new Native Land Court.192 A final point is that Wakefield’s early purchase could hold the explanation for Te Whatanui’s pouwhenua at Tauateruru which, as set out above, Ngati Raukawa witnesses testified was erected in 1844. Hearn relates that a number of other pou were erected throughout the district at this time by Ngati Apa, Te Upokoiri, Rangitane and Ngati Parewahawaha – and another by Te Whatanui as far afield as Turakina – as symbols of mana in reaction to the sale.193

1.5 Reflections on war and resettlement

This report was to consider the impact on Muaupoko of war and migration in the decades before Te Tiriti, together with 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 received version of their experience is a simplified tale of conquest and takeover, summed up in Native Office files by the 1870s for example as: ‘the Ngatiraukawa have possessed the land since their migration to the West Coast from Waikato subject to certain portions allotted by te Whatanui to the Muaupoko who were the original inhabitants’.194 In this narrative, the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua is invariably described as ‘a weak remnant of the original owners’, the tribe’s confinement within prescribed boundaries also acting to limit any corresponding entitlement to a voice in local affairs. The most striking feature of this depiction of Muaupoko is the way in which it became entrenched with the passage of time. As set out in Chapter 6, by 1897 Crown counsel was portraying Muaupoko as hapless and dependent, a tribe ‘who had for decades been refugees, wanderers, and living on sufferance under the protection of others.’195 The patent untruth of this statement raises the obvious question of who stood to benefit by maintaining this fiction?

A large aspect of Terry Hearn’s district overview is concerned with the competing historical and political narratives at work in the Porirua ki Manawatu inquiry district, and the ways in which these were deployed by the Crown over time in order to explain, support and further increasing intervention

191 Hearn, pp. 140-141. 192 See Hearn’s discussion, pp. 228-230. Further research into the impact of this lobby has not been completed for this report. 193 Ibid, p. 77. 194 File note attached to ‘Brief Sketch of the Horowhenua case’, 17 October 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB: 364]. 195 PE Baldwin, AJHR 1898 G-2, p. 114. 41 in the region.196 He concludes that historians, like iwi, remain deeply divided about this period of history: whether the conflict with tangata heke amounted to the subjugation and dispossession of tangata whenua, or whether the initial period of violence was superseded by shared rights based on mutual accords.197 Notwithstanding some degree of historical revision of pre-annexation history in the wider region in terms of ‘peace-making, independence and co-existence’, Hearn points out that with respect to Muaupoko, historians have largely followed the argument made by the Horowhenua Commission in 1896, that Muaupoko lived at Horowhenua under the protection of Te Whatanui, in a state of dependence that amounted to an extinguishment of their customary rights.198 While no longer promulgated by the Crown with the same vigour in the twentieth century, the legacy of this predominant nineteenth century narrative lives on: today Muaupoko’s pre-annexation history is still routinely summed up – based on existing historiography – as that of a defeated tribe ‘reinstated on a strip of land by the Ngati Raukawa rangatira Te Whatanui…’.199

Challenging this version is not to deny or downplay the widespread death and dislocation Muaupoko suffered at the hands of the newcomers from 1820, the substance of talk of both remnants and defeat. However, this chapter suggests there is evidence to support Muaupoko’s view of themselves as a tribe of mana, recovering at Horowhenua after grave dislocation and loss, but nonetheless a distinct, recognised, socio-political entity within a tribal landscape in which tangata heke were themselves in a degree of turmoil and resettlement. By the time of Te Tiriti, relative peace had been restored to Te Upoko o Te Ika, the Horowhenua community intact from 1833. The relationship with Te Whatanui was an integral part of this new-found security, but there is scant evidence of Muaupoko ‘boundaries’ as such, other than the pouwhenua of Tauateruru. There is also considerable merit in the argument that Maori custom, as much as novel Christian ethics, made such relationships between tangata heke enclaves and tangata whenua entities mutually desirable. The hegemony of Ngati Raukawa that came to be accepted as a given was arguably a product of hindsight.

The Crown has not loomed large in this chapter, entering only at the point of Spain’s 1843 investigation of Wakefield’s Manawatu purchase. This purchase, conducted by Ngati Raukawa without the inclusion of tangata whenua entities on the coast, was a taste of things to come. The following chapter considers Muaupoko’s experimentation with the new world, exploring the impact of

196 Hearn, p. 67. Hearn has set out the ways in which competing iwi narratives have been treated in historical literature over time. He places Travers, Buick, McDonald (O’Donnell) and more recently Patricia Burns and Bernadette Arapere in the broad camp of historians who emphasise ‘conquest, domination and subjugation’ as the key to understanding pre-annexation history in Te Upoko o Te Ika, as opposed to Wilson, Allwright, Ballara, Armstrong, Gilling and O’Malley who place greater weight on ‘peace-making, independence and co-existence’, Hearn, pp. 53-60. 197 Hearn, p. 66. 198 Hearn, pp. 64-66. 199 Paul Hamer, p. 12. Hamer’s statement was in turn based on Anderson and Pickens, pp. 145-146. The point here is not to criticise Hamer (preannexation history, as he explains, being outside the scope of his project), or Anderson and Pickens, but to point out just how prevalent this narrative remains. Even Ballara, who has perhaps done the most to challenge our understandings of the ‘musket wars’, concluded that Te Whatanui’s ‘protection’ of Muaupoko amounted to a dominating relationship and their ‘enforced concentration’ at Horowhenua, Ballara, pp. 343-344, cited in Hearn, p. 65. 42 innovations such as land purchase and lease. If their status as a ‘remnant’ and ‘defeated’ tribe solidified in the 1850s and 1860s with the advent of leasing and land sales, the question arises as to what role the Crown played in perpetuating or indeed creating this myth.

43

Chapter 2

‘Loose empire’, 1845– 1866

In the decades following Te Tiriti, Maori communities within Te Upoko o Te Ika were left to explore aspects of civil society introduced by colonisation largely on their own terms, the reach of government scarcely felt beyond the enclaves of the Pakeha settlements at Wellington and Whanganui at each end of the district. Principal among the innovations facing hapu was that of Te Ture, a peaceable social order protected by the rule of law. In the absence of any attempt to codify laws pertaining to Maori however, or to include Maori in the framing of national laws, for much of this period Te Ture was carried out on their own initiative at the village level, by missionary-inspired runanga in which rangatira publicly arbitrated local disputes. Governor Grey’s ‘new institutions’ of 1858 largely drew on this model, the Kohimarama Conference held in 1860 the first attempt to institute any kind of national Maori assembly of chiefs.

Another missionary-inspired innovation was farming, the capital investment in livestock, fencing and pasture encouraging fixed communities rather than shifting, seasonal resource harvest, and a novel rethinking of land use. Crown interest in land purchase, and that of Pakeha in their own farming enterprises through lease, both commodified land and heralded new ways of defining interests in terms of boundary lines. The new economic resource also provided fertile ground for disputes by the late 1850s in the complex and contested tribal landscape wrought by pre-Treaty war and resettlement.

Land alienation was in fact the principal discourse of engagement between Crown representatives and hapu in this period, beginning with McLean’s purchase attempts from 1848, and culminating with the Rangitikei-Manawatu deed of 1866. Acutely aware from the outset of tribal dynamics at work attached to offers of sale, initial reluctance to proceed with the purchase of contested land gave way under pressure from Wellington Provincial Government by 1860 to exploit deepening tribal differences to obtain land through purchase. Within this contested tribal landscape, alliance with the Crown became the means to assert and legitimate tribal interests, secured not only by a proclivity to sell, but also by the willingness to fight for the Crown in its colonial wars.

This era of Crown purchasing has been dealt with fully in Hearn’s overview and need not be repeated here except to the extent that Muaupoko were affected. In fact, little new has emerged about Muaupoko’s engagement with the Crown in this period regarding land sales, experiments with Te Ture, or even the extent of their participation in the Native Contingent from 1865. There has not been 44 the time to delve into sources outlined in the scoping report which may or may not alter the impression that the tribe remained on the periphery of events in this period, engaging with the issues besetting the district, but from the sidelines of their lake community at Horowhenua. Kemp reminds us that in this era of profound change and challenge, Horowhenua was something of a backwater:

No one cared to live there after Europeans came about, they went to Wanganui & Wellington & Rangitikei. Do you mean that Horowhenua was deserted. No the people of Horowhenua remained there, but people did not go there from Rangitikei and Wanganui & other places.200

Walter Buller’s 1864 headcount for the purposes of commenting on local support for the Kingitanga, numbering the population of Horowhenua at just 40, raises the possibility, if it can be relied on, that this exodus towards the bright lights of the frontier towns may also have extended to Muaupoko.201 Just two years later however, in the context of the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase negotiations, the Muaupoko population at Horowhenua was revised upwards to 75.202 These relatively low population numbers could also be attributed to the high mortality from influenza in the mid-1860s, which was remembered by the McDonald family as a striking feature of their early years at Horowhenua.203

2.1 Muaupoko at Horowhenua

The Muaupoko community at Horowhenua was part of Native Secretary HT Kemp’s circuit by 1850. In his ‘census’ that year he numbered the community at 122, a growth of almost 25 per cent from the Church Missionary census five years before. As the Native Secretary understood matters:

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.204

As set out in the preceding chapter, Muaupoko appear to have shared in many of the innovations of this period associated with Christianity, being part of Samuel Williams’ Sunday circuit in the early 1850s.205 In 1850 the community at Horowhenua was described as predominantly Anglican, with both a church and a school, producing pigs and flax for sale, and having 30 acres under cultivation in both

200 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 3 April 1891, Otaki MB 21a, p. 304. 201 Resident Magistrate Buller to Colonial Secretary, 12 May 1864, 3425.01.08 BPP Colonies: NZ. University of Waikato Library. http://digital.liby.waikato.ac.nz/bppnz. 202 IE Featheston to JC Richmond, 14 November 1866, MA 13/115/73a, Waitangi Tribunal MA 13 Research Aid, Wai 2200, #A159(c), p. 142 [WT DB, MA 13/73a: 142]. 203 O’Donnell, p. 87-97. 204 HT Kemp to Colonial Secretary, 10 March 1850, BPP, vol. VII, p. 326. 205 Horowhenua was part of Williams’ vast ‘Ahuriri District’: annual reports over 1850-1853 record that Horowhenua received nine visits in 1851 and four visits in 1853, qms-2247, Alexander Turnbull Library. 45 introduced crops such as wheat, maize and potatoes, as well as kumara.206 Just under 40 per cent of the population had some degree of literacy. While certainly more modest than those of their neighbours, having as yet no cattle or sheep, these statistics nonetheless off-set the impression given by Rod McDonald, who grew up at Horowhenua in the 1870s, 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.207 Te Rangimairehau, like Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, was one of the rising Muaupoko generation who tried his hand briefly at policing in the mid-1840s before taking up wage- labour in Port Cooper building roads.208 Paki Te Hunga attended school at Otaki with other Muaupoko in the early 1850s.209

In this period the community lived together at the village of Te Rae o Te Karaka, moving out to tend cultivations, both gardened individually and worked in common. In time, two households are said to have established themselves away from the main village: Hanita Kowhai’s family at Otaewa, and Tamati Maunu’s household at Kohuturoa, with Te Whatanui Tutaki.210 The principal men at Horowhenua during this period were remembered as Taueki, Te Rangirurupuni, Tamati Maunu, Ihaka Te Rangihouhia, Rewiri, Hanita Kowhai, Te Raorao, Wereta, Mahanga, Marangaiururangi, and Tawhati.211

None of these men appear to have attended the government’s Kohimarama Conference in July 1860, although they may have been informed about the issues by their whanaunga who did, namely Ngatuere and Karaitiana Te Korou. Hearn relates that Muaupoko were part of a local meeting held earlier in March to discuss Waitara, where the combined iwi of Te Upoko o Te Ika resolved that Governor Browne should return to England.212 Statistics collected by Resident Magistrate Buller indicate that the community at Horowhenua was swept up in the sentiments sweeping through the district as a whole, with half their number described as ‘Kingites’ in 1862, the support falling to just five individuals two years later.213 Buller was instructed to present Grey’s ‘new institutions’ to the district in the winter of 1862, at the height of Kingitanga support. At Horowhenua the scheme was

206 Table no.3 – District of Otaki, Manawatu, and Rangitikei, in Kemp to Colonial Secretary, 10 March 1850, BPP VII, p. 243. 207 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. 208 Te Rangimairehau, 7 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 353. 209 Paki Te Hunga, 15 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 267. 210 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 27 March 1873, Otaki MB 01A, p. 255; Manihera Te Rau, 8 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 367; Hopa Te Piki, 29 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 95. 211 Rawiti Hutukawa, 26 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p.246; Hare Reweti, 27 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 251. 212 ‘Original correspondence’, Wellington Independent’, 19 October 1860, p. 3 cited in Hearn, p. 174. 213 Resident Magistrate Buller to Colonial Secretary, 12 May 1864, 3425.01.08. BPP Colonies: NZ. University of Waikato Library. http://digital.liby.waikato.ac.nz/bppnz 46 said to have been responded to with ‘soft’, or moderate, speeches from Muaupoko.214 It appears that this government system was implemented in the district by 1864, Noa Te Whata appointed assessor at Horowhenua on a salary of £30, with Te Wirihana Tawhati and Ihaka Te Rangihouhia as karere.215 Noa Te Whata appears to have been in correspondence with Governor Grey and other officials at this time.216

Figure 4: Te Rae o Te Karaka, Lake Horowhenua, 1864.217

HT Kemp’s 1850 description of Muaupoko cited earlier has been oft-quoted. Te Whatanui senior died in 1845 and was succeeded by his sons, first Te Whatanui Tahuri, and then Te Whatanui Tutaki, who is said to have lived at Kohuturoa with Tamati Maunu until his death his 1869.218 Native Land Court minutes record intriguing references to at least two challenges within Ngati Raukawa to Te Whatanui’s stake at Horowhenua. In 1873 Matene Te Whiwhi alluded to the attempt of Te

214 Tamehana Te Rauparaha to Editor, Wellington Independent, 13 June 1862, p. 3. Note that the visit to Muaupoko was not mentioned in Buller’s official report of this circuit, ‘Wellington West Coast District. Report from Walter Buller’, 25 June 1862, AJHR 1862 E-9. 215 ‘Return of All Officers employed in Native Districts’, AJHR 1864 E-7, p. 25. 216 In addition to his correspondence regarding the Crown’s Muhunoa purchase to Featherstone in June 1864 (discussed below), three of Noa Te Whata’s letters to Governor Grey in August and September 1862 and March 1865 are held at the Alexander Turnbull Library, in Ms-papers-0151-01-22, Ms-papers-0151-01-39 and Ms-papers-0151-0-13. Not consulted. 217 Charles D Barraud, ‘Lake Horowhenua, 1864’, Collection of Christchurch Art Gallery Te Puna o Waiwhetu, presented by Mrs M Trail, 1969, available online at http://christchurchartgallery.org.nz. Although Barraud did not say as much, given the palisades and the size, it is assumed that the settlement he depicted at Horowhenua was indeed Te Rae o Te Karaka. 218 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 27 March 1873, Otaki MB 01A, p. 255; Manihera Te Rau, 8 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 367; Hopa Te Piki, 29 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 95. See also Matene Te Whiwhi, 31 March; 3 April 1873, Otaki MB2, pp. 25; 31. Hector McDonald (Jnr) testified in 1896 that by the time of his death Te Whatanui Tutaki had no family living with him, suggesting that he died of neglect, Hector McDonald, 16 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp.115-116. 47

Ahukaramu (also known as Te Hukiki, based at Muhunoa) to claim Raumatangi, which was ‘not allowed’ by the committee of chiefs which included himself, Aperahama Te Huruhuru and Nepia Taratoa; and of another dispute in Governor Grey’s first administration, again adjudicated on by a number of chiefs including Kawana Hunia: ‘The end of the talk was that the land was for Whatanui the second.’219 In 1890 Nepia Taratoa’s daughter, Erenora Taratoa, stated that Te Hukiki’s claim was adjudicated at Te Rae o Te Karaka, again by an intertribal runanga of chiefs including her father, Aperahama Te Huruhuru, Kuruhou and Kawana Hunia, with the outcome that Te Hukiki was sent back to Muhunoa.220 Such stories give an insight into indigenous applications of Te Ture, and add to the general impression of relatively harmonious intertribal relations in the early decades following annexation.221 McDonald’s reminiscences suggest that the practice of muru prevailed to resolve issues like infidelity and domestic violence in the public forum of the runanga, under the leadership and mediation of leaders like Taueki.222 McDonald also commented on the absence of any security issues for the few Pakeha in the district, including his own family.

Muaupoko’s narrative, as reflected in Native Land Court minutes, was that after a long period of peaceable co-existence, Te Whatanui Tutaki and their Ngati Raukawa neighbours north and south began to encroach on the Muaupoko community. As Makere Te Rou stated in 1897, ‘Whatanui was encroaching beyond the gifts made to him – one eel-pa and a piece of bush.’223 Raniera Te Whata, possibly the eldest living community member at the 1897 hearing, similarly stated: ‘I will not admit that Whatanui had the mana over the whole of this land; it is not true. He attempted to take more than was given to him. Taueki and the first Whatanui adhered to their agreement. The second Whatanui departed from the agreement to some extent, and the third violated it altogether.’224 The ‘troubles’ with regard to boundaries were associated with novel land use, beginning in the mid-1850s following Te Whatanui Tutaki’s decision to place Hector McDonald at Horowhenua, and to lease him land on which to farm.225

2.2 Hector McDonald’s lease

Although private leasing was illegal under the Native Land Purchase Ordinance 1846, Hearn argues that the Crown largely turned a blind eye to this in the Wellington Province.226 Leasing was a

219 Matene Te Whiwhi, 31 March 1873, Otaki MB 2, pp.25-26. 220 Erenora Taratoa, 26 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, pp. 249-250. Erenora Taratoa claimed that Te Hukiki had destroyed Te Whatanui’s eel weirs. Hare Reweti declaimed knowledge of this, but confirmed the general outcome of the dispute, Hare Reweti, 27 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 252. 221 The same conclusion was reached by Diana Morrow, ‘Iwi interests in the Manawatu, c.1820-c.1910’, (Office of Treaty Settlements, 2002), Wai 2200, #A6, pp. 34-36; 54-55. 222 O’Donnell, pp. 64-66. 223 Makere Te Rou, 22 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 134. 224 Raniera Te Whata, 23 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 138. 225 See for example Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 27 March 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p. 252. 226 Hearn, pp. 236-241. 48 widespread practice within the wider Rangitikei district, McDonald’s lease at Horowhenua one of 17 similar admitted arrangements over 178,000 acres by the 1850s.227 Hector McDonald had lived on the coast since 1832, part of a shore-whaling venture at Kapiti until turning his hand to Maori trade at Otaki from 1840.228 His first wife was a niece of Te Rauparaha, with whom he had a son. In 1854 he married Agnes, a recent immigrant from Scotland. Three years later, on Te Whatanui’s invitation, they moved with their young family to Hokio to live. Te Whatanui’s first lease to ‘Kita’ McDonald in 1857 involved land south of the Hokio Stream as far as Rakauhamama.229 Muaupoko testimony from 1873 onwards spoke of their objection to the arrangement, particularly Te Whatanui’s refusal to share the lease monies with them. In protest, a number of cattle were killed.230 In 1891 Kemp claimed responsibility for this, saying that Muaupoko had acted on his instructions. He also claimed Donald McLean had written to him about the matter.231 In the event, the dispute was resolved by McDonald’s offer to lease an area north of the Hokio stream from Muaupoko and Ngati Huia, Muaupoko’s share paid out to Ihaia Taueki, Te Rangirurupuni and others.232 It was not long, however, before fresh controversy arose over the northern boundary between the two entities, Muaupoko taking umbrage at Ngati Huia’s suggestion that the boundary should run eastward from Ngamana, well beyond the initial 1841 gift of Poroutawhao.233 Like the earlier claims to Raumatangi, this dispute in 1858 was said to have been adjudicated by ‘outside’ chiefs: Peeti Te Aweawe, Ngatuere and others, who were credited with fixing the boundary line from Ngatokorua to Ngamana, the decision formally recorded in writing.234 The carved pou Ngati Huia tried to place there however was pulled down by Muaupoko at once. A second attempt by Peeti Te Aweawe and Rangitane to settle the dispute a decade later was no more successful, a second post erected after a confrontation between Muaupoko and Ngati Huia also torn down and burned (see pp. 62-63).

Farming posed new conundrums about resource rights which had never previously been expressed, and also new ways of demarcating such interests in terms of boundary lines. In 1890 Kemp spoke of these boundaries arising for the first time in the context of leasing, and the consequent disputes between the communities about where such boundaries should begin: Mahoenui, Ngatokorua, and

227 Ibid, Table 4.1, p. 241. 228 Anthony Dreaver, ‘McDonald, Agnes and McDonald, Hector’ from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 13-Nov-2013, online at http://www.TeAra.govt.nz. 229 Raniera Te Whata, 16 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 101; see also Watene Te Waewae, 4 April 1873, Otaki MB 2, p. 46; Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 11 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 165. 230 The cattle killing was referred to from 1873 to 1897, see Manihera Te Rau, 31 March 1873, Otaki MB 2, pp. 20-21; Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 11 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 165; 3 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, pp. 305-306; Makere Te Rou, 20 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 130. Himiona Te Hopu, Heta Te Whata, Kawana Hunia and Kemp were all said to have played a part in this protest. 231 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 3 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, pp. 305-306. 232 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 11 March 1890, Otaki 13, p. 165. 233 Heta Te Whata, 28 March 1873, Otaki MB 1A, pp.263-264. 234 Hohua Te Ruinui, 4 April 1873, Otaki MB 2, p. 43; Peeti Te Aweawe, 29 November 1872, Otaki MB 1A, p. 115. In 1897 Kerei Te Panau spoke of Te Aweawe’s role in establishing the boundary between Muaupoko and Ngati Huia at Ngatokorua, 13 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, pp. 48-50. He recalled that Topeora ‘gave back’ the land to Te Aweawe (not Muaupoko), the boundary fixed from Ngatokorua to Te Arapaepae and on to the sea. He could not say when this occurred. 49

Ngamana.235 The fresh lease Muaupoko and Te Whatanui signed in October 1867 with McDonald for the northern area was described implicitly in such lines based on a set of points running from Te Uamairangi on the coast to the (unspecified) Ngati Huia rohe, inland to Ngatokorua, then south to the lake, and bounded on the south by the Hokio stream.236 The boundary disputes heralded by leasing continued to fester between Muaupoko and their Ngati Raukawa neighbours, breaking out in renewed threats and counter-threats in the late 1860s following the death of Te Whatanui, discussed in Chapter 3. To a large extent the issues presented by leasing at Horowhenua were a rerun of those confronting hapu in the district as a whole, being one of the factors leading up to the Crown purchase of the Rangitikei-Manawatu.

2.3 Crown purchase

In the 18 years between 1848 and 1866, more than 800,000 acres were purchased by the Crown at both ends of the inquiry district, the Crown’s purchase activities arguably the principal focus of political engagement with hapu in this period. The purchase of land at Porirua from Ngati Toa chiefs in April 1847 was followed by Donald McLean’s negotiations for Whanganui in 1848 (outside the inquiry district but of relevance nonetheless) and those leading to the purchase of Rangitikei-Turakina from Ngati Apa in 1849. Significantly, there followed a nine-year hiatus, McLean alive to the tribal contest at work within the district and reluctant to purchase in the circumstances. Under pressure from the Wellington Provincial Government, purchase operations were resumed in 1858 by GS Cooper and William Searancke for the Native Land Purchase Department. Searancke seemed less concerned with reconciling underlying interests as a prerequisite to purchase – advancing sums to individual chiefs for example – 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’, but similar efforts to obtain the wider Manawatu fell through.

The district lying between the Rangitikei and Ohau Rivers was exempted from the law reform of 1862 bringing Crown pre-emption to an end. Rather, Crown purchase was increasingly touted to resolve escalating tribal conflict over lease and sale rights, what Hearn calls the ‘Featherston narrative’.237 The importance the provincial government attached to acquiring land in the district is indicated by the appointment of its 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

235 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 11 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 166. 236 Deed of Lease dated 5 October 1867, Exhibit W, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 314. 237 Hearn relates that throughout Featherston’s negotiations for Rangitikei-Manawatu, the Wellington Superintendent posited himself as peace-maker and reluctant purchaser. Hearn, pp. 260; 306-309. 50 of non-sellers, complaints about reserves, and the distribution of the purchase payment. Purchasing the complex interests in the Rangitikei-Manawatu took 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.

This period of Crown purchase has been covered fully by Terry Hearn in his district overview, and it is not repeated here other than to consider the impact of the Crown’s purchase activities on Muaupoko, and the extent to which their customary interests were known to, and considered by, the Crown. It is contended for example that that the Crown was aware of Muaupoko interests in a number of blocks – within and without the inquiry district – which were purchased by the Crown, in particular Te Taitapu (Golden Bay, South Island), 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.238 Hearn has made the point that through this engagement, the Crown developed its own interpretation of pre-annexation history and iwi relationships, not merely to facilitate its interactions with contending iwi but ultimately to explain and justify its land purchase program.239

It is clear from Hearn’s research that McLean was aware of tangata whenua/tangata heke dynamics within the district from the outset, and that his facilitation of Ngati Apa’s sale of the Rangitikei- Turakina block in 1849, by first securing Ngati Raukawa’s ‘waiver’ of any rights north of the river, was viewed by all parties as Crown support for the tangata whenua cause. As McLean himself told the tribe at Turakina in March 1849, ‘… great pain was taken by the Govt to support what they considered the legitimate claims of the Ngatiapa tribe who were now placed in possession of their rights through its interference…’240 Hearn relates that in addition to Ngati Apa’s apparent predilection to sell land, the Crown’s interest in such an alliance was also based on issues of national security, McLean noting that having the people of Whanganui and Rangitikei ‘bound up with us will be as

238 Sandra Williams, speaking notes, Appendix 2 in Memorandum of Counsel for the Muaupoko Tribal Authority, Nga Korero Tuku Iho Presentation Material, 4 April 2014, Wai 2200 #A26. 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, Wai 52, #1.1(e), 21; 27. 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. 239 Hearn, pp. 68-69. 240 McLean, diary, ATL MS-1220, cited in Hearn, p. 99. Kawana Hunia later rationalised his strategy of sale as a reaction to Ngati Raukawa’s leasing arrangements: ‘I proposed to sell in order to put a stop to Leasing’, Kawana Hunia, 25 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, pp. 81-82. 51 good security for the tranquillity of the district as a body of soldiers.’241 Kawana Hunia and McLean were in regular correspondence from the late 1840s,242 and in a ‘Register of Chiefs’ thought to have been compiled by the Native Department in the mid-1860s, Kawana Hunia is noted as having ‘rendered Mr McLean valuable assistance fifteen years ago’, which may have been a reference to his role in the Rangitikei-Turakina sale.243 In court in the 1870s Ngati Apa were still referred to by Ngati Raukawa witnesses as ‘McLean’s Tribe’.244

This early relationship between McLean and Kawana Hunia is significant for a number of reasons. It indicates that the Crown was aware of tangata whenua perspectives from early on. Again, Hearn has set out evidence of McLean’s understanding of Ngati Apa’s position (based on what Kawana Hunia had told him) as tangata whenua who had maintained their independence on their lands despite war and immigration.245 In a restatement of affairs in 1849 to William Fox, Muaupoko were mentioned by McLean, along with Rangitane and Ngati Apa, as the ‘original proprietors’ claiming as far as Waikanae and Kapiti, the ‘greater number’ of whom were ‘destroyed’ by Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata, ‘taking possession of their country as far as Manawatu…’246 McLean however does not seem to have accorded Muaupoko the same degree of independence as Ngati Apa. At a meeting at Otaki preceding the Rangitikei-Turakina purchase in 1849 he noted in his diary: ‘Muaupoko not empowered to sell their land. No desire to do so. Rangitane in same position.’247 Yet the relationship between McLean and Kawana Hunia and others like Kemp did provide tangata whenua entities including Muaupoko with a conduit to assert such claims. Perhaps the best evidence of this is Hunia’s 1852 letter from Horowhenua to McLean, listing 269 individual Muaupoko organised into 18 hapu for the purpose of receiving payment for tribal interests at Te Taitapu, Golden Bay.248 This does not appear to be a census of the community at Horowhenua (compared for example to HT Kemp’s 1850 headcount at Horowhenua of 122), as much as a register of living Muaupoko district-wide. Indeed, its significance is arguably the implication it presents that the majority of Muaupoko were not in fact resident at Horowhenua. The outcome of this application is not known.

Despite instructions to continue purchasing in the district, McLean’s negotiations over 1849-1850 to purchase land at Manawatu went nowhere in the face of strong Ngati Raukawa opposition.

241 McLean to Colonial Secretary, 17 August 1850, BPP 1851 (1420), p. 45, cited in Hearn, p. 83. 242 See for example Donald McLean Papers, MS-papers-0032, Series 2 Inward letters (Maori). 243 Register of Chiefs, MA 23 15/25, Archives NZ, Wgtn. 244 See for example Ihakara Tukumaru, 13 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 13. 245 Hearn, pp. 92-93. Hearn suggests McLean admired Kawana Hunia’s courage. 246 McLean to Fox, 12 April 1849, qms-1211, cited in Hearn, pp. 100-101. 247 McLean, diary, MS-1224, cited in Hearn, p. 90. 248 Proposal from Muaupoko to McLean, 24 May 1852, MS-Papers-0032-0676C-10, Object #1030393, available online at http://mp.natlib.govt.nz, Alexander Turnbull Library. Headed up ‘Te tokomaha o nga tangata o Muaupoko, nga tangata kua whakaae hei tango i nga utu o te Taitapu’, the 18 hapu were Ngati Hine, Ngati a Kahu, Ngati Waiorehua, Ngati Puri, Ngati Tairatu, Ngati Pariri, Atirangi (Ngati Rangi?), Ngati Whano, Ngati Kuratuauru, Ngati Pa, Hamua, Ngati Kaitangata, Ngati Manuhiri, Ngati Tumatakokiri, Ngati Korongaawhenua, Nga Potiki, Ngati Puta and Ngati Tamure. Ten individuals were listed as Ngati Pariri, including Taiata and Te Paki. 52

Negotiations over the purchase of Whareroa were similarly discontinued in light of the impasse between Ngati Toa and Ngati Awa over their respective right to sell. Hearn relates that in January 1852 McLean returned to the district to negotiate over small blocks of land on behalf of New Zealand Company land holders, to which Muaupoko were party.249 He also sets out evidence of intertribal attempts to resolve conflict over interests, primarily a hui in July 1852 involving Ngati Apa, Ngati Upokoiri, Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Toa, Rangitane and Muaupoko, to discuss ‘the sale of land at Manawatu’.250 According to McLean, at issue was a proposal to concede to Ngati Raukawa possession of lands south of the Manawatu River, the interior portion north of the river given over to Rangitane, Ngati Te Upokoiri and Ngati Apa. Muaupoko at Horowhenua were not mentioned in McLean’s report of the intertribal arrangement.251

Throughout the 1850s McLean had stressed the need for ‘considerable caution’ in pursuing further Crown purchase, and had in fact turned his attention instead to Wairarapa and Hawkes Bay. Crown purchasing was resumed in 1858 by William Searancke, appointed commissioner in the Native Land Purchase Department for the Wellington Province, and James Grindell, interpreter for the Department, with £45,000 allocated towards this end. Searancke’s purchase activities have been set out by Hearn. His spirited defence in 1863 against Superintendent Featherston’s allegations of incompetence amidst growing settler frustration about the delay in progress indicates that he, too, was well aware of competing tangata whenua claims which had only intensified with time, contributed to perhaps by Searancke’s own practice of advancing sums to individual chiefs.252 Searancke was principally responsible for the purchase of Whareroa (1858); Te Awahou (1858-1859); Wainui (1859); and beginning Muhunoa (1860). Muaupoko were invited by Ihakara Tukumaru to share in the public distribution of payment for Te Awahou in May 1859. Their interests were also acknowledged in the Whareroa purchase the same year, although few details are known.253 Muaupoko’s experience of Crown purchasing in the district seems to have echoed that of Wakefield’s 1842 purchase in Manawatu: the tribe often finding out about transactions as fait accompli, with little recourse other than to demand a share of the proceeds after the fact, from Ngati Toa and Ngati Raukawa vendors in the first instance, and failing that, from the Crown.254 At the Kukutauaki investigation of title in 1872, Kemp told the court ‘in all sales of land by Ngatiawa and Ngatitoa we always went to Mr McLean, but Europeans and Maoris said what does it matter, Ngatiraukawa & Ngatitoa are the most important

249 Hearn, p. 143. 250 Hearn, p. 144. 251 McLean to Civil Secretary, 10 July 1852, ACIH 16057 MA24/8/16 cited in Hearn, p. 145. 252 Searancke, nd, AEBE 18507 LE1 31 1861/229 cited in Hearn, p. 172. 253 Hearn, p. 162. 254 In 1872, for example, Ihaia Whakamairu of Ngati Kahungunu testified that Muaupoko chiefs were among the tangata whenua present in Wellington when Ngati Kahungunu ‘urged their right’ on the Government to all the land sold by Ngatiawa from Wellington to Kukutauaki, and that subsequently their claims to land in the South Island were similarly urged. Ihaia Whakamairu, 30 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 122. 53 tribes.’255 While the evidence is tenuous, it seems reasonable to assume Muaupoko’s claims contributed to McLean’s call for caution in proceeding with purchase, and a factor in frustrating the Crown’s purchasing ambitions.

The report now considers Crown actions with regard to Muaupoko in two Crown purchases close to home: those of Muhunoa and Rangitikei-Manawatu.

Muhunoa purchase According to William Searancke, land at Muhunoa near the Ohau river mouth had been ‘repeatedly offered for sale’ to him by Te Roera Te Hukiki and others – Muaupoko’s Ngati Raukawa neighbours to the south – since his appointment in 1858.256 In May 1860, at Te Hukiki’s insistence, Searancke made his way to Muhunoa to see the extent of the block proposed to be sold, but refused to be drawn into any discussion of price. In these early negotiations, the land was also referred to as the ‘Papaitonga’ block, the proposed purchase skirting the eastern side of the lake there.257 Agreement was apparently reached between the Ngati Raukawa vendors and the government during the Kohimarama conference in Auckland shortly after, £50 deposit being paid at the time, and a further £120 advanced in two separate instalments.258 In November 1863 Te Hukiki and Puke Te Paea again jogged Featherston about completing the purchase which seems to have resulted in a formal written agreement at Otaki on 5 February 1864, with another £100 advance, although it was not signed until 29 March.259

Under the agreement, the northern boundary began on the coast at the mouth of the Waiwiri stream, running to Papaitonga, through the swamp to Mahoenui, then inland as far as the Tararua ranges. The southern boundary began at the Ohau river mouth, running to Tirotirowhetu and on to the Rotokare lagoon, an eel fishery to be reserved to the vendors. As well, 500 acres was to be reserved from the sale on the shores of Papaitonga. Although not stipulated in the document, the price agreed on was allegedly £1000.260

In 1860 Searancke had reported that Te Hukiki’s ownership was not in dispute, but by the mid-1860s it was clear that things were not that straightforward. Within Ngati Raukawa there seems to have been a struggle over the issue of sale full-stop, with tribal leaders like Matene Te Whiwhi based at Otaki

255 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 22 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, pp. 55-56. 256 W Searancke to TH Smith, Assistant Native Secretary, 31 May 1860, AJHR 1861 C-1, p. 291. 257 JT Stewart, ‘Muhunoa Block. Sketch of proposed boundaries, 1860’, MA13/119/75a, [WT DB, MA 13/75a: 517]. 258 Hamlin, Resident Magistrate Maketu to McLean, 1 March 1872, MA13/119/75a, [WT DB, MA 13/75a: 502]. 259 Te Roera Te Hukiki & others, 5 February 1864, MA13/119/75a, [WT DB, MA 13/75a: 561-64]. 260 Buller spoke of £1000 being the original amount agreed, but it seems that an additional area was added for which he agreed to pay an additional £100, see Karaipi Te Puke to Featherston, 17 July 1864, MA13/119/75a, [WT DB, MA 13/75a: 518]. 54 committed to a general policy of land retention.261 At a meeting with Walter Buller in June 1864, Ngati Raukawa at Otaki were angry they had not received any portion of payments made to date, and wished to rescind the deal.262 At Muhunoa itself, by July 1864 Te Roera Te Hukiki and Karaipi Te Puke were asking Featherston to have their respective rohe surveyed ‘that it may be known how much we each have.’263 In addition to keeping money back, it seems that Te Hukiki had overstretched his hand in terms of offering land that was not his to sell, other Ngati Raukawa residents at Muhunoa later repudiating the deal. By this time the Superintendent was also aware that the rohe of the proposed Muhunoa purchase encompassed interests that were claimed by Muaupoko neighbours to the north. In June 1864 Noa Te Whata of Horowhenua wrote to Featherston, reminding him of their earlier meeting in Wellington. Te Whata did not seem opposed to the sale per se, but he was annoyed that Te Hukiki had ‘eaten the money’ – both the purchase payment and rent from an existing lease – without sharing it.264 The Muaupoko chief expected £200 from the £1100 purchase price, indicating his perception of his relative interest. In view of Te Hukiki’s past behaviour, Noa Te Whata wanted Featherston to bring the money to Muhunoa. ‘In the event of your coming’ he ended, ‘… write and let Te Kepa Te Rangihiwinui of Whanganui know.’265 In August Paki Te Hunga of Muaupoko, living with Ngati Apa at Turakina, also wrote to Featherston about Muhunoa in a similar vein: ‘kia wahia mai tetahi wahi o te tautini i toe ma matou ko oku tuakana ko te keepa ko Hunia me te iwi katoa’ / ‘set apart some of the thousand that now remains for us and my elder brothers, for Te Keepa, Hunia and all the tribe.’266 In September 1864 Te Hukiki and others at Otaki again approached Featherston for the balance of the purchase money to finance an upcoming hui.267 The following month their request for the Muhunoa payment was repeated, with the concession that £300 be held for ‘te wahi raruraru’, the part of the block in dispute.268 In their opinion, the dispute was not a substantial one, and their request for payment was cloaked with the warning that if it was not complied with, the government would lose the money advanced on Muhunoa.

In fact, the contest over Mahoenui did prove substantial, not only within Ngati Raukawa, but also with their Muaupoko neighbours to the north (see 3.1). Although the context is not clear, Noa Te Whata, the appointed assessor for Muaupoko, wrote to Governor Grey in July 1866, ‘to define the boundaries

261 See for example Matene Te Whiwhi, Tamihana Te Rauparaha to Featherston, 5 July 1864, MA13/119/75a, [WT DB, MA 13/75a: 547-48]. 262 Minutes of meeting, 24 June 1864, WP 3 1864/530, cited in Luiten, ‘Whanganui ki Porirua: An Exploratory Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal on Early Crown Purchases’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 1992), Wai 52 #A1, p. 36. 263 K Te Puke to Featherston, 17 July 1864, MA13/119/75a, [WT DB, MA 13/75a: 518]. Te Puke had also offered an additional area of land for which he had received an advance of £100. 264 Noa Te Whata to Featherston, 16 June 1864, MA13/119/75a, [WT DB, MA 13/75a: 530-31]. 265 Ibid. 266 Te Paki Ngahunga to Buller and Featherston, 25 August 1864, MA13/119/75a, [WT DB, MA 13/75a: 559-560]. Although signed as Te Paki Ngahunga, given his association with Ngati Apa and the claims he later made to Waiwiri, I am confident this correspondent was in fact the same Paki Te Hunga of Muaupoko. 267 Te Roera, Te Puke & others to Featherston, 23 September 1864, MA13/119/75a, [WT DB, MA 13/75a: 537]. 268 Te Puke, Te Roera to Featherston, October, MA13/119/75a, [WT DB, MA 13/75a: 555-57]. 55 to keep my land at Horowhenua’.269 In this correspondence, Noa’s southern boundary was set at Urihamama on the coast,270 running to Mahoenui inland and from there to the Ohau River, to Hatimanga, then to the Queen’s boundary at Te Whangapuakorero; the northern boundary set at Ngatokorua, climbing to Arapaipai, and from there running to the mountains.

The purchase of Muhunoa was not completed in the 1860s. In May 1872 at Otaki, in the context of a general agreement to submit entitlement issues to the Native Land Court, Te Roera Te Hukiki and Nerehana Te Paea raised the sale of Muhunoa again with the new superintendent Fitzherbert.271 Fitzherbert was told £180 had been received on account of the purchase of the land for £3000, and that they were willing to have the land surveyed at their own expense and processed by the court, or else purchased direct. As Chapter 3 sets out, in 1873 the title investigations of Manawatu-Kukutauaki and Horowhenua reset the Muaupoko/Raukawa boundary at Waiwiri, a decision leading to further upset in 1874. The Crown’s purchase begun in 1860 was not completed until 1875, by which time the Muhunoa Block had been cut into four. Part Muhunoa 3 of 460 acres was purchased by the Crown from Te Roera Te Hukiki and others for the sum of £140.272

Rangitikei Manawatu purchase Muaupoko participated in the Rangitikei-Manawatu transaction, but not in any central way. There was a Muaupoko presence at the large Te Takapu hui in early April 1866 where Featherston secured general agreement to go ahead with the purchase, but little apparent direct input by way of public address.273 Peeti Te Aweawe (a Rangitane whanaunga of Manawatu) claimed to represent Muaupoko on the second day of deliberation, and at the conclusion of the meeting over a week later Hoani Puihi spoke for Muaupoko, announcing: ‘We are all unanimous in favour of the sale’.274 Muaupoko’s support bolstered the main Rangitane and Ngati Apa protagonists in a controversy over sale increasingly fought out on tangata whenua/tangata heke lines. By the end of that month for example, Muaupoko signatories added their weight to the runanga resolution at Rangitane’s Puketotara pa asserting their right to the Manawatu: ‘ko tenei whenua no matou no nga iwi e rua, no Rangitane, no

269 The letter was printed among ‘Further Papers Relative to the Manawatu Block’, Noa Te Whata to Governor, 20 July 1866, AJHR 1866 A-4 p. 34. 270 Or Urehamama, also known as Rakauhamama, see ML 4903 (Fig.4). 271 ‘Roera Hukiki & Nerehana Te Paea interview with Superintendent at Otaki 13 May 72’, MA13/119/75a, [WT DB, MA 13/75a: 508]. 272 Deed no. 43, Muhunoa No. 3 Block (Part of), Otaki District, in HH Turton, Maori Deeds of Land Purchases in the of New Zealand: Volume Two, pp. 159-160. 273 At least, I don’t recognise any Muaupoko names among those recorded as having spoken, see ‘Notes of various Meetings held with the several tribes engaged in the Rangitikei land dispute during March and April, 1866’, AJHR 1866 A-4, pp. 23- 30. 274 Ibid, p.29. 56

Muaupoko’ / ‘this land belongs to us, to two tribes, Rangitane and Muaupoko’.275 For their part, Ngati Raukawa residents of Manawatu declaimed just as vigorously: ‘Neither Ngatiapa, Rangitane, nor Muaupoko have anything to do with it.’276 Te Whatanui Tutaki was among those listed by Ngati Raukawa as holding ‘te mana me te nuinga o te whenua’ / ‘the authority and the greater portion of the land’, on account of Te Rauparaha’s conquest and enslavement of tangata whenua tribes, and the subsequent allocation of their land to Ngati Raukawa as far as Rangitikei.277 Parakaia Te Pouepa for one saw the enlistment of Muaupoko – and others – at this time as a ploy of Featherston’s to outnumber and intimidate the opposition of non-selling Ngati Raukawa residents.278

In the months that followed Te Takapu, Buller peddled the Rangitikei-Manawatu deed of purchase ‘to almost every native village between Wellington and the Upper Wanganui’: 68 of the 1647 signatures he ultimately obtained were ascribed to Muaupoko.279 Muaupoko were also there when the people of the district gathered at Parewanui in December 1866 to receive the £25,000 payment for the block. Hoani Puihi, Hanita Kowhai and Te Rangimairehau represented Muaupoko on the ‘runanga’ of 60 tasked to decide how the money would be distributed among the various iwi.280 In the lengthy and ‘animated debate’ that followed, Muaupoko were included with Ngati Raukawa in that tribe’s proposed north-south split based on the Rangitikei river; with Rangitane in Ngati Apa’s counter proposal of a five-way iwi split; and ultimately with Ngati Apa in Featherston’s solution based on tangata whenua/tangata heke lines.281 In this deal, ‘Ngati Apa and their allies’ (including Whanganui, Ngati Upokoiri, Rangitane and Muaupoko, Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Ruanui and Taranaki visitors) received £15,000, and ‘Ngati Raukawa and their allies’ (Ngati Parewahawaha, Ngati Patukohuru, Ngati Kauwhata, Ngati Toa and Ngati Awa, and Ngati Raukawa ‘dissentients’) £10,000, with Featherston devolving responsibility for actual disbursement to the leaders of these two tribes.282 Featherston had promised iwi ‘large and ample’ reserves from the purchase, but these were not defined in the deed nor agreed to before payment was made. After the purchase, his niggardly approach to the provision of land for both sellers and non-sellers contributed to ongoing controversy

275 Huru Te Hiaro and others to Native Minister, 28 April 1866, AJHR 1866 A-4, p. 7. Among the Muaupoko signatories were Te Rangimairehau and Te Waitere Kakiwa (both resident at Puketotara at this time), Hoani Puihi, Noa Te Whata, Hanita Takiari, Tanirau Maru, Ihaia Taueki, Hetariki Matao and Wi Mahuri. 276 Nepia Taratoa and others to Native Minister, 30 April 1866, AJHR 1866 A-4, pp. 12-13. 277 Ibid. 278 Parakaia Te Pouepa, Henare te Herekau to the Assembly, 14 April 1866, AJHR 1866 A-4, p. 9. 279 The quote is Featherston’s see I E Featherston ‘Report on Manawatu Block & Notes of Meeting at Parewanui in December 1866’, MA13/115/72b, [WT DB, MA 13/72b: 37]; Buller obtained 41 Muaupoko signatures on one occasion and 27 signatures on a subsequent signing, including Muaupoko women, see ‘Rangitikei-Manawatu Block’ in HH Turton, Maori Deeds of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand: Vol 2, pp. 218; 226. 280 IE Featherston, ‘Notes of a Native Meeting at Parewanui, Rangitikei, December 1866’, encl. 1 in IE Featherston to JC Richmond, 23 March 1867, MA13/115/72b, [WT DB, MA 13/72b: 68]. 281 Ibid, [67-80]. The four-day debate broke down on more than one occasion, Featherston and Buller resorting to private meetings to overcome the deadlock. 282 IE Featherston to JC Richmond, 23 March 1867, MA13/115/72b, [WT DB, MA 13/72b: 47-8]. Kawana Hunia and Aperahama Tipae received the payment for Ngati Apa, and Ihakara Tukumaru and Aperahama Te Huruhuru for Ngati Raukawa, ‘Notes of a Native Meeting…’, MA13/115/72b, [WT DB, MA 13/72b: 104]. 57 over surveys which threatened to undo the whole arrangement, causing Native Minister McLean to intervene in 1870.

Buller and Featherston were aware of Muaupoko’s association with the Manawatu, and as set out above, they were happy to add Muaupoko numbers to bolster the selling fraternity. In his ‘brief sketch’ of intertribal relationships in the district, Buller explained in a footnote that: ‘At a very remote period the Muaupoko were occupants of a part of the Rangitikei-Manawatu Block, and they still assert claims there.’283 However the Crown agents viewed the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua, estimated to number 75, as ‘secondary’ or ‘remote’ claimants in the transaction.284 As a tribal entity, Muaupoko received negligible benefit from the purchase. Their share, with Rangitane, of £5000 of the payment held out at the beginning of the December hui at Parewanui, by its close had been whittled down to just £1400, apparently without their knowledge.285 To add insult to injury however, Kawana Hunia withheld even this reduced amount, paying over to Rangitane chiefs just £600 from the £15,000 received. Just what was passed on in turn to Muaupoko, if any, in the face of Rangitane’s bitter disappointment at this sum, is not known. Nor was any ‘Muaupoko’ reserve as such made within the purchased block.

What seems to have been overlooked by viewing Muaupoko’s interest in Rangitikei-Manawatu as that of the Horowhenua community, is the extent to which their customary interests within Rangitikei- Manawatu were kept alive by Muaupoko residents like Te Rangimairehau and Te Waitere Kakiwa at Puketotara, and Pongahuru at Maramaihoia.286 Arguably, living among the Rangitane community at Puketotara, the interests of Muaupoko individuals could be said to have been dealt with under Rangitane’s auspices, except that Te Rangimairehau was representing Muaupoko interests at the December hui at Parewanui. Even less is known about Pongahuru. He crops up in December 1870, resisting the survey of a reduced area at Maramaihoia, having asked for the reservation of 340 acres on which to run his horses, cattle and pigs.287 We only know of a possible Muaupoko connection from

283 Walter Buller, ‘A brief sketch of the Migrations of the Ngatiraukawa from Taupo to Cook Strait, and of their wars with the resident tribes (Native account)’, 26 July 1867, AJHR 1867 A-19, p. 9. 284 See for example IE Featheston to JC Richmond, 14 November 1866, MA13/115/73a, [WT DB, MA 13/73a: 142]. In the accompanying table Hoani Puihi was listed as the Horowhenua community’s representative and Muaupoko described as being unanimously in favour of the sale [p. 150]. 285 The £1400 amount was set out in Featherston’s March 1867 report, but part of Rangitane’s longstanding grievance over the Rangitikei-Manawatu payment was their understanding that £5000 was to be their share, Hearn, pp. 377-379 . 286 Both Te Rangimairehau and Te Waitere Kakiwa were signatories to Rangitane’s campaign over the back rents from the block and for their share of the purchase money kept back by Kawana Hunia, see Wi Waaka & others to Featherston, 11 February 1867, MA13/109/69b, [WT DB, MA 13/69b part 4: 17-18]; Peeti Te Aweawe & others to Featherston and Richmond, 25 February 1869, MA13/109/69b, [WT DB, MA 13/69b part 4: 23-6]. 287 McLean had reduced the area to 100 acres. To Pongahuru to McLean, 23 December 1870, MA13/116/73b, [WT DB, MA 13/73b: 757-58]. 58

Under-Secretary Halse’s note to surveyor Morgan Carkeek for information: ‘… I think he belongs to Muaupoko and it seems that he wants a large piece of the Manawatu Rangitikei purchase’.288

The point of mentioning such individuals is not to draw any conclusions about the nature and extent of their interests in the Rangitikei-Manawatu block: the evidence is too slight to warrant doing so. No doubt the tribunal will reach its own conclusions based on other research about the extent to which the Crown provided for present and future needs in the way of reserves. What is intended is to draw attention to the way in which Muaupoko as a tribal entity was recognised by the Crown as the community at Horowhenua, whose interests were confined as a result to this district. Put another way, the narrative of ‘Muaupoko’ being restricted within defined rohe at Horowhenua suited Crown purchasing ambitions. Even when Crown officials were aware of the tribal affiliations of individuals living outside of Horowhenua, this does not appear to have carried any corresponding customary or political rights.

Throughout the remainder of the 1860s attention remained focussed on the fall-out from the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase. The purchase did not in fact put an end to the intertribal dispute as Featherston liked to pronounce. If anything, the ill-feeling engendered by the controversy over sale only intensified in the ensuing struggle over reserves and entitlement. In October 1867 the claims of Ngati Raukawa non-sellers were referred to the Native Land Court, and when the Himatangi hearing began in February 1868, Ngati Raukawa were dismayed to find the Wellington Provincial Government there as the virtual counter-claimant, using both tangata whenua and Ngati Toa witnesses to undermine Ngati Raukawa’s claim to the land by virtue of conquest. Kemp, Kawana Hunia, and Peeti Te Aweawe were among the witnesses contesting Ngati Raukawa’s claim.

Nor was Kawana Hunia content with his share of the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase. In August 1867 Ngati Raukawa became alarmed at rumours that the block boundary was to be laid off with the support of 400 armed Ngati Apa, and by February 1868 Kawana Hunia was asserting claims over Ngati Raukawa reserves in the block. In July 1868, after the Himatangi verdict, Hunia occupied Pakapakatea and began killing Ngati Raukawa’s sheep. Parakaia Te Pouepa accused Ngati Apa of ‘making permanent the land feud between them’.289 The following year the theatre of this struggle moved to Horowhenua.

288 H Halse to Carkeek, 19 January 1871, ibid, [p. 759]. Carkeek had surveyed an area of 170 acres, sparking another appeal from Pongahuru in March 1871 for the full amount, Pongahuru to ‘those whose duty it is to carry out the laws’, 20 March 1871, MA13/116/73b, [WT DB, MA 13/73b: 753-54]. 289 Parakaia Te Pouepa to Richmond, 15 July 1868, MA13/115/73b, [WT DB, MA/73b: 285-290]. 59

2.4 Colonial wars

Adding to the complexity of relationships within the district from the late 1850s was the different stance communities took over the war in Taranaki and Waikato. Hearn relates that there was a great deal of support for the Kingitanga among Te Ati Awa and Ngati Raukawa in the early 1860s, their confidence in the government shaken as much by local developments over land sales as events at Waitara.290 Again, Buller’s 1864 report indicates Muaupoko at Horowhenua shared in this ambivalence about the government’s actions, with half the population described as ‘Kingites’ in 1862.291 The tension associated with the perceived Kingitanga threat had largely dissipated by 1864: at Horowhenua by this time Buller’s headcount of Kingitanga supporters was just five.292

Hearn places the subsequent involvement of Whanganui, Ngati Apa, Rangitane and Muaupoko as kupapa under Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui (also known by his English name Kemp) in General Chute’s West Coast campaign from early 1866 in the context of the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase. With respect to Ngati Apa in particular, he argues that both enlistment and land sales were part of a ‘carefully considered strategy’ to reassert ownership over the wider district.293 As Hearn notes, the alliance cultivated with Featherston from 1864, like that with McLean 15 years before, served to legitimate Ngati Apa’s claims to the Rangitikei-Manawatu block.294 On their return from fighting, tangata whenua entities pressed hard for the sale of the block to the Crown, Kawana Hunia threatening by June that Ngati Apa ‘had now plenty of arms and ammunition, and could easily drive off their opponents’, and in fact receiving the lion’s share of payment later that year.295 At Hunia’s settlement of Parewanui in November 1869 Featherston publicly acknowledged the role of Whanganui and Ngati Apa in the ‘preservation of peace’ in the province:296 at the time Ngati Apa under Hunia’s leadership were lending their weight to help Buller overcome local resistance to surveying Rangitikei-Manawatu.297 As Hearn relates, the ‘partisanship’ shown towards Hunia and Ngati Apa by Buller and Featherston with respect to the Rangitikei-Manawatu was described in the press by 1871 as ‘notorious’.298

290 Hearn, pp. 173-177. 291 Resident Magistrate Buller to Colonial Secretary, 12 May 1864, 3425.01,08. BPP Colonies: NZ. University of Waikato Library. http://digital.liby.waikato.ac.nz/bppz 292 Ibid. 293 Hearn, pp. 295-296; 594. 294 Hearn, p. 254. 295 Featherston, notes, 30 June 1866, AJHR 1866 A-4, p. 24 cited in Hearn, pp. 296; 299. 296 Reported in Wellington Independent, 27 November 1869, p. 1, cited in Hearn, pp. 477-478. 297 See Hearn, p. 481. 298 Editorial, Evening Post, 10 October 1871, p.2 cited in Hearn, p. 527. Similarly, Hearn cites an Evening Herald article dated 24 December 1873, which asserted that Ngati Apa’s strength ‘consisted principally in having had the Government back them.’ With regard to Hunia in particular, the article went on ‘For a long time he was accepted as an ally of the Government, and his friendship was thought to be synonymous with security on this Coast.’, cited in Hearn, p. 611. Hearn also relates Ngati Raukawa’s perception, expressed to McLean in January 1874, that it was Featherston ‘who made Hunia big.’ Hearn, p. 613. 60

Kemp’s accomplishments over six years of military service for the Crown catapulted him to a position of authority within both Maori and Pakeha worlds.299 His enlistment in the Native Contingent in 1865 was preceded by his defence of Moutoa in May 1864, and the successful attack against the Hauhau pa, Ohoutahi, on the Whanganui River the following year. Once enlisted, he quickly gathered a force around him, fluctuating from 100-200 men. The West Coast campaign outlined above was the first of many: Kemp’s contingent also fought against Titokowaru in Taranaki and Te Kooti on the East Coast over 1868-1869, finally returning to Whanganui in 1871. Kemp was promoted to Major in November 1868, widely known from this time as Meiha Keepa. In June 1870 he was presented with the Queen’s Sword of Honour; in 1874 he was awarded the New Zealand Cross; and in 1876 the New Zealand War Medal.

Rod McDonald gives the impression of overwhelming Muaupoko support for the Crown’s war effort under Kemp’s leadership, involving ‘the whole of the able-bodied members of the tribe’. His count of enlisted from Horowhenua however – a first contingent of 100 and a second of 20 – sits at odds with Buller’s population estimate of the entire Horowhenua community at this time at 75.300 It is unlikely that any tangata whenua community within the district could have sustained enlistment at this level, and the 100-man army McDonald speaks of was more likely the size of Kemp’s combined force. Conclusive evidence about the extent of Muaupoko’s participation has not been located. From Native Land Court testimony we know that Raniera Te Whata, Te Rangimairehau, and Hanita Kowhai served under Kemp from 1866.301 Hanita Kowhai was killed in action in the campaign against Titokowaru, his loss felt keenly. Te Paki Te Hunga also fought with Kawana Hunia’s small Ngati Apa contingent.302 Details about their service are not known. From later events it seems that the rifles and ammunition issued to these men were retained by them when they returned home.

2.5 Reflections on early colonial engagement

This research required consideration of the extent and manner in which the Crown recognised Muaupoko customary interests in this period, together with the impact of Crown policies and actions on the exercise of rangatiratanga by Muaupoko and on their relationships with neighbouring iwi. Research was tasked to find evidence of Muaupoko’s experience of major political and economic

299 The following is taken from Anthony Dreaver, ‘Te Rangihiwinui, Te Keepa’, from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 30 October 2012, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz 300 O’Donnell, p. 118. In 1871 Kemp put the number of men at Horowhenua, ‘besides the old men, the women and children’, at 26 (see pp. 77-78). In a June 1865 letter to Featherston, Hoani Puihi, Hanita Takiari and Hetariki Matao, from Horowhenua, wrote of a Muaupoko population of 100, ‘kei te tautoko ake i tou ringaringa’ / ‘supporting your hand’ (my translation), but this was in the context of Rangitikei and Parakaia, presumably the intended purchase and not the war, see Puihi, Takiari and Matao to Featherston, 22 June 1865, MA 13/69a Pt 5, CFRT Crown and Private Land Purchasing Records and Petitions Document Bank, Wai 2200,#A67(a), p. 3588 [CFRT DB, A67(a): 3588]. 301 Te Rangimairehau, 18 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p.201. 302 Kawana Hunia to Buller and Major McDonnell, 23 December 1865, MA 13/69a Pt4 [CFRT DB, A67(a):3466]. Te Paki Te Hunga was one of 10 men making up Ngati Apa’s contingent at this time. 61 developments in the district at this time, including new forms of authority and governance and economic opportunity.

While acknowledging the limitations of available evidence, it does seem that Muaupoko participated in the major innovations of this period, their modest community at Horowhenua reflecting many of new ideas heralded by Christianity, including permanent settlement, peaceable relations based on Te Ture, a village runanga, and extensive cultivations. The community availed themselves of economic opportunities through flax and pig production and, from 1857, through land lease.

Muaupoko were acknowledged as a socio-political entity at Horowhenua in their own right by Crown officials throughout this period, included, for example, in HT Kemp’s circuit in 1850, and Resident Magistrate Buller’s circuit the following decade. For most of this period, however, ‘government’ over the district remained at arm’s length, or at least in Maori hands, the Crown’s relationship with hapu in the district largely centred on efforts to acquire their land. Within this framework, Crown officials seem to have had a low regard for Muaupoko’s status, treating them as part of the ‘tangata whenua’ dynamic at work, but having little direct relationship with the community itself. Any acknowledgement of Muaupoko customary interests outside Horowhenua seems to have been dealt with by McLean in a dismissive way, to the point where records of payments made, or individuals compensated cannot be found. By the same token, it is noteworthy that Crown purchase at Horowhenua was not even attempted, and nor did the Crown persist with the New Zealand Company’s 1842 transaction. Other than the appointment of Noa Te Whata as assessor by 1864, there is no evidence of Crown engagement with the leadership of Muaupoko. In the vacuum, both the Crown and Muaupoko seem to have increasingly relied on the intermediaries of Kawana Hunia and Keepa Te Rangihiwinui.

Kawana Hunia’s mother, Kaewa, was Muaupoko, and his uncle (Kaewa’s brother), Te Rangihouhia, was renowned for his resistance to Te Rauparaha.303 Te Keepa’s father, Tanguru, too, was an important Muaupoko figure in the pre-Treaty wars and resettlement at Horowhenua. Kemp spent his youth at Horowhenua with his father.304 Kawana Hunia never lived there. The role of these men as mangai for tangata whenua interests in this period contain the seeds of later claims to authority over Muaupoko affairs, which were asserted throughout the remainder of nineteenth century. In the title investigations of 1872 and 1873, for example, both Hunia and Kemp claimed credit for Muaupoko’s inclusion in the leasing arrangements with McDonald, and in the resolution of subsequent boundary disputes. Kawana Hunia’s relationship with McLean was more than matched by Kemp’s exemplary

303 In 1896 Alexander McDonald likened Te Rangihouhia to Rob Roy, see AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 236. 304 Kemp maintained he lived at Horowhenua until 1842, his father Tanguru remaining there until 1847, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 26 March 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p. 245; 17 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 190. 62 military career, and both men held public office roles as assessors from 1865.305 The evidence suggests that Muaupoko did turn to these men to mediate the interface between them and the Crown. Noa Te Whata’s reference to Te Keepa with regard to the Muhunoa purchase is a case in point, and this occurred more frequently in the years to come. Whether in doing so Muaupoko meant to relinquish their own chiefly authority is another matter altogether.

305 ‘Nominal roll of the Civil Establishment of New Zealand (1 July 1871)’, AJHR 1871 G-10. 63

Chapter 3

Contesting Horowhenua, 1867‐1873

From their position at the fringe of the geo-political contest being fought to the north, in the late 1860s Muaupoko took centre-stage as this contest moved to Horowhenua. Tensions over boundaries associated with leasing have been discussed in the previous chapter. At Horowhenua what began as a local struggle over the claims associated with the now deceased Te Whatanui quickly spiralled into something much bigger, as both sides called on outside help. In their bid to maintain the integrity of their rohe, Muaupoko too, became caught up in the worsening tangata heke/tangata whenua polemic, kept at a boil by renewed Crown purchasing on behalf of the Wellington Province.

This chapter examines the conflict at Horowhenua and the Crown’s response. It suggests the deepening discord was fuelled by renewed Crown pressure to acquire land, which also resulted in new sea-to-mountain boundaries. Rather than extinguish this contested title through outright purchase as before, however, in this period Crown effort was instead applied to steer hapu towards Native Land Court adjudication of their customary title.

3.1 Disputed boundaries

The Ngamana boundary Although Muaupoko remained on the periphery of escalating conflict between Ngati Apa and Ngati Raukawa to the north, the same issues lay close to home. Tension over their northern border with Ngati Huia at Poroutawhao came to a head in February 1868, when steps seem to have been taken by both parties to survey the boundary and ‘death was nearly occasioned’ as a result.306 The contest was over a triangle of land on the northern border, seaward of Ngatokorua (see Figure 2). Ten years on from the 1858 intertribal arbitration to set the boundary between Muaupoko and Ngati Huia at Ngamana, Muaupoko were still disinclined to accept the decision. The details surrounding the confrontation in February 1868 are not entirely clear. On the one hand, Kemp maintained Muaupoko had been invited by Ngati Huia to talk about ‘their old inter-tribal boundary’, but discovered their intention instead ‘was to take all the land.’307 When Heta Te Whata erected a post at the ‘old boundary’, Ngati Huia pulled it down, proposing ‘that they should meet on Monday with guns, and

306 Te Matehaere, Matenga Tinotahi, Hoani Amorangi, Hetariki Matao, Herewini Rakautihia, Te Raorao otira na Muaupoko katoa to Featherston, 4 February 1869, MA13/109/69, [WT DB, MA 13/69 Pt 4:2]. 307 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui to the Governor and his Ministers, 19 February 1868, encl. 1 in no. 43, GF Bowen to Duke of Buckingham, 7 March 1868, 0307.01.43, p.122. BPP Colonies: NZ. University of Waikato Library. http://digital.liby.waikato.ac.nz/bppnz 64 fall on the boundary.’308 The Poroutawhao community was subsequently bolstered by their relations from Otaki, but although both sides assembled on the appointed day, no fighting took place. Native Land Court testimony five years later referred to a ‘second laying off’ of the Ngamana/Ngatokorua boundary, in the presence of Peeti Te Aweawe and Rangitane, and 200 Ngati Raukawa, which likely relates to this 1868 dispute.309 Kemp recalled the decision left Muaupoko ‘pouri’, the post subsequently burned.310

Muaupoko had turned to Te Keepa at Putiki in the crisis.311 An army captain with 100 men in his command, Kemp was quick to relay his intention to the government: to ‘send to my people in the Ngatiruanui country to come and take care of the small tribe, Muaupoko, lest they be destroyed.’312 His threat had the desired effect: Native Minister Richmond immediately wrote to Hori Kingi of Whanganui, and to Parakaia of Ngati Raukawa, asking both chiefs to use their authority to prevent fighting, and to leave the intertribal dispute to the law.313 Two days later the same message was sent to Kemp, with the reassurance that the government would see ‘that Muaupoko are not wronged’.314

There were undercurrents of wider issues in this local dispute. Richmond’s letter to Parakaia was also addressed to ‘those who have not consented to sell lands at Rangitikei’. The Ngati Huia community at Poroutawhao was an enclave of Kingitanga support and Kemp clearly saw the confrontation at Horowhenua in the context of the civil war. Satisfied with the government’s reassurance, by 25 February 1868 Kemp had communicated to Muaupoko and Rangitane ‘to leave the boundary question alone, and remain quietly’, but he reiterated his concern to Richmond:

In reply to your word in respect of the law guarding my tribes, the Muaupoko, Rangitane, and Ngatiapa, my word is that you must take care of them; if any man is put to death any man of my tribes, you fight him, and take care of our lands. And you also send a Pakeha to look after my tribes, and take care of them, lest you say hereafter it was my unauthorised proceedings; and in order also that you may know it was the Hauhaus who commenced this work (wrong dong); … The Hauhaus will have the best of it in the case of this evil work.

308 Ibid. Other Muaupoko individuals singled out in the correspondence about this dispute were Hoani Puihi, Hanita Kowhai and Manihera Te Rau. 309 Hohua Te Riunui, 4 April 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p.43 310 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 27 March 1873, Otaki MB 1A, pp. 254-255. 311 Kemp testified in 1872 that Muaupoko ‘sent me a letter saying they would soon be killed’, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 21 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, pp.46-47. 312 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui to the Governor and his Ministers, 19 February 1868, encl. 1 in no. 43, GF Bowen to Duke of Buckingham, 7 March 1868, 0307.01.43, p.122. BPP Colonies: NZ. University of Waikato Library. http://digital.liby.waikato.ac.nz/bppnz 313 Native Minister JC Richmond to Hori Kingi of Whanganui, 22 February 1868; and to Parakaia and the Ngatiraukawa; those who have not consented to sell lands at Rangitikei, 22 February 1868, enclosures in no.43 GF Bowen to Duke of Buckingham, 7 March 1868, 0307.01.43, pp.122-23. BPP Colonies: NZ. University of Waikato Library. http://digital.liby.waikato.ac.nz/bppnz 314 W Rolleston to Te Keepa Rangihiwinui, 24 February 1868, encl. 4 in no.43, 0307.01.43, p.123. BPP Colonies: NZ. University of Waikato Library. http://digital.liby.waikato.ac.nz/bppnz 65

But mine is simply anxiety lest the small tribe be destroyed by the greater; and who is then to take care of their lands after them?315

Kemp was reassured in turn that the Government would not forget what he had said about the small tribe of Muaupoko: ‘It will watch over great and small. Only let the matter rest in the hands of the Government and the law.’316

Government intervention was sufficient to suspend hostilities on this occasion, but the dispute itself remained unresolved. The following summer Muaupoko informed Featherston that Ngati Huia had leased the disputed border to Nicholson against their will, asking the superintendent to send the man and his sheep back to the Manawatu.317 By this time however, Muaupoko were facing an even more contentious threat from Nicholson’s wife, Kararaina Whawha, who was now claiming authority within the very heartland of Horowhenua.

The Mahoenui dispute As set out in the previous chapter, Muaupoko had contested Ngati Parewahawaha’s right to transact southern border lands at Mahoenui from 1864. In January 1869 Tutaki Te Whatanui, the last of Te Whatanui’s sons resident at Horowhenua, passed away. He was survived by his wife, Riria Te Whatanui (nee Te Huruhuru), but there were no children from this union. Riria together with Hone Te Wiiti, an aged Ngati Raukawa, seem to have been the sum of any ‘Te Whatanui’ presence left at Horowhenua, living on the southern lake edge at Kohuturoa with the Muaupoko household of Tamati Maunu and Hetariki Matao.318

Within weeks of Tutaki’s death, his nieces – sisters Wiki Tauteka (Matene Te Whiwhi’s wife) and Kararaina Whawha (aka Caroline Nicholson) – began to assert themselves over what they considered to be Te Whatanui demesne, beginning with an angry confrontation with Muaupoko’s tenant, Hector McDonald. The actions of these two – pulling down McDonald’s fence and driving off his sheep in the second week of February 1869 – not only raised the ire of Muaupoko, but were also condemned by their own Ngati Pareraukawa relations at Muhunoa and Te Whatanui’s household at Horowhenua,

315 Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui to Native Minister Richmond, 25 February 1868, encl. 6 in no. 43, 0307.01.43, p.124. BPP Colonies: NZ. University of Waikato Library. http://digital.liby.waikato.ac.nz/bppnz 316 W Rolleston to Te Kepa Te Rangihiwinui, 2 March 1868, encl. 8 in no. 43, 0307.01.43, p.125. BPP Colonies: NZ. University of Waikato Library. http://digital.liby.waikato.ac.nz/bppnz 317 Te Matehaere, Matenga Tinotahi, Hoani Amorangi, Hetariki Matao, Herewini Rakautihia, Te Raorao otira na Muaupoko katoa to Featherston, 4 February 1869, MA13/109/69, [WT DB, MA 13/69 part 4:2]. 318 Riria was the daughter of the Ngati Raukawa chief, Aperahama Te Huruhuru, who also apparently lived in his old age with his daughter at Horowhenua, see H McDonald to W Fox, 26 October 1869, no.13 in AJHR 1871 F8. McDonald’s son, Hector, told the Horowhenua Commission in 1896 that Tutaki was alone and ‘deserted’ in his old age, ‘I do not think he had any family at all.’ Hector McDonald (Jnr), 16 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 115-116. 66 both communities relaying their concern to Featherston about their inability to protect the Pakeha.319 When Kararaina Nicholson was reprimanded by the superintendent acting on this information, she was unrepentant.320 The women were initially encouraged by other non-resident Te Whatanui descendents, namely their cousins, the well-known Ngapuhi chief, Wiremu Pomare and his wife Te Atereti.321 Sending condolences from their home at Mahurangi, in mid-February 1869 the couple also announced their intention to come the following summer, urging the sisters in the meantime to:

Kia kaha korua ki o tatou whenua kei riro kuare i te tangata no te mea kua mate a Te Whatanui na reira ka whakararuraru i o tatou nei whenua.322

Be strong in the matter of our lands, lest through ignorance you allow others to take it, for because of Te Whatanui’s death trouble will ensue with respect of our lands.

In the minds of these descendents, Te Whatanui’s boundary at Tauateruru held. Riria Te Whatanui and Te Wiiti, too, were encouraged by Pomare to ‘hold fast’ at Horowhenua, ‘to steadfastly occupy & not give up possession’.323 The cousins differed, however, over the means of securing their title. Pomare wanted Hector McDonald to remain at Horowhenua, regarding his tenancy as proof of Te Whatanui’s mana, and he was reluctant to upset Muaupoko by insisting on a survey. The Pareraukawa sisters had no such qualms. By March they had engaged a surveyor as the first step to gaining title through the Native Land Court. According to Tauteka, recourse to the Land Court had been Native Minister Richmond’s idea, expressed at a meeting at Otaki in January, shortly after the first confrontation between the sisters and Hector McDonald.324 When the promised government surveyor

319 Hoani Puihi, Heta Te Whata, Tamati Maunu, Herewini Rakautihia, Matenga Tinotahi, Te Rangirurupuni, Te Raorao, Hura Pioka, Te Hapimana, Hohepa, Te Manihera, Hetariki, na Muaupoko katoa, and Riria Te Whatanui to Featherston, 11 February 1869. Rangatira from the Muhunoa community maintained that Kararaina was supported by her elder brother only, ‘no other person whatever who agrees with her. We are all many who condemn her’, Roera Hukiki, Nerehana Paea and others to Featherston, 10 February 1869, Native Office translation; Aperahama Te Huruhuru, Hare Reweti, Patatopu, Wereta, Riria Whatanui to Featherston, 11 February 1869; MA13/109/69, [WT DB, MA13/69b part 4: 2-14]. 320 Kararaina Nicholson to Featherston, 1 March 1869, MA13/109/69, [WT DB, MA13/69b part 4: 31]. A third sister, Hitau, was also involved (see whakapapa enclosed in M Clarke to Halse, Assistant Native Secretary, 1 September 1871, MA 75/1/5, [DB:305]. The granddaughter of Te Whatanui’s sister (also Hitau), Wiki Tauteka claimed to have grown up in Te Whatanui’s kainga at Horowhenua (Wiki Tauteka, 4 April 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p.47). The Anglican church register of 1845 locates the girls at Muhunoa, Nerehana Te Paea’s community south of Waiwiri, MSZ-0080-0085. Tauteka was married to Matene Te Whiwhi and lived with him at Otaki. Kararaina lived with her Pakeha husband Nicholson, mostly in the Manawatu, but Nicholson had recently taken a lease of a run at Waiwiri (Watene Te Waewae, 4 April 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p.45). One of Kararaina’s first actions after Tutaki’s death was to tear down a fence put up by the neighbouring runholder at Horowhenua, Hector McDonald. In McDonald’s opinion, Nicholson’s designs on McDonald’s run was one of the main reasons for the resulting fracas (H McDonald to Fox, 25, 26 October 1869, Nos. 12 & 13 in AJHR 1871 F-8. In addition to the destruction of his fence and potato crop, McDonald accused Nicholson of threatening behaviour, and of plying ‘Old Wiiti’ with rum to secure his agreement to show Swainson the boundaries (H McDonald to Native Minister Richmond, 7 April 1869; MA 75/1/5 [DB:48]; H McDonald to D McLean, 13 January 1870, MA 75/1/5 [DB:86]. 321 Wiremu Pomare was the grandson of Te Whatanui, his father ‘Old Pomare’ having married two of Te Whatanui’s daughters (see whakapapa cited above). In addition, his wife Te Atereti Pomare (also known Hinematioro) was the daughter of Tutaki Te Whatanui, being a marriage between first cousins (MP Kawiti to W Pomare, 5 May 1870, encl. in No.22, AJHR 1871 F8). According to Hector McDonald, Tutaki had expressed that Te Atereti should inherit his lands and property, H McDonald to Native Minister McLean, 13 January 1870, MA 75/1/5 [DB:86-89]. 322 W Pomare, Te Reti to Tauteka and Kararaina, 17 February 1869, MA 75/1/5 [DB:23]. Contemporary Native Office translation, No.3 in AJHR 1871 F8. 323 Wiremu Pomare to Riria and Te Wiiti, nd, enclosure in Akapita Tewe to Richmond, 12 March 1869, also expressed in Wiremu Pomare to H McDonald, nd, MA 75/1/5 [DB:16]. 324 Wiki Tauteka, 4 April 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p. 47. 67 did not appear, the following month Tauteka took matters into her own hands, engaging George Swainson to survey the land.325

Local reaction to news of the proposed survey at Mahoenui was emphatic and unanimous. Riria Te Whatanui, Te Wiiti, Tamati Maunu and Muaupoko combined to tell Richmond of their objections, and asked him to prevent it: ‘It is exceedingly wrong of certain persons to ask for such a thing.’326 Having received Richmond’s response – to allow the survey and argue their respective claims in the land court – Muaupoko set out their position in more detail. The rohe of Muaupoko, they asserted, lay between Ngatokorua on the north and Mahoenui on the south. While they admitted the ‘wairua’ of Riria Te Whatanui within these boundaries, they were unequivocal about their own:

kia marama rawa, to koutou titiro mai ko tenei iwi ko Muaupoko te wairua kei roto i enei rohe, kaore he wairua ke atu, whakarongo mai ko te mahi a te wahine a Matene te Whiwhi, kua tae mai nei ki te tiini haere i te whenua, e he ana, he rawarawa atu te he, he + he, wairua poka noa mai i waho o enei rohe, me tana rohe pokanoa kei waenganui i enei rohe, i Ngatokorua i Mahoenui.327

Be quite clear in looking upon this people – the Muaupoko – the spirit within these boundaries. There is no other spirit (entitled). Give heed: the action taken by the wife of Matene Te Whiwhi was this: She came here, and has been chaining the land to ascertain its area. This is wrong – very wrong indeed. It is wrong, inasmuch as she is a spirit coming without right, and claiming to be interested in the land within these boundaries; and in like manner, as regards the boundary, she has traced between these boundaries, Ngatokorua and Mahoenui.328

When Swainson turned up at Horowhenua the following day to have Riria and Te Wiiti point out the boundaries to him, Muaupoko were incensed:

as soon as the Maupokos heard of it the whole of the tribe flocked out to Ririas place men women and children some of the men were in a fearfull passion and was for turning Swainson of but I spoke to them as they came by my house and with a good deal of talk got them quieted down I told them to do nothing now as they had sent to your honor to wait till they heard from you …

the Natives sayed they would watch Swainson if he went on the boundery they would turn him of there will be a great row over this place if its not stoped they say they will send for all their friends at Rangitiki and Wairarapa for they are all of one tribe...329

325 Her assertion that the Native Minister was involved in the proposal is borne out by her correspondence to Richmond mid- February, telling him of her intention to proceed with the survey, and forwarding Pomare’s letter in support, Tauteka Matene to Native Minister Richmond, nd, MA 75/1/5, [DB:20]. 326 Riria Te Whatanui, Te Wiiti, Tamati Maunu and Muaupoko also, 17 March 1869, No.4 in AJHR 1871 F8. 327 Hetariki Matao and Muaupoko to Richmond, 5 April 1869, MA 75/1/5, [DB:13]. The Muaupoko signatories were Hetariki Matao, Tamati Maunu, Herewini Rakautihia, Matenga Tinotahi, Hura Pioka, Te Raorao, Himiona Taiweherua, Karaitiana Terawahi, Hopa Te Piki, Hapimana Tohu, Te Paki, Noa Te Whata, Ihaia Taueki, Raniera Mokinokino, Noa Tamaiti, Rangimairehau, Waitere Kakiwa, Inia Tamarake, Rihari Tarakihi, Raniera Mahanga, Kingi Patuhaere, Waata Muruahi, Winara Te Raorao, Waata Tohu otira na te iwi katoa 328 Contemporary translation by Native Office, No. 6 in AJHR 1871 F-8. 329 H McDonald to Native Minister Richmond, 7 April 1869, MA 75/1/5 [DB:48-49]. Note that I have left the punctuation as written by McDonald intact, as written. 68

Muaupoko thwarted Swainson’s work all week long, pulling out his boundary markers as far south as Waiwiri and, as the exasperated surveyor complained to the Under-Secretary of the Native Department, ‘trying to stop the survey by every means in their power’.330 Swainson was in an invidious position, for while he considered Muaupoko’s interference with the southern boundary of his survey ‘absurd’ and Hone Wiiti was now cooperating, Riria Te Whatanui remained just as opposed to the survey. She disputed Tauteka’s assertion that the survey had been sanctioned by Pomare, and in mid-April she told Richmond Muaupoko were so angry they were about to break Swainson’s equipment. Her message was emphatic: ‘E hoa e te Retimana Whaka mutu e koe tenei mahi i na ia nei whakamutu e koe ina ia nei Whakamutu rawa e koe ina ia nei / Friend, Mr. Richmond, put an end to this work at once, put an end to this work at once, put an end to it entirely at once.’331 Three days later Muaupoko themselves wrote to the ‘Ministers residing in Wellington’ to the same effect. They were close to seizing Swainson’s property and assaulting his person:

kia tahuri mai koutou ki te whakahe ki a matou, nga tangata maori a mea ake nei. Ko te take tenei o tena kupu tukua mo tetahi kupu, hei whakawatea atu, i te pakeha nei i waenganui i a matou tohetohe ki o matou rohe me nga tangata hoki e pokanoa ana ki te haere mai ki a matou rohe, whakatautohe ai, he take urunga mona ki te whenua.332

you will then turn round and condemn us, the Natives, at a future day. This is why we ask you to send instructions to rid us of the European in the midst of our contentions about our boundaries, also these people now here without authority, making trouble in order that they may claim an interest in the land.

Muaupoko were said to admit only the interests of Wiremu and Te Atereti Pomare at Horowhenua, and throughout April Swainson repeatedly badgered the Native Office for evidence of Pomare’s sanction of the survey, on the basis that this would diffuse Muaupoko’s resistance.333 By the end of the month he also let Under-Secretary Cooper know, ‘for your private information’, that ‘the whole of Ngatiraukawa from here have gone up, with the firm intention of sending Muaupoko to a warm place.’334

Events over the winter of 1869 are not well documented, but it seems the survey was not completed.335 Telegraph communications were installed through the district at this time, causing Hetariki Matao to approach Kemp and Hunia for advice about Muaupoko erecting posts on the

330 Swainson to Under-Secretary Native Affairs, 12 April 1869, MA 75/1/5 [DB:37-38]. 331 Riria Te Whatanui to Swainson, to Hone, 14 April 1869; Riria Te Whatanui to Native Minister Richmond, April 1869, no.8 in AJHR 1871 F8. 332 Hetariki Matao & ‘all of Muaupoko’ to Ministers Residing in Wellington, 19 April 1869, in MA 75/1/5 [DB:34-35]. The signatories were Hetariki Matao, Hoani Puihi, Tamati Maunu, Te Herewini, Te Matenga, ‘na Muaupoko katoa’. Contemporary translation by Native Office, no.9 in AJHR 1871 F8. 333 Initial confusion over the identity of Pomare, referred to by Swainson instead as ‘Ngakinui’ accounted for some of this correspondence. As to Muaupoko reported feelings about the Pomare’s rights see H McDonald to Premier W Fox, 25 October 1869, no.12 in AJHR 1871 F8. 334 Swainson to Cooper, 26 April 1869, MA75/1/5 [DB:42-43]. 335 See H McDonald to Premier Fox, 26 October 1869, no.13 in AJHR 1871 F8. 69 disputed boundaries of Rakauhamama and Oioao.336 Richmond’s tenure as Native Minister ended when the Stafford Ministry fell in June 1869. He was succeeded by Donald McLean. It is in this period Riria Te Whatanui appears to have returned to her Rangitikei homeland, for she no longer features in official correspondence, and Te Watene Te Waewae, uncle to Tauteka and Kararaina and nephew to Te Whatanui, moved in at Raumatangi in her stead.337 In August Hector McDonald was subjected to another bout of harassment, this time from members of the Poroutawhao community threatening to burn his house and drive off his sheep.338 Once again, McDonald claimed Nicholson and Matene Te Whiwhi were behind the fuss.339 In October Te Watene, Tauteka, Kararaina and ‘all of us Ngatipareraukawa’ wrote to McLean, blaming McDonald for Muaupoko’s obstruction of the survey and asking McLean to have the ‘squatter’ removed.340 The complaint produced a reprimand from no less than the Premier to McDonald to stop interfering: ‘Survey is the only way in which the land can be brought into court and the title of the opposing claimants settled.’341

By this time, however, the proposed recourse to the court had been firmly quashed at Horowhenua. In his distress over the threats to his family and property, Hector McDonald had appealed to the Pomares. They reassured McDonald about his tenure, and told him they did not want the land surveyed until they got there.342 Wiremu Pomare also wrote to Tamihana Te Rauparaha, asking him to speak to those causing the disturbance.343 In his robust rebuttal of the accusations made against him, Hector McDonald related to Premier Fox that a meeting had taken place at ‘the Horowhenua pa’ which had resolved to put a stop to any survey ‘till the proper owner came from Auckland.’344 Significantly, he noted the presence of both Kawana Hunia and Major Kemp at this meeting. Faced with this intelligence, by November 1869 Under-secretary Cooper advised Fox ‘Perhaps it is scarcely worth while to pursue the subject any further’, to which Fox concurred.345

336 Hetariki Matao to Mete, Hunia and Te Kepa, 19 July 1869, MA 13/109/69 pt.4 [WT DB, MA13/69 pt. 4:110], English only. 337 According to Rod McDonald’s recollections, Riria Te Whatanui’s departing community numbered 50, the occasion marked by a big tangi, O’Donnell, p. 127, but I have found no other records to support this. Te Watene Tiwaewae aka Te Watene Te Kaharunga for example told Travers in December 1871 that he and his nephews were the only Te Whatanui descendents at Horowhenua, ‘Minutes of evidence…’, MA W1369 27 1872/272 [CFRT DB, A67(a):4421], and Hector McDonald Jnr told the Horowhenua Commission that Tutaki was alone in his old age, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.115. Te Watene told the Native Land Court in 1873 that he had lived with Te Whatanui at Horowhenua for 26 undisturbed years (Otaki MB 1A, p.45); elsewhere he said he had grown up at Horowhenua, but had not lived there for some time. According to Kemp and other Muaupoko witnesses, Te Watene had lived at Muhunoa to the south, and had been driven away by Te Whatanui Tutaki on account of adultery. Te Watene fought for the Crown on the East Coast from 1865 (Hector McDonald, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.114). His testimony to Travers that he returned to Horowhenua before Tutaki’s death was disputed by Kemp and others and is not borne out by the documentary record. 338 See Tamihana Te Rauparaha to Under-Secretary Native Department Cooper, telegram, nd, MA 75/1/5 [DB:58-59]. 339 H McDonald to Premier W Fox, 25 October 1869, no.12 in AJHR 1871 F8. 340 Te Whatene Te Kaharunga, Kararaina Whawha, Tauteka, ‘na matou katoa Ngatipareraukawa’, 4 October 1869, MA 75/1/5 [DB:64-66] 341 Under-Secretary Native Department, Cooper to H McDonald, 23 October 1869, MA 75/2/9 [DB:438] 342 A and W Pomare to H McDonald, 11 August 1869, encl. in no.13, AJHR 1871 F8. 343 W Pomare to Tamihana Te Rauparaha, 28 October 1869, no.14 in AJHR 1871 F8. 344 H McDonald to Premier Fox, 26 October 1869, no. 13 in AJHR 1871 F8. 345 See note on T Te Rauparaha to GS Cooper, 15 November 1869, MA 75/1/5 [DB:73]. 70

In January 1870 tempers flared again when some houses belonging to the late Te Whatanui were burned. While Te Watene and his nieces threatened retaliation in kind against ‘the whole Moupoko Pa’, their actual response seems to have been renewed bullying of McDonald, driving his sheep to the beach and threatening to take half the flock in lieu of overdue rent.346 In his appeal to Native Minister McLean for protection, McDonald once again explained the context behind the recent rental dispute, adding: …another thing they sayed they wanted me away from here so as I should not be in the way if they came to fight with the Moupokos they have a spite agenest them about Rangitiki this mahi [a protagonist mentioned earlier] wanted to go and burn a larg house the Moupoko is putting up for Hunia to have a great meeting when Pomare coms to settle all their boundaries and claimes here.347

Watene and his nieces were warned by Under-Secretary Cooper against any further harassment of McDonald, and told to leave ‘the whole question’ until the arrival of Wiremu and Te Atereti Pomare.348

The runanga at Kupe Kupe was built over the summer of 1870 on the Panuiomarama ridgeline, on the western shores of Horowhenua just north of the Hokio outlet, and south of Tauateruru. It was said to have been built by Muaupoko at Kawana Hunia’s instigation, for the purpose of resolving the dispute over customary interests through arbitration by chiefs throughout the district as far away as Wairarapa.349 Hearn relates that the formal meeting at Kupe in the fourth week of April was preceded by a large representative gathering of Ngati Raukawa at Otaki earlier that month which resolved to support the stance of Te Roera Te Hukiki, Te Watene and Moihi rejecting any Ngati Apa claim to Horowhenua:

or any right to come there to arrange disputed boundaries; that they the owners of the land now that Te Whatanui was is dead, would not meet Kawana Hunia, nor allow him to alter the boundary line fixed by the original Te Whatanui; and that if Kawana Hunia came armed, they had arms and would resist the Ngatiapa.350

The formal meeting at Kupe ran from 23 April to 3 May 1870. Kemp was absent fighting and nor was Pomare present. Mitai Pene Taui attended on behalf of the government and while he claims to have written a ‘voluminous document’ about what was discussed, no such record has been found among his correspondence in the relevant government archive. On 26 April he reported to Cooper that Kawana Hunia, Hoani Puihi and Ihaia Taueki had opened the discussion, commenting that ‘Hunia’s real reason

346 H McDonald to D McLean, 13 January 1870, MA 75/1/5 [DB:86-89] 347 Ibid, [DB:89]. The ‘Mahi’ McDonald referred to may have been ‘Moihi’, who was part of the local lobby, along with Te Roera Te Hukiki and Te Watene, for Te Whatanui’s mana at Horowhenua, see Hearn, p. 498. 348 Cooper, memo, 29 January 1870, MA 75/1/5, [DB:82]. 349 Wirihana Hunia maintained his father also sent out the invitations to the chiefs to attend, ‘everyone on the coast knew whose meeting it was’. Wirihana Hunia, 21 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p.326 350 Knocks to Under-Secretary Native Department, 11 April 1870, AJHR 1870, A-16, p. 25, cited in Hearn, p. 498. 71 for supporting Muaupoko against Ngatiraukawa is not yet clearly known.’351 At the conclusion of ten days of talking, the runanga found itself unable to reach any ruling on the dispute, resolving to reconvene once the Pomares were present. As Wi Tako Ngatata communicated to Wiremu Pomare, ‘This is not a small evil which hangs over your tribes, Muaupoko and Ngatiraukawa, it is a great one.’352 Assistant Native Secretary Halse commented that the outcome left ‘the Horowhenua question’ in much the same position as it was before the meeting, neither side agreeing to the boundaries and both sides hoping that Pomare would be able to resolve the impasse in an amicable way.353 One reason for the runanga’s cautious approach may have been the show of strength evident at Kupe: two weeks after the hui Matene Te Whiwhi and 36 others wrote to the Minister of Native Affairs complaining that Kawana Hunia and Ngati Apa had brought government-issued guns to the hui, and demanding that the government retract them: ‘for it is through his having possession of those guns that Kawana Hunia is so arrogant.’354 By this time Ngati Raukawa clearly saw Kawana Hunia’s involvement at Horowhenua as the latest step in his campaign of encroachment: ‘He has left the other side of Manawatu, and from thence to Rangitikei, and has come across to this side: he is in the midst of us, stirring up strife and defying us’.355

The comments on correspondence of this time indicate that government officials were not confident that the issue could be resolved by the Pomares. Indeed, Te Watene, too, had informed Cooper immediately after the Kupe hui that the residential representatives of Te Whatanui had no intention of leaving the matter to Pomare: ‘Kei a matou te ritenga kei nga tangata i noho tuturu i Horowhenua’ / ‘We, the people who have always lived at Horowhenua, have the management’.356 In June 1870 when the Pomares finally arrived in Te Upoko o Te Ika, this proved to be the case. After visiting with Ngati Raukawa at Otaki, on 25 June Pomare made his way to meet with Muaupoko at Horowhenua. Like Ngati Raukawa, Pomare maintained that ‘te rohe tuturu o mua’ – Tauateruru – as arranged by Te Whatanui and Taueki still held, but he could not convince Muaupoko of this.357 According to Pomare, the tribe insisted on Mahoenui as the boundary, and that the ‘wairua’ – which Pomare understood as descendents – of Te Whatanui and Muaupoko unite on their land.358 This Pomare discounted on the grounds that Te Whatanui had many descendents. As a concession, he offered to move the boundary

351 M Pene Taui to GS Cooper, 26 April 1870, no.21 in AJHR 1871 F8. 352 Wi Tako Ngatata to W Pomare, 5 May 1870, encl. in No.22, AJHR 1871 F8. Note, the translation printed in the AJHR incorrectly attributes this letter to Maihi Paraone Kawiti. In fact Wi Tako Ngatata was exhorting Wi Pomare to share the runanga’s decision with other named Ngapuhi chiefs including Kawiti, see copy of Maori letter in MA 75/1/5 [DB:117]. 353 See Halse’ note to Gisborne on M Pene Taui to the Government , 7 May 1870, MA 75/1/5 [DB:97] 354 Matene Te Whiwhi & 36 others to D McLean, Minister Native Affairs, 24 May 1870, No.24 in AJHR 1871 F8. 355 Ibid. That this was the general tenor of Kawana Hunia’s stance is supported by the testimony of his son, Wirihana Hunia, in 1891. At the partition rehearing of Horowhenua 11, Wirihana Hunia maintained that in opening proceedings at Kupe, his father told Ngati Raukawa ‘I have crossed the Manawatu, & he told them to take their mana back to Otaki, so that it should cease over Horowhenua.’ Wirihana Hunia, 21 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p.326. 356 Te Whatene Te Kaharunga to Under-Secretary Cooper, 9 May 1870, MA 75/1/5 [DB:141]. Contemporary translation by Native Office, no.23 in AJHR 1871 F8. 357 W Pomare to Native Minister McLean, 4 July 1870, MA 75/1/5 [DB:164]. 358 W Pomare to M Pene Taui, 9 July 1870, MA 75/1/5 [DB:159-60]. 72 south four chains to Panuiomarama, in order to accommodate Kupe, but Muaupoko remained ‘pakeke’: ‘ko ta ratou kupu i penei kia tae mai a Hunia hei reira ka wakarite ai…’ / ‘they said that when Hunia comes, then it can be settled’ – to which Pomare agreed.359 On the same day that Pomare reported the outcome to McLean, he also appeared in the Native Land Court in Otaki, successfully arguing against the proceeding of Tauteka and Kararaina’s applications for title investigations of Horowhenua, on the grounds that the boundaries were disputed by Muaupoko.360

In early September 1870 the pan-tribal committee which had gathered in April at Kupe reconvened at Waikanae without, it seems, any Muaupoko input. Little is known of the proceedings.361 On the 8 September the ‘Runanga Komiti’, signing as ‘Ngatiawa, Ngatitoa and Tamatea’, published its decision on the dispute ‘peacefully and in accordance with the law’.362 It proclaimed the interested parties at Horowhenua as the descendents of Te Whatanui on the one hand, being Wiremu Pomare, Tauteka, Kararaina and Te Watene; and the descendents of Taueki on the other, being Ihaia Taueki and Muaupoko; and urged outsiders on both sides of the dispute to stop interfering. In the same vein, the committee ordained that the distribution of any lease monies be left to these parties to manage, and similarly, that the patuna in the Hokio stream properly purchased by Muaupoko be left to them. Crucially, the committee endorsed the Tauateruru boundary between the two parties, as modified by Pomare to take in Kupe. On 13 September Mitai Pene Taui, accompanied by three men of Ngati Awa, made their way to Horowhenua. The following day ‘we led the descendants of Te Whatanui to see – along with the Muaupoko – the laying down of the boundary of their land’, as ordained by the committee.363

Pene Taui was careful to point out that six Muaupoko took part in this auspicious boundary-making (without specifying who), no doubt to legitimise the runanga’s decision. However Muaupoko’s acceptance of this boundary could not be further from the truth: that same day Ihaia Taueki departed for Whanganui to enlist the help of Kemp. From his home at Putiki, McLean was told by the Major in no uncertain terms:

Kua tae mai te Karere o Muaupoko ara Ko Ihaia tona ingoa, e ki ana kua parea atu a Horowhenua ki te Kawanatanga – ko taku kupu tenei kia korua ko te Pokiha kaua rawa korua e tahuri atu ki nga ritenga a Ngatiraukawa me Ngatitoa mo taua kainga mo Horowhenua. Kati te whenua hei wakararuraru ma ratou ko Rangitikei kaua ano hoki

359 W Pomare to Native Minister McLean, 4 July 1870, contemporary translation by Native Office, MA 75/1/5 [DB:162- 63]. 360 Otaki MB 1f, p.67. 361 After a number of requests, Pomare secured the services of Mitai Pene Taui to help him at this meeting, but there is no report of proceedings in the government archive, see MA 75/1/5 [DB:165]. 362 ‘Ko te kupu whakaotinga tenei a te Komiti Maori i panuitia ki Waikanae i te 8 o nga ra o Hepetema…’, MA W1369 27 1872/272 [DB:1704], see also W Pomare to Native Minister McLean, 12 September 1870 in MA 75/1/5 [DB:169]. 363 M Pene Taui to Native Minister McLean, 26 September 1870, no.31 in AJHR 1871 F8. 73

te rora e tukua ki Horowhenua me waiho marire kia tahuri taua ki te rapurapu i nga tikanga e tau ai te pai ki tenei motu.364

A messenger named Ihaia has come from the Muaupoko he states that Horowhenua has been handed over to the Government. I say to you and to Mr. Fox do not have anything to do with the proposals of Ngatiraukawa and Ngatitoa in respect of that place Horowhenua. Let them confine their land disturbances to Rangitikei. Do not let a surveyor be sent to Horowhenua, leave it alone, so that you and I may turn our attention for the establishment of peace in this Island.

The same not-so-veiled threat was telegraphed directly to Premier Fox:

I have heard that Ngatiraukawa and Ngatitoa are proceeding to subdivide the land at Horowhenua. Do you write to those tribes not to do so at this present time lest trouble should arise amongst us and the negotiations with the King party be interfered with, and that we may be free to define a policy relative to the King movement, either of peace or war.365

A week later Kawana Hunia reiterated this message, adding for good measure: ‘Ki te whara tetahi tangata o Muaupoko ia Ngatiraukawa katahi ka titiro atu a maua kanohi ko Te Kepa ki taua wahi’ / ‘If any man of the Muaupoko is touched by the Ngatiraukawa, Te Kepa and I will turn our eyes in that direction’.366

Once again, Kemp’s intervention had the desired effect. McLean telegraphed to Matene Te Whiwhi to call off the survey, and file notes suggest that both Kemp and Hunia were told that the government would not interfere as long as neither side escalated the dispute.367 The following month Muaupoko themselves wrote to McLean, repudiating Pomare’s rohe:

He kupu tenei na matou ki a koe, kei whakarongo koe ki te kupu a Pomare mo tana rohe poka noa ki waen[g]a i to matou whenua i Horowhenua. Mau e mahara ki tena tangata tona whenua ko te aupouri. Kaore matou e pai ana ki ana ture mo to matou whenua, kia rongo mai koe, kaore matou e pai ana ki a uruuru te ture pakeha ki runga i to matou whenua kei waiho tena raruraru ki runga i te taha pakeha mau e mahara ki Waitara whenua, waihoki ko tenei whenua kei runga i to matou mana Maori kia raruraru noa ake matou he maori ano kia kaore matou e pai ana ki te pakeha ki a [indecipherable].368

Do not pay attention to what Pomare may say about the boundary which he has interfered to lay off through our land at Horowhenua. You should consider that that

364 Meiha Keepa to McLean, 14 September 1870, contemporary translation by Native Office, MA 75/1/5 [DB:174]. Ihaia Taueki’s presence at Wanganui was also reported by Aperahama and Te Wiiti, see W Pomare to Matene Te Whiwhi, 18 September 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:180]. 365 Meiha Keepa to Premier Fox, 13 September 1870, MA 75/1/7, CFRT Crown and Private Land Purchasing Records and Petitions Document Bank, Wai 2200,#A67(b) [CFRT DB, A67(b):13983] nb the English translation printed as no.29 in AJHR 1871 F8 was incorrectly dated 19 September. 366 Hunia Te Hakeke to Native Minister McLean, 22 September 1870, MA 75/1/5 [DB:178]. Contemporary translation by Native Office, no.30 in AJHR 1871 F8. 367 See for example notes on Hunia Te Hakeke to Native Minister McLean, 22 September 1870, MA 75/1/5 [DB:176]. 368 Heta Whatamahoe, Ihaia Taueki, Hoani, Rewiri, na te iwi katoa o Muaupoko, 28 October 1870, MA 75/1/5 [DB:186]; contemporary translation by Native Office, emphasis in original, no. 32 in AJHR 1871 F8. 74

man’s land is Te Aupouri. We are not willing to accept his ruling with reference to our land. Give heed. We are not willing that our land should be dealt with by the European law, lest the trouble should fall upon the Europeans. Remember Waitara land was the cause of that trouble, and as this land is held under our Maori mana, if trouble should arise it will be confined to Maoris. We are not willing that Europeans should come here to survey.

Their protest received the following one-line acknowledgement from Assistant-Secretary Halse a full month later: ‘It is right for you to tell your troubles’.369

Muaupoko’s repudiation of Ngati Raukawa’s claims was accompanied by rumours that tangata whenua tribes to the north had united in their support, and planned to build a fighting pa on the disputed rohe.370 As Matene Te Whiwhi pointed out to Halse, Whanganui were armed with government weapons.371 When the Native Minister visited the district in November 1870 to sort out the mess Featherston had made of the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase, the discussion kept returning to Horowhenua. Karanama Te Kapukai of Muhunoa, McLean’s companion on this tour, was particularly concerned about the developing theatre of contest:

Te Peeti wants to eat me. He has sold all his land, and now I know he wants my body. If I am killed on account of it what matters? Although there are many chiefs of Raukawa, I have the word. I am not quarrelling about Rangitikei but about Horowhenua. When Te Kepa and Peeti have lost work for their swords they will look about for a living and turn upon me. Horowhenua is my very own land. I will stick out against any interference from Hunia. They think that you will support them if they make a disturbance about Horowhenua. Raukawa, do not talk about many things only about Horowhenua.372

To which Peeti Te Aweawe responded: Now about Horowhenua. These persons of Raukawa who were left there by Whatanui along with Muaupoko are all right, but now that Matene te Whiwhi has entered upon it and others along with him, I wont have it. If Karanama wants to fight I will. I will admit none of the Raukawa to Horowhenua beyond those who were left there by Te Whatanui. Te Keepa may fight for it and whoever is the strongest will get it.373

In his response urging the parties to ‘let your differences be settled quietly’, McLean singled out Hunia and Kemp in particular:

Te Keepa and others who are with the Government must not go to war on this account; let land questions be fought out as we are fighting this one (by argument); and let war be made only against murderers and evil doers. I ask you Hunia and Keepa to be reasonable in your views.374

369 Halse to Heta Te Whatamahoe, 28 November 1870, no.33 in AJHR 1871 F8. 370 Wiremu Pomare to Tamihana Te Rauparaha, 18 September 1870, MA 75/1/5, [DB:180]. 371 See Halse’s note on translation of above, MA 75/1/5 [DB:179]. 372 Karanama Te Kapukai, ‘Manawatu. 10th November 1870’, MA13/114/72a, [WT DB, MA13/72a: 33-34]. 373 Ibid, Peeti Te Aweawe [37]. 374 McLean, 18 November, ibid [105]. 75

In December 1870 Nerehana Te Paea and Karanama Te Kapukai of Muhunoa cleared and planted a garden at Mahoenui; in January 1871 a party of Muaupoko tore out the young potato seedlings and destroyed the garden fence.375 Hector McDonald was back in trouble, this time with Muaupoko men Hoani Puihi and Te Rangirurupuni. McDonald had paid Te Watene £10 towards rent, no doubt to keep him sweet, but this action brought the anger of the Muaupoko men on his head, and he was once again facing the threat of having his sheep driven off.376

All of these complaints and rumours were met by the Native Minister with the advice to the chiefs on both sides ‘to be more temperate, and to arrange the question amicably’. In the Under Secretary’s opinion, McLean did not attach much importance to the dispute, possibly because he considered that Ngati Raukawa’s lack of arms kept matters in check.377 Even as tension mounted after the events recounted below, Premier Fox, too, shared this lack of concern, referring to the dispute as ‘hubbub’ that would require watching.378

House burning at Kohuturoa In the winter of 1871 tempers once again reached flashpoint on the coast when an armed taua led by Kawana Hunia confronted Te Watene and others at Kohuturoa and set fire to some houses. Te Watene claimed that Kemp also led the attack, but this was subsequently found to be untrue.379 His initial report of the taua – of 10 armed men – quickly blew up into a ‘Muaupoko’ assault 29-strong, another falsehood.380 Kohuturoa was a small settlement on the south-east of the lake, home to the Muaupoko family of Tamati Maunu, who is said to have lived here with Te Whatanui Tutaki in his day, and who were among those manhandled in this incident.381 Te Watene had only recently moved there from his lodgings at Raumatangi. Kemp and other Muaupoko witnesses later maintained that his doing so was

375 Nerehana Te Paea to Native Minister McLean, 27 January 1870, no.36 in AJHR 1871 F8. At the 1873 title investigation, and again at the 1890 partition hearing, Kemp maintained that the garden had been destroyed at his direction, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 27 March 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p. 252; Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 11 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p.166. In 1890 Te Rangimairehau too, stated that Muaupoko had written to Kemp for advice about the planting at Mahoenui, and that he had responded ‘telling them to be strong to assert their rights.’ Te Rangimairehau, 19 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 203. 376 H McDonald to Native Minister McLean, 10 November 1870, MA 75/2/9 [DB:439]; H Puihi, Te Rangirurupuni to McLean, 10 November 1870, MA 75/1/5 [DB:195-196]. 377 See Halse’s comment, dated 23 February 1871, on Tamehana Te Rauparaha to Halse, January 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:197]; also Native Minister McLean to Premier Fox (telegram), 30 June 1871, MA 75/1/7 [CFRT DB, A067 (b):14019]. 378 See for example Premier Fox to Native Minister McLean (telegram), 30 June 1871, MA 75/1/7 [CFRT DB, A067 (b):13980]; and Fox to Gisborne (memo), 30 June 1871, MA 75/1/7 [DB:418]. 379 Parakaia Tokorua to Halse, 3 July 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:287]. 380 Karanama Te Kaputai to Native Minister McLean, 30 June 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:212]. On this occasion Kawana Hunia was said to have been accompanied by his Ngati Apa men, Te Rangimairehau, 18 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p.200. Te Paki Te Hunga seems to have been the only Muaupoko singled out as having taken part, Petition of Tamihana Te Rauparaha, AJHR 1871 I-1. 381 Te Watene claimed the occupants of the houses were dragged out, including Tamati Maunu, his son-in-law Hetariki Matao, and ‘Rawiri’ [Te Whiumairangi?]’, and their wives and children, see Te Watene Tiwaewae to Wi Parata, Wi Tako and all the runanga, 28 June 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:203]. Te Watene claimed his wife Kiriteaho, Hone Te Wiiti, and Ropiha were also present. 76 a deliberate provocation in the context of the boundary dispute.382 An outraged Te Watene immediately relayed the news to the various communities of Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Awa, claiming that Kawana Hunia intended further harm, sparking in turn a flurry of telegrams from these community leaders to government officials and ministers.383

As set out above, initial correspondence between Premier Fox and Native Minister McLean about this incident suggests these men were not overly concerned. ‘Burning a house down is not necessarily a declaration of war’, Fox told the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs, ‘but a strong assertion of ownership which may lead to broken heads.’384 It was a land dispute which had been simmering for a long time, he explained, and ‘No white men are likely to be mixed up in it.’385 Steps however were taken to contain any conflict. Matene Te Whiwhi, Ihakara Tukumaru and others were urged by McLean not to respond in kind, but to leave the matter to the law. Resident Magistrate Major JT Edwards was sent to Horowhenua to find out what had happened, and to persuade the parties to ‘submit the dispute to the proper tribunal in order that it may be satisfactorily and finally concluded.’386 Knocks, the interpreter based at Otaki, was also asked to report. McLean wrote to Kemp and Hunia for an explanation, and he also approached chiefs further afield, like Mete Kingi at Whanganui, to find out their position on the dispute.387

Tellingly, in his correspondence about his week at Horowhenua, Edwards referred to the disputants throughout as Ngati Apa and Ngati Raukawa.388 Knocks, too, reported on Kawana Hunia’s ‘strong determination not to allow the Ngatiraukawa to have any claim to the ’, preventing occupation of the disputed land by force if necessary.389 His men were rumoured to have left to get arms and ammunition.390 Although Kemp denied any part in the arson at Kohuturoa, he did take credit by this time for Pipiriki, a new fighting pa being built just south of Tauateruru.391 Notes taken by Knocks give an insight into the positions of these two men:

382 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 26 March 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p. 248; Ruta Te Kiritotara, 28 March 1873, Otaki MB 1A, p.267- Otaki MB 2, p.1. Makere Te Rou made a similar statement to the Horowhenua Commission in 1896, 16 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.104. 383 Ibid, see also Te Watene Tiwaewae to Ohau, Waikawa, Otaki and to all the Ngati Raukawa, 28 June 1871; JF Knocks to Cooper, Under-Secretary Native Department, 29 June 1871; Ihakara Tukumaru to Halse, 30 June 1871 (telegram); Matene Te Whiwhi to McLean, 30 June 1871 (telegram); Karanama Te Kaputai o Tu to McLean, 30 June 1871; nos. 37-38, AJHR 1871 F8; MA 75/1/5 [DB:199-203]. 384 Fox to Gisborne, 30 June 1871, MA 75/1/7 [DB:419]. 385 Ibid. In the Premier’s view, government purchase was one possible remedy: ‘If McLean were at their elbows he might perhaps heal the broken heads by buying up the ‘locus in quo’. 386 Halse, for acting Native Minister Bell, 1 July 1871, MA 75/2/9. 387 Native Minister McLean to Mete Kingi, 3 July 1871, no. 46 in AJHR 1871 F-8. 388 Edwards to Bell, telegram, 6 July 1871; Edwards to Bell, telegram, 6 July 1871; JT Edwards to Native Minister McLean, 10 July 1871, no.55 in AJHR 1871 F8. NB: Ngati Awa’s runanga, too, described the imminent conflict as between Ngati Apa, Wanganui and Ngati Raukawa, Wi Tako & others to Ihaia Porutu, 11 July 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:223-4]. 389 Knocks to McLean, telegram, 2 July 1871, MA 75/1/7 [CFRT DB, A067(b): 13984]. 390 Edwards, ‘Rough notes in guidance of Mr Knocks handed to me by him. Forwarded for the information of the Hon Native Ministers. JT Edwards RM 11/7/71’, MA 75/1/5 [DB:218]. 391 See map ML4903. Kemp told McLean that he had tried to stop Hunia from setting fire to the houses, Kemp to Resident Magistrate Woon, 30 July 1871, no. 80 in AJHR 1871 F-8. 77

Matene and Eru Tahitangata say they are in possession of a statement made by Te Keepa at Horowhenua to the effect that the Ngatiraukawa had put forward Pomare as the representative of Te Whatanui, and that he now stands placed by Hunia as the representative of Ngatiapa and Muaupoko. That this dispute is not a fresh affair, it is destructive to our strength, (tiresome). This is the reason why I thought that the chiefs should meet here at Horowhenua in an amicable manner and that some way might be found to settle the question finally. Should you continue obstinate the dispute will never be settled. If you say in your pride that you will take the land, I say you shall not. It matters not the Surveying or getting a Crown Grant, you will not succeed, because we have put our veto upon your claim. That Hunia addressed Karanama Te Whakaheke as follows. Welcome Ngatiraukawa. You Hearken to me. You see I have again returned to Okupe Horowhenua. We are still in possession of Okupe. My friend Te Watene says the land is his – I say he must leave the place – he must go away. People must not be mistaken in thinking that Horowhenua is my only object. No. It is the whole of my land, - I intend to try my claim to Ohau, Waikawa, Otaki, and Kukutauki, and all other land within your boundary that is left unsold to the Pakeha, and will not desist until I have received my rights, because I the owner am still in existence. For that reason I challenge you the Ngatiraukawa to fight.392

The dispute at Horowhenua had clearly turned into something much larger. According to Knocks, only part of Muaupoko was taking part with Kemp and Hunia, ‘the other side more or less with the Ngatiraukawa’.393 Those caught up in Kawana Hunia’s bullying at Kohuturoa would scarcely have been sympathetic towards his cause, Te Watene reporting at this time that he still enjoyed the support of Tamati Maunu and Hetariki Matao.394

Edwards had secured the agreement of the disputants to withdraw from the contested land until the boundary issue had been settled, although correspondence from Te Watene suggests he was not party to this decision.395 At Kupe, Edwards’ proposal to settle the dispute by recourse to the Native Land Court met with opposition, ‘a strong feeling, which I was unable to dispel’, but he did gain both parties’ consent to having the matter adjudicated by runanga, presided over by one or two Pakeha appointed by the government. McLean duly reassured Matene Te Whiwhi that Kemp and Hunia had been told ‘to leave it for the law to settle this dispute, that it is for the chiefs of the Maori and Pakeha.’396 The arson itself was to be dealt with by the Resident Magistrates court. Even as Edwards penned his full report of negotiations, however, fresh reports of renewed threats of violence at Horowhenua sent him back to the district. On 10 July 1871 Te Watene again appealed to Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Awa to come to his aid: ‘…send us some men this very night. Send them quickly and send them tonight.’397 Halse too, relayed similar reports from Wi Tako of an imminent attack by

392 Edwards, ‘Rough notes in guidance of Mr Knocks…’, MA 75/1/5 [DB:218]. 393 JA Knocks to Native Minister McLean, 2 July 1871, no. 44 in AJHR 1871 F-8. 394 Te Watene to Native Minister McLean, 22 July 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:236-7]. 395 On 3 July 1871 Te Watene told Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Awa: ‘… you are only strengthening the words of Te Keepa and Hunia. If this is complied with these persons will become greater, and so will their work – I shall not do as you direct.’ MA 75/2/9. 396 Native Minister McLean to Matene Te Whiwhi, 8 July 1871, MA 75/2/9 [DB:431]. 397 Te Watene Te Kaharawa to Ohau, to Waikanae, to Pukekaraka, to Otaki, to Katihiku, to Waikanae..”, 10 July 1871 MA 75/1/5 [DB:225]. 78

Hunia and Kemp to the Native Minister.398 This time, McLean was concerned enough to return to Wellington.399

Throughout July and August 1871 the situation at Horowhenua remained tense. Although Matene Te Whiwhi managed to persuade his people to stay home at Otaki, Ngati Huia built a fighting pa at Poroutawhao, their numbers augmented by relations from the south.400 An aukati was also laid down by Ngati Huia, restricting Muaupoko movement at Horowhenua, and causing further annoyance with regards to stock.401 For Ngati Raukawa, the government arms in Kemp and Hunia’s possession accounted for much of the trouble. ‘Friend’, Ihakara Tukumaru implored McLean:

take away the arms belonging to the Government, do not leave them in their possession to do evil with; they do nothing but curse Ngatiraukawa. You have heard the curse of Te Peeti for the chiefs of Ngatiraukawa. The curse is, that the bones of Te Whatanui should be dug up and thrown into the Horowhenua Lake. You understand the Native custom relating to curses. You have these persons tried by the law; do not leave them here to bring about war, and sin against God.402

Faced with ongoing complaints from the likes of Tamihana Te Rauparaha, that Kawana Hunia was ‘like a barking dog’, and that ‘the sword given by the Queen to Major Kemp is to be used for cutting off our heads’, together with news of their having 25 armed followers, in mid-July McLean asked Kemp and Hunia to explain their continued occupation, inviting the duo to talk it over with him in Wellington: ‘All the people should return to their respective homes.’403 Kemp responded:

Kaore kau he Tangata o Ngatiapa o Wanganui kei konei, kore rawa atu, kahore ki a kotahi, heoi ano nga Tangata e rua tekau ma ono, me nga koroheke me nga wahine me nga Tamariki, no tenei kainga, ano aua Tangata … he oti ano ko maua anake kei konei, ara Ko Meiha Keepa, a Tanguru nei, o Muaupoko nei hoa wawai o Te Rauparaha nei, o ngati Awa, o ngati Watua, o ngati Maru, o Waikato o nga Puhi, me etahi atu iwi, ko Kawana Hunia, na Kaewa, no Muaupoko nei ano hoki maua… 404

there are no people of Ngatiapa or Whanganui here – there are none – no, not one. There are only twenty six men besides the old men, the women and children; and those [people] belong to this place. … There are only the two of us here that is to say Major Kemp by Tanguru of Muaupoko who fought against Te Rauparaha, Ngatiawa, Ngatiwhatua, Ngatimaru, Waikato and other tribes; and Kawana Hunia by Kaewa and we are both of Muaupoko.405

398 Assistant Under-Secretary Native Dept., Halse to Native Minister McLean, 13 July 1871, telegram, MA13/120/75b [WT DB, MA 13/75b: 816-818]. 399 Native Minister McLean to Bishop of Wellington, 12 July 1871, telegram, no. 63 in AJHR 1871 F-8. 400 Tamihana Te Rauparaha to Native Minister McLean, 24 August 1871, no. 95 in AJHR 1871 F8. 401 One of the allegations made against Ngati Huia was that they had seized and killed Muaupoko cattle which had transgressed the aukati, see for example Hunia to Native Minister McLean, 11 August 1871, no. 88 in AJHR 1871 F8. 402 Ihakara Tukumaru to Native Minister McLean, 29 July 1871, no.79 in AJHR 1871 F8. 403 Tamihana Te Rauparaha to Halse, 17 July 1871, MA 75/1/5 [0163]; Edwards to McLean, telegram, 18 July 1871; McLean to Kemp, telegram, 19 July 1871, nos. 72 & 73 in AJHR 1871 F-8. 404 Meiha Keepa to McLean, 22 July 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:241-3]. 405 Contemporary translation by Native Office, MA 75/1/5 [DB:238-240]. 79

Ten days later McLean repeated the request, to which Kemp again responded: ‘I have arrived at my home at Horowhenua.’406 In early August the Major let McLean know that Hunia would see him in Wellington, but that he would remain in Horowhenua ‘to look after our people’.407

Over the ensuing four months, McLean kept a busy, albeit arms’ length, management of the dispute. The fact that both parties backing the crisis at Horowhenua – the rangatira of Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Awa runanga on the one hand and Major Kemp and Kawana Hunia on the other – were both considered to be government allies may account for his reluctance to take up their invitation to become directly involved. McLean relied on this relationship, through personal communications with these rangatira to work towards resolution. His approach involved the promise of runanga adjudication, to take place once the parliamentary session was over, with the main protagonists at Horowhenua to return to their homes in the meantime. He also employed Marsden Clarke to be his local eyes and ears on the ground during this period, to report on ‘the real views’ of the residents, both about the Horowhenua dispute and the proposed means to resolve it.408

In Wellington, in the first week of August, McLean obtained Kawana Hunia’s agreement to have the matter – ‘the dispute about Major Keepa’s and my land’ – adjudicated by a special court comprised of Maori chiefs and Pakeha appointees.409 McLean immediately informed Matene Te Whiwhi, asking him to get Ngati Raukawa’s nominees as Maori adjudicators, the court to be held in October or November.410 Throughout August McLean also received messages of support from tribal leaders in the wider region, authorising and indeed urging him and the government to inquire into and settle the dispute. Meetings about Horowhenua were held at Kakariki in mid-August and at Putiki two weeks later, and resolutions to this effect were communicated to McLean.411 At the end of August Clarke reported that at Horowhenua itself:

There is less excitement now than there was a fortnight ago, but I do not wish the Government to infer that perfect peace is restored in the district. I believe that the Natives are remaining quietly, but very impatiently, for the Government to settle this dispute.412

Clarke had done his best, he said, to ‘pour oil on the troubled waters’. He had managed to negotiate a way through local grievances such as the retrieval of Muaupoko cattle from Ngati Huia’s run, and Te

406 Kemp to McLean, 30 July 1871, no. 80 in AJHR 1871 F8. 407 Kemp to McLean, 2 August 1871, no. 81 in AJHR 1871 F8. 408 McLean to M Clarke, 11 August 1871, no.87 in AJHR 1871 F8. 409 Hunia supported the selection of chiefs Renata and Te Hapuku from Hawkes Bay, and Bell, Maning, Edwards and McDonald for possible Pakeha appointees, see Kawana Hunia to McLean, 11 August 1871, no. 88 in AJHR 1871, F8. 410 McLean to McDonald to Matene Te Whiwhi, 11 August 1871, no. 89 in AJHR 1871 F8. 411 Aperahama Tipae and others to McLean, 15 August 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:273]; Woon to McLean, 29 August 1871, no. 101; Aperanika Taiawhio to McLean, 9 August 1871, no.84; Te Reimana to McLean, 31 August 1871, no. 103 in AJHR 1871 F8; . 412 M Clarke, ‘Report relative to the Land Dispute at Horowhenua’, encl in no.104, in AJHR 1831 F8. 80

Watene had been restrained from taking timber from the disputed land. He was less successful at convincing Te Watene to leave altogether. Clarke reported that ‘almost everything he [Te Watene] did was considered by the Muaupoko as done in defiance of themselves’, including his exaggerated accounts to Otaki and Manawatu ‘of what the other party had said and done: by this means keeping up a constant excitement.’413

Getting the main protagonists to leave Horowhenua proved difficult. In addition to the direct appeals to Kemp, Hunia and Te Watene to remove themselves outlined above, McLean also called on tribal leaders like Mete Kingi of Whanganui and Matene Te Whiwhi at Otaki to exert their influence to the same end, to no avail.414 McLean at last persuaded Kemp and Hunia to leave in early September 1871, but his failure to move a truculent Te Watene, supported by chiefs Matene Te Whiwhi and Tamihana Te Rauparaha, threatened to unhinge the arrangement. In mid-September, having heard that Te Watene remained at Horowhenua with 200 Ngati Raukawa, an angry Kemp telegraphed McLean from Whanganui:

You said you would be strong to remove Watene from off disputed land. Ngatiraukawa are trampling on you, and your word is set at nought.415

By this time Tamihana Te Rauparaha’s patience with McLean and the government had run out. On 25 September 1871 he and two others petitioned Parliament about the Native Minister’s inaction regarding Horowhenua, asking Parliament to have the government arms and ammunition in the possession of Kawana Hunia and Major Kemp and their people removed:

Kaua etahi o koutou e whakaaro, he whawhai na te Maori ki a ratou whakamaori ano e pai ana, kaore, kei te titiro mai etahi iwi atu kei te mohio katoa nga iwi he whenua tuturu no Ngatiraukawa a reira me te mohio hoki na te Kawanatanga a Ngatiapa i whakawhiwhi ki te pu, ma konei ka nui haere tenei he. Kua pa te pouri ki etahi o matou kua mahara hoki kahore te Kawanatanga e aroha mai ana e awhi ana i nga tangata rangimarie.

Do not consider that, because this is a fight between two sections of the Native race, it is all right; no, other tribes are looking on, and all the tribes know that that place is a permanent possession of Ngatiraukawa; they also know that the Government supplied the Ngatiapa with guns, in consequence of which this trouble will increase.

Some of us are in great distress, and have begun to think that the Government have no regard for, nor do they draw near to, peaceful people.416

413 Ibid. 414 McLean to Mete Kingi, 26 July 1871, no.77 in AJHR 1871 F8; McLean to Matene Te Whiwhi, 10 August 1871, no. 85 in AJHR 1871 F8; 415 Kawana Hunia, Major Kemp, RW Woon to McLean, telegram, 15 September 1871, no. 109 in AJHR 1871 F8 416 ‘Petition of Tamihana Te Rauparaha and others’, 25 September 1871, AJHR 1871 I-1. 81

Two days later, the petition was referred to the Legislative Council’s Select Committee on Native Affairs. The prospect of public scrutiny seems to have prodded McLean into firming up plans for the runanga arbitration, now to be held in December: nominations for Maori and Pakeha adjudicators were received from Ngati Raukawa in the first week of October and Kemp was approached for the same.417 Kemp was also reprimanded by McLean about the use of government arms at Horowhenua, which he countered:

You were wrongly informed respecting Government arms having been taken to Horowhenua, such was not the case; the only Government arms at Horowhenua were those in possession of Muaupoko, which were served out by Colonel Whitmore at Orotaki, where Hanita Kowhai, of Muaupoko, was killed. Rangitane also have some Government arms. You seem to harp upon this question of the arms. If you require the guns to be given up, say so, and it shall be done. You cannot say that any root of evil has originated with me, which is more than can be said of Matene Te Whiwhi … . Your word about the arbitration is good, but first secure the removal of Watene.418

McLean promptly requested Kemp to retrieve and hand in the arms that had been issued to him, promising that Te Watene would be removed.419 The Native Minister then exerted pressure on Matene Te Whiwhi to do so.420

With regard to the Native Affairs Select Committee, the evidence suggests slick manoeuvring on McLean’s part. Anderson and Pickens relate that McLean forwarded all the relevant correspondence about the Horowhenua dispute to the select committee on 17 October, one of the concluding telegrams dated 14 October 1871 conveying the news to Woon (and Kemp) in Whanganui that Te Watene had agreed to leave Horowhenua until the arbitration was over.421 In his accompanying memorandum to the select committee, McLean argued that it would be inexpedient for the committee to inquire into the dispute as both parties had agreed to arbitration in December, and that taking evidence from one side only would ‘be most prejudicial and tend to retard the settlement of the matter.’422 Kemp and Hunia had retired at his request, he stated, and had since agreed to deliver up their arms. Ngati Raukawa, too, promised to abide by the impartial arbitration, and had already selected their preferred adjudicators. ‘No endeavour has been lost sight of by government to bring about a peaceful solution of their tribal differences,’ the draft memorandum on file relates, ‘and the Committee will doubtless see that it would be most inopportune to interfere with the Horowhenua question in its present stage.’423 It

417 Clarke to McLean, 5 October 1871, no. 119; McLean to Kemp, 6 October 1871, telegram, no.126 in AJHR 1871 F-8. 418 Kemp to McLean, 7 October 1871, telegram, no. 127 in AJHR 1871 F8. 419 A telegram by McLean two days later suggests that Kemp was unable to comply with the Minister’s request to make a list of the arms and hand them in to Major Turner’s care, as ‘all the arms were not issued to you as major’. McLean advised Kemp ‘act for yourself and Hunia as you state and I will discuss this when you come to Wellington.’ See McLean to Kemp, 9 October 1871, telegram, MA 75/2/9 [DB:436]. 420 McLean to Matene Te Whiwhi, 7 October 1871, no. 129 in AJHR 1871 F-8. 421 The correspondence was tabled at the motion of WBD Mantell, see Anderson and Pickens, p.157; McLean to RW Woon, 14 October 1871, no. 133 in AJHR 1871 F-8. 422 Memorandum, draft copy to McLean, 17 October 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:372]. 423 Ibid. 82 seems that on this basis, Tamihana Te Rauparaha and Te Watene, who had been summoned to give evidence before the committee, were prevented from doing so: put off with postponements and then told that the matter had been settled.424 Part of the justification for this decision was Te Watene’s supposed agreement to leave Horowhenua, when in fact he had made no such capitulation. Before returning home, the pair publicly aired their disgust with the proceedings, and with McLean in particular:

If blood is shed, do not let the blame be thrown on Ngatiraukawa. Mr McLean’s Government is not a Government that upholds the Queen’s laws. It is carried on by bribing the Maori with money to get them to keep quiet.425

Travers’ inquiry: November 1871 McLean had put off repeated Maori requests for an inquiry with the promise that it would happen once the parliamentary session was over. As outlined above, the mixed runanga had been first mooted by Muaupoko with Edwards in July 1871 as an alternative to the Native Land Court process. In late November 1871 William Thomas Locke Travers was directed by McLean to take the ‘voluntary statements’ of interested parties in the dispute. Travers was a prominent Wellington lawyer who, as Member for Christchurch City, had appeared as counsel for Ngati Raukawa in the Himatangi rehearing of 1869, which makes him a surprising choice for any kind of impartial inquiry. At the time, however, this inquiry seems to have been presented as a preliminary fact-finding exercise: those who took part in Travers’ questioning still expected to be heard by runanga arbitration. Kemp later testified that the suggestion was made at a dinner put on by Governor Bowen, which he attended with Hunia, McLean and Fox.426

Kemp answered Travers’ questioning over 23-24 November, the questions and answers interpreted by Young from the Native Department, and recorded as ‘Minutes of Evidence’.427 Kemp claimed ancestral occupation as a chief of Muaupoko. His rohe at this initial hearing began at Te Karangi on the coast to the north, running southwards along to the beach past Hokio as far as Urehamama, and striking inland to Mahoenui and Kuhatimanga (inland on the Ohau stream), closely echoing the

424 Tamihana Te Rauparaha, Watene Tiwaewae, Letter to the editor, Evening Post, 19 October 1871. Anderson and Pickens relate that the select committee reported back to this effect on 6 November 1871, p. 159. 425 Ibid. 426 Kemp stated that he gave his statement to Travers the following day, adding to the impression that the proceedings were hastily contrived. ‘Kukutauaki Block: copy of proceedings of Native Land Court at Foxton, November 1872, with Notes of Evidence’, MA 75/8 p.60, cited in Anderson and Pickens, p. 159. Nb Anderson and Pickens raise the possibility that McLean had already decided on this course of action, which was ‘sprung’ on Kemp and Hunia at the dinner, but it seems just as likely that McLean simply wished to make the most of the men’s presence in town. 427 ‘Minutes of Evidence taken by William Thomas Locke Travers in reference to the Horowhenua Land dispute under instructions of the Hon Mr McLean dated 20 November 1871’, MA W1369 27 1872/272 [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4421]. 83 boundaries given by Noa Te Whata in the context of the Muhunoa purchase in 1866 (see pp.54-55).428 In this early articulation of his claim, Kemp felt no need to take the boundary to the Tararua ranges: ‘There is no dispute about land inland of this. We claim the whole within these boundaries.’429

To Travers’ questioning about Te Rauparaha’s conquest of Muaupoko, Kemp focused instead on the battles – Waimapihi, Paikakariki and Waimea – in which Ngati Toa had suffered defeat at Muaupoko hands. He denied Muaupoko at Horowhenua ran away to the mountains, or that Te Whatanui claimed the right to deal with all the land there. Rather, he stated that Te Whatanui’s tenure derived from the peace agreement reached with Taueki, in which the Muaupoko chief gave him a place to occupy beside the lake, and access to timber. Asked why Muaupoko had never claimed the land before, Kemp responded that it had never been an issue until leasing began, from which time neighbouring Ngati Raukawa entities and Te Whatanui Tutaki began their encroachment on Muaupoko boundaries. Kawana Hunia was present during Kemp’s statement but he declined to make his own. The following week, Travers took evidence from Te Watene Tiwaewae, Ihakara Tukumaru and Wi Tako Ngatata.

Te Watene stressed Te Whatanui’s protection, and his friendship with Taueki, claiming south of ‘the boundary laid down by Te Whatanui’, which he maintained was marked with posts, some of which he had replaced relatively recently.430 The details of Te Whatanui’s boundary were not recorded in the minutes, presumably because it was so well-known. Te Watene told Travers that he was prepared to concede the small boundary modification made by Pomare the year before.

Ihakara Tukumaru claimed to have lived with Te Whatanui at Horowhenua until his death in 1845. According to Ihakara, Muaupoko lived within their own rohe, as prescribed by the chief. In his view, the fact that the tribe had not participated in the New Zealand Company purchase of the Manawatu was indicative of their low status at that time: ‘It is only owing to the Europeans that they are able to open their mouths at all now.’431 For his part, Wi Tako Ngatata of Ngati Awa declaimed any knowledge of boundaries, but he too was adamant that, but for Te Whatanui’s protection, Muaupoko would have been annihilated. Ngatata distinguished between his own relationship with Ngati Kahungunu at Wairarapa, and Muaupoko’s circumstances at Horowhenua: ‘They were completely defeated. The Mana or right over the land was not given back to them.’432

428 These places are depicted on Adkin’s maps, on which Te Karangi and Urehamama (or Rakauhamama) are shown as lagoons; and on ML 4903 which Kemp helped create for the title investigation in 1873. Kuhatimanga or Kuhatimunga is also shown on this map. 429 ‘Minutes of evidence…’, p. 1. MA W1369 27 1872/272 [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4421]. 430 Ibid, p. 13. 431 Ibid, p.17. 432 Ibid, Wi Tako Ngatata, p. 20. 84

Travers’ précis of the ‘Horowhenua Land Dispute’ was completed by 16 December 1871. The ‘leading facts’ he presented to McLean faithfully reflected the dominant discourse surrounding pre- Treaty events: that Muaupoko were unable to resist Te Rauparaha and his allies; that they would have been exterminated altogether but for the protection of Te Whatanui; that the ‘remnant’ taken under his wing lived in ‘quasi subjection’ on a reduced area of allocated land; that Taueki and his Muaupoko people lived within these boundaries without objection; and that Te Whatanui remained in undisturbed possession of the balance of Horowhenua until relatively recently.

Travers had called particular attention to Native Secretary Kemp’s 1850 report as evidence of ‘the then condition of the remnant of the Muaupoko tribe’.433 In his account of pre-annexation events published the following year, Travers reiterated his view that the power of the tangata whenua entities of Ngati Apa, Rangitane and Muaupoko had been ‘utterly broken’ by Te Rauparaha, explaining the presence of Muaupoko at Horowhenua as remnants who, thanks to Te Whatanui, ‘were suffered again to occupy part of their original territory in the neighbourhood of Lake Horowhenua; not as a tribe, however, but simply in the character of tributaries, if not actual slaves, to Whatanui.’434 In spite of Major Kemp’s evidence to the contrary, the perception of Muaupoko’s tenure at Horowhenua as being that of ‘a weak remnant of the original owners’ was a pervasive one, shared by Native Department officials.435 In the minds of these officials, Ngati Raukawa had ‘possessed the land since their migration to the West Coast from Waikato subject to certain portions allotted by Te Whatanui to the Muapoko who were the aboriginal inhabitants.’436

3.2 Towards Native Land Court adjudication

In the event, McLean’s promise of adjudication by a mixed tribunal never eventuated, although he continued to act as if it would right through to February 1872.437 Three years later McLean recalled that the attempt to appoint chiefs to settle the dispute had failed, without elaborating why.438 Possibly finding an impartial tribunal proved too difficult: Kawana Hunia had told McLean he would not countenance anyone from Ngapuhi or Waikato, or indeed anyone of low birth – he wanted instead

433 Travers, ‘Horowhenua Land Dispute’, 16 December 1871, MA W1369 27 1872/272 [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4418]. 434 WTL Travers, The Life and Times of Te Rauparaha (Wellington, 1872), republished in 1906 as The Stirring Times of Te Rauparaha, (Christchurch, Whitcombe and Tombs, 1906), pp. 46, 51; 71; see also BJ Foster, ‘Travers, William Thomas Locke’ from An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand edited by AH McLintock (1966), Te Ara – the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, updated 22 November 2011, online at http://www.Te Ara.govt.nz. 435 See for example ‘Brief sketch of the Horowhenua Case’, prepared for the Native Affairs Committee in October 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:363]. 436 Ibid [DB:364]. 437 On 22 December 1871 for example McLean reassured Karanama Te Kaputai that Hector McDonald would be included as a witness in the inquiry, see McLean’s note, 22 December 1871, on Karanama Te Kaputai to McLean, 15 December 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:346]. He also apparently told Te Watene in December the hearing would take place once Pairama arrived, and once Kemp’s party had selected an arbitrator, Watene Tiwaewae to McLean, 28 December 1871, MA W1369 27 1872/272 [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4417]. 438 Anderson and Pickens, p. 162. 85

Hawkes Bay rangatira.439 It seems that Henare Matua was finally nominated on Muaupoko’s behalf in January 1872.440 For their part, Ngati Raukawa debarred Ngati Kahungunu (‘because they owned the land’); and Taranaki (‘as they are relatives of Hunia and Kemp’); and Ngai Tahu (‘because they are enemies of Ngatitoa, and Ngatiawa’).441 One of their choices as arbitrator, Kaipara assessor Pairama, was sent for in November, but proved unable to come.442 Ngati Raukawa were told of this in January 1872.443

It is also likely that Wellington Provincial Government ambitions to procure land, coupled with Ngati Raukawa’s desire to sell ‘waste lands’ on the coast, was a large factor in McLean’s decision to resort instead to the Native Land Court. The Horowhenua dispute was only part of the wider contest for customary lands south of the Manawatu River, particularly over inland areas tangata heke groups had never occupied.444 Hearn relates that by early 1872 the provincial government had plans to construct an inland road linking Wellington with its recent Rangitikei-Manawatu acquisition.445 By February 1872 tribal attention had turned to the Tararua ranges, with Ngati Raukawa and Tamihana Te Rauparaha making separate offers to sell the mountains to the Superintendent of the Wellington Province, Fitzherbert.446 The news provoked Muaupoko and Rangitane protest to the Superintendent via the Resident Magistrate at Whanganui, asking ‘generally what had been done declaring that they were the owners… . They want to have a long talk with you over the subject of land and selling.’447 Kemp simultaneously approached McLean, asking him to stop any such purchase: ‘The proper places for them to sell are around & about otaki that is to say the places upon which their fires have burnt.’448 McLean duly telegraphed the Superintendent, warning him that ‘the utmost caution is required in any negotiations at present south of Manawatu where there are so many conflicting interests of different tribes.’449

439 Hunia to Native Minister McLean, 11 August 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:258-265]. Hunia specified Renata and Te Hapuku in particular. 440 At least, this is what Karanama Te Kaputai had heard by this time, see Karanama Te Kaputai to Native Minister McLean, 2 February 1872, MA W1369 27 1872/272 [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4411]. Nb this letter has not been translated into English. 441 Matene Te Whiwhi and others to Native Minister McLean, 5 October 1871, MA 75/1/5 [DB:359]. 442 Judge Rogan to Assistant Under-Secretary Halse, 21 November 1871, MA 13/116/73b [WT DB, MA13/73b:722]. 443 Karanama Te Kaputai to Native Minister McLean, 2 February 1872, MA W1369 27 1872/272 [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4411]. 444 By early 1872 a number of blocks Muaupoko claimed interests in (outside of the inquiry district) had been passed through the Native Land Court in the Wairarapa and sold, sparking correspondence about entitlement, see for example H Te Hiaro to Halse, 1 January 1872, relaying Hetariki Matao’s query about the sale of land at Mangatainoka; and Peeti Te Aweawe to Halse, 1 January 1872, complaining that Muaupoko had no right to ask for money for the Manawatu-Wairarapa block, both in MA 13/118/74a [WT DB, MA13/74a:194; 261]. 445 Hearn, p. 578. 446 Ngati Raukawa apparently went to Wellington at this time for the purpose of selling Tararua, a move denounced by both Tamihana Te Rauparaha (‘They are foolish pay no heed to them’) and Karanama Te Kapukaiotu, on the grounds that the vendors were Hauhau and returning soon to Maungatautari, see T Te Rauparaha to Fitzherbert, 29 February 1872; Karanama Te Kapukaiotu to Fitzherbert, 29 February 1872; MA 13/119/75a [WT DB, MA13/75a:464-469]. Fitzherbert may have advanced them £100 – see Tamihana Te Rauparaha at WT DB, MA 13/75a:486]. Hearn also writes of a representative Ngati Raukawa hui in March 1872 which Grindell reported on, in which their resolve to ‘sell the mountains to the pakeha’ was posed in terms of resisting further tangata whenua claims, Grindell to Cooper, 25 March 1872, Wellington Provincial Council, Votes and Proceedings, Session XXII 1872, p. 39 cited in Hearn, p. 579. 447 McDonnell to Fitzherbert, 16 February 1872, MA 13/118/74a [WT DB, MA13/74a:1037-1040]. 448 McLean to Superintendent, Wellington, 17 February 1872, telegram, MA 13/119/75a [WT DB, MA13/75a:454-6]. 449 Ibid. 86

The extent to which Ngati Raukawa’s offers to sell the Tararua ranges were solicited by the provincial government is not clear. What is evident is that early in 1872 advances were being made on account of Tararua, the vendors nonetheless told that the purchase could not be completed until title had been granted by the Native Land Court. If Ngati Raukawa wanted income from land sales, they would first need to apply to the court for title determination. James Grindell was seconded to the Wellington Provincial Government to persuade communities within the remaining tract of customary land south of the Manawatu river to obtain a title for their lands from the court.450

How these pressures worked in practice is evident from Te Watene Tiwaewae’s correspondence from Horowhenua. On 26 February 1872 Te Watene wrote to McLean complaining once more of the delay in holding the Horowhenua inquiry.451 A fortnight later however he wrote in again: ‘Ko Horowhenua e minamina ana ahau kia hokona te taha ki te maunga’ / ‘I wish [to sell] that side of Horowhenua towards the mountains’.452 Rumours of transactions over Tararua had obviously reached Raumatangi. Te Watene still wished to know if the arbitration was going ahead, but Grindell had been to see him, and had told him of McLean’s preference to have the dispute dealt with by the Native Land Court. Grindell had also evidently told him that in order to sell the mountain range behind Horowhenua, he would first need to gain title to this land, for Te Watene now expressed his wish to apply to the court for title, and have his land at Horowhenua surveyed. Six days later at Horowhenua, Te Watene, Nerehana Te Paea, Wiremu Pomare and ‘etahi atu’ set down their boundaries in writing for their application.453 The actual application for lands between Tawhitikuri (north of Hokio Stream) and Rakauhamama extending inland to the Tararua ranges, dated 18 March 1872, was made by Te Watene and 13 others of Ngati Parewahawaha and Ngati Huia, including non-resident rangatira Tamihana Te Rauparaha and Matene Te Whiwhi.454 This application apparently superseded earlier ones made on 26 February and again on 4 March 1872 for Horowhenua lands by Ngawiki Tauteka and her sisters.455 On 5 April the Native Department interpreter was directed by Halse to inform Te Watene that the Horowhenua land question was indeed to be decided by the Native Land Court.456

450 Grindell had worked as an interpreter for the Native Land Purchase Department in the 1850s, and had been involved in the early negotiations for the Rangitikei-Manawatu block in 1858, so that he already had some awareness of intertribal politics in the region. 451 Te Watene to McLean, 26 February 1872, MA W1369 27 1872/272 [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4406]. 452 Te Watene to McLean, 11 March 1872, MA W1369 27 1872/272 [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4405]. 453 Te Watene Tiwaewae & others, 17 March 1872, MA 75/2/14 [DB:676]. 454 Application for title determination, 18 March 1872, MA 75/2/14 [DB:664]. 455 Application for title determination, 26 February 1872; 4 March 1872, MA 75/2/14 [DB:666-68]. 456 Note on Te Watene to McLean, 11 March 1872, MA W1369 27 1872/272 [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4403]. 87

Provincial Officer Grindell’s groundwork, 1872 A necessary prerequisite for title determination, in addition to a signed application, was a survey plan. In April 1872 Grindell introduced surveyor Thompson to the various communities along the coast, explaining both the purpose of the survey and the court investigation, and hoping to secure hapu agreement to both. This tour came on the tail of a ‘great meeting’ at Whanganui called Matapihi, at which it was decided that a general application for title to the whole district would be made on behalf of the confederated tribes of Whanganui, Ngati Apa, Ngati Kahungunu and Rangitane (and presumably Muaupoko, although they only learned of this development from Grindell two weeks later, see below).457 Kemp allegedly told Tamihana Te Rauparaha and Matene Te Whiwhi at this meeting of his intention to carry the survey south of Manawatu up to the ‘very door stops’ of Ngati Raukawa, to which Tamihana had replied that ‘he had no objection whatever, that they had placed the matter in the hands of the Government, and were willing to stand or fall by the decision of the Lands Court.’458 This exchange suggests a degree of support among these leaders for recourse to the Native Land Court, but Grindell’s experience during the winter of 1872 reveals that this was by no means shared to the same extent by Muaupoko at Horowhenua.

On the whole Grindell found Ngati Raukawa communities supported the survey and the prospect of court title investigation. Muaupoko at Horowhenua however, were much harder to convince. Grindell had been told by Kemp to bring Kawana Hunia, Huru, Te Peeti and Hoani Meihana to assist him with arranging the survey at Horowhenua, but Grindell chose to ignore these instructions:

These people all being opponents of Te Ngatiraukawa who occupy the lands to be surveyed, and Kawana Hunia in particular being an extremely violent and unreasonable man, I was apprehensive that their presence with me at Horowhenua would only lead to disputes & altercations about boundaries, and probably have the effect of altogether preventing the survey from being made.459

In the event he decided on Hoani Meihana alone, as ‘the most sensible and reasonable’ of Ngati Raukawa’s opponents, and ‘the least obnoxious to them’, who agreed to meet him at Horowhenua and gave him a letter exhorting Muaupoko not to interfere with the survey.

Grindell reached the Muaupoko community on 23 April 1872. He found them ‘excessively mulish and obstinate’:

The greater part of the day was occupied in talking and explaining to these people. They seemed to hesitate about allowing the land to be surveyed at all. I told them that Major Keepa and the representatives of the tribes (their allies) in confederation against the Ngatiraukawa had sent in a general application for the investigation of their title in

457 See also Matene Te Whiwhi to McLean, 2 September 1872, MA 13/118/74a [WT DB, MA13/74a:35-37]. 458 Grindell to Superintendent Fitzherbert, 29 April 1872, MA 13/120/75b (WT DB, MA13/75b:300]. 459 Ibid, [WT DB, MA13/75b:298-99]. 88

respect of the whole district in opposition to those of Ngatiraukawa, and that before any investigation could take place the survey must of necessity be made. I said that the different hapus of Ngatiraukawa had sent in applications for their respective claims to be heard irrespective of their application for the whole coast as a tribal right, and that it would be necessary for them to send a similar application in respect of the particular position which they occupied. They absolutely refused to allow Te Ngatiraukawa to pass over their land to point out to the surveyor any boundaries other than those which they (the Muaupokos) assented to. I told them over and over again that the mere survey of the land would not fix the boundaries of either party; that that was a question to be decided afterwards in the Lands Court, where they and their supporters would have every opportunity afforded them of establishing their claims, but that before this could be done a map must be prepared for the guidance of the Court.460

The most Grindell was able to extract from Muaupoko after his day of hard talking was a promise to discuss the matter further when their absent ‘friends’ had returned, and forward an application then. He was nonetheless pleased with what he had achieved on this trip, reporting to the Superintendent at the end of April that he now had applications ‘for the whole of the land in the occupation of the natives on the West Coast from Manawatu river and Te Ahu o Turanga block on the North to the Crown land south of Waikanae...’461 Thompson was despatched, with the boundaries set out in these applications, to begin the survey.

By the end of the following month Muaupoko had still not forwarded an application, prompting Grindell to approach McLean to use his influence with Kemp to induce them to do so. He was apprehensive that Muaupoko ‘thro’ the influence of Te Keepa & Hunia’ would interfere with the survey once it reached Horowhenua.462 To the provincial superintendent he signalled his intention to offer Muaupoko their own surveyor ‘to act for them alone’ in order to overcome their resistance.463 On 19 June 1872, having met again with Muaupoko, Grindell reported that the tribe remained divided over the survey of their rohe. By now two surveyors were occupied, one at each end of the district, meaning Grindell did not have to press the issue. And by this time he had something else to contend with. Ngati Raukawa were becoming uneasy about their separate hapu-based applications in the face of the combined tribal application to the whole district by Ngati Apa, Whanganui, Rangitane and Ngati Kahungunu. By mid-June Grindell was having to combat the ‘prevailing idea … of a general union’ among Ngati Raukawa, the tribe increasingly reluctant to continue with the surveying of their internal, divisional boundaries ‘lest they should be weakened by division amongst themselves.’464 Second only to their fears of losing this tribal battle, were doubts about the Crown’s motivation for

460 Ibid, [WT DB, MA13/75b:302-3]. 461 Ibid, [WT DB, MA13/75b:307]. 462 Grindell to McLean, 25 May 1872, MS-papers-0032-0035A, Object #1003218, available online at http://mp.natlib.govt.nz 463 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 7 June 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:384]. 464 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 13 June 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:392]. 89 the survey, fuelled by advice – allegedly from T Williams – that the government would stop at nothing less than the acquisition of the whole district:

The Government will not be satisfied with the mountains. They have sent their surveyors who are surveying the whole country and cutting it up into blocks, and the result will be that they will obtain possession of it. When your separate claims are being investigated in Court other tribes will come in and establish their claims and Ngatiraukawa will be broken up. Your proper course would be to unite against those tribes and survey your land yourselves in one block and establish your tribal right to the whole independently of Government interference.465

In June Thompson’s survey at the Otaki river had been stopped by Ngati Huia, credited by Grindell as being the ‘principal movers’ behind limiting the survey to the outer block. Grindell, however, proved an able ambassador for the Crown. He had previously told Ngati Raukawa that while there was no objection to them making a claim ‘as a tribal right’, the survey map had to reflect ‘hapu’ claims so they could be considered by the court at the same time, ‘so as to save expense of second survey and loss of time’.466 Faced with fresh obstruction later in June, he argued that if the internal boundaries were not done ‘the whole question would still remain open and unsettled as before; in which case the Government could not buy any land which they might wish to sell’.467 On the face of it, given their concerns about the government’s intent, this may not have been reassuring. But Grindell went on, reminding them that he had already told them the government would need ‘a strip of the flats’ as well as the mountains, for roads and settlement, and that they had agreed to this. He pointed out that the survey was being made free of charge, the government motivated to do so:

not for the purpose of having a lien upon the land, but for the purpose of preserving peace and quietness amongst you and of enabling you to settle your differences by Law. The Government object to fighting anywhere, but more especially in the midst of European settlement, and you were very nearly coming to that a short time ago at Horowhenua.468

Rather than the ‘confusion and bloodshed’ which would inevitably accompany private surveyors, Grindell argued that the Government was instead willing to step in ‘as a mediator’ with its own, leaving the Land Court to settle all disputes. Regarding their apprehension about the Crown’s appetite for land, he told them:

not an inch would be alienated without a price agreed upon and the full and free consent of all interested, and that indeed if they were to offer the whole of the land the Government would not agree to purchase it all – it was not the object of the

465 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 2 July 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:413-14]. 466 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 13 June 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:393]. 467 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 2 July 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:412]. 468 Ibid, [416]. 90

Government to beggar them and render them homeless but to improve their condition.469

The Native Land Court was open to all, Grindell agreed, ‘but they might rest assured impartiality would be shewn to all and even handed justice done.’470

Grindell managed to carry the day with Ngati Raukawa, and the Otaki survey was resumed. At Horowhenua however, he found Muaupoko ‘as obstinate and unreasonable as ever’.471 Kawana Hunia had been and gone, but Ngati Apa and Ngati Kahungunu visitors were still there. Hoani Meihana had also called on Muaupoko prior to both Kawana Hunia and Grindell’s visit, and the Rangitane chief claimed to have secured their agreement to send in an application for Horowhenua, which he subsequently did on their behalf.472 The application on record is dated 8 June, and signed by TE Young of the Native Department, on the strength of a letter signalling Muaupoko agreement for ‘Hoani Meiha’ to apply to the court for land between Mahoenui and Ngatokorua.473 However, by the time Grindell arrived, Muaupoko were strongly opposed to any local survey, a change of heart Rangitane chiefs ‘strongly condemned’ and ascribed to the influence of Kawana Hunia.474

Like Ngati Raukawa, Muaupoko and their allies seemed to be grappling with two issues: the wider ‘tribal’ claim to the whole district, and Muaupoko’s claim to the immediate vicinity of Horowhenua. It is not clear from Grindell’s report to what extent the Muaupoko community shared in the reported feeling that ‘nothing less would satisfy them than an absolute admission on the part of the Government that they were the only owners of the country and Te Ngatiraukawa were only aliens and intruders’, but Muaupoko were certainly still opposed to the survey of their own rohe, especially by Ngati Raukawa.475 Te Rangirurupuni’s suggestion at the end of a hard day’s talking, that Te Watene be allowed to survey his boundaries, resulted in fresh ‘division and a hot dispute amongst themselves’, and Grindell was left with little choice but to once again leave the survey, even though he was less inclined to do so now that work had been completed as far as Ohau. Muaupoko was told that Grindell would wait for Kemp before proceeding, although the survey of Ngati Raukawa’s boundaries to the north and south of Horowhenua would be completed. When Te Rangirurupuni turned up at McDonald’s house the next day to advise Grindell that any protest over Te Watene’s survey would not amount to much, Grindell reportedly replied that ‘it was not the wish of the

469 Ibid, [417]. 470 Ibid. 471 Ibid, [419]. Grindell had prevailed on Hector McDonald to ‘bring the Muaupokos to reason’ and let the survey proceed, to no avail. 472 Ibid, [428]. 473 Te Rangirurupuni, Te Wirihana, Tara, Ihaka, Noa, Heta, Ruta ‘me etahi o Muaupoko’, 30 May 1872; and application for title investigation, 8 June 1872, in MA 75/2/14 [DB:661-662]. Note the letter on file does not appear to be the original. On 26 July Te Rangirurupuni made an individual application for 30 acres at Te Kawiu, which was dismissed by the court in 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:669-70]. 474 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 2 July 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:427]. 475 Ibid, [421]. 91

Government to force the survey in opposition to any tribe or section of a tribe, but to do it with the full and free consent of all parties concerned…’.476 He would wait for Kemp.

It was not only the survey of Te Watene’s claims that Muaupoko objected to, but also the disputed rohe north and south. At the end of June, shortly after Grindell’s visit, a party of Muaupoko turned up at Ohau to protest the survey there, but withdrew ‘after a great deal of vapouring’.477 Acting on information from Hector McDonald, Grindell was inclined to cast this obstruction as the work of an individual – Heta – influenced by Kawana Hunia, but it is clear that the opposition was much more widespread.478 A letter from the Muaupoko runanga on 2 July, demanding that the survey stop at the Ohau River, was enough to discourage Thompson from proceeding with Te Roera Te Hukiki’s claim at Muhunoa.479 Grindell had told these Ngati Raukawa communities – Te Watene at Raumatangi, Ngati Huia at Poroutawhao, and Te Roera Te Hukiki at Muhunoa – about the need to wait for Kemp before the survey of their interests could proceed, but he was at a loss to understand Muaupoko’s position. In response to the news from Te Watene that Muaupoko had resolved to break the chain and theodolite if Thompson progressed up the beach, he explained his promise to wait for Kemp before surveying at Horowhenua: ‘So that if Muaupoko propose to interfere with the survey it must be in those districts occupied by Ngatiraukawa on other parts of the Coast.’480 In his view, Muaupoko were being ‘extremely unreasonable, and even arrogant and imperious, protesting against and interfering with surveys in localities which have been, within my own knowledge, in the undisputed and peaceable occupation of the Ngatiraukawa for over 30 years.’481

As signalled by Grindell, Native Minister McLean turned to Kemp to solve the impasse, who wired back that he would come to Horowhenua to talk Muaupoko and Ngati Apa around.482 In the event, Kemp was too unwell to make the meeting scheduled in the third week of July, but Kawana Hunia and Ngati Apa were there, as well as visitors from Ngati Kahungunu and Rangitane. Grindell found Hunia ‘much more reasonable than I had expected he would be’.483 In view of Muaupoko’s inclination to apply to the court for title, Hunia publicly declared that he would no longer oppose the survey. The withdrawal of all opposition to the survey was achieved by the concession that ‘the Muaupoko people

476 Ibid, [422]. Grindell described Te Rangirurupuni as ‘properly their chief & certainly the most reasonable amongst them’. 477 Ibid, [431]. 478 Grindell, memo, 8 July 1872, on Thomson to Grindell, 4 July 1872, MA 13/118/74a [WT DB:MA13/74a:126-7]. 479 Hoani Puihi, Noa Te Whata, Rawiri Te Whiumairangi, Ihaia Taueki, heoi na te iwi tonu to Grindell and Thompson, 2 July 1872, MA 13/118/74a [WT DB:MA13/74a:124]. 480 James Grindell, memo, 6 July 1872, on Te Watene to Grindell and to all the government, 4 July 1872, MA 13/118/74a [WT DB:MA13/74a:133]. 481 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 2 July 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:433]. 482 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 29 July 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:438]. See also McLean’s note on Hoani Puihi and others to Grindell and Thompson, 2 July 1872, [WT DB, MA13/74a:127]. 483 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 29 July 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:439]. According to Grindell, Hunia could see plainly at this meeting over 23-24 July that Muaupoko and Rangitane were ‘strongly averse to any violent measures, and consequently he made a virtue of necessity and submitted with a proper grace.’ Grindell also thought Kemp and Hoani Meihana’s influence had been instrumental in the change of heart. 92 also should be permitted to point out their boundaries to the surveyors wherever they chose, even on lands occupied by Ngatiraukawa, and that the same should be shewn on the map together with those of Ngatiraukawa.’484 Grindell then offered to escort a party of them to erect territorial posts on the beach from Waikanae to Manawatu, to be shown on the map, which was accepted with alacrity.

The composition of this delegation is not entirely certain. Grindell recorded that ‘five or six’ were chosen by Kawana Hunia, although Hunia himself remained behind.485 Grindell described the party as ‘Muaupokos & Ngati Apas’ in his July report, and ‘Ngatiapas chosen by Hunia’ in another memo two weeks later.486 Matene Te Whiwhi told McLean about the ‘Muaupoko’ visit, but the rangatira then named Rangitane chiefs Hoani Meihana, Peeti Te Aweawe and Huru Te Hiaro.487 In any event, Grindell accompanied the party to Otaki on 26 July where, although ‘somewhat shy and reserved’, they ‘shook hands all round’, Matene Te Whiwhi assuring them that ‘Ngatiraukawa did not object to their survey where they chose … the whole question of their right and title to be decided by English law...’488 Elated by the development, Grindell telegraphed both the Superintendent and Native Under- Secretary from Otaki: ‘Matters never looked so well as now. I have no further anxiety. Home end of week.’489 In his fuller report three days later he recommended the court hearing be advertised at once for November.490

Grindell’s troubles however were not yet over. The gathering at Horowhenua continued to discuss the survey after his departure, and a number of resolutions, dated 29 July 1872 and organised on tribal lines, were forwarded to the government shortly after.491 Two branches of Ngati Kahungunu, Ngati Apa, Rangitane and Muaupoko were all wanting their own survey map, to be ‘better able to mark off the boundaries of their ancestry’, and the resulting court to sit at Kupe, Horowhenua.492 Notwithstanding Grindell’s comment that a number of absent Wairarapa names had been affixed, that more than 140 signatories – not counting Muaupoko residents – were on this correspondence gives some indication of the numbers the Horowhenua community was hosting at this time. In a separate letter to Governor Bowen, Kawana Hunia urged the governor to use his influence with McLean to allow him his own surveyor: ‘my hand alone must guide the surveyor.’493

484 Ibid, [440-41]. 485 Ibid, [441]. 486 Grindell, memo, 12 August 1872, MA 13/118/74a [WT DB, MA13/74a:117]. 487 Matene Te Whiwhi to McLean, 27 July 1872, ibid, [110]. 488 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 29 July 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:442]. 489 Grindell to Superintendent and GS Cooper, 26 July 1872, ibid, [459]. 490 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 29 July 1872, ibid, [444]. 491 Kawana Hunia, Hoani Meihana to McLean, 29 July 1872; Tawhao and 86 others [of Wairarapa] to McLean, 29 July 1872; Ihu te Miha and 37 others [again, of Wairarapa] to McLean, 29 July 1872; Mohi Mahi and 15 others [of Ngati Apa] to McLean, 29 July 1872; Rewiri Te Whiu and 38 others [of Muaupoko] to McLean, 29 July 1872; in MA 13/118/74a [WT DB, MA13/74a:95-118]. 492 Kawana Hunia, Hoani Meihana to McLean, 29 July 1872, ibid, [96-99]. 493 Kawana Hunia to Governor Bowen, 29 July 1872, ibid, [90]. English translation only. 93

Grindell was initially inclined to dismiss this correspondence, conceding that Muaupoko might be given their own map, but that separate surveys were out of the question: ‘Hunia has no genuine request to make and does not expect more than he has already got.’494 However by 12 August Muaupoko were again threatening trouble if the survey was taken past the Ohau River, and the following day Hector McDonald informed Grindell that Kawana Hunia, too, was wanting to have ‘all to do with the survey from the ohau to manawatu he says the Nati Raukawa has had it all to there but he must have it the rest of the way.’495 Muaupoko had heard that Thompson was about to survey Te Roera Te Hukiki’s claim from Ohau to Manawatu, including inland boundaries. ‘[T]ukua mai te tahi kai ruri mo matou’ / ‘let us have another surveyor’ wrote the Muaupoko rangatira ‘kua oti i a tatou tenei kupu, kua mutu a Ngatiraukawa ki tena taha o Hau ko tenei taha ma matou tae noa ki Manawatu me nga roherohe o roto’ / ‘… it was decided by us all that Ngatiraukawa were to stop on the other side of Ohau, and we were to survey from this side up to Manawatu including inland boundaries.’496 Both Grindell and Hoani Meihana however denied that such an arrangement had been made: ‘Each party regards the survey of the other with extreme jealousy’, Grindell explained to the Superintendent, ‘and suffers the work to proceed with a very ill grace.’497

Four weeks later, Muaupoko’s disruption of the survey of Ngati Huia’s boundary to the north sent Grindell back to Horowhenua, this time accompanied by Kawana Hunia.498 After another long spell of ‘reasoning’, Grindell left the community on 21 September 1872 confident that the remaining internal boundaries would be completed – by surveyors Alzdorf at Poroutawhao and Thompson at Mahoenui – without further difficulty.499 Five days later however Thompson was ordered to stop work by Under- Secretary Cooper: Kawana Hunia was in Wellington protesting about the survey. Grindell sent an outraged telegram from Foxton, calling Hunia’s behaviour ‘a barefaced breach of faith’ and ‘deceitful in the extreme’:500

I know positively he is now acting without the knowledge of Maupoko and in opposition to their desire he and the spiteful creature with him reta [Heta?] see Rangirurupuni chief of Muaupoko who goes per coach today see Ngatuere who is in town and knows all about it. Hunia drew a map on paper of internal boundaries he approved of for use of Surveyors Muaupokos own internal boundaries are done and it would be beyond all precedent unjust not to allow Ngatiraukawa to finish theirs.501

494 Grindell, memo, 12 August 1872, ibid, [117]. 495 H McDonald to Grindell, 15 August 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:469]. 496 Noa Te Whata, Ngatuere, Kerei Te Panau, Heta Te Whatamahoe, Hoani Puihi, Te Rangirurupuni, Ihaka Pakeha, Tamati Waka, Ihaia Taueki, Rewiri Te Whiu, Te Manihera Te Rau, Herewini Rakautihia to Grindell and Hoani Meihana, 12 August 1872, MA 13/118/74a [WT DB, MA13/74a:467-68]. 497 Grindell to Superintendent Wellington, 16 August 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:466]. 498 Grindell to Superintendent Wellington, 11 September 1872, MA 13/118/74a [WT DB, MA13/74a:33-34]; 17 September 1872, telegram, [WT DB, MA13/75b:503]. 499 Grindell to Superintendent Wellington, 21 September 1872, telegram, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:502]. 500 Grindell to Cooper, Fitzherbert, 27 September 1872, telegram; Grindell to Cooper, Fitzherbert, nd, ibid, [520-24]. 501 Grindell to Cooper, Fitzherbert, 27 September 1872, telegram, ibid, [523-24]. 94

According to Grindell, ‘Muaupokos all agreed’ that the Mahoenui boundary should be completed, and Hunia’s only objection had been to fixing the Tauateruru boundary, which Grindell consented to leave. ‘There is no danger of any collision…’, Grindell told Cooper and Fitzherbert, ‘if I saw danger I should at once withdraw surveyor. You may depend on my judgement.’502

3.3 Title determination: Manawatu‐Kukutauaki

The hearing for Manawatu-Kukutauaki was set down for 5 November 1872 at Foxton. Foxton had been chosen over Otaki and Horowhenua because, Grindell wrote, it was ‘neutral ground (pakeha territory) and situated midway between the opposing tribes.’503 The timing was of immediate concern to the communities on the coast, early summer generally a time of food scarcity before the first potato harvests. Matene Te Whiwhi for one sought to put off the hearing till February, arguing in early October that food was already so scarce his people were living off mamaku shoots, and that only ‘those persons who are strong to beg (food) from the Government will have something to eat…’504 Ihakara Tukumaru however considered that ‘hunger is preferable to a state of anxiety’, arguing against any adjournment. But then, as Matene Te Whiwhi put it, Ihakara was in a position to ‘beg’ for provisions. Ihakara’s request to Grindell at the end of September for food – flour, rice, sugar and tea – for the upcoming court was the first in a stream of similar applications from other Ngati Raukawa communities throughout the district.505 By the third week in October Thomas Cook, the storekeeper at Foxton, was adding to the clamour: ‘Natives anxious about food unless some is provided will be unable to attend court.’506

Government provision of food did not come free, but was to be recouped in land once titles had been obtained through the court process. Throughout the year Grindell had also advanced small sums to various Ngati Raukawa entities on account of future purchase, but he argued that it was not expedient to do so except in ‘very exceptional cases’.507 His caution was less out of concern for any potential Crown loss from dealing with the ‘wrong’ vendors, than the very real need during this period not to be seen to prejudge the outcome of the court. Government advances on the Tararua block before title

502 Ibid. Grindell’s emphasis. 503 Grindell to Superintendent Wellington, 16 August 1872, ibid, [464]. 504 Matene Te Whiwhi to Superintendent Wellington, 3 October 1872, ibid, [540-41]. Contemporary translation by Native Office. 505 In addition to that of Ihakara Tukumaru, requests for provisions for the upcoming court were made by Wereta Te Waha at Papakiri at Manawatu; Hoani Taipua and others at Otaki; Hohaia and others of Ngati Huia at Poroutawhao; Nerehana Te Paea and others at Waiwiri; Rawiri Wanui and others at Waikawa; and Henare Te Hatete and others, all in [WT DB, MA13/75b:652-662]. 506 TU Cook to Grindell, telegram, 25 October 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:651]. 507 Grindell to Superintendent Wellington, 16 August 1872, ibid, [463]. One such case, Grindell explained, was an advance to Kararaina Nicholson for food, on account of customary land in the Manawatu. See also Grindell to Superintendent Wellington, 2 July 1872, for his admission of advances of ‘small sums … to be accounted for when the land was purchased by the Government…’, ibid, [429]. 95 investigation by the court, for example, was the subject of petition from Ngati Kahungunu in August1872 for this reason.508 In July 1872 Grindell had protested about Booth’s advance of £200 to Rangitane chiefs for land at Tuwhakatupua within the Manawatu-Kukutauaki block, together with the land purchase officer’s negotiations over price, when the ‘right to this block is a moot point’.509 Grindell was upset by the overlap of jurisdiction, but more than his hurt ego was the impact of Booth’s activities on his own delicate mediation. Rangitane’s advance was quite naturally considered ‘as a recognition of the claims of Rangitane to the prejudice of Ngatiraukawa’, and deeply resented by Ngati Raukawa.510 In September 1872 Grindell agreed to another small advance to feed the Ngati Rakau community at Papakiri near Oroua Bridge. Their request had been passed on to Grindell by Cook, to be debited against land which had just been surveyed, and possibly Grindell bent his rule on the strength of the Foxton storekeeper’s advice that ‘being a Tribe that have always stood in the way of land sales, I should think it would be a good policy to make them the little advance of food they solicit, and really stand much in need of…’.511

Grindell was initially reluctant to provide the food asked for, countering the numerous requests throughout October with the advice that it was not ‘safe’ to make further advances now that the restrictions against private purchasing had been taken off the district.512 As the hearing date drew near however, it seemed evident from the anxious flurry of correspondence from the likes of Cook outlined above, that the court would not proceed unless the government stepped in. As it was pointed out to Premier Waterhouse at the time, it was anticipated that a crowd of 500-600 would attend the Foxton court for up to six weeks, too early for the potato crop. Superintendent Fitzherbert duly authorised the provision of 50 ton of flour, 20 ton of sugar, and 5 ton of rice on 31 October, to be ‘paid from time to time to the grantees as their blocks are passed through the Court’.513 In the event, Grindell estimated the crowd attending the Foxton court at 1000, describing the government provisions as ‘a mere fleabite’.514 By the time the court adjourned on 9 December, some £523 worth of food had been distributed primarily amongst the Ngati Raukawa claimants, to be charged against their land interests.515

508 See Grindell to Superintendent Wellington, 16 August 1872, ibid, [465]. 509 Grindell to Superintendent Wellington, 2 July 1872, ibid, [429]. 510 Ibid, [428]. 511 Grindell to Superintendent Wellington, 5 September 1872, ibid, [492]. Grindell also advanced £100 among Ngati Raukawa visiting Wellington in September, securing their written agreement to ‘deduct the amount from price of land.’ Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 6 September 1872, ibid, [495]. 512 See for example Grindell, memo on Ihakara Tukumaru’s request, 30 September 1872, ibid, [658]. 513 W Fitzherbert, note of back of telegram, 31 October 1872, ibid, [559]. 514 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 14 November 1872, ibid, [602]. 515 Grindell and Wardell to Wellington Superintendent Fitzherbert, 12 December 1872, ibid, [636]. This sum comprised £423 on provincial government authority, and £100 on that of the general government. The government agents claimed to have tried to keep the amount supplied as low as possible, but ‘the demand for aid, especially on the part of the Ngatiraukawa has been incessant.’ 96

Manawatu‐Kukutauaki hearing, November 1872 The court opened at Foxton as advertised on 5 November, under Judges Rogan and Smith and Native Assessor Hemi Tautari, but immediately adjourned in the absence of Grindell and the survey map. Judge Rogan also had to approach Under-Secretary Cooper for an interpreter, and Young was despatched from the Native Department in Wellington to fill the breach. In addition to Grindell as provincial officer, Wardell attended for the general government.

The first week of hearing was fraught to say the least. By 10 November a concerned Grindell was wiring news of the ‘very determined’ opposition of confederated tribes to the court proceedings, including the threat ‘to take possession of the land and declare war with Ngatiraukawa’.516 The threat had been conveyed to Grindell in a letter signed by Kemp, which declared that while he would not disrupt the court, ‘ka puta pai mai au ki waho o te kooti ka panuitia e au te ra e whawhai ai au me aku iwi katoa mo to matou whenua ina kore e whakanekehia tenei kooti mo tetahi tunga atu.’ / ‘I will withdraw from the court and publish the day on which I and my tribes will fight for the land if this hearing is not stayed.’517 The provincial officer reported that Ngati Apa, Muaupoko, Whanganui and Wairarapa were demanding an indefinite adjournment, adding ‘their whol[e] energies are directed towards intimidation and obstruction.’518 Hunia and Kemp were singled out as leading the opposition, and Grindell for one was unconvinced by Kemp’s posturing that he was merely the mouthpiece of his people: ‘Kepa says it is people who are opposing but I see he is with them.’519 Kemp had been granted a two-day adjournment to ‘combat the decision of his people’, but an anxious Grindell feared if proceedings were stayed further ‘it will be said that Government ignore their [Ngati Raukawa] claims after arming their opponents’.520 At the end of business the following day Judges Rogan and Smith wired to the government about the dilemma:

Claimants principally Ngatiraukawa press for hearing, opponents Ngati[a]pa muaupoko rangitane Whanganui & Wairarapa who protest against submitting differences to NL Court ask for indefinite adjournment & announce intention of resort to arms if refused; consequences of either course cannot be foreseen by us – actual situation not known to court. Question of policy rests with government rather than with court; if opponents persist in course indicated orders made on exparte statement not likely to be respected or have practical result – Court cannot refuse to proceed except on cause shewn.521

516 Grindell to Superintendent & H Bunny, telegram, 10 November 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA75b:598]. 517 Young to Cooper, telegram, 13 November 1872, MA 13/120/76 [WT DB, MA13/76:81-82], my translation. The message was written and delivered by Jack Jury, of Wairarapa. Kemp admitted signing the letter, but later maintained he did not read its contents before doing so, Young to Cooper, 12 November 1872, [WT DB, MA13/76:110]. 518 Grindell to Cooper, telegram, 10 November 1872, ibid, [60-61]. 519 Ibid, [64]. Grindell also reported Hoani Meihana’s opinion that ‘Wairarapa natives’ were behind the obstruction, promoting the repudiation movement of Henare Matua [61], something McLean also alluded to, Native Minister McLean to Judges Rogan and Smith, 12 November 1872, ibid, [32]. 520 Ibid, [64]. 521 Judges Rogan and Smith to Colonial Secretary Hall, telegram, 11 November 1872, ibid, [72-74]. 97

Any panic engendered by Kemp’s threat had dissipated within 48 hours, if indeed it was ever taken seriously. Just four days after his initial report of the threat, Grindell was dismissing any real prospect of violence: ‘Altho’ Kemp threatened I never for a moment believed he intended to proceed to extremities and I told Mr Rogan so – intimation and obstruction was his game.’522 Grindell maintained the chief was well aware that breaching ‘Law & Order’ by a call to arms would ultimately work against him. The general government agent, Wardell, was also unperturbed.523 For his part, Judge Rogan attributed his ‘state of anxiety’ at this time to the conflicting messages from government (see below), rather than any threat from Kemp and Hunia. Indeed, on 12 November Rogan applauded the ‘orderly and respectful manner’ in which Kemp applied for the adjournment, and when this was refused, his quiet departure from the courtroom.524 Nine days later Judge Rogan reported another ‘false alarm’ caused by rumours of an arms delivery to Rangitane at Foxton. Although the judge took precautions, he did not seem unduly concerned, telling Under-Secretary Cooper, ‘I need hardly say it was all false’.525

More than 50 telegrams were wired to and from Foxton in this first week alone, before proper proceedings were even begun. Grindell was regularly updating the Wellington Superintendent and the Under-Secretary of the Native Department, and when he thought circumstances warranted it, Native Minister Donald McLean. Wardell was also reporting to Superintendent Fitzherbert and Under- Secretary Cooper. McLean was recovering from ill-health at his home in Hawkes Bay, but he was well enough to direct matters from his bed. Kemp and McLean were also ‘in continual correspondence’.526 Judges Rogan and Smith were communicating with Under-Secretary Cooper for administrative support, but as matters came to a head they were also drawn into correspondence with the Colonial Secretary, Sir John Hall, who seems to have been standing in for McLean at Wellington. By 14 November 1872 Judge Rogan was having to ask Hall to ensure that any messages reached him either before 10.00am or after 3.00pm, for Maori in court were becoming alarmed by the extent of government communications to the court.527

Hall first wired Rogan and Smith directly on 10 November 1872, after Grindell’s report of ‘obstruction and difficulties’ to the court proceedings. McLean had been appraised, the Colonial Secretary told the judiciary, and unless they were instructed otherwise from him, the government would leave matters in their hands, ‘having confidence in your discretion not to bring about any

522 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 14 November 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:[605]. 523 Wardell to Colonial Secretary Hall, 13 November 1872, MA 13/120/76 [WT DB, MA13/76:98]. 524 Judge Rogan to Colonial Secretary Hall, 12 November 1872, ibid, [112]. Two days later he also informed Hall that the ‘panic’ engendered by Kemp’s letter was now over, Rogan to Hall, 14 November 1872, [WT DB, MA13/76:122]. 525 Judge Rogan to Under-Secretary Cooper, 21 November 1872, ibid, [137]. 526 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent, 14 November 1872, [WT DB, MA13/75b:602]. 527 Judge Rogan to Under-Secretary Cooper, 14 November 1872, [WT DB, MA13/76:123]. 98 serious complication either by precipitate action or too facile withdrawal of court in face of opposition.’528 The following day the judges responded with the telegram set out above, outlining their quandary about the demand for an indefinite adjournment. Earlier that day Hall had expressed his preference for an adjournment ‘from day to day or for a few days’ in order to fully consult with McLean, but he was concerned enough after receiving the above telegram to convene a Cabinet meeting that very night.529 The best Cabinet could come up with, however, was another day’s adjournment ‘to give time to receive McLean’s deliberate instructions by which you will be guided.’530

For his part, McLean too, had earlier communicated to the judges that the decision over adjourning the court rested with them: ‘I am always averse to interfere in any way with the action of the court unless there were some strong grounds for doing so...’531 That, however, was also before he had received the judges’ telegram above. The following day the Native Minister did indeed attempt to intervene:

It does not appear to me that the object can be gained by proceeding the ngatiraukawa case alone as that would not by any means simplify the difficulty but rather increase it as far as the opponents of that tribe are concerned – I consider this is a case in which it would be very advantageous to act as you have on several occasions done successfully namely to convene a meeting of the leading men of each party and take counsel with them on the whole question stating it is done in a private manner & not in any way to prejudice their cases in coming before the court simply to have their advice to the course they may deem most advisable to pursue that the land is of minor importance as compared with the adjustment of their disputes that you are willing to help and assist them in any case to remove present difficulties. In the meantime I consider the Hon Mr Halls suggestion of adjourning the court from day to day most judicious one – What does Hemi Tautari and Hoani Meihana say on the subject. Mr Young should be availed of to obtain their views & those of the chiefs generally.532

In the result the issue was resolved by Rangitane’s decision on 12 November to end their opposition and come into court. Kemp’s application for an adjournment was dismissed, the court encouraged by Rangitane’s defection to proceed with the case. As Rogan communicated to Hall that afternoon, ‘the difficulties which appeared hitherto have in my opinion disappeared today’.533 Two hours later however, Rogan received McLean’s telegram above. The disconcerted judge wired straight back to Hall: ‘I am now at a loss for the first time how to act after this moment having received McLean’s telegram which I suppose you have seen.’534 Rogan was reprimanded later that afternoon for failing to

528 Colonial Secretary Hall to Judges Rogan and Smith, 10 November 1872, telegram, MA 13/120/76 [WT DB, MA13/76:43-44]. 529 Colonial Secretary Hall to Judges Rogan and Smith, ibid, [39]; Hall to Ormond, 11 November 1872, ibid, [70]. 530 Colonial Secretary Hall to Judge Rogan, 12 November 1872, ibid, [36]. 531 Native Minister McLean to Judges Rogan and Smith, telegram, 11 November 1872, ibid, [41]. 532 Native Minister McLean to Judges Rogan and Smith, telegram, 12 November 1872, ibid, [32-36]. 533 Judge Rogan to Colonial Secretary Hall, 12 November 1872, telegram, ibid, [112]. 534 Judge Rogan to Colonial Secretary Hall, 12 November 1872, telegram, ibid, [79]. 99 comply with instructions to keep McLean fully informed.535 That evening, the Honourable John Hall again made himself clear:

It is the wish of this Govt that you should communicate fully with Mr McLean & take from him any instructions you require from the Govt … He has sent me copy of his telegram to you of this morning – If you think anything has since taken place which would induce him to modify the views he has expressed telegraph fully to him. I request your message to be sent on by express as to proceedings in Court until you receive his answer I can only point out that a temporary delay for which no doubt sufficient reasons can be given to the natives – is in case of doubt the safest course – this would afford opportunity for what Mr McLean appears to favour namely an attempt to bring about an understanding or reconciliation out of court before matters are forced further.536

To his credit, Judge Rogan was not bullied into complying with the executive. The following day, 13 November 1872, Hoani Meihana on behalf of Rangitane and Karaitiana Te Korou for Ngati Kahungunu appeared in court, and Ngati Raukawa’s prima facie case was made out. In his response to Hall, Rogan reminded the Minister about the independence of the judiciary:

Kemps application for indefinite adjournment was decided yesterday morning – application refused on this as on every question coming before it the court must use its own discretion. Judges cannot receive instructions from the govt as to decision of procedure of court. They also decline a responsibility for consequences resulting from proper discharge of duty imposed by law.

Submitted if govt desire certain course to be adopted its agents should appear & show cause leaving court to decide after statement of circumstances made in open court. At sitting this morning crown agent did not appear though aware that question of adjournment was to be decided – judges feel they would place themselves & court in false position by holding private meetings with chiefs or seeking their advice on question connected with their land disputes.537

McLean for his part, having received news of the day’s proceedings, advised Hall:

As the rangitane agree to proceed with their evidence & as they form an important link between the contending claimants it would be advisable to take both their evidence and that of the ngatiraukawa but to delay any formal decision until another sitting of the court which could be convened for Feb or March next any judgment pronounced in the absence of a number of the opposing claimants could not be easily enforced – the position of the court has been sufficiently vindicated to allow of a reasonable adjournment after the evidence above referred to has been taken which will assist in clearing away some of the difficulties connected with tribal disputes in the manawatu district.538

535 Colonial Secretary Hall to Judge Rogan, 12 November 1872, MA 13/120/76 [WT DB, MA13/76:31]. 536 Colonial Secretary Hall to Judge Rogan, 12 November 1872, ibid, [29-30]. 537 Judges Rogan and Smith to Colonial Secretary Hall, telegram, 13 November 1872, ibid, [107-09]. 538 Native Minister McLean to Colonial Secretary Hall, 13 November 1872, ibid, [83]. 100

Between 14 and 16 November some serious manoeuvring between the different parties at Foxton took place. Hoani Meihana, Peeti Te Aweawe and Huru Te Hiaro for Rangitane had announced their position in court as co-claimants with Ngati Raukawa, rather than counter-claimants. On 14 November the court again adjourned to allow these parties to come to an ‘amicable arrangement’ about the question of tribal title, and that evening a meeting was held ‘to arrange about claiming jointly’.539 Grindell for one thought that Ngati Raukawa would probably admit Rangitane’s claim. Karaitiana Te Korou, for Ngati Kahungunu, had appeared in court as a counter claimant.540 This left just Muaupoko, Ngati Apa and Whanganui outside the court. According to Grindell, Muaupoko wanted to proceed, but were being kept back by Hunia and Kemp.541 He and Young considered that the opposition was wavering, and that Kemp could be persuaded to proceed by McLean. Early on 15 November Young wired Under-Secretary Cooper to instruct Grindell to apply for another day’s adjournment, in order ‘to give Kemp time to come round’.542 Before granting the adjournment, a letter from Kawana Hunia was read out in court, announcing Ngati Apa’s decision to proceed.543 The day before McLean had wired Judge Rogan the substance of Kemp’s grievance about the court, related to advances that Ngati Raukawa had already received for land.544 On the morning of 16 November the Native Minister again wired the judge: ‘I believe much good has resulted from your interview with Kemp’.545 When the court opened at 10.00am, Kemp was there, announcing the intention of the combined tribes of Muaupoko, Rangitane, Ngati Apa, Ngati Kahungunu and Whanganui to contest Ngati Raukawa’s claim to Manawatu-Kukutauaki. This spelled the end of any deal between Ngati Raukawa and Rangitane, although Huru Te Hiaro, upset about Ngati Kahungunu’s inclusion in the tribal claim for the western seaboard, appeared as a witness for the Ngati Raukawa claimants.546 When court was over for the day, Judge Rogan was warmly congratulated by Native Minister McLean, on ‘the tact & Judgement you have displayed in bringing about such a happy change in favour [of] the court at Manawatu. It is only one of many instances in which your skill & firmness have proved successful.’547

The hearing of Manawatu-Kukutauaki began in earnest on 18 November 1872, once the counter claimants had briefed their newly-arrived counsel, the aptly named Mr Cash. Ngati Raukawa claimants had the legal advice of a Mr Buckley, but neither counsel was permitted to act in court.

539 Young to Under-Secretary Cooper, 14 November 1872, telegram; Grindell to Under-Secretary Cooper, 14 November 1872, telegram, ibid, [76; 125]. 540 13 November 1872, Otaki MB 01A, p. 14. 541 Grindell to Under-Secretary Cooper, 14 November 1872, telegram, MA 13/120/76 [WT DB, MA13/76:125]. 542 Note on Young to Under-Secretary Cooper, 15 November 1872, telegram, ibid, [129]. 543 See Grindell to Superintendent Wellington, 15 November 1872, telegram, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:584]. 544 Native Minister McLean to Judge Rogan, 14 November 1872, telegram, MA 13/120/76 [WT DB, MA13/76:23]. Note, the contents of the telegram in Maori are slightly garbled, but it does talk of money paid to Ngati Raukawa, viz ‘e pouri ana nga iwi ki te moni i nanaia e ngatiraukawa ki taua whenua [e] te kupa…’ 545 Native Minister McLean to Judge Rogan, 16 November 1872, MA 13/76 [21]. 546 Wardell to Superintendent Wellington, 16 November 1872, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:580]. See also Huru Te Hiaro, 6 December 1872, Otaki MB 01A, pp. 166-168. 547 Native Minister McLean to Judge Rogan, 16 November 1872, MA 13/120/76 [WT DB, MA13/76:20]. 101

Hoani Meihana conducted the case for ‘the five tribes’ opposing Ngati Raukawa’s claim on the basis of conquest. Kemp and Hunia were the primary witnesses for the counter-claimants, their combined evidence taking 10 of the 13 days it took to put their case.548 The confederate claim was based on ancestry from the common tupuna, Kupe, and on the continuous occupation of tangata whenua entities in the district ever since. Ngati Raukawa’s case was comparatively shorter, the main witnesses Ihakara Tukumaru and Matene Te Whiwhi giving evidence for four of the six days of claimant testimony.549 These minutes contain some of the most gruesome accounts of Ngati Whakatere’s raids against tangata whenua prior to peacemaking, in a bid to prove Ngati Raukawa conquest.

That Judge Rogan did not put much stock in the claim of the five tribes is indicated by his comment to Cooper six days into the case: ‘It is sufficient to say that in my opinion nothing new can be elicited’, but he was also very aware of the prevailing political climate, continuing: ‘at the same time any attempt to curtail evidence would be fatal to this business – therefore I see a long period of apparent attentive listening before us which must be submitted to.’550 Rogan keenly felt the need to consult with both McLean and Cooper about the ‘tribal case’, but he was only too mindful of the need for maintaining ‘a respectable distance’.551 His suggestion that Cooper be made a judge of the court and then proceed to Foxton was met by the Under Secretary’s counter offer that ‘we can confer confidentially by wire for which purpose I will meet you at telegraph office at any time you like for conference’.552 McLean, too, was reluctant to intervene, ‘the further I am from you the better so long as you get a telegram now & then’, but this did not stop the Native Minister from repeating his earlier suggestion: ‘Is it not customary if necessary to adjourn and take time to consider final decision – K is not likely to trouble you he will soon come to the end of his tether.’553

By the beginning of December Judge Rogan was in fact anticipating an adjournment ‘as we are nearly worn out’.554 As he explained to the Native Minister: ‘The want of food the weariness of all and the necessity of the natives to attend to their cultivations now to keep themselves and families from starving next winter is a real reason for adjourning the court for a term’ before adding, ‘I hope to see you in wgtn confidentially on several matters that I cannot explain now. I am nearly exhausted.’555

548 Other supporting witnesses over the last three days of evidence for the ‘five tribes’ included Hamuera Te Raikokiritia and Hakaraia Rangipouri of Ngati Apa; Peeti Te Aweawe and Hoani Meihana of Rangitane; Karaitiana Te Korou, Matiaha Mokai and Ihaia Whakamairu of Ngati Kahungunu, and Kerei Te Panau of ‘the five tribes’. 549 Other witnesses in support were Henare Te Herekau and Araperi Tukuwhare of Ngati Whakatere; Huru Te Hiaro of Rangitane; and two Pakeha Francis Robinson and Thomas Cook. 550 Judge Rogan to Under-Secretary Cooper, 23 November 1872, telegram, MA 13/120/76 [WT DB, MA13/76:138-139]. 551 Ibid. 552 Under-Secretary Cooper to Judge Rogan, 23 November 1872, telegram, MA 13/120/76 [WT DB, MA13/76:13]. 553 Native Minister McLean to Judge Rogan, 23 November 1872, telegram, ibid, [11-12]. 554 Judge Rogan to Under-Secretary Cooper, 2 December 1872, telegram, ibid, [145]. 555 Judge Rogan to Native Minister McLean, 5 December 1872, telegram, MS-papers-0032-0074, Object #1005850 available online at http://natlib.govt.nz. 102

Ten days earlier Grindell had put off further Ngati Raukawa requests for food, telling them ‘Govt cannot feed a thousand people. Idlers must go home’.556

Judge Rogan had told Cooper in the third week of November: ‘The programme is to try the right of Raukawa, Awa & Toa against the opposing claims of Whanganui Apa Rangitane Muaupoko and Kahungunu – suppose all parties admitted as tribal claimants then will come the grand battle about Horowhenua & one or two other places which when decided will in fact determine all other cases quickly in this court.’557 The court was indeed adjourned on 9 December until 4 March 1873, giving the judiciary the best part of three months to mull over their judgement about the ‘general tribal question’ of Kukutauaki-Manawatu. There is no evidence that Rogan colluded with McLean and Cooper about the ruling, but given the judge’s expressed intention above, there is little reason to doubt that he did so.

The Manawatu‐Kukutauaki decision Just four years before, Judges Rogan and Smith had both been responsible for the controversial Himatangi decision, their judgement of ‘joint ownership’ by tangata heke and tangata whenua entities both reflecting and contributing to the renegotiation of geopolitical realities in the context of the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase. In that case, the judiciary determined that while Ngati Apa and Rangitane had been weakened by Ngati Toa’s invasion, they had never been ‘absolutely dispossessed’, nor ceased to assert and exercise rights of ownership, but rather had been ‘compelled to share’ their rohe with sections of Ngati Raukawa.558 Fully alive to the significance of the case in the context of conflicting claims over ‘conquest’, the court turned to the importance of occupation as a principle to determining entitlement.559 Ngati Raukawa’s claim of conquest was not upheld, and their tribal interest as joint owners limited to those hapu in actual occupation of the block. In the rehearing of the case in 1869 the judiciary went even further, arguing that any right of conquest over Ngati Apa and Rangitane lands gained by Ngati Toa was waived by the subsequent peace-making between these entities; and that the basis of subsequent Ngati Raukawa occupation in the Rangitikei-Manawatu was on the invitation of Ngati Apa, rather than any gifting by Ngati Toa.560

It is interesting to see how this precedent was applied to the circumstances of Kukutauaki-Manawatu. In the ‘preliminary’ judgement delivered on 4 March 1873, the court found that sections of Ngati

556 Grindell to Native Minister McLean, 22 November 1872, telegram, MS-papers-0032-0074,Object #1016248 available online at http://natlib.govt.nz. 557 Judge Rogan to Under-Secretary Cooper, 23 November 1872, telegram, MA 13/120/76 [WT DB, MA13/76:140-141]. 558 Himatangi Judgement, April 1868, Otaki MB 1E, p.720, cited in Richard Boast, The Native Land Court: a Historical Study, Cases and Commentary, (Wellington, Brookers Ltd, 2013), p.569. 559 Boast, p. 561. 560 Himatangi rehearing judgement, 25 September 1869, in Fenton (ed) Important Judgements, pp.101-108, cited in Boast, pp.570-577. 103

Raukawa had acquired rights of ownership over the block, together with Ngati Toa and Ngati Awa, whose joint interest was admitted by the claimants. Like the Himatangi decision, these rights were not found to have been acquired by conquest, but by occupation ‘with the acquiescence of the original owners’. Unlike the Himatangi decision, the ‘acquiescence’ of the tangata whenua did not translate into joint ownership. Rather the court found that by 1840 Ngati Raukawa ‘were in undisputed possession’ of Kukutauaki-Manawatu, with the exception of two undefined areas at Horowhenua (occupied by Muaupoko) and Tuwhakatupua (Rangitane’s interests there having been admitted by the claimants). The tribal ownership of Rangitane, Ngati Apa, Whanganui and Ngati Kahungunu was not upheld by the court, their interests in the block limited to their relationship with Muaupoko at Horowhenua, and in the case of Rangitane, their relationship with the Rangitane community at Tuwhakatupua.561

The Manawatu-Kukutauaki decision was initially seen as a Ngati Raukawa victory: Kemp reportedly ‘turned pale & trembled’ when the decision was delivered.562 For the next two days the court was adjourned to give the parties time to consider the ruling. In this period Judge Rogan appeared optimistic, reporting to McLean the day after the ruling, ‘I now see this business will have an amenable conclusion’, and the following day telling the Native Minister that Kemp, Hunia and Ngati Raukawa were on ‘intimate terms’.563 The hope was that the next business of court would be to define the boundaries of the two disputed areas and begin title investigation. Instead, on 10 March, Kemp’s counsel announced their decision to apply for a rehearing and a stay of proceedings. This was refused on the grounds of the judgement being a preliminary one, and the court signalled its intention to proceed with the definition of the Horowhenua boundaries. Kemp again left the court.

From Grindell’s point of view the judgement had not helped his land purchasing activities. As he told the Wellington Superintendent, until the Horowhenua block was defined it would be ‘useless’ to negotiate for the purchase of the land, the more so if the application for rehearing was granted.564 Any attempt to purchase from Ngati Raukawa, he told Fitzherbert, would ‘very seriously interfere with the good understanding at present existing between Kemp’s party and the Government, and generally complicate matters instead of producing a satisfactory result.’565 Grindell did not divulge the basis of this ‘good understanding’ but he did explain that the ‘opposing tribes would say the Government were taking an advantage of them by forcing a sale regardless of their interests and their application for a rehearing.’566 Judge Rogan had put off the Horowhenua case in the hope that Kemp would be

561 Kukutauaki Judgement, 4 March 1873, Otaki MB 1A, pp. 176-178. 562 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent Fitzherbert, 4 March 1873, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:696]. 563 Judge Rogan to Native Minister McLean, 5 March 1873; 6 March 1873, telegrams, MS-papers-0032-0085, available online at http://natlib.govt.nz. 564 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent Fitzherbert, 10 March 1873, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:700]. 565 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent Fitzherbert, 13 March 1873, ibid, [709]. 566 Ibid. 104 persuaded to contest the claim in court, thereby heading off any future appeal for rehearing on the grounds of the case being heard exparte.567 The court instead began processing Ngati Raukawa applications for title to their rohe as depicted on the prepared survey map, raising the spectre of competition from the private sector. By 17 March 1873 Grindell was in a quandary as to how to balance provincial government interests. Competition, he suggested, could be combated by advancing money on each block as it passed through the court, a deed securing the lien to the government, leaving the purchase to be completed ‘at leisure’, but the provincial officer was still uneasy about the impact of this practice on the wider question of entitlement:

I fear they [Kemp’s party] would say the Government was predetermined to refuse their application for a rehearing. But if the Government do not make advances private parties probably will, and the effect would be the same.568

In effect, he went on, asking the Superintendent to send him £1500 in £1 notes, there would be ‘no real injury done’, for even if a rehearing was granted, ‘no other decision could possibly be arrived at than the one already given.’569

3.4 Title determination: Horowhenua

By 18 March 1873 Judge Rogan knew that Kemp was going to appear in court to oppose Ngati Raukawa, a case that would ‘decide the Land question on the West Coast either one way or the other’.570 He also told Under-Secretary Cooper that the Horowhenua block comprised approximately 50,000 acres. The week before, on 11 March, the court had heard evidence from Ngati Raukawa witnesses as to Muaupoko’s rohe at Horowhenua. Predictably, these boundaries – from Tawhitikuri to Tauateruru and bisecting the lake to Waitui on the south, travelling inland only as far as Weraroa; and from Ngamana to Ngatokorua on the north, reflected Ngati Raukawa views about what had been ‘reserved’ to Muaupoko. In its judgement of the issue on 13 March, however, the court made an ‘indefinite’ order considerably expanding the excepted block. The ostensible reason for defining the excepted area at Horowhenua was so that the court could begin to process Ngati Raukawa’s applications for title to the balance of Manawatu-Kukutauaki. In doing so, the court was careful to point out that in laying down these boundaries it was not predetermining the outcome of any title determination for Horowhenua: ‘Our object is merely to except such a portion of the Block as will include all the land in respect of which we think the Muaupoko may yet be heard as claimants.’571 However the court’s ‘indefinite’ boundaries outlined before the Horowhenua case began were ultimately those confirmed at its conclusion: bounded on the south by a line running from the Waiwiri

567 See for example Judge Rogan to Native Minister McLean, 11 March 1873, two telegrams, MS-papers-0032-0085, available online at http://natlib.govt.nz. 568 Grindell to Wellington Superintendent Fitzherbert, 17 March 1873, MA 13/120/75b [WT DB, MA13/75b:20]. 569 Ibid. 570 Judge Rogan to Under-Secretary Cooper, 18 March 1873, ibid, [12,14]. 571 ‘Kukutauaki’, no date, ibid, [711-12]. 105 stream to Pukemoremore on the Tararua ranges; and on the north by a line from Waingaio, to Ngatokorua, to Pouotehuia, and from there in a line parallel to the southern boundary as far as the . It seems highly likely that defining the boundaries in this way was part of Judge Rogan’s strategy to bring Kemp to court, and indeed constitutes the first inkling of a politically contrived outcome. From his home at Rangitikei, days before the Horowhenua case began, acting Premier Fox commended the judiciary at work at Foxton, telling McLean ‘I think the decision they are likely to make about Horowhenua block will put the final touch to differences between the tribes & satisfy all’.572 In his view, this had come about ‘mainly through Kemp’s influence under Rogan’s judicious influence.’

The Horowhenua case began on 26 March and ran until 7 April. Kemp and Kawana Hunia were once again principal witnesses for Muaupoko, taking three of the five days to put their case, but for the first time Muaupoko voices from Horowhenua were also heard in court: Inia Te Maraki, Heta Te Whatamahoe, and Ruta Te Kiritotara giving evidence primarily about post-1840 events. Not unexpectedly perhaps, Muaupoko evidence focused on their long occupation, speaking of gardens, eel weirs and fisheries, karaka groves, old inland roads, and bird hunting, as well as the disputes of more recent times. Manihera Te Rau of Ngati Raukawa, who had married into and lived with the Muaupoko community since the peacemaking at Karekare in the early 1830s, also testified, denying any boundary line of Te Whatanui other than his post at Tauateruru.573

572 Acting Premier Fox to Native Minister McLean, 22 March 1873, MS-papers-0032-0085, available online at http://natlib.govt.nz. 573 Manihera Te Rau, 31 March 1873 Otaki MB 1A, p. 22. 106

.....~ ,.'... ~~

4903

) Figure 5: ML4903 Plan of Muaupoko’s claim created for the 1873 title investigation 107

Ngati Raukawa’s case was opened by Matene Te Whiwhi and Tamehana Te Rauparaha, the latter being particularly disparaging about Muaupoko’s status and rights. The claimant testimony however was interrupted on 2 April by a site visit, the court escorted down the coast by Kemp. It was on this occasion that Kemp was said to have driven in coastal stakes at Kairangi, in the north and at Waiwiri in the south.574 The absence of Pomare from this hearing was significant: Kemp later admitted to having made a deal with the Ngapuhi chief to stay away in exchange for his promise that he would ‘consider the words spoken by my ancestor, Taueki.’575 Over the last two days of hearing, Henare Te Herekau, Ihakara Tukumaru, Hohua Te Riunui, Watene Te Waewae, Wiki Tauteka, Nerehana Te Paea and Horomona Toremi also gave evidence in support of Ngati Raukawa’s tenure at Horowhenua. Even before their case was finished however, Judge Rogan wired to McLean, ‘Am glad to inform you that this long vexed Horowhenua business will soon close. Kemp has made out a clear case in my opinion and I will when the time comes give him the full benefit of it.’576

The judgement was delivered on 5 April, the morning after closing evidence. Judges Rogan and Smith, with assessor Hemi Tautari, considered that Te Whatanui’s residence at Horowhenua, and his protection of Muaupoko, did not amount to a surrender by Muaupoko of their land.

We find that Muaupoko was in possession of the land at Horowhenua when Te Whatanui went there – that they still occupy these lands and that they have never been dispossessed of them.577

Te Whatanui’s occupation at Raumatangi was found to have been ‘acquired by gift’ by Muaupoko, an interest the court deemed to be satisfied by the award of 100 acres to his representatives there.

Kemp applied for a Crown grant to Horowhenua on 10 April 1873 to be in his name alone, the names of the other listed owners to be written ‘outside’ the grant.578 Years later he explained that this had been a deliberate decision, with the retention of the tribal estate in mind:

The Government would put those names in, and the land was in their names, and made inalienable for the whole tribe. Then, some time after, the Government would release the land, and the Natives sold it, and the land was gone. I consented to my name being put in alone, lest others should deal with the land, and the names of the people to come below mine.579

574 O’Donnell, p. 142. 575 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 26. 576 Judge Rogan to Native Minister McLean, 3 April 1873, MA 75/10 cited in Anderson and Pickens, p. 216. 577 Horowhenua Judgement, 5 April 1873, Otaki MB 2, p. 54. 578 Meiha Keepa to the court, 10 April 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:653-57]. 579 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 29. 108

An order vesting Horowhenua in Keepa Te Rangihiwinui was made the same day, the certificate of title to issue once the block had been properly surveyed.580 The court also ordered that 143 listed individuals be registered as having interests.581 The third order concerning Horowhenua that day, again at Kemp’s request, was the injunction against placing restrictions on the alienability of the block, or attaching any conditions to the granted estate.582 The 100-acre Raumatangi block was vested in Waretini and nine others. Te Watene Tiwaewae was also registered as an owner.583 At the end of business that day Rogan wired to McLean: ‘the celebrated Horowhenua block has passed the court this afternoon in favour of Kemp and the Muaupoko tribe this is the pu o te wheke a great weight off my mind.’584

Te Rangimairehau later testified that the list of registered owners was drawn up by himself and Heta Te Whata, with the assistance of Kawana Hunia for Ngati Apa and Matiaha for Ngati Kahungunu.585 Most of the 143 registered owners feature in Kemp’s letter of 10 April to the court, although by the names of John Jury (Te Whatahoro), Peeti Te Aweawe and Hoani Meihana is the note ‘by Order’, and below this the names of Marakaia Tawaroa and Karaitiana Te Korou are similarly annotated ‘added by the Court’.586 As well, seven other individuals were subsequently added after a ‘tono’ to Kemp for inclusion in the list of registered owners.587 Almost one-fourth of these registered owners belonged to the wider tangata whenua confederation, rather than the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua, reflecting no doubt the preceding contest over Kukutauaki, from which the Horowhenua case was derived.

3.5 Reflections on Muaupoko’s 1873 title

To a large extent Muaupoko were caught up in the same pressures at work in the wider district, an increasingly tense dynamic between tangata heke and tangata whenua entities in the context of renewed provincial government ambitions to purchase land. What began as a local dispute over Mahoenui, as Muaupoko sought to keep wider Ngati Raukawa interests out of Horowhenua, quickly spiralled into something much more. Once again, however, the reductionist, and still current, portrayal of this boundary dispute in terms of a Muaupoko ‘resurgence’ or ‘land grab’ from ‘Ngati Raukawa’ or even ‘Te Whatanui’s descendants’, needs to be considered in light of the actual circumstances of more

580 Copy of order for Horowhenua Block, 10 April 1873, MA W1369 27 1872/272 [DB:1741]. 581 Ibid, [DB:1746]. 582 Ibid, [DB:1742]. An exception was made regarding areas that might be affected by s.41 of Native Lands Act 1867, which provided that landholders of New Zealand Company sections at Manawatu would be entitled to retain their land. 583 Ibid, Copy of order for Raumatangi Block, 5 April 1873 [DB:1743-45]. 584 Judge Rogan to Native Minister McLean, 11 April 1873, MS-papers-0032-0086, available online at http://natlib.govt.nz 585 Te Rangimairehau, 18 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 201. In 1896 Kemp also mentioned Te Whatahoro with respect to the registered owners, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 178. 586 Meiha Keepa to the court, 10 April 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:656]. 587 Those included in this tono for inclusion were Irihapeti Ihaia, Matiria Tamaiwhakakitea, Wi Waaka, Ani Marakaia, Matiria Karaitiana, Miriama Piripi and Harata te Roeti, MA 75/2/14 [DB:651]. 109 than two decades of settlement at Horowhenua.588 Since 1845 the only Ngati Raukawa presence at Horowhenua was that of Te Whatanui’s immediate household, and by the time of Te Whatanui Tutaki’s death in 1869, this ‘household’ was significantly reduced: no ‘descendants’ as such having resided there for some time. In these circumstances, the tribe’s objections to Wiki Tauteka and Kararaina Whawha’s claims, and their rejection of Ngati Raukawa’s attempt to confine them within a line set at Tauateruru is explicable. Similarly there is little in the detailed breakdown of events set out in this chapter to support Hearn’s conclusion that Muaupoko at Horowhenua participated in a campaign of ‘insults, bellicose threats and confrontation, and attacks on property’ to get their way.589 The building of Kupe in early 1870 could be seen as Muaupoko buy-in to the polemic espoused by Kawana Hunia, although the extent to which Muaupoko’s aspirations were hijacked by wider vested interests is a moot point. Certainly the runanga hosted at Kupe viewed the boundary dispute at Horowhenua as the latest gambit by Hunia to unsettle Ngati Raukawa. The subsequent house burning at Kohuturoa by Hunia and his companions that escalated matters into an armed stand-off was neither instigated nor condoned by Muaupoko. As positions hardened, it became more difficult to separate the local from the general, but the fact remains that Muaupoko turned to their whanaunga Kemp for support in response to the runanga’s 1870 edict reiterating the boundary at Tauateruru, building the fighting pa of Pipiriki the following year when matters came to a head. There is little evidence to suggest that their interest in the widening dispute was anything other than the local imperative to keep Horowhenua intact. Significantly, the resident Muaupoko community were not part of the Matapihi resolution in April 1872 to make a general, confederated ‘tangata whenua’ application for title investigation to Manawatu-Kukutauaki.

The spark igniting conflict at Horowhenua is commonly ascribed to Te Whatanui Tutaki’s death, but it could equally be attributed to Native Minister Richmond’s quiet encouragement in January 1869 to Wiki Tauteka to utilise the Native Land Court.590 Over the next three years, Crown officials took steps to contain the ‘hubbub’ from degenerating into outright fighting, but the appeals from both sides to the government for a lasting resolution were not acted on. In the absence of any European settlement of size, the tensions at Horowhenua were not considered pressing enough. Native Minister McLean’s promises of a mixed runanga from mid-1871 reflected his usual mollifying approach, lacking any real commitment. This can be contrasted with the government’s determination from 1872 onwards to steer Maori communities on the coast towards Native Land Court title investigation as the peaceable and lawful means of resolving disputed rohe, the underlying motive being the acquisition of their land.

588 Recent interpretations, like that of Hearn or Anderson and Pickens, for example, still describe the dispute as having been started by Kemp and Hunia, in terms of the wider, general tangata whenua assertion of mana over tribal lands. Although it certainly assumed this character, my point is that Muaupoko’s stand at Horowhenua arose from particular local circumstances. 589 Hearn, p. 594. 590 In January 1874 Wiki Tauteka again argued as much with Native Minister McLean, that ‘It was the Government that commenced the survey by asking us to go into Court’. ‘Horowhenua Land Dispute’, MA75/2/12 cited in Hearn, p. 616. 110

Muaupoko were reluctant participants in the Crown’s title game from the outset, Swainson’s 1869 survey for the purpose of Native Land Court title determination at Mahoenui sparking the dispute at Horowhenua. Resident Magistrate Edwards relayed the tribe’s continued opposition to this course in the midst of conflict in 1871. Grindell met the same resistance throughout 1872, despite the recruitment of intermediaries like Hoani Meihana, Kawana Hunia and Kemp, to convince the resident Muaupoko community of the benefits of survey and court title determination. Tellingly, Muaupoko’s application to the court was signed by a Native Department official, on the strength of the supposed support from some of the tribe.

The ascendance of Kemp and Hunia as authorities within Muaupoko, and even tribal ‘saviours’, took root in this period. McLean clearly relied on both men to influence the community there, even before he was aware of Kemp’s close kinship. The relationship both Kemp and Hunia enjoyed with Crown representatives has been touched on earlier (see pp. 59-60). Having facilitated the Crown’s purchase of Rangitikei-Manawatu, and pressed, too, the subsequent survey for the province, by 1871 Hunia’s alliance with the government’s support was beginning to be regarded by the press as potentially problematic: ‘he considers himself entitled to supplies of firearms and to support from the Government at any and all times.’591 When their own communications brought one-line acknowledgements from officialdom ‘It is right for you to tell your troubles’, it is perhaps no wonder Muaupoko made a bee-line for Kemp at Whanganui, or accommodated Hunia at Horowhenua. Although Crown officials on the ground like Edwards, Knocks and Grindell continued to engage with the community at Horowhenua, tribal resolutions did not often coincide with government ambitions. McLean himself seems to have dealt directly with Kemp and Hunia rather than Muaupoko, Kemp’s role becoming even more pronounced once he was listed as sole grantee of the Horowhenua block. This ‘strong man’ narrative, of course, was a derivative of the ‘weak remnant’ narrative, based on the idea that Muaupoko were unable to fend or even think for themselves, and just as powerful. In later years both men claimed credit for asserting and winning title for Muaupoko in 1873 – of ‘ousting’ Ngati Raukawa – a narrative which was utilised by the Crown for its own ends in the state farm purchase of 1894, with dire consequences for the resident tribe (see p. 221).

The court’s decision in 1873 effectively set the limits of Muaupoko’s tribal estate. The alacrity of the judgment, together with the absence of analysis of the issues put in evidence, only adds to the conclusion that the Horowhenua judgement was another instance of political expediency, contrived, as Fox predicted, to ‘put the final touch to differences between the tribes & satisfy all’. In the case of Himatangi, the joint occupation of Ngati Raukawa and tangata whenua communities had resulted in a decision of joint ownership (which suited the Wellington Provincial Government’s pocket). A finding

591 Evening Herald, 27 July 1871, p. 2, cited in Hearn, p. 571. 111 that Muaupoko had never been dispossessed at Horowhenua did not have to mean – by Himatangi rules – the almost complete repudiation of Te Whatanui’s rights, particularly when the chief had been one of the figureheads of Ngati Raukawa’s tenure on the coast, and the complete repudiation of Ngati Raukawa hapu interests south of Mahoenui, or north of Ngamana. Grindell reported that Ngati Raukawa’s disgust with the Horowhenua decision was so great it almost brought to a halt all other court business.592 For his part, Kemp threw an impromptu party, the alcohol flowing freely, ostensibly to honour the superintendent and secretary of the Wellington Provincial Government who had arrived in time in hear the verdict.593

It has been variously suggested that the judiciary were intimidated into awarding Horowhenua to Kemp and Muaupoko, or that the block was awarded in payment for military services rendered by the major and his men, a number of whom were from tangata whenua entities on the coast.594 There are strands of truth in both such explanations, but only in so far as the fact that Kemp had not been slow to defend Muaupoko in the Horowhenua dispute, and that his military service and standing was valued by the Crown, particularly by McLean. In none of the correspondence between Rogan and McLean – after the first shaky week of the Kukutauaki case in November 1872 – was there any suggestion of intimidation on the part of Kemp. As Kemp told the gathering outside the pub the day after the ruling in his favour, ‘It was his business to uphold the law, not to break it.’595

Much, too, has been made of Kemp’s ‘admission’ of perjury to the Horowhenua Commission in 1896, highlighted in the resulting report.596 Yet Kemp had only made the point that in 1873, as in any case before the land court, the evidence to be given was discussed beforehand, and tailored towards proving the case. Kemp’s ‘admission’ in this regard was that he had given evidence he had been told to relate by the tribe, rather than what he knew from his own knowledge.597 In the same way, the commission’s allegation that Kemp similarly admitted to inducing Ruta Te Kiritotara to commit perjury is not borne out by the record: ‘I put her up to give evidence’ does not necessarily imply that the evidence she gave was false. The following year Kemp categorically denied that he had meant by

592 Grindell to Superintendent Fitzherbert, 7 April 1873, MA 13/119/75a [WT DB, MA13/75a:458]. 593 ‘The Native Lands Court’, Wellington Independent, 10 April 1873, p. 3. 594 Summarised for example in Anderson and Pickens, pp. 214-216, and repeated, with respect to intimidation, in Hearn, pp.599; 607; 633. Hearn bases the statement that Te Rangihiwinui ‘marched his men, in full uniform, up and down outside the courtroom, on Neville Nicholson’s 1896 testimony, but in the same cited testimony, Nicholson speaks only of Kemp being dressed in regimental uniform with his sword, Hearn, p. 599. Again, Kemp’s alleged threat made in court to bring 400 Whanganui is based on remembered hearsay evidence in O’Donnell’s Te Hekenga and does not fit with the contemporary correspondence between the judiciary and government officials discussed above, Hearn, p. 607. Lastly, Hearn cites the 1897 allegation of intimidation by Minister of Lands McKenzie, Hearn, p. 633. As set out further in Chapters 5 and 6, McKenzie had his own reasons for undermining Muaupoko’s authority over the block. 595 Wellington Independent, 10 April 1873, p. 3. 596 AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 2. 597 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 180. Similarly, the following year he clarified further: ‘I have admitted that in the Court of 1873 our lawyers advised us all to tell the same story. ... We were advised to go on a particular line, and followed it. I don’t know whether it was true or false; I accepted it as they gave it to me. I swore what I considered I was justified in swearing to.’ 9 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 28. 112 this 1896 evidence to say that he had lied in the 1873 court, or that he had put Ruta Te Kiri up to tell lies.598

Rather, the key to understanding the Horowhenua decision lies in Grindell’s closing paragraph in his account of the Native Land Court’s work at Foxton, published in the Wellington Independent on 10 April: All praise is due to those who have had the management of this intricate business for their tact, firmness, and perseverance, which has resulted up to the present time in preserving peace, and placing matters in such a position as to afford the province a fair hope of obtaining a very desirable district for settlement.599

As Hearn relates, Grindell was at court under instructions from the Wellington Provincial Government to purchase the 250,000 acres south of the Manawatu, for which the province had allocated £30,000 and borrowed a further £20,000.600 As previous Tribunals have found, the fundamental purpose of the land court was to facilitate land alienation.601 Rendering the contested tribal landscape into large tribal parcels essentially stepped over the messy, complex and fluid nature of intersecting customary title. On the evidence available, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Horowhenua decision was a pragmatic compromise by the judiciary in cahoots with McLean – and Kemp – which was signalled even before the case got underway. Ngati Raukawa got most of the area from Manawatu to Kukutauaki; Muaupoko got Horowhenua, the boundaries extended somewhat from their own tribal claim to win Kemp’s acquiescence to the earlier Manawatu-Kukutauaki decision. Both awards had more to do with Crown ambitions of future acquisition than any real concern to reflect or protect customary tenure. The blanket award to both entities, it was hoped, would bring an end to the political contest which had effectively curtailed Pakeha settlement for the last 30 years. As Anderson and Pickens point out, the close relationship between the government and the judiciary in this period was later remarked on by Native Land Court judge JA Wilson, who seems to have referred specifically to the court’s decision with regard to Horowhenua when he said:

A promise from the Minister for the time being, which went from Minister to Minister, that by special powers and contracts, or in some other way, special legislation should make anything that seemed to require it valid so much so, that in 1873 Mr McLean the Native Minister, thanked Judge Rogan for acting outside the

598 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 8 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, pp. 27-28. 599 Ibid, my emphasis. That Grindell was the author of this article is confirmed in his letter to Fitzherbert on 7 April, MA 13/119/75a [WT DB, MA13/75a: 458]. 600 Hearn, p. 642. 601 The 2006 finding of the Hauraki Tribunal, that the primary purpose of native land legislation from 1862 was to facilitate the purchase and settlement of Maori land, has since been reiterated in the case of the Wairarapa and Te Tau Ihu inquiries. (Waitangi Tribunal, The Hauraki Report, 2006, p. 778; The Wairarapa ki Tararua Report, 2010, p. 402). The Te Tau Ihu Tribunal agreed that, ‘… as a number of previous Tribunals have clearly found, the primary objective in establishing the Native Land Court was not to provide a fair and just mechanism for deciding titles, but rather to facilitate the alienation of Maori land to the Crown and private settlers.’ Te Tau Ihu, 2008, p. 777. 113

law so as to get the country settled. All that he did was legalised afterwards I have no doubt.602

At the after-match function in Foxton, both sides reassured the provincial government of their commitment to uphold the law.603 Superintendent Fitzherbert for one was thrilled by the prospect of ‘roads and bridges and other public works’ now that these disputes were behind them. His only object in wanting to purchase their waste lands, he told the gathering outside the pub, was that ‘he might be able to carry out these and other works as a means of encouraging industry and advancing the welfare and prosperity of both races equally.’604 A verbal altercation between Tamihana Te Rauparaha and Kemp was quickly stopped, the Superintendent rising to toast to the ‘continuation of the good will and union at present existing between both races in this province, and the happiness, health, and prosperity of both.’

602 JA Wilson, 31 March 1896, AJHR 1896, G-2, p. 132. 603 Wellington Independent, 10 April 1873, p. 3. 604 Ibid. 114

Chapter 4

Kemp’s stewardship, 1873‐1886

In Rod McDonald’s recollections the period between the 1873 court award and the 1886 partition of Horowhenua was referred to as ‘the halcyon days of Muaupoko’. The tribe now held legal title to a rohe that exceeded that which they had claimed. The court judgement also confirmed their status as an independent people whose possession at Horowhenua had not been compromised by conquest or subjection. Although the court’s ruling did not alter circumstances on the ground immediately, the tribe’s new-found confidence was expressed in the repossession of pa-tuna in the Hokio stream, and the expansion of gardening and house-building into new areas south of the stream.605 In December 1876 a new lease over 10,000 acres had been signed with Hector McDonald, promising an annual income of £200 for the tribe.606 Up until 1882 the lease income was paid to Ihaia Taueki and distributed among the resident hapu. The annual sheep returns of 1884-1885 indicate that Muaupoko themselves were sheep farmers, 25 of the residents at Horowhenua owning flocks between 25 – 800 sheep, a combined tribal flock of 3185, as compared with McDonald’s flock there of 7000.607

There were however growing pressures on the tribe which belie the sense of new-found security. Kemp and the court had overstepped themselves in the 1873 award. Ngati Raukawa’s dissatisfaction ignited into full-scale conflict the following summer against Muaupoko, causing Native Minister McLean to intervene. In a deal made behind Wellington doors, Kemp signed a deed ceding 1300 acres near Lake Horowhenua to the descendents of Te Whatanui, the deal remaining a paper one for more than a decade but creating a source of tension between the two communities around the lake nonetheless. This period brought the first winds of change in the way of rail and road through the district, raising concerns among the tribe. Muaupoko also had to contend with Kawana Hunia’s bid to assert authority and ownership over the Horowhenua Block, which came to a head in 1879 when the tribe resisted his attempt to fence off an area for Ngati Pariri. One of the biggest threats to Muaupoko’s tribal estate however loomed beyond their ken, the government promising in 1882 to subsidise the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company for the construction of the line with Maori land, with all eyes firmly set on the prize of Horowhenua. It is also noteworthy that the death rate

605 Kemp and Te Rangimairehau testified in 1891 that the present generation of Muaupoko had only begun to catch eels in the Hokio stream since the 1873 award. Otaki MB 21A, pp. 301; 347. 606 Exhibit G, Horowhenua Commission AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 292. The lease was drawn up by Walter Buller. The actual payments presented to the Commission were £100 paid to Muaupoko 20 Oct 1877, leaving debit balance of £100. (H McDonald died 1878); £35 paid 1879; £364 paid to Ihaia and tribe 13 September 1880; £100 paid 25 April 1881; £200 paid Kemp at Ranana, 30 June 1881; £300 paid Ihaia and tribe 29 December 1882; £150 paid to Kemp at Upokongaro, 16 August1884; £300 paid to Kemp at Palmerston, 25 April 1885; £400 paid Baker for Kemp October 1886. 607 ‘The Annual Sheep Returns for the year ended 31 May 1885’, AJHR 1886 H-8, pp. 21-22. Nb the sheep returns show farmers at Horowhenua, which at this time fell into Manawatu County. In arriving at the above figures, I included known Muaupoko, and omitted Ngati Raukawa sheep farmers. 115 among the Horowhenua community in this period was high: of the 106 ‘Muaupoko’ registered owners, 35 of them died in the 13-year interval between the 1873 title and the 1886 partition.608

Section 17 of the Native Lands Act 1867 Title to Horowhenua was issued under Section 17 of the Native Lands Act 1867. As Richard Boast points out, this provision was ‘very confusingly worded’ but it does seem that it was intended to provide a measure of protection for tribal land owners disinherited by the prevailing ten-owner system.609 First, in addition to up to ten owners being recorded on the certificate itself, Section 17 allowed for the names of all others found to have interests in the block to be registered as owners in the court record. In the case of Horowhenua, the certificate of title was made out to Kemp alone, the names of 143 others registered in the court as owners. Secondly, land certified under Section 17 could not be sold or mortgaged until partition had taken place, although it could be leased for up to 21 years.610

Later that year, the ten-owner system was abolished altogether, the Native Land Act 1873 effectively extending the option of Section 17 to all land passing through the court, by requiring the court to record all those found to have interests in a ‘memorial’ of title. The Act stipulated that Section 17 land would have the same status as such ‘memorial’ land. Section 48 stipulated that sales and leases of such land could not occur without the consent of all the owners.611 Section 10 of the Native Land Division Act 1882 required a majority of registered owners to apply for partition. Alexander McDonald, a land purchase officer with considerable experience in obtaining interests in memorial titles in the Manawatu district in the 1880s, described Section 17/1867 as ‘a very peculiar title’, with the position of registered owners as ‘practically that of Wards or Infants without any powers at all’ and that of the certificated owner, Kemp, as that of trustee.612 The Horowhenua Block was surveyed in 1878 and the Certificate of Title registered in the Land Transfer Office in 1881.

608 List A in First Schedule, Horowhenua Commission 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 282. Of course it is difficult to come to any conclusions about this without further information. 609 Boast, p.73. Boast explains that obtaining Crown title to Maori land involved a two-step process: Maori had first to prove according to customary law they were owners of a surveyed block, and were recorded as owners in the court’s records and issued with a court certificate of title; then successful claimants produced their court certificate to the Governor, in exchange for which they received a Crown grant in freehold, p.59. 610 The provision was later viewed by the Rees-Carroll Commission in 1891 as a ‘useful’ improvement on the 10-owner system ‘by preventing the absolute alienation of these estates from their real owners’, even if, as it also noted, the individuals certified on the face of the certificate tended to pocket any rental income, AJHR 1891 G1 p.vii, cited in Boast, p.74. Note that Rogan’s order relating to the non-application of restrictions on the Horowhenua Block does not appear to have been implemented. 611 Boast points out that land held under ‘memorial’ was not Crown-granted land nor freehold. He suggests that probably the intention of the legislators was that ‘memorial’ land was to be a temporary or holding category of land only, but in practice land remained in this state for years or even decades, p. 99. Boast goes on to explain that in 1894, Crown-granted land in Maori ownership and ‘memorial’ land were conflated into a single category in what is understood today as Maori freehold land: land held by Maori as a freehold following an investigation of title, registerable under the Land Transfer Act but at the same time subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court, p. 101. 612 ‘Extract of a letter from Mr Alexander McDonald to the Secretary Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company dated Awahuri 26th January 1886’, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1076]. 116

4.1 Ngati Raukawa’s interests

Ngati Raukawa, particularly those living in the vicinity of Horowhenua, were outraged by the Horowhenua judgement. Just two weeks after the ruling Watene Tiwaewae and 69 others sent their first petition to the Governor for a rehearing: ‘we do not understand the reason why we are despoiled of our dwelling houses, our cultivations, our pa tunas, our farms and our permanent settlements, we have now been 46 years in the absolute possession of this land that is Horowhenua.’613 This petition was repeated to McLean and the Governor on 7 May, via Ngati Raukawa’s lawyer Mr Buckley.614 In another reiteration of 13 May to the Native Minister the Ngati Raukawa signatories maintained that the 100 acres granted were ‘not fit for the occupation of man, nor would it support a rat with its young; eels and whitebait can certainly subsist there for water is their proper element; swamps and water are not fit for man to live on and cultivate food.’615 Under-Secretary Cooper noted this latest petition in June with: ‘the Judges who heard this case are strongly opposed to a rehearing’.616 In August Muaupoko’s neighbours at Poroutawhao had also petitioned the Governor for a rehearing of the northern boundary lands from Waingaio to Oioao.617 Having heard nothing in response to their earlier petitions, in early December 1873 Te Watene and Te Puke Te Paea again appealed to Chief Judge Fenton for a rehearing, which appears to have been dismissed on the grounds that as the request had not been made within the stipulated six months, it was now too late to reopen the case.618

A more cogent form of objection was to simply move in. According to later testimony by Muaupoko in the 1890s, Ngati Raukawa’s settlement of any size at Raumatangi only began after 1873. Before the court hearing, Te Watene and Te Wiiti had been the lone Ngati Raukawa presence there. By the end of 1873 five other households had joined them at Raumatangi, including the Ngati Pareraukawa sisters Tauteka, Kararaina and Hitau.619 Te Puke Te Paea, from Muhunoa, was also apparently part of this show of solidarity at Horowhenua, for on 11 December 1873 Matene Te Whiwhi informed McLean that Kawana Hunia had ‘revived the Horowhenua dispute’, setting fire to Te Puke’s house and destroying his potato crop.620 From Booth’s subsequent report, it appears that Kawana Hunia and three others had targeted Ngati Raukawa kainga and cultivations to enforce the court’s award.621 Kawana Hunia’s companions, Karaitiana Ngatara, Hapimana Tohu and Riwai Te Amo, were Muaupoko, but the men had acted without the knowledge or sanction of the Muaupoko community there. Just days

613 Te Watene Tiwaewae and 69 others to Governor, 21 April 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:755]. 614 Horomona Toremi and 72 others to Buckley, 7 May 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:751]. 615 Te Watene Tiwaewae and 42 others to Native Minister McLean, 13 May 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:740]. 616 Note on above, GS Cooper, 19 June 1873. The judges’ memo, dated 3 June 1873, is in MA 75/2/14 [DB:749]. 617 Te Oti Kerei Te Hoia and others to Governor, 13 August 1873, MA W1369 27 1872/272 [DB:1697]. 618 Te Watene Tiwaewae and Te Puke Te Paea to Chief Judge Fenton, 8 December 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:672-3]. Further appeals by TC Williams are also discussed in Anderson and Pickens, pp. 219-221. 619 For Ngati Raukawa households said to be occupying at Raumatangi and at neighbouring kainga to the south see Exhibits AB, AC, AD and AE, Horowhenua Commission Report 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 316. 620 Matene Te Whiwhi to Native Minister McLean, 11 December 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:735]. 621 Resident Magistrate Booth to Pollen, 14 December 1873, MA 75 2/14 [DB:720]. Hearn relates that the three others charged with arson were Karaitiana Ngatara, Hapimana Tohu and Riwai Te Amo, Hearn, p. 611. 117 before Knocks had reported on a meeting at Horowhenua at which Hunia had demanded that Ngati Raukawa include him as a mutual claimant for their portion of the Tararua ranges. Booth had dismissed his ‘blustering’, suggesting that ‘no notice ought to be taken of what he says with reference to such lands’.622 Hunia had also been agitating within Muaupoko on this visit, to have the Horowhenua block subdivided along hapu lines (see below).

Initial reports of the renewed conflict wrongly told of four Muaupoko casualties, Ihaia Taueki among them.623 Te Watene had been quickly reinforced by armed relations from Otaki, who in turn destroyed Muaupoko crops. Booth was successful in persuading these men to return home, but not before they had destroyed ‘a large quantity of property’.624 Te Watene and Te Roera Te Hukiki were reported as being happy to leave the dispute ‘in the hands of the government’, asking Booth about the outcome of their petition. Te Puke Te Paea however was not so easily appeased, threatening to ‘continue to burn & destroy’ and to shoot Kawana Hunia. The next day it was reported that Te Puke had formally challenged Muaupoko and Hunia to fight, appointing the following Wednesday.625 To McLean’s wired request to let the dispute be tried by law, came the response: ‘Give us back our land or we shall certainly fight.’626

By 20 December 1873, Ngati Raukawa had returned in force to Horowhenua. They remained there for the next three weeks, confining Muaupoko north of the Hokio stream, destroying their outlying crops and property, and consuming their stock. Claims for compensation for losses sustained during this conflict – estimated at almost £400 – were later submitted by Muaupoko individuals, the largest loss being the tribe’s herd of cattle.627 Gunfire was exchanged in this period, but no one was killed, or even hurt.628 The situation was monitored from Foxton by Resident Magistrates Edwards, Willis and Booth, with Young also crossing between the two camps at Horowhenua. ‘Outside’ rangatira like Wi Parata and Mete Kingi were also called on to contain the dispute. Mete Kingi for example visited Ngati Raukawa on Kemp’s behalf, disavowing any hostility towards them, and distancing Whanganui from Kawana Hunia’s ‘bad behaviour’ as his aggression alone.629

622 Knocks to Under-Secretary Cooper, 8 December 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:737]; and Booth’s memo on above, 10 December 1873. 623 JA Knocks to Under-Secretary Cooper, telegram, 13 December 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:728]. 624 Reisdent Magistrate Booth to Pollen, telegram, 14 December 1873, [DB:720]. 625 Resident Magistrate Booth to Pollen, telegram, 15 December 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:718]. 626 TE Young to Pollen, telegram, 17 December 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:716]. 627 Separate claims were made on 28 January by Kemp on behalf of Te Rangimairehau and others; Hoani Amorangi; Rewiri Te Urumairangi; and Ben Stickles, MA 75/2/14 [DB:640-649]. Note that compensation claims were also made at this time by Te Watene Tiwaewae and Te Puke Te Paea. 628 The worst fighting is said to have taken place on 9 January, when Booth ‘narrowly escaped’ being shot, see Mohi Mahi and others to Native Minister McLean, 12 January 1874, MA 75/2/14 [DB:688]. 629 JA Knocks to Under-Secretary Cooper, 29 December 1873, MA 75/2/14 [DB:702]. 118

McLean himself travelled as far as Otaki in early January 1874 to try to mediate a solution. McLean was adamant there would be no rehearing of Horowhenua, and he told Ngati Raukawa so over a series of meetings from 6 to 15 January.630 McLean wanted the tribe to cease fighting immediately and to hand the dispute over to him to settle. By way of encouragement, he agreed to their demand that Kawana Hunia be summoned for trial for arson. Te Watene and Te Puke were reluctant to concede to McLean’s management, but the weight of tribal opinion seems to have been in favour of a mediated solution. At the final meeting at Otaki, McLean told Ngati Raukawa he would send for Kemp, and take matters from there.

In the event, Kawana Hunia and his companions were saved from the full force of the law. The men were arrested and held in custody in Wellington, but after the first day of trial on 20 January 1874, McLean intervened to have the charges withdrawn. ‘While I am far from extenuating Hunia’s conduct’, he told the Wellington Superintendent:

it seems to me that the services he has rendered to the Colony and to the Province should not be lost sight of, and that it should be remembered that he has already in this matter suffered, from even his temporary imprisonment, great loss in his dignity and position as a chief, not to speak of the expenses to which he has been put in obtaining legal assistance.

I shall therefore be glad if, now that the law has been vindicated, your Honour will favour me with your views as to whether it might not be advisable to arrest further proceedings against Kawana Hunia.631

McLean may have been guided by local reaction to the arrest: a telegram dated 23 January 1874 conveyed Ngati Raukawa’s hope that the men ‘may be leniently dealt with’ as ‘before their eyes’ the law had been vindicated by bringing them to trial and by the Armed Constabulary presence on the coast.632 In any case, Superintendent Fitzherbert concurred with McLean.633 The following day, the Crown prosecutor sought leave to withdraw the charges, telling the court that he had received instructions from the government that the main purpose in laying charges had been to show Maori that the law must be upheld. Echoing Ngati Raukawa and McLean, the Crown prosecutor argued that ‘the law had been sufficiently vindicated, and the Natives had been shown that lawless deeds of the description with which these men were charged could no longer and would no longer be tolerated.’634 Hearn relates that another outcome of the dispute was McLean’s public assertion to Ngati Raukawa at Otaki in January, that he was ‘done’ with Kawana Hunia.635

630 These negotiations are discussed in Anderson and Pickens, pp. 222-25. 631 Native Minister McLean to Wellington Superintendent, 22 January 1874, MA 75/2/14 [DB:678]. 632 Telegram, author uncertain to McLean, 23 January 1874, MA75/2/11, [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4396-7]. 633 Wellington Superintendent Fitzherbert to Native Minister McLean, 24 January 1874, MA 75/2/14 [DB:680]. 634 ‘Horowhenua Land Dispute, Together with Notes of Meetings’, 1874 MA 75/12, p. 18 cited in Anderson and Pickens, pp. 225-226. 635 ‘Horowhenua Land Dispute’, MA75/2/12 cited in Hearn, p. 613. 119

In order to settle the dispute, McLean brought Matene Te Whiwhi, Te Watene, Te Puke and others, and Meiha Keepa, to Wellington. The end result was two deeds. The first, dated 7 February 1874, extinguished the rights of the Ngati Raukawa signatories to land between Mahoenui and Waiwiri for the sum of £1050, excepting certain undefined reserves between Papaitonga and the sea. This deed was appended with Meiha Keepa’s agreement, dated 9 February, to allow such reserves, ‘but only for those of them who have been permanent residents on the block in question.’636 In the second deed, dated 11 February 1874, Meiha Keepa Rangihiwinui ‘on behalf of myself and the Muaupoko tribe’ agreed to convey by way of gift ‘to certain of the descendents of Te Whatanui’ 1300 acres of land ‘near the Horowhenua lake’.637

Just how this was achieved remains obscure. Kemp told the Horowhenua Commission years later that McLean had reminded Kemp of the deal he had made with Pomare in Auckland over the title investigation: in exchange for Kemp’s promise that he would ‘consider the words spoken by my ancestor, Taueki’, Pomare agreed to stay away from the court proceedings.638 But there was more to it than the fulfilment of this gentlemen’s agreement. Anderson and Pickens relate for example that seven months later Booth recalled McLean had offered to find Kemp ‘a good-sized block of land’ and to assist him to stock it with sheep.639 It also seems reasonable to assume that the claims for compensation (by both parties, but particularly Muaupoko, having borne the brunt of the violence), sent by Kemp to McLean on 28 January 1874, were connected to the mediation, although nothing was subsequently done about them. It also emerged almost a decade later that another sweetener held out to Kemp by McLean in this deal was that the external boundary of the Horowhenua block would be surveyed at no cost (see p. 125). Another aspect that was not reflected in either deed, and one Kemp seems to have been oblivious to, was McLean’s charging of the £1050 payment to Ngati Raukawa against the Horowhenua block, to be treated as an advance on purchase (see pp. 131-132). In 1896 Kemp was reluctant to admit that this payment had been made by McLean in recognition of Ngati Raukawa rights in southern Horowhenua.640 Given his views, it stretches credibility to think he would have agreed to have accepted liability for this payment, had he known about it.

The Muaupoko community at Horowhenua was not party to the deal McLean brokered in Wellington in the summer of 1874: as Kemp admitted in 1897, ‘He [McLean] came to me as the chief’.641 Te Rangimairehau told the Horowhenua Commission that both he and Kawana Hunia were hosted in

636 ‘Deed Receipts – No.6. Horowhenua Block (Ngatiraukawa Claims), Manawatu District’, Turton’s Deeds, vol. 2, p. 435. Note, Hearn relates that McLean announced the peace-making terms to the press on 16 January, Hearn, p. 617; 624. 637 Ibid. 638 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 26. 639 Resident Magistrate Booth to Native Minister McLean, 19 September 1874, MA 75/2/11, cited in Anderson and Pickens, p. 228. According to Booth, Kemp believed he had been offered ‘several thousands of acres’. 640 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 7 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 187. 641 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 34. 120

Wellington by McLean at this time, but his testimony suggests that he remained on the periphery of negotiations: he did not witness any deed signing, and nor was he present during McLean’s private talks with Kemp.642 Nor do the tribe appear to have even been told of the deal by Kemp or the government, despite being party to the dispute and owners of the land. News of the agreement of course must have reached them. In March 1874 Hoani Amorangi (Kemp’s cousin, also known as Hoani Puihi) had written to McLean about rumours of: ‘‘i rongo taurangi noa matou i taua kupu pakaru o te whenua’ / ‘a sort of promise made respecting the subdivision of the land.’643 McLean merely referred him back to Kemp.

McLean’s intervention had brought an end to outright fighting at Horowhenua, but once again the Native Minister’s lack of transparency failed to bring the issues at Horowhenua to a satisfactory resolution. For the next 12 years, Te Whatanui’s community at Raumatangi struggled to have the terms of the 1874 agreement carried out. Te Watene Tiwaewae repeatedly lobbied McLean, Under- Secretary Clarke, and Chief Judge Fenton to have the land surveyed from July 1874 up until his death in September 1875, to no avail.644 After his death, Te Watene’s campaign was taken up by his family and other Te Whatanui descendants. Between September 1875 and November 1877 at least nine written appeals were made to McLean and his successor Dr Pollen by those who had replaced Te Watene at Horowhenua, to send a surveyor to have the 1300-acre area clearly marked off.645 Many of these requests were referred to Resident Magistrate Booth, with no record of anything further being done. An attempt to have the block surveyed in 1877 was later said to have fallen over because of Kemp’s absence.646

In their appeals to government to have the 1874 agreement carried out, these Te Whatanui descendents wrote of their farming ambitions and the need to have clear and secure tenure in order to do so. Their occupation at Horowhenua was sanctioned by Kemp, who stood by his promise of 1874, but who nonetheless took no steps towards securing their title. Their occupation was also tolerated by Muaupoko throughout this decade – in 1879 Baker reported the two tribal entities at Horowhenua

642 Te Rangimairehau, 13 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 232-33. Although Te Rangimairehau had strong ties to the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua, it is not certain that he was living there at this time. It was stated in the 1897 Native Appellate Court hearing that he only returned permanently to Horowhenua on his marriage to Makere Te Rou, Te Rewanui Apatari, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p.45. 643 Hoani Amorangi to McLean, 26 March 1874, MA 75 2/14 [DB:621]; Hoani Amorangi to Clarke, 27 April 1874 [DB:615]; see also Department’s draft response, 20 April 1874 [DB:620]. 644 Te Watene to Native Minister McLean, 29 July 1874 MA 75 2/14 [DB:616]; Te Watene to Clarke, 6 September 1874 [DB:615]; Te Watene to Native Minister McLean, 24 June 1875 [DB:611]; Te Watene to Fenton, 9 September 1875 [DB:606]. It seems McLean did not even acknowledge receipt of his letters. 645 Watene Tuarua, Waretini Tuainuku, Hitau Tuainuku, Tauteka Matene otira na matou katoa to McLean, 27 September 1875, MA 75 2/14 [DB:609]; Ngawiki Tauteka to McLean, 27 September 1875, [DB:603]; Waretini Tuainuku, Watene Waihoki, Arara Watene to McLean, 13 December 1875, [DB:600]; Waretini Tuainuku to McLean, 13 December 1875 [DB:595]; Teri Whatanui to McLean, 29 January 1876 [DB:591]; Waretini Tuainuku & others to McLean, 15 September 1876, [DB:588]; Teri Whatanui & others to Native Minister Pollen, 28 April 1877, [DB:577]; Waretini Tuainuku, Tauteka Matene, Te Hitau Ranginui, na te Hapu katoa to Pollen, 22 November 1877 [DB:574]. 646 Resident Magistrate Booth to Lewis, 26 July 1881, MA 75 2/14 [DB:490]. 121 were ‘living on friendly terms’ and grazing sheep in common – but the extent of Te Whatanui’s claim may not have been at all manifest to Muaupoko at this time. The Ngati Raukawa presence at Raumatangi was still small, comprising at most two or three resident families.647 In the winter of 1879, when their dispute with Kawana Hunia had come to a head, Muaupoko women at Horowhenua clearly considered Ngati Raukawa residents were ‘simply living on Muaupoko land’, referring to the talk of a reserve as ‘simply a promise, which is like pie-crust – easily broken’.648 Hunia was accused by these women of fanning Ngati Raukawa’s claims to Horowhenua in a bid to offend Kemp. According to Booth in 1881, the reason Kemp kept putting off the survey was because ‘he had not informed the Muaupoko tribe & was afraid to carry out his promise.’649 As he pointed out to Under-Secretary Lewis, the registered owners of Horowhenua had not been party to the 1874 agreement.

Te Whatanui’s descendents renewed their campaign for their land in July 1881, spurred on by those at Otaki wanting to utilise the land. ‘[K]o to matou hiahia he hanga kainga mo matou ki Horowhenua ki runga i te whenua i whakahokia mai e te Kawanatanga … / It is our wish to make a settlement on the land at Horowhenua given back to us by the Government … ’, the Under-Secretary of Native Affairs was forewarned by Ngawiki Matene and others, ‘… ko taua Iwi, ko Muaupoko e pana ana ia matou i runga i taua whenua ko te take tena i tuhi atu ai i taku reta kia koe ki te Kawanatanga, he mohio noku tera matou e raruraru …’ / ‘we are going to eject them [Muaupoko] from that land, that is why I write to inform the Government because I know that there will be trouble.’650 Matene was not wrong. A fortnight later Lewis was again appealed to in order to overcome Muaupoko opposition to their activities:

I runga i te pakeke o Muaupoko ka ki atu ahau kia ratou me mahi atu koutou ki to koutou Rangatira kia Meiha Keepa. No te mea hoki nana te kupu kia mahi matou ki konei mana hoki te kupu kia koutou. Kaore i whakarongo mai. Ko te Hiahia a taua Iwi ko te Kino anake. Heoi ano te kupu i Tonoa atu nei e matou ko te kupu whakaae mai au a te Kawanatanga kia mahi matou kia […]. Kua tae mai hoki ta te Keepa […] kupu ki matou.651

Finding the Muaupoko so impracticable to deal with, I said to them ‘do you communicate with your Rangatira Meiha Keepa because he it was who told us to come and work on this land, and it is for him to direct you’ but they would not listen, the intentions of that tribe

647 Again, based on the correspondence cited above, Ngati Raukawa correspondents living at Horowhenua during the 1870s included two of (perhaps) Te Watene’s offspring, (Watene Waihoki and Arara Watene); Hitau and Waretini Tuainuku; and a Teri Whatanui. By the end of the decade Te Aohau Neketini, Kararaina Nicholson’s son, had also joined the community there. 648 Kiri, Ngapera, Makere and Hariata to the editor, Manawatu Herald, 30 July 1879, Manawatu Herald, 8 August 1879, p.2. These women referred to Hunia as ‘the little uncultivated bounce’, and claimed Ngati Raukawa had forgotten Horowhenua until he ‘led [them] by the nose to believe he had power to divide the Horowhenua Block to who he liked.’ 649 Resident Magistrate Booth to Lewis, 26 July 1881, MA 75 2/14 [DB:490]. 650 Ngawiki Matene, Nepia Pomare, Piu Watene, Waretini Tuainuku, Hukiki Waretini, ara na matou katoa to Under- Secretary Lewis, 6 July 1881, MA 75 2/14 [DB:494]. Contemporary translation by Native Department. 651 Ngawiki Matene, Waretini Tuainuku, Hukiki Waretini, Piu Kanana, Nepia Pomare otira na matou katoa to Lewis, Secretary Lewis, 26 July 1881, MA 75 2/14 [DB:487]. Contemporary translation by Native Department. 122

are nothing but evil. All that we now apply to the Government for is permission to work on this land, we are already in receipt of Meiha Keepa’s word.

The government however did not consider it had any role in the dispute. Under-Secretary Lewis was for a long time unaware of the existence of the 1874 deed, and even after this was brought to his attention, the deed could not be located right up until the 1886 hearing.652 In his view the answer seemed to lie with partition, but as the sole owner listed on the recently issued Certificate of Title, Kemp was the only one who could apply to do so. In August 1881 Lewis suggested the Ngati Raukawa correspondents be encouraged to write to Kemp and again urge him to complete his promise and apply for a subdivision.653 Two years later when tensions again came to a head as a result of Muaupoko house-building at Raumatangi in August 1883, Lewis could still suggest no alternative other than to once again approach Kemp about having the 1300 acres defined and settled. On this occasion however, in the interests of resolving the dispute which ‘may at any time lead to bloodshed & serious trouble’, he proposed adding a government stick to obtain Kemp’s cooperation. Apparently one of the carrots held out by McLean to obtain Kemp’s agreement to cede the land to Te Whatanui’s descendants in 1874 had been the undertaking that the government would pay for the external survey of the Horowhenua block. Lewis now proposed to the Native Minister that:

If any difficulty is made as to completing the gift of the 1300 acres the Govt. might I think fairly inform Kemp & the other owners that unless the gift is completed according to arrangement the Govt will charge the block with the cost of Survey which no doubt was a considerable sum.654

In the meantime, Te Aohau Neketini, spokesperson for the Ngati Raukawa residents at Raumatangi by this time, was fobbed off by Lewis that an impending partition hearing of Horowhenua might provide him an opportunity to secure title, while once again disavowing any government responsibility for the whole situation: ‘this is an intertribal matter with which the Government are unable to interfere & it is for you to obtain from Major Kemp the fulfilment of his engagement.’655 When Neketini promptly objected to this stance, pointing out that it was Native Minister McLean who enjoined them to leave the resolution of their dispute to the government, and that they therefore looked to the government to fulfil the peace terms that followed, he was told shortly that the government could not interfere with

652 Under-Secretary Lewis was first told of the deed by Resident Magistrate Booth in July 1881, MA75/2/14 [DB:490]. Prior to this he thought Te Whatanui’s descendents were merely relying on a letter from Kemp to Watene. He was reminded about the deed in June 1886 by Reweti Te Whatanui, MA75/2/14 [DB:466], at which point he caused a search of departmental records. 653 Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister, 29 August 1881, memo on cover sheet, MA 75 2/14 [DB:484] 654 Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister, 18 August 1883, MA 75 2/14 [DB:479-480] 655 Under-Secretary Lewis to Te Aohau Nekitini ma, nd, MA 75 2/14 [DB:476]. I use the word ‘fobbed’ because it is clear from correspondence that by this time Lewis doubted both the success of the partition applications made in this period (by anyone other than Kemp); and the fact that subdivision could in fact meet the case (given Ngati Raukawa were not among the listed owners). 123 the decision of the Court and Kemp’s status as certified owner: ‘If any breach of the law takes place the offenders will be punished.’656

In July 1885 Te Aohau Neketini again raised the matter with Native Minister Ballance in Whanganui, urging him to use his influence to have Kemp convey the land.657 Once again, he was told of another impending partition application. Once again, the application was dismissed.658 Te Aohau Neketini subsequently played a key role in securing Horowhenua 9 to satisfy the 1874 agreement when the partition hearing finally went ahead in November 1886.

It is not evident from the record whether Lewis’ threat to transfer the cost of the survey was ever communicated to Kemp or Muaupoko. What does seem clear is that Crown officials placed little importance on the settlement reached in 1874, ignoring multiple requests from Ngati Raukawa to give the agreement effect, taking notice only when violence threatened, and disavowing any government responsibility for the resulting impasse. It also seems evident that despite advice to the contrary, by the early 1880s Crown officials turned a blind eye to the complicating factor that the resident Muaupoko land owners had not been party to the agreement in 1874, and disputed Ngati Raukawa’s possession. In correspondence to Te Aohau Nicholson in 1883 for example, Under-Secretary Lewis wrote of the 1300 acres as having ‘been given to you all by Major Kemp & the other owners of the block’.659 In their minds, the conundrum was one of making Kemp honour his promise. The fact that ‘the other owners of the block’ who were actually resident had neither known nor consented to any ‘gift’ seems to have been immaterial.

4.2 Kawana Hunia and Ngati Pariri

Kawana Hunia was said to have been aggrieved about the title to Horowhenua from the outset, particularly by the omission of himself as a certificated owner of the block. Years later Kemp testified that he had refused Hunia’s request at the time to have his name on the Certificate alongside that of his own.660 According to Kawana Hunia’s eldest son Wirihana Hunia, a hui at Horowhenua was convened shortly after the Foxton hearing, at which his father’s grievance, together with those of Muaupoko individuals omitted altogether from the list of registered owners, were discussed. Hoani Puihi, one

656 Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister, memo on coversheet, 11 September 1883, memo, MA 75 2/14 [DB:471] 657 Te Aohau Neketini to Native Minister Ballance, 10 July 1885, MA 75 2/14 [DB:468] Kemp’s illness in this period was said to be the impetus for Neketini’s renewed efforts to secure the land. 658 Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister Ballance, 17 August 1885 and other notes on cover sheet of above, MA 75 2/14 [DB:467]. 659 Under Secretary Lewis to Te Aohau Neketini, nd, with translation, MA 75 2/14 [DB:476]. 660 ‘I told him he should remain in the Rangitikei lands.’ Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 12 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p.173. 124 such notable omission, later testified that shortly after this meeting he and others raised both issues at the Native Land Court then sitting at Waikanae, where the judge referred them back to Kemp.661

Shortly before inciting the outbreak of fighting again at Horowhenua in December 1873, Kawana Hunia and Muaupoko others at Horowhenua wrote to Judge Smith of the Native Land Court asking that a surveyor be sent to mark out the external boundary, and that the resulting plan be sent ‘hei titiro iho ki te ahua o ta matou whenua / that we may know what our land is like.’662 Importantly, the letter signalled Kawana Hunia’s early intent to have the block subdivided along hapu lines, in order to rectify the existing Grant ‘now lying wrong before the Court and the Government’. The hapu of Muaupoko were stated to be Ngati Pariri, Hamua, Ngati Te Rongopatahi and Ngati Puri. The English translation of the letter records the signatories as Kawana Hunia and 21 others. In the Maori original there is record only of co-signatories Tamati Maunu, Hetariki Matao, Te Rangirurupuni, Ihaka Te Rangihouhia, Karaitiana Pango, Riwai Maunu and Matene Pakauwera, all men associated with the Muaupoko kainga of Kohuturoa and Otaewa on the southern reaches of the lake.

Four years later, in April 1878 Kawana Hunia resumed his campaign for subdivision along hapu lines, asking Native Minister Sheehan on behalf of Ngati Pariri, ‘matou a te 30 tangata’ / ‘of us the thirty people’ to send a surveyor as the first step to having Horowhenua partitioned.663 Hunia’s grievance seems to have been rekindled by the lease of 10,000 acres Kemp had contracted with Hector McDonald. Once again he maintained that the certificate of title was wrong, alleging that Kemp had leased the land on his own: ‘…e mau ana toku Pouri mo tana mahi ngaro. / I am distressed at those hidden doings of his.’ The draft response written by Clark indicates that Hunia was told that the land could not lawfully be subdivided while the lease was still running, and that the numerous registered owners would need to apply for any subdivision.664 This advice provoked an angry outburst from Kawana Hunia at Parewanui:

… kua kino ia au taua riihi a ka mate nga Hipi ia au, a ki te whakahe mai koe E kore rawa au i rongo, kua tono atu nei hoki au ki a koe ki te Kawanatanga a kua tae atu te tono tuatahi a 31 tangata kia koe o Ngatipapari [sic], e noho ana ki Horowhenua e Tiaki ana i oku whenua, Kahore kau he Tikanga o te noho o tona Ingoa i roto i te Karana Karaati … 665

I will do away with that lease and destroy the sheep and if you condemn my action I will not heed, inasmuch as I have communicated with the Government and the Thirty

661 Hoani Puihi Te Amorangi, 25 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 238. 662 Kawana Hunia and others to Smith, Native Land Court, 8 December 1873, MA 75 2/14 [DB:674]. Contemporary translation by Native Office at [DB:672]. 663 Kawana Hunia to Native Minister Sheehan, 13 April 1878, MA 75 2/14 [DB:570]. Contemporary translation by Native Office at [DB:569]. 664 Under-Secretary Clarke to Kawana Hunia, pencilled draft on cover sheet, 17 April 1878, MA 75 2/14 [DB:568]. 665 Kawana Hunia to Under-Secretary Clarke, 4 May 1878, MA 75 2/14, [DB:565]. Contemporary translation by Native Office at [DB:563]. Nb I cannot account for the misspelling of Ngati Pariri in both the Maori and English versions. 125

one people of Ngatipari [sic] Tribe living upon and having charge of my lands at Horowhenua have applied for the subdivision. There is no reason for this man’s name being upon the Crown Grant.

Hunia wanted his portion of the remaining 40,000 acres subdivided, or else, he threatened, ‘ka Tupu ia au te Kino mo maua ko te Keepa’ / I will cause evil to arise between Keepa and myself.’666

That winter government surveyors exploring a possible railway line through Horowhenua were sent back by Hunia.667 In July he and others explained to Sheehan that the survey of roads and rail at Horowhenua could not proceed until the outstanding title issues had been settled:

Kaore e tika kei te takoto mate hoki tenei whenua kaore ano i marama nga tikanga o tenei whenua engari kua tono noa atu matou kia koe ki te kawanatanga ki te Tumuaki hoki kia tukua mai he kai ruri kia whakawakaia tenei whenua kia pakarutia hoki taua Tiwhikiti e takoto he ana hoki kia puta rano ta matou tono mo te ruri o tenei whenua kia whakawakia hoki ka noho marama matou ka marama hoki nga tikanga a nga wahi whenua o ia hapu o ia hapu kore rawa e tika ma te tangata kotahi ka tupu he raruraru mo tenei whenua.668

It is not right because this land is in an unsettled state for the arrangements respecting it have not been clearly defined but we have long ago applied to the Government and to the Chief Judge also to have the land surveyed so that it may be adjudicated on and that certificate cancelled which is in error and let our application for the survey of this land for the purpose of having it adjudicated on have effect when we would be clear and the lands belonging to each hapu would then be clearly defined it would not be right for one person alone which would only cause trouble about this land.

Kawana Hunia wanted the external block surveyed in order to then apply for subdivision. In October he again pressed Sheehan for authority to have Horowhenua surveyed, undertaking to personally ‘point out the lines that are to be surveyed and give the names that are to appear in the plan, so that the court may be clear in the matter.’669 In the Native Affairs file a handwritten document headed up ‘Kawana Hunia – putake’, appears to be a record of issues raised by Hunia during an interview with Under-Secretary Clarke in Wellington at this time.670 Horowhenua was the first of six such matters. To his objection about Kemp’s name only being listed on the certificate were fresh allegations that the list of 143 registered owners had been compiled by Kemp without consulting Muaupoko, and that several such owners had no legitimate claim to the land.671 Hunia wanted the block divided in four,

666 Ibid. 667 ‘Kawana Hunia – putake’, no date, MA 75 2/14 [DB:549]. 668 Kawana Hunia, Wirihana Tawati, Ihaka Te Rangihouhia, Warena Hunia, Wirihana Hunia, Paki Te Hunga, Tamati Maunu, Marakaia Tawaroa to Native Minister Sheehan, 28 July 1878, MA 75 2/14 [DB:560]. Contemporary translation by Native Office at [DB:558]. 669 Kawana Hunia to Native Minister Sheehan, 22 October 1878, MA 75 2/14, [DB:555]. 670 ‘Kawana Hunia – putake’, no date, MA 75 2/14 [DB:549]. 671 Those instanced were Major Kemp’s lieutenant Te Whatahoro Jury and Hori Te Mawae, Kemp’s uncle from Whanganui. Other grounds of grievance held against Kemp recorded in this document was the alleged ‘squandering’ by Kemp and others 126 along hapu lines, but his application for subdivision had recently been dismissed by the Court for want of a survey. He again urged that the external survey be completed, to enable the subdivision to proceed.

The interview resulted in the survey of the Horowhenua block over the following summer.672 Clarke established that McLean had promised to pay for the external survey as part of the deal brokered with Kemp in 1874 to end the conflict with Ngati Raukawa residents at Raumatangi.673 The Under- Secretary considered that the cost would in fact be ‘inconsiderable’ because the Survey Department already had enough data to draw on without having to physically survey the block, which proved to be the case except for the disputed southern boundary. At the end of January 1879 the survey of this boundary was interrupted by Ngati Pareraukawa women, but resumed after the arrival of Resident Magistrate Booth and Major Kemp at the scene.674 From Booth’s correspondence it seems that the protestors were told it was in their best interests to have the survey completed, threatened with the prospect of losing their award of 1300 acres which could not be defined without it. For his part, Kemp later maintained that his presence was enough to quell local resistance to the boundary.675 The major also told Booth to have the Native Minister warn Hunia that his oversight of the survey was not required.676

By April 1879 Hunia appears to have moved to Horowhenua in his determination to undertake a hapu subdivision, this time pressing Native Minister Sheehan for a surveyor to mark off internal boundaries:

Kei te korero tonu matou kei te rapu kei te korero i Horowhenua kia wehewehea nga rohe o Horowhenua kia Hapu kia Hapu kia tukua Atu ki te koti tuarua kia marama ai te karati kia Hapu kia Hapu e hoa me tuku mai te kai Ruri ki taaku ringa ki a mutu te ruri ka tahi ano taua ka rapu ki te tikanga mo te rori o te rere …677

…we are still discussing the question of the subdivision of Horowhenua to the different hapus so that it may be brought before the court and the amount for which each hapu is entitled to a Crown Grant decided. Friend let a surveyor be sent to me and after the survey is completed you and I will devise some means for carrying the railway line through.

of the Tararua purchase monies, without Hunia receiving any; and Kemp’s entitlement to Te Kanihi, a portion of the Mangatainoka block. 672 Kemp was also to be asked not to complicate the matter further by granting other leases. 673 Under-Secretary Clarke to Native Minister Sheehan, memorandum, 17 December 1878, MA 75 2/14 [DB:540]. 674 Resident Magistrate Booth to Under-Secretary Clarke, telegram, 28 January 1879, MA 75 2/14 [DB:538]. According to Booth, Karaipi Te Puke had directed the women to obstruct the survey. Hector McDonald’s son John testified in 1890 that Puke Te Paea was behind the obstruction, which was settled by Kemp. John McDonald, 20 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 217. 675 See Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 2 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 295. 676 Resident Magistrate Booth to Native Minister, telegram, 17 February 1879, MA 75 2/14 [DB:535]. 677 Kawana Hunia, Ihaka Rangihouhia, Taueki Motai, Wirihana Tawhati, Rawiri Te Rangiterua to Native Minister Sheehan, 2 April 1879, MA 75 2/14, [DB:506]. Contemporary translation by Native Office at [DB:504]. 127

The chief was also asserting his authority on other local issues, including Pakeha access to Lake Horowhenua for duck shooting, and Muaupoko’s stance on the survey of the both the main Otaki- Foxton road as well as the proposed railway line.678 On 8 May 1879 he reassured the Native Minister that his reported obstruction of the road survey was not true, he had merely asked the surveyor to take the line at least half a mile from the lakeshore so as to not encroach on the gardens there.679 Once again he indicated his support for the rail line, on the condition that the Horowhenua block was first divided in four. The Manawatu County Council received similar written assurance from Kawana Hunia ‘that he was quite willing to grant leave for the County road and the railway to pass through his land at Horowhenua.’680

The Muaupoko community as a whole, it seems, were initially opposed to the road survey. Official record of their opposition has not been discovered, but media reports of ‘considerable difficulty’ being encountered with ‘Horowhenua natives’ date from early May 1879. According to the Manawatu Herald, Muaupoko residents placed little weight on Hunia’s sanction of the survey: ‘It turned out afterwards, however, that Hunia had assumed a position the natives refused to justify. They said he was only one of a number of grantees that he had simply spoken for himself; and that they could not recognise in any way his promises.’681 Muaupoko also discounted a letter signed by Kemp a year before, authorising the road line. They insisted the survey not proceed ‘until another letter giving distinct permission for the survey of a road, was received from Major Kemp’ and the county surveyor on this occasion was forced to back down. According to this report, Muaupoko objected to having their land bisected twice by both road and rail. Somewhat paradoxically, they were also reported to favour a road line close to Horowhenua Lake, running through the Weraroa clearing, which seems to contradict the concern expressed by Kawana Hunia to the Native Minister set out above.

At the end of May, Kawana Hunia’s attempt to fence off his interest at Waiwherowhero resulted in direct confrontation with Muaupoko.682 The correspondence in April set out above suggests that Hunia at this stage could count his support among Muaupoko residents on one hand. In fact in June 1879 he relied on Ngati Raukawa – both Ngati Huia to the north and Ngati Pareraukawa residents at Raumatangi – to abet his ambitions. Fencing timber was carted up the Hokio stream by Ngati Huia on the pretext that Te Hitau Ranginui, sister to Tauteka Matene and Kararaina Nicholson, intended to use

678 See newspaper reports in Poverty Bay Herald, 1 May 1879, p.2; Manawatu Times, 3 May 1879, p.2; Manawatu Herald, 21 May 1879, p.2; 30 May 1879, p.2. Hunia was implicated in the reports of initial disruption to the road survey in May, Poverty Bay Herald, 1 May 1879, p.2. 679 Kawana Hunia to Native Minister, 8 May 1879, MA 75 2/14 [DB:532]. Nb, only the first page of the English translation of this letter was on file. 680 Reported in Manawatu Herald, 5 August 1879. 681 Manawatu Herald, 30 May 1879, p.2. 682 As part of his staking a claim to Waiwherowhero, Kawana Hunia was said to have begun an arrangement to lease the area to a Mr Bull from Rangitikei. Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 12 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 169. 128 it to mend existing farm fences at Raumatangi.683 According to Muaupoko, Ngati Raukawa had their sights on the reserve promised by Kemp in 1874, and had been ‘led … by the nose’ by Kawana Hunia ‘to believe he had power to divide the Horowhenua Block to who he liked.’684

According to a newspaper account, Hunia ‘fixed a day for raising the first post’ – 30 May 1879 – whereupon a large crowd gathered to forestall him from unloading the timber. Other than lose his temper, there was little else Kawana could do. The following day, his attempts to unload were again thwarted by the steadfast resistance of Muaupoko women: ‘no sooner would the timber (posts) be lodged on the ground that the women … would carry it away…’685 In the tussle that ensued, the bullocks were said to have burst through their yokes in fright, and Hunia was once again forced to retire. Baker, the court clerk sent to investigate the dispute, reported Muaupoko’s perspective that:

Kawana Hunia had embraced the opportunity of Major Kemp’s absence to try and fix himself on the choicest part of the Block, that he had threatened to take and keep possession with gun sword and hatchet, that whilst they intended resolutely to oppose his occupation at all events until Major Kemp’s return the only weapons they would use would be their tongues, they taunt Hunia (ie the women do) with being a sneak and a coward for acting in the manner he has done behind Major Kemp’s back.686

Hunia was reprimanded by Baker at the time for his behaviour, particularly in light of his position as a government assessor. Resident Magistrate Ward, too, recommended that proceedings be taken against Hunia given the ‘pernicious effect’ of this ‘unbecoming behaviour’ from a paid officer of the Crown.687 Native Department officials however were not as keen to prosecute: the cover sheet on Ward’s recommendation bears the note ‘Better let the Natives Settle their own difficulties’.688 A complaint however was laid by the women who had been assaulted and Hunia charged with breaching the peace.689 In a related incident two weeks later when Kawana Hunia and others attempted to retrieve the timber, Muaupoko women were again hurt. Paki Te Hunga, one of the party, was charged with assaulting Tiripa Taueki and Rea Te Raorao. The complainants were represented by Buller at

683 Baker, clerk of court, Foxton to Ward, Resident Magistrate Marton, 10 June 1879, MA 75 2/14 [DB:509]. 684 Kiri, Ngapera, Makere, Hariata to editor, Manawatu Herald, 30 July 1879, Manawatu Herald, 8 August 1879, p.2. 685 Baker, court clerk Foxton to Ward, Resident Magistrate Marton, 7 June 1879, MA 75 2/14 [DB:519]. Baker named the women principally involved in opposing Kawana Hunia as Makere Taueki, Te Kiri Matakatea (Ruta Te Kiri), Hariata Amorangi, and Pera Taueki (Ngapera?). Rod McDonald recalled that Hereora, (Taueki’s daughter and Kawana Hunia’s ex- wife), led the opposition, O’Donnell, p. 160. In 1890 Te Rangimairehau testified that Rawinia Ihaia (Ihaia Taueki’s wife and Tamati Maunu’s granddaughter) was also involved in destroying Hunia’s post, Te Rangimairehau, 18 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 197. 686 Ibid, [0373]. In a newspaper report of the incident, Hunia was described as ‘supported by one old woman and is continually talking, night and day, bouncing over the natives, and even trying to drive them out of their own huts.’ Evening Post, 5 June 1879, p. 2. 687 R Ward Resident Magistrate Marton to Under Secretary, Native Department, 9 June 1879, MA 75 2/14, [DB:521]. 688 Ibid. 689 Baker noted the women’s intent to lay charges in his report of 10 June, MA 75 2/14 [DB:509]. He appeared in court on 26 June, although the outcome is not known. 129

Kemp’s request at the court hearing at Foxton on 6 August.690 An earlier attempt by Hunia to have the dispute adjudicated by ‘runanga’ was simply ignored by Muaupoko.691

This confrontation caused a stir at Horowhenua at the time, but it also assumed significance over time in the protracted litigation over entitlement to Horowhenua 11 during the 1890s. Significantly, Kawana Hunia had named the post he had tried to plant at Waiwherowhero ‘Pariri’, which was thrown down by Muaupoko residents.692 Te Rangimairehau later testified that this was the first he had heard of Ngati Pariri at Horowhenua.693 The public declaration of Muaupoko women involved in the dispute that Hunia ‘has but very little, or no right at all, to Horowhenua’, reiterated similar comments at this time with regard to his sanctioning the road survey.’694

In August 1879 Kawana Hunia was informed by the Under-Secretary that the completion of the external boundary notwithstanding, the subdivisional surveys could only be made on application by all of the owners, or by Major Kemp.695 In November 1880 a fed-up Kawana Hunia, back home at Parewanui, again pressed for his interest to be surveyed, proffering this time the sale of the land to the Crown. The offer was made via Alexander McDonald, a resident of Awahuri then in the Crown’s employ:

Ka hoatu e au a Horowhenua kia koe me mahi taua ki te Kawanatanga mo taua whenua kia Ruritia kia wehewehea. Ko te mate noa iho au i taku ruihi i aku rima rau pauna i pou i nga mahinga whakawa i taua whenua. Kaore ano ahau i kai noa i tetehi wahi moni i runga i taua whenua. Ko etehi o muaupoko kei te reti i tetehi wahi o taua whenua me te Kepa hoki. Ka wha nga tau e kai ana ratou. Koia taku whakaro i kimi ai kia ruritia te rua tekau mano eka ka hoko ai i tetehi wahi kia koe kei mate noa iho au a kore noa ahau e kai i etahi o nga hua o taua whenua e mohio ana hoki koe ko ahau te Kai tautoko i nga mahinga o taua whenua i putai i nga ringa o ngatiraukawa.696

I give Horowhenua to you to negotiate with the Govt about the said Land – To Survey & to divide – I am a loser by expenses to the extent of £500, spent in work about that land – And I have received nothing from it as yet – Others of Muaupoko are leasing parts of the land and Major Kemp too has been receiving (rents) for 4 years – That is why I have thought to survey 10000 acres and sell them to you so that I may not

690 The hearing was reported in The Manawatu Herald, 8 August 1879, p.2. The charge relating to Tiripa was dismissed because of conflicting evidence, that relating to Rea upheld, and Paki Te Hunga fined £2 plus costs or 14 days imprisonment. John McDonald testified in 1890 that the woman Paki hit was Ihaia Taueki’s daughter, John McDonald, 20 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p.218. 691 Baker had reported Hunia’s intention to hold such a runanga of Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Apa and Rangitane, and Muaupoko’s response that ‘Hunia might invite them and feed them, but that they would not listen to anything that might be determined by them in the absence of Major Kemp.’ Baker to Ward, 10 June 1879, MA 75/2/14 [DB:509]. This runanga reportedly went ahead, finding for Hunia and fining Muaupoko £52 costs, which Muaupoko refused to pay, Manawatu Herald, 1 July 1879, p. 2. 692 See for example Kemp, 12 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 169. Kemp stated that the pole was overthrown by ‘Rewiri and his children’. Te Rangimairehau stated that Tamati Maunu had directed that the post be destroyed. 693 Te Rangimairehau, 18 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p.197. 694 Kiri, Ngapera, Makere, Hariata to editor, Manawatu Herald, 30 July 1879, Manawatu Herald, 8 August 1879, p.2. 695 Draft response on cover letter, Under-Secretary Lewis to Resident Magistrate Booth, 3 August 1879, MA 75/2/14, [DB:497]. 696 Hunia Te Hakeke to Alex McDonald, 30 November 1880, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1052]. Contemporary translation by Native Office at [DB;1054]. 130

continue to derive no benefit from that land. You know that I was the support of the work by which that land was wrested from Ngatiraukawa.

The irony of the government’s response would not have been lost on Hunia: after making inquiries about the title, Under-Secretary of the Land Purchase Department Richard Gill relayed back to McDonald that as the block was registered under Section 17 of the 1867 Act, it could not be purchased at present. If Hunia wanted to sell his interest, he should first apply to the court for subdivision.697 Hunia was back full circle.

4.3 Towards Subdivision and Sale

By the early 1880s Horowhenua was one of the last remaining blocks of any size between Wellington and Whanganui for which the original Native Land Court title remained intact. From this time pressures largely beyond Muaupoko’s knowledge or control began to impinge on the block, ultimately resulting in Kemp’s application for subdivision in June 1886. The wider context of Crown purchasing in this period has been covered by Hearn. He explains that by the 1870s, the Crown had revised its laissez-faire policy with regard to the alienation of Maori land, introduced just five years before, on the basis that the extensive public works program envisaged by Vogel required a public estate – created from the State purchase of Maori land – to finance it.698 By 1877 the legislative framework in place bestowed substantial advantages on the Crown, including the right to negotiate for the purchase of Maori land before title had been determined and relative interests defined; the right to acquire individual interests; the power to exclude private competition; and, in the case of partial purchase, the right to have the Crown’s interest ascertained and partitioned.699

Proclamation under Government Native Land Purchases Act 1877 Hearn relates that in February 1872, as Grindell set out on his mission to urge the hapu of Manawatu- Kukutauaki towards Native Land Court title determination, most of the north-western area of Wellington Province was proclaimed under Section 42 of the Immigration and Public Works Act 1871, restricting the affected land from private dealing.700 It was cancelled in October the same year, a month before the Manawatu-Kukutauaki hearing.

697 Gill to Native Minister, 14 December 1880, draft on cover sheet, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1057]. 698 Hearn, pp. 635-641. 699 See Hearn, p. 640. The relevant legislation discussed by Hearn includes the Immigration and Public Works Act 1870; the Immigration and Public Works Loan Act 1870; the Native Land Act 1873; the Government Native Land Purchases Act 1877 and the Native Land Act Amendment Act 1877. 700 Hearn, p. 643. Section 42/1871, the precursor to Section 2/1877 discussed below, restricted private alienation of lands which the Crown was interested in purchasing for ‘public purposes’, namely gold mining, special settlements and railway construction. 131

Unbeknown to either Kemp or Muaupoko, in July 1878 Horowhenua was proclaimed under the Government Native Land Purchases Act 1877.701 Section 2 of the Act provided:

Where any money has been paid by or on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen for the purchase or acquisition of any Native lands in the North Island, or any estate or interest therein, or where any negotiations have been entered into for any such purchase or acquisition, whether the same lands have or have not been passed through the Native Land Court, then and in all such cases, and after the publication of a notification respecting such lands as hereinafter provided, it shall not be lawful for any other person to purchase or acquire from the Native owners any right, title, estate, or interest in any such land or any part thereof, or in any manner to contract for any such purchase or acquisition.702

The Act was passed to protect the Crown’s interest in the open Maori real estate market, effectively reinstating a form of pre-emption on blocks for which the Crown had begun purchase negotiations. Section 3 provided that notification published in the New Zealand Gazette, that advances had been so paid for the purchase or acquisition of any such land, or that negotiations had begun, was deemed sufficient notice to all persons of the prior rights of the Crown.

Given the Section 17/1867 status of Horowhenua, which precluded Kemp from dealing with the block (other than by lease for less than 21 years) until the land had undergone partition, the proclamation of any Crown interest in the block is highly questionable. As the Under-Secretary of the Land Purchase Department himself put it in November 1883, ‘any dealing with Horowhenua land is illegal until a division is made by the Native Land Court.’703 Lewis, too, later recalled that ‘as far as the Horowhenua Block is concerned the state of the title precluded the Government or anyone else from dealing with it.’704 The basis of proclamation is further obscured by the fact that Kemp as the certificated owner knew nothing of it until 1884. In February 1884 he had his solicitor, Sievwright, write to the Native Department, asking why the proclamation was over the land, whether advances had been made, and to whom, and how much, and when?705 The Native Land Purchase Department refused to divulge these details without authorisation from the Native Minister. When Bryce was approached, Kemp was merely referred back to the previous year’s Return published for the House ‘which shows the amount to secure which the proclamation exists’.706 The Return of 1883 did indeed show £1,723 charged against Horowhenua, but no details of when, or to whom, such advances had

701 New Zealand Gazette, 2 July 1878, p. 159. 702 Section 2, Government Native Land Purchases Act 1877. 703 Note by Under-Secretary Gill on Heni Wairangi to Gill, telegram, 29 November 1883, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1064]. 704 TW Lewis, Under-Secretary Native Department, 13 December 1887, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p. 16. 705 W Sievwright to Under-Secretary Native Department, 28 February 1884, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1065]. Kemp told the Waste Lands Committee in 1887 that he had never received notice of the proclamation, AJHR 1887 I-5, p. 15. 706 Note by Bryce, 13 March 1884, on cover of above, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1066]. 132 been made.707 Even the certificated land owner, it seems, was not to be privy to negotiations over his property.

As set out below, to a large extent the proclamation status steered Kemp towards the decision to apply for partition in 1886. Once the subdivision was made, the Crown’s continuing monopoly forced him to accept less than half his asking price for the 4000 acres of Horowhenua 2 earmarked for a township, as well as to forfeit important conditions attached to the township proposal. The truth however is that the proclamation was based on a cruel fiction: the only semblance of Crown ‘negotiation’ of any kind consisting of a £20 advance made by Booth to Te Rangirurupuni, which, by 1877 the land purchase officer recommended be refunded in the face of local opposition to sale.708 Rather than any bona fide arrangement for the purchase of Horowhenua, the proclamation was based on the accounting system of McLean’s time, where Crown expenditure by way of voucher seems to have been charged back to related blocks of Maori land, albeit with future acquisition in mind. In the case of Horowhenua, Muaupoko were charged for expenses relating to the government’s arbitration of the Horowhenua dispute at Otaki in the summer of 1874, including the Native Minister’s travelling expenses and a gratuity for Tamihana Te Rauparaha. Among the raft of objectionable charges was an advance made to Ngati Raukawa individual, Te Puke in June 1872, prior to title being issued, and the payment to his people two years later to extinguish their claims to Horowhenua (see p. 118). Kemp, already forced to concede 1300 acres to Ngati Raukawa to settle this dispute, would have been galled to know the money the government paid Ngati Raukawa in compensation was also intended to be taken from Horowhenua lands. It is equally highly unlikely that Ben Stickles (also known as Peene Tikara, of Muaupoko) would have been aware that the government wages for his survey work throughout 1875 were being charged against the land, particularly given the arrangement between Kemp and McLean reached in 1874 that the cost of survey would be borne by the government. The payment by Under Secretary Lewis to Kawana Hunia in October 1878 ‘re dispute’, coinciding as it does with Hunia’s numerous ‘putake’ aired to the government, raises still more questions.

707 ‘Return of Lands Purchased and Leased, or under Negotiation, in the North Island. Part II – Negotiations in Progress’, AJHR 1883 C-3, p. 17. 708 ‘Blocks of Land on which Advances have been made…’, AJHR 1877 G-7, pp. 20-21. 133

Figure 6: Charges against Horowhenua, 1872-1878709

These ‘Details of Expenditure … on Account of Land Purchases and Leases’ formed part of the Native Minister’s annual report to Parliament, but the data in these statements arguably reflected more of government ambition than reality. The 52,000 acres of Horowhenua appear, for example, in the statement of 1875, with around £1520 charged ‘on account of purchase’, purportedly by Land Purchase Officer James Booth.710 The statement of the following year indicates that £13,000 had been ‘fixed as purchase money’, with the total charged against such purchase climbing to £1591.711 In his annual report of June 1877, Booth categorised Horowhenua as one of a number of blocks for which

709 Taken from Exhibit M, ‘Report and Evidence of the Horowhenua Commission 1895’, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 301. The basis of the proclamation does not appear to have surfaced until the Horowhenua Commission in 1896, where the charges against the block were printed as Exhibit M. The amount on the 1883 Return differs from the charges detailed in the Table above by just 5 pence. This tally, together with the fact that no other reference or record has been found regarding any other ‘advance’ strongly suggests this was in fact the basis of the proclamation. 710 ‘Detail of Expenditure to 30 June 1875 on Account of Land Purchases and Leases in the North Island’, AJHR 1875 G-6, p.23. 711 Ibid, p.20. 134

‘difficulties exist in the way of completing the Purchases’.712 That year, a further £64/16s had been ‘advanced’ on Horowhenua, attributed to an interlocutory order by the Native Land Court. Booth explained that of this, £20 had been advanced by him to Te Rangirurupuni, ‘the principal claimant’, with the consent of Kemp and others, the ‘difficulty’ being that the majority of claimants now wished to retain the property. Booth proposed seeking a refund of the advance through Hector McDonald, the lessee.713 Contrary to this advice, however, after the passage of the Government Native Land Purchase Act 1877, these sums seem to have been simply transferred, becoming the highly questionable – and hidden – pretext for proclaiming Horowhenua subject to the Act in July 1878.

The duplicity of Crown ministers surrounding the proclamation over Horowhenua is difficult to overstate. In 1880 Native Minister Bryce was himself critical of the system of advances used by the previous government to lay claim to Maori land on an unprecedented scale, including lands which had not yet been through the Native Land Court.714 By his own standards, the Crown’s charges over Horowhenua would have been that much worse, for the items listed above were patently not advances on account of any negotiation for purchase or lease. Title to Horowhenua under Section 17/1867 prevented the government from doing so. That Bryce was aware the basis of the Crown’s proclamation over Horowhenua would not stand up to scrutiny seems evident by his refusal – both to the land owners and to the railway company executive – to divulge these details. Nonetheless both he and his successor, John Ballance, continued to uphold the proclamation as an indisputable given.

The Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company (W&MR) One of the direct pressures threatening Muaupoko’s ownership of Horowhenua from 1880 onwards arose from the construction of the railway line through the middle of the block. At stake was more than the land the line physically occupied (although Alexander McDonald was employed by the company from 1881 to secure title to this ribbon). It was more, too, than not-so-idle speculation about rising land values as a result of the railway. Rather, Horowhenua was explicitly included from the outset in the deal thrashed out between the government and the railway company in 1881, as the means of subsidising the private venture by the Crown’s acquisition and subsequent allocation to the

712 ‘Blocks of Land on which Advances have been made…’, AJHR 1877 G-7, pp. 20-21. 713 Ibid. 714 Discussed in Michael Macky, ‘Kemp’s Trust’, (Crown Law Office), Wai 1130 #A55, p.88, citing Bryce in the House, 30 September 1880, NZPD 1880, vol.35, p.267. This particular issue, where Maori land owners were ‘entirely at a loss’ to explain Crown charges against their land, was not isolated to Horowhenua, Macky, p.87, citing Sievwright and Stout to Bryce, 30 September 1880, MA 13/14. By 1880 in the , 800,000 acres were described as being ‘under negotiation’ by the Crown on account of advances and ‘incidentals’, most of this land subject to proclamation. One of Kemp’s first actions as the appointed trustee of Whanganui lands in 1880 was to have his lawyers demand from Bryce the details and documents on which such advances were made, Macky, p.38. While it seems that the practice of charging ‘incidentals’ against Maori land was commonplace, I disagree with Macky’s view that such practice was ‘unremarkable’, Macky, p.87. 135 company of Maori land currently under negotiation within 15 miles of the line (that proclamation again).

Construction of a railway link from Wellington to Manawatu initially began as a public undertaking within Sir George Grey’s government in 1878, but was dropped from the Public Works estimates in 1880 as part of the cost-cutting measures by the incoming government of Sir John Hall. Rather than see the line abandoned altogether, prominent Wellington businessmen began negotiations with the government to have the line constructed by private enterprise, with ‘such concessions as would justify them in embarking capital in the undertaking’.715 The result was the formation of the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company in March 1881, and the Railways Construction and Land Act later that year, authorising private railway construction by joint-stock companies, and the granting of Crown lands to such companies to induce them to do so.

Under the 1881 Act, up to 30 per cent of the cost of construction (with the cost fixed at £5,000 per mile) could be met by the allocation to the Company of Crown lands within 15 miles of the railway.716 In the case of the Wellington-Manawatu line however, the 15-mile radius encompassed the eastern side of the Tararua watershed, provoking a strong protest from Wairarapa residents who would not benefit from the railway. At the same time, it was known that there were insufficient Crown lands on the western side of the range to make up the promised 30 per cent endowment to the Company.717 In the ensuing contract between the Crown and the Company for the construction within five years of 84 miles of railway between Wellington and Longburn, Manawatu, signed in March 1882, Crown lands on the eastern side of the range were eliminated from the schedule of potential land endowments. Instead, Clause 11 provided that allocation to the company could be made from land on the western seaboard purchased by the Crown within the next five years.718 According to the Company, it proceeded with the enterprise:

Upon the distinct assurance of the Government that it had been in treaty, and was still in treaty, with the Native owners for the purchase of large blocks of valuable land on the western side of the range through which the railway would pass, and that there was every reason to believe that, within a reasonable time, it would be in a position to acquire a sufficient quantity of these lands to make up the deficiency which would be caused by excluding from the area of allocation the lands on the eastern side.719

715 WTL Travers, 24 November 1887, ‘Report of the Waste Lands Committee on the Petition of the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company’, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p. 2. 716 Part V, ‘Grants of Crown Lands to Companies’, Railways Construction and Land Act 1881 717 The shortfall was calculated at £29,805, see Clause 11, ‘Contract Made Between the Government and the Wellington- Manawatu Railway Company’, AJHR 1888 I-5B, pp.34-37. 718 Under the terms of the contract, in addition to existing plant and Wellington Harbour lands, the company was endowed with 210,502 acres of Crown land on the western seaboard valued at £96,570, see Second Schedule, AJHR 1888 I-5B p.38. According to the Surveyor-General at the time, unlike the provision for alternate allotments originally envisaged by the 1881 Act, ‘it was all given that the Government had at the time.’ McKerrow, 25 November 1887, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p.11. 719 Travers, 24 November 1887, ‘Report of the Waste Lands Committee on the Petition of the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company’, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p. 3. 136

Company director WH Levin, who was also a Member of the House of Representatives when the 1881 legislation was passed, later maintained that the railway company abandoned the wholesale claim for lands within the 15-mile radius on the understanding that the Government ‘would use every diligence in making up land from other sources’, namely from procuring Maori land on the western seaboard.720 The expectation both that the Crown would soon complete these purchases, and that these blocks would then be available for allocation to the company, was reflected in the company’s 1883 prospectus used to raise capital in London, which spoke of a further 65,000 acres of land ‘yet to be allocated to the company by the Government’.721 The 52,000-acre Horowhenua Block, which Chief Surveyor Marchant later testified had ‘always been a block upon which envious eyes have been set’, was principally in mind.722

The five-year window of Crown purchase was an arbitrary time limit, thought to have been put in place to mirror the five-year period in which the company had to complete the line construction. In September 1882, 18 months into the contract, the Company reminded the Minister of Public Works of the deficiency of endowment land, urging the government to complete the purchases of Aorangi, Tuwhakatupua and Horowhenua, all under proclamation.723 Earlier that year the Company had tried to elicit details from the Native Land Purchase Department about the advances on these blocks, with a mind to having them repaid, and the lands again made available for private purchase, but Under- Secretary Gill refused to disclose these details.724 In November 1882 Wallace again approached Native Minister Bryce about the issue, passing on rumours of local dissatisfaction with the Crown’s land purchase officer, James Booth.725 In response, Gill attributed the inability to ‘complete’ the purchase of these lands to disagreements between the grantees, although he also seems to have informed Wallace about the legal requirement to first partition the block.726 Booth was instructed to give his ‘particular attention’ to having Kemp and Hunia apply for subdivision.727

720 W H Levin, 13 December 1887, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p.20. 721 Travers, 24 November 1887, AJHR 1887 I-5A. p. 5. 722 Marchant, 25 November 1887, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p.13 (Note that Marchant also referred to the Ngarara block in the context of potential Crown purchase, p.12). HD Bell, counsel for the company, also claimed that the contract was principally about the Horowhenua Block, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p.21. Two other blocks singled out by the government and the company at the time, were Aorangi and Tuwhakatupua. With Horowhenua, these blocks were said to have been under proclamation on the basis of government advances. See for example J Wallace, Secretary W&MR to Minister of Public Works, 22 September 1882, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p.25. 723 Wallace, Secretary W&MR to Minister for Public Works, 22 September 1882, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p.25. 724 Wallace, Secretary W&MR to Minister for Native Affairs, 28 July 1882; Under-Secretary Gill to Secretary W&MR, 29 July 1882, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p. 27. 725 Wallace, Secretary W&MR to Minister for Native Affairs, 10 November 1882, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p.27. 726 Under-Secretary Gill to Secretary W&MR, 8 December 1882; Wallace, Secretary W&MR to A McDonald, 5 January 1883, AJHR 1888 I-5B, pp. 27-8; 727 Under-Secretary Gill to Land Purchase Officer Booth, 12 December 1882, memo, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1058]. 137

Booth, who was also the Resident Magistrate at Palmerston North, had in fact found ten registered owners who wanted to sell. Unable to purchase these interests – ‘nga wairua iti’ – until the block had been subdivided, in December 1882 Booth approached Kemp about partition. Kemp responded:

Waiho marire, tena ano nga takiwa e tae ai au ki Horowhenua, kaua koe e wakarongo ki a ratou me he hiahia to ratou me tae mai ki taku aroaro, no te mea kei au katoa te ritenga mo taku wenua, a mo ratou hoki, kaua koe e tahuri atu ki a ratou maku e wakaae, he wahi ma ratou e tika ai, no te mea kei te rarangi ingoa noa iho ratou ko au anake mo Te Karati o tena poraka o Horowhenua. Maku ano e ruri e tapatapahi taua whenua ka rite ai mo ia tangata o ratou.728

leave that matter alone for the present the time will come when I shall visit Horowhenua. Do not you listen to their wishes – if they do wish (to sell) let them come to me (into my presence) because with me rest all the arrangements for my land as also for them, do not you turn to them, I will agree to give them such a portion as they are entitled to their names are written down simply as registered owners – I am the sole Grantee for the Block Horowhenua. It [is] for me to survey and cut off such portions of that land for them as I think best.

As Booth relayed to his boss, there was not much prospect of doing any business in the way of purchase with Kemp. The purchase officer had nonetheless talked to several registered owners at Palmerston North, including Kawana Hunia, encouraging them to fill out applications for subdivision.729

Impatient with the Crown’s lack of progress, by December 1882 the Company employed its own purchase officer, Alexander McDonald, to procure Maori land directly. This initiative was supported by the government in that proclamations over Manawatu-Kukutauaki subdivisions were revoked, and once the Crown interests in these blocks were defined, the balance was then processed by the Native Land Court – re-subdivided and granted – with McDonald on hand to purchase interests and acres.730 Some 33,000 acres of Maori land in the district were purchased by the Company in this period.731 Buying on the open market, the prices paid by the Company were much higher than those offered by the Crown. The Company paid from £1 to £2 per acre, compared to the Crown’s previous acquisitions from 1 to 5 shillings per acre.732 As Under-Secretary Lewis told the Waste Lands Committee in 1887, it was a ‘matter of utter impossibility’ for the Government to continue purchasing in the district: ‘the

728 Meiha Keepa to Booth, 2 January 1883, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1061]. Contemporary translation by Native Office at [DB:1060]. 729 Land Purchase Officer Booth to Under-Secretary Gill, 9 January 1883, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1063]. Note by Under-Secretary Gill on Heni Wairangi to Gill, telegram, 29 November 1883, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1064]. 730 ‘Subsequent statement by Mr. Wallace, dated 23rd June, 1888’, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p. 14. Wallace identified in particular Manawatu-Kukutauaki 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E. Surveyor-General McKerrow, too, told the Waste Lands Committee in 1887 that the government ‘were very favourable to facilities being given to the company to buy the land, and would do everything to assist them.’ AJHR 1887 I-5A, p.10. 731 J Wallace, 21 June 1888, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p. 13. Former Native Minister Bryce considered the company procured ‘the very cream of the land’. J Bryce, 21 June 1888, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p. 13. 732 Ibid, p. 14. Wallace was quick to point out that the Company was still required to lay off, and clear and grade roads, before offering the lands for settlement. 138 price was so raised by the action of the company that it was practically out of the question for the Government to go in for any purchases.’733 Former Native Minister Bryce added that competing with the Company would have had repercussions on Crown purchasing in other districts, and he had refused to do so because of this.734

In the Company’s view at least, its success at purchasing Maori land had no bearing on the government’s allocation obligations set out in the 1881 contract. Although unable to procure the prize of Horowhenua due to the government proclamation and the title restrictions under Section 17/1867, the Company nonetheless still had its sights firmly fixed on acquiring the land through the Crown purchase and allocation of the block. In December 1885, with the fourth year of the five-year window drawing to a close, the Company renewed its lobby to the government. To its dismay, Native Minister Ballance refuted any obligation on the part of the government ‘to use diligence’ to procure Maori land within the five-year time frame, or to purchase land under proclamation on the Company’s behalf. Ballance told the deputation that its allocation was too large, that the Company’s own purchases of Maori land more than made up for the deficiency, and that in any case, the government had no money for such purpose.735 The Native Minister, however, did promise to put the whole issue before Cabinet.736

In the face of the government’s continuing refusal to revoke the proclamation over Horowhenua, and on the advice of its local purchaser Alex McDonald, from February 1886 the company directed its efforts into persuading Kemp to apply for subdivision.737 McDonald was astute enough to realise the implied tribal trust the Horowhenua title represented.738 He explained to the Company secretary that there was no point talking to Kemp about sale, without first providing some way to ensure that the trust intended in 1873 was fulfilled. He recognised further that Kemp’s ability to fulfil his role as trustee was ‘crippled very materially’ by the government proclamation. (In September 1885 Kemp had authorised McDonald to take timber off the block for railway sleepers, informing Muaupoko about the

733 TW Lewis, 13 December 1887, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p. 17. 734 J Bryce, 14 June 1888, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p. 4. 735 ‘Report of a Deputation…’, 2 December 1885, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p. 28. 736 In fact, not a single acre within the stipulated district was purchased by the Crown within the five-year period. The competition outlined above may partly account for this, together with the cooling of relations between the Crown and the Company evident from 1882 onwards. (Bryce admitted that McDonald’s purchase of a particular block under Crown proclamation had angered him, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p.5). Notwithstanding the fact that Bryce was part of Cabinet when the deal was made, the former Native Minister later proclaimed himself philosophically opposed to the granting of public lands to private syndicates, allegedly telling the company directors that ‘he was not going to move a hand’s-turn to help the railway’ (W H Levin, 13 December 1887, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p.21; John Bryce, 14 June 1888, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p.4.) His successor Ballance, too, was said to have been similarly hostile, on the grounds that the company ‘had land enough’. The failure of the Crown to deliver the promised land endowment, and particularly its purchase of the 4000-acre township block of Horowhenua 2 just months after the five-year period had expired, became the subject of the company’s petition to Parliament in March 1887, which was referred to the Waste Lands Committee for inquiry (Report on the Waste Lands Committee on the Petition of the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company’, AJHR 1887 I-5A, AJHR 1888 I-5B.) 737 For the government stance see for example, TW Lewis, note on telegram, Hankins to Lewis, 29 December 1885, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1075]. 738 ‘Extract of a letter from Mr Alexander McDonald to the Secretary Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company dated Awahuri 26th January 1886’, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1076]. 139 arrangement.739 Even this, however, was held up by the proclamation, the government finally relenting in March 1886 to allow the company a timber licence for no more than 12 months.)740 In the climate of land purchasing in the district, McDonald saw subdivision as inevitable, and something that would occur as a result of pressure from registered owners with or without Kemp’s sanction. Much better, he argued, for Kemp to avail himself of the ‘active assistance’ of the Native Minister to devise a scheme of subdivision that would ensure the trust was fulfilled. In McDonald’s view, ‘the Law, as it stands, makes the Native Minister so completely master of the situation, that I cannot suppose Major Kemp would be otherwise than pleased to have the assistance of the Minister.’741 Certain that the whole block was not required to do so, McDonald explained that the subdivision would in any case render the balance of the block saleable, if only to the Crown. McDonald optimistically predicted that the Crown would be able to purchase 80 per cent of the block once ‘suitable reserves’ were made.742

Kemp’s aspirations for tribal management One of the major reasons Horowhenua remained intact so long in spite of the pressure from both Crown and Company was Kemp’s position as the certificated grantee under Section 17/1867. Without this restriction legally preventing the Crown from dealing with interests, Horowhenua would have been picked apart, interest by interest, like other blocks in the district, the Crown’s land purchasing officials eventually applying to the Court to define and partition off its acquired portion. Or, as set out above, registered owners like Kawana Hunia would have applied for partition, and others would have followed suit, their freehold titles now a commodity on the open market. The disinheritance brought about by the Native Land Court and associated Native land laws is a well-rehearsed story within the Waitangi Tribunal, which, as this research shows, Muaupoko came to experience once the block was partitioned. Kemp’s achievement at keeping Muaupoko’s estate intact over the period 1873-1886 is all the more remarkable in the context of rapid land alienation occurring on both sides of Horowhenua.743

Officials like Under-Secretary Gill publicly attributed their lack of success at procuring Horowhenua on the feud between Kemp and Kawana Hunia.744 Former Premier John Hall told the Waste Lands Committee in 1887 that at the time of the contract with the Company, he was aware of Kemp’s hostility to sale, but that ‘we expected that would be got over in five years.’745 Both approaches tend to

739 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui to Ihaia Taueki, Noa Te Whatamahoe, Hoani Amorangi, 9 September 1885, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1084]. 740 Ballance to Nathan, Chairman W&MR, 23 March 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1092]. 741 ‘Extract of a letter from Mr Alexander McDonald to the Secretary Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company dated Awahuri 26th January 1886’, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1076]. 742 Wallace, Secretary W&MR to Minister for Public Works, 24 July 1886, AJHR 1888 I-5b, p.30. 743 See for example Hearn’s summary of Crown purchasing between 1870-1890, pp. 654-657. 744 Under-Secretary Gill to Secretary W&MR, 8 December 1882, AJHR 1888 I-5B, pp. 27-8; Wallace also understood it in these terms, telling the Waste Lands Committee in 1887 that Kemp only became willing to negotiate the sale once Hunia had passed away, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p. 27. 745 John Hall, 14 June 1888, AJHR 1888 I-5b, p.8. 140 belittle more than a decade of effort by Kemp and others to both retain and control the management of tribal lands outside of the Native Land Court paradigm. While these efforts were primarily directed at his tribal homeland of the lower Whanganui river, they nonetheless informed and impacted on Horowhenua.746 Kemp’s aversion to sale was sharpened against dealing with Native Minister Bryce in particular, for example, after events at Murimotu in 1880. Conversely, Ballance’s support for Kemp’s cause at this time, as editor of the Wanganui Herald, helps to explain why Kemp may have considered him an ally as Native Minister in 1886. Most importantly, Kemp’s aspirations to hold and develop tribal land, manifested in the short life of ‘Kemp’s Trust’ over 1880-1881, provides an insight into what he might have hoped to achieve when he signed the application to partition Horowhenua.

Employed as a government land purchase officer and assessor since the early 1870s, Kemp was nonetheless intent on keeping Whanganui lands out of the Native Land Court, remaining at the forefront of tribal efforts throughout this decade to adjudicate title and manage their lands themselves.747 Runanga among the river iwi were particularly active, and in August 1877, ‘Te Paki o te Rangi’ was opened at Kemp’s kainga of Putiki, intended as a tribal parliament, with Te Keepa among those in whom tribal lands were entrusted at this time, in order to prevent sale and lease.748 This trust was relinquished the following year in the face of an assertive government purchasing program, but Kemp remained an advocate for the retention, control and development of a tribal estate. By 1880, Crown advances were said to have been paid on account of some 800,000 acres in the Whanganui district, much of this being under proclamation. The Crown had also procured the leasehold of Murimotu lands in the mid-1870s, which it then sub-leased in large pastoral runs, before title had been completed. Whanganui iwi on the whole wished to settle tribal rohe themselves: in 1877 Resident Magistrate Woon reported that ‘Large and important meetings are continually being held’ with a view to resolve these ‘ancient tribal land boundary disputes’.749 When Bryce tried to force the survey of one such run in January 1880, the first step towards title determination by the Court, an outraged Kemp stopped the survey and tore down the trig stations.750 Over March and April 1880, an armed stand-off at Murimotu between Kemp’s ‘army’ and that of his Ngati Whiti rivals upset farming operations and the government survey, but no actual fighting took place.

746 The following background of Kemp’s work within Whanganui is based on Michael Macky, ‘Kemp’s Trust’, (Crown Law Office) Wai 1130 (National Park Inquiry) #A55. 747 Macky relates that Kemp’s colleague James Booth considered the major’s appointment by McLean had been ‘for political reasons’, p. 59. Macky suggests Kemp was most active in his land purchasing role between 1872-1875, citing Booth’s 1878 estimation that in holding the title, Kemp’s value lay in reducing anti-sale sentiments among Maori rather than any practical assistance. As early as 1871, Kemp had envisaged the demarcation of a Whanganui rohe, subdivided on hapu and even individual lines, but managed nonetheless as an overarching tribal scheme, with a strong injunction against sale, Macky, pp. 20-22. 748 Macky, pp. 35-37. In July 1878 Native Minister Sheehan was hosted at Putiki where he was asked to empower runanga in terms of land titles and land management. 749 Woon to Under-Secretary Native Department, 22 May 1877, AJHR 1877 G-1 p.16, cited in Macky, p. 22. 750 Part of Kemp’s anger over the survey was from the feeling he had been deliberately deceived by Native Minister Bryce, see Macky, pp. 62-69. 141

Kemp returned to Whanganui in mid-April 1880, dismissed from his government employ for ‘disobedience of orders and turbulent conduct’.751 Six weeks later at Koroniti, some 400 people signed a deed of trust, vesting a rohe of more than 1.5 million acres from Whanganui to Ruapehu under Kemp’s trusteeship, to be managed by a representative council of land owners.752 The ostensible objective of the Trust was ‘the improvement and profitable occupation’ of tribal lands. Under the terms of the Trust, Kemp was to survey the land and take proceedings through the Native Land Court to obtain ‘marketable titles’; to set aside inalienable tribal reserves; to provide for close European settlement through sale and lease; to employ necessary skills, like solicitors and surveyors; to raise capital through mortgaging land; to expend income on the construction of roads, rail ‘and other useful works for the purpose of opening up the lands’; and to pay any dividends to tribal members.753 In short, Kemp’s vision was no less than corporate tribal participation in the business of settlement.

Liberal politician John Ballance had supported Kemp’s position throughout the confrontation over Murimotu in his capacity as editor of the Wanganui Herald. Ballance was philosophically against land monopoly, represented by the wealthy runholders at Murimotu; and for close settlement. In his editorials he portrayed Kemp’s Trust, with its emphasis on close settlement, as part of the ‘battle against monopoly’.754 Given the short interval between Kemp’s return to Whanganui and the launch of the Trust, it is highly likely that he was guided by this loose alliance with the Liberals. The Trust Deed itself was drawn up with legal advice from the firm Sievwright and Stout, future Premier Robert Stout being a friend and political ally of Ballance. Throughout the Trust’s short life, Kemp employed Sievwright and Stout as legal advisors, racking up a debt of £976 by March 1882.755 In 1883 he again engaged Sievwright in an action in the Supreme Court for back rent against Murimotu runholders Studholme and Morrin – and lost.756 When the withheld rents on Murimotu were finally released in February 1884, Kemp was reportedly unable to convince his people to put the money towards meeting the legal debt accrued by the Trust.757 By May 1885 this debt had risen to £2,254, with Sievwright approaching the government for assistance to recover the money.758 The debt was subsequently secured by a Supreme Court judgement against Kemp, with mounting interest, at which point Kemp seems to have turned to Horowhenua. Some time prior to June 1886, he gave Sievwright a deed promising to sell 800 acres of the Horowhenua block to satisfy the debt, based on a valuation of the land there at £3/10 per acre.759 He and Sievwright then secured an ‘understanding’ with the

751 The dismissal was gazetted on 8 March 1880, Macky, p.72. 752 Nowhere in Macky’s report is it stated how ‘Kemp’s Trust’ was referred to in Maori, or by its Maori supporters. 753 Macky, pp.82-83. 754 Wanganui Herald, editorial, 16 June 1880, cited in Macky, pp.78-79. 755 Macky, p. 80. 756 Macky, p. 108. It is not known whether Kemp employed the same counsel for the drawn-out title determination of Rangipo Waiu by the Native Land Court in 1881, Macky, pp. 101-106. 757 Macky, p. 110. 758 Macky, p. 111. Sievwright is said to have asked the government to divert payments for Maungakaretu to meet the debt, which does not appear to have happened. 759 Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister Ballance, 24 December 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1113]. 142 government that at the point of partition, the government would consent to lift the proclamation from the 800-acre block vested in Kemp, for the purpose of liquidating the growing liability.760

As Michael Macky explains, Kemp’s Trust was unworkable within the existing legislative framework, needing proactive government support to bring it about.761 There was no legal provision, for example, for vesting Maori land in trust, particularly if it had not yet been through the Native Land Court, nor any associated provisions for the proposed administration of such trust lands. Mortgaging Maori land was illegal under Section 4 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1878. Moreover, the government would need to be persuaded to lift its proclamation over more than a million acres within the Trust rohe, in order for the Trustee to carry out the intended settlement scheme. Not surprisingly, given the animosity between Kemp and Bryce over events at Murimotu in the summer of 1880, Kemp’s Trust got a hostile response from the Native Minister when it was presented to him six months later.762 Bryce would have been further antagonised by Sievwright and Stout’s request on behalf of the Trust for copies of documents pertaining to every Crown purchase agreement within the Whanganui district, together with the details of advances made for each affected block.763 However Bryce was not alone in his scepticism regarding the role of tribal entities in the business of settlement, and nor was his opposition entirely driven by his new distrust of Kemp: legislation which would have empowered a similar trust scheme involving tribal lands in Te Tai Rawhiti was defeated in this same 1880 parliamentary session.764 Bryce’s successor in January 1881, William Rolleston, was equally unwilling to countenance the Trust.765

In the Whanganui River inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal attributed the demise of Kemp’s Trust – dated by Macky around September 1881 – to the Native Land Court system.766 As Macky argues however, the economic objectives set out in the terms of trust required substantial cooperation from the

760 Ibid. 761 Macky, p.90. 762 Macky, p. 91. Macky relates that one of Bryce’s initial reactions was to direct Resident Magistrate Woon to identify signatories of the Trust Deed who were in government employ, although the Crown Minister was later persuaded by Woon against taking punitive action against these men, Macky, pp. 95-99. It is also possible that the replacement of Woon as Resident Magistrate at Wanganui by James Booth was another government ploy to undermine the Trust. Booth himself claimed that he was in a position to discredit Kemp on account of his past land purchase activities, see Macky, p. 94. One of the tactics recommended by Booth to undermine the Trust was to utilise the provisions of Section 6 of the Native Land Act Amendment Act 1877, to have the Crown interests in any block determined and partitioned off by the Court, Macky, p.99. 763 Macky, p.38. 764 The same aspirations of a tribal role in the organised settlement of tribal lands – for Maori and Pakeha – was manifest on the East Coast at this time, with the formation of the Rees-Pere Trust in 1878 over lands from Wairoa to Waiapu. The East Coast Settlements Bill of 1880 provided for trustees to select areas within each block for retention by the whanau and hapu to meet their needs; to reserve other areas for community purposes such as schools, towns, roads; and to apply the proceeds from the lease and sale of the balance to meet the costs of settlement and land development. Jane Luiten, ‘Local Government on the East Coast’, (CFRT 2009), Wai 900 #A69, pp. 94-95; Tony Walzl and Christine Taylor, ‘History of the East Coast Trust Blocks within the East Coast Inquiry District, 1900-1971’ (CFRT, 2007), Wai 900 #A72, 1.20-1.26. The Bill was defeated, and the Trust itself scuppered by the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1881 that a trust deed for the Pouawa block was legally void, Macky, p.90. 765 Macky, pp. 99-101. 766 Waitangi Tribunal, Whanganui River Report, Wellington, 1999, p. 164, cited in Macky, p. 106. 143 government to become lawful.767 There simply was no provision for Maori to manage their lands, other than to sell or lease them, and for those lands subject to proclamation, only to the Crown. Faced with this reality, and encumbered by a large legal bill, from 1882 Kemp’s vision of his people directing and prospering in the new economic order gave way to a dogged resistance to sale.768

Kemp may have expected more when Ballance replaced Bryce as Native Minister in 1884. One of the Minister’s first acts after taking office was to reinstate Kemp on the government payroll. Ballance also fuelled Maori aspirations for tribal self-determination by his January 1885 tour of Maori communities in the North Island, sharing his proposals for community land management via block committees.769 The meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi, the new Native Minister was apt to tell his audiences, was ‘to give the Natives large powers of self-government’.770 In January 1885 Maori leaders gathered at a national hui at Waipatu, Hawkes Bay, to discuss Ballance’s draft provision for corporate land management, and Kemp spoke at a similar consultation hui with Ballance at Aramoho in March 1886.771 Ballance’s draft Bill involved a two-tier system: elected block komiti to decide what to do with their land (either to lease, sell, farm or some other use), and elected district boards chaired by a government commissioner to act as the block komiti’s agent in the case of lease or sale. At these hui, Maori were pleased to see the end of individual dealing in land, but insisted on measures to make the block komiti fully accountable to land owners, lest they become a reincarnation of the objectionable 10-owners system. Rather than new district boards, they preferred to work with existing district councils, albeit based on tribal rohe with increased powers. As the Central North Island Tribunal relates, the resulting Native Lands Administration Act 1886 was a sorry comedown from the high ideals expressed by Ballance in the honey-moon period of his office, which did not take on board key resolutions conceded as part of his consultation with his Maori constituency.772 Its immediate

767 Macky, p. 106. 768 Kemp’s well-known resistance to sale was increasingly interpreted as an obstacle to European expansion in the district, when Macky suggests this could not be further from the truth. Kemp championed closer settlement, by Maori and Pakeha, in the belief that population would bring economic prosperity, but he wanted tribal land owners to be able to control it. Despite the failure of the Trust, Kemp subsequently supported the railway through his rohe and allowed gold prospectors access, for the same reason that he thought his people would benefit economically from the development that would ensue, Macky, pp. 107-110. 769 In the course of these hui the Native Minister promised Maori local self-government, the proposed district komiti to have judicial functions over land titles and petty civil and criminal justice; and local government functions and sources of funding. With regard to land management, Ballance promised elected block committees to manage lands on behalf of the owners, providing a communal and corporate mechanism to replace the unstructured lists of individual titles. Government commissioners and elected Maori boards would act as agents for the block komiti in the leasing and selling of land. Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims, (Wai 1200, 2008), p. 342. 770 ‘Notes of Native Meetings’, AJHR 1885 G-1, p. 27 cited in He Maunga Rongo, p. 345. In its inquiry into claims in the Central North Island, the Waitangi Tribunal commented that the goodwill and expectations generated by Ballance’s statements in the course of these consultation hui, facilitated the main trunk railway line and applications to the Native Land Court. 771 He Maunga Rongo, p.353. 772 He Maunga Rongo, pp. 352-3. The Act allowed, on a voluntary basis, for elected block committees which would decide whether to lease, sell or occupy the land. If the owners’ committee decided to lease or sell the land, they would hand it over to a Government commissioner for that purpose. The commissioner was supposed to dispose of the land by auction and pay the proceeds to the owners, but had no power to do other than lease or sell it at the owners’ direction. The block committee had no role at all after making the initial decision. 144 significance to Horowhenua lies in the Native Minister’s subsequent denial that Crown purchase was held out to Kemp in June 1886. What was contemplated, he argued successfully in the Supreme Court in 1889, was Crown administration proposed by the imminent legislation (see p. 177).773

The township proposal In May 1886 the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company chairman and secretary waited on Native Minister Ballance. James Wallace later testified that the purpose of the meeting had been to gain the Minister’s reassurance that the government purchase would proceed if the Company convinced Kemp to partition:

I know, as a matter of fact, that the Native Lands Department were in negotiation for the purchase of the block, and they could never get Kemp to agree to the subdivision, and that it was only by the influence of Mr. Macdonald and my own, and some other influence, that he agreed at last; and we did not get that influence to bear until we had an understanding with the Government that it would have been allocated to the company.774

Alex McDonald told the Waste Lands Committee in 1887 that he would have declined to enter negotiations with Kemp had he not been sure that in doing so the Company acted with the government’s knowledge and consent.775 Wallace, too, claimed the Native Minister endorsed the Company’s actions, and that Under-Secretary Lewis encouraged him to bring Kemp to Wellington:

The inference on the minds of the chairman and myself was that if we assisted in the way I have described, by making the block available for sale, that the company were likely to have the deficiency made up. We were not told so, but that was the inference. The acquiescence of the Government and my being introduced to Mr. Lewis, and being invited through him to bring Major Kemp down, and do all that I could through my influence with Mr. Macdonald to get Major Kemp to apply for subdivision, led me to that conclusion.776

In fact, McDonald was successful in getting Kemp to Wellington in June 1886, where he was hosted for over a week at the Company’s expense.777 On 25 June, having already met the Native Minister once at his house, McDonald informed Ballance that an unwell Kemp now had a definite proposal ‘for

773 The government’s stance was later challenged by the Company, see Judgement of Richmond, J., cited in Case on Appeal, Exhibit H, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 298. As discussed below, Ballance’s position is difficult to reconcile with what Lewis told the court and Muaupoko in December 1886. It is further undermined by the fact that the Native Lands Administration Act 1886 met with a hostile reaction from Maori: no land was placed under its operations and it was repealed in 1888. 774 J Wallace, 21 June 1888, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p. 30. 775 A McDonald, 13 December 1887, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p. 20. 776 Company secretary James Wallace, 14 December 1887, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p.27. Note that a letter referred to by Wallace, dated 26 May 1886, which was said to reflect this agreement was not reproduced in the evidence printed in the AJHR. 777 Wallace, 14 December 1887, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p.27; A McDonald, Evidence to Court of Appeal, Exhibit H in AJHR 1896 G-2, p.295. 145 the settlement of Horowhenua’, but that he wanted to meet in person in order that ‘he may have the benefit of your advice.’778 The terms of Kemp’s proposal were as follows:

Figure 7: The proposed Taitoko township, June 1886 779

It is necessary to make a distinction between the above conditions, which Kemp brought to the table and which give an insight to his vision for Muaupoko, and what the government actually committed to at this time. That Native Minister Ballance made the right noises is evident both from the fact that Kemp went ahead and signed the application for subdivision (receiving £150 on account); and that the above package was the one that was subsequently put before the tribe when they gathered for the court sitting later that year. On the Treasury vouchers issued to Kemp in June and September 1886, the advances were recorded as being on account of purchase for ‘Taitoko (part of Horowhenua) Block;

778 A McDonald to Native Minister, 25 June 1886, reproduced in AJHR 1896 G-2, p.296; A McDonald evidence to Court of Appeal, Exhibit H in AJHR 1896 G-2, p.295. 779 Exhibit H, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 296-7. 146

4000 acres; price unfixed’, which could only have reinforced Kemp’s understanding when he left the meeting that Ballance had agreed to his proposal.780 The Memorandum that was actually signed however was something less:

Figure 8: Taitoko township memorandum of agreement, June 1886781

As it stands, the memorandum certainly records the government’s endorsement of the proposed township, although whether this was to be achieved through outright Crown purchase, or through the Crown developing and selling it on behalf of the owners – a proposal Wirihana Hunia, who was there with Kemp, understood as ‘marketing’ – seems to have been left undecided.782 In these negotiations ‘of considerable length’, Native Minister Ballance is said to have raised the option of utilising pending legislation – what became his Native Land Administration Act 1886 outlined above – rather than outright purchase, to carry out the town development.

Just what was agreed to on this occasion had implications of course on the Crown’s contract with the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company. Later, both the Minister and his Under-Secretary denied under oath that purchase was mooted at all at this June meeting. ‘As a matter of fact’, Lewis told the Waste Lands Commission inquiring into the Company’s 1887 petition about the township block, ‘there were no negotiations for the purchase of the Horowhenua Block until the expiration of the five years mentioned in the contract.’783 The Under-Secretary maintained that the government’s agreement to Kemp’s township scheme was ‘simply that the Natives should deal with the land

780 Treasury vouchers 25117 and 50982 set out in Exhibit H, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 297-8. 781 Exhibit H, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 297. 782 Evidence of Wirihana Hunia, Supreme Court, reproduced in Exhibit H, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 293. 783 Under-Secretary Lewis, 13 December 1877, AJHR 1877 I-5A, p. 18. 147 independently.’784 Pressed about the possibility of doing so with the Crown proclamation in place, the Under-Secretary responded, ‘I presume the Proclamation would have been lifted, to enable the scheme to be carried out.’785 Lewis told the committee that the sale of the 4000 acres was a secondary development, arising at the time of the partition hearing from Kemp’s need for money: ‘Kemp was anxious to raise money, and he found that this township scheme was not likely to provide funds, and he therefore offered this 4,000 acres.’786 Amending his version in what appears to be a draft statement to the Supreme Court in June 1889, Lewis maintained that Kemp ‘was desirous that the Govt shd advance money to him to pay his debts and undertake the subdivision and sale of the said land receiving the purchase money as agent for the Native Owners.’787

Former Native Minister Ballance was equally adamant that the proposal on the table in June 1886 had not involved purchase: ‘I was never in a position to purchase the Horowhenua Block until after the subdivision had taken place’, he told the Waste Lands Committee – which was technically true. ‘Kemp came to me with Mr McDonald’, he went on, ‘and I refused to purchase the block.’ When questioned why the advance was made, Ballance explained that it had nothing to do with the township purchase:

It was paid on account of the whole block, which was under Proclamation. The position was this: The block was under Proclamation. Kemp asked that the Proclamation should be lifted. We refused to lift the Proclamation off the land. Kemp then urged that we should make him a fourth advance. It was urged that it was unfair not to lift the Proclamation, and thus allow him to be ruined. The result was that the Government advanced him a certain amount of money on this block, but not with the intention of completing the purchase.788

The incongruity of these two positions, notwithstanding their shared endpoint, is striking. How the land owners of Horowhenua were to ‘deal with the land independently’, in the face of the government’s flat refusal to remove the proclamation was not explained. Kemp was in debt, and he would require more money to finance the subdivision of the block. According to Alexander McDonald, Kemp favoured outright purchase – as reflected in the proposal put to Ballance – and the reasons for this preference were openly spoken of in June:

There was no secret in Kemp’s object. It was to raise money to pay Sievwright and Stout, and to pay for the subdivision of the block amongst the 152 owners. Kemp wanted each man to have a section. This was why Kemp insisted on selling out-and-

784 Ibid, p. 16. 785 Ibid. 786 Ibid, p. 17. 787 TW Lewis, sworn at Wellington, no date, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1194]. 788 J Ballance, 21 June 1888, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p. 12. 148

out. That was openly mentioned and discussed as the chief object for which the money was wanted.789

As agreed in the memorandum, Lewis fast-tracked the hearing for the subdivision, appealing directly to the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court on the grounds of it being ‘a very important matter.’790 The timetabled hearing in Foxton had to be put off however because of Kemp’s continuing ill-health. It was not until November 1886 that he was finally well enough to proceed.

4.4 1886 Partition

If we had only the tight-lipped court minutes to rely on, we should know very little of what went on during the partition of Horowhenua in 1886. The subdivision however came under considerable scrutiny the following decade, the testimony from the Horowhenua Commission in 1896 and the Native Appellate Court hearing into Block 14 in 1897 in particular making up for the scant contemporary record. The following analysis considers aspects of the out of court arrangements and the hearing itself, before examining the partition on a block by block basis.

Out of court arrangements The partition took place in Palmerston North from the second week of November to 3 December, although the actual court business took up only four hearing days. The Muaupoko community had been summoned by Kemp, who also paid their fares for the novel train ride to Awapuni.791 Having failed to have the court adjourn to Awapuni on 12 November 1886, Kemp arranged accommodation for the tribe in Palmerston North, in the outbuilding – the ‘barn’ – on the property of Alex McDonald’s son-in-law, Palmerson, who was also a surveyor and assisted in graphically presenting the partition scheme as it unfolded. Still recovering from an illness that had delayed the partition in August, Kemp stayed in Palmerson’s house with McDonald.

Most of the resident Horowhenua community was at Palmerston North for the subdivision. A number were absent at Parihaka at the time, and others attended periodically, balancing work commitments at home.792 The absence of these individuals however, did not detract from what Muaupoko themselves

789 A McDonald, Supreme Court evidence reproduced in AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 294. 790 Under-Secretary Lewis to Chief Judge Native Land Court, 8/7/ 1886, minute on cover sheet, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1093]. 791 Te Rangimairehau testified in 1897 that Muaupoko did not receive a panui for the court, but rather that Kemp’s daughter, Wiki Keepa, came to Horowhenua to take them to Awapuni. Te Rangimairehau, 5 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.21. Kemp was said to have met the £36 for train fares, as well as the cost of feeding everyone, estimated at £300, JM Fraser, 5 April 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.93. 792 Waata Muruahi and his wife Te Matahi, Noa Tame (or Tawhati), Tare, Winara Te Raorao, Hori Te Pa, Tiripa Waata, and Anikanara Hori were singled out by either Kemp, Himiona Kowhai, or Raniera Te Whata in 1897 as having been absent at Parihaka or the flax mills at Horowhenua, AJHR 1897, G-2: Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 11 March 1887, p. 34; Raniera Te Whata, 15 March 1897, p. 41; Himiona Kowhai, 24 March 1897, p.67. A follower of Te Whiti at the time, Himiona Kowhai explained that he ‘did not recognise Courts’, and that he and his wife came and went during the partition, but took no active 149 considered to be tribal deliberations over partition. Moreover, Muaupoko were clear that the partition was their affair alone, describing the participation of registered owners from Ngati Kahungunu, Rangitane and Ngati Apa as unnecessary: ‘The Muaupoko were the proper people to arrange the partition and give what they chose to the others.’793 Rangitane were present in Palmerston North for the hearing, but Kemp later maintained that they ‘were ashamed to interfere, because they had no rights to the land.’794 Rangitane rangatira and registered owner Te Peeti Te Aweawe had recently died, and Kemp recalled that Te Peeti’s sister had offered to ‘return’ Rangitane’s shares in Horowhenua to him.795

As Himiona Kowhai later put it, having been fetched, the tribe was then ‘told the business we had been sent for to do. It was to arrange the subdivision of Horowhenua before it went to court.’796 Muaupoko were confronted from the outset with a number of commitments Kemp had already undertaken: the railway strip, his township deal with Native Minister Ballance, and the 1874 gift to Ngati Raukawa.797 Sievwright had also turned up in Palmerston North, with a Supreme Court judgment against Kemp for £2,800, demanding that the major honour an agreement to sell 800 acres of Horowhenua to satisfy the debt.798 In the event, Muaupoko sanctioned all of these partitions before the case began on 25 November, although they were subsequently forced under some protest to alter the location of Ngati Raukawa’s 1200-acre award – originally located on the south-eastern rim of the block – to Raumatangi (see pp. 160-161). In terms of their own tenure, partition offered an opportunity to rectify the 1873 certificate, both to remove ‘outside’ interests from the tribal estate and, conversely, to include Muaupoko individuals who had been omitted from the list of registered owners, known as the ‘rerewaho’. These tribal arrangements seemed closer to their own heart, and took more time. Te Rangimairehau explained in 1897 that sorting out entitlement issues was ‘one of the objects Muaupoko had in view’, which were sanctioned by Kemp.799 They also seemed keen to experiment with individualised title for economic gain, the partition of land for this purpose one of the first matters to be processed in court once Kemp’s commitments were dealt with.

To McDonald’s mind, the out of court ‘arranging’ was a fairly loose affair:

role, Himiona Kowhai, 24 March 1897, p. 66. Paki Te Hunga maintained he also commuted now and then from Oroua Bridge, 31 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 88. Te Rangimairehau maintained that these absentees gave their consent when they returned home, Te Rangimairehau, 17 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 48. 793 Te Rangimairehau, 5 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 21. Two weeks later he reiterated this point: ‘Only the Muaupoko tuturu took part in the meetings of 1886’, singling out Wirihana Hunia as the only Ngati Apa he saw at the meetings, Te Rangimairehau, 17 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.48; Kemp too, considered it unnecessary for ‘members of outside hapus’ to agree to the partition arrangements, Kemp, 10 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 31. 794 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 11 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2 p. 35. 795 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 29 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 149. 796 Himiona Kowhai, 24 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 66. 797 See for example Te Rangimairehau, 4 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 16. 798 James Wallace to Native Minister Ballance, 28 November 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1122]. 799 Te Rangimairehau, 4 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 16. 150

The outside meetings commenced, so far as I can recollect, about the 12th November, but there was neither then nor at any other time thereafter any meeting called for any specific purpose. The people lived there as they would in their own kaingas. There was always somebody there, but I should say never at any one time were all the owners who were in Palmerston present together. Something would be proposed to the persons who might happen to be present in the barn, and more or less agreed to. Then somebody else would come in who had been wandering about the town or elsewhere, and the matter that had been partially arranged had to be gone into again, and so it went on continuously night and day.800

The partition was to be presented as a ‘voluntary arrangement’, provided for under the Native Land Court Act 1880. Te Rangimairehau explained that Muaupoko understood by this that ‘we should not go into Court to quarrel or wrangle. The Court had nothing to do but confirm the arrangements we came to out of doors.’801 Achieving consensus outside was vital to the proceedings in court, for any objection to any part would threaten the whole arrangement. The tribe was also working within legal parameters explained to them by McDonald, which dictated that every registered owner had to be provided for, and no new owners could be introduced. McDonald claimed that he also impressed on Muaupoko the implications of partition on the status of their existing title:

as fully as I was able, I explained to Muaupoko what I understood to be the law, namely, that every title to be issued by the Court under the then existing Act could not be anything less than a freehold title, without any outstanding equity whatever – a clear title to those persons in whose favour the order was made. I tried to explain this, and I believe it was perfectly well understood.802

Kemp simply related that Muaupoko ‘understood that, when the land was subdivided, the different pieces allotted to them would be theirs.’803

Muaupoko were clearly heavily dependent on Kemp and McDonald’s advice, and indeed their ‘acquiescence’ to the proposals placed in front of them was later interpreted as simply doing what they were told. At his most autocratic before the Horowhenua Commission in 1896, on more than one occasion Kemp told the commissioners that Muaupoko could not have questioned his arrangement the decade before: ‘They could not have objected’ / ‘it was impossible for them to disagree.’804 According to McDonald, Muaupoko ‘were completely under the influence of Major Kemp, and did not often dissent from his proposals.’805 Ngati Raukawa too, thought little of Muaupoko’s autonomy in the partition, ‘The tribe, as a tribe, had nothing to do with it; it all rested in Kemp’s hands; he was the chief.’806 The tribe seems to have enjoyed more agency in the arrangements over the various tribal

800 Alexander McDonald, 18 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 52. 801 Te Rangimairehau, 14 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 88. 802 A McDonald, 13 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 74. McDonald claimed that Kemp, too, ‘clearly understood’ partition would have the effect of destroying his existing title and position, ibid, p. 73. 803 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 33. 804 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 4 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 170. 805 A McDonald, 22 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 60. 806 Tamehana Te Hoia, 10 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 224. 151 partitions. According to Kemp, a committee of people selected the names for each of these sections, although having done so Muaupoko were still required to ‘bring the result of their findings to me for approval’.807

Such an interpretation tends to cast Muaupoko once again into the mould of ‘hapless remnants’. Yet Muaupoko themselves remained clear about what they agreed to in 1886, and why, and they never resiled from these arrangements. An alternative interpretation of their compliance might simply be that after protracted deliberation for over a fortnight, Muaupoko themselves saw considerable benefit to be derived from the proposals before them. They also trusted Kemp. They could have objected, and Kemp’s application for an adjournment on 20 November in the absence of consensus suggests in fact a process of consensus decision-making at work.808 Kemp himself placed a lot of importance on the absence of Muaupoko dissent.809

Kemp in turn relied on Alexander McDonald and later Under-Secretary Lewis for advice during the subdivision. While no lawyer, as the W&MR Company purchasing agent in the district since 1881, McDonald had some expertise in Native land law and experience of the court. In addition to arranging practical solutions to accommodate both Kemp and Muaupoko at his son-in-law’s house, McDonald was also asked by Kemp to act for him in court, and was present throughout the hearing. McDonald stayed with Kemp in the house, checking in on Muaupoko’s progress in the barn ‘two or three times a day’.810 Questioned about McDonald’s central advisory role in the partition, Kemp later explained to the Horowhenua Commission: ‘there was no one else to teach us, or show us how to act; that was why he was there.’811 Indeed, McDonald was later to take increasing credit for the partition, telling the Native Appellate Court in 1897 that: ‘I was acting under the instructions of the Maoris at Palmerston, but most of the instructions were given at my suggestion.’812

As the paid agent of a railway company intent on procuring Horowhenua, McDonald’s conflict of interest in ‘assisting’ Kemp seems obvious. McDonald later testified under oath that his ‘special business’ was to obtain title for the Company to the land beneath the train tracks, and that at the time he knew nothing of the stipulation regarding the allocation of Crown lands to the Company.813 This,

807 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 27. 808 ‘I am talking to the people - I have not agreed with all the people – I will be able to bring it into Court on Wednesday and if not settled I shall ask the Court to further adjourn the case’, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 20 November 1886, Otaki MB 7, p. 160. 809 See for example Kemp’s discussion of the railway line and township partitions, ‘the whole of Muaupoko were there, and they all assented that it should be sold: no one got up to make any objection…’, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 27. 810 A McDonald’s evidence to Supreme Court, 1894, cited in Judgement on Horowhenua No. 14, 14 April 1898, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 175. 811 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 27. 812 A McDonald, 19 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 56. 813 A McDonald, ‘In the Court of Appeal’, Exhibit H in AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 295. 152 however, seems disingenuous given that, as set out earlier, since at least January 1886 McDonald had been turning his mind as to how Kemp might be persuaded to partition, at which point he projected 80 per cent of the block might become available for Pakeha settlement. Indeed the whole purpose behind McDonald’s facilitation of the subdivision since June 1886 had been with alienation in mind, either through government purchase and allocation to the company, or direct purchase from the resulting titleholders. In the course of the hearing he was also advising his employers about the debt block to Sievwright for example (set out below), and the availability of individual Muaupoko interests in Horowhenua 3.814

In the days immediately before the partition hearing Kemp also turned to Under-Secretary Lewis for advice about the partition.815 After first obtaining permission from Premier Stout and his own Minister, Lewis agreed to assist Kemp ‘out of court & left to my discretion’.816 Lewis was present at the hearing in Palmerston North primarily to ensure that Ngati Raukawa received their promised grant at Horowhenua. However the Under-Secretary also had larger issues to negotiate: wanting to secure the township partition for the Crown, but mindful too of the railway company ambitions. Kemp had particularly sought Lewis’ advice about how to manage his legal debt to Sievwright, which, as set out below, also had implications for both Crown and Company settlement. A day into the case, McDonald reported to his Company boss of the ‘most curious and intense triangular contest of wits or of stupidity I scarcely know which’ over the issue between Kemp, Lewis and Sievwright.817 Muaupoko, it seems, were oblivious to this intrigue.

McDonald later claimed that tracings were made of the court plan of Horowhenua Block, and that ‘when anything was proposed and any considerable consent given to it’, these decisions were recorded on one such tracing displayed in the barn for the benefit of Muaupoko.818 When the case opened on 25 November, only three decisions had apparently been reached with any finality: the railway strip, the township block, and the location of Ngati Raukawa’s interests in the far south-east corner of the block.

The partition hearing The partition hearing began on 25 November 1886 before Judge JA Wilson and assessor Hamiora Mangakahia, under the Native Land Court Act 1880 and the Subdivision Act 1882. After the first day of business, in which the first three orders were made, the court was adjourned to allow Muaupoko

814 The company secretary was under the impression from McDonald that Muaupoko were willing to sell their 100-acre shares in Horowhenua 3, J Wallace, 14 December 1887, ‘Report of the Waste Lands Committee…’ AJHR 1887 I-5A, p. 30. 815 Under-Secretary Lewis to Morpeth, 23 November 1886, telegram, and Meiha Keepa to Native Minister Ballance, 22 November 1886, telegram, MA 75/2/14 [DB:458-460]. 816 Ibid. 817 J Wallace to Native Minister Ballance, 28 November 1886, enclosing extract of A McDonald to J Wallace, 26 November 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1123]. 818 A McDonald, 18 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 52. 153 more time to finalise arrangements over the balance of the block. Both the court assessor and the clerk were then called away for personal reasons. There was a five-day interval before the partition was resumed, with a new assessor, Kahui Kukutai and a new clerk. In the circumstances, Judge Wilson decided to begin the partition over, requiring the earlier orders to be confirmed. The whole business was completed in just three days, from 1 – 3 December 1886.

Kemp quickly asserted his authority as the agent for the voluntary arrangement presented to the court, cutting off Judge Wilson’s attempt to query the level of support and understanding among the registered owners: ‘we were taken up very shortly by Kemp, in a manner only Kemp would do.’819 The result, the judge explained, was that: ‘We found we were sitting administratively, and in no other way.’820 Wilson later came under considerable criticism for this stance, but he countered that it was not the function of the Native Land Court at that time to censor voluntary arrangements, but to confirm them, adding:

I do not know of any better arrangement they could have made that would have effected their purpose so well if the men to whom the trust was given were staunch and honest. The method of ascertaining that there was a voluntary arrangement was to challenge objectors.821

The judge maintained that there had been ‘nothing hole-and-corner’ about any of the subdivisions: ‘They were all quite public.’ 822 He also remarked on the degree of consensus evident in court for the subdivision: ‘I never witnessed a more unanimous proceeding’.823

Wilson told the Native Appellate Court in 1897 that WD508 was the plan before the court at the time, that the subdivisions were shown on the plan by an authorised surveyor, and that this plan became an integral part of the order.824 The details of the resulting 14 subdivisions are now considered one by one.

819 JA Wilson, 31 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 131. 820 Ibid. In terms of Horowhenua 12 for example, Wilson recalled that: ‘I asked who were the parties interested, and the Court was told to mind its own business; and the implication was, though the words were not used, that we were simply giving effect to an arrangement.’ 821 JA Wilson, 1 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 9. 822 JA Wilson, 3 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 14. 823 JA Wilson, 1 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.11. 824 JA Wilson, 3 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 15. 154

so.~"

:--l--7~_ I'," • -=--'e". !P---.,-,.:;;,0." ~# ...... V~ .... 7 N-'- .. ...,..~~.!~ ...... --~~.,. - .. -., ...- -

w, •• --~ + , t ~ -. if .,- ! .,\ ,( , • -"'''-. . , - • ..-. . ,/ rOb

508/1. \ \,

Figure 9: WD 508A, showing 1886 Horowhenua partitions as surveyed in 1888 155

Figure 10: the 1886 partition considered by the Horowhenua Commission, 1896

156

Horowhenua 1: the railway strip The partition of land on which the railway line ran was the first of a number of issues presented to Muaupoko as ‘fait accompli’, the irony of the company’s bid to secure title to the railway corridor underscored by the tribe’s train journey to the court hearing. The restrictive title under Section 17/1867 had not stopped railway construction, nor a deal struck between Kemp and the company. To his apparent consternation, McDonald discovered before the hearing that a deed had already been transacted by Kemp for the land on which the line stood, in return for which he had received company shares.825 Worse still, the deed had been tampered with by the addition of a subsequent clause, altering the consideration of 15 ‘fully paid-up’ shares to 76 shares, with only £1 paid-up.826

The initial order for the railway strip, comprising 76a 2r 35p, was made without much comment on 25 November, and reconfirmed with even less on 1 December. By the following day, however, McDonald had changed his mind about the nature of the order. No longer satisfied with the arrangement to vest the land in Kemp, who would then transfer it to the Company, McDonald now sought a direct grant to the Company under Section 121 of the Railways Construction Act 1881. Kemp was suspicious of this change in tact: “He wished the court to explain to him the application of Mr McDonald as he does not understand the law.’827 The existing deed was brought to the court’s attention, and McDonald subjected to questioning about it. According to McDonald, he was hard pressed to convince the judge that he was not responsible for both the illegal deed and the subsequent ‘forgery’ relating to the altered terms.828 In the result McDonald withdrew his application and outside court he and Kemp had ‘a most foolish quarrel’, McDonald calling Kemp ‘everything I could lay my tongue to …’829

McDonald repeated his request as the last item of business the following day. After more adjournment, the altercation seems to have been papered over by the preparation of another deed, read out in court and signed by Kemp, after which the court announced its intention to ‘make the order as prayed for under the Railways Construction Act Clause 121.’830 The argument over the railway line, both in court and out, must have left Muaupoko bemused. As Te Rangimairehau told the Native Appellate Court in 1897, ‘We knew nothing of the Railway Company.’831 Nothing further has been discovered about the original deed signed by Kemp.

825McDonald claimed the deed was in Walter Buller’s handwriting A McDonald, 13 March 1886, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 74. 826 Ibid, also p. 76. 827 Otaki MB 7, p. 195. 828 A McDonald, 13 March 1886, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 76. 829 Ibid. 830 Otaki MB 7, pp. 202-3. 831 Te Rangimairehau, 6 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 22. 157

Horowhenua 2: the township block Muaupoko’s agreement to the partition and sale of 4000 acres flanking the railway line for a government township was based on the conditions Kemp had set out in writing the previous June (see Figure 7).832 Te Rangimairehau later testified that Muaupoko ‘very readily’ agreed to the township ‘because Europeans hitherto had been so distant from us.’833 In the barn at Palmerson’s, Muaupoko were told that every tenth quarter-acre section in the township would be reserved to them; that they would have a school, a courthouse, and a generous town square. Another of Kemp’s conditions was the reservation of Lakes Horowhenua and Papaitonga, ‘and the streams issuing from them to the sea, and a chain round the borders of the lakes…’. Wirihana Hunia later recalled that the reservation of ‘1 or 2’ chains around Horowhenua Lake, together with a lakeside reserve, was one of the first things to be ‘settled’ by Muaupoko in their discussion about the township.834 Moreover, Muaupoko were promised that the money from the sale would pay for the survey of their individual sections.835 In his ‘True History of the Horowhenua Block’ penned in 1896, Alexander McDonald claimed that not only were Muaupoko unanimously in favour of Kemp’s proposal, their satisfaction with the terms of the agreement ‘smoothed the way to the general partition of the whole block subsequently agreed to.’836

Kemp’s proposal also appears to have been the basis of the court order on 1 December. Judge Wilson later testified that although the document was not produced in court, Under-Secretary Lewis referred to the ‘agreement’ between Kemp and the government in order to satisfy the court that the township would be of benefit to the registered owners.837 The minutes themselves record that the Under- Secretary told the court that although the terms were not finally settled, they were ‘settled so far that the land would be dealt with in the best interests of all the owners – the Native Minister was satisfied of this’.838 Prodded by further questioning of the court, Lewis then read the ‘memoranda’ and explained ‘the nature of arrangement’.839 Neither Kemp nor Lewis appears to have disclosed to Muaupoko or the court that the Crown purchase itself was not yet assured. As set out below with regard to Horowhenua 10, this was one of the matters Lewis was to pursue with Native Minister Ballance in the five-day adjournment. The Under-Secretary evidently returned to Levin on 1 December without the necessary sanction from Ballance to go through with the purchase, a decision

832 As Kemp told the Horowhenua Commission, ‘I brought all these conditions to the tribe, and told them what I intended to do.’ Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 4 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 176. 833 Te Rangimairehau, 14 March 1896 AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 88. The following year Te Rangimairehau reiterated that Kemp had asked the tribe to sell a portion of Horowhenua, telling them that they would benefit from European occupation. A stalwart supporter of Kemp, Te Rangimairehau maintained that the payment for the township had never been at issue until it was made so by the Horowhenua Commission, Te Rangimairehau, 6 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 22. 834 Wirihana Hunia, 27 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 76. 835 Wirihana Hunia, 12 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.56. See also Te Rangimairehau, 14 March 1896 AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 95. 836 A McDonald, ‘A True History of the Horowhenua Block…’, 27 February 1896, reproduced in AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 149. 837 ‘Mr Lewis said there was an agreement between Kemp and the Government relating to the town. It was not produced, but I understood that all the owners were to benefit by the township. I expressed a hope that they would benefit.’ JA Wilson, 1 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 11. 838 Otaki MB 7, p. 185. 839 Otaki MB 7, p. 185. 158 that must have been communicated to Kemp (see 4.5.14). Notwithstanding this development, the order for 4000 acres of forested and fertile land, in a prime position by the railway line, was confirmed by the Court on 1 December and granted to Kemp for the township, to be numbered 2 and shown on the plan.

The complication in the town deal was the 1882 contract between the Crown and the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company. According to the company secretary, James Wallace, when he met with Ballance on 9 November 1886, two weeks before the partition, the Native Minister had expressed himself willing and ready to purchase Horowhenua, if he had the money.840 The following day the Company chairman pursued the matter with the Treasurer, Julius Vogel, who agreed to find £25,000 to acquire the block. Ballance and Premier Stout, however, were both averse to the idea of spending public money on land that, under the existing arrangement, would be allocated to the Company. Stout later maintained that the government had no jurisdiction to provide the money without the sanction of Parliament.841 On the 6 December, Cabinet resolved it ‘inadvisable to purchase the land at Horowhenua at present.’842 In the context of litigation regarding the contractual obligation to allocate Crown land to the Company, Lewis later denied that purchase was contemplated at all at the partition hearing in November:

The Government were in no way interested, from a land-purchase point of view, in the subdivision, or in any of the individuals about this time. Mr. McDonald, who was the agent of the company, was acting apparently on Kemp’s behalf. ….

… I distinctly told Kemp and Wallace and McDonald that the Government were not anxious in any way for the purchase of the Horowhenua Block, and had nothing to do with the division then before the Court.843

It is difficult to reconcile this stance with evidence that on the eve of the partition hearing, Lewis had in fact proposed that Kemp satisfy Sievwright with the sale money from the township, rather than land. This was the ‘most curious and intense triangular contest of wits or of stupidity’ between Kemp, Lewis and Sievwright which McDonald relayed to his employees. (see p. 151). The omission of both Lewis and Kemp to tell Muaupoko and the court that the Crown purchase was deferred seems patently dishonest. In effect, both men had represented to the court and to Muaupoko the prospect of a government township from which the tribe would reap considerable benefits, knowing full well that the Crown had no intention of completing the purchase until it was no longer contractually obliged to hand over the purchased land to the railway company. In the meantime the Crown refused to lift the proclamation preventing any private transaction at market value. A delay of five months or so may not

840 J Wallace, 14 December 1887, ‘Report of the Waste Lands Committee…’, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p. 27. 841 R Stout, 23 May 1888, AJHR 1888 I-5B, p. 1. 842 Willis, Cabinet Secretary to Minister of Lands, 6 December 1886, memo, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1131]. 843 TW Lewis, 13 December 1887, ‘Report of the Waste Lands Committee…’, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p. 18. 159 have been considered by the Under-Secretary or Kemp to be of much significance. As it turned out, the ramifications for Muaupoko were.

Horowhenua 3: Muaupoko’s individual titles When the partition hearing resumed on 1 December, the first item of business after the confirmation of earlier orders was the partition of an area of 11,130 acres, in order to provide individual 105-acre sections to Muaupoko registered owners. Kemp told the court the matter had been fully discussed with the tribe. Of the 143 on the 1873 title, 106 had been identified as those ‘really regarded as owners’, which included the deceased.844 Ihaia Taueki headed the list handed into the court.845 Kemp was not included, although his daughter was. The allocation of 105 acres each was based on the idea that five acres in every section (or 5 per cent) would be required for roads. This provision, along with the promise that the survey of these sections would be paid from the sale of the township block, paved expectations among Muaupoko that individuals could look forward to owning their own surveyed 100-acre section, with road access, free of liability.

The location of Horowhenua 3 on forested land, east of the railway line, and well away from existing homes or gardens, supports later testimony that Muaupoko regarded this experiment with individualisation as a means of income through leasing, rather than their own occupation: a ‘maintenance’ as Kemp later described it.846 John Broughton (also known as Taare Matai) suggested an additional reason behind these envisaged leaseholds was the promotion of Pakeha settlement.847

Horowhenua 4, 5, 7 and 8: the ‘takekores’ or ‘pataka’ According to Te Rangimairehau, the issue of dealing with tribal interests Muaupoko considered did not properly belong at Horowhenua was one of the first items of business at Palmerston North: ‘It was one of the objects Muaupoko had in view’.848 Having Ngati Kahungunu, Rangitane and Ngati Apa registered owners ‘put up into the mountains’ in a number of tribal awards or ‘pataka’ was said to have been a Muaupoko initiative, which was then sanctioned by Kemp. Te Rangimairehau considered that these tribal groups had no right to take part in the division of this land, and nor did they.849 He also considered Muaupoko’s provision for these registered owners was generous: ‘I think we treated the takekores liberally in putting them on the hills; we need not have given them anything.’850

844 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 27. 845 Otaki MB 7, pp. 189-190. 846 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 19 February 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 11. 847 See for example J Broughton, 11 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 42: ‘One of the reasons for cutting it off was that the persons to whom it was awarded could lease their interests, and by so doing promote settlement by Europeans.’ Broughton was Hereora’s son, and Taueki’s grandson. 848 Te Rangimairehau, 4 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 16. 849 Ibid, p. 18. 850 Ibid, 5 March 1897, p. 21. 160

These awards were put through in quick succession when the court resumed proceedings on 1 December. Horowhenua 4 of 510 acres was ordered for 30 registered owners of Hamua, from Wairarapa, in equal shares.851 Some support for Muaupoko’s view about the interests of these ‘takekores’, is reflected in the attempt in court that morning by Wi Waaka, Harate Koeti and Matiria Tamawhakakitea to have their names removed altogether from the title, on the grounds that ‘the land belongs to them [Wirihana & Kemp] & their Muaupoko tribe.’852 They were told however that the function of the court in subdivision cases did not extend to excising name from the certificate.

Horowhenua 5, of just four acres, was ordered for Tamati Taopuku and Topiri Kotuku. Horowhenua 7, of 311 acres, was ordered to be granted to Waata Tamatea, Peeti Te Aweawe and Hoani Meihana, all of Rangitane, in equal shares. Horowhenua 8, of 264 acres, was ordered for three registered owners: Mere Karena Te Manaotawhaki, Ruahoata, and Karena Tarawhio.

Horowhenua 6: the ‘rerewaho’ Also dealt with before lunchtime on the first day back in court, was an application for the partition of 4620 acres for Muaupoko individuals who had been omitted from the 1873 list of registered owners. In the barn a list had been compiled of 44 such individuals, the intention being that each person would receive their own 100-acre block with the 5 per cent road provision, just like the Muaupoko registered owners of Horowhenua 3.853 Like Horowhenua 3, the partition was located on forested land east of the railway, and intended to provide the individual owners with a source of leasing income rather than their own occupation. Unlike Horowhenua 3 however, the names of the 44 ‘rerewaho’ were not submitted to the court, presumably because in carrying out the partition, the court had no jurisdiction to add them to the title. Rather, Kemp applied for Horowhenua 6 for himself, on the basis that it would then ‘be given to persons outside (not on the certificate)’.854 This was duly ordered.

Horowhenua 9: Te Whatanui’s 1200 acres One of the first matters considered in the overall partition was the agreement Kemp and McLean had made 12 years earlier with regard to providing land for the descendents of Te Whatanui (see p.118). This ‘gift’ was the second item of business before the court, which slipped to third when Under- Secretary Lewis discovered he had forgotten to bring the agreement with him.855 As set out earlier,

851 See Otaki MB 7, pp. 190-191. Kemp testified that this was a ‘Hamua’ award, 8 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 24. 852 Otaki MB 7, p. 191. 853 The list was said to have been compiled by Kemp, in concert with Muaupoko, and written down by Eparaima Paki, see Petition 121/1894, MA 75/3/15 [0922].. 854 Otaki MB 7, p. 191. Kemp also later claimed the provision for the ‘rerewaho’ was his idea, 8 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G- 2, p.24. 855 Otaki MB 7, p.184. 161

Muaupoko had not been party to the 1874 deed, but Alexander McDonald maintained that at the partition hearing the tribe unanimously agreed to honour it: ‘they had all known more or less about it and were satisfied to give effect to it’, a point that Muaupoko representatives concurred with.856

On the tracing provided by Kemp to court on 25 November, the 1200-acre area of bush marked off for Ngati Raukawa was located inland at Ohau on the southern boundary, east of the railway. The court made the order for ‘Subdivision 2’ on this basis the same afternoon, over the objections about its location raised by Te Aohau Nicholson, who was at court expressly to see the 1874 promise carried out. The court minutes record that Lewis could not remember the locality stipulated in the deed itself, and had sent an urgent telegram on this point, which suggests the Under-Secretary was aware that the location of the partition was at issue. The minutes also record that Nicholson’s objection was overruled on the basis that he was not a certified owner, the court ordering that the locality as proposed ‘be delineated on the plan’.857

Nicholson and other Te Whatanui descendants present put the ensuing five day adjournment to good use. Judge Wilson found it difficult to avoid the interested parties staying at the same hotel, recalling that one in particular – most probably Nicholson – ‘sat opposite me at every meal and tried to approach me in respect to the interest that Kemp, it was said, was going to cut off for them, and said that the land was not good.’858 When Lewis returned from Wellington with the 1874 deed, Ngati Raukawa’s understanding that the land was to be located ‘near the Horowhenua Lake’ was confirmed, and the Under-Secretary prevailed upon to make Kemp change the location alongside their existing reserve at Raumatangi.

When the court resumed on 1 December with a new assessor and new clerk, the three subdivisions already dealt with by the court were revisited. The orders for the railway corridor and the township subdivisions – now numbered 1 & 2 respectively – were confirmed. For the third application concerning the 1874 agreement however, it was recorded merely that ‘This Court does not purpose to

856 Alexander McDonald, 13 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.75. Following Kemp’s lead, by 1896 Muaupoko elders like Te Rangimairehau rationalised their consent of the proposal in terms of Taueki’s oath to Te Whatanui, AJHR 1896 G-2: Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 7 April 1896, p. 188; Te Rangimairehau, p.96, 233. Te Rangimairehau told the Horowhenua Commission that ‘I and all the Muaupoko were perfectly willing to agree.’, Kemp, too, maintained that he had consulted the tribe about the agreement long before the 1886 partition, 11 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 34. 857 Otaki MB 7, p. 185; Judge Wilson testified in the Native Appellate Court in 1897 that WD508 was the plan before the Court, which became an integral part of the orders, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.15. Notwithstanding the finality conveyed by the minutes on 25 November 1886 concerning ‘Subdivision 2’, Wilson was later adamant that this order was not made at this time, but rather: ‘it was taken out of our hands and afterwards brought back as No.9’/ ‘an objection was made and it was taken out of our Court; then came back as No.3, where No.9 is now.’ JA Wilson, 1 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 9. 858 JA Wilson, 31 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.131. 162 delineate upon the plan’, the court moving on to consider Muaupoko’s subdivision arrangements for the wider block which were numbered as if Ngati Raukawa’s ‘No.3’ no longer existed.859

The provision for the descendents of Te Whatanui – now relocated near the lake at Raumatangi – was back before the court after lunch that day, and relabelled Subdivision 9.860 McDonald recalled that the change to Raumatangi had provoked ‘an angry discussion among Muaupoko outside the Court’.861 The boundaries of Horowhenua 9 recorded in the minutes – the detail of which stood in marked contrast to the other subdivisions – confirms other testimony that the alteration had been contentious. In a deal thrashed out between Kemp, Lewis and the interested Raukawa parties, Kemp allegedly refused to cede the full 1300 acres specified in the deed, claiming that Raumatangi constituted the other 100 acres promised.862 Nicholson and others were also forced to concede a northern boundary two chains short of the Hokio stream, effectively denying them access to this important fishery, although Nicholson later stated he had reluctantly given way on this point on the basis that Kemp intended to have this frontage reserved ‘for all’.863 Muaupoko had also insisted on the exclusion of their urupa Owhenga from any award and this, too, was spelt out in the boundaries given in court. An order was made vesting the 1200-acre partition in Kemp, in order to enable the conveyance to Te Whatanui’s descendents.

Horowhenua 10: Sievwright’s debt block Horowhenua 10 was ordered on Wednesday afternoon, 1 December, after Ngati Raukawa’s block. The brief minutes of the 800-acre award to Kemp ‘as agreed upon by himself + tribe, as marked on the tracing’, divulge nothing of purpose of the block to satisfy Kemp’s debt to Sievwright, nor the intense behind-the-scenes negotiations by interested parties – the ‘meetings and talks without end or side’, both in Palmerston North and Wellington – behind the arrangement.864

Muaupoko did not oppose the award at the time and nor did they resile from their gift to Kemp in later years. Te Rangimairehau told the Horowhenua Commission in 1896 and the Native Appellate Court in 1897 that in deliberating over Kemp’s request for the block, the tribe was aware that the debt had

859 The very next subdivision to be considered was numbered 4 in the minutes, as if No.3 was still in place, but the fifth and subsequent subdivisions were numbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, supporting the 1897 Native Appellate Court’s conclusion that the early order to satisfy the 1874 agreement had been vacated at this stage. 860 The minutes noted, ‘The court awarded this this morning in No.3 subdn, to Keepa te Rangihiwinui. This subdivision 1200 acres is made as prayed.’ Otaki MB 7, p.192. 861 A McDonald, 18 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.55. 862 N Nicholson, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.162, 206. 863 Te Aohau Nikitini, 22 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 62. See also JA Wilson, 3 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.15; and Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.25. Wirihana Hunia too, claimed the reason the boundaries of Horowhenua No.9 fell short of the Hokio Stream was that ‘Muaupoko strongly objected to it’, Wirihana Hunia, 26 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 74. 864 Otaki MB 7, p. 193; J Wallace to Native Minister Ballance, 28 November 1886, enclosing extract of A McDonald to J Wallace, 26 November 1886, MA 75/4/21, [DB:1123]. 163 been incurred elsewhere, and still unconditionally supported giving him the land for this purpose.865 Kemp too, told the Native Appellate Court that Muaupoko ‘consented to take my burden upon their shoulders’, but his testimony that the amount of land required to do so was worked out by Palmerson on the spot was patently untrue, given the existence of a deed executed with Sievwright the preceding June .866 While his statement that ‘None of the tribe dissented. There was not one who objected’ may well have been true, it also seems clear that Muaupoko were not privy to the political manoeuvring surrounding the deal, which was tangled up with the township partition.

As set out above, Sievwright was in Palmerston North armed with a Supreme Court judgement against Kemp for legal debts with interest amounting to £2,800; a ‘deed of agreement’ with Kemp promising to convey 800 acres of Horowhenua to him to satisfy the debt; and Ballance’s agreement to lift the proclamation over this land.867 According to McDonald, Sievwright had been urging Kemp to ask for an order for 800 acres in his own favour, for the purpose of carrying out their agreement. However, on the arrival in Palmerston North of the Under-Secretary of Native Affairs to ‘assist’ in the subdivision, Lewis had advised Kemp against partitioning off a special area for Sievwright, arguing that it was better to get the debt abated, and to pay it right off.868 To this Kemp is said to have ‘entirely agreed’, and in fact anticipated that the sale of the township block to the government would enable him to do so. As Ballance had earlier agreed to lift the proclamation off the proposed 800-acre area for Sievwright, Kemp now asked that the Native Minister do the same for the 4000-acre township block, and proceed with the sale, which would make further allocation for Sievwright unnecessary. According to McDonald, when the court adjourned on the 25 November, the matter was left at this:

Mr Lewis goes to Wellington today. Mr Sievewright is to be paid immediately. If Mr Ballance will buy the 4000 acres (minus proper reserves) at a fair price, or at any price; then the proceeds will be applied to pay Mr Sievewright in cash. If Mr Ballance declines to buy, Kemp will ask for an order for a separate 800 acres immediately adjoining the township for conveyance to Sievewright, and it is understood that the Govt will enable the conveyance to be made by removal of the Proclamation. Lastly, Mr Lewis is to return here next Monday with definite answer from Mr Ballance.869

McDonald was concerned that if Ballance declined to purchase the township block, and Sievwright got his 800 acres, he would ‘hurry up with the survey of it, and plant the town there and not on

865 Te Rangimairehau, 14 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 89; 4 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 17. 866 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 8 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.24. 867 Set out for example in Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister Ballance, 24 December 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1113- 1120]. 868 J Wallace to Native Minister Ballance, 28 November 1886, enclosing extract of McDonald to Wallace, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1123]. 869 Ibid, [DB:1126]. 164

Kemp’s 4000 acres at all.’870 The Company agent suggested that Wallace ask the Native Minister ‘not to promise anything in a hurry one way or the other’.871

An extract of McDonald’s letter was forwarded to Ballance on 28 November, Wallace clearly having the agreement about allocated lands in mind.872 On 1 December 1886 – the day the court resumed – Company director JE Nathan wired Ballance: ‘strongly urge you buy land off Kemp place him in funds to pay Sievwright or it will enhance the value of whole block in minds of natives’.873 Given the fact that the order was made that day, we can only assume that Lewis returned to the hearing at Palmerston North with his Minister’s refusal to commit to a purchase. Indeed, by 6 December, Cabinet had formally resolved it ‘inadvisable’ to purchase at Horowhenua at that time.874

A fortnight later the request to have the Governor lift the proclamation over Horowhenua 10 raised eyebrows in Cabinet, particularly in light of the government’s contract with the railway company. Vogel also questioned whether the land-for-debt deal was in fact ‘a reproduction of the worst feature of Native land purchases’, and whether sanction was required of the Frauds Commissioner. ‘But the most singular feature’ he went on, ‘is that Mr Sievwright proposed the present plan as one of three plans in June last’, which Lewis had then strongly opposed. ‘I can see no reason why the plan then objectionable should now be adopted or why Mr Lewis tried to persuade Kemp to do what in his letter to Sievwright previously he had refused to allow.’ 875

Lewis defended his support for lifting the proclamation over the block to enable the transfer to Sievwright, arguing that this would enable Kemp to receive market value for the block, ‘utterly beyond what the Government could pay for in the District.’876 He distanced himself from any suggestion of liquidating the debt through government purchase, claiming that this had been entirely McDonald’s idea. Towing the Departmental line, Lewis now explained that:

it would be impossible to purchase the Horowhenua block except at a price which would very injuriously affect the Native Land Purchases in other districts, and to make advances under such circumstances would lead further to raise the prices, and hinder instead of facilitate the acquisition of the land desired to be acquired along the Railway line.877

870 Ibid. 871 Ibid, [DB:1127]. 872 W&MR secretary J Wallace to Native Minister Ballance, 28 November 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1122]. 873 W&MR director JE Nathan to Native Minister Ballance, telegram, 1 December 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1130]. 874 Cabinet Secretary Willis to Minister for Lands, note, 6 December 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1131]. 875 Julius Vogel, minute, 21 December 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1128]. 876 Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister Ballance, 24 December 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1117]. 877 Ibid, [DB:1119]. 165

To which Native Minister Ballance added, ‘And any land purchased at present by the Govt on the Railway line, wd really be the property of the Manawatu Railway Co – Let the proclamation be lifted accordingly; 878 which it duly was, on 30 December 1886.879

Much has been made of Kemp’s indebtedness as a factor behind the 1886 partition, and Sievwright ultimately received 800 acres of Horowhenua in lieu of Kemp’s outstanding legal bill. Kemp, however, was not the only one in financial trouble. Three days after the partition, aware of Cabinet’s decision not to purchase the township block ‘at present’, he telegraphed Ballance to send him £3000, ‘to save my children from trouble.’880 Wirihana Hunia, in particular, was being sued for debt: ‘Please understand that Europeans have been waiting long for this land court now it is finished they have all turned upon Wirihana’.881 The following day he repeated his request.882

It is highly unlikely that Wirihana Hunia’s debts had reached this depth, particularly in the absence of any official record of it. Indeed, Kemp later divulged that he subsequently made three payments of £100 to Wirihana and his brother Warena Hunia for debts owing to Donald Fraser, which seems a likelier sum.883 Rather, the appeal to the Native Minister appears to have been a last-ditch attempt by Kemp to hold on to the 800 acres destined for Sievwright. Ballance however did not fall for it, his response arriving the following day: ‘I do not think you should give way to this intimidation on the part of Europeans. It is done with an object. I shall not advance money to satisfy their demands.’884

In effect, the Crown’s actions with regard to Horowhenua 10 reflected that of a receiver, lifting its proclamation over part of the block (an imposed restriction against private dealing which was in itself highly questionable) so that Sievwright could get paid. Both Kemp and Muaupoko could be said to have acquiesced in this arrangement, but again, their cooperation was based on explicit government undertakings about the township, and obtained in the face of the government’s refusal to lift the proclamation over the rest of the block, severely curtailing the land owners’ options.

Horowhenua 11: the tribal heartland Most of the above sections, bar the township block and Sievwright’s allocation, lay east of the railway, on forested lands on which Muaupoko did not reside. The tribal estate to be left intact for the

878 Ballance, 29 December 1886, on above. 879 New Zealand Gazette, no.69, p.1718, in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1132]. 880 Meiha Keepa to Native Minister Ballance, 6 December 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1105]. 881 Meiha Keepa to Native Minister Ballance, telegram, 6 December 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1102]. 882 ‘The harm that can be done to my children is to arrest them for debt warrants are issued & execution will follow if I cannot stop it the warrants are here in palmerston but I have obtained delay pending answer from you the money must be got from somewhere.’ Meiha Keepa to Native Minister Ballance, telegram, 7 December 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1100]. 883 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 30; AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 25. 884 Native Minister Ballance to Major Kemp, 8 December 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1099]. 166

Muaupoko community at Horowhenua, including their kainga, their mara, their lakes, and their eel fisheries, lay on the seaward side of the railway line. As Te Rangimairehau explained in 1897:

It was said at our meetings that No. 11 was for us, the people who are living on the land, not for those outside – I mean our relatives of Ngatikahungunu, Rangitane, and Ngatiapa. They were not to be in it. … The block was to be permanently reserved for us, the occupants. This was decided at our meetings. It was not proposed to divide it at that time. The tribe decided to keep it intact, and not subdivide it. It also decided to put Kemp’s name in the certificate as trustee.885

Hoani Puihi maintained that tribal elders such as Ihaia Taueki, Te Kerehi Tomo, Makere Te Rou, Rawinia Ihaia, Raniera Te Whata, Ruta Te Kiritotara, Hariata Tinotahi along with Te Rangimairehau and himself took an active part in these discussions:

It was stated at the meetings that No. 11 was for the permanent residents of the tribe. This was explained by Kemp at the time and understood by the people. All the iwi agreed; there were no dissentient voices. …

The committee and Kemp agreed that No. 11 and its waters were for the people. It was agreed that the people should dwell round their lake. The people attached great value to the lake as a source of food-supply. It is our butcher’s shop, and is our parent. Kemp and the people wished the door of the butcher’s shop opened for the people.886

Muaupoko’s view of the tribal award was reflected in the testimony of numerous tribal members throughout the litigation of the 1890s, on both sides of the dispute. ‘The end of the discussion’ Rawinia Ihaia told the Native Appellate Court in 1897, ‘was that Kemp returned it [Horowhenua 11] to his tribe, Muaupoko – those of them who had ahika. The tribe gave it to Kemp to take care of for them.’887 ‘When the subdivision of Horowhenua was discussed’, Raniera Te Whata stated to the same court, ‘this block, No. 11, was left for the permanent occupants of it. The lake was included in the portion set apart for the ahika.’888 This was also Kemp’s view of the matter. He later explained that the individualisation of land for Muaupoko in Horowhenua 3 had been accompanied with his warning that selling their individual sections might jeopardise their stake in the tribal reserve:

Your heads have been in my hands, my feet have been upon your bodies; the reason I had my own name only put in [in 1873] is that I knew some of you would sell. You are my father’s tribe, and this is the only land you have. You have none elsewhere. Now, I am going to lift your heads up. Each of you will get something in the other division, and No. 11 is the balance, which is for yourselves to keep. If you sell in the other portions of the block you will get nothing in this.889

885 Te Rangimairehau, 4 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 17. 886 Hoani Puihi, 1 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 98. 887 Rawinia Ihaia, 12 July 1897, AJHR 1898, p. 119. Emphasis in original. 888 Raniera Te Whata, 24 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 138. Emphasis in original. 889 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 9 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 29. 167

The partition was dealt with in court on the afternoon of 1 December, straight after Horowhenua 10. There are conflicting stories about what happened next. Kemp and Muaupoko witnesses later clung to Kemp’s story that Warena Hunia’s name was written on a paper by McDonald in court, and ‘sprung’ on them. According to these witnesses, an objection was made in court about the inclusion of Warena Hunia in the award and Kemp quickly called for an adjournment and ushered them into a small side room.890 McDonald and Wirihana Hunia just as steadfastly denied this account, maintaining that Kemp had agreed to Wirihana Hunia’s proposal before it was brought into court. In 1891 for example McDonald testified under oath:

There was a great deal of discussion about it both in the outbuildings & in the principal house where Kemp & I lodged – I took an interest in the discussion because Wirihana open[?] declared unless his brother was admitted he would not agree to any of the other subdivisions that had been made & finally it was agreed that Warenas name should be put in with Kemps & I thought it was so settled this was in the evening & Wirihana left, after he left Kemp expressed disapproval of it to me, & in the morning instructed me to apply for an order for himself alone. On my way to Court I met Wirihana & told him I was going to apply for an order for Kemp alone & I made the application, Wirihana said if this is done I will object to the entire subdivision.891

According to McDonald and Hunia, it was Wirihana Hunia who had objected in court to the application proceeding in Kemp’s name alone, after his overnight change of heart.892

The court minutes do not record any challenge to the application, but they do show that a ‘10 minute adjournment’ occurred before the order was made.893 What took place in this room was repeated so often during the litigation of the 1890s, using the same phrases, that it almost has the bearings of Muaupoko folklore. Wirihana Hunia later accused these witnesses of simply following Kemp’s fabrication.894 According to Kemp, in the side room the proposal to include Warena Hunia was met with Kemp’s counter-proposal to put Ihaia Taueki’s name in, to which Raniera and Ruta Te Kiri objected, insisting on Kemp alone. Kemp then proposed that Warena Hunia’s name be included, ‘as he was an exemplary young man’.895 At this point Muaupoko were said to have become so angry they left the room, and the court altogether. Kemp came back into court and applied for the order in his and Warena Hunia’s name. In Wirihana Hunia’s version, Kemp’s suggestion of Ihaia Taueki was met with his threat: ‘I have agreed to everything you have said, if you insist on this, I shall withdraw my

890 According to Kemp, it was Ruta Te Kiri and Raniera Te Whata who objected in court, 8 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 25. And Wirihana Hunia, Te Kiri, Raniera, Makere Te Rou, Ngataahi (Rawinia Ihaia), Te Rangimairehau and McDonald who went into the side room, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 30.; p.99 891 Alexander McDonald, 21 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 316. 892 Ibid, p. 318. 893 Otaki MB 7, p. 193. 894 Wirihana Hunia, 22 April 1891, Otaki MB 15, p. 5. 895 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 8 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 25. Raniera Te Whata and others of Muaupoko essentially agreed with Kemp’s version of events. 168 consent to everything I have done.’896 Kemp had capitulated, Wirihana maintained, and no objection was raised by those Muaupoko present. In their petition of 1892, the account of Te Rangimairehau and 62 others of Muaupoko corresponded more with that of Wirihana Hunia, than the later version espoused by Kemp. After moving to have Warena Hunia’s name inserted in the title with Kemp’s, it was claimed:

That your petitioners were averse to this being done but ultimately gave their consent at the urgent request of Meiha Keepa himself who seemed anxious to propitiate the Hunia family, and who explained to your petitioners that the addition of a second Trustee could not in any way affect their rights as owners.897

Judge Wilson maintained that he never noticed anything amiss in his courtroom after the adjournment of Horowhenua 11.898 McDonald claimed to be similarly unaware of any upset.899 Warena Hunia was not even present at the 1886 partition. His name was put forward by his elder brother Wirihana, who seems to have assumed his father’s mantle with regard to Horowhenua after Kawana Hunia’s death in 1884, and who seems to have played a significant role in the partition. Wirihana Hunia was with Kemp in Wellington when the township deal was agreed to, and his name appears twice in the partition minutes as being jointly responsible for Subdivisions 4 and 8. Muaupoko seem to have been unanimously opposed to the inclusion of Warena Hunia, and Kemp quickly came to regret his impetuosity at overriding their objections:

I put Warena Hunia in No.11 with myself out of aroha to him. It was my fault. I should have listened to the objection made by the tribe. I see now that I was wrong and the tribe were right. I should have been guided by the tribe, and had the land awarded to myself only.900

In terms of the nature of the title, McDonald later argued against any implicit trust or tribal equity in the block, claiming that both Kemp and Muaupoko were fully aware at the time that by law, the grantees of each new partitioned title were ‘absolute owners’.901 This of course became the central issue in the following decade of litigation. Yet as McDonald himself pointed out, there was no legal provision for establishing ‘tribal’ estate at the time: ‘I understood in 1886 that the orders made could not contain a trust.’902 The Company agent’s report to his employers after the first day of hearing also undermines McDonald’s later stance: ‘All the seaward side of the Railway (except a portion of the

896 Wirihana Hunia, 22 April 1891, Otaki MB 15, p. 5. 897 Petition 253/1892 MA 75/3/15 [DB:888]. 898 ‘I never witnessed a more unanimous proceeding.’ JA Wilson, 1 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 11. 899 Alexander McDonald, 19 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 57. 900 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 30 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 151. 901 Alexander McDonald, 19 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 57. 902 A McDonald, 19 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 57. 169 proposed town) will be reserved for the present. That at least is the present plan.’903 For his part, Judge Wilson was well aware that Horowhenua 11 was intended as a tribal reserve for Muaupoko. His recollection was that Kemp told him at the time of the intention to hold the land for the tribe in such a way that ‘none of them should be in a position to sell it, and for that reason they were putting it in the name of two – himself and another.’904 Wilson later spoke of the ‘latent equities’ connected with the order as tenants in common with undefined interests. In his opinion, this had been deliberate, and was perhaps the best Maori could do under existing legislation to preserve their tribal lands:

It was a device the Natives made to keep the land so that the individuals should not be able to go and sell individually and slyly. I thought it was a very good expedient if they could only trust the man.905

The order for the block, estimated to contain 15,207 acres including Lake Horowhenua was made out to Kemp and Warena Te Hakeke ‘as prayed’.

Horowhenua 12: the Tararua ranges Horowhenua 12 was another vast area of over 13,000 mountainous acres of ngahere, lying on the inland eastern end of the block. The partition followed that of Horowhenua 11, the last item of business on the afternoon of 1 December (when a number of Muaupoko had allegedly left the court room), and the minutes record that the application was initially made to have the block vested in Kemp and Warena Hunia.906 This brought a fresh round of objections however and the court was adjourned for the day.

Muaupoko took a full day and a half to resolve the vesting of Horowhenua 12, and it is reasonable to assume that the upset over Horowhenua 11 contributed to this delay. Like the seaboard reservation, the Tararua ranges were intended as a tribal endowment, but debate remained over just who should be nominated to hold the title. Raniera Te Whata, Te Rangimairehau, Hoani Puihi and Himiona Kowhai were later said to have been among the contenders for this honour.907 In the result, by the morning of 3 December, the tribe had resolved to vest the land in Ihaia Taueki. As Hoani Puihi explained a decade later, Taueki was chosen because he was trustworthy, the vesting in an individual once again used as a deliberate strategy to preserve the land for the tribe:

903 Extract of A McDonald’s letter, 26 November 1886, in W&MR Secretary J Wallace to Native Minister Ballance, 28 November 1886, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1123]. 904 JA Wilson, 31 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 132. 905 JA Wilson, 31 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 135. 906 Otaki MB 7, p. 194. 907 Raniera Te Whata, 16 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 102; Wirihana Hunia, 26 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 78. 170

We knew that a dishonest person could have disposed of the land against our wishes, and that is why we selected a kaumatua that we could trust. Ihaia knew that the tribe were interested, and would not sell.908

Once again, Judge Wilson was very clear that Taueki held the block as a trustee for the tribe.909 The order was duly made.

Horowhenua 13: Wiremu Matakara’s square foot On the afternoon of 2 December Kemp applied to have the list of registered owners on the 1873 certificate of title amended. He told the court that Wiremu Matakara and Wiremu Matakatea were in fact the same person, and wanted the former name excised as an error.910 Ria Hamuera of Muaupoko was sworn in and testified that she knew of no one called Wiremu Matakara. McDonald also told the court the man did not exist. Judge Wilson however declined the request, pointing out the court’s lack of jurisdiction to do so. Kemp then made an application for partition of one square foot in the extreme north-eastern corner of the Horowhenua block to be awarded to Wiremu Matakara. No one objected, and the order was duly made.

The diminishment of Matakara’s interest by relegating him to a toehold in the remote Tararua ranges was not challenged by Muaupoko at the time, and nor was it ever raised as an issue in the lengthy and repeated litigation of the 1890s, including the hearing of relative interests. Incredibly, Matakara’s interests in this square foot have been succeeded to down the generations. Horowhenua 13 remains Maori freehold land today.911

Horowhenua 14: the ‘left over’ Te Whatanui reserve As set out above, on 25 November, when the case first opened, one of the first orders made by the court to be shown on the plan was that for 1200 acres inland at Ohau, on the southern boundary of the block, to satisfy the 1874 agreement between Kemp and McLean. When the case was resumed on 1 December, in light of the controversy over the location of Ngati Raukawa’s award, the court withdrew its former order, and that afternoon an order for Horowhenua 9 adjoining Raumatangi was made instead. Two days later on 3 December, as the Horowhenua partition drew to a close, Kemp applied for a fourteenth subdivision:

908 Hoani Puihi, 30 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 27. Note that Wirihana Hunia claimed this block as the customary land of Ngati Pariri and maintained he had been responsible for ‘giving’ Horowhenua 12 to Ihaia Taueki, see for example, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 28. 909 JA Wilson, 31 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 132. 910 Otaki MB 7, p. 194. 911 Rob Warrington told me that in fact Wiremu Matakara was the son of Wiremu Matakatea and Ruta Te Kiri, who was alive when the Horowhenua Block was first granted in 1873, personal korero, 17 January 2015. 171

Application from Major Keepa Te Rangihiwinui for confirmation of that order for 1200 acres in his own name (as shown upon tracing before Court) Objectors challenged – none appeared. The order is made as prayed to Keepa te Rangihiwinui.912

The block was that at Ohau, the land proposed at the outset of partition for Ngati Raukawa, and not proceeded with.

As set out in the next chapter, Horowhenua 14 became caught up in the wider controversy over Muaupoko’s tribal estate. Unlike the tribal awards of Horowhenua 11 and 12, Judge Wilson maintained afterwards that this partition had been awarded to Kemp alone, as his share under the compromise of partition. The judge remained adamant that Kemp applied for the land for himself, which gave him caution: ‘I did not hurry the matter. I gave plenty of time to the people to object, and challenged very carefully…’913 The order for the 1200 acres – lying to the east of the railway – was duly made out to Kemp.

4.5 Reflections on the 1886 partition

For 13 years Kemp was able to withstand both external and internal pressures to break up Muaupoko’s tribal estate. The evidence indicates he was not averse to many aspects of modernity, indeed he was a champion of close settlement, road and rail access, and other innovations of this time. His mistake was in thinking that Maori would be allowed to participate in the business of settlement themselves. In a striking forerunner of Apirana Ngata’s ‘price of citizenship’, the likes of Kemp (with Whanganui) and contemporaries like Ropata Wahawaha (with Ngati Porou) both followed their military service to the Crown with entrepreneurial aspirations relating to the settlement of tribal lands – on the tribe’s own terms. Both schemes failed in the absence of any legal structures (and political will) to permit such management. The same entrepreneurial initiative was present in the township proposal of Taitoko, which was subsequently reneged on by the Crown. One of the biggest factors in Kemp’s back-down over this deal was the government proclamation which severely curtailed his choices. This research suggests the proclamation was bogus, in that no bona fide purchase negotiations were ever begun to justify the restriction over Horowhenua. Cabinet’s lifting of the proclamation over Horowhenua 10 to enable Sievwright to recover his debt appears as a similarly capricious application of the law.

In his ‘True History’ of the Horowhenua Block written ten years later, Alexander McDonald paid a grudging respect to what Muaupoko achieved in the 1886 partition in the circumstances. The

912 Otaki MB 7, p.200. 913 JA Wilson, 2 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 12. 172

‘circumstances’ referred to by McDonald were the concentration at Horowhenua of ‘remnants’ who had previously occupied from Manawatu to Pukerua; the recent domination of Ngati Raukawa; and the democratic nature of their occupation which bestowed no superior rights over any particular portion of the block.

Under these circumstances, I submit that the leading men and women actually resident at Horowhenua did the best they could do: they got rid of the entire list of 1873, including themselves, by giving to each name in that list a portion of land which satisfied the law; and to close every door, they set apart a portion for the persons inadvertently omitted from the list of 1873, and two blocks of 1,200 acres each, so as to give Ngatiraukawa a choice in respect of Major Kemp’s agreement with Sir Donald McLean. And now there remained Block 11. If the ‘actual residents’ had gone then, or go now, into the Native Land Court to partition Block 11, they would have had, or will now have, to reintroduce the whole list of 1873, and fight with all and sundry for title to the lake, to the leased lands, to the forest, and to every part not built upon or cultivated. Instead of doing that they, in 1886, deliberately and voluntarily and, as I think, judiciously, left themselves and their homes absolutely in the hands of their two natural ‘chiefs’, without right of appeal to the Native Land Court on the part of any one or more persons in the list of 1873, or of Ngatiraukawa, or of the omitted persons. And to give these two ‘chiefs’ power of future action it was necessary that they should have an absolute title themselves.914

While there are certainly bones of contention within McDonald’s analysis, his underlying premise of a well-planned and executed partition arrangement has merit. The partition of Horowhenua is striking for both its efficiency and the level of consensus among the Muaupoko registered owners. Relatively little was consumed in court fees, and there were no legal bills to pay. While the degree of agency Muaupoko had in the various decisions is arguable, with a number of arrangements presented as fait accompli, it is evident the scheme as a whole was discussed at length by the tribe, who seemed pleased with the outcome. The tribal interests reflected in the original 1873 title had been satisfied by awards amounting to 1091 acres, just 2 per cent of the block, and located in ‘pataka’ up on the hills. Muaupoko had before them the prospect of their own individual sections to lease, and even more grandiose and new world, their very own Pakeha town of which they would be an integral part. If they had been forced to concede more than they wanted to with respect to Ngati Raukawa’s tenure at Raumatangi, their existing mode of life, and their precious lake and the Hokio stream, had nonetheless been preserved intact by the large tribal award of Horowhenua 11. Likewise, their undisturbed possession of the adjoining Tararua ranges seemed assured.

The partition however also resulted in the first incursions of alienation. The railway strip, the town block and the debt block together comprised 4896 acres of some of the most valuable – economically speaking – land in the block, representing some 9.4 per cent of the whole. It also set in train the beginning of further alienation to come. It is tempting to see the locomotive of Pakeha settlement

914 Alexander McDonald, ‘A True History of the Horowhenua Block…’, 27 February 1896, AJHR 1897 G-2, pp. 146-147. 173 hurtling towards Horowhenua with the benefit of hindsight. However it is clear from the Company and Crown positioning at the time that they fully anticipated the partition to be – finally – the means of ‘opening up’ Muaupoko’s homeland to European settlement. Had Muaupoko been more aware of the vested interests gathered in the courtroom in Palmerston North, they may not have felt so optimistic on the train ride home.

174

Chapter 5

Breaking up the tribal estate, 1887‐1896

The Horowhenua partitions of 1886 were surveyed eight months later, in August 1887. In the process of survey, Horowhenua 14 was shifted west, now straddling the railway line and stretching all the way to Waiwiri Lake. This alteration, which cut considerably into Horowhenua 11, was sanctioned by Kemp and Warena Hunia, the registered owners of both blocks, and as related below, Kemp was undoubtedly responsible for the shift. The survey plan however was never publicly exhibited or otherwise shared with the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua. The tribe were similarly oblivious to the fact that Horowhenua 2 – the township block – ran almost to the Horowhenua Lake, encompassing the clearings of Ngurunguru and Tirotiro which were occupied at this time.

Certificates of title for most of the blocks were issued in July 1888. As the Horowhenua Commission pointed out in 1896, the government proclamation enforced in the case of Horowhenua 2 was not registered as a caveat against any of the titles to the other partitions.915 While never officially lifted until the Horowhenua Block Act 1895, in practice it seems as though the proclamation was deemed to have lapsed with the issue of new titles.

The total cost of surveying the 1886 partition is not known but survey liens to the extent of over £1352 were registered against the titles of a number of Horowhenua blocks. Those in ostensible Muaupoko ownership were:

Table 2: Survey costs of 1886 partition916

Partition Registered survey lien (£/s/d) Horowhenua 3 333/7/1 Horowhenua 6 95/8/6 Horowhenua 11 452/11/1 Horowhenua 12 397/0/2 Total 1278/6/10

915 Report of the Horowhenua Commission, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 17. ‘It would appear either that the Proclamation was lost sight of, or that it was treated as having lapsed and become obsolete…’ NB Patrick Sheridan, Head of the Land Purchase Department later testified to the Horowhenua Commission that he considered the original 1877 proclamation was still in place, and only ended with the repeal of the Act by the Native Land Purchase Act 1892. AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 150. This seems incongruous with the transactions over Horowhenua 3. 916 Horowhenua Block return of the District Land Register to the order of the Royal Commission, MA W1369 27 1896/22 [DB:1750]. Note that Block 14 is not included in the table as no lien was registered. 175

The issues raised by the survey – the lack of transparency and accountability of the legal owners to the tribe, the ambiguity over the legal status of the land, and the costs attendant with the transformation of the tribal estate into saleable land titles – were but the beginning of an incredibly destructive process which in less than a decade plunged a cohesive tribe with a secure land base into a vortex of litigation leaving them divided and debt-ridden. At stake for the ‘cestui que trustents’ or beneficial owners of Muaupoko in this drawn-out legal battle, was whether Horowhenua was tribal estate at all.

This chapter considers the decade of events leading to the Horowhenua Commission of 1896 on a block by block basis. This approach runs the risk of losing an overall view of what was happening: in March 1890 for example, Muaupoko attended the Native Land Court hearing in Palmerston North both for the Horowhenua 11 partition, and that of Horowhenua 3, with the outcome of one arguably affecting the stance tribal members took with regard to the other. However, structuring the narrative around the blocks has proved the best way to make sense of very complex issues, and cross- referencing has been used to make connections where relevant.

5.1 Horowhenua 2: the township block

Reneging on the deal As set out in the preceding chapter, by the close of the partition hearing Kemp knew Ballance was not going to proceed with the purchase ‘at present.’ The fact that he was not unduly upset suggests Kemp was aware of the contract between the government and the railway company, and was amenable to waiting for the contract to expire. Indeed, he told the Horowhenua Commission in 1896 that Ballance had told him ‘Do not let us finish our conversation until the time of the agreement with the company is up, lest the company should take the land.’917

The five-year allocation window of the railway company expired in March 1887. In May Chief Surveyor Marchant was sent to value the township block, reporting back that most of the block was on flat to undulating land; with good to very good soil; thickly forested; and with a water table at perhaps 50 feet.918 Given its situation and climate, and the railway access, the chief surveyor considered it suitable for settlement under the village, suburban and small farms scheme. After 500 acres was deducted for road reserves, and £1500 for the cost of survey, Marchant calculated that the land might realise £8000. The forest of tawa, pukaha, rimu, rewarewa and matai cloaking over 90 per cent of the block was described by Marchant, but not apparently included in his valuation. On the

917 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 4 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 184. 918 Chief Surveyor Marchant to Surveyor-General, 25 May 1887, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1136]. 176 basis of this opinion, in the second week of June 1887 Kemp was offered 30 shillings per acre.919 This documentary record contradicts testimony Under-Secretary Lewis gave to the Supreme Court in 1889, that the Crown’s first offer to purchase at 30 shillings per acre was made to Kemp by Lewis in January 1887.920

Kemp initially declined the offer. He was in Wellington with Alexander McDonald and both men were well aware that the land was worth at least twice as much on the open market.921 The problem for Kemp, as before, was that the government proclamation over the block prevented him from selling to anyone but the Crown. As Lewis relayed to Native Minister Ballance:

Major Kemp with Mr MacDonald came back yesterday afternoon, and declined offer of thirty shillings, urging that Kemp’s offer of two pounds be accepted or that Government advance Kemp money, & let him arrange the survey himself. Mr MacDonald strongly urges upon Government, & no doubt upon Kemp also that block is worth much more than he is asking, and that if the law allowed him to deal with the land at once he could dispose of it at once on better terms.922

The Under-Secretary had received Ballance’s earlier telegram that morning, telling him not to exceed 30 shillings per acre, which Lewis duly promised to relay to Kemp. In response to Lewis’ telegram above, the Native Minister again reiterated later that day: ‘Impossible to go beyond thirty shillings tell MacDonald no use to press for more Valuation would not allow us to go beyond that sum.’923 Lewis reported Kemp’s reaction to the news in a confidential telegram to Ballance:

Your telegram re Horowhenua arrived opportunely while Kemp was with me and quite confirmed what I had stated to him. He has just concluded a long speech blowing off considerable steam saying take the land you have left me nothing etc – This Mr Macdonald says means the acceptance of the offer, because he cannot help himself. He wishes however before finally closing to await your return.924

A telegram from Ballance the following day stating that ‘we must take whole block we cannot take parts now’, suggests that Kemp may have made a counter offer.925 In the event, Kemp held out for a month, eventually signing a memorandum of agreement to sell Horowhenua 2 to the Crown on 19 July 1887, for the sum of £6000, the Crown’s stipulated 30 shillings per acre. The memorandum set out that half of the money would be paid at once (less the £500 already advanced), and half left with the government, with interest at 5 per cent per annum, until 1 January 1893. In signing the agreement Kemp also waived the conditions on which the original agreement had been based: the vision of the

919 Note by Under-Secretary Lewis on cover of above, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1135]. 920 See draft affidavit of TW Lewis, nd, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1193]; and repeated in further draft, [DB:1196]. 921 Adjoining land conveyed to Sievwright had been transacted on the basis of £3/10s (70 shillings) per acre. 922 Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister Ballance, telegram, 16 June 1887, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1151]. 923 Native Minister Ballance to Under-Secretary Lewis, telegram, 16 June 1887, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1164]. 924 Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister Ballance, telegram, nd, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1150]. 925 Native Minister Ballance to Under-Secretary Lewis, telegram, 17 June 1887, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1163]. 177 integrated township of Taitoko held out to Muaupoko and the court at the partition hearing. The final clause read: ‘This Agreement cancels all former Agreements and undertakings between Meiha Keepa and the Government respecting this block now transferred to the Crown.’926 As Under-Secretary Lewis explained to his Minister, he had added the clause ‘to get rid of conditions as to manner of laying out township etc’, a precaution which was approved of by Ballance.927

Nine years later Kemp told the Horowhenua Commission that all the conditions attached with the township partition – the return of every tenth quarter-acre section to Muaupoko, the joint administration, the joint school – had been ‘thrown to one side’ by Ballance once negotiations were resumed after March 1887: ‘Mr. Ballance afterwards saw it would not do for the Europeans and Maoris to live together, and therefore it was all swept away.’928 According to Kemp, in addition to Ballance’s aversion to having ‘Natives mixed up in the town with Europeans’, the Native Minister had also pointed out to him that ‘Native lands surrounded the town on all sides.’929 Muaupoko however were not informed about the changed deal, by either Kemp or the government.930

In carrying out the purchase with Kemp on the terms it dictated, the Crown effectively transferred the cost associated with settlement – roads and survey – to the Maori land owners, reflected in the low purchase price.931 Moreover Ballance had reneged on terms which had been represented to both Muaupoko and the court in December 1886 in order to secure their agreement to the township proposition, and have the land vested in Kemp to expedite the purchase in the first place. Why Kemp went ahead with the purchase on this basis is not certain. If the proclamation over the Horowhenua block still stood, and it seems to have, even with the necessary capital Kemp and the tribe would not have been able to develop the township themselves. And financial capital was something neither Kemp nor Muaupoko had. Unable to deal on the open market, and still hoping to attract a European town, Kemp seems to have resigned himself to the government offer, giving up too, any suggestion of a joint tribal venture. In addition to the £2500 at the time of signing in July 1887, Kemp received £150 in interest in March 1890 and the following month he requested a further £2000, which was paid on 13 May 1890.932 The balance of £1000, plus interest of £60 was paid to Kemp at his request in March 1891.933 None of the proceeds appear to have been spent on the survey costs as promised in 1886. Kemp testified in the Native Appellate Court in 1897 that he had not intended to keep the proceeds of

926 ‘Memorandum of Agreement between Meiha Keepa Te Rangihiwinui and the Crown’, copy, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1140]. 927 Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister Ballance, nd, with Ballance’s response, telegram, 19 July 1887, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1147]. 928 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 31. 929 Ibid, 4 April 1896, p. 176. 930 Ibid. 931 This of course was standard Crown practice that dated back to the pre-emptive provision in the Treaty of Waitangi, and continued since in the ability to restrict private dealings in Maori land via proclamation. 932 Kemp to Native Minister, 27 April 1890, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1221]. 933 Kemp to Native Minister, 14 March 1891, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1229]. 178 the sale, ‘but I was compelled to spend it in the expenses of the litigation that was forced upon me.’934 Most of it would have been consumed by the litigation over Horowhenua 11 from 1889. The town that went ahead in 1889 was called Levin, named after well-known Wellington businessman and politician, WH Levin, who was also one of the directors of the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company.935 Adding to the mire of intrigue surrounding the township, is the fact that it seems to have been a matter of general knowledge in December 1885, six months before Kemp’s vision of Taitoko was placed before Ballance and Lewis, that there was to be a township near Horowhenua Lake, to be called Levin.936

Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company action The failure of the Crown to deliver up Horowhenua 2 to the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company became the subject of petition by the company in May 1887, before Kemp signed the conveyance.937 The petition was referred to the Waste Lands Committee for inquiry, which was held over nine different days from November 1887 to July 1888, and was notable for the individuals involved, many of them past Cabinet members and senior government officials,938 as well as the well- known Company directors. Major Kemp and Alexander McDonald also gave evidence. In his role as the then Native Minister, Ballance was accused by the Company of having expressly delayed the completion of the purchase of land within the stipulated railway district in order to defeat the right of the company to allocation.939 In the event, in August 1888, the committee found that the Company had no equitable claim on the Government.

On the eve of the sale of the township sections in February 1889, the Company lodged a caveat on the title, its solicitor Travers informing the Native Minister of its intent to take proceedings against the Crown to restrain the sale.940 Lewis was subpoenaed to appear in the Supreme Court on 11 June 1889. In his draft affidavits on file, Lewis denied that the memorandum signed on 19 June 1886 constituted any contract to purchase, arguing that at the time Kemp held the land under Section 17/1867 for numerous other owners, and that he had wanted the government to advance him money to pay his debts and to undertake the subdivision and sale of the land, receiving the purchase money as agent for

934 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.31. 935 Levin had been a Member of the House of Representatives when the Railways Construction and Land Act 1881 was passed, AJHR 1897 I-5A, p. 20. 936 AH Wylds to Registrar Native Land Department, 14 December 1885, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1072]. Wylds wrote: ‘There is a few hundred acres of mixed Pine and Matai near the proposed Township of Levin near the Horowhenua Lake and if I could be allowed to deal with the Timber from the Natives I would erect a sawmill there.’ 937 The petition is set out in the appendix of the ‘Report on the Waste Lands Committee on the Petition of the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company’, AJHR 1887 I-5A, pp.31-32. The committee was unable to complete its inquiry in 1887 and reconvened in May 1888 to hear more testimony, the minutes of which were printed in AJHR 1888 I-5B. 938 Among those appearing were John Bryce (former Native Minister); John Ballance (former Native Minister and Minister of Lands); Julius Vogel (former Treasurer); Sir Robert Stout (former Premier and Attorney General); Sir John Hall (former Premier); Sir Harry Atkinson (former Treasurer); Surveyor-General McKerrow; Under-Secretary of Native Affairs, TW Lewis; and Chief Surveyor for the Wellington Province and Commissioner of Crown Lands, Marchant. 939 ‘Report of the Waste Lands Committee…’, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p. 4. 940 WTL Travers to Native Minister, 26 February 1889, MA 75/4/21. It appears the sale went ahead regardless. 179 the native owners.941 Lewis argued that the subsequent advances, amounting to £500 on the strength of this memorandum, did not constitute any contract on the part of the Crown to purchase. No contract was made, Lewis maintained, until 19 July 1887, the land ‘in the meantime’ having been investigated by the Native Land Court and granted to Kemp.942

As disingenuous as the Under Secretary’s stance appears, given that the whole point of the township proposal put to Muaupoko at the partition hearing was to expedite the transfer to the Crown, the Supreme Court found against the Company. Judge Richmond referred to the evidence of both Lewis and Wirihana Hunia in finding that:

It is plain that the Minister did not at this time consent to a purchase of the block by the Crown, but rather contemplated that the land should be dealt with under the provision of ‘The Native Land Administration Bill, 1886’, which shortly afterwards became law.943

It appears that the Company also lost its appeal of the Supreme Court decision.944 Throughout the Waste Lands Committee inquiry, Kemp was tight-lipped about the June 1886 agreement with Ballance. Under questioning from Travers, he referred only to the negotiations of 1887, stating: ‘I made my bargain with the Government, and intend to keep to that, and that is the end of the whole thing.’945

Displacing Muaupoko kainga The Crown’s purchase of the 4000-acre township block in July 1887 was based on the hand-drawn divisions by Palmerson presented to court at the time of partition. As set out in the introduction above, the survey of the Horowhenua partitions did not take place until August 1887 – after the township sale – and this survey plan, while approved by Kemp and Warena Hunia, was never exhibited publicly or shown to Muaupoko.946 Survey map WD508a shows Horowhenua 2 running to Ngurunguru near the shores of Lake Horowhenua, encompassing an unnamed clearing by the lake.

941 Draft affidavit of TW Lewis, nd, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1193]. 942 Ibid. 943 Judgment of Richmond, J., cited in Case on Appeal, Exhibit H of Horowhenua Commission, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 298. 944 Ibid. The court cases themselves have not been consulted. 945 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 13 December 1887, AJHR 1887 I-5A, p. 15. 946 JA Wilson, 3 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 15. 180

Figure 11: WD508a showing Horowhenua 2, the township block

The subdivision of the block into town, suburban and rural sections began in November 1888. Within days Chief Surveyor Marchant, also Commissioner of Crown Lands, relayed the objections of residents Hoani Puihi (aka Amorangi) and Winara Te Raorao (aka Awarua) to the survey running through their kainga on the north-western end of the block. They had told the surveyor that ‘they never parted with their share of the block’, amounting to 200 acres at Tirotiro and Ngurunguru. A week later Hoani Puihi protested directly to Lewis about the survey line being taken through his fence, instead of ending where the gate was. ‘He kainga tuturu tenei no maua no mua noatu’ / ‘This has been our permanent home for years.’947 The following week both Te Raorao and Puihi wrote in again, advising Lewis they had stopped the survey, explaining:

I te wa hoki o te hoko o taua poraka i whakaae a te Keepa ki o maua whenua kia taka ki waho o taua hoko. He kainga tuturu no o maua tupuna a iho tae noa kia maua inaianei. Kei runga tonu hoki maua e noho ana.948

At the time of the sale of that land Keepa agreed to leave our lands out of the sale. These have been permanent places of residence since the time of our ancestors and we are now still occupying them.

947 Hoani Amorangi to Under-Secretary Lewis, 7 December 1888, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1173]. Contemporary translation by Native Office. 948 W Te Raorao, H Amorangi to Under-Secretary Lewis, 16 December 1888, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1176]. Contemporary translation by Native Office. 181

Lewis’ response was emphatic, at least to the chief surveyor. Marchant was told that there were no claims to the land: the Native Land Court had awarded the block to Kemp as sole owner, and Kemp had since transferred it to the Crown without reservation.949 The chief surveyor persisted, convinced that the Muaupoko residents had a case which should be ‘properly investigated and settled otherwise the sale of the land will be delayed’, but this suggestion was similarly quashed by Sheridan of the Land Purchase Department on the grounds that the Crown’s title was ‘perfectly clear’ and had passed under the Land Transfer Act: ‘It would be highly imprudent on the part of this office to pretend to make any enquiry into the matter’.950 The response from the Native Department prompted Marchant to ask the Surveyor-General ‘Are these Natives to be evicted & forfeit their house and cultivations?’ To which the Surveyor-General replied:

I think the best course will be to burden the sections on which Native improvements exist with a moderate valuation & then offer the land for sale. If the Natives purchase good and well, if not, then the valuation would be secured to them […?] another purchase.951

This course was adopted. When the township sections were advertised on 11 February 1889, Rural Section 20 of 84 acres – part of Hoani Amorangi and Winara Te Raorao’s kainga – was listed with £14 weighted for improvements.952 This was later said to have been paid to Winara after the section was sold on 22 March 1889.953

The displacement of Hoani Puihi and Winara Te Raorao from their homes, cultivations and ‘kais’ in the Ngurunguru and Tirotiro clearings caused an outcry among the Muaupoko community at the time. Having just attended a hui at Horowhenua about the issue, on 18 March 1889 Wirihana Hunia wrote to Native Minister Mitchelson of ‘Te ahu e tangi, Te ahu e mate’ / ‘the state of sorrow and distress’ among Muaupoko over the inclusion of Section 20 in the township, asking the Minister to exclude it from sale.954 As a result, Marchant was asked by Sheridan on 21 March 1889 whether the section had been sold. The next day it was.955

The loss of his home in this manner was the principal reason Hoani Puihi turned against Kemp and sided with Wirihana Hunia in the dispute over Horowhenua 11 that began later that year. Puihi held his cousin responsible for not following through on his promise to have Tirotiro reserved from the

949 Under-Secretary Lewis to Chief Surveyor Marchant, note on letter, 29 November 1888, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1166]. 950 Chief Surveyor Marchant to Sheridan, note on coversheet, 31 December 1888, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1175]; Sheridan to Morpeth, note on coversheet, 5 January 1889, ibid. 951 Surveyor-General to Marchant, note on coversheet, 11 January 1889, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1172]. 952 Supplement to the New Zealand Gazette, 11 February 1889, in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1181]. 953 Marchant to Under-Secretary Native Dept, note on letter, 11 December 1889, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1225]. 954 Wirihana Hunia to Native Minister Mitchelson, 18 March 1889, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1185]. Contemporary translation by Native Department. 955 See cover notes on above, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1184]. 182 township sale.956 There is no indication on file that Puihi’s letters to Lewis in November 1888 were ever answered, but Puihi told the Horowhenua Commission that Lewis’s response was to refer him to Kemp.957 Kemp in turn is said to have told him not to obstruct the survey, that he would have his land cut out once the survey was finished. At Otaki, knowing the township sale was imminent and that Kemp was soon to depart for Waitangi, Puihi again pressed the issue in the presence of Members Wi Parata and Hoani Taipua. Kemp told him he had sent a letter to the government about the matter, to which Hoani Taipua was said to have quipped, ‘Well, then, your land is gone to the Europeans, and will not come back’.958 And my land was gone, Puihi told the Commission, ‘and I have not had it back since.’959 For his part, Kemp told the Commission that Ballance had refused his appeal to exclude Tirotiro from the township: ‘He said that he did not see that they wanted a Maori kainga there, as it would not do to have Natives in the township.’960 Asked whether he had done what he could to get it cut out Kemp responded, ‘No; when it was not cut out, I assented to what he did.’961

Figure 12: Hoani Puihi and Winara Te Raorao’s kainga within Horowhenua 2962

956 Hoani Puihi, 31 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 142; 24 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 13. Hoani Puihi’s eviction was not the only issue of contention at this time. David Alexander’s research indicates that in April 1889 Puihi and the Hunia brothers also opposed the laying off of a road encircling Lake Horowhenua, which Kemp had approved, Alexander, p.188. Note the ‘Marama Hunia’ referred to by Alexander is undoubtedly Warena Hunia, whose interests were represented at this time by Donald Fraser. 957 Hoani Puihi, 17 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 126. 958 Ibid. 959 Ibid. 960 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 7 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 193. 961 Ibid. 962 Plan submitted with Chief Surveyor Marchant to Under-Secretary Native Department, 27 November 1888, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1167-69]. 183

Chief Surveyor Marchant had been convinced enough of Hoani Puihi and Winara Te Raorao’s claim, that he had the above plan drawn up. The outright dismissal of Muaupoko claims to their homes and farms by Native Department officials, without any inquiry whatsoever, appears both callous and high- handed, particularly in the wake of the Crown’s broken promises over the township. Moreover the refusal of the Crown to consider the reservation of land for those tangata whenua in actual occupation can be contrasted with its provision of ‘ample reserves’ for the future benefit of Levin residents, detailed below.

Muaupoko’s ‘tenths’: the promise of township sections Horowhenua 2 was cut into 257 township sections (120 acres in all); 71 suburban sections of 3 to 20 acres (870 acres in all); and 28 rural sections of 28 to 247 acres (3010 acres in all). ‘Ample’ reserves were set apart in the township for public purposes, including four sections for public buildings; 24 for municipal endowment; 12 for primary education; a large gravel reserve; a school site of 5.5 acres; recreation reserves of 11 acres, a 5-acre cemetery reserve, and a water supply reserve at Koputuroa.963

But which sections, Wirihana Hunia asked Mitchelson after meeting with Muaupoko on 13 March 1889, were to be for them? As he related to the Native Minister ‘me taku kitenga i nga mapi o te Taone kua kore nga Tekihana mo nga tangata maori.’ / ‘on inspection of the plan of the township I found that the sections for the Natives were not marked.’964 Donald Fraser was coming to see Mitchelson on Hunia’s behalf. No doubt he was told of the Native Department position noted on Wirihana’s correspondence: ‘There are no sections for the Natives unless they purchase them at auction like any other person.’965

Hunia’s letter was written from Parewanui, which is also where Donald Fraser lived. The Muaupoko community at Horowhenua seems to have remained unaware that the deal in which every tenth quarter-acre section in the township would be returned to them was now off. Te Rangimairehau told the Horowhenua Commission that he only found out from Kemp and Hunia when he went to Wellington expressly about the issue.966 As late as November 1890 Hoani Puihi wrote to Lewis asking him if he had received an earlier letter wanting information about Muaupoko’s sections in the Levin township: ‘If you have received it why have you not replied.’967 His inquiry was initially mistaken by Morpeth and Sheridan in the Native Office to be about his claim over Section 20 outlined above, and Marchant was asked if he had been paid for his ‘improvements’.968 By 12 December however Sheridan had realised this was not the case, telling Under-Secretary Lewis ‘the writer should be

963 Supplement to the New Zealand Gazette, 11 February 1889, in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1181]. 964 Wirihana Hunia to Native Minister Mitchelson, 18 March 1889, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1185]. Contemporary translation by Native Department. 965 Sheridan’s note on above [DB:1184]. 966 Te Rangimairehau, 14 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 88. 967 H Amorangi to Under-Secretary Lewis, 18 November 1890, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1227]. 968 Morpeth for Under-Secretary to Marchant, note, 9 December 1890, on above [DB:1225]. 184 informed he has no sections at Levin. The whole of the land there was included in the sale by Kemp to the Crown of the Horowhenua block.’969 Puihi told the Horowhenua Commission five years later that it was Lewis who had told him that the arrangements had been ‘swept away’ and that the Under- Secretary had once again referred him to Kemp: ‘He told me to ask Kemp for them, and if Kemp gave them it was all right; it rested with him, and if he would not there was no help for it.’970

The Levin township was advertised in February 1889 as being situated ‘in the centre of one of the most extensive and fertile tracts of flat country between the Manawatu and Wellington’, contiguous to Lake Horowhenua ‘a fine picturesque sheet of water’, and only six miles from the sea coast.971 The capabilities of the country for agriculture, dairy-farming, fruit-growing, and market gardening, the public notice went on, could hardly be exaggerated. The rural sections were offered for a cash price of between £2-£3/5s per acre and the town sections, most of them quarter-acre, were offered at the upset price of £7/10s.972 The suburban sections were offered in a separate auction in 1889 at an average of £4/10s per acre.973 The success of the Crown’s auction has not been the subject of research. Local sawmiller Peter Bartholomew purchased part of Horowhenua 10 from Sievwright in 1892, and then subdivided about 15 acres of this block into over 30 town sections which were sold in the twelve months from December 1894 for prices varying from £10 to £135 for a half-acre section.974

5.2 Horowhenua 3: the individual 100‐acre landholdings

Horowhenua 3 it will be remembered, was granted to 106 registered owners singled out in 1886 as Muaupoko, on the basis that it would be surveyed into 100-acre landholdings, complete with road access, as ‘a maintenance’ for each recipient. Shortly after the 1886 partition, a timber lease was transacted by Kemp with Peter Bartholomew over the north-western corner of Horowhenua 3. For a one-off payment of £500, Bartholomew was given cutting rights for a 10-year period over 1000 acres of land. Although drawn up and witnessed by Richard Woon, the lease was not legally binding inasmuch as Kemp was not the owner of the block. Kemp later maintained that he had entered into the agreement at the behest of Makere Te Rou and Ruta Te Kiri, two of the principal Muaupoko kuia at Horowhenua.975 He had in mind, he said, that once the forest was felled the cleared areas would be grassed for stock, and thus ‘improved’ for the registered owners. He also claimed to have paid much of this £500 to the Hunia brothers, in four separate payments to keep their debtor, Donald Fraser, from

969 Sheridan to Lewis, note on back, 12 December 1890, on above. 970 Hoani Puihi, 31 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 142. 971 Supplement to the New Zealand Gazette, 11 February 1889, in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1181]. 972 Ibid. 973 Chief Surveyor to Surveyor-General, 12 November 1891, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1247]. 974 ‘Horowhenua Block return of the District Land Register…’, MA W1369 27 1896/22 [DB:1749]. 975 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 19 February 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 57. 185 their door.976 The certificate of title for the block issued in July 1888 came encumbered with its share of the survey costs, calculated at £336/7/1.

1890 partition Rod McDonald’s recollections suggest that the owners of Horowhenua 3 succumbed quickly to the pressures associated with the expansion of European settlement (what O’Donnell described as the ‘horde of land-hungry settlers’), the 105-acre sections rapidly lost through either outright sales, or sales obtained first by way of grazing rights and advances.977 The first partition of the block took place at Palmerston North from 3 – 13 March 1890, under Judge Trimble, in the midst of the litigation over the partition of Horowhenua 11. The fact that ‘transmissions’ over almost a third of the interests in the block – 32 of the 106 owners – took place either before or during this partition hearing tends to bear out McDonald’s recollection and O’Donnell’s imagery.978 One of the hungriest ‘settlers’ at this hearing appears to have been an A Gray, who registered four separate transactions for 18 individual interests on 12 February 1890 – three weeks before the partition application was brought to court.979 The extent of alienation is difficult to determine from the records at hand: the district land register did not record the acreage nor the land appellation of the individual interest transferred. It is also the case that in addition to these registered transmissions, there would have been unregistered arrangements involving such interests: Donald Fraser for example later disclosed that he had advanced Rangipo money on the security of 3B5.980 Alienation was clearly a large factor behind the partition, the emergent real estate market making a mockery of the court’s agreement to Kemp’s request on 7 March to restrict the alienation of the Horowhenua 3 partitions to lease only.981 It is significant, too, that the Crown’s proclamation invoked in the case of the township block purchase just three years before, no longer stood in the way of these alienations.

We know a little about how the partition was achieved because one part of it – the award of the timber leasehold set out above – was mired in controversy and became the subject of a rehearing the following summer. From this later testimony, it seems that the 1890 partition was arranged outside court over a series of meetings in the first week of March among Muaupoko tribal members present in Palmerston North for the Horowhenua 11 case, which at that point they were also trying to settle out of court. Horowhenua 3 was first divided four ways, (3A & B; 3C; 3D and 3E), and then further broken down into family constellations of varying size. The whole proceeding seems to have been instigated by Wirihana Hunia and conducted by his agent Alexander McDonald, who then brought

976 Ibid, p. 56. Kemp claimed that the brothers received more than £600 in this period, but this included payments from the township sale and the lease of Horowhenua 11 as well. 977 O’Donnell, p. 182. O’Donnell writes that ‘it was not long before hardly a single Maori remained in possession of his 105 acre block which he had accepted so hopefully’. 978 These transmissions were registered on the title, see MA W1369 27 1896/22 [DB:1749]. 979 Ibid. 980 D Fraser, 24 February 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 104. 981 7 March 1894, Otaki MB 21A, p. 150. 186 these ‘voluntary arrangements’ into court to be confirmed. Although McDonald was clearly representing his client with respect to the leased partition (3A & 3B), he later professed that in arranging the subdivision: ‘I don’t remember I was specially engaged by anyone. I gave my assistance generally – some one or other of the parties gave me £2, but I forget which.’982 The developing market in as yet undivided shares described above, it is suggested, may account for this apparent altruism. Despite their initial reluctance to proceed with the partition before Horowhenua 11 had been settled, with the exception of the leasehold block, Muaupoko seemed involved in the process and did not contest the outcome.983

The contest for the timber mill Wirihana Hunia’s first attempt on 24 February 1890 to separate out the shares of the Hunia family from Horowhenua 3 – his own and those of Kawana Hunia, Ihaka Te Rangihouhia, Warena Hunia, Rakera Hunia, Te Rina Mete Kingi, Hera Te Upokoiri and Rangipo Hoani – was adjourned on the objection of Kemp’s lawyer, A Southey Baker, that Kemp was not present.984 Within the fortnight McDonald reapplied for partition specifically over the leased portion of 1050 acres, stressing the role of the Hunia family within Muaupoko to support Wirihana’s right ‘to allot this land as he wishes’.985 McDonald told the court that an agreement had been reached with Kemp to submit ten names for this block – five from Hunia’s family and five from Kemp’s – in order to legalise the existing timber lease. He also spoke of a ‘division line’ which was not to interfere with the mill, and the fact that ‘frontage to the Railway line shall be equal in each section’.986 The application however was objected to by Muaupoko in court – Hoani Puihi, Te Rangimairehau, Makere Te Rou and Raniera Te Whata – on the grounds that none of the proposed owners were resident Muaupoko, and that Muaupoko had not been party to any arrangement. The case was adjourned overnight to enable parties to arrange matters between themselves.

The next morning, 4 March 1890, McDonald told the court that he had been asked by Kemp to substitute Ihaia Taueki and Makere Te Rou into his list of ten. On Hunia’s part, the name of Rakera Hunia was erased and that of Rangipo put in. The minutes record that no objections were heard, and specifically that ‘the objectors of yesterday signified their assent to the new arrangement’.987 Two orders were made over the 1050-acre partition, now halved into Horowhenua 3A (awarded to Kemp’s five) and Horowhenua 3B (awarded to Hunia’s five).988

982 A McDonald, 25 February 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p.112. 983 Although Makere Te Rou later pointedly testified that it was the men who had arranged the partition, Otaki MB 21A, p. 74. 984 24 February 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 113. 985 A McDonald, 3 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 136. 986 Ibid. 987 4 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 138. 988 Horowhenua 3A was awarded to Rora Korako, Haruru ki te Rangi, Wiki Keepa, Ihaia Taueki and Makere Rangimairehau; Horowhenua 3B to Wirihana Hunia, Warena Hunia, Ihaka Rangihouhia, Te Upokoiri, and Rangipo. 187

Figure 13: the 1890 partition of Horowhenua 3989

The orders over the leased block were immediately followed by partition applications for the balance, which was initially divided three ways. Horowhenua 3C was awarded to 31 owners; Horowhenua 3D to 26 owners; and Horowhenua 3E1 to 39 owners. The lists of owners were handed in by McDonald, and passed through the court that day without incident. Over the next week, in addition to a number of successions, McDonald conducted the further partitioning of these blocks into family constellations of between two to eight owners, with provision, in the case of 3D and 3E, for a half-acre section fronting the railway line for each owner. In the case of 3C, preference was given to placing resident owners closest to the railway, raising an objection from Hiroti Haimona on behalf of absentee owners that this was not fair. After a day of adjournment with the issue unresolved, his objection was overruled by the court.990 A month later, on 11 April Rora Hakaraia, Kemp’s sister, objected to McDonald’s subdivision, accusing him of acting without consulting the owners, and wanting nothing further done in her absence. She was reassured by the court that justice would be done in any further division: ‘It will be done in open Court there will be no secrecy about it.’991

Rora’s objection appears to have been directed at the subdivision of the leasehold. On 21 April, almost seven weeks after the initial order, McDonald applied for the shares of the Hunia family

989 In MA 75/4/21 [DB:1155]. The timber leasehold over Horowhenua 3A & 3B in top left corner. 990 7 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 149. 991 12 April 1890, Otaki MB 13, p.288. 188 portion of Horowhenua 3B to be individualised into five, 105-acre lots.992 Wirihana Hunia, being the successor to Ihaka Te Rangihouhia, ended up with two of these sections, 3B1 and 3B3, which appear to have been sold the same day.993 Shortly after, the owners of Horowhenua 3A applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there had been no voluntary arrangement over the partition of the leasehold; that Hunia and McDonald had arranged the subdivision without the authority or knowledge of the owners.

1891 rehearing The rehearing of Horowhenua 3A & 3B was held in February 1891 under Judges Mair and Scannell. Muaupoko representatives Makere Te Rou and her husband Te Rangimairehau were bitter that the partition had gone through without their sanction. Of the five listed owners of Horowhenua 3A, it was argued, only Makere had been in Palmerston North at the time, and she maintained she was never consulted.994 These witnesses admitted that it was generally known the leased block was to be divided: the nub of their grievance however, was that, as a result of the clandestine partition by those whose rights were ‘of a very slender description’, the Hunia family had ended up with the timber mill itself.995 Kemp, too, was mortified about being duped, but he was less concerned about the mill. Rather, Kemp had agreed to the partition in order to validate the lease itself. According to his lawyer at the time, Southey Baker, who was also acting for the lessee, Bartholomew, the ten owners had been chosen with this in mind, with Hunia promising to keep faith with the lessee.996 Instead, it was argued, Hunia and McDonald had partitioned the leased land in Kemp’s absence, the further partition of Horowhenua 3B into individual sections only complicating matters further. According to Baker, Wirihana Hunia now refused to execute the new lease unless he received £250.997 Kemp’s party seemed unaware that Hunia may have parted with his sections altogether.

The rehearing of Horowhenua 3 provides a stark example of two completely contradictory stories. Hunia maintained that Kemp not only arranged for the names to go into the partition of the 1050 acres (which were subsequently amended in light of Muaupoko’s protest); and instructed McDonald along with Hunia to make application; but that Kemp was fully aware the block would then be split between the two sets of owners; and that Kemp himself had chosen Horowhenua 3A in court, because it lay on the Porotawhao boundary. McDonald, Paki Te Hunga, and Donald Fraser all corroborated Hunia’s version that Kemp had asked about Porotawhao in the full courtroom, pointing his finger at the plan. These witnesses also shared anecdotal testimony, that when Kemp objected two weeks later on

992 21 April 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 322. 993 The district land register reveals a transmission of Wirihana Hunia’s interests in Horowhenua No 3 dated 21 April 1890 registered by Hutchinson & Hogg, MA W1369 27 1896/22 [DB:1751]. 994 Makere Te Rou, 20 February 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 75. 995 Cuff, lawyer for the applicants, 19 February 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 51. 996 A Southey Baker, 25 February 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 119. 997 Ibid, p. 123. 189

Muaupoko’s behalf (when they became aware the mill was on the Hunia half), Judge Trimble had refused to alter the order, exclaiming ‘why you chose that part yourself.’998

Kemp for his part denied he had agreed to the subdivision, and he denied being in court when the order was made. He only found out about it, he stated, as a fait accompli from Muaupoko who were upset about losing the mill. Kemp even denied being party to the partition in the first place, claiming that the ten names proposed for the leased land were ‘clandestinely prepared’ by McDonald, Fraser and Hunia.999

It is difficult to navigate a way through the lies being told to court. On the one hand, Kemp’s track record of assuming control of Muaupoko affairs on a ‘do it now and tell them later’ basis, gives a degree of credence to Hunia’s story about his initial participation in the arrangements for the leasehold partition and the possibility that he only repudiated this role in the face of Muaupoko’s anger about the deal. According to Baker, Kemp was involved in initial negotiations over the names to be submitted for the partition, and that if Hunia had only signed the lease after the partition, Kemp would not have applied for the rehearing.1000 On the other hand, Baker had no reason to lie about Kemp’s absence when the order was made, or his genuine surprise when he found out about the partition. Kemp had expected an order that would allow the lease to be ratified in an undivided moiety, and neither Kemp nor Baker had expected McDonald to proceed with the application in Kemp’s absence.

For his part, Wirihana Hunia made no secret about beginning the partition process with his eyes on the mill. According to him, he was entitled to it as the inheritance from his father’s and grandfather’s service to Muaupoko.1001 The immediate sale of his interests in the block suggests this was less about any economic benefit to be derived from the mill (of which he and his brother seemed to have already consumed the lion’s share), than a display of his authority and undermining Kemp. As he told the court at the 1891 rehearing: ‘Some [Muaupoko] believe in me, & others who follow Kemp believe in him, but those who have been following Kemp are now displeased with him, but they are not displeased with me.’1002 In the context of the growing feud between the two men over Horowhenua 11, upsetting Kemp’s mill arrangement would have been doubly sweetened by showing him up as a despot who did not consult with the people.

998 See for example testimony of D Fraser, 24 February 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 107. 999 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 19 February 1891, Otaki MB 21A, pp. 52-63. 1000 A Baker, 25 February 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 123. 1001 Wirihana Hunia, 25 February 1891, Otaki MB 21A, pp. 108-112. 1002 Wirihana Hunia, 25 February 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 69. 190

Despite the fact that Horowhenua had been intended for individualisation, the politics of ancestry and occupation were also argued at the rehearing, along conflicting lines that were to become familiar in the protracted litigation over Horowhenua 11. The claim that the resident Muaupoko land owners should have greater (or even any) say in the partition of the block was undermined by the fact that three of the five owners of Horowhenua 3A – Kemp’s sister, nephew and daughter – were patently non-resident. Kemp’s role as the representative of these land owners was never seriously questioned by the court, an assumption that was reflected in its ruling against the appellants, that the partition orders for 3A & 3B had in fact confirmed the voluntary arrangement come to out of court.1003 The ruling that the owners of 3A, which included Makere Te Rou and Ihaia Taueki, had no better claim to the land than those of Hunia’s family in 3B would have been particularly galling to the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua.

A comprehensive inventory of alienation of Horowhenua 3 sections has not been attempted. The survey of the 1890 partition added another £85 worth of liens against the title. Between 1892 and the Horowhenua Commission in 1896, charging orders and caveats were registered against the interests of four more Horowhenua 3 land owners, and three others sold their acreage.1004 At least one Hunia family member was persuaded to sell her Horowhenua 3 section in this period to help fund litigation over Horowhenua 11 (see p. 220). John McDonald leased nine sections of 3C1 in 1894, amounting to almost 945 acres. In the year of the Horowhenua Commission, four of these leased sections were sold to another family member, and two more purchased by the same F McDonald three years later. Rod McDonald’s recollections of land-hungry settlers apparently lay very close to home.1005 An overture from another owner to sell her interest to the Crown was made in July 1891, setting in train valuations of 3E1 (19.5 acres of railway frontage) and 3E3 (629 acres) with purchase in mind. Sheridan was interested in purchasing Horowhenua 3E3 at 10 shillings per acre if all six owners would sell but Native Minister Cadman disagreed, on the basis that the area was too small for government purposes, and more suited for purchase by private individuals.1006 Horowhenua 3A was further partitioned in April 1900 into five individual sections of just over 100 acres, three of which were sold by 1905. In 1909, 3E2 became the subject of petition of C Prouse, who with her husband had purchased individual interests in 3E2 from 1896-1897, but who had been unable to register the transfers because of restrictions against alienation under Section 117 of the Native Land Court Act 1894.1007

1003 Otaki MB 21A, p. 125. 1004 Horowhenua Block return, MA W1369 27 1896/22 [DB:1752]. 1005 MA 1/1182 1918/98. McDonald family holdings are discussed further in Chapter 7 (see pp. 358-359). 1006 See Cadman’s note on Chief Surveyor to Surveyor-General, 12 November 1891, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1247]. 1007 ‘Report and recommendation under Section 28 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1910 on the petition No. 397/1909, relative to Horowhenua 3E No.2 Block’, AJHR 1911 G-14E, [CFRT DB, A67(a): 3860]. 191

5.3 Horowhenua 6: the rerewaho

Horowhenua 6 comprised 4620 acres on the southern boundary of the Horowhenua block, east of the railway. Kemp never said otherwise than that the land had been entrusted to him for those Muaupoko who had been overlooked in the 1873 title. As set out in the preceding chapter, during the 1886 hearing 44 such individuals had been identified to hold the land on the same basis as Horowhenua 3. The names of these ‘rerewaho’ were not submitted to court however, presumably because in carrying out the partition, the court had no jurisdiction to introduce new owners. Title was issued to Kemp, complete with a registered survey lien of £95/8/6, in July 1888.

Figure 14: WD 508a showing Horowhenua 6

Nothing further was done by Kemp to have the land transferred before the storm over Horowhenua 11 began, the list of names having been mislaid in the interim. In court during the 1890 partition hearing Kemp freely admitted he held the land in trust and expressed his willingness to sign a trust deed transferring the land to others, if the list could be found.1008 The very same day a list of names was discovered ‘by chance’, according to Alexander McDonald, in a roll of papers handed to him by Hanita Te Aweawe.1009 This list of 16 men and 29 women was allegedly handed into the court, and sealed and minuted in the court record.1010 Although the list contained 45, and not 44 names, Eparaima Paki subsequently confirmed that this was the original list he had written in 1886.1011 Kemp however considered Hunia’s party had fabricated the list and refused to accept the names as genuine.

1008 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 15 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 187. 1009 Alexander McDonald, 2 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 164. 1010 See Petition 121/1894 in MA 75/3/15 [DB:1016]. 1011 Ibid. Eparaima was Paki Te Hunga’s son. His sister Ngahuia was one of the rerewaho. 192

Not surprisingly perhaps, Horowhenua 6 was drawn into the tribal conflict over Horowhenua 11. The list of rerewaho submitted by McDonald in 1890 included individuals from both sides of the dispute, although there appears to be a disproportionate number of Ngati Pariri residents, as well as non- resident Muaupoko.1012 A caveat was registered against the block by Hema Henare and seven others in April 1890: Wirihana Hunia told the Horowhenua Commission this was done to prevent Kemp from selling the block.1013 One of the allegations to beset Kemp throughout this period – which he and his solicitor JM Fraser vehemently denied – was that early on he had offered to buy Warena Hunia out of Horowhenua 11, with the proceeds from Horowhenua 6.1014 The rerewaho block was raised at Muaupoko’s meeting at Pipiriki in May 1891 – called to discuss the proposed settlement over Horowhenua 11 – by Paki Te Hunga and others who wanted the block restored to its intended beneficiaries. According to Kemp, he responded that he would do so once Horowhenua 11 was settled. Before the Horowhenua Commission in 1896 and again in the Native Appellate Court hearing the following year, a number of witnesses alleged that on this occasion Muaupoko had been asked to hand over Horowhenua 6 to Kemp in order to bring the settlement about. Again, Kemp denied ever doing so.

Kemp’s free admission that he held Horowhenua 6 in trust was reflected in the inclusion of the block in the Horowhenua Subdivision Bill of 1891, drafted by Buller, which proposed to enable Native Land Court determination of beneficial owners (see pp. 205-206). Along with Horowhenua 11 & 12, dealings in Horowhenua 6 were temporarily prohibited until the end of the 1892 session under Section 3 of the Native Land Court Acts Amendment Act. Kemp’s continued refusal to take steps to transfer the block, however, was increasingly represented as a breach of faith, and used by his opponents to undermine his stance of trusteeship over Horowhenua 11.1015

In 1894 Hoani Nahona and others, and Hana Rata and others petitioned Parliament for legislation to empower the Native Land Court to enquire into the trust and to determine the owners entitled.1016 As the petitioners pointed out, Kemp still refused to acknowledge the list discovered in 1890, and declined to respond to overtures to have the land transferred. He was, however, said to have been amenable to the Native Land Court’s investigation into beneficial ownership.1017 The Native Affairs

1012 Rawinia Ihaia, Ihaia Taueki’s wife from Tamati Maunu’s household south of the lake, was the first woman on the list. Just why these people were overlooked in 1873 is not clear: I have found no evidence to suggest their omission was deliberate. 1013 Caveat 606, 30 April 1890, MA W1369 27 1896/22; Wirihana Hunia, 13 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 60. 1014 Hunia made the allegation to the Horowhenua Commission, stating that Kemp had offered Warena Hunia £12,000, ibid. It was also claimed that Kemp had approached Muaupoko with this end in mind at the meeting at Pipiriki in May 1891. 1015 See for example Petition 452/1891 of Warena Te Hakeke (Hunia) in MA 75/3/15; ‘…Kemp is the man the tribe should go for, not Warana’, D Fraser to Premier Seddon, 5 February 1894, MA 75/3/15 [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4193-95]. 1016 See Petitions 121/1894 and 215/1894, AJHR 1894 I-3, p. 5; Although not numbered, Petition 121/1894 of Hoani Nahona appears to be that in MA 75/3/15 [DB:1016]. 1017 W Buller to Premier Seddon, 19 July 1894, Exhibit AV 1, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 331. 193

Committee’s report on the petition in August 1894 was favourable, in that it agreed that legislation should be passed to empower the Native Land Court to determine entitlement to the block.1018

At the same time, Kemp was forced to negotiate with the intended beneficiaries in order to honour a timber lease over the block he had contracted with Peter Bartholomew in December 1893.1019 The registration of this memorandum of lease was frustrated by the caveat on the title. In August 1894 another caveat was registered by Heni Makona and three others.1020 That month an agreement between Kemp, Bartholomew and the ‘presumptive owners’ was signed by 21 such owners, appointing Hanita Henare, Matai Porotene and Tuhi Hone as trustees to receive the timber royalties.1021 A further agreement, dated 10 December 1894 suggests that the earlier proposal had not worked out. The December memorandum set out that agreement had been reached to withdraw the caveats if the royalties were paid into a trust account in the names of Kemp, G Marshall (representing the rerewaho), and WB Edwards, (representing Bartholomew), until the ownership of the block had been determined.1022 Marshall told the Horowhenua Commission that this arrangement fell down because the lease could not be registered.1023 Bartholomew continued to remove timber however, royalties to the extent of £360 being paid to trustees Henare, Broughton and Hone by August 1895.1024

There is evidence that overtures to the Native Minister were made from November 1894 by Heni Makona’s solicitors to have the ownership of Horowhenua 6 settled under existing legislation. In view of Kemp’s admission of the trust and the Native Affairs Committee’s unanimous resolution, the solicitors wanted the Minister to refer the matter to the Native Land Court under Section 14(10) of the Native Land Court Act 1894. There is no reply to this request, repeated in May 1895 to the Under- Secretary of Justice, on file.1025 In 1895 too, it seems that the District Land Registrar’s refusal to register the timber lease until the £96 survey lien had been paid resulted in legal proceedings by Bartholomew.1026 The action was defended by the Crown on the grounds that Kemp held the land in trust for the purpose of conveying it to others, and therefore had no power to lease; that the land was still subject to proclamation under the Government Land Purchases Act 1878 and therefore private dealings were invalid; and that the survey lien, being a debt to the Crown, was specially protected by Acts other than the Land Transfer Act.1027 In July 1895 the Supreme Court dismissed Bartholomew’s

1018 RM Houston, Native Affairs Committee Report, 14 August 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:992]. 1019 Memorandum of Lease, 22 November 1893, Exhibit BA, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 336-7. NB WB Edwards was working for Bartholomew. 1020 Caveat 920, 2 August 1894, MA W1369 27 1896/22 [DB:1755]. 1021 Exhibit AY2, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 332-335. 1022 See Memorandum of agreement, 10 December 1894, Exhibit BB, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 338-9. See also P Bartholomew, 13 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 62. Bartholomew went on to say that Marshall was acting for ‘part of the Hunia tribe’, p. 63. 1023 G Marshall, 30 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 277. 1024 ‘Statement of monies paid by P Bartholomew…’, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1388]. 1025 Brown and Deane to Undersecretary for Justice, 9 May 1895, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1318]. 1026 ‘Bartholomew’s lease of Horowhenua No.6 block’, nd, in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1394]. 1027 Ibid. 194 summons, ruling that as Kemp was a ‘bare trustee’, he had no power to lease.1028 In November another caveat was registered on the title by the Deputy District Land Registrar, presumably in light of the Horowhenua Block Act 1895.1029 Neither the court case, nor the inability to register the lease seems to have impacted on Bartholomew’s milling activities, Crown officials allowing him to continue removing timber even after it had purchased the block.1030

5.4 Horowhenua 11: the tribal heartland

Horowhenua 11 comprised the area west of the railway line, encompassing Muaupoko’s ancient kainga, cultivations and eel fisheries at Horowhenua, including of course Lake Horowhenua itself. At the time of the 1886 court the block was estimated to contain 15,207 acres. Ngati Raukawa’s 1300- acre award at Raumatangi sat in the middle of this tribal estate. The township block and Sievwright’s debt block also intruded east of the lake. At the point of survey in September 1887, Horowhenua 14 was moved west at Kemp’s behest, shaving off a further 589 acres or so from the south-eastern corner of Horowhenua 11. As set out earlier, the resulting survey plan was not exhibited and Muaupoko never apparently told of this alteration. A survey lien amounting to just over £452 was registered against the title.

Ten thousand acres in the northern part of the block was leased to Hector McDonald, the 11-year lease contracted in 1879 worth £400 per annum from 1886. After McDonald’s death in 1888, the lease was taken over by his sons, first Hector and then John. Irregularities in rents payments during this takeover period were ironed out by the early 1890s, at which time John McDonald seems to have held an informal year-to-year arrangement with respect to the land.1031

Kemp also contracted another timber lease with Bartholomew in February 1889 over 1000 acres south-east of the lake, close to the railway line. In a similar arrangement to that over part of Horowhenua 3, £500 was said to have been paid up front to Kemp for the 12-year lease.1032 Bartholomew put in a tramline shortly afterwards but did not commence cutting until 1893. From around 1888 Bartholomew also arranged with Kemp to mill the flax on the block on a royalty basis,

1028 Decision of Richmond J, 8 July 1895, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1314]. I have not discovered the records of this case. Justice Richmond considered that the consent to the lease of the beneficiaries was necessary, ‘and it is not shown that they have all consented, or even who they are’. The ruling that Kemp’s power as the only person named in the Certificate of Title issued under the Act of 1867 was ‘clearly at an end’ is puzzling, given that the 1873 certificate had been superceded by the 1888 titles. The Crown’s second grounds of defence regarding the Crown proclamation dating back to 1878 is also strange, given the alienation of Horowhenua 3, see E Stafford to Chief Native Land Purchase Officer Sheridan, 9 July 1895, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1311]. 1029 Caveat 1063, MA W1369 27 1896/22 [DB:1755]. 1030 ‘Bartholomew’s lease of Horowhenua No.6 block’, nd, in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1394. The brief précis noted: ‘Bartholomew is still removing the timber, and the Minister will probably allow him to do so until the land is put in the market, but he should be called upon to pay the royalties stipulated for the so-called lease from Kemp.’ 1031 J McDonald, 20 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 219. 1032 P Bartholomew, 13 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.61. The lease was not registered but in October 1889 Bartholomew registered a caveat against the title, possibly to protect his investment: Warena Hunia was said to have visited and thrown ‘a small tree’ across the tramline, by way of objection, p. 62. 195 and operated a mill there for about two years. In this period, he claimed, he overcame Muaupoko obstruction of his industry by paying royalties ‘to the particular Natives who claimed the flax.’1033

Figure 15: WD 508a showing Horowhenua 11

Court action commences Between 1886 and 1889 Warena Hunia had received money from Kemp on at least two occasions: £40 to keep him out of gaol for debt in Bulls; and £100 in Wellington to pay his debts to Donald Fraser.1034 Kemp told the Horowhenua Commission that he had given the Hunia brothers considerably more, making three separate payments of £100 to Wirihana Hunia, and sending a further £36 when his horses were seized. After the third approach by Warena Hunia, Kemp told the Commission, ‘I knew he was playing false with me, and then commenced the trouble.’1035

1033 Ibid, p. 62. 1034 Warena Hunia, 31 March 1891, Otaki MB 21A, pp. 260-261. Warena also told the court of his approach to Kemp in July 1888 to be allowed to lease 700 acres in Block 14, but that nothing came of it, p. 259. 1035 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 4 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 183. 196

In 1889 Warena Hunia appointed Donald Fraser as his power of attorney with regard to Horowhenua 11. Proceedings were then begun in the Supreme Court to have Kemp account for monies accruing from Horowhenua 11. Records of this case have not been found in the time available. In a petition from Kemp and 63 members of Muaupoko arising from the proceedings, it was stated that Kemp had claimed credit for monies paid over by him to the tribe resident on the block, for whom he was trustee. Warena Hunia on the other hand is said to have denied Kemp’s right to such credit, there being no trust declared on the title.1036 On the strength of the certificate of title issued under the Land Transfer Act which did not refer to any trust, the Supreme Court agreed with Hunia, and referred the issue of the relative interests of the two grantees in the block to the Native Land Court. In their petition, Kemp and Muaupoko claimed that in 1886 neither the Native Land Court nor the beneficial owners of Horowhenua had sufficiently understood the Statute of Frauds which required a trust to be declared in writing. They attributed the error to the registering of the title under the Land Transfer Act. In view of Warena Hunia’s denial of any trust, the petitioners asked Parliament to intervene to prevent the partition of the block between the men as absolute owners: ‘The Natives living on the land will be ejected from the holdings where they and their families have been settled for generations and a grievous wrong will be done.’1037

Warena Hunia was a figurehead in the title, having very little to do with the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua. As he himself told the court in 1891, ‘I stay at home and farm according to Native custom.’1038 The real movers behind the litigation were his brother, Wirihana Hunia, who had assumed his father’s mantel after his death in 1884 with respect to Muaupoko affairs, and Donald Fraser, who held power of attorney for Warena Hunia with respect to Horowhenua 11, and in whom both Warena and Wirihana were indebted. Indeed, the allegation was made at the partition hearing in 1890 that Warena Hunia had mortgaged his interest in Horowhenua 11 to Fraser, and the following year Kemp testified in court that Fraser had asked to lease 1000 acres to pay Warena’s debts.1039 Fraser denied the mortgage, or any written agreement, but he did admit that as an ‘old friend’ and neighbour of the Hunia family at Parewanui since 1853 ‘they have always been under money obligations to me’, and that he had paid Warena £300 to cover the expense of litigation.1040 He also divulged in the course of the 1891 partition rehearing that he had initiated the application for partition in 1889.1041

1036 Petition 11/1890 of Meiha Kemp & 63 others, nd, MA 75/3/15 [DB:761]. 1037 Ibid. 1038 Warena Hunia, 1 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 275. Hunia told the court that he never spoke to Muaupoko, that all communications were relayed through his brother or through Donald Fraser, p. 270. 1039 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 6 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 334. 1040 D Fraser, 14 February 1890, Otaki MB13, pp. 92-93. The following year Fraser told the court that these ‘money obligations’ had begun with the first title investigation in 1873, on which occasion he had lent Kawana Hunia between £500- £600 for food and expenses, Otaki MB 15, p.17. 1041 Donald Fraser, 22 April 1891, Otaki MB 15, p. 17. At the time, Fraser maintained, Kemp was angry because Hunia had given McDonald and Bartholomew notice not to pay any money on account of Horowhenua. 197

The Hunia brothers’ challenge came at a time when confidence in Kemp’s management was at a low ebb. In March 1889, as set out above, Wirihana Hunia conveyed Muaupoko’s distress about the township survey – the displacement of tribal members and the reneging on promised township sections – to Native Minister Mitchelson. The following month, the Hunia brothers with their agent Donald Fraser also appear to have spearheaded opposition to the surveyed road around Lake Horowhenua being laid off, with some success.1042 In court in March 1890, discussing proposals for the partition of Horowhenua 3, there was a distinct feeling that Muaupoko residents were tired of being dictated to by these trustees, Raniera Te Whata, Makere Te Rou and her husband Te Rangimairehau joining Hoani Puihi’s protest over arrangements by Hunia and Kemp for Horowhenua 3 to which the residents themselves had not been party (see p. 184).1043 In what some people saw as a cynical move to appease his disgruntled supporters, Kemp had given £1000 to Makere Te Rou to distribute among Muaupoko shortly before the partition hearing.1044 Hoani Puihi later testified that every resident received £9 each, the balance returned to Kemp for court costs. ‘The distribution of the £1000 pleased the people’, he told the court in 1891, ‘it was for that reason he sent the money.’1045

Horowhenua 11 Partition 1890 The partition hearing began in February 1890 in Palmerston North under Judge Colonel Robert Trimble and assessor Pepene Eketone, of Taumarunui. Kemp was represented by Baker, and Warena Hunia by Barnicoat. Both men had applied for partition and for the first two weeks of February the parties attempted to settle out of court, without success. Over 13-15 February, both sides then stated their case in court. Warena Hunia was seeking an equal division of the block between the two owners, pointing out Kemp’s monopoly of the lease monies from McDonald. On the one hand Barnicoat denied any trust arrangement over Horowhenua 11, asking the court to dismiss the issue, while on the other he admitted that Warena represented his family’s interest in the block and reassured the court that Warena recognized that ‘he must look after the pas and the people living there’. In this regard, ‘Warena will be as good a Trustee as Kemp.’1046 Barnicoat also argued that customary title had been destroyed by Te Rauparaha’s invasion, suggesting that entitlement be determined on the basis of ‘acts of ownership and mana’.1047 Again, conversely, he nonetheless claimed that it was the question of ancestry of both men which was of utmost importance, claiming that of the two principal branches of

1042 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)’, Wai 2200 #A12, pp. 11-12. The correspondence register indicates that Hoani Puihi (Amorangi) was similarly opposed to the road around the lake, which Kemp had evidently supported, see Survey Department Wellington District Office Inwards Correspondence File 4472, in Alexander Supporting Documents, pp. 111-113. 1043 Otaki MB 13, pp. 136-137. 1044 See for example testimony of Makere Te Rou, 9 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 392; Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 6 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 320; Hoani Puihi, 18 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 295. 1045 Hoani Puihi, 18 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 295. 1046 ‘Warena will do what is just as between himself and the tribe’, Barnicoat, 13 February 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 86. 1047 Ibid, p. 87. 198

Muaupoko – Ngati Pariri and Ngati Hine – Horowhenua belonged to Pariri, Ngati Hine traditionally living on the other side of the Otaki river.1048 Warena Hunia had been placed in the title in 1886, it was argued, ‘because his father had exercised acts of ownership over the whole Block’, but as the grandson of Kaewa, he also belonged among the ‘original’ occupiers of Horowhenua.1049 For his part, Kemp repudiated Warena’s claim to the land through ancestry or ‘mana’, and Baker submitted that Hunia’s indebtedness to Fraser was driving the partition.1050 Kemp’s main contention however, was that he and Hunia held the land in trust for Muaupoko, their names on the title synonymous with chieftainship of old. As Baker explained:

The chiefs in the old days were the instruments through which the land was held. Now the authority of a chief is confirmed by the Court in the shape of a Title. Kemp is prepared to say that every acre of this land shall be awarded to the tribe and give a chance to Warena to carry out his trust – But to be inalienable.1051

As this statement suggests, Kemp did not rule out partition per se, as long as the trust status remained intact. As Baker explained to the court: ‘If Warena is to be awarded ½ of this land he should take ½ the tribe with him’, with both men to execute a declaration of trust before partition took place.1052

In addition to their own family members, few of whom were resident, and their long-standing association with Paki Te Hunga, who had spent much of his adult life among Ngati Apa at Turakina, the Hunia brothers were supported by key Muaupoko families at Horowhenua who were now clearly identifying themselves as Ngati Pariri.1053 This included the households of Tamati Maunu and Hanita Kowhai, both deceased, who had always lived apart from the community at Te Rae o Te Karaka.1054 It also included those affiliated with these whanau, like Tikara family members, who were said to have been resettled at Horowhenua by Hanita Kowhai. To some extent the Hunia brothers seem to have exploited an existing tension within the community: in the course of the 1890 partition hearing Te Rangimairehau revealed for example that Hamua members at Horowhenua not living among Ngai Te Ao were excluded from the distribution of lease monies from the block. ‘They are half-castes – Kemp

1048 Ibid, p. 84. 1049 Ibid, pp. 83-84. 1050 Baker, 14 February 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 91. 1051 Baker, 14 February 1890, p. 89 1052 Ibid, p.91. 1053 In counting their support, the dead were included with the living. Some indication of the level of support for the Hunia family can be determined from the 39 grantees of Horowhenua 3E1 awarded at this time, viz Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke, Himiona Kowhai, Te Paki te Hunga, Hoani Puihi, Pene Tikara, Motai Taueki, Pero Tikara, Ruka Hanuhanu, Kingi Puihi, Eparaima Paki, Te Oti te Hou, Mihiterina Kawana, Hiria Amorangi, Mata Hinekirangi, Hariata Tinotahi, Iritana, Rihipeti Tamaki, Mereana Matao, Rawinia Matao, Paranihia Riwai, Rakera Potaka, Meretene Whakaewa, Te Rangirurupuni, Inia Tamarake, Tamati Maunu, Himiona Taiweherua, Riwai te Amo, Heta Takapou, Akuira Takapo, Tiaki Te Kara, Maata Ngarongaro, Wiki Hanita, Merehira Te Marika, Peti Uku, Emiri Ngawhakawha, Heni Wairangi, Matenga Tinotahi, Petera Te Ha, and Henare Mahuika, Otaki MB 13, p. 139. See also John Stevens, Native Agent for Warena Hunia, ‘List of Persons who claim to have an interest in Section No.14, Horowhenua, comprising 1,200 acres’, Exhibit AK, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 318. 1054 Paki Te Hunga and Iritana Kowhai were siblings. Waata Muruahi told the Native Appellate Court in 1897 that Mereana Maunu, Rawinia Ihaia and Hema Henare were the only Ngati Pariri who remained with Kemp in the 1890 partition, 27 April 1897, AJHR 1898a, p. 17. 199 gives the rent to his own people.’1055 Motai Taueki and Paranihia (Riwai) were later singled out as having joined the Hunia party though not of Ngati Pariri.1056 Another key figure lending his weight to the Hunia side in the partition was Kemp’s cousin, Hoani Puihi, who was married to Hariata Tinotahi, Tamati Maunu’s daughter. As set out above, less than a year before Puihi’s kainga at Tirotiro had been sold from under his feet, his anger about the loss of his home directed at his cousin Kemp. The impact of this changing allegiance was significant, both in terms of the testimony Puihi gave in court regarding customary rights, and in terms of the numerical support Hunia’s case now enjoyed.1057

From 15 February to 8 March 1890 the court adjourned on a day to day basis, to allow the parties to settle outside. On 19 February Baker told the court that the parties had ‘virtually agreed’ on settlement, on the basis that in taking a ‘certain portion of the land’, Warena would take, too, a ‘certain portion of the people’, a list of whom had been settled outside.1058 The following day Barnicoat announced the block was to be divided in two, but more time was required to sort out details.1059 Alexander McDonald, employed as an interpreter for Barnicoat, told the court that afternoon that the parties were off to visit Horowhenua to view the land the next day. By 6 March the court was told by Barnicoat that the parties had ‘practically settled’, waiting only to have the terms of the arrangement put in writing.1060 Four days later, however, Kemp began his main evidence in court. The negotiations had fallen through.1061

Kemp was 70 years old at the time, and he stood and gave evidence for six full days. Kemp claimed the land on the basis of ancestry, and more particularly on continued occupation in the face of Te Rauparaha’s onslaught: ‘The Muaupokos fires have never gone out on this land.’1062 Ngati Hine, Ngai Te Ao, Ngati Riunga, Hamua, and Ngati Puri were the people he claimed had lived at Horowhenua, and he maintained those who had left to escape the conflict would not have as great an interest as those who had remained on the land permanently, ‘but these latter ones might shew love to them.’1063 In his account of this period, Kemp stressed the peacemaking between Te Whatanui and Taueki, and his own father’s role in the tribe’s resettlement at Horowhenua after Haowhenua. He also took credit for securing the tribe’s title to their land in 1873, within rohe that he had expanded, and for managing the tribe’s affairs since then. Kemp’s witnesses, Te Rangimairehau and Manihera Te Rau,

1055 Te Rangimairehau, 19 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 207. 1056 Waata Muruahi, 27 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 17. 1057 Puihi brought with him his two wives, Hiria Amorangi and Hariata Tinotahi, his son Kingi Puihi, and Hariata’s offspring, Ruka Hanuhanu and Hanita Henare. 1058 Baker, 19 February 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 100. 1059 Ibid, Barnicoat, 20 February 1890, p. 102. 1060 Otaki MB 13, p. 147. 1061 Kemp testified the following year that he had initially offered Warena 1000 acres, which had been turned down. Alternative proposals of dividing the land under deeds of trust, or of splitting the block three ways, with Kemp and Warena to receive 3000 acres each, and Muaupoko the balance also fell through, Kemp, 19 February 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 6. 1062 Kemp, 17 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 192. 1063 Ibid, 18 March 1890, p. 194. 200 corroborated his testimony about the role of his father, Tanguru, at Horowhenua in the 1830s, and the relative insignificance of Kawana Hunia. John McDonald, who had taken on his father’s lease of Muaupoko land, spoke of Kawana Hunia’s unsuccessful attempt in the face of Muaupoko opposition to fence off a portion of the block south of the Hokio stream.1064

Warena Hunia’s opposing claim had three main components. The first was an ancestral claim to Horowhenua based on the Hamua sisters Pariri, Te Rongopatahi and Kawainga, and an alleged boundary they had laid down between them. ‘All the Muaupokos know this boundary line’, testified Paki Te Hunga and Hoani Puihi.1065 The descendents of these sisters – Ngati Pariri and Ngati Rongo in particular, were said to have remained living at Horowhenua, on the island pa of Waipata and Te Pukeiti. The identification of well-known Muaupoko individuals at Horowhenua in the early years of resettlement as Ngati Pariri was used to reinforce this ancestral claim. Te Rangihouhia and his son Ihaka, Tamati Maunu, Wi Perahama, Marangaiururangi and Hanita Kowhai were all said to be Ngati Pariri chiefs.1066 Himiona Te Hopu, Te Rangirurupuni, Matene Pakauwera and Te Hapimana were said to be descendents of Rongopatahi.1067 Lastly, testimony was given as to Kawana Hunia’s role in challenging Ngati Raukawa’s hegemony in the 1860s and securing Muaupoko’s title to their tribal estate through initiatives like the building of Kupe.

Much of the testimony presented to the court was contentious. The individuals singled out as ‘Pariri’ by Wirihana Hunia and others for example, were described as Hamua by Te Rangimairehau, who claimed that Kawana Hunia’s post called ‘Pariri’ in 1879 was the first he had heard of a Ngati Pariri presence at Horowhenua, and that Tamati Maunu was the one who had ordered it be destroyed.1068 Even Warena Hunia’s witnesses, however, agreed that Horowhenua 11 had been vested in the two men in trust for the tribe. ‘All the tribe agreed that Kemp and Hunia’s names should go into this division’, Hoani Puihi told the court:

It was left for them to provide for the tribe – I looked upon Kemp as being a Trustee for the tribe in 1873 and I looked upon these two as Trustees in 1886. There was nothing said as to Trusteeship either before or in the Court. I considered that this land was meant for the tribe.1069

The argument over customary rights, the roles of both Kemp and Kawana Hunia, and the status of the title took more than three weeks. On 28 March 1890 Kemp was disconcerted by the court’s

1064 Otaki MB 13, p. 218. 1065 Paki Te Hunga, 20 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 221; Hoani Puihi, 24 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 236. 1066 Hoani Puihi, 24 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 234. 1067 Paki Te Hunga, 20 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 222. 1068 Te Rangimairehau, 18 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 197. According to Te Rangimairehau, Kawana Hunia’s mother Kaewa was of Ngati Rangi, associated with southern kainga from Waikawa to Paikakariki, 18 March 1890, MB 13, pp. 195- 196. 1069 Hoani Puihi, 25 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 243. Paki Te Hunga was similarly clear that Kemp and Hunia held the land in trust for the tribe, 22 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 231. 201 announcement that a valuer was to be sent to Horowhenua, protesting that the relative shares of the two parties should be decided according to Maori custom.1070 Three days later Baker announced his intention to put in a declaration of trust for Muaupoko over the portion to be awarded to Kemp, and asked that the legality of dividing the land on the basis of valuation be referred to the Supreme Court.1071 Judge Trimble’s response did not bode well: ‘This land is not held in Trust for a tribe or hapu. I think there is nothing that is not within the Jurisdiction of the present Court.’1072 The closing addresses were made over 2-3 April, before the Easter break. By 9 April the valuation had been made and the following day the court issued its judgement. As intimated the week before, the court did not address the issue of trust, confining its consideration to how the block should be divided between the two grantees. Indeed, the basis of the court’s decision was not set out at all. The ruling more or less cut the block in half, the division between Horowhenua 11A and 11B intersecting Horowhenua Lake and the Hokio Stream. Kemp was awarded the larger northern section, Horowhenua 11A of 8101 acres valued at £13,392. Hunia was awarded Horowhenua 11B of 6724 acres valued at £12,244. The grants for these partitions were to date from 10 April 1873. The partition order with these figures was to be referred to the Supreme Court in answer to its query about the relative shares of the two grantees.1073

Kemp later alleged that Trimble’s judgement confirmed what had been suggested outside court by Donald Fraser. ‘I think Mr Fraser must have been speaking to Judge Trimble.’1074 He promptly placed a caveat on the title and applied for a rehearing.

Native Affairs Committee Report 1890 Later that year the Native Affairs Committee held an inquiry into Kemp and Muaupoko’s 1890 petition. It concluded that a trust had been understood when Horowhenua 11 was created, and recommended that legislation be provided to authorise a rehearing of the block, with the object of dividing it among the several parties concerned.1075 In the meantime, however, Kemp had applied for a rehearing. Lewis advised Native Minister Mitchelson to hold over any decision about the committee’s recommendation until the Chief Judge had decided whether to grant one.1076 A further request from Kemp for legislation similar to that regarding the Ngarara block, preventing individuals with small interests – and he named Warena Hunia and Donald Fraser – from selling, was put off for

1070 28 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 260. 1071 31 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 268. 1072 Ibid. 1073 Judgement, 10 April 1890, Otaki MB 13, pp. 278-279. 1074 Kemp, 6 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 318. 1075 R Monk, chairperson Native Affairs Committee, 20 August 1890, MA 75/3/15 [DB:763]. 1076 Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister Mitchelson, file note, 23 August 1890, MA 75/3/15 [DB:766]. 202 the same reason.1077 The Native Affairs Committee’s inquiry also seems to have prompted a petition from Ngati Raukawa, wanting the original title investigation reopened.1078

Those who had supported Hunia’s partition case earlier in the year were opposed to the rehearing. Hoani Puihi and 11 others of Muaupoko told the Native Minister in August 1890 that they had suffered as a result of Kemp’s mismanagement, kept out of any lease revenue and payment for the township block. Moreover, they prophesied:

If a further hearing is granted the whole of this block will go to pay the lawyers to be engaged by Meiha Keepa and Hunia and other expenses that are to be incurred under the law. We therefore agree to the course proposed by Warena, namely, that he and Meiha Keepa should talk the matter over and make some arrangements as to land for us the Muaupoko tribe. We are not afraid of this young man because we are confident that he will not follow any other course with regard to the tribe tha[n] that followed by his father. Up to his death his father never wronged any of his hapus, Muaupoko and Ngatiapa. But that man Keepa has done us much wrong.1079

For a while it does seem that arbitration was entertained to resolve the dispute. HD Bell, Kemp’s latest lawyer set out an argument in favour of arbitration on 30 August 1890 to determine the relative interests of those entitled to the block; whether any part should be given to Hunia or Kemp severally; and whether Kemp had accounted, according to Maori custom, for the income he had received.1080 It was argued that arbitration would be best for the tribe, saving them the expense of litigation for a trust which was too vague for a court of law to establish. It would also be best for Kemp, saving him from having to account Pakeha-style for income he had received and spent according to Maori custom. Arbitration by a Native Land Court judge, Bell urged, would replace a court of law with one of equity and Maori custom, a cheaper and more effective means of achieving a final and immediate settlement of issues. On 4 September 1890 Seth-Smith of the Native Land Court let Under-Secretary Lewis know that the application for rehearing had been put off another week pending negotiations to settle the issue through arbitration.1081 Nothing however came of this. On the 15 September 1890 Kemp, represented by Bell and Baker, argued for a rehearing on the grounds that he and Warena Hunia held the land in trust for Muaupoko. The rehearing was granted, the Chief Judge ruling:

1077 Major Kemp to Native Minister Mitchelson, 20 August 1890, MA 75/3/15 [DB:774]. 1078 See Petition 12/1890 of Kipa Te Whatanui and 76 others, MA 75/3/15 [DB:777]. In a subsequent letter to Mitchelson, Kipa Te Whatanui urged that neither Kemp nor Wirihana be allowed to sell any part of Horowhenua, 8 September 1890, MA 75/3/15 [DB:788]. Like the earlier petition, this letter bore the note from the Assistant Under-Secretary Morpeth, that a rehearing of the 1873 title investigation could not be entertained. 1079 Hoani Amorangi, Peene Tikera, Kingi Hoani, Amorangi Rihara, Himiona Kowhai, Iritana Hanita, Hariata Tinotahi, Haana Rata, Wiki Nahona, Hiria Amorangi, Raraku Hunia and Rawinia Matao to Native Minister Mitchelson, 10 August 1890, MA 75/3/15 [DB:768]. 1080 HD Bell, 30 August 1890, MA 75/3/15 [DB:782]. 1081 HJ Seth-Smith to Under-Secretary Lewis, 4 September 1890, MA 75/3/15 [DB:781]. 203

The case shapes itself in this way. Both myself and the assessor think that it was the intention that Muaupoko should retain some kind of interest in this land, whatever it may be, and if they are now ousted from any legal rights it is from the positions taken up in this Court, and we are satisfied that the opinion of the Supreme Court should be taken as to what their interest is. If you can agree upon a case without the necessity of a rehearing, then I should be prepared to make an Order that the question should be referred to the Supreme Court. If you cannot agree upon a case I shall order a rehearing for the purpose of ascertaining all the facts, upon the terms that when these facts are ascertained, the question of law should be submitted to the Supreme Court. If there is any legal mode of pursuing the enquiry, it ought to be pursued.1082

1891 Partition rehearing The rehearing began on 16 February 1891 before Judges Scannell and Mair in Palmerston North. Cuff appeared for Kemp and Barnicoat for Warena Hunia. The whole day appears to have been spent arguing about what the Chief Judge had intended by his order for rehearing cited above. Barnicoat seems to have wanted to confine the issue before the court to the question of trust, without repeating the proceedings of the previous year with respect to the relative interests of Kemp and Hunia.1083 Cuff however considered that the duty of the court was to determine the relative interests of the two men in the block. Kemp was not happy, claiming that the lawyers were delaying proceedings and misleading the court.1084 When the rehearing recommenced on 31 March, Kemp had got himself a new lawyer, JM Fraser.1085

Despite the recent finding of the Native Affairs Committee that a trust had been created in 1886, the court made it clear early on that it could not consider this issue:

Court is of opinion that as it has no jurisdiction to decide as to whether a trust was or was not intended when the certificate was issued in 1886 to take evidence on that point would be a waste of time, especially as any such evidence even if taken would not be accepted by the Sup[reme] Court.1086

Under cross-examination by Fraser, Warena Hunia equivocated about his role as trustee for Ngati Pariri, finally declaring that the land was his alone on the basis of the 1886 partition, and that Muaupoko had knowingly consented to abandon their claim to Horowhenua 11 in favour of Kemp and himself. The roles of counsel were now reversed: Barnicoat wanting to confine the argument to the relative interests of the two men, and Fraser, for Kemp, arguing that the whole essence of the case was that Kemp and Hunia held the land in a fiduciary capacity. Once again, the court reminded counsel

1082 Chief Judge, 15 September 1890, cited in Petition 201/1892, MA 75/3/15 [DB:839-40]. 1083 Barnicoat, 18 February 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 44. 1084 19 February 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 6. Cuff then asked for an adjournment in order that Parliament might carry out the recommendation of the Native Affairs Committee, arguing that ‘the Court cannot do its duty till the question of title is settled.’ Otaki MB 21A, p. 49. 1085 Fraser had acted as agent for Kemp since March 1890, appearing in the 1890 partition with Baker, and before the 1890 Native Affairs Committee , taking charge of Kemp’s case at the 1891 rehearing, see JM Fraser, 16 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 44. 1086 31 March 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 255. 204 that it could not consider the issue of trust.1087 The court’s position did not prevent Kemp and his supporting Muaupoko witnesses from expressing their conviction that the land was held in trust. It did however effectively focus the argument on the relative interests of Kemp and Warena Hunia, raising once again the controversy over their respective ancestry, occupation, and roles within Muaupoko, argued over three weeks of hearing in a great deal more detail.

Kemp began by relating the events surrounding the award of Horowhenua 11 to himself and Hunia in trust for the tribe. This land, he reminded the court, resembled a European settlement and had been inhabited from ancient times to the present. Kemp claimed the whole block through ancestry from Puaki Te Ao and Parangi; continuous occupation since then evidenced by conquest and cultivation; and his chieftainship within Muaupoko, evidenced by the management of their affairs since the 1860s. His case focussed on the role and position of his Muaupoko father, Tanguru, of Ngati Te Riunga and Ngai Te Ao.1088 Kemp claimed that Tanguru was living at Papaitonga when Te Rauparaha first arrived and at Horowhenua throughout the 1830s, and that he played a key role in Muaupoko’s resistance throughout. In his narrative of conflict with Te Rauparaha and tangata heke groups, Kemp emphasised Muaupoko’s strength, highlighting their victories and minimising their defeats. He also denied that the peacemaking between Taueki and Te Whatanui implied any ‘protection’ of the Horowhenua community.

Once again, Kemp denied the customary rights of Ngati Pariri at Horowhenua. ‘I don’t know that name – it is only lately I have heard it. It was set up by Kawana Hunia as his hapu – I never heard it from the elders before.’1089 He was also dismissive of Kawana Hunia’s claims to chieftainship over the tribe, citing for example Muaupoko’s opposition to his 1879 attempt to subdivide and fence off a portion of Horowhenua 11 for ‘Pariri’: ‘Muaupoko objected to his being among them, he was anxious to get among them, but they would only admit him through ‘Aroha’.1090 Pressed if Muaupoko ever regarded Kawana Hunia as their leader or chief, he replied, ‘No. If they ever had the same feeling towards me as they had to him they would not admit me, and if I had not belonged to them they would not have me they have chiefs of their own.’1091 Kemp’s testimony was largely corroborated by Te Rangimairehau and Manihera Te Rau, who had both testified at the previous hearing, and in addition Makere Te Rou, Raniera Te Whata, and Karaitiana Tarawai gave evidence in support. These witnesses admitted a Hamua presence at Horowhenua, but they all claimed that Ngati Pariri was a modern invention of Kawana Hunia’s.

1087 1 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, pp. 272-275. 1088 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 6 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 323. 1089 Ibid. 1090 Ibid, 3 April 1891, p. 312. 1091 Ibid. 205

Warena Hunia’s counter claim did not get off to a good start. The first three of his witnesses briefly attested to the ancient boundary between Hamua sisters Pariri and Te Rongopatahi, but all three were from outside Horowhenua, and none of them could give any details about the alleged boundary.1092 The ancestral take of Ngati Pariri was largely left to Paki Te Hunga and Hoani Puihi, who both attested to the ancient boundary between the sisters from Hokiopuni on the coast to the Tararua ranges, as told to them by resident Muaupoko since deceased, namely Tamati Maunu, Wereta Maihi, Te Rangirurupuni, and Matene Pakauwera.1093 Refining his performance of the previous year, Paki Te Hunga presented whakapapa of various Muaupoko individuals from the union of Pariri and Te Hukui, both of whom he maintained had lived at Horowhenua, in his bid to show continuous occupation. Five years later, although still identifying as Ngati Pariri, Paki Te Hunga ‘confessed’ to the Horowhenua Commission that the evidence he had given at this rehearing had been manufactured by Donald Fraser and Wirihana Hunia, and that he had known at the time it was false.1094 Hoani Puihi, too, similarly testified years later that his evidence in both 1890 and 1891 had been fabricated outside court beforehand by Alexander McDonald, Fraser and Wirihana, to ‘suppress any evidence favourable to the tribe Muaupoko and Kemp, and to exalt the claims of Ngatipariri and Hunia.’1095 In addition to his grievance about Tirotiro, Puihi explained that: ‘I was indirectly promised a reward for suppressing the truth. I was told to occupy Tii and Ta te Arero, and clear it, and then to wait.’1096

Pariri’s ancestry from Tupatunui, seven generations back, was also submitted to court, together with the story about the tribal name deriving from the upoko of this tupuna.1097 Like the year before, Hunia’s witnesses emphasised the role of Te Rangihouhia and Te Hakeke in both pre- and post- Treaty developments. Wirihana Hunia reiterated evidence he had given in Trimble’s court the previous year, of a waiata Te Hakeke had sung to his son Kawana Hunia urging him to ‘recover back the land of his father & his mother’.1098 And his father had done so, Wirihana Hunia stated, by

1092 The three were Hotene Karaitiana of Ngati Kahungunu, Hamuera Tangatakino, from Masterton, and Riripeti Tamaki, of Woodville, 10-14 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, pp. 217-255. 1093 Paki Te Hunga, 14 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 256; Hoani Puihi, 17 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 289. The boundary given by Paki Te Hunga ran from Hokiopuni on the coast, to Tirotirowhetu, to Ohenga, to Papoitoi, Kawakawa, Poriroawhera, Koropu, Tutohu, Umutapariri, Te Heketauna, Umatauiai, Te Awaatatau, Kiwau, up a spur called O Tawa Te Kiakia, Arapaipai, Harurunui, to Tauatakahikatea. 1094 Paki Te Hunga, 1 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 158. He told the commission in 1896 that the land to the south did in fact belong to Ngati Te Riunga, but retracted this in 1897, when he again claimed ancestral rights to Waiwiri through Pariri, AJHR 1897 G-2, pp. 89-90. In the Native Appellate Court hearing of 1897 Paki again admitted that in 1891 he ‘swore what was false in order to save Warena and defeat Kemp’. His admission, he explained, had been prompted by his ‘pouritanga’ at the actions of the Hunia brothers: ‘My pouri was caused by my children having taken the land’, Paki Te Hunga, 1 April 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 90. 1095 Hoani Puihi, 6 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 107. 1096 Ibid. 1097 Wirihana Hunia explained to the court ‘Tupatunui was the ancestor from whom the Muaupoko was derived – Tupatunui’s head was cut off & put on a rock near Porirua, the greater number are descended from him not absolutely all.’ 22 April 1891, Otaki MB 15, p. 16. 1098 Wirihana Hunia, 21 April 1891, Otaki MB 14, p. 324. 206 winning back Horowhenua: ‘if not Muaupoko would have been at mercy of N Raukawa’.1099 Both Donald Fraser and Alexander McDonald also appeared as witnesses for the Hunia case.

Judgement was delivered on 9 May. As indicated at the outset, the court considered that the only matter it had jurisdiction to deal with was the question of relative interests between the two owners, and on the basis of the evidence before it (which it did not comment on), the court confirmed the 1890 partition order. In doing so however, it ‘felt bound to add’ that:

from what has transpired during the hearing of the case as well as what it has seen during the inspection of the block it is very evident that the issue of the order in 1886 in the names of Meiha Kepa Te Rangihiwinui and Warena Te Hakeke was a severe loss to the Muaupoko tribe.

The partition order of 1886 followed by the Land Transfer Certificate made those two the sole legal owners of a piece of land which up to that time was a part, and the most important part of the tribal estate of Muaupoko where from time immemorial they had lived and cultivated. It is not within the province of this Court to inquire as to how or for what purpose the certificate for that parcel, clearly the common property of the bulk of the people of Muaupoko was issued in the name of two persons only, but the Court feels that under the whole circumstances it is its duty to lay such facts as are within its knowledge before the Chief Judge, in order that if any application is made on the subject he would be in a position to advise as to whether it would be desirable to institute further inquiry into the whole matter with a view to ultimate justice being done to all parties.1100

The finding was a severe disappointment to Kemp and Muaupoko beneficiaries. On the other hand, the judges’ comments only fuelled their efforts to obtain legislative intervention to have the tribal estate restored to the tribe.

Attempts at resolution, 1891 – Throughout the remainder of 1891 there appears to have been at least four different interest groups at work on Horowhenua 11. The first of these was spear-headed by Kemp, represented by JM Fraser, who reportedly wanted Horowhenua 11 vested in those Muaupoko individuals deemed to be entitled, necessitating another hearing.1101 The confirmation of the partition order in May 1891 prompted a rapid appeal from Kemp to the Native Minister. As his lawyers pointed out, the ruling left Hunia entitled to 7,000 acres ‘which belongs to others and of which it was never intended by anyone that he should be the owner.’1102 The legal firm Bell Gully & Izard asked for legislation to enable them to assert the trust, and signalled their intent to take further legal action on the matter. In the meantime Parliament was asked to prevent the completion of the subdivision (including the survey of it) until the determination of the claim. The matter was referred to Chief Judge Seth-Smith, who responded favourably with his own draft Bill and recommended that Bell Gully & Izard do the same to give

1099 Ibid. 1100 Horowhenua 11 judgement, 9 May 1891, Otaki MB 15, pp. 123-124. 1101 WJ Butler to Under-Secretary Lewis, 8 June 1891, MA 75/3/15 [DB:807]. 1102 Bell Gully & Izard to Native Minister, 13 May 1891, MA 75/3/15 [DB:796]. 207 effect to their request.1103 Under-Secretary Lewis grudgingly accepted this advice: in his opinion the whole problem lay with the Native Land Court’s sanction of the voluntary arrangement in 1886 instead of determining individual ownership based on a judicial inquiry into their customary rights, a curious position given his involvement in the 1886 hearing.1104 He also pointed out that if Horowhenua 11 was to be reheard, it would not be long before the same issues surfaced with regard to Horowhenua 12 and ‘perhaps other sections’. The whole matter was referred to Balance, now Premier, who responded on 22 May:

I think legislation is required to prevent gross abuse of a so-called trust under which, as sanctioned by the judgment of the Court, the real owners will be robbed of the property. The report of the Judge is specific and clear in its statement & recommendations.

The Bill should be introduced as a Government measure and prepared by the Law officers. The draft Bill of the Chief Judge is incomplete, as Horowhenua No.12 should be included.

The principle is the same as that provided for by the Equitable Owners Act. When the Bill is in type a copy should be sent to Messrs Bell & Gully for their information, and the intention of the Govt to introduce it intimated.

The Surveyor General should refuse to authorise the survey, and care should be taken in the Bill to protect the Land Transfer Insurance Fund.1105

This message was duly passed on to the Chief Judge, the Surveyor-General in turn being instructed to withhold authorisation of the survey to prevent any dealings with the block.1106

The result, prepared by July 1891, was the Horowhenua Subdivision Lands Bill, ‘An Act to enable the Native Land Court to inquire into and determine the Claims of certain Aboriginal Natives to Portions of the Horowhenua Block.’1107 The preamble related the 1873 award of Horowhenua to 143 registered owners of Muaupoko, and the 1886 grant of Horowhenua 11 to Kemp and Hunia, and continued:

And whereas the houses and cultivations of the whole or many of the members of the said Muaupoko Tribe are situate on the said portion named Horowhenua number eleven, and the said division was made in pursuance of a voluntary arrangement made in ignorance of the legal effect thereof by the several owners of the said block with the intention that the said Keepa Te Rangihiwinui and Warena Te Hakeke should hold the

1103 Chief Judge Seth-Smith, 14 May 1891, note on coversheet, MA 75/3/15 [DB:799]. 1104 ‘Cases of this kind are numerous’, Lewis advised, ‘… and the result has been I think unsatisfactory in all cases & extremely so in some.’ Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister, note on cover sheet, 14 May 1891, MA 75/3/15 [DB:799]. In a further note he explained: ‘When a title has passed to a native he cannot divest himself of his property without a number of formalities to ensure that he perfectly understands what he is doing – but under the voluntary arrangement clause as it has been interpreted by the Court by their absence or silence or by simply assenting to a proposal before the Court owners can part with their property in a way only conceivable by supposing that they did not in the first understand what they were doing.’ Under-Secretary Lewis to Native Minister, note on cover sheet, 15 May 1891, MA 75/3/15 [DB:799-800]. 1105 Ballance, note on above, 22 May 1891. 1106 Under-Secretary Lewis to Chief Judge Seth-Smith, 23 May 1891, MA 75/3/15 [DB:803]. 1107 Horowhenua Subdivision Lands Bill, MA 75/3/15 [DB:815]. 208

said portion of the said block for the benefit of all or some of the persons whose names have been so registered as aforesaid.1108

In effect, the Bill assumed a trust not only over Horowhenua 11, but also over Horowhenua 12 which had been vested in Ihaia Taueki and Horowhenua 6, the ‘rerewaho’ block vested in Kemp, and empowered the Native Land Court to determine the beneficial owners among Muaupoko of these three blocks. The Bill became the subject of petition by Warena Hunia, discussed below, and was never introduced. Kemp and members of Muaupoko also petitioned Parliament in 1891, praying for legislation to restore the equitable rights of the tribe in Horowhenua 11, and to free Kemp from having to account for monies received as trustee.1109 What was passed on 25 September 1891 was the Native Land Court Acts Amendment Act, Section 3 of which provided that Horowhenua 6, 11, and 12, were to be inalienable in any manner whatever, and any proceedings with regard to these blocks stayed, until the end of the next session of the General Assembly. JM Fraser later maintained that Cadman had supported the legislation on the understanding that Fraser would do his best to bring about a mediated resolution within twelve months.1110

The second interest group, represented by Warena Hunia but really driven by his power of attorney Donald Fraser, was understandably against any further rehearing.1111 Warena already owed Fraser for the partition litigation, and Fraser was frustrated by his inability to deal with Warena’s resulting title. On 1 July 1891 Donald Fraser attempted a compromise, which was submitted via the Native Minister.1112 Warena Hunia would accept 3500 acres from the portion awarded by the court as his share, ‘not including any cultivation or houses’, but to front the railway and take in a small portion of the lake. The balance of his award would be handed back to the tribe ‘who by residence or otherwise have the best claim’ and the present judgement would be confirmed, allowing Warena to receive his 3,500 acres at once. The offer was passed on to Kemp, and ultimately rejected. Kemp told the Horowhenua Commission in 1896 that he had refused Fraser’s proposal because ‘they wanted to cut the eyes out of this country for themselves, and to leave the bush and the sandy and worthless parts of it for the tribe. I said, ‘That will not do; you must take it right across the block.’ There was nothing done. They would not agree; and they threatened, and said, ‘well, you will see; wait’.1113 At the time, Warena Hunia claimed the proposed 3500-acre settlement comprised bush land which had never been used by the tribe, and that both Muaupoko and Kemp agreed in principle to the proposal, but that settlement was frustrated by disputes ‘on matters of minor importance’.1114 As discussed below, one

1108 Ibid. 1109 Petition 123/1891, of Kemp and 18 Muaupoko members, described in AJHR 1892 I-3, p. 16, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:897]. Kemp later alleged that the 1891 petition was brought forward too late to enable the Native Affairs Committee to make any report, see Petition 201/1892 in MA 75/3/15 [DB:843]. 1110 JM Fraser, 16 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 45. 1111 Warena Hunia to Native Minister, 22 June 1891, MA 75/3/15 [DB:811]. 1112 Donald Fraser to Native Minister, 1 July 1891, MA 75/3/15 [DB:814]. 1113 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2 p. 31. 1114 Warena Te Hakeke, 27 July 1891, Petition 452/1891, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:870]. 209 such matter was the fact that Hunia was after 200 acres bordering Lake Horowhenua ‘where my “matua’s” houses are’ (see p. 214; also p. 224).1115 It is likely that by July Kemp was encouraged at the prospect of having title to the whole block revisited, as provided for in the draft legislation described above, which may well have been a factor in his rejection of the compromise.

At the end of July 1891 a lengthy petition, signed by Warena Te Hakeke (the same Warena Hunia) and presented by Otaki Member, James G Wilson, protested against the Horowhenua Subdivision Lands Bill about to be introduced to Parliament, which would ‘deprive him of his Ancestral lands to which he has a good and indefeasible title in law.’1116 Warena claimed that Horowhenua 11 had been awarded to him as representative of the Hunia family ‘by virtue of his father’s large claims in the block, by virtue of his father’s high chieftainship, and by virtue of the very great and important services which his father had for many years performed for the Muaupoko tribe.’1117 He denied being a trustee of the land, ‘either in the legal or popular meaning of that term’.1118 Warena’s primary contention was that the trust presumed in the legislation had never been argued or proved in law.1119 There could not be any fair or reasonable legislation, the petition argued, until the issue of trust had first been inquired into and determined by a commission. Such a commission, the petition went on, might also inquire into Kemp’s dealings with other Horowhenua partitions ‘vested in Major Kemp upon trusts which no one disputes but which have never been carried out.’1120 If Horowhenua 11 was to be reheard, then the whole 1886 arrangement should be rescinded and the beneficial ownership to the entire 52,000-acre block be investigated.1121

In early September 1891, on Donald Fraser’s instructions, Barnicoat approached the Native Minister about allowing the survey of the proposed 3500-acre settlement, so that title could finally issue to Warena Hunia. This was justified on the basis that ‘not the least attempt seems to have been made by Major Kemp to meet him in this direction fairly or in a spirit of compromise’ and that Hunia had incurred ‘very great expense (though unwillingly and of necessity) in defending and asserting his rights’.1122 He could not pay these expenses, the Native Minister was told, unless he was able to deal with part of the land. Three weeks later, with the passage of the Native Land Court Acts Amendment Act 1891 set out above, Fraser and Hunia were debarred from dealing with the land for another twelve months.

1115 W Hunia to Native Minister Cadman, 14 November 1892, MA 75/3/15 [DB:910]. 1116 Petition 452/1891, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:876]. 1117 Ibid. 1118 Ibid. 1119 Hunia pointed out that in both the 1890 partition hearing and 1891 rehearing, the court declined to hear evidence on the issue of trusts. He also claimed to have been prejudicially treated in the Native Affairs Committee inquiry of 1890, by the poor notice, the decision not to allow counsel, and the reopening of the inquiry without notice. 1120 Petition 452/1891, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:876]. 1121 Ibid. 1122 Barnicoat to Native Minister Cadman, 2 September 1891, MA 75/3/15 [DB:818]. 210

Warena Hunia’s position was published in September 1892, the seven-page ‘Statement of Warena Te Hakeke’ once again patently the work of Donald Fraser.1123 In this statement, Hunia emphatically denied that he held Horowhenua 11 in trust for Muaupoko, arguing that the tribe had ‘voluntarily and deliberately’ allowed it to be awarded to him as an ‘absolute owner’, as the representative of the Hunia family, ‘by virtue of my father’s large claims in the block, and his high rank as a chief, and on account of the very great and important services which he had for many years performed for the Muaupoko tribe.’1124 Hunia rebutted any notion of trust by pointing out Kemp’s failings with regard to the transfer of Horowhenua 6, the spent revenue from the sale of Horowhenua 2, the distribution of lease income from Horowhenua 11 and, significantly, private transactions with Walter Buller over Horowhenua 14.

A third interest group with their eyes on Horowhenua were those wanting the land ‘settled’. A deputation from the Manakau Special Settlement Association, based 12 kilometres south of Levin, waited on Minister of Lands John McKenzie in April 1891 – while the partition rehearing was going on – to have the government develop a similar settlement with Maori land at Horowhenua.1125 The matter was referred to Native Minister Cadman, Under-Secretary Lewis duly reporting that 4000 acres (the township block) had already been acquired by the Crown and placed on the market. The only portion with which dealings were possible, he explained, was Horowhenua 11, which was before the Native Land Court for the partition rehearing, and nothing could be done in the meantime.1126 Lewis was instructed by his Minister to see if the land could be acquired as soon as the title had been sorted, and the settlement association was duly informed of where matters stood.1127

It would be logical to suppose that these government ambitions were put on hold in the wake of Premier Ballance’s admission in May 1891 that the land was held in trust, and that beneficial ownership should be determined. It should be noted however that Fraser’s compromise of 3,500 acres dovetailed nicely with a government settlement scheme. The Native Minister was privy to the attempted mediation, and at Barnicoat’s suggestion, in June Cadman also agreed to WJ Butler, the Crown’s land purchasing officer based in Whanganui, assisting with the settlement as long as he was careful to ‘avoid even the appearance of taking any side in the matter’, the government’s ‘whole desire being to see an equitable division of the land amongst all the persons interested.’1128 Butler

1123 ‘Statement of Warena Te Hakeke (sometimes called Warena Hunia)’, Wanganui Herald Newspaper Company, 1892, in MA W1369/27 [86], CFRT DB, A67(a): 4532-4535. 1124 Ibid, pp. 3-4. 1125 Minister of Lands McKenzie to Cadman, memo, 17 April 1891, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1234]. 1126 Note on above. 1127 Coversheet on above. 1128 Under-Secretary Lewis to Land Purchase Officer WJ Butler, 6 June 1891, MA 75/3/15 [DB:805]. 211 however declined to get involved in the dispute: ‘Kemp’s suspicions will be aroused at once…’1129 The Native Department was aware that land was changing hands fast at Horowhenua: an article detailing some of the larger transactions was placed on file.1130 Cadman’s refusal to proceed with the purchase of Horowhenua 3E3 in November 1891 on the grounds that the block was better suited for individual private purchase (see p. 188), indicates the Minister was primarily interested in larger-scale government development. The idea that the legislative prohibition from September 1891 against dealing with Horowhenua 11 acted as a brake on Crown purchasing ambitions also needs to be weighed against evidence that the government entertained the purchase of Horowhenua 12 in this period, which was also affected by the 1891 Act. Horowhenua 12 had been offered to the Crown for 8s 6d per acre in August 1891 by JM Fraser on behalf of Ihaia Taueki.1131 Cadman had requested a government valuation of the block despite his Under Secretary’s advice that it was to be included in the impending legislation. When the valuation was received in November, Sheridan noted that there was ‘no immediate hurry’ to proceed with any purchase, the block being ‘locked up’ by Section 3, but the following month he proceeded with negotiations anyway.1132 On the basis of the government valuation, Taueki was offered 4 shillings per acre for the whole block on 3 February 1892, which was declined on account of being too low.1133

In July 1892 another approach was made by a Pakeha resident of Otaki to Sheridan exhorting the benefits of government settlement at Horowhenua. Sheridan responded to the query that in view of the litigation and controversy over the block, the government was unlikely to acquire further land at present.1134 On the file he also commented: ‘If it were possible to acquire any more of the Horowhenua block the Govt would have done so long enough ago. There is very little prospect of any considerable portion of it being acquired during Kemp’s lifetime.’1135 As it transpired, however, by this time the government had already begun to form plans around acquiring land for an experimental state farm (see p. 215).

The fourth factor in the mix was that of Ngati Raukawa, who saw the dispute as an opportunity to have their longstanding grievance over the 1873 title revisited. Ngati Raukawa’s campaign to reopen the title of Horowhenua began in 1880 with four separate petitions to this end.1136 Kipa Te Whatanui also petitioned in September 1890, calling for a royal commission to inquire into the court awards of

1129 WJ Butler to Under-Secretary Lewis, 8 June 1891, MA 75/3/15 [DB:807]. 1130 Foxton Herald, nd, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1243]. 1131 JM Fraser to Native Minister Cadman, 5 August 1891, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1246]. 1132 Sheridan notes, dated 1 December 1891 and 13 January 1892, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1256]. 1133 JM Fraser to Sheridan, 16 February 1892, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1251]. 1134 Sheridan to Webbe, 26 July 1892, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1249]. 1135 Ibid, Sheridan, nd. 1136 The substance of the petitions and what happened is set out in Hearn, pp. 626-630. 212

1873 and 1886, which was repeated in June 1891.1137 Ngati Raukawa’s ongoing campaign to 1924 has been summarised by Anderson and Pickens.1138 Although it has not been the subject of research for this report, it remained nonetheless a factor in the political decision-making over Horowhenua.

The fifth party, of course, was the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua themselves. After two antagonistic partition hearings the community, like the land, was divided. The main body at Te Rae o Te Karaka, a community of about 60, still largely supported Kemp. Hunia’s supporters were said to number around 30, but not all of these were resident, including Warena himself.1139 The resident Ngati Pariri contingent lived south of the Hokio stream. In May 1891, immediately following the partition rehearing, a meeting was held at Pipiriki pa where Hunia’s settlement proposal was discussed by the tribe. According to JM Fraser who attended, Muaupoko initially agreed to give Hunia 3000 acres to settle the dispute.1140 Not, he added, because they admitted his right, but on the strength of Kemp and Fraser’s argument that it would bring an end to expensive litigation. According to Fraser, the deal became unstuck the following day when Wirihana countered with the condition that his family also receive part of the lake, in order to secure fishing rights.1141 ‘Kemp became angry at this request,’ Fraser testified, ‘refused to listen to it, and further said that he had had enough of the deceit of that party.’1142 The opportunity to end the dispute was lost, the meeting itself becoming the fuel of fresh allegations over Kemp’s management of Horowhenua 6 and 14.

The division within Muaupoko remained unreconciled. The support among Ngati Pariri for a negotiated settlement is evidenced by the subsequent 1891 petition of Himiona Kowhai and 31 others of Muaupoko.1143 Although the signatories are not included on the copy of the petition on file, it is reasonable to assume that they were the same people who had supported Hunia’s case in the 1890 and 1891 partition. Like Hunia, the petitioners were opposed to the proposed legislation referring the equitable ownership back to the Native Land Court, and seemed to support Donald Fraser’s proposal to end the dispute by awarding Hunia and Kemp 3,500 acres each, provided that the balance that Muaupoko received contained their homes, cultivations and fisheries ‘where we the Muaupoko Tribe have lived permanently for generations’.1144 If title were reopened, it was argued, ‘there will ensue

1137 Kipa Te Whatanui and others, Petitions 12/1890 and 156/1891, in MA 75/3/15. Again, these are discussed by Hearn, pp.630-633. 1138 Anderson and Pickens, chapter 9. 1139 Warena Hunia subsequently listed his supporters as Paki Te Hunga, Himiona Hanita (Kowhai), Hoani Puihi, Peene Tikara, Ruka Hanuhanu, Kingi Puihi, Hema Henare, Hanita Henare, Hoani Nahona, Iritana Hanita, Hariata Hoani, Wiki Te Oi, Hiria Hoani, Hana Rata, Ripeka Hoani, Ngawai Kingi, Rihipeti Nireaha, Riria Peene, and Te Raraku Te Rangi, Warena Hunia Te Hakeke to Native Minister, 29 May 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1289]. 1140 JM Fraser, 16 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 46. 1141 Ibid, pp. 45-46. 1142 Ibid, p. 45. 1143 Petition 241/1891 in MA 75/3/15 [DB:867]. 1144 Ibid. 213 endless trouble, delay and expense and confusion as to our boundaries.’ Moreover, it was claimed, the petitioners neither had the familiarity with court, nor the financial resources to argue their case.1145

As set out above, Kemp and Muaupoko members petitioned Parliament at the close of the 1891 session, praying for legislation to restore the equitable rights of the tribe in Horowhenua 11, and to free Kemp from having to account for monies received as trustee.1146 Petitions of the following year indicate that the majority of the Muaupoko community supported Kemp’s initiative to have the matter referred back to court (see below).

‘Protection’ under the government proclamation, 1892 – By February 1892 the dispute was no closer to resolution. Kemp had failed to obtain a statutory directive to determine beneficial ownership to the block, but he had prevented Hunia from obtaining title based on the partition order, and Donald Fraser from selling such title. As JG Wilson complained to Native Minister Cadman that month, Kemp himself had contravened the legislative prohibition against dealing with the land by contracting a timber lease for £500.1147 According to Wilson, Kemp and his solicitor JM Fraser had promised to settle the dispute the previous September, but no progress had been made.

In mid-July JM Fraser’s offer to have the dispute settled through arbitration by the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court cost him his client.1148 Kemp repudiated Fraser’s statement that he and Muaupoko had agreed to arbitration, and on 18 July Walter Buller was retained by Kemp and 68 Muaupoko members as their solicitor with regard to Horowhenua.1149 The very next day a fresh petition was prepared. Kemp and Muaupoko’s 1892 petition was largely a restatement of that made in 1890 and 1891, with the added explanation regarding his refusal to consider Fraser’s proffered settlement, in that ‘it would amount to a fraud on the Tribe to whom the land equitably belongs.’1150 Arbitration was similarly eschewed because ‘there is nothing to arbitrate upon’.1151 What Kemp was contending, explained Buller in a separate letter, was that Warena and himself were owners ‘by a mere fiction of

1145 Ibid. 1146 Petition 123/1891, of Kemp and 18 Muaupoko members, described in AJHR 1892 I-3, p. 16, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:897]. Kemp later alleged that the 1891 petition was brought forward too late to enable the Native Affairs Committee to make any report, see Petition 201/1892 in MA 75/3/15 [DB:843]. 1147 J Wilson to Native Minister Cadman, 4 February 1892, MA 75/3/15 [DB:825]. 1148 JM Fraser to D Fraser, 14 July 1892, MA 75/3/15 [DB:831]. Donald Fraser had agreed to the proposal on condition that Warena and Kemp were entitled to ‘a certain proportion’ of the block, and that the basis of this award would not be ‘opened up from the very beginning’, Barnicoat to JM Fraser, 21 July 1892, MA 75/3/15 [DB:851]. Kemp told the Horowhenua Commission that JM Fraser’s letter stating he had agreed to arbitration had made him very angry, 4 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 175. 1149 Retainer dated 18 July 1892, Exhibit A, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 285. The way the retainer is presented suggests that Te Rangimairehau, Kerehi Tomo, Hoani and Rahira Tupou, Makere Te Rou, and Rawinia Ihaia were the principal movers with Kemp in employing Buller’s services. 1150 Petition 201/1892, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:843]. The signatories of the petition are not on file: we have only Buller’s statement to the Horowhenua Commission that the petition was signed by the same 68 Muaupoko who signed his retainer in July 1892, W Buller, 21 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 244. 1151 Ibid. 214 law, that it was always intended that they should be mere Trustees for Muaupoko.’1152 For this reason, Kemp and Muaupoko again prayed for legislation referring Horowhenua 11 back to the Native Land Court to inquire into the issue of trust, and if found, to ascertain and register the Muaupoko beneficiaries and to apportion the land among them. Kemp’s petition was endorsed by further petitions of Te Rangimairehau and 62 others, and Tamatea Tohu and 3 others, which likewise appear to have been written by Buller.1153 The petitions were referred to the Native Affairs Committee which reported on 17 August that they warranted ‘the early and serious consideration of the Government in order that effect may be given thereto, so as to prevent any alienation of the land at the close of the present session of Parliament.’1154

These petitions were in turn countered by that of Hoani Puihi (aka Amorangi) and others, which alleged that a large number of signatories attached to the petitions of Kemp and Muaupoko were children and infants.1155 In what reads as a close rerun of Himiona Kowhai’s petition the year before, Hoani Puihi contended that Muaupoko would be satisfied with the negotiated settlement ‘if their real wishes could be ascertained’.1156 Like Kowhai, he pointed out that if the land were referred back to the Native Land Court, ‘the expenses of litigation would be very great and many members of the tribe have not money to enable them to carry on protracted proceedings…’1157 Warena Hunia also sent in a further petition the following month, accusing Kemp of refusing to settle and misleading Parliament, and asking to be allowed to appear by counsel before Parliament to refute the allegations made in Kemp’s petition.1158

All of the above petitions were referred by the Native Affairs Committee back to the government for consideration. The government’s response was to declare the land subject to the recently passed Native Land Purchase Act 1892, proclaiming the land subject to Crown purchase and prohibiting dealings with any other party. The archival record is silent about this development, but evidence presented to the Horowhenua Commission four years later suggests another whorl of last-minute political string-pulling at work, principally by Buller.

Buller was a busy advocate for Kemp at this time, and he seems to have enjoyed a direct channel to senior government officials like Sheridan, now Head of the Land Purchase Department, and

1152 Buller to Native Minister Cadman, 27 July 1892, MA 75/3/15 [DB:845]. 1153 Petition 253/1892 and 381/1892, in AJHR 1892 I-3 p. 16, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:886]. 1154 H Williams, 11 August 1892. Nb, Williams referred to ‘Petitions Nos 12 and 22’, but it seems clear from the context that it was referring to the petitions of Kemp and Te Rangimairehau referred to above. MA 75/3/15 [DB:862]. 1155 Petition 635/1892, 22 August 1892, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:865]. 1156 Ibid. 1157 Ibid. 1158 Petition 634/1892, 13 September 1892, MA 75/3/15 [DB:895]. 215 government Ministers such as Cadman, Carroll and the ailing Premier Ballance himself.1159 According to Buller in 1896, he had prepared a draft Bill providing for Native Land Court investigation into the ‘nature of title’ of Horowhenua 6 and 11, which he claimed Cadman and Seddon had agreed to, and which he understood was to be incorporated into the government’s Native Land Court Bill, notice of which was given to Parliament two days before the close of session.1160 However in the face of JG Wilson’s threat to stonewall the legislation all night if necessary, Buller claimed that Seddon decided to drop the Bill.1161 Buller immediately called on Ballance at his home, and agreed to the Premier’s suggestion to have the land proclaimed subject to Crown purchase in order to protect it.1162 The matter was urgent, Buller later explained to the Horowhenua Commission, because the 1891 prohibition against any dealing with Horowhenua 11 would end with the close of the parliamentary session. Buller claimed this course was sanctioned by an ‘emergency’ Cabinet meeting held at Ballance’s home on the Sunday evening. The next day, Monday 10 October, the last day of Parliament, Buller procured a note from Carroll, instructing Sheridan to at once prepare a token voucher and proclamation for Horowhenua 11 under the Native Land Purchases Act 1892. He remained in Sheridan’s office until this was done, the proclamation especially gazetted that evening.1163 That evening, too, Sheridan tracked Kemp down at the Wellington Hotel, to hand over £5 ‘on account of my interest … which I hereby agree to sell to Her Majesty the Queen’.1164 The Native Land Purchases Act 1892 itself was dated 8 October 1892, Buller suggesting to the Horowhenua Commission that the governor’s assent too, was tied to the urgency over Horowhenua.1165 He also maintained a caveat was sent to the District Land Registrar to be registered against the title of Horowhenua 11 the same Monday evening, as a matter of urgency.1166 The effect of the proclamation was to prohibit private dealings with Horowhenua 11 for a period of two years.

1159 See for example Buller to Cadman, 28 September 1892, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:849] in which Buller follows up on an interview with the Native Minister that afternoon with a suggestion of Native Land Court arbitration of the trust issue. Sheridan spoke of Buller’s ‘running about Ministers’ to the Horowhenua Commission, Sheridan, 1 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 148. Buller himself told the Commission ‘I was at that time in constant communication with Mr. Ballance … whose confidence I possessed.’ Buller, 21 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 244. 1160 W Buller to Seddon, 20 June 1894, Exhibit K in AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 300. The Draft Bill was set out in Exhibit J, pp.299- 300. Sheridan testified that Buller had told him Seddon approved of the draft clause in the Native Land Bill to meet Kemp’s view on case, 1 April 1894, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 148. 1161 The account Buller told the Horowhenua Commission substantially agrees with his letter to Seddon cited above, see W Buller, 21 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 244. 1162 W Buller to Seddon, 20 June 1894, Exhibit K, p. 300; Sheridan, 1 April 1894, p. 148. In his later testimony to the Horowhenua Commission, Buller stated that the suggestion was his, and that Ballance agreed to it, 21 April 1896, p. 244. 1163 Supplement to the NZ Gazette, 10 October 1892, MA 75/3/15 [DB:907]. 1164 P Sheridan, 1 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 149-150. The receipt was cited in the Horowhenua Commission Report, p. 18. 1165 Evidence of Sheridan, 1 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 149; W Buller, 21 April 1896, p. 245. Buller suggested that Kemp’s £5 advance prompted McKenzie to obtain the governor’s consent. This seems dubious given that Kemp was paid two days after the Act was dated. On the other hand, by Buller’s account he agreed to Ballance’s suggested course of action on Saturday 8 October, which indeed suggests it was scarcely coincidence, and that the passage of the legislation was one in a number of necessary steps in order to legally prevent private dealings over Horowhenua 11, p. 245. 1166 W Buller, 21 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 245. 216

Kemp’s deed of release On departmental files, Cadman merely noted that the proclamation was undertaken ‘in order to prevent litigation’, and at the end of October 1892 he instructed his Under-Secretary to write to Kemp and Hunia to submit their respective proposals for settlement.1167 The parties however were no closer to any resolution. Warena Hunia wrote in that ‘as head of Kawana Hunia’s “hapu”, nothing less than 3,500 acres should be awarded to me’, including 200 acres bordering the lake.1168 Kemp for his part was adamant that his and Hunia’s name be struck off the title and the land returned to Muaupoko, via a Native Land Court investigation of title. Until this was done, he maintained, there would be no end of the difficulty.1169 Cadman’s response indicates that he was still hopeful of a mediated legislative solution to the impasse: his note on Hunia’s letter spoke of Buller’s efforts to arrange a meeting between the parties for this purpose.1170 His response to Kemp’s position was less encouraging:

Inform Major Kemp that as on his own showing he has been a trustee from the beginning … it will be necessary for him to furnish full particulars of the receipts & disbursement of all moneys accruing from rents or otherwise from the beginning of the Trust in 1873 to date to enable the Govt to decide whether it can accept the responsibility of introducing the desired Legislation & also maintaining the proclamation over the Land in the mean time.1171

According to the Hunia brothers, it was Kemp’s lack of transparency and accountability over monies received for the land which had caused them to challenge the existing arrangement in the first place. Having to account, Pakeha-style, for such monies was the Archilles’ heel in Kemp’s claim of trusteeship which was to beset him throughout the 1890s, coming to a head with the passage of the Horowhenua Block Acts of 1885-1886. Aware that Kemp had neither receipts nor account books ‘of any sort’, within a fortnight of securing the government proclamation in Wellington, Buller had also taken the precautionary measure of procuring the tribe’s agreement to a deed of release, in which they expressed themselves to be ‘perfectly satisfied’ with Kemp’s financial management of trust monies, including the transactions associated with the 1886 partition.1172 The deed was signed by 60 members of Muaupoko, (five of whom appear to have been minors at the time) from 19 - 29 November 1892. Ihaia Taueki and 31 others signed at a meeting held at Horowhenua; another 18 shortly afterwards; the other 10 signatures obtained on five different occasions. Buller claimed that there had been ‘the most perfect unanimity’ at the meeting in favour of Kemp’s administration, qualifying this somewhat with the exception of Te Raraku Hunia, who was present but did not sign.1173 Muaupoko in the Ngati Pariri camp led by the Hunia brothers were not invited to this meeting, Buller explained, in view of

1167 Cadman, 29 October 1892, memo on coversheet, MA 75/3/15 [DB:904]. 1168 W Hunia to Native Minister Cadman, 14 November 1892, MA 75/3/15 [DB:910]. 1169 Kemp to Native Minister Cadman, 19 November 1892, MA 75/3/15 [DB:912]. 1170 Cadman’s note on coversheet, 3 December 1892, MA 75/3/15 [DB:911]. 1171 Cadman, 25 November 1892, note on coversheet, MA 75/3/15 [DB:916]. 1172 Deed of Release, 19 October 1892, Exhibit F in AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 287-292; W Buller, 21 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G- 2, p. 243. 1173 W Buller, 21 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 243. 217 the ‘considerable friction’ between the two sides.1174 In his testimony to the Horowhenua Commission, Hector McDonald confirmed that with the exception of this group, all the resident Muaupoko were present, and ‘pretty well all’ signed the deed.1175

The State farm purchase Donald Fraser told the Horowhenua Commission that it was Edward Tregear, Secretary of the newly established Labour Department, who first approached him about acquiring part of Horowhenua 11 for a ‘state farm’.1176 Part of the Liberal Party’s experiment to combat more than a decade of economic depression with increased state intervention, Minister of Labour William Pember Reeves and Tregear envisaged a series of such farms on the outskirts of larger towns as training and transit stations, run on cooperative lines, where unskilled labourers could learn the skills needed for bush or farm employment. Trainees and their families would receive food and lodging until they were fit to take up regular employment, the sale of produce derived from their labours used to offset costs.1177 Buller too, maintained that Kemp had ‘always promised’ Ballance that once the title issue over Horowhenua 11 was settled, he would sell 1000 acres to the government for the purpose of a state farm.1178 Kemp admitted as much in a letter he wrote to Seddon in October 1894, which he cited in a petition against the Horowhenua Commission’s findings in 1896.1179 Sheridan stated that negotiations for the state farm purchase between Fraser and the Crown’s purchase officer in Whanganui began about a year before Ballance’s death, confirming that Liberal plans for Horowhenua were being hatched in the autumn of 1892.1180 In addition to being targeted as the showcase of Liberal ideology, there were baser reasons at work behind the deal. According to Buller’s biographer, Ross Galbreath, Seddon’s agreement to proceed with the purchase was the sweetener to induce Donald Fraser to stand for the Liberals in the December 1893 general election.1181 Indeed, Fraser’s decision to contest the Otaki seat for the Liberals was reported on 19 October 1893, just two days before Warena Hunia signed the transfer for 1500 acres of Horowhenua 11.1182 It also seems that only half of the acquired area was

1174 Ibid. 1175 H McDonald, 17 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp.123-124. 1176 D Fraser, 13 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 68. 1177 K R Howe, Singer in a Songless Land: A Life of Edward Tregear, 1846-1931, (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1991), p. 79. In fact the State farm trialled at Levin proved to be a one-off, in practice less of a training enterprise than a temporary ‘reservoir or storageplace’ for the unemployed, particularly elderly men, prompting criticism of being little more than ‘a respectable name for a poor-house’, ‘State Farms’, Wanganui Herald, 29 July 1896, p. 2; D Faris, letter to editor, Oamaru Mail, 4 August 1896, p. 3. Howe writes that the Levin State farm had a resident manager who supervised labourers sent by the Department of Labour. These labourers and their families were provided with tents and encouraged to erect cottages for themselves on their allotted half-acre. Groups of labourers then contracted out their services for tasks organised by the manager such as bushfelling, roading, drainage and fencing. By 1896 it was a thriving dairy farm, which Tregear himself admitted was ‘quite unsuitable now for a labour depot’. In 1900 it was handed over to the Department of Agriculture, by which time fewer than 150 men had worked on the state farm. Howe, pp. 79-80. 1178 W Buller, 21 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 245. See also pp. 153-154. 1179 Petition 161/1896 of Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1348]. 1180 P Sheridan, 1 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 153. 1181 Ross Galbreath, Walter Buller: the Reluctant Conservationist, (Wellington, GP Books, 1989), p. 199. 1182 Reported for example in the Evening Post, 19 October 1893, p. 2. In the general election held early December 1893, Fraser was beaten by the incumbent JG Wilson. 218 used for the state farm, the prime land fronting the railway cut into sections ranging from 5 to 50 acres and offered for selection on lease in perpetuity.

In February 1893 Kemp wrote to Premier Ballance about Buller’s impending departure for England, asking that the government proclamation be retained until his return, and wanting to prevent any sales, leases, mortgages of the property until the interests of the people had been protected. ‘Ko toku tino whakaaro tenei kia whakawakia a taketia tenei whenua i runga i te ahi ka, he mea kia kitea nga tangata nona, ka whakanohonoho ai ki tona hea ki tona hea. / My great desire is that the question of title to this land should be thoroughly gone into in order that the owners may be ascertained and each may receive the portion he is entitled to.’1183 Buller was to be paid, he told the Premier, when this was achieved. Muaupoko were also to be informed of this decision. From Buller’s quick note to Cadman five days later, it appears Ballance agreed to Kemp’s request to postpone ‘the whole business’ of mediation, and to leave the proclamation intact in the meantime.1184

In April 1893 Ballance died, and Richard Seddon became Premier. Seddon also took over the Native Affairs portfolio from Cadman in June. Donald Fraser took the opportunity to renew pressure to obtain title for Horowhenua 11B. On 16 May Warena Hunia wrote to the Native Minister requesting the removal of restrictions over his land; promising to abide by his word – presumably with respect to his Muaupoko following – and offering to sell 1000 acres to the Government, at £5 per acre ‘in accordance with the arrangement formerly made known to the Government.’1185 Again, Fraser told the Horowhenua Commission that the overture to sell had come from Sheridan, although the Land Purchase Officer had baulked at the price.1186 In relaying Hunia’s offer to the Native Minister, Sheridan queried the ‘improper use’ of the provisions of the Native Land Purchases Act 1892. Cadman in turn referred the issue to Cabinet. From the minuted note of the Cabinet meeting on 7 June 1893, it seems the government was happy to proceed with a purchase: ‘Referred to Minister Native Affairs to report and submit proposals’.1187 Even before this approval, however, Fraser was sufficiently encouraged by the government response, possibly communicated through local MP JG Wilson, to make a firm offer.1188 According to Donald Fraser, Wilson endorsed the Crown’s purchase ‘as the country was locked up, and the people of Levin were bringing pressure to bear on him to try

1183 Kemp to Premier Ballance, 18 February 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1263]. Contemporary translation by Native Department, note Kemp’s use of ‘ahi kā’, which is translated as ‘owners’. 1184 W Buller to Native Minister Cadman, 23 February 1893, MA 75/3/15 [DB:918]. 1185 Warena Hunia Te Hakeke to Native Minister, 16 May 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1259]. 1186 D Fraser, 13 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 68. 1187 Note on coversheet, 7 June 1893, on Warena Hunia Te Hakeke to Native Minister, 16 May 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1258]. 1188 Warena Hunia Te Hakeke to Native Minister, 29 May 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1287]. There are grounds for supposing the letter was actually written by Donald Fraser, or Hunia’s solicitor Barnicoat, including the absence of any Maori original, and the technical legislative references with regard to payment. See also D Fraser, 13 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 68 which suggests JG Wilson was instrumental in facilitating initial negotiations. 219 and get some of the land cut up to open up the place.’1189 On 29 May 1893 Hunia offered the government 1,500 acres fronting the railway for £4/5s per acre, with a 100-acre block reserved in the north-east corner for himself by the track. The balance, he proposed, was to be given ‘to my tribe who are at present residing upon it’, and he listed 19 individuals to be put into the remaining 3,200 acres at a future date.1190 Once again, Donald Fraser was at the heart of the negotiations. The Crown was given 10 days to think about it.

Sheridan’s note on the coversheet of this offer indicates that the Head of the Land Purchase Department was aware that Hunia was not in a legal position to sell, the partition titles having not yet issued.1191 At the end of July McKenzie, Carroll, Wilson and others met Fraser at Horowhenua to view the land for themselves.1192 Satisfied with the prospect, a valuation of the proffered block was made, which was completed by 19 August 1893.

Figure 16: WD 837: Valuation plan of the proposed State farm offer, August 18931193

1189 D Fraser, 13 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 68. 1190 Warena Hunia Te Hakeke to Native Minister, 29 May 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1289]. The individuals were Paki Te Hunga, Himiona Hanita (Kowhai), Hoani Puihi, Peene Tikara, Ruka Hanuhanu, Kingi Puihi, Hema Henare, Hanita Henare, Hoani Nahona, Iritana Hanita, Hariata Hoani, Wiki Te Oi, Hiria Hoani, Hana Rata, Ripeka Hoani, Ngawai Kingi, Rihipeti Nireaha, Riria Peene, and Te Raraku Te Rangi. 1191 Sheridan to Native Minister, 3 June 1893, note on coversheet, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1282]. 1192 Manawatu Herald, 3 August 1893, p. 2; D Fraser, 13 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 68; P Sheridan, 1 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 153. Fraser stated that Hoani Puihi was the only Muaupoko resident they met on this occasion. 1193 WD 837 in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1284]. 220

As the above plan indicates, the proposed sale took in the best of the land, economically speaking, of Horowhenua 11. The District Surveyor’s average value for the 1500-acre block was £4/11/1 per acre.1194 In addition to fertile soil, virtually the whole area was covered with a forest of matai, kahikatea, and rimu, local sawmiller Bartholomew happy to a pay £1 per acre for a timber lease. The valuation noted strong local interest in purchasing at £5 per acre. The report was forwarded to Sheridan by Surveyor-General Percy Smith, who commented that as the land was intended for a ‘State Farm’, a higher price could be offered than that for an ordinary purchase for Crown subdivision and sale. He suggested an offer of £4/5s per acre.1195

In early September 1893 Donald Fraser appealed to James Carroll to expedite the purchase:

On my return home I found my principal Warena Hunia in great trouble with people whom he has contracted debts with. They are pressing him very much and the main part of these debts were contracted in connection with Horowhenua Cases. I have been able to stay them off by telling Warena’s creditors that this matter would soon be settled but it has gone on so long that patience is tiring.

What I wish you could do is, to ascertain definitely whether the Government will accept at the price I offered it for namely £4.5/- … per acre, or if they will state the highest they can give.1196

For it really was a hard case, Fraser continued, ‘when a man has plenty of property and willing to pay his debts, and cannot do it owing to delay which he has no control over’.1197 Warena’s debt, Fraser claimed, amounted to ‘many thousands of pounds’, although he faced the prospect of gaol for debts of ‘fifty or a hundred pounds’.1198 After something more concrete than the ‘promise’ made to him by McKenzie as Minister of Lands, Fraser told Carroll of his plans to have the restrictions removed from the 1500-acre surveyed area offered to the Crown, presumably in order to enable private sale if the government did not intend to purchase. In a further letter to McKenzie in October 1893 Fraser argued that the rates and survey liens owing on Horowhenua should all be placed on Kemp’s portion, on the grounds that Kemp had ordered the surveys and appropriated the money from the sale of Horowhenua 2 which should have been put towards such costs, ‘and besides that’, Fraser wrote, ‘he has had far more than his proper share of the whole estate.’1199 In closing, Fraser also drew the Minister’s attention to 1000 acres adjoining the railway north of the township (Kawiu) ‘that would make an

1194 District Surveyor Smith to Assistant Surveyor-General, 19 August 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1297]. 1195 Percy Smith to Sheridan, 23 August 1893, note on Assistant Surveyor-General to Surveyor-General, 22 August 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1296]. 1196 D Fraser to J Carroll MHR, 4 September 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1293]. Nb Carroll was included in the Executive Council as ‘representing the Native race’. 1197 Ibid. 1198 Ibid. 1199 D Fraser to Minister of Lands, 9 October 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1304]. 221 excellent Special Settlement and would not interfere with the claims of the tribe as they never occupied it.’1200

Sheridan at this stage was willing to purchase at £3/10s per acre, advising McKenzie that this was not only a ‘very fair price to offer’, but also that ‘we may do so without in anyway prejudicing the claims of the alleged cestuis que trust as Hunia’s individual interest would not under any circumstances amount to less than the area now under offer.’1201 The deal was later clinched in Wellington at a meeting between Fraser, McKenzie and Sheridan in early October. As ‘a matter of public urgency’, McKenzie was prepared to purchase the block for the State farm at £4 per acre, payable ‘on the completion of an indefeasible title’.1202 Hunia signed the transfer on 21 October 1893, Sheridan promising to pay over the £6000 in debentures on his return from Whanganui. On the advice of the District Land Registrar that the transfer could not be registered owing to existing caveats, in early November Sheridan was instructed by McKenzie not to pay over any money until the issue was sorted.1203 Under cross-examination Sheridan admitted that he was aware of the caveats and proceeded with the transfer anyway.1204 In a similar vein, the Department of Labour’s operations at Horowhenua began in January 1894, without a registered title and without the government having made payment. In February Warena Hunia applied to the Supreme Court to have the caveats uplifted from Horowhenua 11B.1205

Muaupoko knowledge/dissent The Ministerial reconnoitre to Horowhenua was reported in the press on 3 August 1893. The following day in Parliament Wi Parata asked the Minister of Lands if the rumours about a government purchase at Horowhenua were true, and if so, whether the government would ensure it had the consent of the Muaupoko beneficiaries before it completed the purchase. Parata reminded the House of the controversy over the title, and cautioned against any Crown purchase without due inquiry into the alleged trust. McKenzie replied that the 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.1206

1200 Ibid. 1201 P Sheridan to Minister for Lands, 5 September 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1291]. 1202 P Sheridan to D Fraser, 4 October 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1292]. 1203 P Sheridan, 30 January 1895, cited to the Horowhenua Commission, 1 April 1896, AJHR1896 G-2, p. 153. See also Sheridan to District Land Registrar, 3 November 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1303]. 1204 Ibid. 1205 Set out in WB Edwards to Controller and Auditor General, 24 October 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:1010]. 1206 4 August 1893, NZPD vol. 80, p. 461. 222

Warena Hunia subsequently told the Horowhenua Commission he did not tell Muaupoko, even those who supported him, of the impending sale, let alone ask for their consent: ‘I did not say anything. Why should I?’1207 For Hoani Puihi, up till now a supporter of Hunia’s claim on behalf of the resident Ngati Pariri, the state farm sale destroyed any faith he had in Warena Hunia’s trusteeship. In 1897 Puihi testified: ‘It was dishonest of Warena to sell 1,500 acres to the Government in No. 11. He betrayed the confidence of his hapu, the Ngatipariri. He did not consult us before selling it.’1208 Puihi maintained that they had heard nothing of the sale until after the money was paid, and that no one outside Hunia’s immediate family received any proceeds. Indeed, Hunia’s own family members quickly sought legal help to protect their interests: in mid-August Te Raraku Hunia and the children of her deceased sister had their lawyer write to the Native Minister to ensure that they would not be overlooked in the transaction, in terms of a fair price and an equitable distribution of the proceeds.1209 A caveat was also registered against the title.1210 Hunia’s other sister, Hera Te Upokoiri, engaged Robert Stout as her solicitor in response to the news.1211 She also petitioned against the sale, through Wi Parata, to the House of Representatives. Like Muaupoko, Te Upokoiri claimed that Horowhenua 11 had been vested in her brother in trust, which had been admitted by his agents before the Native Affairs Committee. Te Upokoiri had been persuaded by her brother to sell her 100-acre section in Horowhenua 3 to help fund the Hunia claim on his assurance that ‘the whole of Kawana Hunia’s children would be included in Horowhenua No.11.’1212 In view of the impending sale, she now prayed for protection for ‘me and my people the Muaupoko Tribe who are the rightful owners.’

We know perfectly well that if the Government consents to the sale of this land that the whole of our fathers property and estate will pass from us for ever.

….

We pray that the Government will watch over us and our land and not on any account consent to the alienation of a single acre until some satisfactory arrangement has been made between our tribe and the two persons to whom the Court has wrongfully awarded the whole of the land for their absolute benefit notwithstanding the fact that they were only intended to act as Trustees.1213

The Native Affairs Committee reported on the petition on 23 August, essentially agreeing with Te Upokoiri that the Government should enquire into the alleged trust before purchasing any part of the

1207 Warena Hunia, 11 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 40. 1208 Hoani Puihi, 30 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 27. 1209 Fitzherbert to J Carroll MHR, 14 August 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1161]. 1210 Caveat 804, by Rakera Hunia and Rangipo Mete Paetahi, 12 August 1893, MA W1369 27 1896/22. 1211 R Stout to Minister for Lands, 6 October 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1299]. 1212 Petition 351/1893 of Hera Te Upokoiri, MA 75/3/15 [DB:922]. 1213 Ibid. 223 block, and further, that ‘if satisfied that a trust was implied Legislation should be introduced this Session to protect the interest of the Tribe.’1214

On receiving the Committee’s report, Sheridan commented that a trust had been admitted by Hunia, which was to be protected by ceding a portion to the ‘cestuis que trustent’, if Kemp was willing to do the same.1215 The matter, he opined, could readily be settled without legislation. Carroll too, seems to have seen no conflict in proceeding with the purchase, on the basis that it was Hunia’s interest at stake: ‘As Hunia has expressed a desire to treat with the government for a portion of his interests in the Horowhenua Block it might be as well to get him to concur in the proclamation and so strengthen the position of the govt in view of any future dealing – I see no difficulty in protecting the cest qui trustents’.1216 This position can also be seen in Sheridan’s advice to McKenzie only days later, already set out above, that the claims of the ‘alleged cestuis que trust’ would not be prejudiced by the Crown purchase because ‘Hunia’s individual interest would not under any circumstances amount to less than the area now under offer.’1217 The basis of this assumption was not spelt out on file. Warena Hunia’s earlier proposal to accept 3500 acres as his ‘share’ of Horowhenua 11 may have had something to do with it. The government seems to have taken the precaution at this time of gaining Donald Fraser’s written promise to provide 3300 acres for the ‘tribe or hapu of Warena Hunia’.1218 In proceeding on this basis, the government seems to have completely disregarded the Committee’s recommendation, that such interests should be determined before any transactions took place. Under-Secretary Haselden attached the draft Bill of 1891 to the Native Affairs Committee’s report for Seddon’s consideration, but the Native Minister did not even view the file until 19 October – two days before the transfer – at which point the recommendation was filed without comment ‘till required by Land Purchase Dept.’1219

According to Te Rangimairehau, the Muaupoko community at large only became aware of the transaction once ‘the survey and felling of the bush began.’1220 This may have been tied to the survey undertaken in August, for WB Edwards, on behalf of Ihaia Taueki and four others, lodged a caveat against the title on 31 August 1893.1221 Ihaia Taueki and 75 others also petitioned Parliament, asking ‘kia kaua e tukua kia hokona kia riihitia kia tukua peheatia ranei tetahi wahi o te Horowhenua Poraka

1214 Native Affairs Committee Report on the Petition of No.351/1893 Hera Te Upokoiri, 23 August 1893, MA 75/3/15 [DB:928]. 1215 P Sheridan, 25 August 1893, note on coversheet of Native Affairs Committee report, MA 75/3/15 [DB:931]. 1216 J Carroll, 31 August 1893, on above. 1217 P Sheridan to Minister for Lands, 5 September 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1291]. 1218 D Fraser, 7 October 1892?, MA 75/3/15 [DB:952]. Note that the date on this document is questionable. 1892 does not make sense in the context of events, which fits much more closely with those of October 1893 when the government was trying to ‘strengthen’ its position, as Carroll put it, regarding the purchase. 1219 Haselden, 1 September 1893, and Seddon, 19 October 1893, on above. 1220 Te Rangimairehau, 14 March 1896 AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 91. Hoani Puihi was the only one who met with the Ministers on their site visit prior to the sale, and at this time he was estranged from his Muaupoko relations across the lake. 1221 Caveat 812, 31 August 1893, MA W1369 27 1896/22. 224 kia oti rano nga raruraru mo runga i te tiaki of taua whenua te whakatau.’ / ‘that alienation of any portion of the Horowhenua Block may be stopped until the disputes as regards the alleged Trust are settled.’1222 On 22 September 1893, the Native Affairs Committee pointed to its recommendation a month ago with respect to Hera Te Upokoiri’s similar petition, reporting no further recommendation.

Te Rangimairehau later spoke of Muaupoko’s attempts to obstruct the survey, particularly those of the women and children.1223 This obstruction began in August – for Donald Fraser’s appeal to Carroll to expedite the sale on 4 September set out above included an inquiry about whether the surveyor would prosecute the protestors, or whether Fraser should take proceedings himself – but little else has been discovered about what occurred.1224 According to Te Rangimairehau, the protestors were removed by police at Seddon’s behest, the Premier inviting instead a delegation of ‘chiefs’ to meet with him. This meeting however did not occur until January 1894, by which time the farm manager and working party were busy onsite, but still in the presence of two constables.1225 In the course of the Horowhenua Commission, attention was also directed at a notice placed by the ‘Muaupoko Tribe’ in the local newspaper in response to the purchase: ‘Notice to Government and others – We will not allow anyone to deal with any part of Block 11, Horowhenua, consisting of 15,000 acres.’1226 There is no record, however, of when this notice was placed. Edwards, Muaupoko’s solicitor at this time in Buller’s absence, later maintained that direct action by Muaupoko to forcibly remove the government occupation was narrowly averted by his advice to rely on the legal remedies available to them instead.1227 In December Muaupoko approached JG Wilson MHR to find out whether an official inquiry would be made into the trust status of the block before the government proclamation was lifted.1228 Wilson’s inquiry to Sheridan on their behalf suggests that Muaupoko had resigned themselves to the state farm purchase. In the circumstances, Sheridan’s response three weeks later had the ring of an ultimatum:

I understand that when the transfer to Her Majesty of the 1500 acres at Levin has been registered an enquiry will be made into the various matters in dispute and that the Government proclamation over the whole of block No 11 will not in the meantime be abandoned.1229

The meeting between Seddon and McKenzie on the one hand, and Muaupoko delegates Te Rangimairehau, Raniera Te Whatamahoe and Waata Muruahi, accompanied by their lawyer Edwards and interpreter John McDonald on the other, took place in Wellington on 29 January 1894. The

1222 Petition 522/1893, undated, AJHR 1893 I-3, p. 19. Contemporary translation. Note that a copy of this petition was not located on file. 1223 Te Rangimairehau, 14 March 1896 AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 91. 1224 D Fraser to J Carroll MHR, 4 September 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1294]. 1225 Evening Post, 30 January 1894, p. 2. 1226 J McDonald, 8 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 195. Also reproduced as Exhibit U, p. 311. 1227 WB Edwards to Controller and Auditor General, 24 October 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:1009]. 1228 J Wilson MHR to Sheridan, 9 December 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1309]. 1229 P Sheridan to JG Wilson MHR, 29 December 1893, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1308]. 225 delegation was there to protest about the government’s occupation of tribal land and according to Te Rangimairehau, it was an angry confrontation:

When I arrived in the presence of the Premier, I stood up before him, and spoke to him about this bad law that was brought in amongst us: ‘These two persons were appointed by us as kaitiakis of this land; one of them agrees he is a caretaker, the other says, I do not care, I am an owner. This land belongs to me and my tribe.’ The Premier answered, ‘You have no land; you are in the hands of the clouds.’ ‘Am I a spirit that I should live in the clouds’? I said to the Premier. ‘Soften the law relating to this land.’ The Premier said, ‘Speak lower; I am not deaf.’ Then I knew he was angry, and then I spoke louder than ever.1230

The record of the meeting confirms that Seddon was annoyed by the men’s threats to obstruct the government occupation forcibly if need be, responding in kind with the statement: ‘If the Natives persist in lawlessness and misbehaviour, the Government shall simply say the law must take its course. My sympathy will go from them, and I shall be very much pained owing to their doing that which is wrong, and which will recoil upon themselves.’1231 He was similarly resolute about the state farm purchase: ‘The Government bought the land, and gave a fair price for it; and the Government will remain in occupation and go on with the improvements.’1232 He refused to be drawn into an argument about the trust status of the block, and disavowed any responsibility for Muaupoko’s plight.

The trouble they have got into has not been brought on them by the Government. The land is legally vested in Kemp and Hunia; and, unfortunately, for the Natives now protesting, there is nothing in the title to show that Kemp and Hunia were trustees. They are declared absolute owners.1233

Charged directly with purchasing the land from Hunia knowing full well that it belonged to Muaupoko, the Premier replied ‘We say it belongs to Hunia. The title is perfect, and it cannot be upset.’1234 His argument that had it not been for the protection of the government proclamation, Kemp and Hunia could have sold the land to whoever they pleased and pocketed the money, carried with it the not-so-veiled threat that the government could withdraw the proclamation tomorrow, and leave them powerless. Somewhat paradoxically given his uncompromising stance on Kemp and Hunia’s absolute ownership, the Premier argued that McKenzie’s public promise in August to protect the interests of the beneficial owners had been upheld by extracting a written statement from Hunia agreeing to give 3000 acres to the residents. Muaupoko’s lawyer countered with Muaupoko’s contention that the land offered by Hunia was worthless sand and swamp. Seddon brought the meeting to a close by promising to look into the quality of the area Hunia proposed to cede.

1230 Te Rangimairehau, 14 March 1896 AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 91-92. 1231 ‘The State-farm Trouble. Native Deputation. Interview with the Premier’, Exhibit V, Horowhenua Commission, AJHR 1896, p. 313. 1232 Ibid. 1233 Ibid. 1234 Ibid. 226

Almost a year later, following the Supreme Court ruling that Horowhenua 11 was indeed held in trust, the meeting was remembered in the press for the ‘scornful way’ in which Muaupoko had been treated by the Prime Minister:

The Muaupoko stated their case with the utmost simplicity and dignity… The Minister met them with threats and warnings; and they were dismissed from the Premier’s presence with an intimation that ‘the law must be obeyed,’ and that if they presumed to molest or interfere with the Government surveyors, who were by this time on the land, they would go to prison.1235

Provision for Warena’s ‘hapu’ TK McDonald, a Wellington valuer, was immediately contracted to value the land proposed to be ceded by Hunia to Muaupoko, and that to be kept by him. At Horowhenua he was met by Wirihana Hunia, Donald Fraser, John McDonald and ‘about Thirty Muaupokos’, from both sides of the lake, all of whom accompanied the valuer on his site visit.1236

McDonald reported that Hunia now proposed to transfer 3000 acres to certain Muaupoko members, including half of the Horowhenua Lake. This area was made up of ‘irregular blocks’ running from the State Farm boundary to the coast, a mixture of heavy bush, swamp and rough broken sand hills. The valuation was done with farming in mind, and not necessarily by Muaupoko. McDonald envisaged the drainage of swamps and the clearing and subdivision of the forested areas. The broken sand hills – over half of the proposed block – McDonald stated, were ‘impossible of profitable subdivision and should be let or sold as a whole.’1237 He estimated the value of this tribal portion at £3850.

The portion Warena Hunia proposed to retain for himself was similar to that intended for his beneficiaries, in the south-western corner of the block by Waiwiri. But Hunia also wanted to retain two other areas within Horowhenua 11B, including the McDonald homestead on 114 acres of farmland, and 76 acres of similarly improved land fronting the lake occupied by Hoani Puihi. McDonald valued this share at £4150.

Donald Fraser also sent Seddon his own report of the valuation. Fraser was at pains to explain that the Muaupoko party who turned up with John McDonald had no claim to Warena’s portion: ‘Any right they had was on the part awarded to Kemp.’1238 Warena’s ‘hapu’ by contrast numbered ‘about 30’,

1235 Evening Post, 22 December 1894, p.2 cited in Hearn, p.666. 1236 TK McDonald to Premier Seddon, 5 February 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:939]. Donald Fraser maintained there were about 20 Muaupoko represented by John McDonald, and ‘six or seven’ from Hunia’s hapu. 1237 TK McDonald, 5 February 1894, Report re certain Lands part of Block No11 …’ MA 75/3/15 [DB:934]. 1238 D Fraser to Premier Seddon, 5 February 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:941]. 227 and Fraser claimed that these were the only ones who had lived on the portion in question, and even then only for the last 22 years: ‘before that not one of them or any of the Manopoko [sic] lived on that part. It was occupied by the Ngatiraukawa.’1239 Kemp’s ‘game’ in ‘agitating the people through John McDonald’, maintained Fraser, was for his own benefit: ‘There is not a word about the tribe getting any land from him…’. His account of Warena’s ‘gift to the people’ was somewhat different from that of the valuer, describing the offer as 1000 acres of ‘first class land’, 1200 acres ‘light & sandy’, 500 ‘medium’, and 500 acres of lake. He continued:

Well the best test of the value is this, I am prepared to give £9000 for it, if it were possible for them all to leave it, & go on the part awarded to Kemp, I cannot explain here as fully as I should like, but will be in Wellington on Friday when I will call upon you & explain.1240

Muaupoko’s lawyer WB Edwards responded promptly to the valuation, claiming that the proffered settlement differed from Hunia’s previous offer and fell short of a ‘reasonable settlement’ of the dispute. Edwards was still hopeful of a settlement and suggested the government bring their influence to bear on Hunia ‘to induce him to make an equitable settlement with real owners and actual occupiers of the land.’1241

What was soon evident to Edwards and Muaupoko, was that Hunia’s offer was not in fact intended for the wider Muaupoko community at all. In the above response to the valuation, Edwards closed by asking for a copy of the written agreement made by Warena to provide for the tribe Premier Seddon had referred to in the interview with Muaupoko representatives in January. Ten days later he repeated the request, with more urgency. He had spoken to John McDonald, who had told him that the names in Warena’s list were either relatives or dependents, and did not include those ‘mainly entitled’.1242

Conscious of the Crown’s incomplete title and unwilling to jeopardise Warena’s proceedings to have the caveat lifted, Sheridan refused to divulge any such information:

Mr. Edwards should not be furnished with any further information until the Supreme Court has decided on Warena Hunia’s application for removal of caveat which at present stops the registration of the transfer to the Crown. The only object he can have in asking for copies of the documents referred to is to get together information with which to oppose the application.1243

1239 Ibid. 1240 Ibid. 1241 WB Edwards to Under Secretary, Justice Department, 9 February 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:946]. 1242 WB Edwards to Under Secretary, Justice Department, 19 February 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:948]. Further clarified in WB Edwards to Under Secretary, Justice Department, 7 May 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:961]. 1243 P Sheridan, 28 February 1894, note on Edwards request above, MA 75/3/15 [DB:950]. 228

Sheridan declaimed any knowledge of a written agreement between Warena Hunia and the government, only that of Fraser’s written promise to give over 3300 acres. ‘I have never seen the list of Natives referred to. I understood the Premier to say that the whole question would be dealt with by Royal Commission.’1244 Nothing short of that, he added, would satisfactorily settle the matter. Edwards was duly informed that the government was unable to grant his request.

Three weeks later Edwards tried again. Warena’s summons to remove the caveat had been adjourned to give Muaupoko an opportunity to take proceedings to enforce the trust. Edwards asked the Under- Secretary of Justice for a copy of all correspondence from Warena.

No doubt your Department will be willing and anxious to facilitate the proof of my clients of their rights in the land, and to prevent the property of the Tribe and their only means of subsistence from being wrongfully diverted by the Trustee, Warena, to his own private purposes.1245

Kemp, Edwards went on, the other trustee, had effectually declared the trust in his petition to Parliament, and was willing to take whatever steps were necessary to formally declare the trust. Having had no response to his letters of 9 and 19 February and 5 March, on 5 April Edwards wrote in again, reminding the Under-Secretary for Justice of the Native Affairs Committee’s finding in 1890 with regard to the trust:

As I am bound to suppose that the Honourable the Native Minister is desirous to do justice to the Native owners and occupiers of this land, and as the public records of the Colony disclose transactions between the trustee Warena Hunia … and the Crown which are inconsistent with a due recognition of the rights of the Native owners and occupiers…1246

Edwards’ request was referred once again to Sheridan, who explained in a memo that Edwards was asking for documents with a view of opposing Hunia’s case in the Supreme Court to have the caveat lodged by him removed. ‘Under ordinary circumstances there could be no objection to complying with this request’ he advised:

but as the Notification under ‘The Native Land Purchases Act 1892’ … is in itself a caveat beyond the possibility of successful attack the object of the second caveat which perhaps cannot be maintained, is apparently to impede and delay the registration of the transfer of the 1500 acres to the Crown the request does not appear to be altogether reasonable.

1244 P Sheridan to Haselden, 29 February 1894, ibid. 1245 WB Edwards to Under-Secretary of Justice, Haselden, 7 March 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:954]. 1246 WB Edwards to Under-Secretary of Justice, Haselden, 5 April 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:957]. 229

I am confident that it will be found in the end that Parliament alone can settle the dispute by reopening the title of 11A and the residue of 11B to the adjudication of the N.L.Ct.1247

The gist of this was conveyed to Edwards, with the added justification that the land was ‘urgently required for the purposes of settlement’, provoking an angry response from Muaupoko’s counsel.1248 Setting out once again the case for the trust, and the issues surrounding the cession of 3000 acres to Hunia’s family, Edwards continued:

(8) That in reply to the assertion that the Proclamation is a sufficient protection to my clients’ interests, I have only to point out that the Government, with a full knowledge of the facts mentioned … , and of the fact that several caveats have long been lodged against the land, for the protection of my clients’ interests, have purchased from Warena Hunia, who (according to the reports of the Native Affairs’ Committee, and of the Native Land Court) has no right whatever to sell the same, 1500 acres of the most valuable part of the block, for the not inconsiderable sum of £6000, and that proceedings have been taken by Warena Hunia (I presume with the knowledge and concurrence of the government ) to remove the caveats in order that a transfer of this land to the Crown may be registered.

(9) That the Government, with the strong hand, has taken possession of this land, and that a serious disturbance has only been avoided because the Natives in possession, acting under my advice, have refrained from resisting this aggression, as they lawfully might have done, with force.1249

Edwards pointed out that apart from the caveat, there was nothing whatever to prevent the rest of the block from being alienated in the same way. In closing, Edwards wrote:

With reference to what you say as to the land being urgently required for the purposes of settlement, I have the honour to say that, although I see no reason why the Government should take my clients’ property for that purpose rather than the property of any other private proprietor, yet I believe that my clients would consent to a sale and to the registration of a transfer to the Crown, under proper conditions by which the purchase money should be preserved for the benefit of those who may ultimately be found to be entitled to the land.

It does not appear to me that any reasonable person could possibly ask more than this.1250

The government’s only response to Edwards seems to have been to let him know that his letter had arrived too late to be dealt with by the Minister before his departure from Wellington.1251

1247 P Sheridan, 3 May 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:960]. 1248 See draft in MA 75/3/15 [DB:959] and WB Edwards to Under-Secretary of Justice, Haselden, 7 May 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:964]. 1249 WB Edwards to Under-Secretary of Justice, Haselden, 7 May 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:963]. 1250 Ibid. 1251 Note on above, 8 May 1894. 230

Kemp’s 1894 petition and Muaupoko’s Supreme Court action By June 1894 Buller was back in the country, representing Kemp. On 11 June he sent Seddon a statement of claim by Kemp, Ihaia Taueki, Noa Te Whatamahoe, Rawinia Taueki, Te Rangimairehau and Ngariki Te Raorao to the Supreme Court for a declaration of trust over Horowhenua 11; for an inquiry to determine the beneficial owners; that Warena Hunia be restrained from registering the partition order, the transfer to the Crown and other dealings, and removed from the trusteeship of the land; and that he be made to account for all moneys received from the sale.1252 Buller reassured the Premier that there was nothing hostile to the Government in the action: ‘We are simply asking the Supreme Court to affirm the existence of a trust, and to decree the necessary steps for giving effect thereto’.1253 Like Edwards, Buller maintained that Kemp had no desire to upset the state farm and village settlement, asserting that Kemp would keep his earlier promise to Ballance on this issue, disputing only the payment of purchase money to Warena. In a statement that he would later come to rue, Buller declared:

I quite agree in the view you expressed, that it may be necessary to go a good way further back. And I feel so strongly on this question of the trust, that I am quite willing to place my own title in the wrong so long as justice is done to the tribe. If we succeed on clauses 10 to 13 [referring to the court’s sanction of the 1886 out of court arrangements without judicial inquiry] (as I think we shall) the title to the land leased by me, and upon which I have already expended about £5000, is destroyed.1254

Buller was referring here to his lease of Block 14, which indeed came under increasing attack by the Crown once its own title to the state farm came unstuck by the 1894 Supreme Court ruling discussed below.

Notwithstanding the legal action, Kemp also petitioned the House of Representatives for legislative redress to enable the Native Land Court to inquire into the trust, and if satisfied, to determine the beneficial owners and their relative shares.1255 The petition was presented by Edwin Mitchelson MHR, former Native Minister and Member for Eden. Having set out the history at length, the petition concluded:

Under all these circumstances your petitioner and the people whom he represents have determined to approach you honourable House with a prayer for relief, for they are firmly persuaded that Parliament will not allow them to suffer through their ignorance of English laws and customs, or permit of their being stripped of their ancestral home simply because they failed to make their trustees execute a declaration of trust, as required by the Statute of Frauds, of which they had at the time no knowledge

1252 Statement of claim, nd, Meiha Keepa and others v. Warena Hunia [Supreme Court] in MA 75/3/15 [DB:965]. 1253 W Buller to Premier Seddon, 11 June 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:985]. 1254 Ibid. 1255 ‘Petition of Major Kemp Te Rangihiwinui, with Maori translation attached’, AJHR 1894 J-1. 231

whatever, and as to the necessity for which they received no instruction or warning from the Court at the time the order for a certificate of title was made.1256

Kemp had already shown to the Native Affairs Committee, the petition stated, that in agreeing to entrust their lands to representative chiefs, Muaupoko were doing nothing unusual and that ‘from a Maori point of view’ it would never have occurred to them that they were conferring an absolute estate on Kemp and Hunia, and legally disinheriting themselves from their homeland. Kemp’s case received a boost by JA Wilson’s statement released on 10 July about the voluntary arrangement over Horowhenua 11 the former Native Land Court judge had sanctioned in 1886:

I saw that they did not and would not answer such questions, and I did not see fit to place the Court in that position again. But I am perfectly certain that the block was not intended by the natives to be given, in fee simple, to the two persons named in the order; but that, on the contrary, it was intended to be held in trust by them for the owners. It was very clear to me at the time that, so far as the Court was concerned, there was a mental reservation, when it was asked by the owners to vest the title in those two persons. They never meant those two men to have the land – of that I am perfectly sure. They were simply putting it in their names for the time being, and they were trusting to them.1257

The state farm purchase was not referred to directly in Kemp’s 1894 petition, but Sheridan anticipated that it would ‘crop up’ in any Native Affairs Committee inquiry.1258 In a short comment prepared by the Land Purchase Department on the petition, the Crown’s position was repeated that: ‘In purchasing 1500 acres of the 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 circumstances Warena’s undivided interest in the land was at least equal to the area conveyed.’1259 In the event, the Native Affairs Committee decided not to proceed with an inquiry in view of the suit pending in the Supreme Court on the matter.1260

Wilson’s statement in July had prompted renewed questioning by Mitchelson in the House regarding the purchase, more particularly the Crown’s payment for the block before the trust issue had been settled. McKenzie responded that the Crown’s title was complete, and no money had been paid.1261 Later that month however, Fraser appealed to Native Minister Seddon for a £2000 advance on the state farm purchase, on the grounds that Warena was once again facing bankruptcy charges.

it is needless to point out that notwithstanding the opposition of a few natives who have no legal or equitable rights, the Govt will be perfectly secure in making this advance, inasmuch as there cannot, under any circumstances, be a doubt as to

1256 Ibid, p. 4. 1257 ‘In the matter of Major Kemp’s Petition re Horowhenua’, JA Wilson, 10 July 1894, in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1276]. 1258 ‘Report on petition of Meiha Keepa Rangihiwinui re Horowhenua Block’, nd, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:986]. 1259 Ibid. 1260 Report of the Native Affairs Committee, 10 August 1894, AJHR 1894 I-3, pp. 4-5. 1261 Mitchelson, 10 July 1894, NZPD vol. 83, p. 361. 232

Warena’s sole right to sell to the Govt; but assuming that such were not the case there cannot be a question that his interest must far exceed the advance asked for.1262

According to Sheridan, Fraser told the government that if Warena was prosecuted for bankruptcy, his interest in Horowhenua 11 would ‘pass into the hands of the Official Assignee who would sell it to the highest bidder.’1263 The issue was referred to Cabinet who decided ‘for the purpose of saving the estate’ to advance the payment.1264 Warena received the payment of £2000 in Bulls on 1 September 1894.1265 Notwithstanding Sheridan’s claim that there was ‘no secrecy whatever’ about this payment, it only came to light during the Supreme Court case in October.

In September Mitchelson also presented Seddon with a Bill intended to ‘to settle the question once and for all’.1266 The Horowhenua Empowering Bill, drafted by Buller, empowered the Native Land Court to inquire into the nature of title of Horowhenua 11 and, if satisfied of a trust, to declare the beneficial owners as tenants in common. In the meantime the land was to be inalienable.1267 Mitchelson was told that the matter was under consideration, and that he would be informed of the government’s decision at an early date. In the result, Seddon’s alternative, the Horowhenua Block Bill, was introduced on 23 October.1268 The preamble referred to the controversy over the trust, the provisions themselves projecting ‘the final adjustment’ of the dispute, but the proposed legislation was devoid of any means of bringing this about. Rather, Seddon’s Bill merely authorised the payment for the Crown’s purchase of the state farm, and voided all transactions – bar timber leases – over Horowhenua 6, 11A and 11B until such ‘final adjustment’. It also provided for the interests of Kemp and Hunia in these subdivisions to be charged with whatever might be found owing after accounting for their administration. The Act was not to apply to the state farm purchase, nor any purchase the Crown might make in the future. Buller told the Horowhenua Commission that he had used his influence in the Legislative Council against the Bill, which came back to the House with the clause sanctioning the payment taken out, at which point the Bill was dropped.1269

Supreme Court ruling 1894 Kemp and Muaupoko’s case against Warena Hunia to declare the trust was heard in Whanganui from 11 to 15 October before Chief Justice James Prendergast, and adjourned to Wellington for argument on 16 to 17 November. Hunia was once again represented by Barnicoat and plaintiffs Kemp and

1262 D Fraser to Native Minister Seddon, 26 July 1894, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1315]. 1263 Sheridan to Minister of Lands McKenzie, 30 January 1895, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1312]. 1264 Ibid. 1265 Receipt reproduced in ‘Report of the Horowhenua Commission’, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 12. 1266 E Mitchelson MHR to Native Minister Seddon, 20 September 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:997]. 1267 ‘A Bill Intituled’, nd, in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1273]. Buller told the Horowhenua Commission he had drafted the Bill, see AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 247. 1268 ‘Horowhenua Block Bill’ in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1271]. The Bill was entitled ‘An Act to protect the Rights of Equitable Claimants in respect of certain Portions of the Horowhenua Native Lands.’ 1269 W Buller, 21 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 247. 233

Muaupoko members by WB Edwards.1270 Edwards had subpoenaed the Under-Secretary of Justice Haselden to appear, but in the event was satisfied with the production of government records, although it appears that a number of papers deemed ‘confidential & privileged’ were not made available.1271

As set out above, during the trial it was revealed that £2000 on account of the Crown’s purchase had been paid the previous month, and further, that Warena Hunia had already spent it all, including a £500 payment to Donald Fraser.1272 On 24 October Edwards wrote to the Auditor General, pointing out that in the circumstances the payment had been improper, and objecting to any further payment. Once again, he maintained that Muaupoko would accept the state farm purchase:

The persons who claim to be, and who will I have no doubt be declared to be, entitled to the said lands would not object to the completion of the said sale to Her Majesty, and to the registration of the said transfer, if the whole purchase money of £6000 were paid into Court or into the hands of the Public Trustee, so that the same may be available for the persons found to be interested therein in due course of law, but they will not recognise the said sale on any other terms, and they will resist to their last penny any proceeding by which the said purchase money paid to Warena Hunia shall be treated as binding their interests in the said lands.1273

The government’s response is not on file, but Edwards was sufficiently alarmed by it to make application to court. The Supreme Court order issued on 27 October 1894 restrained Hunia and Fraser from registering the partition order and the transfer to the Crown, and from receiving any further money from the sale.1274 Kemp at this time also reassured Seddon that he would do nothing to interfere with the state farm purchase, ‘it was Mr. Ballance and myself arranged that originally’.1275 But he also cautioned the Premier against any further payment: ‘Let it be held until the trouble is over – That money belongs to the tribe – Not to Warena Hunia.’1276

The Supreme Court upheld the plaintiffs’ case, that the voluntary arrangement arrived at in 1886 had been an implied trust. Having heard conflicting testimony from Alexander McDonald and JA Wilson, it reasoned that up until the objection to Kemp’s name alone and the short adjournment that followed, it was the intention of all (with the exception perhaps of Wirihana Hunia) that the block should be

1270 I have not found minutes of the proceedings. It was recorded that evidence was given by JA Wilson, E Buckle, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, Te Rangimairehau, Raniera Te Whata, George Scott, Kerehi Tomo, Makere Te Rou, Noa Tomo, Winara Raorao, Walter Buller, Alexander McDonald, Wirihana Hunia, Himiona Te Kowhai, Warena Te Hakeke and Donald Fraser. Exhibit AT, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 330. 1271 See correspondence Edwards to Under-Secretary of Justice Haselden, 28 September 1894 and notes relating to, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:1004] 1272 WB Edwards to Controller and Auditor General, 24 October 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:1009]. 1273 Ibid. 1274 Order dated 27 October 1894, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:1013]. 1275 Meiha Keepa to Premier Seddon, 24 October 1894, cited in Petition 161/1896 of Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1352]. 1276 Ibid. 234 vested in Kemp on behalf of those interested, on the same basis as he had held the title since 1873. If the Hunia family had asserted a right to share in the beneficial ownership (other than with everyone else), the Chief Justice reasoned, it was inconceivable that more would not have been made of it at the time.1277 To the defendant’s argument that Hunia had never signed any written declaration of trust, the court countered that implied trusts were excepted from the Statute of Frauds, and that, in addition, it was a principle of equity that the Statute of Frauds should not be allowed to be taken advantage of to work a fraud. On the question of who was beneficially entitled – those who had received the 105-acre sections, or the whole 143 registered owners, and whether to include the rerewaho – the judge favoured the 143 registered owners, on the grounds that there was no evidence that they understood they were assenting to being excluded in 1886. The court declared that the partition orders of 1890 were void, the caveats over Horowhenua 11 to remain in place until further order. Let an inquiry be made, the judgement read, who are the persons interested in Horowhenua 11, and their representatives and successors, and the relative interests of the same, by referral to the Native Land Court. Hunia was to account for monies received in sale, with interest, and ordered to pay costs.1278

Legislative intervention, 1895 According to Galbreath, the Supreme Court’s finding of an implied trust over Horowhenua 11 seriously embarrassed the government, left dangling ‘tied to a purchase it could not complete after paying £2,000 to a man who could not sell.’1279 From this point on, Horowhenua became the focus of a vindictive struggle between Buller and Minister of Lands, John McKenzie, who according to Sheridan, ‘above all things’ had not wanted his name connected with any ‘Native Land scandal’.1280 As set out above, prior to the hearing Buller had reassured Seddon that the government had nothing to fear from Kemp’s case. Following the judgement however, Buller is said to have orchestrated the heavy criticism levelled by the press at the government – and John McKenzie as Minister of Lands in particular – about the state farm purchase. According to Galbreath, the censorious editorials in the New Zealand Times, Manawatu Farmer, Wanganui Herald and the Evening Post throughout January 1895, though unsigned, were all written by Buller.1281

In May 1895 Warena Hunia lost his appeal, prompting another editorial in the Evening Post about McKenzie’s ‘irregular and underhand payment’, although on this occasion Buller was not responsible for it.1282 The following month McKenzie intimated the government’s intention to proceed with a full inquiry into Horowhenua. McKenzie’s Bill, introduced to the House in October 1895, focussed on Kemp and Hunia’s dealings with the Horowhenua blocks, making such transactions and alleged trust

1277 Ruling, Meiha Keepa Te Rangihiwinui and Others v. Warena Hunia, in MA 75/3/15 [DB:1028]. 1278 Exhibit AT, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 330-331. 1279 Galbreath, p.203. 1280 Sheridan to Minister of Lands McKenzie, 30 January 1895, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1312]. 1281 Galbreath, p.204. Galbreath notes that a series of these editorials marked ‘W.B.’ are in Buller’s cuttings book, qMS BUL 1866-1898 WTU. 1282 Galbreath, p. 205. 235 obligations the focus of proposed Native Land Court inquiry, rather than the issue of beneficial ownership.1283 Seddon showed the Horowhenua Block Bill to Buller, who was dismayed by the inclusion of Horowhenua 14 among the matters to be inquired into. Coming as it did at the end of the session, the Native Affairs Committee resolved not to hear submissions on the Bill, but Buller used his influence with Seddon to appear before the committee to argue against the block’s inclusion on the grounds that ‘there had never been the suggestion or suspicion of any trust or fraudulent dealing’.1284 In the result the Horowhenua Block Bill came back to Parliament severely pruned, but with Horowhenua 14 still included.1285 According to Galbreath, the gloves came off when the Bill was debated in the House, McKenzie using the privilege of Parliament to make a stinging defamatory attack against Buller, describing his dealings with Kemp as ‘the biggest scandal he had come across.’1286 McKenzie’s allegations and Buller’s reaction are set out in more detail with regard to Horowhenua 14 discussed below (see pp. 239-240).

Figure 17: McKenzie v. Buller: the battle over Horowhenua1287

1283 Horowhenua Block Bill 1895, Exhibit AS 2, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 327-328. 1284 W Buller, 21 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 247. 1285 Horowhenua Block Bill 1895, Exhibit AS 2, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 327-29. 1286 McKenzie, 25 October 1895, NZPD vol. 91, p. 684, cited in Galbreath, p. 218. 1287 Text in cartoon: ‘The Red Rag to the Bull. – A Question of Privilege. The Ministerial Mac.- What fun we’re havin’ the noo! I ne’er ken’d an animal sae infuriated in all ma life. Dinna fash yersel’, ma beastie. I’m safe enough, ye ken, on the top 236

Galbreath relates that as a result of the wrangle between McKenzie and Buller, described below, the form of the proposed inquiry into Horowhenua was amended to a full Royal Commission, ‘to inquire into the circumstances connected with the sales or dispositions by the Natives of any or the whole of the blocks contained in the Horowhenua Block.’1288

5.5 Horowhenua 12: the Tararua ranges

With perhaps the exception of Alex McDonald, there was never any question that Horowhenua 12 had been vested in Ihaia Taueki on behalf of the tribe. Kemp had told the court as much during the partition hearing of 1890, explaining that Ihaia Taueki was the chief of Muaupoko.1289 As early as May 1891, Native Office officials and Premier Ballance himself were aware that the same trust issues being asserted over Horowhenua 11 applied equally to Horowhenua 12. Indeed, as shown above, at Ballance’s instigation Horowhenua 12 was included in the Horowhenua Subdivision Lands Bill of 1891 to enable the Native Land Court determination of owners. In lieu of the Bill’s failure, like Horowhenua 6 and 11, from September 1891 the block was instead temporarily suspended from any dealings, under Section 3 of the Native Land Court Acts Amendment Act 1891 (see pp. 205-206).

Figure 18: WD508a showing Horowhenua 12, the eastern end of the Horowhenua Block o’ this wall, and I’ll nae come doon for you or any ither beastie.’ The New Zealand Observer and Freelance, 9 November 1895, reproduced in Galbreath, p. 219. 1288 Galbreath, p. 222. 1289 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 13 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 177. 237

The block was predominantly forested mountain range. The offer to the Crown in August 1891 via Muaupoko’s lawyer at the time, JM Fraser, has been outlined above (see p. 209). Despite the restriction over alienation the Native Land Purchase Department explored the purchase of the block, although its offer was ultimately turned down as being too low. While there is no direct evidence to support the contention, it is reasonable to assume in the circumstances that Muaupoko were seeking funds to pay for the litigation over Horowhenua 11. It seems as though Buller may have offered it again the following year. There is a ‘Non official’ letter from Cadman to Buller on file, dated 24 November 1892, in which the Native Minister expressed his regret that he was unable to increase the government offer from 4 shillings per acre.1290 This communication appears to be based on a handwritten note of the same date, attached to the valuation of Horowhenua 12, in which Sheridan informed the Native Minister that the Crown could not meet Buller’s request of £3000 in light of a survey valuation of £2688 for the 13,137 acres.1291

Wirihana Hunia told the Horowhenua Commission that Taueki had in fact sold 600 acres of Horowhenua 12 to pay the survey lien.1292 I have not discovered any record of such transaction.

5.6 Horowhenua 14: the ‘Waiwiri’ block

Horowhenua 14 comprised 1200 acres set aside at the outset of partition for Ngati Raukawa at Ohau, and not proceeded with in the face of strong objections about the location. It was the last subdivision dealt with by the court and vested in Kemp. Just what had been intended by this order became a central issue as Horowhenua 14 assumed centre-stage in the controversy over Horowhenua from 1895. Kemp later alleged that his title to Horowhenua 14 only became an issue after the trust status of Horowhenua 11 had been upheld by the Supreme Court.1293

By then, Kemp maintained that the block was his, awarded to him by the court as his share of the subdivision once it was no longer required for Ngati Raukawa. From 1892 he leased and sold portions of the block to his friend and lawyer Walter Buller, and in 1894 the block was mortgaged to Buller to fund litigation over Horowhenua 11. These transactions are considered in more detail below. Kemp’s view of the matter was shared by Judge Wilson, who continued to assert that the court had awarded

1290 Cadman to Buller, 24 November 1892, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1252]. Cadman mistakenly referred to the land as Horowhenua 11, but given the attached valuation for Horowhenua 12, together with the reference to the acreage, this seems to have been a simple error on the Minister’s part. 1291 Sheridan to Native Minister Cadman, 24 November 1892, MA 75/4/21 [0320]. 1292 Wirihana Hunia, 12 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 58. 1293 Petition 161/1896 of Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1348]. 238 the land to Kemp as his own property, as opposed to the tribal estates of Horowhenua 11 and 12.1294 The contrary view, argued initially by the likes of Alexander McDonald and pursued by the Crown, was that Horowhenua 14, like all the other 1886 court awards, was held by Kemp as trustee for Muaupoko. As the self-declared man on the spot, McDonald argued that in the course of the 1886 partition both Horowhenua 9 and Horowhenua 14 had been offered in satisfaction of the 1874 agreement, and although it was clear at the time that only one of these was to be awarded, it was not clear by the end of the court just which would be accepted. The orders vesting both 1200-acre sections in Kemp therefore, had been intended as alternative provisions for the descendents of Te Whatanui, not for Kemp’s personal property.

The altered plan One of the twists in the saga of Horowhenua 14 was that the boundaries of the subdivision were substantially altered after the court order. Originally located at Ohau entirely east of the rail line, when the 1886 partition was surveyed the following year, the western boundary of Horowhenua 14 was taken across the line all the way to the shores of Waiwiri (also known as Lake Papaitonga), cutting into Muaupoko’s tribal estate of Horowhenua 11 by some 589 acres. Kemp later testified that the alteration had been necessary to accommodate all the other subdivisions east of the rail line.1295 Both he and Warena Hunia had signed the altered survey plan as the legal owners of Horowhenua 11, and indeed, both men had notified the chief surveyor of the alteration in September 1887, urging him to accept it.1296 Judge Wilson had queried the change at the time, and had ultimately approved it on advice from the Survey Department that the position of the rail line had been shown incorrectly on the map before the court.1297 The alteration added considerably to the confusion about the events of 1886: witnesses in the 1890s spoke of the ‘Waiwiri’ subdivision of 1886, and even built up cases about ancestral rights to this land, notwithstanding the fact that at the time the order was made, Waiwiri was part of Horowhenua 11, not Horowhenua 14.1298

1294 Wilson for example told the Native Appellate Court in 1897: ‘I gave plenty of time to the people to object, and challenged very carefully because Kemp applied for the land for himself’, Wilson, 2 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.12. 1295 AJHR 1896 G-2: Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 4 April 1896, p.172; see also J Broughton, p. 259: ‘There was not sufficient land for the rerewaho up at the top’; Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 9 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.28. David Alexander relates that the 1887 survey of the partitions was a two-part exercise: the initial ‘desk-bound’ plan prepared in August 1887 undertaken by Palmerson and Scott ‘presumably to demonstrate that the layout as ordered in 1886 could be achieved’, which was approved by Kemp and Hunia, and Judge Wilson in August 1887; followed by the final survey plan drawn up and forwarded to the Chief Surveyor in October 1887, and approved in February 1888, Alexander, ‘Final Historical Report…’, pp. 5-6. 1296 Kemp and Hunia to Chief Surveyor Marchant, 12 September 1887, cited in ‘The Horowhenua Block. Minutes of Proceedings in the Supreme Court…’, AJHR 1898 G-2, p.26. Crown counsel Baldwin used this correspondence to argue that the alteration had been at Kemp’s suggestion. 1297 Wilson, AJHR 1896, G-2, p.135; AJHR 1897 G-2, p.6, 15. 1298 Te Rangimairehau, for example, told the Native Appellate Court that Muaupoko had agreed to give Kemp Waiwiri in the out-of-court meetings, and that the tribal award of Horowhenua 11 ‘was not to interfere with Kemp’s section at Waiwiri’, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.19. 239

Figure 19: WD508a showing Horowhenua 14, after survey

This post-order conversion of the ‘Ohau’ block into that of ‘Waiwiri’ was a substantial alteration, ultimately affecting Muaupoko interests in an area they had arguably sought to protect, and understood had been protected, in the tribal estate of Horowhenua 11. It is not clear when the tribe found out about the change, certainly the survey plan was never exhibited.1299 Over an eight-year period, the majority of Muaupoko appear to have come to terms with the new arrangement: in the Native Appellate Court case of 1897, most of the Muaupoko residents supported Kemp’s claim to Horowhenua 14 at Waiwiri for himself, regardless of what had or had not been agreed to in 1886. Staunch supporters like Te Rangimairehau corroborated Kemp’s testimony that the tribe had publicly agreed to give him Horowhenua 14 in 1886, while even those like Te Raraku Hunia, who refuted this version of events, were nonetheless supportive of Kemp’s having Waiwiri as his share of the subdivision. On the other hand, those opposed to Kemp’s ownership of Waiwiri later argued that the relocation of Horowhenua 14 without the knowledge and consent of Muaupoko was wrong.1300 As set out in the following chapter, Crown counsel, PE Baldwin, in particular seized on Kemp’s acquiescence to the encroachment into the tribal estate effected by the survey, without Muaupoko’s knowledge or consent, as a ‘flagrant breach of his duty as a trustee and a chief’.1301 In the Supreme Court hearing of 1897, the altered plan was the second grounds in the case mounted against Buller to have the whole proceedings of 1886 pronounced invalid (see pp. 262; 265). These adversaries also seized on Kemp’s minuted admission in the course of the 1890 and 1891 partition hearings of Horowhenua 11, that Horowhenua 14 was for the descendents of Te Whatanui: ‘it is not for me alone’ / ‘That was put in my name … that I might hand it over to descendents of Whatanui’.1302

1299 Wilson 3 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.15. 1300 See summing up of Henare Te Apatari, conductor for Paki Te Hunga and others, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.114. 1301 Address by P E Baldwin, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.123. 1302 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 13 March 1890, Otaki MB 13, p. 177; 3 April 1891, Otaki MB 21A, p. 313. 240

Buller’s transactions What muddied the waters further was the contention that the seeds of Buller’s lease of Horowhenua 14 were said to have planted before the 1886 partition, although Kemp subsequently denied this was a factor in either the award or the shifting of the boundary. Both men told the Horowhenua Commission of an agreement reached between them prior to Buller’s departure for England earlier that year. Kemp had promised, Buller explained, that ‘as soon as he had perfected his title and subdivision, he would give me a lease of the Papaitonga and the adjacent land.’1303

Buller returned to New Zealand in May 1890. On a family holiday to the area in 1892, he purchased the frontage of the lake within the Waiwiri East block from the Ngati Raukawa owners, and then approached Kemp about Horowhenua 14.1304 Kemp had recently granted a six-year timber licence over the area east of the rail line to Peter Bartholomew, a local sawmiller. Four separate transactions over Horowhenua 14 were subsequently made between Buller and Kemp in 1892.1305 In May, Kemp sold 2¼ acres to Buller for £40 and on the same day leased to him the area west of the railway – some 582 acres – for 21 years at £60 per annum. In September Kemp leased a similar acreage east of the rail line to Buller for 27 years, the first six years at a peppercorn rental (until the milling licence ran its course) and thereafter at £64 per annum. At the end of October Kemp sold another area of almost nine acres to Buller for £87, and on the same day arranged a lease of the remaining portion over which a milling licence had already been granted, to take effect in May 1913. Most of these transactions over Horowhenua 14 took place at a time when Buller was acting as Kemp and Muaupoko’s solicitor for Horowhenua 11. Kemp’s deed of release, moreover, drawn up and executed by Buller, was signed by Muaupoko on 19 October 1892, just one week before Buller’s second purchase and lease agreement. Procured from resident Muaupoko to combat mounting allegations about Kemp’s administration of the tribal estate, Horowhenua 14 did not rate a mention in this deed of release, a seeming non-issue in the thick of controversy over the status of Horowhenua 11.1306

Over and above the leases and transfers of 1892, in October 1894 Buller secured a mortgage over Horowhenua 14.1307 On the eve of Kemp’s case against Hunia in the Supreme Court over Horowhenua 11, Kemp’s lawyer Edwards had insisted on a £500 retainer before he would proceed. Kemp could not pay. Buller, who was assisting Edwards with the case and had travelled with him to Wanganui, advanced the money which was then secured by a mortgage over Horowhenua 14 drawn up on the spot. The next morning, the trio trooped over to the Native Land Court to have the deed ratified by the Trust Commissioner on Kemp’s sworn statement that the land was not subject to trust.

1303 W Buller, 21 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 242. 1304 W Buller, 29 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p.82. 1305 The deeds were appended as exhibits to the Horowhenua Commission, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 318-322. 1306 ‘Deed of release and discharge, dated 19th October 1892. (The Muaupoko people to Major Kemp te Rangihiwinui)’, Exhibit F, Horowhenua Commission AJHR 1896, G-2, pp.287-9. 1307 Memorandum of mortgage, Exhibit AR, AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 322-324. 241

Like the alteration of the boundary, there were several rank elements to this deal. In addition to obvious red flags such as Kemp’s vulnerable position and the lack of any independent advice, the mortgage secured not only the £500 advanced, but also Buller’s current and any future account as Kemp’s solicitor, with interest. In 1896 Buller was initially unable to tell the Horowhenua Commission the extent of debt secured by the open-ended mortgage. After consulting with Kemp, he subsequently submitted an account for £2920, exclusive of interest.1308 By the time of Kemp’s death two years later, having defended his title to Horowhenua 14 in both the Native Appellate Court and Supreme Court in that time, Buller’s legal bill had risen to £6810, an amount, Galbreath maintains, equivalent to $2 million in 1987.1309 The fact that the mortgage had been registered just two days shy of the Native Land Court Act 1894 added to the mire. Designed partly in response to the 1891 Native Land Commission Report, the legislation restored the Crown’s right of pre-emption and prohibited private dealings with Maori land by lease, sale or mortgage. Buller, of course, knew about it: indeed he congratulated Seddon on the reform. ‘One immediate result’, he wrote, ‘will be that the army of native agents and unscrupulous middlemen who have hitherto been fattening on the Maoris and their lands will be swept away’.1310 Buller’s later defence on this particular charge of impropriety was that he was no different to solicitors ‘all over the country … anxious to get their transactions closed’ before the legislation took effect, as evidenced by the £10,000 in Native land duty paid in the last week of transactions.1311 Kemp too, later stressed the absence of any objection to the mortgage from Muaupoko present at Whanganui at the time, namely Te Rangimairehau, Raniera Te Whata and Te Kerehi Tomo.1312

John McKenzie v. Walter Buller From 1895 Horowhenua 14 became caught up in the fall-out over the trust status of Horowhenua 11. As set out above, the Supreme Court’s finding in November 1894 of an implied trust over Horowhenua 11 had seriously embarrassed the government in relation to its State farm purchase and McKenzie held Buller responsible for much of the media criticism about the purchase. By way of retaliation, Horowhenua 14 was included in McKenzie’s Horowhenua Block Bill, the Minister of Lands making his defamatory attack against Buller in the House when the Bill was debated in early hours of Saturday morning, 26 October 1895. In response to FDH Bell’s criticism that it was ‘a public shame and scandal that Parliament should be asked to pass such a measure smuggled in during the last hours of the session’, McKenzie shot back angrily:

1308 AJHR 1896 G-2 p.16; 1309 Galbreath, p. 305 note 20. 1310 Buller to Seddon, 31 October 1894, MS papers 48 folder 37, WTU, cited in Galbreath, p.203. 1311 W Buller, 21 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.247. 1312 See for example his testimony to the Native Appellate Court in 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 27. 242

…it was a scandal and a shame, but not upon the Government. Since he had been Minister he had come across some disgraceful dealings but none to equal those in connection with this Block. Sir Walter Buller was a man knighted by Her Majesty, presumably for good conduct, and who ought to be in gaol for his dealings with the natives. He had assisted Major Kemp to rob the natives by getting them to sell parcels of land, and with the money fighting each other through the legal profession.1313

Censured by Stout about making such allegations against a man not there to defend himself, McKenzie retorted that he himself had been grossly attacked ‘from behind a hedge’ by this same Walter Buller writing anonymously in the local newspaper. Buller’s dealings with Kemp, he went on, were ‘the biggest scandal he had come across’.1314

As Galbreath relates, Buller read the outburst in the morning paper, and immediately picked up his pen: inviting McKenzie to repeat his allegations outside the privilege of Parliament; refuting the allegations to Seddon and asking him whether the government supported the views of its Minister; asking the Speaker for the opportunity to defend himself before Parliament, and forwarding a copy of the letters to both McKenzie and Seddon for publication in the Evening Post. McKenzie’s response in the House on the Monday morning was to charge Buller himself with a breach of parliamentary privilege, on the grounds that his letter constituted a threat. Seddon had refused Buller’s overture to be drawn into the dispute, but the Premier immediately seconded McKenzie’s motion. After a day of debate the final vote was 45 to 7 in favour that Buller’s letter constituted a breach, with Buller summoned to explain himself before Parliament within hours of the vote.1315

In front of a full House with packed galleries, Buller’s self-vindication was deemed to be both thorough and convincing. The dispute over Horowhenua was retold in detail, from Kemp’s 1894 petition, and the recent rulings of the Supreme Court, upheld in the Court of Appeal. Horowhenua 11 was the only block in which he had been professionally involved, Buller explained, in a bid to preserve the tribal lands of Muaupoko. His personal transactions were limited to Horowhenua 14 ‘in respect of which there has never been a suspicion or suggestion of a trust or any allegations of fraud’. Buller went on:

I would conclude by saying that, although I have been actively engaged in Native affairs, officially and professionally, for a period of some thirty years or more, and have probably put through more Native titles than any other solicitor in New Zealand, I defy any man to put his finger down upon one single transaction of a questionable kind in which I have ever been concerned. My conscience is absolutely clear. … Although I have acquired hundreds of thousands of acres of land from the Natives for clients, I may say that, with

1313 New Zealand Times, 26 October 1895, cited in Walter Buller, ‘Speech and Examination of Sir Walter Buller at the Bar of the House of Representatives’, nzetc, introduction. 1314 McKenzie, 25 October 1895, NZPD vol. 91, p. 684, cited in Galbreath, p. 218. 1315 Galbreath, p. 220. 243

the exception of one block of a thousand acres … I have never acquired Native land for myself.1316

Seddon moved that no further action be taken against Buller in light of his explanation, but the Minister of Lands refused to withdraw or apologise for his allegations.1317 The Horowhenua Block Act passed four days later as the session drew to a close was brief. Horowhenua 6, 9, 11, 12 and 14 were declared to be inalienable until the last day of the next session. Curiously, the 1878 government proclamation over the other subdivisions was deemed to have ceased after 3 December 1886. A Royal Commission was to be appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the sale or disposition of the original Horowhenua block, and what trusts, if any, the lands were subject to. The cost of such commission was to be charged against the land.

5.7 Horowhenua Commission, 1896

James Martin and Robert Bush, both magistrates, and James McKerrow, a farmer in the Wairarapa, were appointed to the Horowhenua Commission on 4 February 1896.1318 With the stated object being to look into and dispose of the disputes over ‘undefined trusts or unfulfilled obligations and undertakings’, the terms of reference of the inquiry can be summarised as:

 The existence and nature of any trust, express or implied, affecting Horowhenua lands in the hands of ‘nominal owners’ Keepa Te Rangihiwinui and Warena Hunia;  The alienation of land by the nominal owners, and what monies had they received;  What monies (if any) so received were owing to the registered owners;  What monies (if any) so received were owing to the Crown;  Who were the beneficiaries of Horowhenua 9, as intended by the 1874 agreement between Kemp and McLean ;  Was Horowhenua 14 set aside for this purpose, and if so, should it have been returned to the registered owners when Horowhenua 9 was given instead;  Whether any private dealings were transacted when the land was subject to proclamation under the Government Native Land Purchases Act 1877; and  As to the bona fides on the part of any purchaser, lessee, mortgagor or mortgagee of trust land, and whether any person acquiring such land from the nominal owners had done so fraudulently, or with knowledge of any trust.  To generally inquire into any connected matter that would inform ‘a fair and just conclusion’ in respect to any of the above issues; and

1316 Walter Buller at the Bar of the House, p.10. 1317 Ibid, ‘Comments and Opinions of the Press, p.21. 1318 Commission, New Zealand Gazette, 13 February 1896, reproduced in AJHR 1896 G-2, pp. 280-81. Kemp considered McKerrow to be the personal friend of John McKenzie, Petition 161/1896 of Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1348]. 244

 To recommend what land should be charged with the costs of the Commission.1319

The hearings in Levin ran over two months, from 10 March – 15 May, with three week-long adjournments in between. Key witnesses included Kemp, the Hunia brothers, Donald Fraser, Alexander McDonald, Te Rangimairehau and Hoani Puihi of Muaupoko, JA Wilson, Neville Nicholson of Ngati Raukawa, and Walter Buller. The transcribed evidence in English was later printed in full at McKenzie’s direction, comprising over 250 pages of fine typescript, what today Muaupoko refer to as ‘the G-2s’.

As yet apparently oblivious to any conflict of interest or indeed the threat to his own title, Buller represented Kemp and ‘a large section’ of Muaupoko who supported him. Marshall also represented members of Muaupoko, although it was not spelt out who these were. The Hunia case was represented by Donald Fraser’s brother-in-law, John Stevens, who was also the MP for Rangitikei. Paki Te Hunga and Hoani Puihi were no longer part of this Ngati Pariri case, support for which was considerably reduced by this time.1320 PE Baldwin appeared for the lineal descendents of Te Whatanui and Morison for the resident Ngati Raukawa/Te Whatanui community. ALD Fraser appeared for the Crown. At McKenzie’s directive, Alexander McDonald was appointed ‘to watch the interest of the members of the Muaupoko Tribe generally, and especially of those members who were not represented…’1321

Kemp’s role as trustee The failure of the commissioners to grasp, let alone identify, just where Muaupoko’s divided loyalties lay – who they themselves considered best served their interests – was symptomatic of a wider misapprehension at work throughout the inquiry, and the gulf between the tribe’s concerns and the terms of reference of the Commission itself. A large part of the commission’s attention was directed towards the financial transactions that Kemp had undertaken in his role as trustee. Since at least 1894, Donald Fraser had countered Muaupoko opposition to the state farm sale by drawing attention to Kemp’s lack of transparency and accountability over the rest of the block. ‘Kemp is the man the tribe should go for,’ he had told Premier Seddon days after the Muaupoko deputation to Wellington, ‘not Warana [sic]’.1322 The fruits of Fraser’s smear campaign were evident at the Horowhenua Commission. The commissioners found Muaupoko’s support for Kemp ‘peculiar’, because they were

1319 Ibid. 1320 In his testimony, Warena Te Hakeke referred to the earlier list of Ngati Pariri ‘who are cleaving to me’, (AJHR 1896 G- 2, p. 37) but this included individuals like Paki Te Hunga who had left Hunia’s case by 1896, as well as family members who were similarly disillusioned with their brothers’ behaviour. During the last week of hearing, 14 individuals were identified as Ngati Pariri for whom Warena Hunia would act as trustee ‘as the principal chief of Ngatipariri’, Statement of Warena Hunia, 6 May 1896, MA W1369/28 [90], [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4537-38]. The 14 included Kawana Hunia’s children: Mihi Te Rina Kawana, Rakera Potaka, Wirihana Paeroa (aka Hunia), and Te Raraku Hunia, and grandchildren Herariki Kawana Hunia and Rangipo Hoani, and in addition Rawinia Matao, Tiaki Tikara, Hetariki Takapo, Te Marika, Ani Patene Tinotahi, Hana Rata, Hetariki Matao, and Meri Nireaha, Exhibit AJ, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 317. 1321 Report of the Horowhenua Commission, 25 May 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 2. 1322 D Fraser to Premier Seddon, 5 February 1894, MA 75/3/15 [DB:941]. 245 working under the assumption the whole time that ‘the interests of Kemp and the tribe were diametrically opposed to each other’.1323 As they saw it:

Kemp being admittedly in the position – as to the bulk of the land – of a trustee who could not give an account of his dealings with the trust property, whilst the tribe were in the position of cestui que trustent, examining their trustee as to his dealings with their property. And Kemp was not only in this position but was actually claiming, and through him Sir Walter Buller was claiming as his own property, part of the tribal land in antagonism to the tribe.1324

With the exception of Hunia’s party, however, which itself had become divided over the state farm sale, the majority of the resident Muaupoko believed in Kemp, and were happy with his management. What they wanted was the recognition and protection of the trust status of Horowhenua 11 as a tribal estate, which is what Kemp had promulgated all along. As Te Rangimairehau told the Native Appellate Court the following year with respect to the township sale for example, the money had never been an issue among Muaupoko: ‘It was never spoken of by Kemp’s tribe. The matter was brought before the Horowhenua Commission at the instance of the Europeans – not by the tribe.’1325 The same point was made by Kemp in his petition to Parliament about the Commission’s report: ‘Not a single member of the Muaupoko tribe stood up before the Commissioners to accuse me. They all admitted that they had signed the Deed (of release) so as to prevent any action for these moneys.’1326

Kemp was hostile before the commission, and particularly under cross-examination by Alexander McDonald, who Kemp considered responsible (with some justification – see below) for stirring up opinion against him.1327 Having proved his case for the trust in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, Kemp could see no purpose for the inquiry other than to attack his title to Horowhenua 14, and he maintained that Muaupoko shared his view.1328 He afterwards stated that he knew the commission intended him harm and had not wanted to appear at all.1329 The questioning of his status and management brought out the worst of his autocratic bearing, Kemp dismissing out of hand with regard to Horowhenua 14, for example, the possibility of Muaupoko dissent to his decisions: ‘They could not have objected’; and asserting just as baldly his own power to act: ‘Who could have the right to do so if I had not’.1330 The commissioners in turn were not impressed with his attitude, reporting that ‘Kemp’s demeanour when giving evidence did not give us the impression that he was honest. To his own solicitor’s questions he gave at once clear answers, but to those of the persons cross-

1323 Report of the Horowhenua Commission, p. 2. 1324 Ibid. 1325 Te Rangimairehau, 6 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 23. 1326 Petition 161/1896 of Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1348]. 1327 ‘Your work all through has been to collect all sorts of broken rubbish, nails, and things, and bring them to me to bite up.’ Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 32; ‘When I have cleaned the place by sending you and your tongue out of it I shall then go to work.’, 4 April, 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 170. 1328 Petition 161/1896 of Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1348]. 1329 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 8 March 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 26 1330 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 4 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 170. 246 examining him his answers were most evasive.’1331 Kemp’s changing position regarding the customary right of Kawana Hunia to Horowhenua was singled out to illustrate the commissioners’ general point that much of the evidence of Maori witnesses could not be relied on, their testimony over the years given ‘not according to the facts, but according to the exigencies of the case they wish to make in court.’1332

The Crown’s appointment of Alexander McDonald contributed to the idea that Muaupoko interests needed guarding against Kemp and Hunia. The fact that Muaupoko themselves by and large did not share this premise left McDonald in a somewhat extraneous position. The only custom among Muaupoko he managed to drum up during the hearing was that of Hoani Puihi – still angry about the state farm sale – ‘on the understanding that he was against both Kemp and Warena.’1333 If Hema Henare can be regarded as typical, Muaupoko were baffled by McDonald’s role at the inquiry:

I heard first that your position at that time was kaiwhakahaere for the tribe. I afterwards heard that you were acting for the Government. I heard from Wirihana Hunia that you were acting for the Government because we were not willing that you should act for the tribe. I do not know what the Government wanted. I heard sometimes that you were acting for the Government, then I heard you were appearing for Wirihana, and again that you were acting on behalf of the tribe. The interests of Te Wirihana, the tribe, and the Government were all separate, and antagonistic. Sometimes you appeared to be acting for Wirihana, at others for the Government, and at others for the tribe.1334

Muaupoko’s confusion undoubtedly arose from the fact that McDonald’s strong opinions about Horowhenua did not coincide with their own. For most of the 1890s he had worked for Hunia’s case over Horowhenua 11 and he was one of the most vocal opponents of Kemp and Muaupoko’s position that the block was tribal estate held in trust by Kemp and Hunia. Days before the royal commission opened at Levin, his ‘True History of the Horowhenua Block’ was published in the Manawatu Farmer. McDonald clearly held Kemp responsible for the fact that the promises made at the time of partition had not been honoured, and he likewise blamed Kemp and Buller for the protracted and expensive litigation over Horowhenua 11 since 1890.1335 On the one hand McDonald argued that as the absolute owner, Warena Hunia had both the ‘moral and equitable right to sell the state farm.’ On the other, McDonald was perhaps the main proponent of the trust status over Horowhenua 14, the block Kemp had mortgaged to Buller.

1331 Report of the Horowhenua Commission, p. 2. 1332 Ibid. 1333 Alexander McDonald, 24 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 141. 1334 Hema Henare, 24 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 139. 1335 McDonald wrote for example of Kemp’s cash sale of the township block without first fulfilling the conditions presented to Muaupoko: ‘this transaction alone is sufficient to cause men to look very askance at anybody found helping Major Kemp until he has made any restitution that may be possible with regard to this township.’ ‘A True History of the Horowhenua Block, by Alexander McDonald, Native Agent and Licensed Interpreter: Being a Reply to Sir Walter Buller’s Pamphlet’, in AJHR 1897 G-2, pp.149. 247

In court, McDonald was well poised to show up Kemp over issues arising from partition, particularly the non-fulfilment of promises regarding the township. Outside court he seems to have done his utmost to turn Muaupoko against their chief. ‘My advice to the people’ he explained a year later, ‘was that they should separate themselves from Kemp and Warena … I thought at the time, and think so still, that I had a more intimate knowledge of what took place in 1886 than any of them had.’1336 As Hema Henare and others of Muaupoko reported McDonald’s position, ‘You said that if we killed Kemp we would be saved.’1337 McDonald’s explanation to the Native Appellate Court in 1897 was in response to accusations made by Muaupoko witnesses that he had frightened them into lying to the Horowhenua Commission. According to Makere Te Rou, Waata Muruahi, Rawinia Ihaia, Kerehi Te Mitiwaha and Hema Henare, McDonald had advised them that the deed of release Buller had obtained from them for Kemp in 1892, together with their stance over Horowhenua 14, that it belonged to Kemp solely, would leave them landless. Under cross-examination by McDonald in 1897, Kerehi Te Mitiwaha for example testified: ‘I gave untrue evidence before the Commission in consequence of your having said, ‘Ka mate koutou i a Te Keepa, ka mate koutou i te Kirihipi, ki te mate a Te Keepa ka riro te whenua i ana uri.’1338 Acting on McDonald’s advice, as the Horowhenua Commission drew to a close all of these key witnesses retracted their former testimony that Kemp had been given Horowhenua 14 for himself (see p. 254 below).

The report now turns to consider the Commission’s findings on a block by block basis.

Horowhenua 2 The Horowhenua Commission was the first time the conditions on which the township block had been set aside came to light. Hoani Puihi also aired his grievance about being evicted from his home at Tirotiro. Rather than hold the Crown accountable for reneging on the promises held out to Muaupoko at the point of sale however, the Commission held Kemp responsible for the deal falling over; for accepting the cash sale; and for failing to account for the proceeds:

He has therefore not only in fraud of his tribe sold the land upon terms which they did not authorise and were not privy to, but in addition to this, having received the value

1336 A McDonald, 24 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 140. 1337 Hema Henare, 24 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 139. 1338 Kerehi Te Mitiwaha, 16 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 125. My translation: You will be destroyed by Kemp. You will be destroyed by the deed of release. If Kemp dies, the land will go to his descendents.’ Similar testimony was given by Rawinia Ihaia, pp. 117-119: ‘I said what I did because you told me if I gave that evidence the Royal Commission would give the land to the people’; Makere Te Rou, p. 131: ‘Mr. McDonald said to me, ‘Makere ka mate koutou; if Kemp dies this land will go to his descendants and not to you (plural) because you have all signed the deed of release drawn by Sir W. Buller. Do you not know that Kemp is a trustee for the tribe in No. 14? Under the circumstances you should appear before the Commission and say that the evidence you gave first was wrong, and endeavour to include No. 14 in No. 11, because a great injustice has been inflicted on you.’; and Hema Henare, p. 139. 248

of that land, he has not spent it in paying for the subdivisional surveys; and on his oath now states that he is unable to even suggest how any of it has been spent;1339

The commissioners concluded that Kemp’s lack of accountability was because he could not in good conscience justify what he had spent it on. It was acknowledged that Kemp had expended large sums in litigation on behalf of the tribe, the Supreme Court action at Whanganui alone costing £992/10s. Notwithstanding its own finding that Warena Hunia’s case for absolute ownership was groundless however (see below), the commission opined that the expenditure on litigation would have been unnecessary ‘had Kemp realised and acted up to his position as a trustee.’1340 The commission found that Kemp had not yet accounted for £2000 received for lease and timber rights over Horowhenua 3 and 11, and that unless he did so, these sums should be statutorily charged against any land owned by him.1341 Kemp took particular exception to this finding. ‘If I had wanted to be a thief’ he declared in his petition against the Commission’s report, having first set out the legal battle to contest Hunia’s assertion of absolute ownership, ‘I would not have laboured for six years as I have done to get the case reopened, because I believed the law had given this land to Warena Hunia and myself for ourselves through an error.’1342

The cross-examination over the township block and other money matters did not diminish Kemp in Muaupoko’s eyes. Those like Makere Te Rou, Te Rangimairehau and Te Kerehi Tomo blamed the government, and even Alexander McDonald, for the deal not being honoured. One outcome was the reconciliation between Hoani Puihi and Kemp: after listening to the testimony Puihi no longer held his cousin responsible for the dislocation of his family.

Horowhenua 6 After five weeks of unsettling cross-examination on issues that reduced most of the resident Muaupoko to bystanders, tribal witnesses took centre stage in the debate over entitlement to Horowhenua 6 as rerewaho. On 16 April Te Rangimairehau produced a new list of 44 names which he claimed to be the result of tribal deliberation. The bulk of the rerewaho beneficiaries resident at Horowhenua were not at issue. What complicated matters, as Te Rangimairehau explained to the Commission, was the ceiling imposed by the original 1886 arrangement: ‘There are only forty-four names and only forty-four sections.’ The existing rerewaho list included those who were no longer resident, and as Te Rangimairehau also explained, ‘a great many’ people had still been left out, including his own brother, Pehira Tuwharetoa. The ensuing contest, which broke down primarily between Kemp’s people and those supporting Hunia, was which of these individuals, should take their

1339 Report of the Horowhenua Commission, p. 7. 1340 Ibid, p. 16. 1341 Ibid, p. 21. 1342 Petition 161/1896 of Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1348]. 249 place in the 44. One of the stipulations seems to have been that any such individuals had to have been alive at the time of the 1873 title determination.1343

The competing claims over the entitlement to Horowhenua 6, heard towards the close of the inquiry, was a taste of what was to come with respect to relative interests in Horowhenua 11. The issues centred on ahi ka: whether the fires of those who had moved away had grown cold, or whether their fires had been kept alight by their resident whanaunga; whether ancestry trumped residence; whether recent arrivals to Horowhenua qualified. Eleven such ‘rerewaho’ candidates were contested in the course of this debate. In the result, the Commission seems to have endorsed Muaupoko’s choices, as submitted by Buller. Four women listed in the 1894 rerewaho petition and endorsed by Hunia in 1896 were removed: two were said to have lived at Horowhenua in their youth, and had since moved away; the other two never having lived there at all.1344 Six new rerewaho were introduced, including Pehira Tuwharetoa. There does not seem to have been any overarching rationale for accepting these individuals: Te Ahuru Porotene, or William Broughton, had never lived at Horowhenua but was included on the strength of his mother’s claim, his mum being Hereora. The Commission included individuals who were relatively recent arrivals, and those who now lived away.1345 The commissioners’ recommendations raised the number of rerewaho entitled to Horowhenua 6 to 48.

The timber licence over Horowhenua 6 gave the presumptive owners a small income from the tithes: £430 had been received while the commission sat, giving each respective owner between £4 to £7.1346 Almost as an aside, the commissioners recommended the sale of Horowhenua 6 to the Crown, on the grounds that were the individual sections to be cut up as intended, the value of each share would not be equal. None of the tribe, the report went on, lived or cultivated on the subdivision, whereas Crown purchase would give the owners value in cash for land which was ‘suitable for settlement’.1347

Horowhenua 9 In considering the issues surrounding Ngati Raukawa’s tenure at Horowhenua, very little testimony was devoted to Te Whatanui’s role in the district, or even any events prior to 1870. The ‘general history’ summarised in the commissioners’ report therefore must have been gleaned from other sources, reflecting the well-trodden discourse about remnants and near extinction and protection, to the extent that Muaupoko’s customary rights at Horowhenua were considered by the Commission to

1343 See for example the cross-examination of Raniera Te Whata, 16 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 241. 1344 The women were Metapere Ngatuere (Hoani Puihi’s niece who had moved away at marriage); Tiripa Te Raiura (wife of Hoani Meihana, who never resided at Horowhenua); Mere Te Toi or Toitoi (resident when young but since moved to Masterton); and Pikihuia Morea (the daughter of registered owner Emiri Ngawhakawa, who visited Horowhenua, but never lived there). 1345 These new rerewaho were Te Ahuru Porotene, Mi Maunu, Hori Wirihana, Pane Korana, Peri Korana and Pehira Tuwharetoa, Schedule 1, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 22. 1346 Ibid, Exhibit AY1, p. 332. 1347 Report of the Horowhenua Commission, p. 20. 250 have been extinguished.1348 This received historical version arguably informed the Commission’s decision about Ngati Raukawa’s access to the Hokio stream and Horowhenua lake fishery detailed below.

The Commission had been charged with finding out for whom the 1200-acre reserve promised to ‘the descendents of Te Whatanui’ in 1874 and set aside in 1886 had been intended: the non-resident lineal descendents of Te Whatanui (the Pomare branch) or the resident descendents of his sister Hitau. Neville Nicholson was an important witness for Ngati Raukawa, having been instrumental in getting the court award in 1886. In the result, the commission found for the latter, recommending that the block be vested in those who featured in the struggles with Muaupoko over the block from 1868: Wharatini; sisters Hitau, Tauteka, and Kararaina; Watene Te Waewae, Erena Te Rauparaha and Te Wiiti.1349

The Commission however went further. In the course of hearing, Kemp admitted that in addition to the 1200-acre reserve, he had also promised that small areas would be set apart for Ngati Raukawa near Papaitonga, although he refused to elaborate just where. Tamehana Te Huia of Ngati Huia also took the opportunity to press for the Oioao urupa in the north-west of the block, which he also claimed Kemp had promised.1350 The Commission noted that as currently surveyed, Ngati Raukawa had no access to the Hokio Stream or Horowhenua Lake, and that their houses also stood outside Horowhenua 9. While commenting that Muaupoko had not been party to the 1874 agreement and had no knowledge of any further reserves, the commission then proceeded to make its own arbitrary recommendation. Rather than laying off the small reserves at Papaitonga promised by Kemp, the commission suggested instead that the northern boundary of Horowhenua 9 (the issue of heated argument amongst Muaupoko in 1886) be extended to the Hokio stream, an additional 80 acres, and that the Ngati Raukawa owners enjoy the right to fish and erect eel weirs. ‘This course would not effect [sic] the Muaupoko injuriously,’ the commissioners reasoned, ‘but, on the contrary, will extinguish the claim to reserves on Block No. 11, whilst it will give the Ngatiraukawa a fishing- ground and the land on which their houses stand...’1351

Horowhenua 11 A great deal of testimony was heard on the circumstances surrounding the vesting of Horowhenua 11 in 1886. Given the overwhelming evidence in support of a tribally entrusted estate, the commissioners’ finding that Hunia’s claim of absolute ownership could not be recognised was

1348 Ibid, p. 4. 1349 Ibid, set out in Schedule 4, p. 22. 1350 Tamehana Te Huia, 10 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 223. 1351 Report of the Horowhenua Commssion, p. 11. 251 scarcely a surprise.1352 ‘We cannot find a vestige of evidence to show that Hunia held this land in any other way than Kemp held it before 1886 – viz., as a trustee for the tribe.’1353 The Commission also found that the Crown was well aware of the trust status of the block when it paid Hunia the £2000 advance for the state farm block. However by a curious logic, it endorsed the stance taken by Crown ministers justifying the payment at the time, that the area purchased by the Crown amounted to Hunia’s interest in the block.

One of the preoccupations of the Commission had been the relative status of Kemp and Hunia. Donald Fraser, of course, argued that Kawana Hunia was ‘far the greater chief in rank’ based, he maintained, on the opinion of the surrounding tribes and leading men of Ngati Raukawa, and on the actions of his father, Te Hakeke.1354 Alexander McDonald, as always, had firm ideas on the subject. ‘Maori chieftainship is not a permanent thing that stands for ever; a man may be a great chief one day, and lose all his prestige and power the next.’1355 Kawana Hunia, he considered, was undoubtedly a chief of high rank among Muaupoko in 1873, ‘mainly instrumental in keeping the Muaupoko independent to any extent at all.’1356 Kemp’s father too, was a remarkable man, a ‘first-class warrior’, who nonetheless left for Whanganui, McDonald maintained, ‘under stress of circumstances’.1357 The real hero, claimed McDonald, was Kawana’s uncle ‘who took, as it were, the part of Rob Roy, or people of that kind, [he] took to the hills and stayed there, and clung to the land, in spite of everything.’1358 McDonald was referring here to Te Rangihouhia, Kawana Hunia’s maternal uncle. But so far as rank was concerned he went on, ‘there was a man above both of them’. This was Taueki, ‘a peaceable, politic man, who was able to hold his tongue and be quiet.’1359

Muaupoko witnesses found such questioning odd. When pressed by Buller about Kemp’s standing among Muaupoko, Te Rangimairehau responded, ‘The chiefs of Muaupoko were equal; no person arrogated to himself authority over the other; they were all equal in those times. Your European always asks, ‘Who is chief?’ But in our old custom there would be a chief in each place here and there all along.’1360 Kemp was a chief of Muaupoko he agreed, but the descendent of Taueki was another. Steven’s questioning of Kerehi Tomu went round in similar circles:

Which was the greater chief of the two – Te Hakeke or Tanguru? – Tanguru would be a great chief amongst his own people, and Te Hakeke amongst his own people.

1352 Ibid, p. 11. 1353 Ibid, p. 12. 1354 D Fraser, 13 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 65. 1355 A McDonald,14 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 82. 1356 Ibid. 1357 Ibid. 1358 Ibid. 1359 Ibid. 1360 Te Rangimairehau, 14 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 88. 252

In the opinion of all the tribes along the coast, which was the greater chief of the two – which had the most influence over strange tribes? – One would be a big chief, and so would the other. Was Tanguru equal in rank to Te Hakeke? – Yes. Was Tanguru greater in rank than Te Hakeke? – No, each would be a great chief in his own place. I am speaking of the mana of the chief over the whole of the tribes along the coast, in the settlement of disputes: who took the most prominent part – Tanguru or Te Hakeke? – Each would be the biggest in his own tribe.1361

Questioned further whether Taueki was the leading chief of Muaupoko, Kerehi responded that he was one of them, referring to his role in locating Te Whatanui at Horowhenua: ‘… Taueki pointed out to Te Whatanui land at Horowhenua; he said to him, ‘If you want any timber, there is bush; you can use that;’ and Te Whatanui did not go to any other place.’1362 Hector McDonald Jnr, too, confirmed that Taueki was a recognised man when Te Whatanui came; he was less prepared to say who the current tribal leaders were.1363 Hector McDonald agreed that Ihaia Taueki was considered to be a ‘hereditary chief’ among Muaupoko, but he also concurred with Buller that the tribe would never dream of entrusting the management of their land to him in preference to Kemp.1364

Muaupoko’s perspective appears to have gone over the commissioners’ heads. The commission considered the contention that either Kemp or Hunia were the saviours of the tribe ‘nonsense’: ‘Te Whatanui was the person who saved the tribe.’1365 They went on: ‘It is impossible to say, owing to the utter unreliability of the evidence, what share Kawana Hunia was really entitled to’, but it was ‘generally admitted’ that Kawana Hunia and Kemp were entitled to a ‘much larger share’ of land than any other tribal members, although the commissioners felt unable to say who of the two was most entitled. On the basis that Kemp received the money from Horowhenua 2, the commissioners reasoned that Kawana Hunia was entitled to a similar amount from the tribal estate. The sale of the state farm at £6000 was a tidy solution:

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.1366

1361 Te Kerehi Tomo, 16 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 111. 1362 Ibid. 1363 H McDonald, 16 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 117. 1364 Ibid, 17 March 1896, p. 122. 1365 Report of the Horowhenua Commission, p. 13. 1366 Ibid, p. 13. 253

The resulting recommendation was that the remaining £4000 due from the sale be paid to those representatives of Kawana Hunia that may be found entitled by the Native Land Court, and the state farm be vested in the Crown.1367 They also recommended that Peter Bartholomew be reimbursed £420 for timber royalties effectively paid twice as a result of the purchase.

Towards the close of the hearing the commission had attempted to determine entitlement to Horowhenua 11, inviting parties to submit a list of beneficial owners, causing another bout of argument over the basis of entitlement. Matai Porotene (John Broughton) objected to the inclusion of Kemp on the grounds he had already received sufficient; Paki Te Hunga objected to brothers Hori Muruahi and Hone Tupou on the grounds that they were not resident; Kemp objected to Te Raraku Hunia because she was not in the original certificate. Makere Te Rou and Kerehi Tomo agreed that the rerewaho should be included, on the basis that the land was for the ahi ka. Once again, the deliberation over individual circumstances: of those who had been born at Horowhenua but moved away through marriage for example, was a foretaste of things to come. In the result, the Commission did omit Kemp and Kawana Hunia from their list of persons entitled to Horowhenua 11. Ninety individuals appear to have taken from the 106 owners of Horowhenua 3; and to these were added the rerewaho; the final result being 140 people the commission deemed to be entitled to Horowhenua 11.1368 The same people, plus Hunia sisters Te Rina Mete and Hera Te Upokoiri, were found to be entitled to Horowhenua 12. The commissioners sidestepped the minefield of determining relative interests altogether: ‘as it is, we think, owing to the quality of the evidence forthcoming, impossible to fix accurately the shares of each person, the only solution of the difficulty is to declare them to be entitled to equal shares.’1369

In view of the McDonald family’s long residence on the block, and Hector McDonald Snr’s burial on the land, the commissioners also recommended the reservation of 10 acres encompassing the homestead for the family.1370

Once again, almost as a postscript, the commissioners drew attention to 1500 acres on the north- eastern corner of Horowhenua 11, which was ‘not used by the Natives for dwellings or cultivations, is cut off from the remainder of the subdivision, and, as it stands, is of little practical value to the Natives’.1371 It was, however, ‘suitable for settlement’, the commissioners suggesting that the Crown also consider acquiring this piece of land. This was Kawiu, the area Donald Fraser had brought to McKenzie’s attention in October 1893 (see pp. 218-219). Given the absence of any testimony about

1367 Ibid, p. 21. 1368 Schedule 4, Report of the Horowhenua Commission, pp. 22-23. 1369 Report of the Horowhenua Commission, p. 13. 1370 Ibid. 1371 Ibid, p. 20. 254 such matters, one is left wondering about the influence being exerted on the commissioners by the likes of Fraser and Stevens, Member for Rangitikei. Kemp’s main objection to the Horowhenua Commission, expressed in his petition about its findings, was the way in which the commissioners had fraternised with witnesses outside the hearing: ‘Nothing of that kind happens in the Supreme Court: the judges do not discuss the case with people out of doors and let this influence their decision.’1372

The commissioners also recommended that Horowhenua 11 be vested in the Public Trustee, to hold the land for the owners: the southern portion to be used by the tribe as a stock run; the northern half leased to provide a regular income. They recommended the reservation of the Hokio stream and Lake Horowhenua as a fishing ground for the Muaupoko owners of Horowhenua 11 and the Ngati Raukawa owners of Horowhenua 9.1373

Horowhenua 12 Horowhenua 12 was found to be subject to trust, for the same beneficial owners more or less as Horowhenua 11. There had been no dealings with the land, so it was perhaps the least-discussed subdivision at the inquiry. In the valuation prepared for the commission, over two-thirds of the 13,137-acre block was valued at between 1 to 2 shillings per acre, the total block worth £1,619.1374 The recommendation that the land be purchased by the Crown was justified on the grounds that:

Subdivision 12 is practically worthless for any purpose except a forest reserve. It lies between two forest reserves, and, if it be acquired by the Crown, the Natives will obtain its value in cash, whilst the Crown will complete the forest reserves on the west side of the Tararua Ranges.1375

The block was subsequently appropriated under the Horowhenua Block Act 1896 in order to pay for the commission, by way of a forced sale to the Crown at government valuation.

Horowhenua 14 The Horowhenua Commission was the first time Kemp’s title to Horowhenua 14 was challenged. In his ‘True History’ published days before the commission, Alexander McDonald had set out his ‘alternative sections’ theory, arguing that in the course of the 1886 partition hearing both Horowhenua 9 and Horowhenua 14 had been offered to Ngati Raukawa in satisfaction of the 1874 agreement. Although it was clear that only one of these was to be awarded, Ngati Raukawa ‘obstinately refused’

1372 Petition 161/1896 of Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1348]. Kemp concluded the petition urging Parliament not to give effect to the commission’s findings because ‘it does not proceed upon the evidence only, but has been influenced by the talk of people outside of the Court.’ He instanced in particular James Martin’s ‘friend and companion’ throughout as Jack Broughton (presumably another of Hereora’s offspring) who, Kemp maintained, had little standing within the tribe. 1373 Report of the Horowhenua Commission, p. 20. 1374 Ibid, p. 20. 1375 Ibid, p. 20. 255 to choose between them, with the result that orders were made vesting both 1200-acre sections in Kemp for this purpose. As McDonald saw it:

If it has been finally settled that Ngatiraukawa are to have Section 9 in fulfilment of the agreement of 1874, it is certain that, so far as ‘justice’ is concerned, Section 14 must be returned to Muaupoko, and cannot be otherwise dealt with by Major Kemp, nor by any other person.1376

As a witness before the commission, McDonald reiterated his recollection that Horowhenua 14 had been intended as an alternative provision for Ngati Raukawa, given the lack of any firm decision by the close of the business.1377 He claimed credit for the arrangement, both the idea itself and Muaupoko’s adoption of it, and explained to the court that it had been motivated by the concern to avoid giving Ngati Raukawa any pretext to reopen the wider issue of entitlement to the Horowhenua block. As the Crown-appointed guardian of Muaupoko interests, McDonald focussed his examination of witnesses on Kemp’s assertion of ownership.

During the 1890 partition hearing and 1891 rehearing Kemp had been recorded as stating that he held the block for Ngati Raukawa, but the testimony was in passing, and he later refuted having made it at all. Pressed by McDonald early in the 1896 proceedings, Kemp declared his position: ‘I hold this land under Crown grant in my own name, but as trustee for those for whom I hold it…’, naming four individuals.1378 After almost four weeks of hearing, he was pressed by repeated questioning from Crown counsel into taking a position on the events of 1886:

And you cut off No.14 absolutely for yourself alone? – If I said it would be for myself the land is mine. Did you in 1886 cut it off for yourself alone? If I had done so it would be mine. It is my land. If I give anything to any one it would be to those whom I choose. Did you in 1886 cut off No.14 for yourself alone? I have already said before Parliament that I shall put into that block whom I choose. Did you in 1886 cut it off for yourself alone? I mean to have an answer, ‘Yes’ or ‘No’? – It is my land, and I have the Crown grant for it. Did you in 1886 cut it off for yourself alone? Yes; and if I had chosen to cut off a larger piece I should have been justified in doing so.1379

Te Rangimairehau, Raniera Te Whata and Makere Te Rou were among Kemp’s stalwart supporters who corroborated his claim to Horowhenua 14. JA Wilson, the presiding judge in 1886, was also adamant that the court order had been intended for Kemp alone as his individual share of the block, and that there had been no objections. Wirihana Hunia, Hoani Puihi and Himiona Kowhai on the other hand, testified that the tribe had agreed to the land being set aside for Ngati Raukawa, and now that it

1376 McDonald, ‘A True History’, p.150. 1377 McDonald testified that though pressed by him, Lewis declined to take the responsibility of making a choice, which left them no alternative but to set aside both, 13 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.75. 1378 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 10 March 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p. 32. 1379 Kemp’s cross-examination by ALD Fraser, 4 April 1896, AJHR 1896 G-2, p.183. 256 was not required, it should be returned to the tribe, and to Ngati Pariri in particular.1380 John Broughton also denied that the land had been given to Kemp by the tribe.

It was in the course of this hearing that the revelations about the shifted western boundary to Waiwiri, and Kemp’s pre-1886 promise to lease the area to Buller emerged. Nor were the commissioners impressed with the details of Buller’s lease or mortgage arrangements. Kemp’s assertion of ownership to Horowhenua 14 unravelled further in the closing weeks of the hearing, when key Muaupoko witnesses in Kemp’s ‘camp’ retracted their earlier testimony that the tribe had given Kemp the block for himself. This change of heart, which the witnesses subsequently attributed to McDonald’s scaremongering as set out above, was bolstered by five other Muaupoko witnesses called by McDonald who told the commission that Muaupoko had never consented to anything other than Kemp holding the land as trustee for the tribe.1381

In the event, the commissioners’ findings were based on the premise that Horowhenua 14 had been set aside in 1886 for Ngati Raukawa, and that although legally vested in Kemp, ‘nothing took place in the Courts of 1873 and 1886, to show that Kemp held this land upon any different conditions to that on which he held the rest of the tribal lands.’1382 They were therefore critical of Kemp’s transactions of the land, particularly the ‘grievous wrong’ done to Muaupoko through the long-term lease to Buller at a low rental. Buller, too, was criticised in this regard:

The only conclusion we can come to is that Sir Walter Buller knew, prior to his leaving in 1886 for England, that the whole block was held by Kemp under one title in trust for the tribe, and that on his return to NZ he, without making inquiry to ascertain that the trust was extinguished, purchased part, and leased other parts of the trust property.1383

The commissioners were also condemnatory about the way in which Buller had obtained his mortgage:

Practically on the day of the trial, when Kemp was in the position of having to raise £500 to see the action struck out, a mortgage is given by him – not for the sum advanced – but for unknown sums, to Sir Walter Buller, who for years acted as his confidential adviser, and who already held leases (prepared without Kemp having independent legal advice) of the land mortgaged, which did not expire for a long period, at a very low rent.1384

The commissioners expressed their doubt, given the circumstances, whether any of these transactions would be upheld by a court of law, and suggested that proceedings in fact be taken on behalf of the

1380 AJHR 1896 G-2: Wirihana Hunia, p.52; Hoani Puihi, p.127, 143; Himiona Kowhai, p.168. 1381 Following Makere Te Rou’s retraction, Kerehi Tomu, Hopa Te Piki, Mohi Rakuraku and Waata Muruahi all testified to this effect. Rakuraku and Muruahi also claimed that at a meeting at Pipiriki in March 1891, Kemp had asked the tribe to give him Horowhenua 14, a request the tribe had refused. 1382 Report of the Horowhenua Commission, p. 14. 1383 Ibid, p.19, see also p.16. 1384 Ibid, p. 15. 257 tribe. Should the court set them aside, they opined, Horowhenua 14 should then be acquired by the Crown.1385

Horowhenua Block Act 1886 The Horowhenua Commission’s report was completed just ten days after Walter Buller’s closing statement on 10 May 1896, adding to the impression of a predetermined outcome, rather than any genuine consideration of the evidence. Buller and Kemp both petitioned against its findings, Buller asking for a select committee inquiry into whether the findings of the Commission were in accord with the evidence adduced; and printing both petition and his earlier address to the Commission as pamphlets for wide distribution.1386 Before the Public Petitions Committee he argued that the Commission had ignored the mass of evidence and had taken statements out of context, or misrepresented them to support their conclusions. As Galbreath relates, Buller’s response set McKenzie off again, the Minister of Lands making further allegations about Buller’s land dealings under the privilege of Parliament.1387 Petitions against the Commission’s finding were also made by Ru Reweti (Louis Davis, presumably as Pomare’s representative) and Kipa Te Whatanui, wanting the original 1873 title investigation reopened. All four petitions were referred by the Native Affairs Committee to government for consideration on 9 October.1388 During the Native Appellate Court hearing the following year Kerehi Mitiwaha testified that ‘a good many’ Muaupoko had also signed his petition objecting to the findings, particularly the 80-acre recommendation for Ngati Raukawa and the recommendations about Crown purchase. According to Mitiwaha, when broached about presenting this to Parliament, Alex McDonald had advised against it, telling him ‘to wait.’1389

The Horowhenua Commission’s findings were translated into the Horowhenua Block Bill, introduced to the House by McKenzie in September 1896, and passed on the last day of session. The 1886 Act provided for Native Appellate Court determination of entitlement of the blocks the commission had deemed to be held in trust – Horowhenua 6, 11, 12 and 14 – under the Native Equitable Owners Act 1886 and its amendments, revived for this particular case.1390 In doing so however, all of the original 143 registered owners of 1873, plus the 48 people the commission had deemed to be rerewaho, were to be considered by the court (s.4), effectively undoing Muaupoko’s 1886 arrangement by reintroducing the ‘takekore’ whom the tribe had removed to the ‘pataka’ subdivisions. There was to be no right of appeal against the Court’s decision (s.18). All dealings with these blocks were to be

1385 Ibid, p.21. 1386 Walter Buller, Sir Walter Buller’s Objections to the Report of the Horowhenua Commission [1896]. 1387 Galbreath, pp. 226-227. 1388 MA 74/4/21 [DB:1364]. The Native Affairs Committee report on the petition of Kipa Te Whatanui was very supportive, finding it ‘conclusively shewn’, inter alia, Te Rauparaha’s conquest, Te Whatanui’s protection, Muaupoko slavery, etc, and supported the call for a rehearing into the title of the original block. MA 75/3/15 [DB:1040]. 1389 Kerehi Mitiwaha, 19 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 128. 1390 As Sheridan noted in his advice to McKenzie on the Bill, the Commissioners had exceeded the scope of their instructions in attempting to determine the individual entitlement to any block other than Horowhenua 9. P Sheridan to Minister of Lands McKenzie, 2 October 1896, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1344]. 258 prohibited in the meantime (s.7). Any certificate of title for Horowhenua 11 was to be subject to the right of Ngati Raukawa owners of Horowhenua 9 to fish in the Hokio stream and Horowhenua lake (s.9).

Sheridan advised against including clauses in the Bill regarding the compulsory sale of land to the Crown other than the State farm and Horowhenua 12. ‘Any other purchases considered necessary’ he told McKenzie – a reference to the commissioners’ recommendations concerning Horowhenua 6 and Part Horowhenua 11 – could be initiated ‘in the ordinary way’ once the titles were put in order.1391 The resulting Act authorised the issuing of title to the Crown of the State farm, on the payment of £4000 to the successors of Kawana Hunia. (At the prompting of the Hunia brothers’ agent John Stevens, this amount was paid by the Colonial Treasurer to the Public Trustee in November 1896, although the disbursement to those entitled was held up until April 1897, when the successors were established by court order.1392) It similarly authorised title for Horowhenua 12 to vest in the Crown, upon the payment of purchase money, less the cost of the Commission – calculated at £1266/19s/5d (s.19). Thirdly, it authorised title to be issued to Ngati Raukawa hapu for further reserves in Horowhenua 11, if applied for to the Court within the month (s.8d).1393 Under the Act a separate Supreme Court action was to be instigated to test the validity of Buller’s dealings with Horowhenua 14. This action was to be taken by the Public Trustee on behalf of the owners within six months of the passing of the Act. Existing Land Transfer certificates over Blocks 6, 11 and 14, and all registrations of dealings with regard to these blocks, were deemed to be null and void (s.5).

5.8 Reflections on 1890s litigation

The promise held out by the 1886 partition turned to ashes for Muaupoko in the space of a decade. Within two years Muaupoko felt the steel of the State with the eviction of tribal members from their homes on Horowhenua 2, without any inquiry into their remonstrations. Lewis and Sheridan’s stance, that having purchased the land from the certified owner the Crown’s title was clear, shows a cynical disregard for the surrounding circumstances, including the Under-Secretary’s complicity in endorsing the original township proposal held out to the tribe in 1886, and the Crown’s subsequent reneging on

1391 Ibid. See also ‘Horowhenua Block Bill 1896’, in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1346]. 1392 Kawana Hunia’s successors were deemed to be Te Warena Hunia, Wirihana Hunia, Rakera Potaka, Hera Te Upokoiri, Te Raraku Hunia, Rangipo Mete Paetahi, Rawea Utiku and Reupena Mete Kingi, see Native Appellate Court order, 6 April 1897, MA 1 176 6/14 part 1, [CFRT DB, A67(a): 896-897]. Stevens had prodded the Public Trustee about payment in October 1896, ‘The matter is of great urgency as there are two distress warrants issued against Wirihana and Warena Hunia…’, Stevens to Public Trustee, 26 October 1896, ibid, [CFRT DB, A67(a): 726]. 1393 Anderson and Pickens relate that as a result, Ngati Raukawa were granted part Horowhenua 11B41 of 80 acres, which was found on survey to be 140 acres. The matter was investigated in 1902, and referred back to the Native Land Court in 1906 to determine ownership, at which point it was divided between Ngati Raukawa (47 acres) and Muaupoko (85 acres), pp.237-251. Hearn relates that a Native Appellate Court ruling on this decision in 1912 concluded ‘there is not a particle of doubt that the Ngati Raukawa in 1840 were the absolute masterful owners of the block’, Wellington MB 3, pp. 271-272, cited in Hearn, p. 626. 259 this deal once the land had been vested in Kemp for this purpose. Curtailing Kemp’s options by maintaining the fiction of the Crown’s proclamation over the block only added to the want of integrity displayed by Crown officials at this time. The callous disregard for existing Muaupoko kainga stands in stark contrast to the provision of ‘ample’ municipal reserves set apart for the future residents of Levin.

Under-Secretary Lewis was aware that the voluntary arrangement arrived at in 1886, entrusting tribal land to representative owners, was not unusual. In the absence of any statutory protection, vesting such lands in trusted persons was seen by Maori as a way of ensuring the tribal estate remained intact. Kemp’s track record of stewardship since 1873 had earned him the confidence of the tribe: the wisdom of this strategy highlighted perhaps by the rapid alienation of Muaupoko’s individual interests in Horowhenua 3 once partition began in 1890. Kemp by nature seems to have been somewhat of an autocrat who tended to act alone in his role as trustee, without necessarily talking with, or even informing, Muaupoko first. His acceptance of the Crown’s about-face with regard to the township, the altered boundaries of Horowhenua 14, the various transactions with Bartholomew and Buller, together with disbursements to individuals including the Hunia brothers, exemplify this tendency. His refusal to take the necessary steps to have Horowhenua 6 vested in the rerewaho was another decision which tested the confidence of tribal members. On the bigger issue regarding the status of Horowhenua 11, however, Kemp consistently fought to have recognised the trust intended in 1886, engaging in a four- year legal battle with the Hunia brothers that culminated in a Supreme Court finding that the land was indeed held by him and Warena Hunia in trust for the tribe.

Warena Hunia’s insertion into the title of Horowhenua 11 seems to have been the result of another of Kemp’s autocratic actions. Unlike Kemp, there is very little to counter the impression of outright opportunism at the expense of the tribe by these Hunia brothers, other than the mitigating circumstance of their indebtedness to Donald Fraser. Wirihana Hunia did enjoy a degree of support in the early 1890s among Pariri residents at Horowhenua aggrieved at Kemp’s management, but this trust was broken by the brothers’ handling of the State farm sale and never subsequently restored. Warena Hunia lived at Parewanui and does not appear to have had any kind of relationship with Muaupoko. Wirihana Hunia seems to have moved in at Horowhenua sometime in the 1890s, his frustration with events turned to a bitter obstructionism towards Muaupoko.

In the end, however, the relative shortcomings of these men are beside the point. What is at issue is absence of any legal provision for tribal title, and corresponding tribal authority, over such lands, a failing exacerbated by the Crown’s continued policy of dealing with these individuals rather than the resident community of Muaupoko. Crown officials were aware from at least 1873 that Horowhenua belonged to Muaupoko, albeit legally held by Kemp as the sole owner on the face of the certificate. In 1890 the Native Affairs Committee, too, was clear about the trust status of the block. In 1891 Premier 260

Ballance was convinced that legislation was necessary to prevent Muaupoko from being robbed of their estate.

The failure of the Crown to remedy the situation at this point could arguably be justified by the division within Muaupoko over how to proceed, manifest in the number of conflicting petitions received by the government. However the real reason behind the Crown’s decision not to refer the trust issue to a judicial inquiry, and to treat with Warena Hunia as the legal owner over the objections of Kemp and the tribe, and against all principles of justice, was the desire to obtain the land for its own purposes, second only to helping Donald Fraser – a Liberal candidate at the time of purchase – recover his debt. The government’s determination to proceed with the state farm purchase over the objections of the resident Muaupoko community – expressed for example in Ihaia Taueki and others’ 1893 petition – directly contravened the recommendation of its own Native Affairs Committee, that inquiry into the alleged trust should precede any alienation. That Seddon and McKenzie knew they were in the wrong is evinced, it is suggested, by the bullying manner in which the Premier treated the Muaupoko delegation in January 1894 on the one hand, and the Minister of Lands’ vendetta to prove Buller the bigger crook on the other. Defeated by the law which, in November 1894, decreed Horowhenua 11 to be trust land, these same Crown Ministers then resorted to Parliament to legitimate their actions. Nowhere in this period did the Crown demonstrate concern for the well-being of Muaupoko, or seek to protect their tribal estate, or even attempt to understand them. On the contrary, the terms of the Horowhenua Commission ignored the very issues Muaupoko had raised repeatedly over the past five years, attempted to undermine Kemp’s standing within the tribe and then, rubbing salt into the wound, charged the costs of doing so against the tribe’s remaining estate.

261

Chapter 6

Individualisation/Partition, 1897‐1903

It is probable that there is no other Native land case in the colony that has been so much discussed as the Horowhenua case, nor any case in which so many different views have been promulgated irrespective of whether such views were founded on an accurate knowledge of the facts or not. A great deal of trouble and misconception has also been caused by the hostile attitude which existed between Major Kemp and the Hunia family, a state of affairs which seems to have spread amongst the supporters of each party. Horowhenua 14 Judgement, Native Appellate Court, 18981394

The decade from the mid-1890s was a period of profound change for Muaupoko, the most marked transformation arguably that of the landscape: the dense ngahere which had been one of the hallmarks of their home and identity progressively burned and felled, the heaviest stumps prised from the earth with dynamite. By 1895 one of the two sawmills at Levin boasted the largest band saw in New Zealand, the mill reportedly able to cut 25,000ft of timber per day.1395 Levin itself at this time was said to consist of ‘two sawmills, two hotels and a great number of small bushmen’s houses.’1396 In just over a decade however, the influx of Pakeha to Horowhenua would propel the settlement to borough status, the residents of Levin alone outnumbering their Muaupoko neighbours by at least ten to one.

In 1897 after almost a decade of worry, Muaupoko’s tribal estate was ‘returned’ to them. The court finding came at a cost, not least of which was a considerable legal bill accrued over five months of hearing. More than this however, the decision confronted the tribe with the same dilemma that had been neatly side-stepped in 1886. The tribal estate of Horowhenua 11 was to remain no more. The invidious process of individualising title demanded that each owner’s relative interest be determined, and then located. Doing so brought to the surface issues associated with earlier war and resettlement, disturbing six decades of tribal repatriation at Horowhenua. Muaupoko emerged from this process as 81 individual land owners. Their remaining tribal estate was then cut into a patchwork of property titles – ostensibly in the interests of equity – the associated costs of doing so rendering the traditional homeland into a liability for the newly entitled land owners.

1394 Appendix K, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 164. 1395 ‘The timber is chiefly rimu and matai, and there seems an endless supply of it’, ‘The Levin State Farm’, Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, 19 July 1895, p.2. 1396 Ibid. 262

On the political engagement front, this five-year period saw the Crown turn on its former strong man, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui. The personal vendetta of the Minister of Lands against Buller and, by association, Kemp, engendered by the state farm fiasco was fought in the media, in Parliament, and ultimately in the Native Appellate Court in the battle over Horowhenua 14. In this hearing, the Crown made known its utter contempt for Muaupoko as a people who did not know where their own interests lay, in 1886 or in 1897, the defeated remnants narrative employed to good effect. Given the time constraints, this chapter relies on Ross Galbreath’s biography of Walter Buller to trace the public controversy over Horowhenua.1397 The battle over Horowhenua 14 between McKenzie and Buller is recounted here in some detail because it arguably provides further substance to the conclusion that the Horowhenua Commission of 1896 was primarily driven by the Minister of Lands’ antipathy towards Buller, rather than any professed concern for Muaupoko.

The chapter also explores in some depth the issues raised in the course of the 1897 Native Appellate Court hearing into relative interests in Horowhenua 11. Doing so carries the risk of becoming embroiled in a dispute which is just as live today as it was a century ago, of being accused of being partisan, or of causing or adding to an intertribal dispute that continues to fester. However it seems the alternative of avoiding the issues altogether, much like the Court did in 1898, leaves the tensions that were evident within Muaupoko at the time unresolved and misunderstood. Insiders may or may not understand the history behind the Pariri/Muaupoko divide. Outsiders certainly do not. It could also be argued that internal controversy over ancestral claims has nothing to do with Crown actions which are rightfully the subject of this research report. Such an argument however misses the larger picture in which Muaupoko’s tribal tenure was converted into individual title, forced to fit a formulaic paradigm – in which continuous ancestral occupation was but one prerequisite – regardless of the aspirations or the experience of the tribe itself.

6.1 Native Appellate Court 1897

The Horowhenua Block Act 1896 provided for the beneficial ownership of Horowhenua trust blocks to be determined by the Native Appellate Court. The Native Appellate Court case was held in Levin before Judges Alexander Mackay and WJ Butler, beginning in the last week of February 1897, and running for the best part of the next five months. Horowhenua 14, at the centre of public controversy, was dealt with first, taking up six weeks of hearing in which the Crown took an active role to prove its case against Kemp’s sole ownership. Ngati Raukawa’s claims to the 80-acre block within Horowhenua 11 were dealt with next. From 22 April to 31 July, some 14 weeks of hearing were then directed at establishing the relative interests of Muaupoko to what was left of their tribal estate in

1397 There are archives from this period which there has not been time to look at: ACIH 16036 MA 1/176 6/14 parts 1-3; ACHW 8634 Seddon 2/6/25, see bibliography. 263

Horowhenua 11. The result, the court decision released a full year later, was the vesting of the tribal land in 81 owners.

6.2 Horowhenua 14

As Galbreath explains, the main effect of the Horowhenua Block Act 1896 with regard to Horowhenua 14 was that Buller and Kemp’s dealings were to be tested by two separate but intersecting legal actions.1398 The action in the Native Appellate Court was to decide on the issue of whether there was a trust, and if so, who the beneficial owners were. The action in the Supreme Court, to be initiated within six months of the legislation, was to decide whether Buller’s dealings had been fraudulent – and such a case could only be made against him if he had known a trust existed. Edward Stafford, retained to act for the government, saw the difficulties immediately. If the Native Appellate Court found there was no trust, it would be pointless to proceed against Buller in the Supreme Court. If proceedings were begun in the Supreme Court before the Native Appellate Court had come to a decision, then the latter would probably postpone a decision in deference to the superior court. In the Supreme Court the question of trust would be decided on evidence of a strictly legal nature, which would probably be insufficient, and again the case would fail.1399 It was therefore necessary to first obtain a decision in the Native Appellate Court that a trust existed, before beginning proceedings in the Supreme Court. But even if the Supreme Court accepted the finding of a trust, it would still be required to prove Buller had known of this at the time of his transactions over the block.

The investigation into the title of Horowhenua 14 was the first issue before the Native Appellate Court proceedings of 1897. As the above complexities suggest, the status of Horowhenua 14 was primarily, although not exclusively, of issue to the Crown and Buller and Kemp, rather than Muaupoko. Kemp had applied for a certificate of title to the block. Wirihana Hunia and others, and Te Raraku Hunia and others, had applied to the court for ascertainment of title under the Equitable Owners Act 1886, on the basis that it was held in trust. In court however, Te Raraku Hunia withdrew her case with regards to Horowhenua 14, explaining that her party did not object to Kemp owning the block as his share of the 1886 partition.1400 Te Rangimairehau, appearing ‘on behalf of all Muaupoko’ told the court the same thing.1401 This united Muaupoko front included Hoani Puihi, who was now back onside with Kemp after a rift of several years. While not mounting a case as such, JM Fraser was recruited by the tribe to represent its interests. Kemp once again was represented by Buller.

1398 Galbreath, p. 229. 1399 E Stafford to Public Trustee, 10 February 1897, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1378], summarised in Galbreath, p. 229. 1400 Te Raraku Hunia, 25 February 1897, AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 2. 1401 Ibid. 264

There was still a degree of opposition to Kemp’s title to Horowhenua 14, although the Ngati Pariri front had fractured in the year since the Horowhenua Commission. Independent cases opposing Kemp’s title were brought by Himiona Kowhai, represented by Alexander McDonald; Te Paki Te Hunga, represented by Henare Te Apatari; and Rihipeti Nireaha or Tamaki, one of the non-resident registered owners of 1873, represented by Hamuera Karaitiana. The Hunia brothers now stood alone, represented by John Stevens and joined, significantly, by Edward Stafford for the Public Trustee. The office had lent its authority to the Hunia brothers’ case on the advice of Judge Mackay, in order to ensure its status in the proceedings.1402 In addition to the presence of the Public Trustee, the Crown was represented by PE Baldwin, who also joined in opposing Kemp’s title.

In the course of the six-week hearing into Horowhenua 14, the issues first raised by the Horowhenua Commission the year before were explored at length, particularly the circumstances surrounding the 1886 partition in a bid to untangle the confusion surrounding the award of both areas for Ngati Raukawa. Once again, the crux of the case centred on the nature of the court’s award of Horowhenua 9 on 1 December 1886, which in turn primarily rested on the conflicting accounts of Judge Wilson and Alexander McDonald. Throughout five days of cross-examination, Wilson steadfastly maintained that Horowhenua 9 had been awarded to Kemp for Ngati Raukawa on the 1 December 1886, satisfying all obligations in respect of the 1874 agreement, and Horowhenua 14 awarded to Kemp on the last day of business for himself, with no objections from Muaupoko. In a new development, the Muaupoko witnesses in support, Te Rangimairehau and Raniera Te Whata, testified that Horowhenua 14 had been given openly to Kemp at the out-of-court tribal meetings at the time. For his part, McDonald was now surer than ever that no definite conclusion had been reached in 1886, and that Horowhenua 14 had been set aside as an alternative allocation for Ngati Raukawa. Opposing Muaupoko witnesses denied there had been any public gift of the land to Kemp.

Numerous questions of law raised during the hearing, including the validity of the voluntary arrangement of 1886, the alteration of the location of Horowhenua 14 west of the railway line at the point of survey, and the weight to be placed on Judge Wilson’s evidence, were referred to the Supreme Court.1403 It was argued by Crown counsel, for example, that those present at the 1886 partition represented only ‘the mutilated body’ of the 143 registered owners once the deceased and those who were not considered Muaupoko proper were subtracted, throwing into doubt the validity of any ‘voluntary arrangement’.1404

1402 The ‘safest course’, Mackay wrote in response to the Public Trustee’s query about his status in the proceedings, ‘ … would be for his solicitor to obtain authority to appear as Counsel for some of the Cestui que trustents who are interested in proving that a Trust existed in respect of Division 14.’ Judge Mackay to P Sheridan, 15 February 1897, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1377]; see also E Stafford to Public Trustee, 10 February 1897, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1378]; Galbreath, p. 229. 1403 ‘In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Wellington District’ in AJHR 1898 G-2, pp. 135-140. 1404 Address by PE Baldwin, for the Crown, AJHR 1898 G-2, p. 117. 265

The Crown’s position The Crown’s partisan position during the hearing was justified by Baldwin in his closing address by the fact that the Horowhenua Block had been ‘a constant source of public trouble for a very lengthy period of time’, referring to the numerous petitions and calls for legislation. Moreover, he argued, the Crown was entitled to be well satisfied that any grants would be made out to the rightful owners, particularly where there was the reasonable suspicion that ‘persons other than the rightful owners are making efforts to obtain titles for themselves’. Lastly, given that the court’s findings were to be final and conclusive, with no right of appeal, the Crown felt bound to assist the court ‘with a view to elucidate the truth’.1405

Over and above the public interest to see that justice was done, however, Crown counsel argued that it was duty-bound to protect the rights of those, ‘by reason of their infirmities or circumstances’ were unable to avail themselves of the protection ordinarily open to British subjects, by which he meant Muaupoko:

it has made itself manifest that a large number of the Muaupoko Tribe, by reason of mistaken loyalty, of outside influence, of pressure, or of fear, are unable to properly insist upon their own rights.1406

In its view, the tribe’s overwhelming acquiescence to Horowhenua 14 being Kemp’s own property was untenable:

If these persons have been persuaded that it is their duty or their privilege or their interest to sacrifice themselves in the interest of their chief, whoever he may be, the Court will appeal to them in vain. These people it is the duty of the Crown to protect against themselves. If the Crown finds on an inquiry into any block such as this that any person is, by reason of his influence, in a position to obtain from his tribe a benefit to which he is not justly entitled, then the Crown is entitled to interfere. It is the sacred duty of the Crown to interfere and see that such benefit shall not be given until a legal title has been conferred upon the tribesmen.1407

Like the Horowhenua Commission the year before, Crown counsel refused to contemplate the alignment of Muaupoko and Kemp’s interests. Moreover, the tribe’s supposed inability, both to judge what was in their best interests and to stand up for these interests, was projected back to the partition of 1886, and rationalised by the familiar narrative of conquest and subjugation:

The Facts. – In the year 1886, when the Court sat at Palmerston for the purpose of subdividing the Horowhenua Block, it would be well to clearly have in the Court’s mind what were the relative positions of the parties interested in the Horowhenua Block. On one hand stood Major Kemp. He had been since 1873 the sole certificated owner of the

1405 Baldwin, AJHR 1898 G-2, p.114. 1406 Ibid, p.115. 1407 Ibid. 266

whole of the Horowhenua Block. To use Sir Walter Buller’s language, as such he was ‘in fact and in law a trustee’ for the whole 143 owners. … As such a trustee, to use Major Kemps own expression, he had the heads of the people under his hand: ‘Your heads have been in my hands; my feet have been upon your bodies;’ and during the whole of the time from 1873 to 1886 he acted up to that expression in its entirety. He was, moreover, as the Court well knows, a chief of great mana – a man of surpassing bravery, a man acquainted with European ideas, and a man of extreme ability, and he would have held a prominent position in any tribe. How much more so in a tribe such as the Muaupoko – a tribe who had for decades been refugees, wanderers, and living on sufferance under the protection of others. These tribesmen were powerless before such a man. … I say without hesitation that Major Kemp was at the time of the Subdivisional Court possessed of paramount authority and influence over the Muaupoko – that he was de facto in a position to dictate to the registered owners what he intended to do in regard of the subdivision of the Horowhenua Block, and that the tribesmen were no in a position to gainsay, him, and dared not do so.1408

Baldwin’s statement, it is suggested, reveals a breathtaking contempt for Muaupoko on the part of the Crown and deserves attention. In repudiating Muaupoko’s consensus about Horowhenua 14 in 1897 by setting up its own case in conjunction with the Hunia brothers, the Crown was in effect undermining the tribal position arrived at with regard to Horowhenua 14. The rationale for doing so, as expressed by Baldwin above, was that Muaupoko were incapable of any kind of tribal autonomy, their disempowered state enduring since their pre-Treaty defeat. What is also striking is that the Crown’s expressed regard for protecting the rights of Muaupoko land owners in Horowhenua 14 stands in stark contrast with its own demonstrated preference since 1873 to deal with Kemp (and with regard to Horowhenua 11 more recently, with Warena Hunia), and to ignore, and even deny in the case of the state farm purchase, any wider tribal interests in the land.

Supreme Court action, 1897 The Native Appellate Court case regarding Horowhenua 14 finished on 8 April, the court reserving its decision. Three days before the six-month window to test the validity of Buller’s dealings over Horowhenua 14 in the Supreme Court expired, Edward Stafford for the Public Trustee issued a writ to begin proceedings, and then made every effort to delay the actual hearing in the hope that the question of trust would be first settled in the Native Appellate Court.1409 The case was eventually heard in August 1897. Cooper, with Stafford and Baldwin, appeared for the Public Trustee and Wirihana Hunia; HD Bell and AP Buller appeared for Buller; Robert Stout represented Kemp.1410 Cooper was forced to concede at the outset that there was no evidence of notice on the part of Buller of any trust over the block, and therefore agreed that judgement should be given in favour of the defendant. In the resulting decree agreed to by the parties, Wirihana Hunia was dropped as co-plaintiff, and all charges against Buller withdrawn, all dealings regarding Horowhenua 14 deemed valid and entitled to be re-

1408 Ibid, p. 117. 1409 ‘The Horowhenua Block. Memorandum re Proceedings in the Supreme Court under the Provisions of Section 10 of ‘The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896’ AJHR 1897 G-2b. 1410 The Public Trustee and Another v. Sir W. Buller and Another re Horowhenua, AJHR 1897 G-2b, p. 12. 267 registered. The action against Kemp was similarly dismissed, without prejudice to the Native Appellate Court case. Both Buller and Kemp were awarded costs.1411

The questions of law which had been referred by the Native Appellate Court were argued in the Supreme Court before Chief Justice Prendergast, together with Judges Williams, Denniston and Conolly over 3-5 November 1897. Bell and AP Buller now appeared for Kemp; Sir Robert Stout had changed sides, now appearing with Stafford ostensibly for Wirihana as one of the cestuis que trustent, but really pursuing the Crown’s case. Likewise Baldwin, who had appeared for the Crown in the Native Appellate Court hearing, was now said to be acting for Rihipeti Nireaha, Himiona Kowhai and Pire Tikara.1412 At issue was the interpretation of the Horowhenua Block Act 1896, and the jurisdiction of the Native Appellate Court under the Act to inquire into issues that were argued to be legally dubious, particularly the voluntary arrangement of 1886 in the absence of many of the registered owners, and the subsequent shifting of the Horowhenua 14 boundary into Horowhenua 11 without the notification or consent of the beneficial owners.1413 Stout’s opening argument that a trust was assumed by the Act was not accepted by the Chief Justice, who countered that the main idea behind the legislation was to first find out what, if any, trust existed.1414 The Court also found that the Act did not intend the jurisdiction of the Native Appellate Court to extend to the title itself, or any irregularities arising from subsequent proceedings.

The Native Appellate Court judgement on Horowhenua 14 was given a full year after the hearing, on 14 April 1898. Reflecting the intense public controversy over the issue, the ruling was a carefully considered verdict, traversing the whole history of the matter and quoting at length from evidence given by contending parties from 1886 to 1897, taking three and a half hours to deliver.1415 The court concluded that the theory of the trust with regard to Horowhenua 14 had been raised only recently, after Kemp’s success in proving the trust over Horowhenua 11.1416 It dismissed arguments about ancestral claims, pointing out that such considerations had not been part of the 1886 partition.1417 A distinction was drawn between the trust status over land on which Muaupoko’s homes and cultivations were situated, and that of Horowhenua 14 ‘in a wilderness state’, accepting that the alteration in the survey map had been an accident.1418 The judgement also alluded to Kemp’s role in

1411 ‘Minutes of Decree as agreed on by Solicitors to the Parties for Submission to the Court’, AJHR 1897 G-2b, p. 16. 1412 ‘The Horowhenua Block. Minutes of Proceedings in the Supreme Court, and Judgments on the Special Case stated by the Native Appellate Court’, AJHR 1898 G-2. 1413 See for example Robert Stout’s argument, ibid, p. 16. 1414 Ibid, pp. 9-14. Justice Denniston concurred with this view, ‘Legal rights, if destroyed, must be destroyed by express words, and not by a strained and doubtful inference.’p. 49. 1415 Appendix K, AJHR 1898 G-2a, pp. 156-184. 1416 Ibid, p. 167. 1417 Ibid, p. 168. 1418 Ibid. 268

1873 at having the boundaries of Muaupoko’s tribal estate extended from Rakauhamama and Mahoenui to Waiwiri, concluding:

No one had the personal influence or could command the same amount of assistance as he could amongst the tribes who were willing to aid the Muaupoko, if necessary, in regaining their land. He found the remnant of the tribe in a very unsatisfactory position. As a people they had been conquered by Te Rauparaha and his allies, and afterwards succoured by Te Whatanui, but had never regained their independence as a tribe. Kemp, by his energy and determination, re-established his people, and, considering all the circumstances, he is entitled to very great consideration for the incalculable benefit he has gained for the Muaupoko in recovering for them so large a portion of their original tribal estate (fully 25,000 acres), as well as enabling them to regain their tribal status.1419

In the result, the court upheld Kemp’s position on every point, concluding that Horowhenua 14 was rightfully his own property, vested in him by the 1886 Court untrammelled by any trust. Kemp died the next day.1420

Figure 20: The very public feud between McKenzie and Buller over Horowhenua 14.1421

1419 Ibid, p. 183. 1420 Galbreath, p. 239. 269

Buller’s victory in court was not the end of the matter. Galbreath relates that when Buller applied to the Public Trustee for the payment of the costs awarded to him by the Supreme Court in April 1897, the Public Trustee would not pay: the Audit Office would not pass the payment without the Minister’s approval and McKenzie would not approve.1422 When Parliament sat later that year McKenzie introduced legislation to reopen the case. The Horowhenua Block Act Amendment Bill declared the previous decision of the Supreme Court to be void, the case of Public Trustee v. Buller to be instituted afresh. As Galbreath explains, previously the difficulty had been that no fraud could be proven against Buller in the absence of conclusive proof that the land he purchased and leased was held in trust. The Bill overcame this difficulty by declaring Horowhenua 14 to be trust property, pre-empting the Native Appellate Court decision.1423 The following day McKenzie also forwarded his name for the Native Affairs Committee which would consider the Bill, a move perceived by the Opposition as another bout in the Minister’s continuing feud with Buller.1424 In the House, William Rolleston moved that as the Bill would effectively confiscate the private property from Buller and Kemp, both men should be given the opportunity of being heard. Despite argument from Seddon the motion was carried by a one- vote majority, at which point Seddon let the Bill lapse rather than allow Buller the opportunity to address the House. After the favourable Native Appellate Court decision, when Buller tried to have his titles in Horowhenua 14 confirmed and re-registered, the judges demurred that the judgement had not been final.1425 The hearing of his 1898 petition regarding the government’ failure to pay costs awarded by the Supreme Court was hijacked by controversy over the extent of indebtedness of the recently deceased Kemp. Two months before Kemp’s death, Buller had helped him prepare his will, directing that all of Kemp’s property, bar his uniform, sword and medals, be sold to pay his debt to Buller which was now stated to be £6,810.1426 Crown counsel Baldwin argued that Buller had been responsible for incurring the costs of the Supreme Court action since he had prevented the Public Trustee from deferring or withdrawing the case, but he also used to good effect the fact that, by acting as Kemp’s solicitor in all the litigation concerning Horowhenua 14 and charging him accordingly, Buller had secured a ‘clean net profit’ from the affair.1427 Buller was compelled to show his accounts to the Committee, revealing that about £4,500 of the debt was made up of Buller’s own charges in professional fees and disbursements.1428 As Baldwin argued:

1421 Cartoon by Ashley Hunter, N.Z. Graphic, 30 October 1897, courtesy of Auckland Institute and Museum, reproduced in Galbreath, p. 236. 1422 Galbreath, pp. 234-235. 1423 Horowhenua Block Act Amendment Bill 1897 NZ Parliament. Bills Thrown Out 1897 No. 116-1 cited in Galbreath, p. 235. 1424 Galbreath, p. 235. Although McKenzie succeeded in getting on the committee, in the event he was too ill to attend when the Bill was considered by the Committee, p. 236. 1425 Galbreath, p. 240. 1426 Galbreath, p. 240. 1427 Galbreath, p. 241. 1428 Buller had charged Kemp his usual ten guineas a day (£10/10s.), plus costs, for all his attendances at hearings since acting for Kemp, including the 1894 Supreme Court hearing, the 1896 Horowhenua Commission, and the 1897 Native Appellate Court and Supreme Court hearings, Galbreath, p. 241. 270

The litigation has put into Sir Walter Buller’s pockets thousands of pounds, part of which he, no doubt, earned, but all of which was spent in support of his own position and spent at the expense of [Kemp’s] ruin. …Under the circumstances he is surely not entitled to ask the country to pay him anything whatever.1429

As Galbreath points out, this was scarcely the point, given that the government was morally and legally obliged to pay costs awarded by the Supreme Court, but the issue did influence the Petitions Committee, who reported ‘no recommendation’ on Buller’s petition. The costs remained unpaid.

In January 1899 Buller obtained a final order from the Native Appellate Court confirming the judgement over Horowhenua 14 and was able to re-register his title. Galbreath recounts that at this time he was also negotiating with Wiki Keepa about the settlement of her father’s estate. It was eventually agreed that the block be sold by public auction under the terms of Buller’s mortgage and subject to his leases. Buller agreed to bid the amount he was owed under the mortgage, which with the additions since Keepa’s death had risen to £7,800. McKenzie’s last ditch effort to shaft Buller, made shortly before his departure for a cancer operation in England, was his recommendation to Cabinet that a bid of £9,600 be made for the block. This was rejected and at auction held in May 1899, Buller won his bid for Horowhenua 14. He departed for England for good shortly after.1430

There are at least two ways to view the loss of Horowhenua 14. Despite the Native Appellate Court finding to the contrary, in light of the evidence it is debatable whether the block was awarded to Kemp in 1886 for himself: certainly the partition at that time did not extend to Waiwiri. The significant alteration to the location of the block and Kemp’s transactions with Bartholomew and Buller displayed the by-now familiar hallmarks of the rangatira acting without necessarily telling, let alone seeking the approval of, the resident Muaupoko community. In this light, which was the one chosen by Kemp’s detractors including the Crown, Muaupoko were taken advantage of by their trustee’s claim to sole ownership over the 1200 acres (and Kemp, in turn, taken advantage of by Buller).

As argued above however, such a view rests on the perception of Muaupoko as a disempowered people, unable to formulate their own decisions (and Kemp as a naïve victim of his unscrupulous counsel). For regardless of what was or what was not intended in 1886, by 1897 the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua by and large still trusted in Kemp’s management, and supported his claim to ownership of Horowhenua 14. Focussing on Kemp’s claim to sole title misses the point which Muaupoko arguably understood: that in doing so he was still acting in his capacity as trustee: the debt over Horowhenua 14 secured by the open-ended mortgage to Buller expended to win back

1429 AJHR 1898 I1B, p.29 cited in Galbreath, p. 241. 1430 Galbreath, p. 243. 271

Horowhenua 11 for the people. Ultimately, the loss of Horowhenua 14 can be seen as the cost of litigation over Horowhenua 11, much of which was occasioned by the Crown’s assertion of Warena Hunia’s right to sell, and conversely, its challenge to Kemp’s title to Horowhenua 14 orchestrated only once its own title to the state farm had been successfully challenged.

6.3 Horowhenua 11: Relative interests

The case regarding the beneficial ownership of Horowhenua 11 followed that of Horowhenua 14, running from the beginning of May to the end of July 1897. Early on, the Native Appellate Court found that a trust existed over the block, the finding bringing a sense of relief to the tribe after almost a decade of uncertainty.1431 Thanks to the Horowhenua Block Act 1886, the starting point to determine the relative interests in the tribal land was the 143 registered owners on the 1873 Certificate of Title, plus the 48 ‘rerewaho’ determined by the 1896 Commission. Rather than prove the entitlement of each individual, an attempt was made to short track the inquiry by inviting the parties to submit a list of names of those objected to, and to hear evidence on these. This 1897 hearing was not the first time Muaupoko had talked about their past: the partition hearings and rehearings of 1890 and 1891 had been built on evidence about competing ancestral take and key events. Yet the three- month hearing into relative interests was the fullest articulation of issues concerning Muaupoko, from their own perspective. The Crown was not represented at this hearing, its direct interest in Horowhenua brought to an end with the conclusion of the Horowhenua 14 case.

The parties By the beginning of May, the interested owners of Horowhenua 11 had settled themselves into seven camps. For the first time Kemp brought a separate case from Muaupoko, represented by his stalwart counsel Buller.1432 This distancing may have had more to do with the criticism about the conflict of interests levelled by the Horowhenua Commission, rather than any loss of standing within the tribe. Indeed, the degree of Muaupoko support for Kemp seemed as strong as ever, the court case itself viewed by the relieved residents as Kemp’s achievement. As Waata Muruahi put it, ‘Kemp at last succeeded in getting Horowhenua back for the people.’1433 The court’s inquiry into the allegations of an abuse of trust also revealed widespread satisfaction among Muaupoko about his past administration.

1431 4 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, pp. 29-30. 1432 In addition to Kemp and his daughter Wiki, Buller represented Rora Korako, Kemp’s sister, and her sons Arikihanara and Haruru-ki-te-rangi, Hori Te Mawae, Merehira and Rora Tohu, Merehira Waipapa, and Waata Tamatea, AJHR 1898 G- 2A, Appendix C, p.154. 1433 Waata Muruahi, 27 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.17 272

Buller described Kemp’s position as ‘neutral’. Unlike his uncompromising stance during the Horowhenua Commission the year before, Kemp was no longer bent on excluding anyone who disagreed with him. ‘[T]he tribe is back on the land’, he pronounced. ‘I mean the Muaupoko – those who are Muaupoko by ancestry and who have rights by occupation.’1434 Kemp maintained his position that Horowhenua 11 was a tribal estate for the permanent residents – the ahi ka – of Muaupoko, and left it to the court to decide entitlement on this basis. In setting out his prima facie case, he drew the court’s attention to the provision already made by Muaupoko in 1886 for registered owners who were not part of the resident tribe. He also set out his claim of continuous occupation spanning five generations from Puaki Te Ao and her husband Te Mou, (himself raised on the shores of Horowhenua), and their off-spring Tireo, Te Riunga, Ruatapu and Potangotango.1435

The majority of resident Muaupoko were represented by JM Fraser, including Hoani Puihi and his son Kingi, who were ‘now with the tribe’.1436 According to Waata Muruahi, Ngati Pariri had joined Muaupoko’s case after receiving the court panui.1437 The combined hapu had come together at Pipiriki to discuss their approach to the impending court case. To their resolve to limit entitlement to Horowhenua 11 to the ahi ka – those permanently residing on the land – were added new decisions to exclude Muaupoko owners who were deceased in 1886, and to bestow equal shares on the living.1438 This criteria effectively halved the number of registered owners and rerewaho, excluding 99 of the 191 potential beneficial owners from Horowhenua 11.1439 According to Kemp, the decision to restrict title to the living had emanated from him, ‘in order to prevent some of them obtaining too large a proportion of the land by succession to deceased owners.’1440 It also promised to debar those who Muaupoko objected to, on the grounds of no occupation, from gaining a stake in the tribal reserve through succession. Rihipeti Nireaha, for example, was a registered owner who, though born and raised at Horowhenua, had left the district when she married and therefore did not meet the tribe’s criteria of permanent occupation. The same criteria worked against her two daughters, who had nonetheless formerly been included as rerewaho. The tribe’s objection to Rihipeti Nireaha’s inclusion, if upheld by the court, would have been undermined without the back-up stipulation about excluding the deceased, for in addition to her own status as registered owner in the 1873 title, Nireaha was also successor to four deceased Muaupoko residents.1441

1434 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 5 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.31 1435 Ibid. Note, according to whakapapa given by Hoani Puihi, Te Mou and Pua-ki-te-ao were six generations back, and Ruatapu a grandson of Tireo, rather than a brother, Hoani Puihi, 1 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.99. 1436 Hoani Puihi, 23 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.12. 1437 Waata Muruahi, 27 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.18. 1438 Makere Te Rou, 19 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.129. 1439 This included 26 Muaupoko residents who had died before 1886, seven Muaupoko who no longer lived at Horowhenua, and 66 individuals the tribe objected to on other grounds, AJHR 1898 G-2A, Appendices A and B, pp.153-4. 1440 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 29 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.148. 1441 Nireaha had by 1897 succeeded to the interests of Petera Te Ha, Akuira Takapo, Maaka Ngorongoro and Heni Wairangi, see AJHR 1898 G-2A, Appendix G, p. 155. 273

Including as it did virtually the whole resident population, the ancestral basis of Muaupoko’s case was necessarily wider than that put by Kemp. In addition to these well-known Ngai Te Ao family founders, tupuna acknowledged by Muaupoko witnesses as proving continuous occupation over generations included those whose presence predated Ngai Te Ao, such as Te Ngarue and Te Hukui, and others who had settled on the west coast in the same period, Hamua sisters Pariri and Te Rongopatahi.

The inherent tensions between what constituted ahi ka and the ancestral basis of Muaupoko’s case all served to strain their united front. These issues are discussed in more detail below. In the course of the hearing at least two individuals in the Muaupoko camp, disgruntled by the evidence against their relatives, threatened to set up their own case. Of more significance however, was the separate case set up by Hereora’s offspring, headed by Te Raraku Hunia and represented by Rawiri Rota.1442 Hereora was Ihaia Taueki’s sister. This branch of the Taueki family were said to have boycotted the Pipiriki meeting. John Broughton, Hereora’s son, explained that their separate case arose from the tribe’s decision to rely on occupation or possession of the land alone, without regard for ancestry.1443 Angered by the attempt to downplay the role of Taueki in holding the land, in her evidence his granddaughter Te Raraku Hunia introduced a third layer of entitlement to Horowhenua 11: whether individual registered owners had fled or stayed in the conflict with Te Rauparaha. This, too, is explored in more detail below.

Registered owners objected to by Muaupoko made up the other five cases, organised loosely along tribal lines. As indicated above, these included individuals who had been relegated to ‘pataka’ subdivisions in the partition of 1886 in order to remove their claim to any stake in the tribal title (Horowhenua 4, 5, and 7); as well as individuals who had been included in the 100-acre lots of Horowhenua 3, presumably because they were regarded at the time as part of the tribe. At the beginning of the hearing, a number of ‘outsider’ owners, including Karaitiana Te Korou, Marakaia Tawaroa and others of Hamua, informed the court that they had no wish to pursue any claim to Horowhenua 11, ‘as they were of the opinion that the land belonged to Muaupoko Tuturu.’1444 These same Hamua owners subsequently joined Rihipeti Nireaha’s case, represented by Hamuera Karaitiana, although it appears they may have done so to satisfy court procedure rather than to press

1442 Hoani Puihi, 5 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.103. Rawiri Rota’s clients included Ihaia Taueki, Tiripa Taueki, Riarona Taueki, Hapeta Taueki, Haare Taueki, Hereora Taueki, Raraku Hunia, Noa Tawhati, Unaiki Taueki, Matai Porotene, Taare Porotene, Te Ahuru Porotene, Kiri Hopa and Kahukore Hurinui, Appendix H, p.155. 1443 John Broughton, 11 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 43. 1444 These were individuals who had been relegated to Horowhenua 4 in 1886, the 512-acre block sectioned off for 30 registered owners that Muaupoko had considered were not entitled to any tribal estate. Hamuera Karaitiana, 23 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.11. Emeri Ngawhakawa of Rangitikei similarly told the court she and her son Taitoko-ki-te-uru-o-tu did not intend to press any claim to the tribal estate. 274 any claim.1445 Karaitiana represented the interests of 24 other registered owners, many of whom had been provided for in 1886 as tribal members in Horowhenua 3, but who were now being excluded from the tribal estate by Muaupoko, either because they had died prior to 1886, or because they did not live there.1446

Henare Te Apatari, who had represented Paki Te Hunga during the earlier inquiry into Horowhenua 14, now represented Rangitane interests seeking to have Peeti Te Aweawe, Meretene Whakaewa and Ani Kanara Tihore included in Horowhenua 11.1447 Knocks appeared for nine registered owners, many of whom were associated with Ngati Apa, and also for Manihera Te Rau of Ngati Raukawa, who had married into the tribe in the early years of Raukawa settlement, and had lived with his Muaupoko wife at Horowhenua until her death.1448 In 1886 he, too, had been treated as part of Muaupoko inasmuch as he received his own 100-acre allotment in Horowhenua 3.

Ria Raikokiritia, also known as Ria Hamuera, made a separate case represented by Wi Kiriwehi. She had tried to join with Muaupoko, but had been rejected on the grounds of no occupation. Raikokiritia’s mother was Muaupoko, and she had lived at Horowhenua with her parents until her marriage to Hamuera Raikokiritia in 1851, when she moved to Parewanui. Raikokiritia and her husband had been frequent visitors to Horowhenua, particularly while her sister, who lived there with her Muaupoko husband, had been alive. In court Raikokiritia attempted to enlist the support of her brother-in-law Hopa Te Piki, but he clung to the tribe’s undertaking to include only the ahi ka, asserting that Raikokiritia’s fires had gone cold when her sister had died.1449

Wirihana and Warena Hunia’s support had fallen away completely. Some Ngati Pariri who had stood with the Hunia brothers since the partition hearing of 1890 were now part of the wider Muaupoko case headed by Te Rangimairehau. Others, like Himiona Kowhai, Paki Te Hunga and Rihipeti Nireaha brought their own cases. The change of heart was attributed to the brothers’ handling of the state farm sale without the hapu’s knowledge, consent, or share in the proceeds, and the fact that ‘Warena never said the land belonged to the tribe’.1450 As Waata Muruahi saw it, ‘[n]either Warena

1445 Karaitiana’s list of claimants to Horowhenua 11 did not include any Hamua members, see minutes for 3 May 1897, p.29; ‘Hamuera Karaitiana’s List of Persons whom he claims to have Rights in No. 11’, AJHR 1898 G-2A, Appendix G, p. 155. 1446 Ibid, Karaitiana represented the interests of Rihipeti Nireaha (aka Tamaki), Paki Te Hunga, Pire Tikara, Hetariki Takapo, Petera Te Ha, Akuira Takapo, Hetariki Matao, Hoani Nahona, Eparaima Te Paki, Tiaki Tikara, Maaka Ngorongoro, Mata Huikirangi, Mere Nireaha, Pirihira Nireaha, Hana Rata, Heni Wairangi, Paranihia Riwai, Ngahina Eruera, Wirihana Tarewa, Te Matenga Tinotahi, Pirihira Arahura, Himiona Taiweherua, Mere Karena Te Mana a Tawhaki, and Wiki Pua. 1447 In 1886 Peeti Te Aweawe, along with other Rangitane chiefs Hoani Meihana and Waata Tamatea, had been awarded the 311-acre Horowhenua 7; Meretene Whakaaewa included in Horowhenua 3; and Ani Kanara Tihore relegated to Horowhenua 4. 1448 Knocks represented Arihia Toitoi, Hiroti Te Iki, Hakihaki Te Wunu, Heni Haimona Te Iki, Hira Te Rangitakoru, Manihera Te Rau, Mere Mionga, Pirihira Te Rau, Ruihi Wuunu; AJHR 1898 G-2A, Appendix J, p.156. 1449 Hopa Te Piki, 29 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.95. 1450 AJHR 1898 G-2A: Hoani Puihi, 30 April 1897, p.27; Waata Muruahi, 27 April 1897, p.17. 275 nor Wirihana made any attempt to put the people on the land.’1451 In the face of a court hearing to determine the beneficial owners, Wirihana continued to assert that Warena was the absolute owner of Horowhenua 11 by law, and himself: ‘I consider I am the rangatira of No.11. It is mine. I am the chief of Muaupoko. I am the absolute chief of the whole of the Horowhenua blocks.’1452 In the third week of April, with the hearing of Horowhenua 14 at a close, the Hunia brothers also lost their counsel, Stevens, having to join Himiona Kowhai’s case represented by Alex McDonald instead. What they claimed in common was an ancestral right from Pariri, although Wirihana’s ancestral claim extended seven generations further to Tupatunui.1453

The Native Appellate Court minutes of 1897 give us perhaps the best insight into the dynamics within Muaupoko, and the pressures wrought by war and resettlement at Horowhenua since the 1840s. After their experience with the Horowhenua Commission, Muaupoko would have been aware of the value of presenting a united front, in spite of the division and suspicion wreaked by more than six years of wrangling over the legal ownership of the block. In spite of their efforts, the debate over entitlement brought to the surface previously unspoken tensions surrounding ancestry and occupation. It also took place in the context of a fast-diminishing resource, the tribal estate of Horowhenua 11 having been whittled away since 1886 by the state farm sale, and the incursion of Block 14 west of the railway line. The report now turns to consider the issues confronting the tribe at this time.

Keeping the outsiders out One of the more straightforward objectives of the tribe was to keep those who had already been provided for in the ‘pataka’ of 1886 out of Horowhenua 11. ‘I have always said that No.11 was for the ahika – the Muaupoko who reside here’, Kemp told the court, ‘not the people who were put on the hills.’1454 Individuals of Hamua, Rangitane, and Ngati Apa, it was argued, had already been given their fair share of Horowhenua, and could not be entitled to what had been set aside as a tribal estate for Muaupoko. This was one issue on which the otherwise opposing parties within Muaupoko seemed agreed, and the stance of those like Karaitiana Te Korou and others set out above, together with withdrawal of Hoani Meihana’s and Aperahama Tipae’s interests from the case, indicates that this arrangement was widely understood.1455 However the descendants of Peeti Te Aweawe and other Rangitane registered owners argued for their inclusion on the basis of shared ancestry and association. As a descendant of Puaki Te Ao, Te Aweawe, it was claimed, had lived at the different kainga of Horowhenua with his Ngai Te Ao relations.1456 Moreover Te Aweawe and Peeti Te Aweawe, it was

1451 Waata Muruahi, 27 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.18. 1452 Wirihana Hunia, 26 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.15; 29 April 1897, p.24. 1453 Wirihana Hunia, 5 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.32. 1454 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 30 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.27. Emphasis in original. 1455 Karena-te-mana-o-tawhaki, 4 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.30; 1456 Te Rewanui Apatari, 11 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, pp. 43-44; p.50 276 claimed, had been instrumental in fixing the boundary between Muaupoko and Ngati Huia at Ngatokorua and Arapaepae (see pp. 62-63).1457

In the result, the court agreed that the provisions made in 1886 for those with no ancestry or occupation at Horowhenua – the ‘take kores’ as it called them – had been sufficient, and that 33 of these 35 listed owners should be omitted from Horowhenua 11.1458 The two exceptions were Peti Te Aweawe and Waata Tohu, aka Waata Tamatea, who were awarded a share of 25 acres each. The court did not spell out the grounds for this provision, indeed it found that any services Te Aweawe had rendered to the tribe with regard to the boundary dispute or the 1873 hearing did not warrant further recompense.1459

Ancestry Muaupoko’s resolve to downplay ancestral occupation as a factor in determining entitlement broke down quickly. Ancestry of course was one of the fundamental criteria set by the court itself. As well, those representing interests of Muaupoko registered owners denied a stake in the tribal estate on ahi ka grounds, or because they were deceased, argued for inclusion on the basis of ancestry. Women of the Wuunu family, for example, though not resident at Horowhenua, claimed as the daughter and grand-daughter of Tawhati-a-Tumata (who with Taueki had stayed to defend his Horowhenua homeland against Te Rauparaha) and Mango (whose ancestral connections to Horowhenua as Ngati Kokopu pre-dated even those of her husband).1460 Their daughter Mere Mionga (aka Mere Wuunu, since deceased) had been born and raised at Horowhenua, but had left on her marriage to Te Hauparoa, of Kahungunu. Mere’s daughter, Te Ruihi Wuunu, lived among her Ngati Apa family at Parewanui, but argued for a stake in Horowhenua through her maternal grandparents, and the fact that her fires had been kept alight there by her half-sister Arihia Toitoi (also now deceased). As noted above, other non-resident Muaupoko claiming through acknowledged tipuna like Potangotango and Whano-ki-te-rangi included Ria Raikokiritia.

Moreover, the single biggest issue of this hearing was the continuing controversy over the status of Pariri and her sister Te Rongopatahi at Horowhenua. The Hunia brothers’ claim through Pariri was now bolstered by evidence of her husband’s family’s tenure at Papaitonga, together with whakapapa back to Tupatunui, to show that the Ngai Te Ao ancestors were but newcomers on the block from Manawatu.1461 Wirihana Hunia did not deny the presence of Puaki Te Ao and Te Mou’s family, but he

1457 See for example Kerei Te Panau, 13 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, pp.48-50. 1458 Otaki MB 40, pp. 177-8. 1459 Otaki MB 40, p. 159. In setting out its provision for these men, the court merely stated that Peeti Te Aweawe’s case had been argued at length, and that of Waata Tohu represented by Meiha Keepa, Otaki MB 40, pp. 177-8 1460 Ruihi Wuunu, 5 May 1897, p. 34; 14 May 1897, p. 51. 1461 Hunia claimed that Te Hukui’s grandfather, Te Rangiheheke lived at Papaitonga, and that when he moved to Waitawa and Otaki, the elder branch of the family remained in possession there, AJHR 1898 G-2A, 27 May 1897, p.69; ‘My ancestors 277 claimed they moved there long after Pariri’s descendants had gained control. Pariri’s grandson Te Rangihikaka was credited with driving Ngati Kokopu and other tangata whenua entities off the coastal lands at Horowhenua, and with building the island pa of Waipata and Pukeiti as protection against any retributive attack. According to Hunia, it was only through Te Rangihikaka’s gifting of this newly- won territory to Tairatu, on his marriage to Te Rangihikaka’s cousin Maewa, that Ngai Te Ao gained any foothold at Horowhenua.1462

The Hunia brothers’ claim was supported by others outside the Muaupoko camp. Rihipeti Tamaki, also known as Rihipeti Nireaha, too, claimed continuous occupation over five generations from Pariri.1463 It was asserted that Horowhenua had been the possession of sisters Pariri, Te Rongopatahi and Kawainga through occupation; that all Muaupoko were descended from these sisters; and that descendents of Puaki Te Ao enjoyed their rights to Horowhenua only through marrying into their families.1464 Nireaha and others spoke of a boundary between these sisters at the Hokio stream, with Te Rongopatahi’s rights to the north and Pariri’s lying to the south.1465

Many of the above claims were flatly refuted by Muaupoko residents, particularly regarding the role of Te Rangihikaka, and the existence of any hapu rohe. And Kemp, Te Raraku Hunia, Raniera Te Whata and others continued to deny the ancestral rights of both Ngati Pariri and Ngati Rongo to Horowhenua. As Ria Raikokiritia bluntly put it: ‘Pariri’s kainga was at Porirua; every one knows that.’1466 However, support among Muaupoko for these same tupuna at Horowhenua meant that ancestral claims based on Pariri and Te Rongopatahi could not be easily dismissed. In addition to Himiona Kowhai’s independent case based on Pariri’s descent, within the Muaupoko camp itself there were those who maintained that Pariri and Te Rongopatahi had rights to the land alongside Puaki Te Ao. According to Makere Te Rou, an authority within Muaupoko: ‘Te Ngarue, Potangotango and Pariri all had rights in this land. They were not all of one family. They did not live together; their descendants have. They lived amicably near each other. There was no boundary between them.’1467 Te Rou was not referring here to Ngati Pariri from Otaki and elsewhere, but those descendants of Pariri who had occupied at Horowhenua.1468 Rawinia Ihaia, Ihaia Taueki’s wife, was another key witness in support of a Pariri and Te Rongopatahi presence at Horowhenua: ‘Kemp was wrong when he objected to Pariri; she and her uri would not have lived permanently on the land if she had had no right.’ and elders occupied this land more permanently than those of Ihaia Taueki. His elders were new-comers from Manawatu. Mine had rights from Manawatu to Porirua’, 1 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.78. 1462 Wirihana Hunia, 27 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, pp.69-71. 1463 Rihipeti Tamaki, 6 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.33. 1464 Rihipeti Tamaki, 17 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, pp. 54-55. 1465 See also evidence of Paranihia Riwai and Paki Te Hunga, 20-21 May, AJHR 1898 G-2A, pp.59-63; and that of Himiona Kowhai, 1 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 79. 1466 Ria Raikokiritia, 28 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.92. Hoani Puihi, too, an advocate of Pariri’s ancestral rights in 1890, now claimed on the strength of his Ngai Te Ao lineage. 1467 Makere Te Rou, 20 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p.132. 1468 Ibid, 22 July 1897, p.134. 278

Rawinia Ihaia then enumerated the extent of intermarriage at Horowhenua between the descendants of Puaki Te Ao, Pariri and Te Ngarue to justify her conclusion: ‘this is why I say that all the ancestors had rights in this land.’1469

If we disregard the more intransigent protagonists on both sides of this debate, we are left with the evidence of Himiona Kowhai and Rawinia Ihaia, both of whose ancestral rights to Horowhenua were not disputed, and both of whom chose to base these rights on continuous occupation of five to six generations from Pariri, through her daughters Hineitohua and Tui (both of whom married Hamua newcomers to the coast), and her son Kopani. Himiona Kowhai acknowledged his entitlement through descent from Puaki Te Ao, but his claim in court was based on Pariri. According to Kowhai, the whakapapa through Kopani was one he had grown up with:1470

Unlike Himiona Kowhai, Rawinia Ihaia appears to have had no Ngai Te Ao lineage. When she first appeared as witness to open the Muaupoko case, her ancestral claim was based on descent from Te Hukui, Pariri’s husband.1471 However two months later, when Muaupoko’s main evidence began, Ihaia had changed her ancestral claim to Pariri, in particular the marriage of Pariri’s daughter Tui to Hura Te Papa:1472

1469 Rawinia Ihaia, 9 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 114. 1470 Himiona Kowhai, 1 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 79. Note, the marriage between Taniwha and Whareao was contested by others who claimed that Whareao’s husband was Taheke, not Taniwha. 1471 Rawinia Ihaia, 5 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 32. 1472 Rawinia Ihaia, 7 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 108. In addition to descent from Tui and Kopani, both Himiona Kowhai and Paki Te Hunga set out ancestral Pariri claims through descent lines from Hineitohua and Te Rangihikaka, Himiona Kowhai, 1 June 1897, p. 79; Paki Te Hunga, 21 May 1897, p. 61. Paki Te Hunga had relied on this whakapapa since the partition hearing of 1890; Himiona Kowhai admitted it had been taught to him by Wirihana Hunia less than a year earlier. 279

In the whakapapa above, Rawinia’s rights descended from her grandmother Heminga, who married Tamati Maunu. However whakapapa was also presented by both Rawinia Ihaia and Rihipeti Nireaha to show Tamati Maunu’s ancestral rights from Te Awhea, through the same marriage of Tui and Hura Te Papa.1473 In addition, Rawinia set out whakapapa connecting well-known Muaupoko at Horowhenua to Pariri’s sister, Te Rongopatahi:1474

All of these tipuna, it was claimed, lived and died and were buried at Horowhenua. Te Hukui and Pariri lived and were buried at Waikoukou; Hura Te Papa and Te Awhea occupied Waipata and Pukeiti; Taniwha, Himiona Kowhai asserted, had his own fighting pa, ‘Te Pa o Taniwha’ at

1473 Ibid; Rihipeti Nireaha, 5 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 32. 1474 Rawinia Ihaia, 7 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 109. 280

Waimango, between Mahoenui and Rakauhamama; Takiari, Te Rangihikaka’s grandson, was said to have had his own miro trees and eel runs.1475

The whakapapa above was not challenged (with the exception of Taniwha’s marriage to Whareao: Ngati Rangitane and Muaupoko witnesses claimed that Whareao’s husband, and the father of Takare, Toheriri and Paipai was Taheke, not Taniwha).1476 Nor was the occupation of many of these tipuna at Horowhenua contested (although Te Rangihikaka’s mana over Horowhenua certainly was). Maewa, Taniwha, Takiari and Taiweherua were well-known, and Muaupoko seemed content to give Rawinia the benefit of doubt for lesser-known tipuna such as Te Aowhakapupu and Hinematahirangi. What was at issue however, was whether they did so on the strength of their Pariri ancestry. Many of the Pariri descendents of mana singled out at Horowhenua were married to descendants of Puaki Te Ao. Maewa’s husband Tairatu was Ruatapu’s son; Takiari’s wife Hinekimihia was the great- granddaughter of Te Riunga, and his second wife Te Rau, Ruatapu’s granddaughter through Horapoto. Kuraituhi, the granddaughter of Te Rongopatahi, married Taueki’s father, Tapuwae. But, her great-granddaughter Te Raraku explained to the court, she moved to Horowhenua to live with her husband at Horowhenua: ‘Te Rongopatahi had no rights to this land’.1477 Like Kemp, Raniera Te Whata and others, Te Raraku was adamant that it was only through such intermarriage that these spouses acquired any rights to Horowhenua. Pariri descendants as such had no rights to patuna in the Hokio stream, and nor did they cultivate as Pariri until more recent times.

Support for Te Raraku and others’ stance comes from who the hapu of Horowhenua named themselves after. Ngai Te Ao, Ngati Tairatu, Ngati Kuratuauru, Ngati Whano, Ngati Te Riunga, and Te Aitanga a Whareao, were all hapu names referred to in court associated with Horowhenua: and all of them taken from descendants of Te Mou and Puaki Te Ao, not their Pariri spouses.1478 Statements like that of Paranihia Riwai, that named mara were worked ‘by Ngaiteao and Ngatipuri, descendants of Rongopatahi’ seem nonsensical, when the eponymous beginnings of these family groups was self- evident.1479 Paki Te Hunga, too, unwittingly undermined assertions of Ngati Pariri mana through tupuna like Kotuku, with statements that suggested otherwise: ‘Kotuku went, but many of his relatives of Ngatitairatu remained here and kept his fires alight.’1480

1475 Himiona Kowhai, 1 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 80; Paki Te Hunga, 21 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 62. 1476 Nireaha Tamaki, 26 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.68; Rawinia Ihaia, 9 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.114; 1477 Raraku Hunia, 8 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 39. See also Raniera Te Whata, 23 July 1897, p.137 and Kemp, 29 July 1897, p. 148. 1478 In whakapapa recorded from Kemp’s evidence in the Native Land Court in the 1890 partition hearing of Horowhenua Kuratuauru is shown as Tireo’s child, and Ruatapu’s parent (Otaki MB 21A, p.280). This differs from the recorded whakapapa in 1897 in which Ruatapu was the son of Puaki Te Ao and Te Mou. 1479 Paranihia Riwai, 20 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 59. 1480 Paki Te Hunga, 25 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 64. 281

For those in the position of Rihipeti Tamaki and Paranihia Riwai, with no occupation and no ancestral connection through Ngai Te Ao lines, recourse to Pariri and Te Rongopatahi as the ancestral basis of claim to Horowhenua was explicable. But why would the same claims be preferred by Muaupoko residents with descent lines from Puaki Te Ao, and why were tribal members who had formerly repudiated the mana of Pariri at Horowhenua now willing to admit these tipuna into the ancestral pantheon?1481

The answer may lie in the exigencies of the day and the circumstances of Muaupoko resettlement at Horowhenua, discussed in more detail below. In the year since the Horowhenua Commission, Ngati Pariri ‘had gone back to the tribe’, joining Muaupoko’s united front to have entitlement to Horowhenua 11 determined on the basis of ahi ka, rather than ancestry. This was the decision that upset Hereora’s children. It is possible that Rawinia Ihaia’s claim from Te Hukui at the opening of Muaupoko’s case was made on the basis of this tribal decision, that ancestry would not be a factor. However it soon became clear as the hearing progressed that the tribe could not avoid ancestral take. In the forum of the court, Muaupoko were forced to either admit Pariri as an ancestor, or see their tribal front fall to pieces.

The Pariri presence at Horowhenua seems to have been associated post-war with the resettlement of Tamati Maunu and Hanita Kowhai, both of whom established their households south of Lake Horowhenua, away from the main Muaupoko settlement of Te Rae o Te Karaka at an early date (see p. 45). These households, buoyed by a number of in-laws, remained part of the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua – the relationship between the two entities reaffirmed in marriages like that between Ihaia Taueki and Tamati Maunu’s granddaughter, Rawinia – but they also seem to have retained their own sense of identity. Wirihana Hunia was raised by Hanita Kowhai during the 1860s. Kawana Hunia’s brother-in-arms, Te Paki Te Hunga, was Iritana Kowhai’s half brother, Himiona Kowhai’s uncle. Ihaka Te Rangihouhia, the Hunia’s well-known Muaupoko link, also lived among these households at Otaewa and Kohuturoa. It is tempting to see this nucleus of whanaungatanga as the basis of Kawana Hunia’s claim from 1873 for the Ngati Pariri stake at Horowhenua, although events of the 1870s do not entirely fit with such a neat explanation. These same households for example, had the strongest relationship with Te Whatanui Tutaki, Tamati Maunu’s household bearing the brunt of Kawana Hunia’s arson in 1871.

The court itself had found the competing ancestral claims perplexing, commenting reprovingly that: ‘The labour of the Court would have been much lighter had the persons concerned been able to have

1481 Makere Te Rou told the 1890 court that Kawana Hunia’s attempt to erect a tribal pou at Horowhenua was the first she had heard of Pariri, (p.389); Kerei Mitiwaha aka Kerei Te Tomo reportedly retracted his 1890 statement that Pariri had no right to Horowhenua, explaining that ‘it was a question of chieftainship between Kemp and Warena Hunia.’ Native Appellate Court ruling, Otaki MB 40, p.81. 282 reconciled the difference of opinion which existed as to whether the land belonged to the descendents of Puaki te Ao or to the descendants of Pariri…’.1482 The importance attached by the court to ancestral take is evident from its preoccupation with early settlement in the region, notwithstanding the fact that Wirihana Hunia was the only witness who had attempted to extend an ancestral claim beyond the generation of the eponymous ancestors of Muaupoko hapu.1483 None of the parties, the court repeatedly pointed out, had satisfactorily accounted for just ‘how the Country was acquired by their ancestors from the original occupants…’1484 Judges Mackay and Butler however accepted that the Rangitane descendents of Puaki Te Ao had settled at Horowhenua, and had occupied since then as Muaupoko.1485 The court discounted Wirihana Hunia’s claims about Te Rangihikaka’s conquest over Ngati Kokopu, and the gift of this land to Tairatu as the basis of Ngai Te Ao rights.1486 The boundary said to exist between Pariri and Te Rongopatahi, too, was similarly described as a ‘very unlikely story’.1487 The ruling also set out what it had learned of the Hamua branch of Muaupoko: that Kawaenga’s descendents lived south of Otaki; that Ngati Rangi (the descendents of Te Rangiheheke) occupied at Pukerua, Waikanae and Kapiti; that neither Te Rangihikaka’s daughter, Whitirea, nor her descendants ever occupied Horowhenua; and that the ancestral and occupation claims of the Hunia family were similarly tenuous.1488 With regard to Pariri’s mana at Horowhenua, the court found:

The right from Pariri has evidently been derived from the intermarriage of her descendants with the descendants of the other ancestors who were in occupation of the land at the time the union took place between Ngataitoko and Te Hikaotaota and the same remark applies to the descendants of Te Kawainga and Te Rongopatahi.1489

The court accepted that Ngati Pariri was a hapu rangatira of Muaupoko, naming Kotuku, Taiweherua, Toheriri, Takere, Paepae and Te Rangihouhia as Ngati Pariri chiefs who held a take to land south of the Hokio stream.1490

Horowhenua as a Muaupoko homeland Underlying the arguments over ancestral occupation of course was Muaupoko’s experience of war and dislocation. As outsiders saw it, the issue of ancestral occupation was redundant in the context of displacement: the descendants of those whose lands had been taken by Ngati Raukawa ‘should share

1482 Otaki MB 40, p. 146. 1483 More than 14 pages of the ruling was devoted to pre-‘Muaupoko’ settlement going back to Kupe, none of which seems to have been adduced in evidence before the court. 1484 Otaki MB 40, p.134. 1485 Otaki MB 40, pp.132-4. 1486 Otaki MB 40, p.131-2. 1487 Otaki MB 40, p.135. 1488 Otaki MB 40, p.136; pp. 151-3; pp. 171-2. 1489 Otaki MB 40, p.165. Note that this was less than a definitive ruling out of Pariri rights. In another place the ruling stated: ‘If it is asserted that Te Hukui has little or no right to the land the same may be said with regard to Pariri as no right was derived through Tupatunui as he was of Ngatiapa descent. But it seems highly probable looking at the lines of descent that it was the marriage of Pariri with Te Hukui and the subsequent intermarriages of their descendents with those of Puaki te Ao which conferred a right’, Otaki MB 40, p. 130. 1490 Ibid, p. 136. 283 in what is left of Muaupoko lands.’1491 This was also Kemp’s view. Adamant to the last that Pariri had no rights to Horowhenua, and that her descendents had acquired their rights through intermarriage, Kemp nonetheless concluded that ‘all the permanent residents, and those who assisted them in troublous times, are entitled to No. 11, without reference to ancestry. Put the ancestors aside altogether.’1492 Kemp shared with the court his vision behind a lifetime of work for his father’s people: ‘I desired to rehabilitate the tribe, hoping that it might become as numerous as it had formerly been.’1493 In this light, Horowhenua 11 was cast as a tribal homeland for Muaupoko survivors: ‘I approve of all those who came here in times of trouble. They ought not to be dispossessed, wherever they are now… I think all should share equally, and that the difference in quality of the land should be taken into consideration.’1494

The evidence indicates that the bulk of the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua had been resettled from elsewhere, and that Ria Raikokiritia’s assertion to the court that ‘all the present residents of Horowhenua are new-comers’ may have been close to the truth.1495 Kemp qualified his statement about ancestry the following day by conceding that Ihaia Taueki, Raniera Te Whata, Hariata Amorangi, Makere Te Rou, and the children of Te Kiri and Hereora, should have larger shares than everyone else in Horowhenua 11, presumably because of their unbroken occupation.1496 To this handful, Te Raraku singled out 23 individuals who had been with Taueki when peace was made with Te Whatanui.1497 Everyone else, it seems, had settled there at various times from the mid-1830s onwards, including many leading Muaupoko kaumatua such as Tamati Maunu, Te Rangimairehau and Hoani Puihi. As suggested above, the large proportion of émigré Muaupoko may account for the tribal resolve regarding entitlement, that all those who had returned to live permanently at Horowhenua had rights by occupation, and should share equally in the land.

This decision however was far from unanimous. A witness for the Muaupoko case, Raniera Te Whata nonetheless publicly disagreed with the tribe’s idea of equal shares and the proposal to exclude the deceased, ‘I consider that the occupation of our ancestors is our greatest claim to this land.’1498 As set out above, this approach also provoked a strong response from Hereora’s children, not only because it trod on ancestral occupation, but it also ignored the role of those like Taueki in holding the land throughout the worst of the conflict with Te Rauparaha, and in the face of the Ngati Raukawa

1491 Henare Te Apatari, 12 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 46. 1492 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 29 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.148. 1493 Ibid, 28 July 1897, p.146. 1494 Ibid, p. 148 1495 Ria Raikokiritia, 28 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 92. 1496 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 30 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 152. 1497 Her list included Tawhati-a-tai, Te Atua, Tomo, Mahanga, Te Maro, Wi Perahama, Matene Pakauwera, Pirihira Hautapu, Te Rau, Motae Taueki, Haerepo, Te Waitere Kakiwa, Tawhati a Tumata, Pitawai, Te Raorao, Te Aweawe, Wereta, Himiona Taiweherua, Pirihira te Arahura, Tohu, Tanguru, Tori, and Tarawahi, 7 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.36. 1498 Raniera Te Whata, 23 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 137. 284 settlement that followed. Te Raraku and her siblings claimed north of the Hokio stream on the basis of the agreement between Taueki and Te Whatanui. Notwithstanding her statement that Taueki had ‘welcomed all those who had returned during his lifetime and never questioned their rights to the land’, his angry granddaughter was less accommodating: ‘I think all those who came back after the peace-making should be confined to the land south of the Hokio Stream. They should not share in the land retained by my ancestors.’1499

In this way, the debate over entitlement brought to the surface, and indeed exacerbated, underlying tensions relating to the tribe’s resettlement at Horowhenua. Te Raraku’s forthright accounting of those who ‘ran away’ or were ‘taken prisoner’ was accompanied by equally provocative statements such as, ‘Noa te Whata I object to because he ran away to Arapaoa; he has a good ancestral right, but is a deserter; if he had been a European soldier he would have been shot; he returned to the land after all the troubles were over.’1500 Te Raraku’s attempt to introduce the principle of Muaupoko resistance into the issue of entitlement not only alienated most of her relations, it also opened up the whole controversy about the nature and extent of this last Muaupoko citadel at Horowhenua. Te Raraku and her siblings insisted that Taueki had laid down the boundary between him and Te Whatanui at the Hokio Stream, John Broughton accusing Muaupoko of ‘hiding’ Taueki’s boundary before the Court.1501 Kerei Te Panau of Rangitane and Muaupoko spoke instead of Taueki’s boundary from Tauateruru to the sea, echoing Ngati Raukawa’s understanding.1502 Ihaia Taueki’s wife, Rawinia Ihaia, was among those in Muaupoko’s camp who denied any boundary at all had been laid down by Taueki, adamant that only Raumatangi and a nearby stand of forest had been gifted to the Te Whatanui.1503 Those outside the Muaupoko camp, seeking to diminish the mana of those who stayed, denied the existence of any peace-making between the two rangatira altogether.1504 Old allegations of Muaupoko’s subservience to Te Whatanui resurfaced, only this time from Muaupoko mouths: ‘I noho taurekareka a Muaupoko ki a Te Whatanui. I noho ratou i raro i te mana o Te Whatanui.’1505 Himiona Kowhai, Wirihana Hunia and others pointed out that Muaupoko had been debarred from working their own patuna in the Hokio stream until Raukawa’s control was ended in 1873.1506

1499 Te Raraku Hunia, 10 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 42. 1500 Ibid, 7 May 1897, p. 37. 1501 John Broughton, 11 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 43. 1502 Kerei Te Panau, 13 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 49. 1503 Rawinia Ihaia, 8 July 1897, p. 112. Makere te Rou, 19 July 1897, p.130; and Raniera te Whata, 23 July 1897, p. 137; made similar statements. 1504 Wirihana Hunia, 31 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 76; Rihipeti Nireaha, 17 May 1897, p. 55; and Himiona Kowhai, 2 June 1897, pp.83-4 all denied that peace was made by Taueki, claiming instead that peace with Te Whatanui was brought about by Te Hakeke and Taiweherua at Karekare. Wirihana’s slighting of Taueki was extended to the person of his son: ‘I did not see Ihaia Taueki take any prominent part in the affairs of Muaupoko; he was always a silent man’, 28 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 73. 1505 Himiona Kowhai, 4 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 86. Emphasis in original. 1506 Wirihana Hunia, 28 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 73; Himiona Kowhai, 1 June 1897, p. 80; Hopa Te Piki, who arrived at Horowhenua in 1846, also claimed that Muaupoko were not working the patuna in the Hokio Stream at that time, 29 June 1897, p. 96. 285

To some extent the imperatives driving the arguments over the status of Muaupoko in this early resettlement period were the same as those behind the ancestry debate. The complete conquest of Muaupoko painted by Wirihana Hunia, for example, levelled any preferential claims on the basis of ancestry and mana, elevating instead the role – and entitlement – of others:

All the Muaupoko lived as Te Whatanui’s taurekareka until 1873; not the Pariri only. Those who were captured by Te Whatanui were his taurekareka. Those who lived under his mana were his pononga. The Ngatihine were the most degraded. …

My ancestral right from Pariri has never been extinguished, because we never gave way to Whatanui. All other ancestral rights were abolished in Te Whatanui’s time. All Muaupoko were conquered, but my hapu always strove to recover their rights – I mean Toheriri, Takare and Paipai in their time, and after them Te Rangihouhia, and, since the introduction of law, my father.1507

The court ruling in turn traced through the sequence of events from Te Rauparaha’s first raid, through to Te Whatanui’s tenure at Horowhenua, and the conflict arising between Muaupoko and Ngati Raukawa since the death of his successor in 1869. On the one hand, Taueki’s role in preserving both the land and the people through the peace accord brokered with Te Whatanui was acknowledged in the ruling. On the other hand, the court clearly doubted the extent of his mana:

Had it not been for his action at a critical time coupled with the merciful disposition of Te Whatanui there is little doubt but that the tribe would have been sacrificed to the relentless enmity of Te Rauparaha who pursued them on all occasions even after peace was supposed to have been established.1508

The court was convinced of Muaupoko’s dependence on Te Whatanui’s protection. In order to dispel the ‘farcical statement’ made by Muaupoko witnesses that it was instead Te Whatanui who had sought peace with Taueki, the court turned to Kawana Hunia’s testimony in the Himatangi hearing of 1869, which explained Ngati Apa’s allegiance to Ngati Raukawa at Haowhenua in 1834 as being motivated by fear of the implications of a Ngati Awa victory.1509 In the same vein, the court was equally dismissive of subsequent assertions of Muaupoko mana, attributing the tribe’s success in expanding their rohe at Horowhenua squarely in the laps of Kawana Hunia and Meiha Kemp:

From evidence given by Muaupoko themselves as well as from information obtained from other sources there appears to be little doubt that if Muaupoko had not received outside aid to establish their claim to the whole of the Horowhenua Block that in all probability they would not have obtained at the outside more than 1/3rd of the area they now possess under the Certificate of the Court of 1873…’1510

1507 Wirihana Hunia, 4 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 88. 1508 Otaki MB 40, p.156. 1509 Otaki MB 40, p. 158; p. 96. 1510 Otaki MB 40, p. 154. 286

Kawana Hunia’s role in having the southern boundary shifted from Tauateruru to the Hokio Stream in the early 1870s were part of the ‘adventitious circumstances’ referred to by the court as justification for his inclusion in the beneficial ownership of Horowhenua 11, over the strong objections of the tribe and in ‘the absence of ancestral and probably occupationary rights except to a limited extent.’1511

Ahi ka The last strand pulling the Muaupoko community apart at this 1897 hearing was the debate over what constituted permanent occupation. Ahi ka was of course the basis of Muaupoko’s case, and witnesses like Hoani Puihi laboriously classified the individuals on the 1873 certificate and list of rerewaho in terms of occupation, justifying each exclusion.1512 However this classification, too, was fraught. Were those born and raised at Horowhenua since the 1840s, and who had since moved away for marriage or other reasons, entitled to share in the tribal estate? From what period was permanent occupation deemed to begin: those who arrived before 1873? Or 1886? Or 1896? Could one’s fires be kept alight by regular visiting? Or by relatives? Did ancestry trump occupation?

To a large extent, the same issues had been thrashed out by Muaupoko in front of the Horowhenua Commission the year before, in terms of the debate over the rerewaho. In the Appellate Court, Muaupoko and Te Raraku Hunia’s case took a narrow view, seeking to limit entitlement to those who were currently resident. Objections were raised to recent arrivals, as well as those ‘always moving about’.1513 Hopa Te Piki, Ria Raikokiritia’s brother-in-law called as a witness to support her claim to Horowhenua, instead invoked the tribal resolutions to reject her claim through his late wife, Raikokiritia’s sister: ‘I am with the tribe in this case. The tribe object to Ria Hamuera as having no occupation. My wife is dead; her fires died with her. This is the case with all Muaupoko who have died.’1514

Once again however, there was dissent within Muaupoko, particularly among the older generation whose views were modified as the debate developed. At the outset of the hearing, Kemp had stood with the tribal consensus to limit Horowhenua 11 to those ‘in occupation’. By its close however, he was advocating the inclusion of all those who had been part of the early Muaupoko community ‘wherever they are now’, ultimately supporting the inclusion of Rihipeti Nireaha and her daughters against the will of Muaupoko: ‘Although the children did not live on this land their ancestors did.’1515 Hoani Puihi, too, was sympathetic to the claims of those he had lived with at Horowhenua in earlier times, but who were no longer resident. Both men, for example, supported Ria Raikokiritia’s

1511 Otaki MB 40, p. 153. 1512 See for example Hoani Puihi, 1 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, pp. 98-101. 1513 Te Raraku Hunia, 7 May 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 37. 1514 Hopa Te Piki, 29 June 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 95. 1515 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 29 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.150. 287 inclusion on the basis of ancestry and tribal support. In the same vein Puihi also categorised Kemp and his sister Rora Korako as ahi ka, on the basis of their childhood at Horowhenua.1516

Individualisation of title: Muaupoko aspirations The court hearing into the beneficial ownership of Horowhenua 11 ended on 30 July with a closing address by Kemp to Muaupoko, in which he ceremoniously bid farewell to the land which was now with the people.1517 Kemp traversed his efforts over the past six years in court and in Parliament to secure the land for the tribe. He expressed confidence in the court to adjudicate equitably on the complex issues before it, ordaining that its decision be accepted as final and conclusive. His parting gesture had been to request that his name, and that of his daughter, be withdrawn from the title:

I do not ask the Court to give me any part of No.11 for myself. I am satisfied with having recovered possession of it for my people, and put them on the land. I do not ask to have my name put in the title. All I wish is to vindicate my fair name before I die, and to find that my people have recovered possession of what Wirihana Hunia and the Government have attempted to deprive them of.1518

The inquiry into the beneficial ownership of Horowhenua 11 was but the first step in the process of individualising title, which in turn anticipated partition. Section 18 of the Horowhenua Block Act 1896 decreed that the court’s decision over entitlement could not be appealed. Early on, the court floated the suggestion that once relative interests had been determined, the court could then locate such interests, obtaining the consent of the parties that this, too, would not be appealed.1519 As it turned out, such optimism proved ill-founded.

As the hearing came to a close, Buller summed up Kemp’s ambition that ‘every resident member shall have his cultivations cut out and secured to him or her, and that the suburban part of the block should be divided equally as to area and value.’1520 The ensuing partition is dealt with in more detail below. For now, it is pointed out that throughout the 12-week wrangle over entitlement, beyond the shaky consensus that living, permanent residents should share equally, seemingly little discussion was directed at what individualisation might look like, or how it could be applied to a tribal landscape where kainga, grazing and cultivations were held in common, but where individuals possessed, too, user-specific fisheries, gardens and orchards.1521

Muaupoko did have ideas about their lake. Kemp’s proposal to have the lake together with a three- chain perimeter reserved and vested in trust in perpetuity for the tribe seems to have been made in

1516 Hoani Puihi, 1 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, pp. 99-100. 1517 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 30 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 152. 1518 Ibid, 28 July 1897, p. 147. 1519 See minutes of evidence, 28 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p.20. 1520 W Buller, 28 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 146. 1521 See evidence of Te Raraku Hunia for examples of individual rights throughout the block, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 36. Hoani Puihi considered that the kainga on the block should not be apportioned, p. 100. 288 consultation with Muaupoko.1522 Hoani Puihi and Raniera Te Whata both publicly endorsed this plan, stressing the importance of the lake as a fishery for the wider Muaupoko residents, as opposed to the defined rights attached to the patuna in the Hokio Stream:

The people attached great value to the lake as a source of food-supply. It is our butcher’s shop, and is our parent. Kemp and the people wished the door of the butcher’s shop opened for the people. The people have always made use of the lake. We obtain food from it now. All the ahika have a right to the tribal reserve. Whatever distribution is made of it, all the ahika tuturu should have right of access to the lake.1523

As both Kemp and Puihi pointed out, the reservation of Lake Horowhenua and other waters within Horowhenua 11 had been mooted in 1886, when the prospect of drainage was already recognised as a threat. At the 1897 hearing, Kemp proposed extending the reserve to include the Hokio Stream down to the sea, with a three-chain strip on either side, and to similarly reserve Ngakawau Lake, ‘but that is my own idea, not the people’s’.1524

The tenor of Kemp and Muaupoko’s request was adopted by the court with the allocation of 1000 acres for the Lake Horowhenua reserve, although the lake margin included in the proposed reserve was reduced to one chain on the grounds that anything wider would absorb land that could be otherwise allocated, as well as causing residents in close proximity to shift their homes. More worrying was the court pronouncement that ‘the extra width if necessary can possibly be reclaimed from the Lake as the water recedes by drainage, which will probably take place in course of time.’1525 In addition to the lake, the court indicated its intention to provide a reserve along the Hokio Stream, ‘so as to allow everyone one free access to it for fishing purposes’. It also alluded to the reservation of other lakes in Horowhenua 11, particularly Pakauhokio, Ngakawau and Rakauhamama, although the ruling fell short of committing to do so.

Court judgement The Native Appellate Court’s decision on Horowhenua 11 was delivered on 15 September 1898, more than a year after the hearing. The judgement itself stands in stark contrast to the considered and thorough ruling regarding Horowhenua 14. The ruling traversed a convoluted pathway of events beginning with the dispute between Muaupoko and Ngati Raukawa residents leading to the 1873 court; jumping backwards to Ngati Raukawa’s settlement of the district; and back again to a lengthy (and largely irrelevant) discourse on early settlement; before tracking through Te Rauparaha’s war against Muaupoko, and coming full circle back to the disputes following Te Whatanui Tutaki’s death.

1522 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 28 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, pp. 146-7. 1523 Hoani Puihi, 1 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 98. Emphasis in original. Raniera Te Whata too, sought to have the lake and margins fenced off as ‘a permanent reserve and sustenance-ground for the permanent residents’, with access available to all, 24 July 1897, p. 138. 1524 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 28 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 147. 1525 Otaki MB 40, pp.188-89. 289

In doing so, the court drew heavily on evidence outside of that given during the hearing, much of which was not sourced.

Although the court itself considered it had ‘dealt exhaustively with the whole of the matters under consideration’, the opposite was true.1526 The ruling was indeed lengthy, but it digressed from most of the issues that had been uppermost in Muaupoko’s submissions. Much of the Horowhenua 11 judgment merely restated the positions of the witnesses in court, with little analysis or even identification of the issues. Moreover, the ruling seemingly ignored any tribal position altogether, treating the ‘13 cases’ before it (actually 14) as those brought by individuals, namely Te Raraku Hunia, Te Aweawe and others, Ruihi Wuunu and Mere Mionga, Manihera Te Rau, Ria Raikokiritia, Rihipeti Tamaki, Paki Te Hunga, Himiona Kowhai, Rawinia Ihaia, Paranihia Riwai, Hoani Puihi, Raniera Te Whata, Wirihana Hunia and Kemp.1527 The court’s omission to even mention the case of Te Rangimairehau on behalf of the Muaupoko resident community is telling. Treating the cases on an individual basis undermined the tribal consensus reached before the hearing began, and conversely bestowed undue weight on minority opposition. The seeming proliferation of cases could also arguably reflect just how damaging and divisive the hearing had been. Over and above these considerations, dealing with the cases on an individual basis completely failed to address the issues uniting and dividing the different parties. Either the court was being deliberately evasive, or it was out of its depth.

The result was that 81 individuals were determined by the court as being entitled to Horowhenua 11. In the absence of any clearly-stated rationale by the court however, the basis of entitlement can only be deduced from the court’s treatment of the individual cases, and from scrutinising the resulting list of owners. The court passed no comment on Te Raraku’s argument about homeland defence for example, but it did describe Taueki’s rights as indisputable and, as set out above, acknowledged his peace-making role. The award of 1050 acres each to the families of Ihaia Taueki and Hereora were the largest shares awarded by the court, arguably reflecting Taueki’s status and unbroken occupation, even taking into consideration the number of family heirs (Hereora’s successors for example receiving 142 acres each, as compared with the standard 100-acre allotment to other Muaupoko residents). In the case of Ruihi Wuunu, the court agreed with Muaupoko’s stance that her take from ancestry and from her parents’ occupation in the post-war period had lapsed, and both Wuunu and her mother were deemed not entitled.1528 With regard to Ria Raikokiritia and Rihipeti Tamaki, on the other hand, contrary to Muaupoko’s criteria of ahi ka, the court decided that their claims had ‘not yet grown cold’

1526 Otaki MB 40, p. 177. 1527 Ibid, the individual cases are discussed pp. 157-172. 1528 Otaki MB 40, p. 160-61. Ruihi Wuunu’s exclusion was subsequently the subject of a petition. Judge Mackay defended his decision to the Native Affairs Committee in 1898, arguing that although Wuunu had an ancestral right through her grandfather Tawhati a Tumata, she been unable to prove to the Court that she was entitled as a permanent resident to a share in Horowhenua 11, Judge Mackay to Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, 5 August 1899, MA 75/4/24. 290 and that both women were entitled, albeit to a smaller share.1529 In the case of Paki Te Hunga, the residence of his half-sister was deemed sufficient to have kept his fires alight and he was awarded a resident-sized 100-acre share.1530 Rora Korako, too, received a 100-acre share on the strength of her childhood at Horowhenua, for her brother Kemp could hardly have been said to have kept her fires burning.

To reach its conclusion on entitlement, the court seems to have categorised the 191 potential owners into four different lists. List A comprised the 35 registered owners of 1873 who had been relegated to the hills by Muaupoko in 1886. With the exception of Peti Te Aweawe and Waatu Tohu, these ‘take kores’ as the court called them, were deemed not entitled. This was the easy bit. List B comprised 121 individuals ‘admitted to have a complete or a partial right’. This included Kemp, but not Kawana Hunia or his heirs. Eighteen of these names however were subsequently crossed out (leaving 103 persons) and moved to List C. All but two of these deleted names were supported for inclusion by Kemp, but not (presumably) by the tribe. List C set out 37 people ‘generally objected to’, ‘either because they have no right, or that their rights have been already satisfied by the area allotted to them under the subdivision of 1890’ (Horowhenua 3). A number of these individuals were singled out by the court, by way of explaining their exclusion.1531 Lastly, List D comprised individuals ‘entirely objected to’: members of the Hunia family and nine others. Over the strong opposition of the tribe, however, the court decided that ‘in consideration of the services rendered by the late Kawana Hunia to the Muaupoko’, the Hunia family was entitled to share in Horowhenua 11. Kawana Hunia’s award amounted to 600 acres, the third-largest share in the block.

There are few clues from the ruling itself to reveal how the court ultimately arrived at its list of owners and their varying portions. On the one hand, the exclusion of so many suggests it took on board Muaupoko’s stance about restricting entitlement to the living permanent residents as of 1886, and Judge Mackay later confirmed this indeed had been a guiding principal.1532 On the other hand, many of the deceased were included, albeit with a smaller, 25-acre share. Most Muaupoko residents appear to have been awarded 100 acres. Some, like Rawinia Ihaia, Himiona Kowhai and Hoani Puihi, received more. Individuals included by the court over the objections of the tribe generally received a smaller share. Somewhat ironically, the court’s initial list was primarily organised by families, listed by the family head. Judging by the area already allotted in Horowhenua 3, the size of each family award appears to have been based on both the resident status and the number of registered owners

1529 Otaki MB 40, p. 162-63. 1530 Ibid. 1531 Those implied to have already received sufficient provision given their claims were Eparaima Te Paki and Ngahina Eruera (Paki Te Hunga’s children); the Muruahi brothers (no occupation); Maaka Ngarongaro (no occupation); Heni Wairangi (‘very small’ right); Akuira Takapo (conflicting evidence); Heni Haimona Te Iki, Hira Te Rangitakoru, Arihia Toitoi (rights already satisfied); Rihari Tarakihi, Watarauihi Te Hau, Henare Mahuika, Waitere Kakiwa (rights already satisfied). Otaki MB 40, pp. 184-85. 1532 Judge Mackay to Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, 5 August 1899, MA 75/4/24. 291 within each family. The court order issued five days later, however, was completely individualised. In a number of cases the head of the family was now omitted, their interest broken down between their off-spring, presumably where succession had already taken place and these successors were known to the court. The table below indicates this two-step process, the names in bold being those on the court’s first list of entitled owners. Those in Lists C and D are marked with an asterisk.

Table 3: The 81 owners of Horowhenua 111533

Court Area allotted (acres) Persons entitled to Order already total Horowhenua 11 (no.) Court Order (name) allotted In No. 11 area

Keepa Te Rangihiwinui & daughter 1 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui 1303 100 1403 Kawana Hunia family 2 *Kawana Hunia Te Hakeke 2321 600 2921 Ihaia Taueki family 3 Ihaia Taueki 512 1050 1562

Rewiri Te Whiumairangi 4 Rewiri Te Whiumarangi 104 25 129 Te Rangirurupuni 5 Te Rangirurupuni 104 25 129 Noa Te Whata family 515 400 915 6 Raniera Te Whata 225 7 Ngahuia Heta 225 Motai Taueki 8 Motai Taueki 104 100 204 Wirihana Tarewa family 9 Te Wirihana Tarewa 610 500 1110 Inia Tamaraki 10 Inia Tamaraki 104 25 129

Te Paki 11 *Te Paki (Te Hunga) 308 100 408 Hoani Puihi family 412 400 812 12 Hoani Puihi 200 13 Ripeka Winara 100 14 Kingi Puihi 100 Kerehi Te Mitiwaha family 404 500 904 15 Kerehi Te Mitiwaha 250 16 Norenore Te Kerehi 125 17 Warena Te Kerehi 125

Tamati Maunu family 819 500 1319 18 Hariata Tinotahi 150 19 Ruka Hanuhanu 100 20 Hema Henare 100 21 Hanita Henare 100

Ihaka Te Rangihouhia 22 Ihaka Te Rangihouhia 102 100 202 Matene Pakauwera 23 Matene Pakauwera 105 25 130

Tikara family 413 100 513 24 Peene Tikara 50 25 *Pero Tikara 25

1533 Otaki MB 40, pp. 190-193. 292

Court Area allotted (acres) Persons entitled to Order already total Horowhenua 11 (no.) Court Order (name) allotted In No. 11 area 26 *Hana Rata 25 Hopa Te Piki family 415 100 515

27 Hopa Te Piki 50 28 Hone Tupou 50 Himiona Taiweherua 29 Himiona Taiweherua 104 100 204 Karaitiana Tarawahi 30 Karaitiana Tarawahi 105 150 255 Winara Te Raorao family 315 150 + 50 515 31 Ngariki Te Raorao 100 32 Anikanara Te Whata 100 Ruta Kiri family 615 600 1215 33 Ruta Kiri 600 Matenga Tinotahi 34 Matenga Tinotahi 104 25 129

Waata Muruahi 35 Waata Muruahi 524 50 574 Hereora family 924 1050 1974 36 Noa Tawhati 142 37 Unaiki Tawhati 142 38 Taare Matai 142 39 Taare Hereora 142 40 Te Kiri Hopa 142 41 Kahukore Hurinui 142 42 *Te Ahuru Porotene 50 43 Te Raraku Hunia 148 Ani Patene 44 Ani Patene 100 25 125 Rihipeti Tamaki and family 45 *Rihipeti Tamaki 829 50 879 Hopa Heremaia 46 Hopa Heremaia 104 50 + 50 204 Himiona Kowhai and sister 47 Himiona Kowhai 208 300 508 Manihera Te Rau 48 *Manihera Te Rau 104 25 129 Waata Tamatea and sisters 49 *Waata Tamatea 155 25 180 Hori Te Pa and brother 50 Hori Te Pa 210 50 260 Makere Te Rou family 1082 600 1682 51 Makere Te Rou 100 52 Hera Tupou 84 53 Mohi Rakuraku 84 54 Kaiwhare Rakuraku 83 55 Wiremu Te Pae 83 56 Tapita Himiona 83 57 Parahi Reihana 83 Merehira Te Marika family 515 500 1015

58 Mereana Matao 150

59 Rawinia Ihaia 200 60 Rawinia Matao 100 293

Court Area allotted (acres) Persons entitled to Order already total Horowhenua 11 (no.) Court Order (name) allotted In No. 11 area 61 Hetariki Matao 100 Wiki Pua family 200 200 400 62 Wiki Pua 100 63 Hoani Nahona 100

Amorangi Rihara family 200 50 250 64 Amorangi Rihara 25

65 Nati Amorangi 25 Te Hapimana Tohu 66 Te Hapimana Tohu 105 50 155 Teoti Te Hou 67 Te Oti Te Hou 104 50 154 Mananui Tawhai and Maata Te Whango 525 50 575 68 Te Mananui Tawhai 25 69 Maata Te Whango 25 Te Rangimairehau 70 Te Rangimairehau 157 100 257 Te Peeti Te Aweawe 71 *Te Peti Te Aweawe 104 25 129 Hiria Amorangi 72 Hiria Te Amorangi 104 50 154 Maata Huikurangi 73 Maata Huikirangi 105 100 205 Rahira Wirihana 74 Rahira Wirihana 117 100 Pirihira Te Rau 75 Pirihira Te Rau 104 100 Iritana 76 Iritana Hanita 104 100 Ria Te Raikokiritia 77 *Ria Te Raikokiritia 105 25 130 Paranihia Riwai 78 Paranihia Riwai 104 100 204 Peti Te Uku 79 Peti Te Uku 104 50 154 Pirihira Te Hau 80 Pirihira Te Hau 105 50 155 Rora Korako and children 81 Rora Korako 311 100 411

Muaupoko had begun the Native Appellate Court hearing in late February in a spirit of relieved optimism, buoyed by the implications of a court inquiry into the beneficial ownership and further encouraged by the court’s confirmation early in May that Horowhenua 11 was in fact a tribal estate. After three months of litigation, however, there seems to have been less cause for celebration. In what seems a striking departure from more than 60 years of inclusive rebuilding on a shared tribal estate, the court process of 1897 comes across as divisive and exclusive, the sum of the resulting parts – 81 owners with fragmented land shares – much less than the whole. The protracted hearing into relative interests of Horowhenua 11 crystallised the competing tensions at work within Muaupoko. These tensions had been successfully managed up till now under local leadership and accommodated within the fluid nature of customary tenure, still possible under the trust arrangement established in 1873. Evidence adduced in the 1897 court suggests that descendants of the Muaupoko diaspora were welcome at Horowhenua throughout the course of the nineteenth century. Room was made for those who chose to remain.

294

In this light, it is difficult to overstate the impact of what had just occurred. The evidence indicates that the resident Muaupoko community initially supported an exclusive approach, limiting entitlement to living, permanent residents. This may have been influenced by the shrinking estate, or by their recent experience of having lost control over their tribal lands. Whatever the reason, it seems that the full implications of their consensus decision was only belatedly realised once they were forced to apply their criteria to known whanaunga. Excluding whanaunga with ancestral ties cut across custom. Denying those who had passed away was similarly painful. Cutting off those born and raised at Horowhenua, yet who had left through marriage did not sit right. The immediate impacts of the disjunct between customary rights or what was tika, and the court’s imperatives of individual relative interests was fresh division within the resident Muaupoko community and the almost total exclusion of wider Muaupoko from entitlement. The long-term impact of reducing the people of Muaupoko to 81 owners was to seriously compromise their ability to act and evolve as a tribe.

6.4 The Cost of Litigation, Debt and Horowhenua 6

The cost of almost a decade of litigation has been touched on earlier. As set out in Chapter 5, most of lease monies and timber tithes collected from the late 1880s onwards were spent on litigation over Horowhenua 11 and representations to Parliament. The Horowhenua Commission cost Muaupoko Horowhenua 12. By the time of Kemp’s death, his debt to Buller cost him Horowhenua 14. Kemp’s administration of the trust estate was at issue in the 1897 Native Appellate Court hearing, where accounts of income and expenditure were prepared in conjunction with tribal members, indicating that the battle over title had cost £13,810, more than $2.5 million in today’s terms.1534 The majority of Muaupoko were satisfied with Kemp’s administration, Waata Muruahi expressing the consensus view that ‘Kemp had authority to do as he chose, and spend what he thought necessary. …All the moneys spent in attending Parliament was on behalf of the people. Kemp was fighting to get back the land for the people, and they approved of what he did.’1535 Similarly, Broughton and others did not consider Kemp’s discretion over the lease income detracted from his management: ‘I have never known Kemp consult the tribe about the disposition of the rents. He dealt with those moneys as he thought proper as trustee.’1536 After more than a decade of raruraru, those like Ngariki Te Raorao and Hema Henare still

1534 ‘Statement of Receipts and Expenditure of Meiha Keepa te Rangihiwinui in connection with Horowhenua Block’, AJHR 1897 G-2, pp. 94-96. The statement was contrived to the extent that it was put together after the fact. It showed income from lease, timber royalties and the sale of Horowhenua 2 at £13,810, the same amount defrayed in costs made up of payments to Muaupoko (£4,492, of which the Hunia brothers had received £703); Muaupoko’s expenses associated with court since 1873 (£1,961); Meiha Keepa’s personal expenses, on Muaupoko business (£500); miscellaneous payments from 1879 (£188); and law costs and legal fees from 1872 (£5,932/16/7). The accounts were said to have been prepared in the presence of tribal members, and Te Rangimairehau and Hoani Puihi told the court that resident tribal members admitted the accuracy of the accounts, 27 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 19. The Reserve Bank Inflation Calculator was used to translate this amount in current terms. 1535 Waata Muruahi, 27 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 17. 1536 John Broughton, 28 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 20; see also Kerehi Tomo, p. 20, ‘Kemp consulted the tribe in some cases before making payments to individuals. In others he did not.’ 295 expressed an implicit trust in Kemp: ‘Whatever Kemp did was right. He was working for the tribe.’1537 ‘Kemp was the caretaker of the money and the land. If he chose to make payments to individuals I would not complain. I never have done; nor have the people. The people allowed Kemp full control of the money received by him from Horowhenua.1538

One of the receipts listed in the financial statements presented to court in 1897 was a payment of £800 that Buller held in trust for the tribe. This was used to offset the costs of litigation, which by September 1898, together with survey and rates charges for Horowhenua 11, stood at almost £983.1539 By that time however, £422 of the £800 had already been spent, leaving the agents with little choice but to reduce their bills, with the tribe making up the shortfall with another year’s lease to John McDonald.1540

Quite apart from the costs directly associated with prosecuting their cases, were individual liabilities incurred over the course of the protracted hearings. The cycle of debt associated with the Native Land Court is well documented, impacting various Maori communities at different times throughout the nineteenth century.1541 As set out in the previous chapter, Muaupoko got their first taste of land sales pressure with the partition of Horowhenua 3 in the early 1890s. As related in Chapter 5, on that occasion more than a third of the interests in Horowhenua 3 were purchased prior to or during the court’s partition, private purchasers drawn to the land deals on offer at Palmerston North (see p. 183). The Native Appellate Court hearing of 1897 which ran for five months in Levin brought with it a new burden of debt on tribal members, which was only added to the following year when the Native Land Court turned to locating, or partitioning, the relative interests it had determined in Horowhenua 11. Unlike their earlier experience with Horowhenua 3, the reimposition of Crown pre-emption in 1894 under the Native Land Court Act 1894 meant that Muaupoko were ostensibly protected from the ‘horde of land-hungry settlers’ of 1890. But they were still vulnerable to the even hungrier shopkeepers of Levin. Unable to sell, lease or mortgage any resulting land titles to private interests, indebted tribal members and their creditors both turned to the Crown, and in particular to Patrick Sheridan, Head of the Native Land Purchase Department.

The first such overtures on file are that of Harirota Taare and nine other ‘rerewaho’ who wrote to Sheridan in June 1898 asking for an advance on their interests in Horowhenua 6.1542 The trust over

1537 Ngariki Te Raorao, 28 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 21. 1538 Hema Henare, 28 April 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p.21. 1539 Otaki MB 37, p.15; The existence of this £800 first came to light with Kemp’s statement of accounts rendered to the Native Appellate Court the preceding year, see AJHR 1897 G-2, p. 95. 1540 Otaki MB 37, pp. 16-17. 1541 Richard Boast for example writes that debt cycles were apparent only after a year of Native Land Court activity in Hawkes Bay, in 1867, Boast, pp. 89-96. The Crown was well aware of the problem, which had been the subject of at least two commissions, the Hawkes Bay Native Lands Alienation Commission 1873 and the Rees-Pere Commission of 1891. 1542 Harirota Taare and others to Sheridan, 24 June 1898, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1405]. 296

Horowhenua 6 had been upheld by the Native Appellate Court on 26 July 1897, during the hearing of Horowhenua 11, the owners of the rerewaho block deemed to be those listed in the Horowhenua Block Act 1886.1543 Sheridan passed on the offer to McKenzie as Minister of Lands, with the suggestion that an advance of £20 each would facilitate purchase once the court had made the final orders.1544 This was approved by McKenzie at the end of July. As it happened, all ten were indebted to local Levin merchants to the collective extent of over £986.1545 By far the biggest creditor was Basil Gardener, who owned the Manawatu Cooperative Store, his total bill to the ten Maori land owners who had approached the Crown standing at over £748. ‘It may seem surprising to you that I should allow this account to accumulate to such large proportions’, he wrote to Sheridan, ‘but the explanation is simple’:

I was given to understand about 3 years ago by Mr P. Bartholomew that the maories were about to sell their land to him & that the natives interested were good enough up to £50 or more. After getting into my debt of course I have had to keep them on to a certain extent.

This last land Court has been the means of increasing their debts to a very large extent as the natives & everybody else, thought that it would settle finally the whole of the Horowhenua Block. Consequently I allowed the natives to have what goods they required to keep them alive. I have been met with disappointment after disappointment in these matters and things have come to such a pass now that I have really to push them in order to keep straight myself. … Therefore unless something is done at once I must take steps to secure myself by lodging Caveats against the different amounts & fight them out in the Supreme Court. I have stood to the natives for years but I cannot possibly last out much longer.1546

It seems that Gardener’s approach to Sheridan was behind the government’s advance of £230 to Harirota and others the following month, the land owners first signing a deed agreeing to sell their interests in the Horowhenua Block to the Crown, ‘when ascertained by the Native Land Court or the Native Appellate Court’. The deed included a three month window, from the date when their interests had been determined, for these ‘vendors’ to repay the £20 advanced with interest.1547 A similar offer of sale from one Amorangi at this time was turned down by Sheridan on the grounds that the government could not advance money until the court had made the final orders.1548

In August 1898 Sheridan explained that he would have advanced more to these individuals but for the remonstrations made against the sale of their interests by Wirihana Hunia.1549 In July Hunia had

1543 AJHR 1898 G-2A, pp. 141-142. 1544 P Sheridan to Minister of Lands McKenzie, note on coversheet, 25 July 1898, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1403]. 1545 See schedule with above. 1546 BR Gardener to Sheridan, 2 July 1898, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1408]. Emphasis in original. 1547 Deed, with Maori translation and accompanying schedule, in MA 75/4/24. 1548 Amorangi to Kawanatanga, 20 June 1898; Sheridan to Green, note, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1419]. 1549 Sheridan to Minister of Lands McKenzie, note on telegram, 11 August 1898, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1441]. 297 voiced his protest about the Crown’s purchase of shares while the matter was still before the court.1550 The following month however he demanded that the Crown advance £500 to ‘Some of my tribe that is the Muaupoko are in wellington that is to give their part of share in number six to the Crown to pay for their debt…’1551 In response, Sheridan recommended a further advance of £300.1552 Rawea Taraua turned up in Wellington less than two weeks later to offer her interest in Horowhenua 6 in order to release her uncle Warena Hunia from a three-month gaol sentence for debt, providing a possible explanation for Wirihana Hunia’s about-face.1553 On the other hand, those who did not enjoy a relationship with the Crown’s representatives were forced to wait. In August 1898 Amorangi repeated his offer to the Crown, this time through Whanganui lawyer Fitzherbert, and was once again told that the Crown’s purchase of Horowhenua 6 could not proceed until the Court orders had been issued and registered in the Land Transfer Office.1554 The ‘small advance’ recently paid in Wellington to ‘half a dozen’ owners on account of their shares, Sheridan explained, was ‘to enable them to discharge the debts which they incurred in town during their visit, and to defray their expenses back to the Kaingas.’1555 This was patently untrue.

Te Raraku Hunia was another land owner reduced to ‘great pecuniary straits’ by this time. In addition to her debt to Levin merchants totalling £113, Te Raraku had also incurred a judgment for £100 obtained against her by Alex McDonald for assault.1556 Before recommending to McKenzie an advance of £250, Sheridan had checked with Judge Mackay and had been reassured that that it would be ‘quite safe’ to do so as a lien against her interests in Horowhenua. On 17 June 1898 Te Raraku duly signed over her interest in Horowhenua to the Crown, as security for the £270 received in advance.1557 In September 1898 it was Te Raraku Hunia who applied to the Native Land Court for the partition of Horowhenua 6 between the ‘sellers’ and ‘non-sellers’.1558 The block was split in two, north and south, the northern portion, Horowhenua 6A of some 2005 acres, vested in 20 ‘sellers’ and Horowhenua B, of just over 2615 acres, vested in 28 ‘non-sellers’.1559

In March 1900 Te Raraku Hunia appealed to the Native Minister about the implications of the deed she had signed with Sheridan:

1550 See Wirihana Hunia to Stevens, 4 July 1898; Wirihana Hunia to McKenzie, telegram, 25 June 1898; Wirihana Hunia to Seddon, 7 July 1898, in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1417; 1410]. 1551 Wirihana Hunia to Minister of Lands, telegram, 10 August 1898, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1441]. 1552 Ibid. 1553 Goffe to Sheridan, 23 August 1898, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1444]. 1554 Sheridan to Fitzherbert, 30 August 1898, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1442]. 1555 Ibid. 1556 P Sheridan to Minister of Lands McKenzie, 1 June 1898, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1390]. Rod McDonald recalled that Te Rarauku broke McDonald’s arm after he called her illegitimate in court, Te Hekenga, p. 160. 1557 Deed dated 17 June 1898, in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1392]. 1558 26 September 1898, Otaki MB 36, pp. 244-248. 1559 Otaki MB 36, p. 261; Court Order for Horowhenua 6A, 30 September 1898, Maori Land Court Records Document Bank, Vol. 8, pp. 170-171; 365. Note, the order did not specify the acreage of Horowhenua 6A. The order for 6B notes that it was annulled under Sec 53/95 on 29 June 1899. 298

Mr. Carroll, there is some money advanced by Mr. Sheridan for which I am liable viz £100. The money was advanced on my share in Horowhenua No. 6 block. I took £300 before the purchase of No.6 was authorized because I was under the impression that the said money would be cleared off by the 100 acres because the value placed upon No. 6 Block at the time of the Royal Commission was £4 per acre. That was the reason why I asked for and took £300. Afterwards Mr. Sheridan told me that I would have to refund the money and that had I not gone about telling everybody of it he would have wiped off the said money and added that there was only £200 for each single one of us and that he would charge the balance of one hundred pounds on my other shares and interests in the block and he made me again sign my name. I did wish to personally speak to you and the Premier about this grievance.1560

Hunia’s letter raises a number of important issues about the Crown’s role in land alienation in this era of title individualisation. The first is that the Crown’s monopoly on transacting Maori land precluded Muaupoko from any ‘market value’. According to Te Raraku Hunia, she had proceeded on the basis of the Horowhenua Commission’s valuation of £4 per acre, whereas what she was finally offered was half this. Indeed, the Crown’s offer of £2/0/3d per acre in December 1898, proposed by Sheridan and approved by McKenzie, was based on averaging out the Horowhenua Commission’s valuation of £4/5s per acre for the western portion of 1868 acres adjoining the state farm; and £1/5s for the balance.1561 In effect, as the monopoly purchaser, the Crown could dictate the price, the vendors’ position arguably further weakened as a result of any advance. Hunia’s allegation that Sheridan would have overlooked her ‘shortfall’ had she not gone telling the rest of Muaupoko about it smacks of the same double-faced dealing evident in his response to the vendors indebted to Gardener on the one hand, and that to Amorangi on the other: the rules could be changed to suit the purpose. Hunia’s complaint that she was not aware at the point of signing over her interests, that the deed and advance was not confined to Horowhenua 6, does not seem to be borne out by the fact that the deed she signed on 17 June 1898 was translated into Maori and accompanied by a map of the wider Horowhenua block.1562

Over and above these concerns, is the larger issue of whether the Crown should have been acting as a virtual receiver to Levin shopkeepers, or hanging around the land court as Muaupoko’s hungriest land-settler. By December 1898 Sheridan advised McKenzie that the negotiations for the purchase of Horowhenua 6 were in a ‘very advanced state’, urging the Minister to decide on price.1563 When the court order for Horowhenua 6 was finally made in December 1898, it was Sheridan, the Chief Land Purchase Officer, who applied to the District Land Registrar to have the certificate of title issued.1564 Within the next year, the Crown seems to have purchased the interests of most of the remaining owners, although details about this have not been found in the time available. By September 1899, the

1560 Raraku Hunia to Native Minister Carroll, 10 March 1900, MA 75/4/24. 1561 Sheridan to Minister of Lands McKenzie, 15 December 1898, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1440]. 1562 Deed dated 17 June 1898, in MA 75/4/21 [DB:1392]. 1563 Sheridan to Minister of Lands McKenzie, 15 December 1898, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1440]. 1564 Sheridan to District Land Registrar, 21 December 1898, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1431]. 299

Crown had obtained a court order vesting Horowhenua 6A – now 4363 acres, the bulk of the block – in Her Majesty, the only rerewaho to have kept their interests being Ngahuia Eruera (Horowhenua 6B, 100 acres); Taitoko Ki Te Uruotu (Horowhenua 6C, 100 acres; and Haana Rata (Horowhenua 6D, 57 acres).1565 No measures appear to have been taken to ensure that the debts Muaupoko were accruing were legitimate, or to help them avoid further debt. By March 1899, for example, Te Raraku Hunia was again facing the threat of prosecution, her queue of creditors once again approaching the Native Land Purchase Department for relief.1566 This cycle of debt was undoubtedly an underlying factor in the subsequent battle over partition, which the report now turns to consider.

One last point highlighted by Te Raraku’s correspondence however is that land alienation was also one of the only ways Muaupoko could raise capital in this time of Crown monopoly, to take advantage of the benefits held out by partition. In the same letter in which she bemoaned Sheridan’s practice of advancing money on Horowhenua 6, Te Raraku Hunia appealed to Native Minister Carroll for further funds to kick-start sheep farming operations on her Kawiu lands, once again offering her land by way of security, albeit reluctantly:

E Timi ipi Rangi [i pirangi] ano au kite [ki te] hoko io ku [i oku] eka i te Kawiu kati He aroha noku kinga [ki nga] okenga ota tau [o tatau] tupuna He kotahi oku kite [ki te] Hoko. Ka titiro kau atu au kinga [ki nga] eka oe tahi [o etahi] ka whakama au.1567

Mr. Carroll I did wish to sell some of my acres at Te Kawiu but my love for the place where our ancestor died prevents me. Besides I would be alone in my deed in which case I would only then look with regret upon the acres of those who kept their land and be ashamed.

Muaupoko’s engagement in the sheep industry since the 1880s had been relatively small-scale and had required relatively little capital, tribal members grazing their sheep together with those of Hector McDonald on the coastal fern and swamp commons of Horowhenua known as ‘the Run’. The height of Muaupoko participation occurred in the mid-1880s when 25 of the residents farmed flocks ranging from 25 – 800 sheep. By the mid-1890s, the number of sheep farmed by Muaupoko had increased from 3185 to 3446, but the number of Muaupoko sheep farmers had fallen to 16. By 1900, just seven Muaupoko still farmed sheep and five years later this figure had dropped to four.1568 The largest Muaupoko sheep farmer registered throughout this period was ‘Waata Muruahi & Co’, but even this

1565 Sheridan to District Land Registrar, 5 September 1899, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1432; see also 1439]. 1566 BR Gardener to Sheridan, 6 March 1899, with associated correspondence MA 75/4/21 [DB:1422]. Also referred to as Wiki Hunia, Te Raraku’s debt by 1 March 1899 was stated to be £279/11/3. 1567 Ibid. 1568 Annual sheep returns, AJHR 1886 H-8, pp. 20-22; AJHR 1895 H-23, pp. 52-53; AJHR 1900 H-23, pp. 60-61; AJHR 1905 H-23, pp. 61-62. For my analysis above, Muaupoko sheepfarmers in this period were identified in the first instance by location (‘Horowhenua’, and from 1900 ‘Levin’), and then by name. Ngati Raukawa sheepfarmers at Horowhenua were not included in these calculations. Anderson and Pickens relate that the decline in Maori sheepfarming was a general one in the inquiry district at this time, pp. 304-305. 300 flock of 1400-odd in the mid-1890s had been reduced to a third by 1905. The ability of Muaupoko to take advantage of their newly partitioned titles to engage in new farming ventures is explored later in this chapter.

6.5 Horowhenua 11 Partition, 1898‐1901

The partition of Horowhenua 11 began within days of the delivery of the Native Appellate Court judgement, in September 1898. Once again Judge Alexander Mackay presided over the hearing in Levin, with Atanatiu Te Kairangi, of Ngati Toa, as assessor. JM Fraser was again conductor for the majority of resident Muaupoko, who had met beforehand to arrange the partition out of court.1569 Te Raraku Hunia represented the Hereora whanau interests of 1050 acres.1570 On 21 September the court notified parties that succession to deceased owners would take place before proceeding to partition. Among these was Ihaia Taueki, who had passed away since the hearing of 1897.1571

A number of factors made the partition of Horowhenua 11 especially difficult. The bulk of the 14,826-acre block was either swamp or of poor sandy soils, valued by the tribe as a food resource and a stock run, but incapable of sustaining any kind of intensive horticultural or pastoral activities. The arable area the tribe itself used for cultivation lay on the eastern fringe of the block, in clearings carved out of the forest encircling the shores of Lake Horowhenua. Each of these areas had been worked by different combinations of families, individual tupuna remembered as having specific plots, but part of an overlapping occupation nonetheless. On top of these considerations was the court’s 1898 decision about relative interests: a bewildering spectrum of various acreages to bear in mind in addition to the imperative to group family interests together. Subdividing Horowhenua 11 was an incredibly complex task, not made any simpler by the internal dissension wrought by a decade of litigation. Solving this complex partition equation seems to have been accomplished by Muaupoko themselves, with the help of their lawyer, JM Fraser.

1569 20 September 1898, Otaki MB 35, pp. 373-375. Fraser represented the interests amounting to 7076 acres in the 14,826- acre block, including the vast majority of the resident Muaupoko community. 1570 Ibid, p. 375. 1571 Otaki MB 36, p. 215. 301

Figure 21: 1898 Horowhenua partition

The following narrative describes the initial partition of Horowhenua, which apportioned the arable land between individual owners and left the ‘waste’ lands intact (as Horowhenua 11B41 and 11B42), and the subsequent round of subdivision affecting Kawiu in 1901. There has not been time to follow this process any further. The large swamp and bracken block of Horowhenua 11B41 was partitioned over 1909-1910; the coastal strip of sand hills, Horowhenua 11B42, left intact until 1923 (see pp. 334- 335; 351).

Te Rae o Te Karaka, Horowhenua 11B1‐B26 The first matter dealt with by the court was the village of Te Rae o te Karaka, comprising 160.5 acres. The whole arrangement had been decided by the residents out of court, the subdivision into 26 allotments ranging from half an acre to 20 acres, and taking into account the situation of individual homes. The number of concessions recorded in the minutes suggests a large degree of goodwill at the outset of the hearing between the residents. Court orders were made for 23 of these village sections 302 the same morning, those on the margin of Lake Horowhenua subject to a deduction for a chain reserve.1572

Figure 22: Village partition of Te Rae o Te Karaka, 11B1-B261573

The village settlement subdivision had been the easy part. What was considerably more difficult was how to apportion the balance of the block given the nature of intersecting rights and the land itself. As set out above, much of Horowhenua 11 was either swamp or sand hills, unfit for cultivation. Those areas that were used for gardening were interspersed around the block, and often worked by more than one family or individual. Fourteen such cultivations were identified early on by Muaupoko residents, ranging from 2 to 108 acres, the tribe submitting a list of those claiming at each place. Once the village partition was dealt with, the court asked for and received the general agreement from those present to have these areas surveyed, with partition in mind.1574 When the court reconvened on 30 September, however, there was still considerable debate over the allocation of the arable land, particularly the cultivations north-west of the lake known as Opai, Te Whatutua and Kawiu. The court was adjourned to give Muaupoko more time to sort matters and by 10 October 1898 plans of the areas at issue had been prepared to help them do so.

1572 Otaki MB 36, p. 241. 1573 ML1655 1574 Otaki MB 36, pp. 241-242. 303

Kohuturoa, Otaewa, Paenoa, Ta Te Arero, Mahoenui: Horowhenua 11A2‐15 Still at an impasse over Kawiu, on 14 October Muaupoko turned to arrangements concerning cultivations on the southern shores of the lake, including Kohuturoa. This area comprising approximately 430 acres was split 14 ways into Horowhenua 11A2-15.1575 Again, in a number of sections, overlapping claims were withdrawn to allow partitions to be held by individuals. The following table sets out the result.

Table 4: South-western partition Partition Acreage Grantees Comments (a-r-p) 11A2 19-3-8 Mereana Matao All other claims withdrawn bar one acre for Hema Henare’s house 11A3 1-0-4 Hema Henare His house 11A4 4-3-10 Ruka Hanuhanu 11A5 118-0-04 Rawinia Ihaia 11A6 119-1-0 Hoani Puihi Puihi’s request to have a further 100 acres added was held over and subsequently granted. 11A7 95-2-0 Hanita Henare Claims of others withdrawn 11A8 51-2-0 Hana Raata and 16 acres was occupied by Raata, the area Pero Tikara increased to include the balance of her 25-acre share and that of her brother. 11A9 62-0-0 Hema Henare Claims of others withdrawn 11A10 71-0-00 Himiona Kowhai ‘having consented to accept 10 acres at Mahoenui and Rawinia Matao in satisfaction of their claim to … Little Paeroa’ 11A11 50 Peene Tikara Objection of Romiri Paki withdrawn at the offer of 50 acres of adjoining land. 11A12 50 Paki Te Hunga See above 11A13 20-2-0 Himiona Kowhai 11A14 16-3-0 Kingi Puihi 11A15 10 Rawinia Matao

1575 14 October 1898, Otaki MB 36, pp.337-342. Note that the area of the sections in Table 5 is taken from the resulting survey plan, ML 1653, which varies in some cases from the award minuted in court at the time. 304

Figure 23: The southern partition: Otaewa, Kohuturoa, Ta Te Arero, Mahoenui, 11A2-A151576

Mairua: Horowhenua 11B27‐B35 The apportionment of gardens at Mairua, some 100 acres north of Te Rae o Te Karaka, was more problematic. Outside court Muaupoko got as far as dividing the area into three – north, central, and south – but within these sections, further partition among the various owners became difficult. Pirihira Te Hautapu, who had cultivated in more than one area, resisted the amalgamation of her claims into the extremity of the block, and questioned the size of the proposed allotment. Himiona Kowhai, a claimant with his wife in the central portion, objected to further incursions into his portion by roads. Kerehi Tomo’s proposal that those claiming in southern Mairua should share equally was met with objections from Ngariki Raorao and Anikanara that such an arrangement would deprive them of their existing cultivations.1577 In the end a surveyor was despatched with those Muaupoko interested to adjudge the competing claims, and work out the best line of subdivision. The following orders concerning Mairua were made as a result of this exercise on 18 October.

1576 ML1653 1577 Otaki MB 36, pp. 344-347. 305

Table 5: Mairua partition1578 Partition Acreage Grantees Comments (a-r-p) 11B27 9-2-10 Pirihira Te Hautapu Objections over size and location, forced to concede cultivations in western portion 11B28 20-1-30 Wirihana Tarewa’s successors Nine successors in equal shares (20 shares) Waata Muruahi (2 shares) 11B29 10 Noa Tawhati, Unaiki Taueki Equal shares. Later complaint about the quality of their portion. 11B30 8-3-15 Successors of Ihaia Taueki Tiripa, Hapeta, Haare and Ngapera Taueki in equal shares 11B31 16-0-35 Ariki Raorao, Anikanara Te Equal shares Whata, Ngahuia Te Whata 11B32 12-2-1 Kerehi Tomo, Norenore Te Equal shares between 8 grantees. Kerehi, Winara Te Kerehi and successors of Motai Taueki 11B33 5-3-15 Parahi Reihana, Hopa Makere Te Rou’s claim withdrawn in Heremaia favour of her daughters and Hopa Heremaia 11B34 16-0-30 Tapita Himiona Himiona Kowhai’s claim to 12 acres put in his wife’s name. 11B35 12-0-9 Ariki Raorao, Rahira Wirihana Fenced for gardening, no objections

Figure 24: Mairua Partition, 11B27-351579

1578 18 October 1898, Otaki MB 36, pp. 367-371. Again, the area set out in Table 6 depicts surveyed area on ML 1652, rather than court award minuted at the time. 1579 ML1652. 306

Kawiu, Opai, Te Whatutua: Horowhenua B36‐B37 The arrangement over the fertile land of Kawiu was even more fraught. Fraser told the court on 15 October that although a great deal of trouble had been taken to come to a satisfactory arrangement, the tribe had found it ‘impossible’ to do so.1580 Te Raraku Hunia’s proposal, voiced at the outset of the partition, to have the Hereora family’s interest of 1050 located at Kawiu was not condoned by the tribe, Hoani Puihi explaining that Kawiu was the best of the block, and that everyone wanted a proportionate share of the land there.1581 Everyone wanted to secure the particular spot where their old cultivations were situated, and Fraser pointed out that the proposal to divide the block equally among all the owners would deprive those who had cultivations there. As a first step, Muaupoko had taken out those who would not need to be provided for – Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, Kawana Hunia, Ihaka Te Rangihouhia, Peeti Te Aweawe, Manihera Te Rau, Hana Raata, Pero Tikara, Peene Tikara, Hanita Henare and Ruka Hanuhanu – presumably because their interests had already been located, or proposed to be located, elsewhere.

There was more to the problem than reflecting past and present land use however. Raniera Te Whata was recorded as having made ‘a rambling statement’, objecting to the admission into Kawiu of those who had already received orders south of Hokio, suggesting the old Muaupoko/Pariri division still rankled.1582 The impasse provoked a stern rebuke from the Court:

The Court stated that it was time this vacillating action was terminated several days had been allotted them to discuss matters outside and it was understood that a scheme of apportionment had been agreed on having for its object the promotion of the general welfare of the people in whose favor a decision had been given by the Court.

One of the objects in view was to provide a sufficient area of good arable land for their permanent cultivation as the time had come when the old system of wandering about all over the block had come to an end and it was essential therefore that a suitable block for permanent cultivation should be set apart.

All the land to the Western side of the Lake was either too swampy or too sandy for cultivation and the only suitable place for the purpose was on the Northern side of the Lake. There might be spots to the westward of the Lake which could be cropped for a few years but these parts would have ultimately to be abandoned.

Owing to the varied character of the Lands comprised in the Horowhenua Block it was proposed in the interest of all concerned to lay off for cultivation purposes at Mairua and the Whatatua an area of land that would be always suitable for such purpose.

The proposition therefore was to place part of their respective shares in these localities and then locate the residue of each persons acreage to the westward of the Lake, which they could utilize for grazing or any other purpose for which the land is suitable.

1580 Otaki MB 36, p. 349. 1581 30 September 1898, Otaki MB 36, pp. 260-261. Raniera Te Whata, Te Rangimairehau and Makere Te Rou also made it known they wanted a share of Kawiu. 1582 Otaki MB 36, p. 349. He was supported by Karaitiana Tarawahi. 307

A great deal of time had been spent in endeavouring to make them fully acquainted with the project and the time had come when they must cease from obstructing and turn their attention to aiding the settlement of the matter in a satisfactory manner, however as the case may be they must understand that the Court did not intend to put up with any unnecessary obstruction and they must put an end to the senseless wrangling amongst themselves about antiquated claims that had long since been obscured by more recent circumstances.1583

The telling-off from Judge Mackay provides an insight into a number of important issues surrounding partition. It discloses for example the ostensible rationale behind the scheme conveyed to Muaupoko, that each owner should have sufficient arable land for permanent cultivation, the judge’s pronouncement moreover that such sections ‘would be always suitable for such purpose’, suggesting that the inalienability of these awards was stressed to the owners. It is clear that the judge was concerned first and foremost with equity, based on the productive capacity of the land rather than traditional resource gathering. Indeed the judge was explicit that the ‘old system of wandering about all over the block’ was to be replaced by permanent cultivation. Judge Mackay’s frustration suggests that a significant number of Muaupoko remained unconvinced about the benefits of the tenurial revolution that cut across customary tenure and upset long-standing ideas about user rights and access. His admission that ‘a great deal of time had been spent in endeavouring to make them fully acquainted with the project’ is reminiscent of Grindell’s similar crusade to convince Muaupoko about title determination in 1872.

Judge Mackay’s reference to ‘antiquated claims’ undoubtedly referred to Te Raraku Hunia’s contention that the Taueki family was entitled to a larger share of the best land within the block on account of Taueki’s role in holding the land for Muaupoko. The court, too, disagreed with her position. Judge Mackay pointed out that Taueki’s role had already been acknowledged by the award of a larger acreage to his descendents, and that furthermore:

it must be borne in mind that after peace was fairly established Taueki sent in all directions to gather the people at Horowhenua and that no distinction was ever established between those who had remained and those who fled to a distance through fear of Te Rauparaha.

Taueki’s object evidently was to induce the people to join him in the occupation of the land to the North of the Hokio Stream but it has not been shewn nor did such a condition of affairs exist that the occupation of the persons who returned was limited to any particular portion of the Block then in the possession of Taueki and the other members of the Muaupoko who were allowed to occupy the land after peace was established between Te Whatanui and Taueki.1584

1583 Ibid, pp. 351-352. 1584 Ibid, p. 354. 308

The Court considered Te Raraku’s proposal inequitable, but conceded that it would carry out the arrangement if the other owners consented. Fraser, for the family of Ihaia Taueki, stated that they did not wish any special consideration and were content to receive their portion of Kawiu on the same basis as everyone else.1585 The court was forced to adjourn again.

In dismissing Raraku Hunia’s argument for superior rights on the basis of Taueki’s role and standing in the tribe, Judge Mackay’s ruling at least addressed an issue that had not even been acknowledged in the former Native Appellate Court ruling. In the result, the challenge of partitioning Kawiu proved too much at this time. The proportionate acreage of the 63 owners deemed to have interests in the area was worked out, the portions ranging from five to 211 acres (the balance of their share to be placed in the residue of the block known as ‘the Run’).1586 But the court fell short of locating these parcels on the ground in the face of ongoing resistance:

It was not proposed to do anything further at present to fix the exact location of the individual acreage as it was considered advisable to allow the persons concerned to become reconciled to the adjustment and should it be found desirable to subdivide the Block at a future time action could be taken for the purpose.1587

The 1500-acre block emerged intact for the moment as Horowhenua 11B36. When Te Raraku raised her objection for the third time, it was quashed by the Court on the grounds that it would be manifestly unfair to award the whole of the Hereora family interest at Kawiu, particularly in view of the fact that the other branch of the Taueki family was content with the court’s apportionment.1588 A five-acre clearing, Horowhenua 11B37, carved out at the eastern end of Kawiu by Hone Tupou was awarded separately to him.1589 From subsequent evidence it seems the owners were told that any cultivation undertaken by them at Kawiu could only be temporary, until such time as the court located their interests. Existing occupation would not be recognised as conferring any rights in any future partition.1590

1585 Ibid, p. 355. 1586 Schedule Te Kawiu No 1, 19 October 1898, Otaki MB 37, pp. 30-32. 1587 Ibid, p. 371. 1588 Ibid, p. 372. 1589 Otaki MB 36, p. 373. 1590 Otaki MB 37, p. 197. 309

Figure 25: Kawiu and Eastern Lakeside Partitions, 11B36-B401591

The eastern shores, Tutohu to Taumata o Te Ngaru: Horowhenua 11B38‐B40 Entitlement to areas on the eastern shores of Lake Horowhenua, too, was arranged out of court, Muaupoko agreeing to the award of three small areas to three sets of claimants: Tutohu to Ngurunguru awarded to Pirihira Te Hau and Paranihia Riwai; Ngurunguru to Haruru awarded to Te Rangimairehau; and Haruru to Taumata o te Ngaru awarded to Ihaia Taueki’s family.1592 Disgruntled perhaps by the outcome over Kawiu, Te Raraku Hunia objected to the first arrangement on the grounds that Pirihira Te Hau had never occupied. Hoani Puihi told the court he had occupied the area in the past but had surrendered his claim to it, while Kerehi Tomo went back further, attesting to the occupation of Ngati Puri and Ngati Whano in this locality. Neither men however, objected to the allocation as proposed. The orders were made.

Table 6: Eastern Shores Partition1593

Partition Acreage Grantees Comments (a-r-p) 11B38 12-3-0 Te Rangimairehau 11B39 20-1-0 Paranihia Riwai, Pirihira Te Hau 11B40 17-1-0 Tiripa, Hapeta, Haare and Ngapera Equal shares Taueki

1591 ML1654. 1592 Otaki MB 36, p. 374. 1593 18 October 1898, Otaki MB 36 p. 377. Again, the area in Table 6 is the surveyed area depicted on ML1653, rather than the minuted court award at the time. 310

The reservation of Lake Horowhenua and Hokio Stream On 19 October 1898 Muaupoko’s attention turned to the reservation of their fisheries, Raniera Te Whata requesting a 25-acre lagoon reserve for Ngahuia Heta; Himiona Kowhai requesting a similar 10-acre fishing reserve for himself at Te Maewae; and a further 3-acre fishing reserve at Ohourangi. The previous day applications had also been made for a 50-acre fishing reserve at Rakauhamama and for 30-50 acres at Pakauhokio. To all of these requests the court responded that there would be time enough to reserve such areas when the rest of the block had been subdivided.1594

Fraser informed the court that several meetings among Muaupoko residents had been held, reiterating the request for the reservation and appointment of trustees with regard to key fisheries including Rakauhamama; Pakauhokio; and the Horowhenua Lake and Hokio Stream, with a one-chain reserve around the lake and on the northern bank of the stream to its outlet at the sea.1595 Trustees had already been arranged for these reserves, raising objections from Te Rangimairehau and Hoani Puihi that ‘too many’ of the nominee trustees were from the same family. Wirihana Hunia also objected, complaining that the omission of his name from the list of ten Lake Horowhenua trustees ‘was intended as a slight to him by Muaupoko.’1596 In response, ‘several persons’ attested that Hunia had known about the meetings, but had ‘held aloof’ from the proceedings. At John Broughton’s suggestion and the court’s advice that the matter should be settled, Hunia, Te Rangimairehau, Hoani Puihi and Raniera Te Whata were added to the list of trustees. Orders were made reserving the Horowhenua Lake with a one chain strip, estimated at 1000 acres, and the length of Hokio Stream with a one-chain strip on the north bank, under Section 7 of the Native Trusts and Claims Definition and Registration Act 1893.1597 Makere Te Rou, Hema Henare, Haare Taueki, Himiona Kowhai, Taare Porotene, Ariki Raorao, Kerehi Tomo, Waata Muruahi, Rihipeti Tamaki, Rewi Wirihana, Wirihana Hunia, Te Rangimairehau, Hoani Puihi and Raniera Te Whata were appointed trustees.

The urupa at Otaewa, numbered Horowhenua 11A13A of one acre, was set apart under the same section was vested in 11 individuals. Himiona Kowhai, Hanita Henare, Kingi Puihi and Hoani Nahona were appointed trustees for the cemetery reserve.1598 It does not seem as if the other fishery reserves asked for by Muaupoko at this time were ever subsequently reserved by the court. ‘Rakauhamama Reserve’ was depicted on the resulting survey map, but I have not discovered anything more about it.1599

1594 Otaki MB 36, p. 378; Otaki MB 37, p. 10. 1595 19 October 1898, Otaki MB 37, pp.10-11. 1596 Wirihana Hunia, 19 October 1898, Otaki MB 37, p. 12. 1597 Otaki MB 37, pp. 14-15. The legislation in question empowered the Court, at the consent of a majority of owners in writing, to set apart and vest land in trustees, for religious, educational or ‘other purposes of general or public utility’. Land subject to such order was inalienable in any way whatsoever without the consent of a Judge. 1598 Otaki MB 37, p. 18. 1599 See ML1654. 311

The residue: Horowhenua 11B41‐B42 The balance of the block, the ‘outer portion’ or ‘the Run’ over which Muaupoko and McDonald ran their stock was not allocated at this time, although the proportionate shares of owners, less their allocations of arable land, were worked out. The coastal strip of sand hills running the length of the Horowhenua block and comprising 2158 acres was partitioned off as Horowhenua 11B42 and vested in the 81 owners in equal shares. The vast swamp and fern lands lying between this coastal strip and the lake, comprising 7213 acres, was labelled Horowhenua 11B41 and vested in 78 owners in varying relative interests. The three Tikara siblings, having had their shares satisfied in the arable areas, were not included in the award.

In the course of the hearing, the resident Muaupoko community had been unwilling to include the interests of four of the 81 owners in their cultivations or pa. Keepa Te Rangihiwinui’s 100-acre share was located at Ngakawau, an important eel fishery, but when Fraser aired the tribe’s proposal to place Manihera Te Rau and Peeti Te Aweawe’s interest here also, an objection was raised by Te Rau’s representatives about its distance away from the county road. In response to the court’s statement that it was unreasonable to give Manihera Te Rau the pick of the land, Knocks requested that his share be left unallocated.1600 Wirihana Hunia was also told by the court that Kawana Hunia’s interest of 600 acres, together with that of Ihaka Te Rangihouhia’s 100 acres, was to be located west of the State farm.1601 At the time Wirihana said nothing, but four days later he requested that the Hunia family interest be included at Kawiu.1602 This was not acceded to, but Ihaka Te Rangihouhia was allocated 50 acres at Kawiu, resulting in Wirihana, as his uncle’s successor, obtaining a stake in the block. The relegation of Kawana Hunia’s interest to the ‘outer portion’ may have been the reason for Wirihana Hunia’s petition to Parliament the following year, alleging that there had been a miscarriage of justice in the settlement of Horowhenua.1603

1600 Otaki MB 36, p. 347. 1601 14 October 1898, Otaki MB 36, p. 342. 1602 18 October 1898, Otaki MB 36, p. 368 1603 Petition 113/1899, AJHR 1901 I-3, p. 4. The petition was referred to government for consideration. 312

Figure 26: Residual/Outer Block, 11B41 & 11B421604

Survey costs One of the implications of the fragmented partition that followed was again the cost – both for the 57 court orders charged at the flat rate of £1 each, and more significantly, the survey of the resultant partitions. The survey seems to have been undertaken under the auspices of the government, which also seems to have advanced £200 to get it underway.1605 In March 1900 HR Atkinson, the surveyor authorised to undertake the survey spoke of the delay being caused by ‘the desire of the Government to ascertain if the Native owners who were unable to pay the survey costs would object to the Government paying’, undoubtedly a reference to survey liens.1606 When steps were taken in October 1901 to have this survey lien registered, however, JM Fraser objected for the owners that the claim was excessive.1607 A total of £831/18/8 had been claimed for the partition survey, although in court a Mr Brown for the Surveyor-General offered to reduce this to £538/11/4.1608 It transpired in court that a number of Muaupoko owners had paid for the survey of their individual section, but the work done

1604 ML1654. Note this also shows an extra 210 acres awarded to Raukawa (11A1) which is not discussed in this report. 1605 O’Donahue, Otaki MB 37, p. 48. David Alexander relates that Muaupoko were charged with Palmerson and Scott’s 1887 partition survey (£274/17/6 plus 5% interest for 5 years) in April 1900, and that in November 1901 a further charging order was obtained against 11B42 for £155/19/9, for Atkinson’s 1900 survey, Anderson, pp.16-18. 1606 HR Atkinson to Sheridan Native Land Purchase Office, 26 March 1900, MA 75/4/24. 1607 12 October 1901, Otaki MB 37, p. 40. 1608 Otaki MB 37, p. 47. The Crown’s claim for survey was comprised of £551/6/1 for Horowhenua 11B41; £115/2/4 for the sandhills of Horowhenua 11B42; and £115/2/4, presumably for the allocated portions. 313 could not be used in the final survey, raising the spectre of having to pay twice. The case was adjourned until November 1901 when Sheridan himself appeared in court, pointing out that the Land Purchase Department was ‘practically the actual claimant.’1609 The survey liens as finally agreed was the discounted rate offered earlier, with the concession that the amounts already paid by individuals be deducted from the charge over their respective sections.1610

6.6 Kawiu Partition, 1901

The subsequent partition of the 1500-acre Kawiu block, Horowhenua 11B36, began in October 1901, once again before Judge Mackay. JM Fraser was again appearing for the majority of the resident Muaupoko community who had met beforehand to arrange the subdivision. Although 11 of the 68 interested owners had not been present at the tribal discussions, the majority of those present had come to some consensus. One of the principles said to have been agreed on was that everyone would receive one-third of their share in the open clearings, and two-thirds in the larger forested area. Another was the desire to arrange family interests together into regularly-shaped blocks.1611 It was not intended at this stage to completely individualise title. What was proposed was the broad division of the 1500-acre area into three, running the length of the block, with further family divisions within each. A fourth partition, lying between the railway line and the Poroutawhao road, was to be dealt with separately.

First, however, the objections to this broad scheme of division had to be dealt with. Three owners were represented separately by a Mr Harper. Hoani Nahona wanted his share allocated in one piece, in the bush. This could be accommodated. Paranihia Riwai and Rihipeti Nireaha (aka Tamaki) wanted to be located at Te Kapa, in particular, an old cultivation cleared and gardened by their tupuna. Early in the proceedings the court had signalled that recent occupation of any kind would not be recognised as conferring a special right to any particular part. Most of the first day of hearing was taken up with evidence about past use and ‘take’ to Te Kapa.1612

When the court opened the following day, Fraser set out the proposed scheme: 13 owners in the first partition, closest to the lake, of 483 acres; 30 owners in the middle strip of 354 acres; 10 owners in the northern-most strip of 397 acres; and two owners in the north-east corner, separated by the road, of 67 acres. Rihipeti Nireaha was still unhappy, but signalled her consent to take her acreage in one block in

1609 Sheridan, 28 November 1901, Otaki MB 37, p. 185. 1610 Otaki MB 37, pp. 186-188. 1611 See for example Kerehi Mitiwaha, ‘we consented to have the land allotted proportionately amongst us so as to secure a regular shaped block’, Otaki MB 37, p. 64. 1612 17 October 1901, Otaki MB 37, pp. 56-65. 314 the bush.1613 Hoani Puihi voiced his objections, but was told he had no interest in the matter. Te Raraku Hunia then addressed the court, objecting to the subdivision particularly in view of the fact that Wirihana Hunia had not been party to the proposed scheme. Her ‘rambling statement’ provoked a strong response from Judge Mackay. Wirihana Hunia, it was stated, had been notified twice about the tribal meetings and had chosen not to attend ‘in consequence of designing schemes on his part for his own aggrandisement to frustrate the proceedings for the purpose of using it as a pretext to disturb the work.’1614

The Kawiu partition was adjourned until December. One reason for the delay was the preparation of a topographical map the court had directed to be prepared, to ascertain whether some areas were more broken than others. In court Judge Mackay also alluded to a government request to postpone proceedings until after the Session was over, which may have been related to Wirihana Hunia’s petition about the 1898 partition.1615 By this time JM Fraser was only prepared to proceed with the southern-most section which, as a result of shuffling of interests, was now increased to 508 acres between the 14 owners he represented.

At the hearing in December 1901 Alexander McDonald appeared for Himiona Kowhai, Rihipeti Nireaha and Wirihana Hunia, arguing to discontinue proceedings until the outcome of their petitions was known.1616 The court refused the request. It was important, it reasoned, to locate the owners’ interests to put an end to the uncertainty, so that the several families involved could make permanent improvements if they wanted to. It also pointed out that the scheme of division had been well- discussed by the majority of owners at meetings convened by Fraser, and that pains had been taken to ensure an equitable allocation with regards to the quality of the land.1617 It also refused McDonald’s request to hear Rihipeti Nireaha’s objections again, given that her claim had already been argued in court.

The scheme then set out by Fraser suggests there was room to accommodate individual circumstances. Te Ahuru Porotene’s family for example augmented his shares with their own to increase his acreage from 10 acres to 42 acres, a solution allowed by the court.1618 On the other hand, Riria Pene’s request to have family land amalgamated was refused, the court explaining again the clearing-to-bush ratio as the basis of subdivision.1619 When Himiona Kowhai made a similar claim to Te Kapa, the court again

1613 Otaki MB 37, p. 69. 1614 Otaki MB 37, p. 71. 1615 Otaki MB 37, p. 196. 1616 Note, according to Sheridan at this time, ‘Our friend Rihipeti has sold every blessed acre she owned in Horowhenua’, Sheridan to Premier, 16 April 1901, MA 75/4/24. 1617 Otaki MB 37, pp. 195-198. 1618 Ibid, p. 200. 1619 Ibid. 315 set out the rationale behind the initial Kawiu partition, and the need to include everyone in it given the poor quality of land in the larger ‘Run’. It went on:

The occupationary rights of former cultivations of the open part were not to be allowed to interfere with the subdivision of the land … consequently in making the present Division it is unnecessary to set up previous ‘take’ as a basis of right to any particular spot as claims of that kind cannot be allowed to interfere with the symmetrical division of the land into such shapes as will best serve the interest of all the owners.1620

As long as no serious injustice was done to any person, the court continued, it would adhere to the original intention behind partition:

dividing the Block into suitable and symmetrical shaped areas irrespective of any persons claims either fancied or real to particular spots as these trivial claims for cultivation rights have been practically abandoned for many years past, the land having been given up for grazing purposes, and should not be revived again now, with a view to obtain possession of the best spots or to secure any special advantage.1621

That day the court got as far as making orders for the four subdivisions.1622

The following day, Alexander McDonald, on behalf of his clients, notified the court of their intention to appeal the subdivision. This provoked a heated response from Fraser denouncing ‘the perpetual and vexatious attempt of a small Section of the persons interested in the land to obstruct the proceedings.’1623 In response to the court’s suggestion that proceeding with the partition would be inadvisable given the appeal, Fraser urged the court to instead place on record the partition decisions already come to, calling on Patu Ranginui, the husband of one of the owners, to explain to the court just how difficult it had been to reach agreement between the five families interested in the southern- most partition. In court, Rihipeti Nireaha finally conceded to the allocation of her interests in this land.

The court did proceed to record the subdivisions as arranged between the owners, as set out below.

Table 7: 1901 Kawiu subdivision

Block acreage owners Interest (in acres) 1A 40 Rihipeti Tamaki 10 Maata Huikirangi 20 Ani Patene 5

1620 Ibid, p. 202. 1621 Ibid, p. 203. 1622 Ibid, p. 205. 1623 JM Fraser, 3 December 1901, Otaki MB 37, p. 217. 316

Block acreage owners Interest (in acres) Matenga Tinotahi 5 1B 157 Ihaia Taueki’s family 131 Rawinia Ihaia 26 1C 87 Ruta Te Kiri’s family 1D 25 Kerehi te Mitiwaha’s family 1E (bush) 199 Ihaia Taueki’s family 82 Rawinia Ihaia 12 Ruta Te Kiri’s family 43 Kerehi Te Mitiwaha 12 Warena Te Kerehi 24 Norenore Te Kerehi 2-3-8 Wirihana Tarewa’s family 24 2J 28 Hone Tupou 5 Hopa Te Piki 8 Hera Tupou 15 2K 75 Kingi Puihi 15 Ripeka Winara 20 Hiria Amorangi 10 Peti Uku 10 Ngati Amorangi 5 Amorangi Rihara 5 Rawinia Matao 10 2L 433 Hariata Tinotahi 30 Mereana Matao 25 Hetariki Matao 20 Kiri Hopa 8 Kahukore Hurinui 31 Taare Hereora 30 Noa Tawhati 20 Unaiki Tawhati 20 Himiona Taiweherua 20 Raraku Hunia 33 Makere Te Rou 23 Mohi Rakuraku 10 Kaiwhare Rakuraku 15 Inia Tamaraki 5 Iritana Hanita 20 Himiona Kowhai 46 Ihaka Te Rangihouhia 50 Paranihia Riwai 14 Te Rangimairehau 12 Rewiri Te Whiumairangi 1-2-28 3F 43 Te Oti Te Hau 10 Rewiri Whiumairangi 1-2-26 Rora Korako 20 Rewiri Whiumairangi 1-2-26 Mananui Tawhai 5 Waata Tamatea 5 3G 180 Wirihana Tarewa’s successors 54 317

Block acreage owners Interest (in acres) Rangirurupuni 5 Anikanara Te Whata 17 Ngariki Te Raorao 10 Rahira Wirihana 14 Ria Te Raikokiritia 10 Hori Te Pa 10 Hoani Nahona 40 Matene Pakauwera 5 Te Hapimana Tohu 10 Maata Te Whango 5 3H 161 Te Kiri Hopa 24 Taare Matai 30 Raniera Te Whata 48 Ngahuia Heta 22 Wiremu Te Pae 15 Karaitiana Tarawahi 13 Hopa Heremaia 9 4 67 Norenore Kerehi 21-0-32 Pirihira Te Rau 4 Te Ahuru Porotene 42

Figure 27: Kawiu Partition, 19011624

1624 ML1798. 318

Each of these orders was to be made ‘absolutely “inalienable”’.1625 Division 5, of just 36 perches, was allotted to Te Raraku Hunia.1626 A right of road was to be reserved through the subdivisions in the open part of the Kawiu block until other roads were built, to enable persons in the inner divisions to gain access to their land ‘either by water or by land’.1627

Judge Mackay subsequently made it clear to Sheridan just what he thought about the appeals which had been made regarding the Kawiu decision:

The Appeals referred to have emanated from a small section of the owners, and have been created at the instance of Wirihana Hunia to frustrate any attempt to settle matters in connection with Horowhenua No.11, as he has openly stated that he will perpetually obstruct all proceedings in that direction, even if it should result in the whole estate being frittered away. No proceeding is likely to meet his approval which does not lend itself to his special aggrandisement.1628

In the event, two appeals against the partition were heard in Levin in April 1903. Wirihana and others, and Rahira Wirihana and others, were both represented by Alexander McDonald, their appeal based on the grounds that the partition was an arbitrary one, which had been objected to at the time by a number of owners who had not been allocated their existing cultivations. McDonald claimed there had been a great deal of dissatisfaction with the partition since.1629 In response, JM Fraser reminded the court of the overarching scheme which had been agreed to out of court by the majority of residents, with equity in mind. In response to the contention that Himiona Kowhai should have received a larger share in Kawiu, he pointed out that Kowhai’s proportionate share of arable land in the Horowhenua 11 block as a whole was twice that of everyone else, alluding also to the ‘great concessions’ that had been made by Hereora’s children and others in the interests of coming to an amicable settlement.1630

The Appellate Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the 1901 orders. It considered that Judge Mackay had exercised ‘the greatest care & patience in arriving at a fair division of the land’, agreeing with the underlying principle of creating convenient parcels rather than ‘alleged ancient occupation of particular parts now long deserted – such occupation being difficult of proof.’1631 It also considered that ample opportunity had been given to Muaupoko to reach agreement, with every endeavour made

1625 Otaki MB 37, p. 223. Emphasis in original. 1626 Ibid, p. 228. 1627 Ibid, p. 226. 1628 A Mackay to P Sheridan, memo, nd in MA 75/4/24. 1629 Otaki MB 39, pp. 99. 1630 Ibid, p. 91. JM Fraser attributed Wirihana Hunia’s appeal for Rihipeti Tamaki’s allotment as an attempt to punish her – by appropriating her improvements – for withdrawing her own appeal against the partition. 1631 Ibid, pp. 101-102. 319 to bring it about, concluding that no good purpose would be served to now cancel the arrangement and begin afresh.1632

Like the rest of the Horowhenua 11 partitions, this initial partition of Kawiu 11B36 was but the first round in an ongoing process. Further partitions of the above sections took place almost as soon as the 1901 orders were affirmed, in 1904 and 1905. Well before the confirmation of the initial arrangement however, Pakeha eyes were already turning to the new land parcels. In August 1902 Otaki MP WH Field asked the Native Minister in the House whether the government would, without delay, take steps to enable the Kawiu lands ‘to be brought into use and rendered profit-earning’, either by Crown purchase and settlement; or by removing alienation restrictions to permit leasing; or by vesting the lands ‘if the Native owners are willing’ in the new Maori Land Council.1633 The following chapter explores the pressures imposed on Muaupoko land now integrated into the individualised tenure system.

6.7 Reflections on nineteenth‐century land alienation

In the space of 14 years the promise of partition had worn very thin. By the close of the nineteenth century Muaupoko retained a little over a quarter of their 52,000-acre Horowhenua Block: the Crown had appropriated Horowhenua 12, purchased 1500 acres of Horowhenua 11 over the objections of the tribe, and precluded Muaupoko altogether from the township lands of Horowhenua 2. Horowhenua 3 and Horowhenua 6, intended as a ‘maintenance’ for Muaupoko individuals, had quickly fallen prey to alienation, the former through private sale and lease arrangements following partition in 1890, and the latter through government purchase of individual interests. Holding on to their homeland by the lake had cost the tribe dearly, the cost of the legal battle over the trust estimated at £13,810, derived in part from land sales and lease income. The end of the century saw this tribal estate transformed into individual title, and Muaupoko into 81 owners, a process marked by the passing of the old order with the deaths of Ihaia Taueki, Keepa Te Rangihiwinui and Paki Te Hunga.

Reflections on Horowhenua 14 For all the Crown’s posturing over the need to protect Muaupoko’s property rights, its zeal in prosecuting the case against Buller and Kemp was clearly not motivated out of any concern for Muaupoko.1634 One need only consider its role in pushing through the state farm purchase, or the appropriation of Horowhenua 12 to pay for the Horowhenua Commission, or its avidness to purchase interests in Horowhenua 6, to be disabused of any such notion. Rather, the very public controversy

1632 Ibid, p. 103. 1633 WH Field, 26 August 1902, NZPD vol 121, pp. 633-34, in MA 75/4/24. 1634 Galbreath makes a similar point, p. 223. 320 over Horowhenua 14 was primarily driven by the personal grudge Crown Minister McKenzie held against Buller, arising out of his public embarrassment over the state farm transaction.

Indeed, the Crown’s case against Kemp with regard to Horowhenua 14 – essentially denying the confidence of the people in their chosen trustee – arguably demonstrates a disregard for their interests, and, as argued above, a contempt for the tribe. Moreover, the Crown’s portrayal of Kemp and Muaupoko as separate, competing entities – in 1886 and 1897 – only served to perpetuate the ‘strong man’ narrative (which in turn was based on the ‘conquest/subjugation’ narrative) of Kemp as the saviour (or in this case the villain) of a disempowered tribe, unable to think or act for itself. This was a pervasive argument, reflected for example, in the Crown’s rationalisation of its purchase of Kawana Hunia’s ‘interest’ for the state farm, on the assumption that as another ‘strong man’, Hunia’s interest was considerably larger than that of other tribal members. Such an assumption, it is suggested, suited Crown ambitions rather than reflecting Crown concern for Muaupoko interests. Another manifestation of this same strong man narrative was that Muaupoko should be grateful for what they had, thanks again to the strong men. In the Native Appellate Court judgement of Block 14 for example, having set out how Kemp ‘by his energy and determination, re-established his people’ and was therefore ‘entitled to a very great consideration for the incalculable benefit he has gained for Muaupoko in recovering for them so large a portion of their original tribal estate…’. The ruling continued:

It has been stated that one reason why it was deemed necessary to cause an inquiry to be held into the matters relating to the Horowhenua Block was that a great injustice had been done to the Natives; but, whoever may have been injured by anything that has been done, it is certainly not the Muaupoko.1635

Muaupoko, it seems, were forever to be burdened by their status as a defeated tribe, with the very real consequence that their views were simply ignored by both the Crown and the court. How else can we account for Kawana Hunia’s inclusion in Horowhenua 11 to the extent of 600 acres, over the strong objections of the resident tribe, and bearing in mind that Warena Hunia had already sold 1500 acres (similarly deemed by the Horowhenua Commission to be the Hunia family share, for which the family had received £4000).

The litigation over Horowhenua 14 also exposes the political influences at work (the Horowhenua Commission of 1896 itself being the government’s response to the 1894 Supreme Court decision declaring Horowhenua 11 to be held in trust). Robert Stout (MHR for Wellington City, 1893-1898) and John Stevens (MHR for Rangitikei 1881-1884, 1893-1896; MP for Manawatu, 1896-1902, 1905- 1908) were at once involved in the litigation as counsel, and in formulating the very legislation at issue in court, as politicians. Following his appearance in the Supreme Court litigation over

1635 Appendix K, AJHR 1898 G-2a, p. 183. 321

Horowhenua 14 (in August 1897 for Kemp, and in November 1897 for the Crown), in June 1899 Stout was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. James Martin, one of the Horowhenua Commissioners in 1896 was appointed Public Trustee shortly after (the appointment, Galbreath states, rumoured to be in reward for that job).1636 Field, Carroll, Seddon, Stevens, and McKenzie – all involved in the controversy over Horowhenua in one way or another – were on the Native Affairs Committee at the height of the controversy in 1897. There has not been time to explore this further, but the above examples do indicate that a number of men, familiar with both the judicial and legislative systems, exerted a tremendous influence on parliamentary decisions regarding the block.

Reflections on partition On the face of it, the five-year period following the Horowhenua Commission saw Muaupoko’s tribal estate taken out of Kemp and Hunia’s custodianship and ‘restored’ to the tribe. After years of anxiety about the legal ownership and control of Horowhenua 11, the Native Appellate Court’s 1897 ruling that the block was indeed held in trust for the permanent residents of Muaupoko would have been greeted with some relief by the tribe. In the process of determining their entitlement through the partition of individual interests, however, both ownership and control were severely compromised.

The Muaupoko community at Horowhenua seemed keen to have Horowhenua 11 ‘returned’ to them, and to that extent welcomed the court inquiry into beneficial ownership. They may not have predicted however the extent to which the hearing into relative interests brought to the surface underlying tensions associated with war and post-Treaty resettlement that were difficult to reconcile, and which did not sit neatly within the formulaic take stipulated by the court. Despite efforts to arrange matters out of court, the contest over the beneficial ownership of Horowhenua 11 was lengthy and expensive, straining relationships within the resident community, as well as with those faced with exclusion from the tribal estate based on criteria of ahi ka. Nor is it clear, given the lack of any discussion during the 1897 hearing and in light of subsequent resistance to partition, to what extent the tribe were aware of the implications of beneficial ownership, as the first step towards the individualisation of title.

With regard to the partition of Horowhenua 11 that followed, the court’s stated objective was to undertake it in such a manner ‘as would promote the interests of all who were entitled to consideration.’1637 The end result was the close apportionment of the relatively small areas of arable land into 68 sections ranging from half an acre to 433 acres, and the fracturing of already modest individual shares over multiple locations. The great irony of the Horowhenua 11 partition, motivated, as Judge Mackay attested, to bring an end to the ‘old system of wandering all over the block’, was that

1636 Galbreath, p. 228. 1637 Otaki MB 36, p. 372. 322 it did precisely that: the individual interest of Motai Taueki’s arable portion, for example, was dispersed in five different locations, and ranged in size from a quarter-acre village section to 7¼ acres at Mairua. The fact that there were five successors to Motai’s interest suggests that the implications of succession must have been apprehended at this time, adding to the evident shortcomings of the scheme. The bid to individualise tribal tenure in fact reinforced the overlapping and intersecting nature of Muaupoko’s land tenure. The difference being that these previously fluid customary interests were now legally fixed titles with considerably less potential to be worked together for common benefit. In his concern for equity – demonstrated by the assiduous mathematical apportioning of interests – Judge Mackay seems to have been less mindful of the associated costs in court fees and survey liens, and completely oblivious to the long-term economic welfare of tribal members. In the court’s view, ‘permanent cultivation’ was an improvement on past resource gathering, but in this new era of increasing intolerance for ‘unprofitable occupation’ even the subsistence cultivation that seems to have been envisaged by the judge would no longer be enough.

According to Sheridan of the Native Land Purchase Department, the subdivision of Horowhenua had been ‘absolutely necessary to prevent the Natives from quarrelling amongst themselves as to their individual holdings.’1638 One of the justifications for partition had been that the security of title would enable owners to make permanent improvements if they wanted to. Indeed, the emphasis on the ‘symmetrical division’ of Kawiu in particular suggests the judge had farming principally in mind. The economic objectives of partition are further borne out by Te Raraku Hunia’s appeal to Native Minister Carroll in March 1900, for start-up funds for sheep farming at Kawiu. As she explained: ‘The land is not yet subdivided so as to enable me and the remnant of the people here to hasten our operations and thus obtain a livelihood or return from the land’.1639 The Kawiu sections could arguably be compared with similar acreages offered by the Crown under its Village Homestead system of the 1890s, except that in the case of Muaupoko, each Kawiu section had to support multiple owners, a number of whom had already been succeeded to, and that Maori generally at this time were excluded from state financial help to begin farming, hence Te Raraku’s direct appeal to Carroll. In considering the economic rationale for individual titles, however, it should be remembered that the tribal status over the block since 1873 had not precluded tribal members from farming sheep. Indeed, as Anderson and Pickens have pointed out, contrary to the argument that the security of individualised titles would facilitate farming, Muaupoko’s experience was just the opposite, the partition of Horowhenua 11 coinciding with the virtual demise of their small-scale sheep industry. The 25 Muaupoko sheep farmers of 1885 were reduced to 16 by 1895; 7 by 1900; with just four farmers remaining by 1905, farming 1727 sheep between them. By contrast, the McDonald family flock of 7000 in 1885 had

1638 Sheridan to Premier, 16 April 1901, in MA 75/4/24. 1639 Te Raraku Hunia to Native Minister Carroll, 10 March 1901, MA 75/4/24. Contemporary translation by Native Department. 323 increased in the same 20-year period to 12,300.1640 There were doubtless multiple factors behind this decline, which could arguably be said to have started before the advent of partition, but the point remains that in a time when Muaupoko’s participation in small-scale, low-capital farming was decreasing, the chances of them being able to take on new farming ventures without help seems slim. Without the necessary capital to engage in modern farming, all that individualising titles achieved was to facilitate land alienation. How this process occurred is set out more fully in the following chapter. Muaupoko were late entrants to the individualised title game, but evidence suggests that they were no less vulnerable to the debt cycles associated with the land court. In their case, it was the Native Land Purchase Department who provided credit to indebted tribal members, secured by deeds for their new Horowhenua interests. On top of this individual debt, the tribe had absorbed colossal legal bills in the struggle to prove the trust over Horowhenua 11. In the result, they were ill-poised at the beginning of the twentieth century to take advantage of the regularly-shaped farming blocks cut out at Kawiu.

Sheridan’s negative view of the in-fighting within Muaupoko is belied by the degree of compromise and cooperation apparent within the resident community to achieve their out of court arrangements. The extent to which partition was chosen by Muaupoko and the extent to which ‘the project’ was forced upon them is not clear. On the one hand Judge Mackay’s outburst in September 1898 suggests that some Muaupoko remained unconvinced about the benefits of adopting a new tenurial system, particularly one that did not take into account ‘antiquated claims’ or past use and occupation, and Rahira Wirihana’s 1903 appeal confirms a level of dissatisfaction with the partition. On the other hand the resident community seems to have had a large hand in the arrangement, the court implementing the consensus view where this was achieved, which would be reasonable to construe as support for partition. Te Raraku Hunia’s overture to Carroll cited above, too, suggests an endorsement of partition and individual ownership. It should be borne in mind however that Muaupoko were presented with no other option: partition at the time was a given, and one which did not even take their requests for multiple fishery reserves seriously. Faced with little alternative, tribal members may have decided to make the best of it.

Ultimately, individualisation of title and partition constituted the first step towards further land alienation. The Crown’s advance of £200 to get the survey underway indicates an active endorsement for the process. At the same time that Muaupoko were in court to obtain their new titles, John Stevens MHR was actively lobbying to have the Crown acquire and reserve Lakes Horowhenua and Waiwiri for the public, Minister of Lands John McKenzie directing Sheridan to take action to this end in December 1897.1641

1640 Again, see Anderson and Pickens, pp. 304-305; Annual sheep returns in AJHR 1886 H-8, pp. 20-22; AJHR 1895 H-23, pp. 52-53; AJHR 1900 H-23, pp. 60-61; AJHR 1905 H-23, pp. 61-62. 1641 Copy of resolution at public meeting of residents of Levin, 21 December 1897, MA 75/4/21 [DB:1397-1401]. 324

Chapter 7

Twentieth Century Issues

Muaupoko began the twentieth century with their tribal estate reduced to the coastal area from the lake to the sea, the tribe itself rendered to 81 individual owners, and each of them now holding an individual property title to sections of the most valuable parts – in farming terms – of Horowhenua 11. The process of partition begun in 1898 was an ongoing one. The valuable Kawiu lands, divided into 12 family portions in 1901, were further partitioned in 1904, 1905, 1909, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1927, 1940, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1955, 1956, and 1960: roughly a third of the resulting 92 titles less than 10 acres in extent, and only two of them exceeding 50 acres. Ironically, by the mid-1940s the reverse process of title consolidation was applied to a number of these Kawiu sections. The tribal ‘Run’ set apart in 1898 as Horowhenua 11B41, of 7213 acres, was cut into 33 parcels allocated between the 78 owners in June 1910, and further partitioned in 1911, 1915, 1918, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1936, 1937, 1939, 1947, 1953, 1956, 1961, and 1963. On what was considered economically marginal land, 49 of the resulting 113 titles were less than 20 acres; a further 50 titles between 20 and 50 acres in extent.1642

This chapter considers the factors and implications behind this ongoing partition process, namely land alienation, through reference to specific case studies using archival and Maori Land Court records. A systematic study of twentieth century land alienation within Horowhenua 11 envisaged at the scoping stage has not been possible in the time available. Research suggests that the ongoing attrition of Muaupoko’s tribal estate, now transformed into individual title, was achieved primarily through private alienation, although the Crown also appropriated further land in this period, primarily at the behest of local Pakeha interest groups. The underlying factors behind private alienation included pressures from indebtedness generated by the title individualisation process itself, from a local government system of rating that demanded that Muaupoko’s remaining estate be economically productive, and from local Pakeha greed. Precluded by the lack of capital from participating in the business of farming themselves, Muaupoko land owners were quickly forced into leasing arrangements in order to retain their land, or to sell.

7.1 Historical context for 20th century alienation

Before dealing with the specific circumstances of twentieth century alienation of Muaupoko’s remaining estate, it is as well to know something of the general historical and legal framework dictating such alienation.

1642 Maori Land Court record sheets for Horowhenua 11B36 and 11B41, Maori Land Information System (MLIS). 325

District Maori Land Council/Board Administration, 1900‐1950 District Maori Land Councils (DMLC) created in 1900, and their successors, the District Maori Land Boards (DMLB), were the major agencies in administering and managing the disposal of Maori land for the first half of the twentieth century.1643 The Maori Lands Administration Act 1900 introduced a new system of making Maori land available for settlement, emphasising lease over sale, and enabling Maori land owners to voluntarily vest their land through deeds of trust in the District Councils to manage on agreed terms. These lands, known as ‘vested lands’, could be leased by the Councils but not (initially) sold. Inalienable reserves could be made for papakainga, birding, fishing, urupa or other purposes. Although private sales of unvested Maori land were possible under the Act, there were significant restrictions, the legislation assuming that lease would be the main means by which Europeans would acquire and develop Maori land. No Maori land in a district could be sold unless approved by the relevant District Maori Land Council, which had to be satisfied that any proposed sale would not leave those affected without an area sufficient for ‘maintenance and support and to grow food’.1644

As Cathy Marr writes, the new system attempted to balance the Liberal Government’s aspirations to make more Maori land available for settlement – the existing system of Crown purchase unpopular with Maori and weighted down by long delays, complicated processes and frequent litigation – and the calls from Maoridom for increased self-management of their lands, and concerns about being left landless.1645 The idea was that Maori would retain ownership of their lands, but lands which they were unable to utilise themselves would be made available through lease to those who could. Income from leased lands would theoretically provide Maori owners with capital for the development of their remaining landholdings, while the papakainga lands they retained would ensure they had sufficient land to maintain and support themselves. Four of the seven members on the initial councils were to be Maori, which in theory could exercise all the powers of the Native Land Court, including title determination, partition and succession.

In practice, the District Councils never became an alternative to the Court because they could not undertake such work unless directed to do so by the Court. The conflict between freeing up ‘unutilised’ Maori land for European settlement and Maori aspirations also quickly became apparent.

1643 The following summary is taken from Cathy Marr, ‘The Alienation of Maori Land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea Block) Part 2: 1900-1960, (Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, District 8, 1999), chapter 1, which in turn is drawn from Tom Bennion, ‘The Maori Land Court and Maori Land Boards 1900-1952, (Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, theme P, 1997); Donald Loveridge ‘The Maori Land Councils and Maori Land Boards: An Historical Overview’, (Waitangi Tribunal, Rangahaua Whanui Series theme K, 1996); and John Hutton, ‘“A Ready and Quick Method”: The Alienation of Maori Land by Sales to the Crown and Private Individuals, 1905-1930 ‘, (CFRT, 1996), Wai 1200 #A59. 1644 Ibid, p. 4. 1645 Ibid, pp. 4-6. 326

Compulsory measures introduced in 1902 included legislation enabling Native Township lands to be vested in District Councils, and in 1904, rating legislation empowering the government to vest land in the District Councils on default of rates payments. In 1905 any pretence of Maori control was ended: under the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905 the elected District Councils were replaced by three- member government-appointed District Boards, the requirement for a Maori majority removed. In 1907 compulsory vesting of ‘unutilised’ land – identified in a nationwide survey conducted by Robert Stout and Apirana Ngata – was provided for. In 1913, the work of the District Maori Land Boards was merged with that of the Land Court, with Native Land Court judges becoming the presidents of the Boards.1646

The District Maori Land Boards played a major role in administering the system of land alienation dictated by legislation for the next 50 years. Under the Native Land Act 1909 all previous restrictions on alienation were removed. In the case of alienations involving land owned by 10 or more owners, a meeting of assembled owners was required to be called, the majority resolution based on shares represented. Property owned by fewer than 10 owners could be alienated in the same way as general land. All alienations of Maori land – whether by lease or sale – had to be confirmed by the District Board: before doing so, the Board had to be satisfied that the owners understood the effect of the transaction, that it was not contrary to equity or good faith in the interests of the owners (the purchase price or rental adequate), and that Maori affected by the transaction were left with sufficient land for their ‘adequate maintenance’. Different rules applied to Crown purchasing. Land owned by fewer than 10 owners could be purchased by the Crown without confirmation of the Board, although it was still required to follow the same procedures regarding land owned by 10 or more. From 1913, the Crown was able to purchase individual interests and undivided shares in blocks owned by more than 10 people, even if a previous Crown offer to purchase had been rejected at a meeting of assembled owners.1647 It appears this tactic was used by the Crown to acquire Horowhenua 11B42C1, discussed below (see pp. 363-364).

Aotea District Maori Land Council / Ikaroa District Maori Land Board Horowhenua fell into the Aotea District, an area initially encompassing Wellington, the Manawatu and all of Taranaki; the Te Ikaroa district covering Wairarapa and southern Hawkes Bay.1648 William Butler, Native Land Court judge, was the Crown-appointed president, the other Crown-appointed members being Thomas Fisher, Ru Reweti and Taraua Marumaru; the three elected Maori members being Takarangi Mete Kingi, Waata Wiremu Hipango and Te Aohau Neketini.1649 This Maori-centred

1646 Both Loveridge and Bennion write of the contradictory nature of this dual role, as both trustees of Maori land for Maori development and promoters of alienation of alleged ‘waste’ Maori lands. Loveridge, 1996, p. 126, Bennion, 1997, pp. 10-14, 40. 1647 Section 109 Native Land Amendment Act 1913, as summarised in Loveridge, 1996, p. 127. 1648 Loveridge, p. 29. 1649 Loveridge, p. 33. 327 membership, of course, was ended almost as soon as it began, the seven-member council pared down to just three Crown appointees in 1905. Moreover the district itself seems to have undergone a number of changes that have not been tracked for the purposes of this report. By 1914 Horowhenua was part of the Ikaroa District comprising Hawkes Bay, Manawatu and Wairarapa to Wellington, the Native Land Court and Maori Land Board districts now coinciding with each other.

Loveridge’s research reveals that almost all of the 98,663 acres vested nationwide by 1903 fell within the Aotea District, the 106,353 acres vested in this council by 1905 falling to just 20,495 acres from 1906-1909.1650 The Aotea District also saw the greatest use of compulsory vesting provisions in this period, accounting for 15,295 acres of the 17,480 acres compulsorily vested nationwide before 1910.1651 A number of Muaupoko’s recently partitioned Kawiu sections were vested in 1904 to prevent them from being sold for debt incurred by the owners, discussed below. In 1911 land appropriated by the Crown in 1902 for the purposes of a township at the Hokio river mouth was also vested in the Ikaroa DMLB, also discussed below.

Local Government Rating Constitutional reform of local government in 1876 saw the introduction for the first time of general territorial taxation based on occupancy. Maori land was initially exempt from local body rates and it took Parliament the best part of three decades to fully overcome Maori resistance to having their lands become rateable property. It was a political struggle won in stages, beginning in 1882 with the ‘five mile rule’ and deferred reimbursement of State-paid rates; and gradually extended with concessions of half-rates and exemption from special rates. By 1910 however the encirclement was complete, with all Maori freehold land liable for full and special rates. Having done so, it took the government another 15 years to devise a practical method of exacting payment without the complete abrogation of ownership rights. In the case of general land, unpaid rates could be recouped from the forced sale of such lands. Despite the professed insistence to end the ‘special treatment’ accorded to Maori when it came to rates, from the earliest time overcoming the complexities posed by multiple ownership and occupancy, in concert with the virtual estrangement of local bodies with their Maori communities, meant that usual procedures for demands and notice to ‘nominated owners’ were eventually dropped, with the recovery of rates instead sought from a charge against the land.1652

From 1924, unpaid rates could be charged against the title, doing away with having to deal with the multiple owners of Maori land altogether. A nominated owner might still be appointed by the Court

1650 Loveridge, p. 37. 1651 Loveridge, p. 47. Loveridge writes that virtually all of the land vested in the Aotea DMLB by 1911 came under Part XV of the Native Land Act 1909 Act, meaning that the lands could not be permanently alienated, as opposed to being vested under Part XIV, as a result of recommendations made by the Stout-Ngata commission, the 1907 Act requiring half the lands so vested to be sold, pp. 81, 94. 1652 For a fuller discussion regarding the rating of Maori land, see J Luiten, ‘Local Government in Te Rohe Potae’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011), Wai 898 #A24, pp. 25-52. 328 for the purposes of voting, but the names of nominated owners or occupiers were no longer required to be entered in the valuation roll, and nor was it expressly stipulated how rates on Maori land were to be demanded. Rather, a rates claim was to be lodged with the registrar of the Court no later than two years after due date. Such claims were to be treated as applications for charging orders, to be heard by the Court. In special circumstances of hardship the Court could remit whole or part of any rate. If granted, charging orders were to be registered against the title, and owners were prevented from dealing with their land until the amount had been paid.1653 Judgments for charging orders could be enforced through the Court appointment of a receiver. In addition, if a charge remained unpaid after one year the Court could order, subject to the consent of the Native Minister, that the land be vested in the Native Trustee for sale, either the whole or any part, to pay the charge. The Native Trustee could also mortgage the land to pay the rates. For many years the whole process occurred without the knowledge of the land owners, for they were neither sent demands nor notified of the local body’s application for a charging order other than by the block notice in the Kahiti.

From 1936 the receivership lease became the mainstay of collecting rates from Maori land. Non- payment of rates and unpaid rates charging orders became one of the grounds under the Maori Purposes Act 1950 (s.34), empowering the Court to order the appointment of the Maori Trustee as agent for the owners of Maori land for the purposes of alienation by lease or sale. These provisions were reworked into Part 25 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. When the Rating Act of 1925 was updated in 1967, the charging order provisions over Maori land endured. On making a charging order, the Maori Land Court was now required to consider the future use of the land including future payment of rates, and provision was made to vest the land in a trustee for lease or sale.1654 The power of a receiver or trustee to sell Maori land for rates was removed 20 years later under the Rating Powers Act 1988 (s.188).

Muaupoko’s Horowhenua 11 lands fell into Horowhenua County, and, after 1906, Levin Borough, although the details and implications of demarcation between these respective local bodies has not been the subject of research for this report. In time, lands falling within the Hokio Drainage District would have been liable for drainage rates, although again, the impact of this local body rating has not been addressed by this research.

7.2 Crown appropriation: Hokio Native Township, 1902

The Native Townships Act 1895 enabled the Crown to compulsorily take up to 500 acres of Maori land for a town, and to have such town sites surveyed into sections, streets and reserves. Although provision was made for up to 20 per cent of the surveyed township to be reserved as ‘Native

1653 Ibid, pp. 40-47. 1654 Section 155(2), Rating Act 1967. 329 allotments’ (the rationale perhaps for the misnomer ‘Native townships’), the Crown in fact acquired full use and control of the whole area. After the Maori Land Administration Act 1900, these areas could be vested in District Maori Land Boards, the town sections leased by public tender or auction for a period of 21 years, with a right of renewal. The cost of survey, and of forming the town’s infrastructure in the way of streets, was to be deducted from the revenue received from the leaseholds. Research in other inquiry districts shows that the Native Township legislation enabled the Crown to establish Pakeha settlement in areas where Maori would not agree to sell, either to the Crown or to private individuals.1655 David Alexander has set out the history behind the Hokio Native Township as part of a study of related title issues regarding Hokio A.1656 His study based on Land and Survey archives has been augmented to some extent here from Native Land Purchase Department records.

Local lobbying The genesis of the Hokio Native Township seems to have arisen out of a conversation between a handful of Levin residents and Minister of Lands Duncan towards the end of 1900, when the Minister was in town on other business. The initial request by the deputation who waited on the Minister at Weraroa was for the government to acquire 100 acres west of Lake Horowhenua, to cut into quarter- acre sections for sale, with the provision that no one person would be allowed to buy more than one section. The Minister was assured that the sections would sell rapidly, and would ‘prove a great advantage to residents of the surrounding districts.’1657 In response, Duncan ‘expressed himself entirely in sympathy with the proposal, and promised that if there were no legal difficulties in the way, he would endeavour to give effect to the wishes of the deputation.’1658

A pencilled note suggests that recourse to the Native Townships Act 1895 was the suggestion of Sheridan, Head of the Native Land Purchase Department, in January 1901.1659 A file note also suggests that the owners’ names and addresses were obtained by February 1901, although the schedule itself is not on file.1660 By April 1901 Acting Surveyor-General Barron informed the Chief Surveyor that he had been unable to obtain the owners’ names, requesting him ‘in the meantime’ to

1655 Details of the legislative and historical developments surrounding Native townships has been considered in a number of inquiry districts, including those I am familiar with, Te Rohe Potae and East Coast, see for example Heather Bassett and Richard Kay, ‘The Impact of the Native Townships Acts in the Rohe Potae: Te Kuiti, Otorohanga, Karewa, Parawai’, (CRFT, 2010), Wai 898 #A62. 1656 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)’, Wai 2200, #A12. 1657 Memo, undated, in AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1694]. The deputation consisted of Dr. McKenzie, WC Nation, J Prouse, Silvester and Bartholomew, the local sawmiller. 1658 Ibid. 1659 Sheridan wrote ‘This land can only be acquired under the provisions of the Native Townships Act 1895 not otherwise’, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1692]. 1660 The note reads ‘Required owners names & addresses. 5/2/1’ and below, ‘Schedule of owners names and addresses attached accordingly. CB. 6/2/01’, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1695]. The cadastral plan on file bears the note that the land on western side of the lake was held under orders of the Native Land Court not yet issued, [DB:1693]. 330 select what he considered to be ‘the best site for a sea-side township there’.1661 A further letter five months later jogging the Chief Surveyor about the proposed township bears the pencilled note ‘Warena Hunia would like a surveyor to go with him next week.’1662 Two days earlier, Sheridan had informed Barron ‘[t]here are no difficulties as far as the Natives are concerned in the way of the carrying out of this proposal’.1663 The sole reference to Hunia raises the disquieting suggestion that government officials were once again utilising past relationships with the Hunia family with regard to the township proposal rather treating with the wider Muaupoko land owners recently determined by the court.

Chief Surveyor Marchant, also Commissioner of Crown Lands Wellington, visited Horowhenua in early October 1901, the five local men associated with the proposed township advised in advance, but not the Muaupoko land owners. Marchant was less than impressed with what he saw, writing from Levin:

I do not think that there would be much demand for Town lots, as there are many seaside places available and the population on the coast is sparse. A small area in Horowhenua Block B42 on the south side of the Hokio stream might be subdivided with the owners consent and opened for lease. To carry out the scheme thoroughly, steps should be taken to stay the moving sand.1664

Marchant’s suggestion was seized on by the Acting Surveyor-General who, on Sheridan’s advice, directed that surveyor GF Richardson, be employed ‘at once’ and ‘be left an entirely free hand’ in laying out the ‘Horowhenua Township’ of 20 quarter-acre sections, ‘and the remainder larger’.1665 These verbal instructions were subsequently modified to the effect that Richardson was to lay off an area for proclamation as a Native Township ‘sufficient for [illegible] future requirements and to cut up only lots enough to meet present reasonable wants’.1666 Richardson had had a long career with the civil service as district surveyor in Southland, before going into private practice in 1885.1667 He was also a former politician, representing Mataura from 1884 to 1893. In this period he had also been Minister of Lands and Immigration (1887-1891); Minister of Mines (1887-1889); and Minister of Agriculture (1889-1891). His bankruptcy in 1898 may account for his interest in taking on the survey of the Hokio Native Township.1668

1661 Assistant Surveyor-General to Chief Surveyor, Wellington, 13 April 1901, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1691]. 1662 Assistant Surveyor-General to Chief Surveyor, Wellington, 18 September 1901, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1690]. 1663 Sheridan to Mr Barron, 16 September 1901, MA 75/4/24. 1664 Chief Surveyor Marchant to Chief Clerk, 1 October 1901, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1679]. 1665 ‘Telephone message from Asst. Sur. Genl.’ 25 October 1901, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1675]. Sheridan had recommended Richardson on the grounds that ‘he knows every foot of the ground and is on good terms with the Native owners.’ P Sheridan to Mr Barron, 16 September 1901, MA 75/4/24. 1666 Ibid. 1667 These details are from his obituary, Evening Post, 23 October 1909, p. 5. 1668 Reported in Grey River Argus, 30 April 1898, p. 4. 331

Richardson’s initial report suggested a town reservation of 100 acres, divided into 50-60 lots with native and plantation reserves along the Hokio river front, which he offered to undertake for £50.1669 His ‘free hand’ was reined in to an extent by Marchant, who continued to have reservations about planting a township on such terrain:

I doubt the advisability of subdividing the whole areas of driving sands and rough flats into building lots of from half to six acres in extent as proposed by Mr. Richardson; and I suggested to him that a few quarter acre lots laid off in sheltered places as far from driving sands as possible, with the addition of reserves for Maoris and public purposes, would probably be the most advantageous and safe method of dealing with the question.1670

The above advice to the Acting Surveyor-General was ended with the caution ‘We must be careful to curtail expenses.’ On 13 November 1901, Marchant again suggested to Richardson that the subdivision of the 100-acre township be pared down to reflect the circumstances:

… in view of the fact that the land comprises principally drifting sand with a few small flats at intervals, and also that the demand for township lands must necessarily be very limited, I suggested the laying out of a few sections along the road from Levin to the coast, instead of subdividing and pegging the whole area at the present time.1671

Again, Marchant’s suggestion was made with the cost of the township principally in mind:

It would be most unfortunate if the 100 acres were taken from the Native owners, and they were handicapped with heavy expense for survey, advertising, and administration, without a certainty of annual rents deriving from the leases of the township lots recouping outlay and giving them interest on the value of the property.1672

On the same day, Marchant was advised that the Minister of Lands had authorised the expenditure of £50 to complete the survey. The Assistant Surveyor-General agreed with Marchant’s proposal to restrict the subdivision to ‘a few quarter-acre lots, say not more than 20’ with ‘additional land for Maori and public purposes’.1673 Richardson was duly instructed to proceed on this basis.

The survey was completed by 20 December 1901: 20 town lots laid out along the road within a larger survey of 109 acres 2 roods 30 perches ‘made at Mr Sheridan’s request to enable a defined area to be taken.’1674 Again, the challenges presented by sand drift were evident from the outset: ‘The country,

1669 GF Richardson to Chief Surveyor Wellington, 5 November 1901, Lands & Survey Wgtn district file 20/278, cited in Alexander, p. 21. 1670 Chief Surveyor Marchant to Acting Surveyor-General, 6 November 1901, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1670]. 1671 Chief Surveyor Marchant to Richardson, 16 November 1901, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1669]. 1672 Ibid. 1673 Assistant Surveyor-General to Chief Surveyor Marchant, 13 November 1901, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1667]. 1674 Richardson to Chief Surveyor Marchant, 20 December 1901, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1663]. 332 while quite easy if dealt with on a large scale, is extremely troublesome in small subdivisions…’ Richardson’s work was referred five days later to the Chief Draughtsman and marked ‘Urgent’, in preparation for proclamation.1675

In the course of preparing the plan for proclamation it was pointed out that the necessary reserves provided for in the Native Townships Act were missing, namely ‘Town Belt and Esplanade Reserves’, ‘Native Reserves’ and those for ‘Public Purposes’. Richardson had suggested a broad esplanade, two chains wide, along the sea coast fronting the township, and a number of plantation reserves, no doubt to arrest sand drift.1676 On 25 March, Slew Smith, for the Chief Surveyor, directed that the two-chain road reserve be added to the plan to be submitted for approval, but not any others, on the grounds that only 20 allotments were being made, and that the Surveyor-General had power to make further reserves as he saw fit.1677 Designated ‘Native’ and ‘Public Reserves’ (of 2 acres 1 rood 23 perches and 1 acre 3 perches respectively) were subsequently added at the prompting of the Surveyor-General, who was now Marchant.1678

In April 1902 Marchant had queried the delay in the preparation of the survey plan. The following month he was belatedly made aware of the statutory requirement to have the whole township area subdivided, which threatened to upset the arrangement altogether. This obstacle, however, appears to have been overcome by an office-based exercise, further sections simply added to the survey plan without pegging them on the ground.1679 By 30 June 1902, the additional sections, roads and reserves brought the total subdivided area to 39 acres 3 roods 30 perches, still leaving an undivided balance of over 73 acres of the original 113.5-acre proposed township.1680 It was this reduced 40-acre area which was proclaimed as a Native Township on 7 August 1902.1681 At the time of the proclamation, the last 1.75 miles of road from Levin was rough and unformed.

1675 See ‘Schedule of Plan and Documents Received’, 30 December 1901, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1661]. 1676 Noted in pencil, 7 March 1902, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1657]. Note Alexander discusses the technical implications of the road frontage surveyed at this time, and particularly the discrepancies in the survey of the coastline, Alexander, pp. 22-26. 1677 S Smith, 25 March 1902, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1650]. 1678 Chief Surveyor to Surveyor-General, 21 April 1902, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1644]. 1679 See note CS to CD, 18 June 1902, on Surveyor-General Marchant to Chief Surveyor, 30 May 1902, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1641]. 1680 See ‘Native Township’ notes, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1637]. 1681 New Zealand Gazette, no 62, p. 1644, in AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1633]. 333

Figure 28: Plan of the Native Township of Hokio1682

Now that the township was proclaimed, certain procedures were required before the sections could be put on the market. A check-sheet on file provides an insight into what government officials were aware of with respect to the statutory requirements governing native townships.

Sec. 6. Has 20% been set apart as Reserves for Natives, including any buildings occupied by them? [no response]. Sec. 8 Has plan been exhibited for two months? Yes, date of Ex: expires 31/12/02 … Have the necessary Public Reserves been set aside? ?1683

The check-sheet noted that valuations were required to provide an upset annual rental, with full particulars of existing improvements. The original request from the local delegation, that no one person be allowed to acquire more than one section, was dismissed with the curt observation: ‘Regulations do not provide for this restriction.’1684

The township was notified in the Kahiti and the plan displayed at the Native Land Court at Levin from 1 November 1902. The job of valuation was given to D Craig, the Crown Lands Ranger at Whanganui, who was also asked for his opinion about whether reserves would be required for public

1682 AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1639]. In the gazetted plan, the reserved area at the river mouth was deemed Native Reserve, and the street below that of Kemp named ‘Ropata St’. 1683 ‘Hokio Native Township, Procedure to be Taken’, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1631]. 1684 Ibid. 334 purposes, and whether public demand was enough to warrant a public auction.1685 Craig’s report, completed by 24 November 1902, was the first mention since the proposal was mooted about existing Muaupoko occupation at the river mouth:

W. Broughton (a half cast, is residing with family on section 3 Block V & has built a rough whare, done some fencing & is getting more building timber in. He states that he is part-owner of the land in this Township & is not aware that the land has been given or taken for Township or other purposes & that if any of the sections are leased that he will prevent the lessees from taking possession & that he will not shift nor give up possession of the land on which he is now residing.1686

In the accompanying schedule, Broughton’s sections were among the few considered by Craig to be of any value. More than half of the allotments were described as drifting sand hills ‘of little or no value’, given an annual rental of 5 shillings, with the further prognosis that no one would take them up. The township would never be of any importance, Craig opined, declaiming the need for any public reserves or auction. Indeed, he concluded his report with the dire prediction that ‘if something is not done to prevent it the sand will drift over the whole of the sections in the township.’1687

The sale plan of the township was approved by the Land Board on 27 November 1902, before the required exhibition period had expired, and before the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court had approved the same.1688 The evidence suggests the matter was rushed through, over departmental officers pointing out that strong objections of the resident owners existed. On 6 January, as a result of renewed local lobbying through local MP WH Field, the Chief Surveyor was again instructed by the Surveyor-General to treat the matter as urgent, and to forward the sale plan at once ‘so that the sale may be pushed forward as quickly as possible.’1689 In the schedules on file, Broughton’s sections 3 and 4 in Block V had crosses written in the margin beside them. These sections were included in the sale plan gazetted on 23 January 1903, weighted with £11 and £3 respectively for Broughton’s improvements.1690

For the first seven years, the Hokio Native Township was administered by the Commissioner of Crown Lands. The 59 sections in the township were offered for lease by public tender, for a term of 21 years with a right of renewal to a second term, on 11 March 1903. By 27 March, tenders had been

1685 Commissioner Crown Lands to Crown Lands Ranger Craig, 25 August 1902, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1630]. 1686 Crown Lands Ranger Craig to Commissioner Crown Lands Wellington, 20 November 1902, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1623]. Emphasis in original. 1687 Ibid. 1688 See Land Board minute, 27 November 1902, (the Land Court exhibition date expiring on 31 December 1902), AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1618]. 1689 Surveyor-General to Chief Surveyor, 8 January 1903, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1610]. 1690 Extract from New Zealand Gazette, 23 January 1903, no. 5, p. 203, in AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1596]. 335 received for just six allotments, yielding a total of £2/2s in rent.1691 The whole exercise was said to have cost £37/11s/6d, for survey, advertising and plans. Further survey costs of £13/11s/7d associated with pegging out the unmarked sections in March 1903 stretched the prospect of any economic return for the Muaupoko owners out even further. By March 1904, 24 of the 59 sections had been taken up.1692 By February 1907, 30 sections had been leased, the slow uptake prompting the Commissioner of Crown Lands to re-advertise the vacant lots.1693

Under the Native Townships Act 1910 the township was vested in the Ikaroa District Maori Land Board. When the board applied for a certificate of title for their new property, it was told that the incomplete survey of the township meant that a title could not be issued, causing JB Jack, the president of the Board, to respond, ‘It seems odd that, after the Township has been leased for a period of eleven years and the leases thereof registered on the Provisional Land Transfer Register, that it should only now be ascertained that the surveys are incomplete.’1694 His expectation that the Crown would not charge to complete the requisite survey was no doubt influenced by the fact that as at 1911, only 25 sections were occupied, the balance of vacant sections, even if taken up after further advertising, still only realising 10 shillings per annum each.1695 The Board file of sale plans at this time indicates that the two sections which had been occupied by part-owner W Broughton were now leased to CC Nation, possibly related to one of the original local proponents of the township.1696 Alexander relates that the last of the sections were not surveyed until 1924.1697

Notwithstanding the poor demand, in 1916 the townspeople of Levin began to lobby both for an extension of the township and to obtain the freehold of their existing leases. In a petition signed by 32 businessmen, the Under-Secretary of the Native Department was asked to secure a further 50 acres south of the township for subdivision and sale, with planting reserves, and to give lessees the option of purchasing the freehold on the grounds that ‘the Leasehold tenure does not give Lessees of Sections the incentive to build good seaside houses and fully improve their Lots.’1698 At the time, less than half of the existing township appears to have been occupied.1699 Parker and Vincent, local grain merchants and real estate agents who led the campaign, claimed to have no interest in the matter ‘other than the furthering of the wishes of Levin Public.’1700

1691 Surveyor-General Marchant to Commissioner Crown Lands, 27 March 1903; ‘Rent collected on sections’, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1578; 1574]. 1692 ‘Hokio Township’, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1563]. 1693 Commissioner Crown Lands to Under-Secretary Crown Lands, 7 February 1907, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1553]. 1694 President Ikaroa District Maori Land Board JB Jack to Chief Surveyor Wellington, 26 July 1911, AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278 [DB:1525]. 1695 ‘Maori Lands: lease by public auction’, MA13 8/6x [DB:1506]. 1696 ‘Plan of Hokio Township’, in MA13 8/6x [DB:1502]. 1697 Alexander, p. 28. 1698 ‘Hokio Stream near Levin’, FE Parker and 31 others, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71 [DB:1953]. 1699 See ‘Plan of Hokio Native Township’, in MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71 [DB:1958]. 1700 Parker and Vincent to Under-Secretary Native Department, 1 November 1916, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71 [DB:1952]. 336

With respect to the freehold, the petitioners were told that the Ikaroa Maori Land Board were ‘quite prepared’ to do so, and suggested the lessees contact the board directly.1701 The township extension was referred to the Native Land Purchase Board for inquiry, Parker and Vincent asked by the Under- Secretary in the meantime ‘whether the Native owners are at all willing to dispose of the land to the Crown at the Government Valuation?’1702 After obtaining a government valuation of £530 for the whole 2118-acre Horowhenua 11B42 block, Lands and Survey were also asked for advice about the proposal.

The report of the Crown Lands Ranger at the end of 1916 confirmed that little development had occurred in the intervening 16 years, the ‘township’ amounting to just 12 whare or cottages. He advised against extending the township southwards, an area comprised of ‘sand dunes, generally of a shifting nature’. The existing township could meet demand, he reasoned, while the great bulk of any further Crown subdivision would probably remain in departmental hands unselected: ‘The value of this area is nil from the Crown’s view.’1703 Nor was there any necessity for the Crown to acquire the whole block. This advice was relayed back through departmental channels, the Native Land Purchase Board’s decision not to take action communicated to Parker and Vincent on 24 January 1917.

Research in other inquiry districts has demonstrated that the initial leasing provisions under the Native Townships legislation were but the thin edge of the alienation wedge, lessee pressure culminating in provision for private purchase of township sections under the Native Townships Act 1910.1704 There has not been time to assess the extent to which the leaseholds of Hokio were converted into freehold after 1916. Newspaper accounts suggest that ‘public interest’ in the township increased once the road was improved around 1920, sparking, for example, renewed interest from the Chamber of Commerce in improving and expanding the township.1705

The partition of the coastal belt of sand dunes in 1923 seems to have been inspired in part by these ambitions. In March 1923, Horowhenua 11B42 was partitioned into four, including two 100-acre blocks south and north of the existing township, 11B42A and B respectively, and awarded to 64 of the original 81 owners of 11B42 in varying relative interests.1706 The remaining 17 original owners were

1701 Under-Secretary Native Department to Parker and Vincent, 16 December 1916, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1948]. 1702 Under-Secretary Native Department to Parker and Vincent, 7 November 1916, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71 [DB:1951]. 1703 Crown Lands Ranger Smith to Commissioner Crown Lands Wellington, 29 December 1916, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71 [DB:1946]. 1704 See for example, Bassett and Kay, pp. 204-222. In the case of Te Kuiti and Otorohanga, the Crown acted as intermediary, purchasing the freehold and onselling to the existing lessees. 1705 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. 1706 Within the northern 100-acre block, 1.5 acres was cut out and awarded to Miriama Patu, Horowhenua 11B42D. 337 awarded their full shares in the residue of the block – 11B42C containing 1871 acres – and the 64 owners who received shares in 11B42A and B took the balance of the shares in 11B42C.1707

Figure 29: The 1923 partition of Horowhenua 11B42

One year later, the 100 acre block south of the Hokio Native Township, 11B42A, was further partitioned into 13 lots (see ML 3860 plan below).1708 The number of owners appears to have grown to 141, likely expanded by multiple successors to the original 64 owners. There has not been time to look into the circumstances of this partition, although a cursory read of the minutes suggests that the Muaupoko owners had ambitions of building their own homes at Hokio, and were cognisant too, of the market value of the resulting sections.1709 Raeburn Lange’s research indicates that by the 1940s

1707 Otaki MB 57, pp 53-54, 57-58. 1708 Otaki MB 57, pp 145-49, 151. 1709 Ibid. A number of the owners for example wanted title to Lot 1 because of its alleged value of £35 per quarter acre. 338

Hokio Beach was a substantial Maori settlement of 26 households.1710 One repercussion of the 1924 partition was again the cost of survey, for which charging orders were obtained by the Crown in October 1924, and the liability used to wrest a further 405-odd acres from Horowhenua 11B42C from the owners just four years later (see pp. 363-364 below).

In July 1963 three of the blocks created in 1923 were once again amalgamated to form Hokio A, that is Horowhenua 11B42B (the 98.5 acres north of the Hokio stream), Horowhenua 11B42C2 (the balance left once the Crown’s interests had been defined and taken in 1928), and Horowhenua 11B422A14 (being the portion of southern township land not divided for residential sections).1711 The circumstances surrounding the amalgamation have not been the subject of research.

1710 Raeburn Lange, ‘The Social Impact of Colonisation and Land Loss on the Iwi of the Rangitane, Manawatu and Horowhenua Region, 1840-1960’, (CFRT, 200), Wai 2200 #A1, p. 185. 1711 Alexander, p. 41. 339

Figure 30: Horowhenua 11B42A partitions, 1924 (above), with current aerial perspective (below).1712 Current Maori land is shaded in light blue; red lines denote primary land parcels, showing these 1924 partitions were further subdivided, especially those east of Lots 1 and 3, which were apparently flat and suitable for house building. Note Lots 7 and 10 severely affected by sand drift.

Hokio A: the coastal roadway / coastal accretion (Wai 1491) There are two separate, albeit related, further issues with regard to the coastal belt of Horowhenua 11B42 still in Maori ownership, now known as Hokio A. The first is the depiction on the 1900 survey

1712 ML plan 3860, LINZ data aerial photograph and primary parcel GIS data. 340 plan by surveyor Atkinson (following the 1898 partition of Horowhenua 11) of roadlines in places the court had not ordered them, in particular a one-chain road along the entire coastal boundary and on the northern bank of the Hokio stream (reserved instead as a fishery in the 1898 partition). The second relates to the terminus of Hokio Road at the mean high water mark on early survey plans which, while declared a public road in 1907, was never actually formed beyond the Hokio stream fronting the township. This second issue is mired in controversy over the very different depictions of mean high water mark on historical survey plans. The Crown’s claims to accretion at the Hokio river mouth on the basis of this roadway forms the substance of Eugene Henare’s claim on behalf of the Hokio A Trust (Wai 1491), which has also been the subject of an application in 2004 to the Maori Land Court for a determination of status of land. Research for the court inquiry was undertaken by David Alexander, from which the following summary is drawn.1713

The preliminary survey plan of the 1886 partition prepared by Palmerson and Scott in August 1887 and approved by Kemp, Hunia and Judge Wilson (ML508A), showed the coastal boundary of Horowhenua 11 as high water mark, and the road running from the railway line towards the beach terminating near the Hokio outlet near Lake Horowhenua (see Figure 15). Alexander explains, however, that on the final survey plan forwarded to and approved by the Chief Surveyor in February 1888 (ML837), this road was now shown all the way to the sea, crossing the Hokio stream and meeting the mean high water mark north of the stream.1714

Figure 31: Palmerson and Scott’s 1887 survey, ML837

Alexander also relates that while a surveyor, Ashcroft, was dispatched in 1889 to define the lines of road shown on the survey plan as the first step in laying them off as public roads, the process was held

1713 David Alexander, ‘Final Historical Report …’; see also ‘Further Historical Report on Hokio Beach Land Definition and Status Issues: A report prepared for the Maori Land Court’, April 2010. 1714 Alexander, ‘Final Historical Report …’, pp. 5-7. 341 up over objections over the roadline around Lake Horowhenua, the legal status of Hokio Road left unsettled until 1907.1715

When Horowhenua 11 was partitioned in 1898 there was no reference in the court minutes or associated order of 11B42 of any road being set apart. On the contrary, as set out in Chapter 6, the Hokio stream from the outlet at the lake to the sea, together with a one chain strip along the northern bank was set apart as a fishing reserve, for which trustees were appointed. In Atkinson’s 1900 survey of this Horowhenua 11 partition, however, Hokio Road was now depicted meeting the high water mark south of the Hokio stream. More significantly, Atkinson depicted a one-chain strip along the entire 11B42 coastal boundary, together with a one-chain strip along the north bank of the Hokio stream, comprising 52 acres, both of which he coloured in burnt sienna, the colour traditionally associated on survey plans with roads. As Alexander relates, the effect was that while court records showed Horowhenua 11B42 as extending to mean high water mark, Lands and Survey Department survey records showed the block stopping one chain short, with a one-chain road along its western boundary.1716

Figure 32: Atkinson’s 1900 survey, ML1654, with coastal chain strip depicted as road

Alexander relates that the issue was further complicated by GF Richardson’s survey of the Hokio Native Township the following year, in which the coastline fronting the township was resurveyed and placed immediately in front of the township, effectively bringing it inland some distance from the location on the 1900 plan. Based on his study of relevant historical records, including the relevant field books of the two surveyors, Alexander concludes that despite what Richardson’s latter plan suggests, it is unlikely that the sea extended eastwards as far as he showed, and certainly not in the

1715 Ibid, pp. 9-12; 28. 1716 Ibid, p. 17. 342 sand hills to the north and west of Hokio stream.1717 The portion of road within the Hokio township became public road when the township plan was deposited with the District Land Registrar in January 1903. Alexander relates that the anomaly regarding the status of Hokio Road was remedied in 1907, when the taking for a public road was retrospectively dated back to 10 April 1889, the date Ashcroft added his certification to the plan.1718

The coastal block was surveyed again in 1923 by Foster, following the court partition of Horowhenua 11B42 that year. Foster depicted the Hokio stream channel fronting the Hokio township seaward of the high water mark, reiterating Richardson’s ‘embayment’, with no explanation of why the stream should veer south so before discharging into the sea. He also reiterated Atkinson’s one-chain strip along the northern bank of the Hokio stream, and similarly extended this one-chain strip along the sea coast of 11B42, north and south, colouring in both in burnt sienna traditionally reserved to denote roads.1719

Figure 33: Foster’s 1923 survey plan, ML3726

Alexander writes of the convention between the Native Land Court and Lands and Survey Department, whereby the inability to follow the court’s instructions, or changes to area or layout beyond a limited level of tolerance are brought to the court’s attention when a survey plan is forwarded to the court for the judge’s signature.1720 On this occasion, he relates, nothing was brought to the court’s attention. Days after receiving the plans, the judge approved the partition plan as submitted to him, without comment. Alexander explains that the judge’s approval had the effect of

1717 Ibid, p. 26. 1718 Ibid, p. 30. Alexander relates that it is not clear how the surveyor’s signature constituted taking and laying off by the governor, given that the surveyor’s actions had not been checked or approved of at this time. 1719 Ibid, pp. 32-33. 1720 Ibid, p. 34. 343 superseding any earlier intentions of the court: the amended coastal boundary and the inclusion of the one-chain coastal and stream strip becoming the court’s wishes on partition of Horowhenua 11B42.1721

He also relates that the court has had occasion to examine the status of the roads shown on Foster’s plan: in July 1954 it was asked to recommend that the roads with respect to 11B42A become public roads. Although it was found the roads had never been laid out by the court as roadways, on this occasion the court resorted instead to Section 422 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, recommending the area of Maori land be declared a road.1722 In 1956 the one-chain strip on the northern bank of the Hokio stream was declared to be the property of the 81 owners of Horowhenua 11 determined in 1898, on the basis of its status as a fishing reserve.1723

Wai 1491 claimants assert that the coastline road demarcated on survey plans was taken without knowledge or consent, never formed and never used. They 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. In particular, the core issue facing the Maori Land Court in the 2004 application is the status of the land to the north of the Hokio stream between the township and the sea, argued to be coastal accretion.1724 A key issue arising in the January 2010 court hearing was the likely shape of the coastline in the early twentieth century: whether there was the pronounced embayment as depicted in Richardson’s 1901 survey of the Hokio township and in Foster’s 1923 partition survey, or whether the coast retained the reasonably straight profile shown in 1887, repeated by Atkinson in 1900, and which is generally apparent today.1725 Legal argument about the laying out of Hokio Road has also been heard by the court. In October 2013 the court issued a reserved judgement, accepting the Hokio A trustees’ argument that an embayment did exist in 1902, and that, therefore, the western extension of Hokio Road, beyond the stream over an area that at the time was the sea, had no effect.1726 The court was also satisfied that accretion to the affected Maori land titles had occurred, although it fell short of defining the boundaries of such accretion pending further evidence on this point.1727 Nor did it wish to find on the jurisdiction of the court to make a declaration

1721 Ibid. 1722 Ibid, p. 36. 1723 Section 18(3), Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1956. 1724 Eugene Henare explained that the application to the court in 2004 was made in the context of a trespass claim against Telecom, which had laid a cable through the land without seeking any right of lease from the Hokio A Trust, personal communication, 6 July 2015. 1725 David Alexander, ‘Further Historical Report …’, 2010, p.2. The Court heard expert evidence regarding the various depictions of the coastline and undertook its own site visit. 1726 Reserved Judgement of Judge LR Harvey, Hokio A, Part Hokio A and Hokio Maori Township, A20050009249, Aotea MB 310, p. 328. 1727 Ibid, p. 340. 344 that a claimed road taking was ultra vires without further argument.1728 With regard to the one chain strip along the northern bank of the Hokio stream ‘that should have been included in the title of the lands of the Maori owners’, the court invited the trustees to consider filing application under Section 45 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.1729 No such similar invitation appears to have been extended regarding the coastal road fronting the remainder of Hokio A. In sum, while the judgement appears to have been favourable to the applicants, to date there is still no clarity or finality over the key issues of the status of the paper road at the Hokio river mouth, the extent of accretion to neighbouring Maori land titles, and the status of the depicted coastal road strip.

Reflections on Hokio Native Township Native Townships legislation from 1895 was justified by the ‘public interest’, generally measured in the demand for the resulting sections in any such township, and reflected too, by the reserves set apart for public purposes. The dire abrogation of Maori property rights the legislation represented was justified by the income Maori land owners would derive from the venture, and further assuaged by the provision for 20 per cent of the sections in any Native township to be held for such owners.

The Hokio Native Township cannot be said to have come close to any such benchmarks. With Levin only 5.5 miles from the river mouth, there was never any demand for a ‘township’ as such, a fact borne out by the initial survey of 20 residential lots, the absence of any public reserves, and the glaring challenges posed by the terrain. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the township legislation was seized on by government officials like Sheridan and Marchant to enable Minister of Lands Duncan to accede to the demands of a handful of Levin residents. Even the survey of the township indicates cronyism at work, with Richardson’s ‘free hand’ authorised up to £50 out of all proportion to the projected lease income from the township. Muaupoko land owners, determined as such just three years before the gazettal of the township, were not informed about the proposal, let alone approached for consent. Rather, the advertisement of Broughton’s home in the township sale, weighted with improvements, appears as a callous re-run of Hoani Puihi’s eviction from the township block in 1889. The legal requirement to set apart 20 per cent of any Native Township allotments for the Maori owners was similarly ignored. Against such scathing disregard for the owners and occupiers of the block, Marchant’s concern about any economic return for the ‘Native owners’ from the pittance received from the leaseholds appears as cruel farce.

To a very crude degree, the Crown’s appropriation of land at Hokio highlights the way in which local Pakeha aspirations were actively supported by the legislative and executive might of the Crown, in

1728 Ibid, p. 366. 1729 Ibid, p. 367. 345 this case even against the better judgement of Crown officials. What makes the Hokio township appropriation all the more remarkable was that it resulted from the overtures of just five men. More often it was local government who spearheaded Pakeha aspirations under the guise of ‘public interest’. Examples outlined in this chapter, together with those in Paul Hamer’s report on Lake Horowhenua, suggest Muaupoko were not included in the wider public interest of Levin or Horowhenua: indeed, initiatives undertaken in the ‘public interest’ were invariably carried out at their expense, and over their objections.1730 Ultimately, the gazettal of the Hokio Native township begs to be seen in the context of ongoing attrition by the Crown of Muaupoko’s tribal estate, the arbitrary grafting of settlement at the mouth of the Hokio stream establishing a public interest in Muaupoko’s private property, which only increased over time, impacting on the tribe’s own enjoyment, occupation, and control of their lands, waters and associated fisheries.1731

There do appear to have been limits to what Crown ministers would condone. Paul Hamer relates that similar requests to the government by the Pakeha community at Levin at this time to have Lake Horowhenua and surrounds taken under new Scenery Preservation legislation did not go through, despite repeated lobbying to this end from local Members J Stevens, and then WH Field.1732 Native Minister Carroll seems to have baulked at taking Muaupoko’s lake outright, preferring to obtain their consent, if possible, to public access and control. In 1906 Carroll was similarly blamed by Field for blocking the compulsory acquisition of 150 acres on the shores of the lake, the appropriation having been sanctioned by Cabinet in January 1905.1733 On this occasion Carroll responded to Field’s questioning in the House by asking whether Field thought the Native Department ‘had no right to take care of the interests of the Natives whenever such interests were liable to appropriation’.1734 In the event, a lesser area of 10 acres was obtained by purchase for a lake domain, Carroll resisting further local pressure in 1908 and 1909 to have the domain enlarged.1735

7.3 Land to Liability: early Kawiu alienation

The partition of Kawiu in 1901 was set out in the previous chapter. This was the best of the Horowhenua block in terms of soil quality, attested to by Muaupoko’s long tradition of clearing and

1730 In addition to those set out in this chapter, numerous examples of Crown endorsement of ‘public interest’ local initiatives at the expense of Muaupoko’s interests can also be found in Hamer’s report including Premier Seddon’s 1902 opening of the system of water races discharging waste into Lake Horowhenua (p. 44); the so-called 1905 ‘lake agreement’ and subsequent legislation proclaiming Lake Horowhenua a public recreation reserve (pp.33-40); the 1916 constitution of the Domain Board as a drainage board, appropriating control of the Hokio stream and chain strip (pp.71-73); the 1926 constitution of the Hokio Drainage Board providing for drainage works (pp. 82-91); the discharge of treated sewerage into Lake Horowhenua from 1952 onwards. 1731 By September 1944 for example, the tension over user rights focussed on public access around the coast beyond the Hokio township lands, see AAMA 619 W3150/27 20/278, and by 1947 to interest in leasing ‘public’ reserves. 1732 Hamer, pp.26-33. 1733 NZPD vol 137 1906, p. 514 cited in Hamer, p. 48. 1734 Ibid. 1735 Hamer, p. 49. 346 cultivation there, the past association of particular tupuna with particular gardens making the partition process a fraught one. As already discussed, the resulting subdivision ignored both past and present use, the arrangement reflecting rather an equitable allocation in ‘regular’ land parcels with productivity in mind. Ownership of the resulting blocks seems to have been largely organised along family lines. The partition process had associated costs which have already been alluded to in this report: legal fees and court costs had to be paid, the cost rising with every objection made to the complex out of court arrangements. In addition, a survey lien of £67/12s against Horowhenua 11B36, and a further £21 in registration fees had first to be paid before the partition orders could be registered at the Land Transfer Office.1736 At the direction of the Surveyor-General, the survey lien was apportioned among the partitions and registered as a lien against each block.1737

Over and above these charges, the individual owners of the new Horowhenua 11 titles quickly found themselves saddled with annual rates bills. The block had been rated under Kemp and Hunia’s tenure in the 1890s, two such rates bills accounting for £149/17s of the £982/17s account Muaupoko were faced with during the Native Appellate Court proceedings in 1898 (see p. 293).1738 Local government rating was based on the district valuation rolls, which in turn were compiled using Land Registry Office data. Sheridan had forwarded particulars about the Kawiu partition orders, including succession details, to the District Land Registrar in April 1905, but correspondence from Muaupoko individuals suggests that local body rating had already become a burden by this time, and was a factor behind the newly-entitled owners’ efforts to find lessees for their Kawiu properties. In December 1904, Hopa Te Piki with two others wrote to Native Minister Carroll offering him part of their land at Arapaepae, explaining, ‘Kaore Rawa te Pakeha i te Hiahia ki te Riihi ki tetahi atu Tikanga Ranei Kaati ko Te Reiti kei Te utu Tonu matou ia Tau ia Tau Heoi ki tena a o morehu He mate To matou Kaore nei He Painga i te Puta mai kia matou…’ / ‘Pakehas do not want to lease it or to deal with it, well we are continually paying rates thereon year after year and your remnant see that we get no benefit therefrom …’1739 The Kawiu lands of these letter writers were indeed sold to D Hannan, the local publican, by 1911.1740 That rating was a factor in the ready lease of Muaupoko titles is further supported by the absence of any rating element in the ‘closer settlement’ polemic by 1910, discussed

1736 Assistant Land Registrar to Sheridan, Land Purchase Department, 20 April 1905, MA 75/4/24, [CFRT DB: 4390]. 1737 Surveyor-General Marchant to Sheridan, 15 June 1905, ibid, [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4391]. 1738 Otaki MB 37, pp. 16-17. Since 1893 Maori land within five miles of a public road had been liable for rates; such lands that were occupied by Maori themselves were liable for half-rates. Under the Native Land Rating Act 1904, Maori land within 10 miles of a borough or five miles of a road was liable for full rates, and outside these perimeters half-rates. 1739 Hopa Te Piki and others to Native Minister Carroll, 12 December 1904, MA 75/4/24, [CFRT DB, A67(a): 4393-95], contemporary translation by Native Office. 1740 Hopa Te Piki and Hone and Hera Tupou were owners of B36 2J of 20 acres, sold to Hannan for £460, Horowhenua – Correspondence re requiring land for close settlement’ MA-MLP 1 103 1911/133, [CFRT DB, A67(b): 12815]. More research would be required into local body archives to establish whether Member for Otaki WH Field’s reported statement to Prime Minister Ward during his visit to Levin in April 1910 that ‘For years the holdings had been sued for the purpose’, was in fact a reference to rigorous borough and county enforcement of rating with respect to Muaupoko in this period. Office memo in [CFRT DB, A67(b): 12842]. 347 below. Compared to the experience of local government in other inquiry districts, the virtual silence about any ‘native rating problem’ with regard to Horowhenua speaks volumes.1741

Local government was founded on the productive utilisation of private land, either through resource exploitation or the transformation of the existing environment into productive farming units. Capital was required to bring such ‘improvements’ about. Within this paradigm, holding land in its natural, ‘unproductive’ state was regarded as an ‘incubus’ to settlement and prosperity. As set out in the preceding chapter, even before the Kawiu partition orders were finalised, local MP Field was agitating in Parliament to have the lands ‘brought into use and rendered profit-earning’, either through further Crown purchase and settlement, or the removal of restrictions on alienation to allow private lease, or vesting the lands in the new Maori Land Council for the same purpose.1742 As he reasoned, this land, recognised as the most fertile in the district, ‘was doing no good to anybody.’1743 This fundamental local government system exerted an enormous pressure towards transferring land out of Muaupoko hands, particularly if they were precluded from the capital and technical expertise required to participate as productive farmers themselves.

Judge Mackay, who had overseen the partition of Horowhenua 11 since 1897, including the subsequent Kawiu partition in 1901, provided the basis of Carroll’s response in Parliament. As Mackay saw it:

It is submitted that the Government should not attempt to acquire more than 600 acres at the Eastern end of the Kawiu Block, or such lesser area as may be contained in the part to the eastwards of the red line indicated on the annexed tracing, otherwise it will deprive the Natives of a sufficiency of land for cultivation.

It is submitted that the restriction should not be removed on the residue of the Block for any purpose, as the area is needed by the resident Natives for their use and maintenance; the land in the other parts of the block being unfit for cultivation. It was for this reason that all the resident owners in No. 11 were allocated a share of the Kawiu block, to provide them with land for cultivation purposes.1744

Judge Mackay was perhaps the single-most informed person within officialdom about Muaupoko’s circumstances, having sat through months of inquiry into their land interests. He was not unsympathetic to the resident tribe, which makes his opinion the more significant. It seems curious that despite his insistence that alienation restrictions remain, on the grounds that this was the only area of arable land left to the tribe, he could contemplate further Crown incursions into the Kawiu estate.

1741 In the two inquiry districts I have studied, Te Tai Rawhiti and Te Rohe Potae, the lack of rating revenue from Maori land was among the primary issues of concern to local bodies at this time. 1742 Field, 26 August 1902, NZPD vol. 121, p. 633. 1743 Ibid, p. 634. 1744 Judge Mackay to Sheridan, nd, MA 75/4/24. 348

What is even more troubling, is that the judge seemed out of touch with the implications of his own work in court: having partitioned their land and individualised their title, the days of Muaupoko’s subsistence cultivation were over. Muaupoko land owners either engaged with the new order, turning their land into productive farming units, or risked losing it to others who would.

Debt enforcement: Crown receivership / Maori Land Board vesting of Kawiu lands The well-rehearsed debt cycle attendant with Native Land Court proceedings was another direct threat to Muaupoko’s newly-won titles. As set out in the previous chapter, such debt cycles were evident by the mid-1890s, Basil Gardener, Levin’s largest general merchant also looming large as Muaupoko’s major creditor. Gardener’s account of £748 comprised the bulk of £986 said to have been owing by just 10 Muaupoko individuals by July 1898, to whom Crown advances were paid to help meet this debt, to be recouped from their land interests as yet to be located in Horowhenua 6 (see p. 294).

By August 1904 Gardener’s account had grown to a staggering £3037/7s/5d – over half a million dollars in today’s terms – charged to 19 individuals, the details of which had been forwarded to Sheridan, now employed in a dual role as head Native Land Purchase Officer and ‘Administrator, Maori Land Laws Acts’.1745 Lesser accounts of 21 individuals were also forwarded to Sheridan in July 1904 from Weraroa storekeeper C Williams.

Mr Fraser informed me last night that it would be better to make out the a/cs of the Maoris who are indebted to me in connection with the Kawiu block, and hand the same to you – as it was he said the best means to secure the amounts owing … should I have put in some that are not interested in the block kindly pick them out – Not knowing the correct Maori names of some I have put them in by the names they go by here.1746

The idea that Kawiu partitions be vested in the Aotea District Maori Land Board in order to pay off these debts seems to have been hatched between WH Field, Native Minister Carroll and Sheridan. Almost half a century later it was claimed that the lands had been so vested to stop them from being sold for debt, but it is not clear whether in fact there was any legal provision to force the sale of Maori land for debt, particularly in light of the fact that Kawiu sections at this time were still held in family blocks.1747 Sheridan’s first task was to identify the Kawiu land interests of debtors whose names had been sent in. The first step in securing the debt was to obtain the owners’ agreement to having these Kawiu interests vested in the District Maori Land Board. The vesting seems to have been organised

1745 ‘Summary of Mr Gardener’s A/Cs against Horowhenua Natives…’, 30 August 1904, in MA-MLA 1 3 1904/81 [DB:1770]. Today’s value was calculated using the Reserve Bank Inflation Calculator. 1746 C Williams to Sheridan, 23 July 1904, MA-MLA 1 3/1904/81, [DB:1786]. 1747 Application for revesting, 11 July 1947, AAMK 869 W3074/63/b 5/9/41. I have not had time to consider debt enforcement law in place at the time: whether Maori land could in fact be sold for debt, or whether Muaupoko individuals faced imprisonment as an alternative. The Native Land Act 1909 for example confirmed that beneficial freehold interests in Maori land could not be sold for debt, owing either to the Crown or to private individuals (Section 423). Further research on this point would be useful. 349 by Muaupoko’s long-term lawyer JM Fraser, the deeds of trust apparently drafted by Crown solicitor E Stafford. Under the terms of trust, the sections were to be leased for 21 years, with a right of renewal. If refused a renewal for a further 21-year term, the lessee would be compensated for improvements, otherwise improvements would not be compensated. The ‘best reasonable rent’ was to be obtained by public auction, the Land Council authorised to pay back the debt owing against the land from such rents, and even to borrow and mortgage on the security of such rents.1748

The second step was to obtain the consent of these same land owners to having the Land Council assign any income from the leaseholds to pay off the debt. An early arrangement involving Taueki family members set out:

We the undersigned Natives of Horowhenua being interested in Kawiu Block, having signed the Deed of Trust handing the said lands over for administration to the Native Land Council with the understanding that the said Council would pay our debts, this concession was made by the Hon Mr Carroll Native Minister, and we have given orders accordingly. We distinctly signed under these conditions as we were anxious to pay our liabilities. We would therefore ask you to carry out the the promises made us, and oblige the Council to keep back such moneys obtained from the land till amount is paid. We would have made other arrangements to have paid our debts if these promises had not been made, and we ask you to kindly fulfil the terms we signed under.

Our maintenance land is sufficient to keep us without the income from the Kawiu land and which we do not require until our debts are paid.1749

By August 1904 a standard form had been drafted with the input of Stafford. The Crown solicitor had not been certain that the written authorisation would constitute a security for the debts owing – ‘that is a difficult question’ – but he did deem it sufficient acknowledgement by those who signed that the debt was owing, and not barred by Statute, empowering the District Maori Land Council to act on the powers conferred by the Trust Deeds.1750 The form read, in English:

I, ______, of ______being one of the beneficiaries in the Horowhenua No. 11B, No. 36, No. ______Block, transferred to the Council, do hereby acknowledge that I am indebted to Mr. ______of ______, Storekeeper, in the sum of ______, and that the debt, or any portion of it, is not barred by and Statutes of Limitation; and I do hereby authorise you either to give security to the said ______for his debt upon my share of the rents and income of the said land, pursuant to the provision of the Trust Deed under which you hold such land, or to borrow money on the security of my share of the rents and income of the said land, … and out of the moneys so borrowed to pay to the said ______the sum of ______.1751

1748 JM Fraser to Sheridan, 15 September 1904, ADYU 18191 MA-MLA 3/1904/79. 1749 See form in MA-MLA 1 3/1904/81, [DB:1784]. 1750 E Stafford, 30 August 1904, MA-MLP 1 3 1904/81, [DB:1771]. 1751 See draft form in MA-MLA 1 3/1904/81 [DB:1772]. 350

Copies were forwarded to Gardener and Williams, with the caution from Sheridan that there were already enough of these orders lodged ‘to swamp the land twice over. No creditor can therefore in any case hope for a payment in full or anything approaching it.’1752 The creditors were also advised that there was no use obtaining authorisation from Muaupoko individuals who had not vested their lands in the council.1753 Gardener for one saw the Native Minister’s visit in August 1904 – bringing Muaupoko together in one place – as an opportune time to procure signatures securing the debt.1754 In Sheridan’s list of Gardener’s 19 debtors which itemised, too, their Kawiu lands ‘available under scheme to meet liabilities’, three of them had no land at Kawiu, and two others had refused to sign.1755 Again, in forwarding the revised forms to Gardener in September 1904, Sheridan advised that:

the entire freehold value of the shares handed over would not pay the whole of the debts which have been submitted to the Department.

Three of your largest debtors have not signed the deeds placing the lands in the hands of the Council.

It is of course no use you obtaining orders from any Natives who have not handed over their shares to the Council and have no intention of doing so.1756

In the result, given the extent of the alleged debt, the blocks subsequently vested in the District Maori Land Council under this arrangement were surprisingly limited:

Table 8: Kawiu B36 lands vested for debt

Section Acreage (a-r-p) 1B1 48-3-25 1B2 52-1-19 1B3 47-2-11 1D 21 Pt 2L4 50 2L5 20-1-26 2L6 44-0-33

The leaseholds of these sections were publicly auctioned in Levin in January 1905, and all of them leased at the minimum annual rental, except the three lots of Horowhenua 11B361B which realised a slightly higher amount.1757 Five of the seven sections were leased by John McDonald Jnr, who was later prosecuted for making false declarations and acquiring these leases as a ‘dummy’ for his father

1752 Sheridan to C Williams, 24 August 1904, MA-MLA 1 3/1904/81, [DB:1782]. 1753 Sheridan to B Gardener, 23 September 1904, MA-MLA 1 3/1904/81, [DB:1767 & 1781]. 1754 B Gardener to Sheridan, 18 August 1904, MA-MLP 1 3 1904/81 [DB:1780]. 1755 ‘Summary of Mr Gardener’s a/c’s against Horowhenua Natives’, MA-MLA 1 3 1904/81 [DB:1770]. 1756 Sheridan to Gardener, 23 September 1904, MA-MLA 1 3/1904/81, [DB:1767]. 1757 ACIH 16082 MA 75/4/23. 351

(discussed below). Later correspondence confirms that the rents were applied by the Board in the first instance to paying back debt.1758 All the leaseholds were renewed for a further 21-year term in 1926.

It could be argued that the role of the Aotea District Maori Land Board as virtual receiver prevented the permanent alienation of Kawiu lands, although as set out above, it is not entirely certain whether the debt of individual tribal members could have been enforced in this manner. In any event, the 42- year leaseholds virtually removed the lands from the owners for their lifetimes. The timing of this enforced receivership coincides with Native Minister Carroll’s negotiations with Muaupoko over Lake Horowhenua (the standard form outlined above distributed to Levin storekeepers by August 1904, with Carroll’s initial visit to broker public access to the lake four months later, in December), raising the intriguing possibility of a link between the two developments, although no evidence has been found to support such speculation. Paul Hamer’s research identifies numerous grounds to support the conclusion that the boatshed agreement Carroll secured on behalf of the Crown in October 1905 was less than transparent, and negotiated with individuals whose mandate to represent Muaupoko was questionable. The 1903 petition of Hoani Puihi and 31 others against any alteration to the title; Southern Maori MP Tame Parata’s 1906 allegation in the House that the legislation did not have the concurrence of the owners (which Carroll did not rebut); the complete absence of any local reporting at the time – or celebration – despite the fact that ‘nationalisation’ of the lake was identified by Field as a pressing election issue; and the constitution of the resultant Domain Board all cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of the so-called 1905 lake agreement.1759 To these can be added the acrimonious relationship between Wirihana Hunia and Muaupoko by this time, remarked on at the time by the likes of James Cowan and Judge Mackay (see p. 316). The chair of the Domain Board constituted under the 1905 Act was none other than Basil Gardener. Wirihana Hunia who, with Wiki Keepa, was singled out as representing Muaupoko with regard to the lake agreement, and who was subsequently appointed to the Domain Board, was one of Gardener’s largest debtors, his account at August 1904 standing at £301.1760 Moreover, Hunia was one of the two who refused to vest his land in the District Maori Land Council. It is tempting, despite the lack of proof, to speculate that Hunia’s debt may have been a factor in securing his signature to the lake agreement.1761

Private land alienation Statistics compiled by the Board indicate that a further 301.5 acres in the Kawiu block were sold before 1911.

1758 Application of Native Minister Tirikatene, 11 July 1947; Registrar, Ikaroa DMLB, 4 June 1947, in AAMK 869 W3074/63/b 5/9/41 [DB:1984]. 1759 Hamer, pp. 28-41. Of the four board members listed by Hamer, Wiki Keepa, Kemp’s daughter, was not resident; Eparaima Paki, the son of Paki Te Hunga, was resident. Paki Te Hunga had supported the Hunia brothers’ case for Horowhenua 11 from 1890 to 1896. In 1897 with regard to Horowhenua 14 he brought his own case. 1760 ‘BR Gardener. Forwarding accounts of Natives interested in Kawiu with a view to payment’, MA-MLA 1/3 1904/81 [DB:1778]. 1761 Judge Mackay to Sheridan, memo, nd in MA 75/4/24. 352

Table 9: Sales of Kawiu B36 lands by May 19111762

Section Acreage Purchaser Purchase price 3G2A 40 Hannan £684 2J 20 Hannan £460 4B 1&2 25 Hannan £575 2L4C 10 Leydon £23 per acre 2L4D 22.5 Leydon £23/2/6 per acre 2L4A 9 Leydon £23 per acre 2J 8 L McDonald £160 2K 66 L McDonald £1232 3G1 61 L McDonald £1184 2L1E 40 L McDonald £680

There is evidence to suggest that at least some of these permanent alienations were driven by similar indebtedness. Section 2K, for example, was originally included in JM Fraser’s list of titles to be vested in the District Maori Land Board, and Hannan was mentioned by Fraser in association with an owner’s debt.1763 Another transfer not recorded in the Board’s schedules, but shown on related mapping on file, was that of Te Ahuru Porotene to Gardener of B364A, in May 1906. Porotene’s debt to Gardener recorded by Sheridan stood at £332/5s/4d.1764

Prior to the 1909 Act which removed all restrictions on alienation, it seems the purchasers of these lands were required to apply to have the existing restrictions over Horowhenua 11 partitions removed. One such example is that of Hannan who appealed to his local MP in May 1903 for assistance in this regard. Hannan had paid a deposit of £66 for the purchase of Horowhenua 11A9, and wanted the restrictions against alienation removed in order to obtain title. In his appeal to Field, he stated that the sole owner, Hema Henare, had explained the matter to Judge Mackay.1765 The transfer was confirmed in May 1904.1766

The tribe’s preferred option to meet the liabilities attached to their new titles seems to have been private leasing arrangements, which nonetheless had to be confirmed by the District Maori Land Board. Again, based on statistics compiled by the Board, the following leaseholds were in place by 1911.

1762 ‘Horowhenua – Correspondence re requiring land for close settlement’ MA-MLP 1/103/v 1911/133. 1763 JM Fraser to Sheridan, 15 September 1904, MA-MLA 3/1904/79 [DB;1811]. 1764 ‘Summary of Mr Gardener’s a/cs…’, MA-MLA 1 3/1904/81 [DB:1770]. 1765 D Hannan to WH Field MHR, 18 May 1903, J1 695/ae 1903/700. 1766 Certificate of title, WN125/114. 353

Table 10: Kawiu B36 lands leased by May 1911

Section Acreage Lessee Term Date 4A2 1A ? JR McDonald 21 yrs @ 16s. per acre 1910 3G1 74 JR McDonald 16 yrs @ 20s. per acre 1907 2L4C&D 35 JR McDonald 21 yrs @ £6 12s 6d per annum 1908 3H1,2, 3 & 4 162 JR McDonald 21yrs@£162 2s 6d per annum 1909 2L1B 56 O Phillips 21 yrs @ 20s per acre 1907 2L2 36 J Seydon 21 yrs @ £30 per annum 1E4 42 W Ryder 21 yrs @ 20s per acre 1908 1A 40 C Retter 21 yrs @ £80 per annum 2L1E 67 L McDonald 21 yrs @ 17s. per acre 1910 3G2B 15 L McDonald 21 yrs @ 16s. per acre

The same kinds of pressures are evident with regard to Muaupoko’s remaining substantial area of land, Horowhenua 11B41, the ‘outer block’ of 7213 acres which Muaupoko had previously used to run stock. This block was not partitioned until June 1910. There has not been time to study the circumstances of this partition, but it seems to have been another contested, drawn-out hearing, the block ultimately cut into 33 parcels allocated among the 78 owners. Within one year of the partition, alienations over three-quarters of the block (5493 acres) had been confirmed by the Ikaroa District Maori Land Board:

Table 11: Alienations of Horowhenua 11B41 by May 19111767

Sales Section Acreage Purchaser Purchase price South D1 36 M Ryder £378 In G 120 J Ryder £2010 South D2 25 M Ryder £344 In G 100 LB Barron Leases Section Acreage Lessee Terms A3 117 M McDonald 30 yrs @ 12s. per acre C2 347 F McDonald 30 yrs @ 3s. per acre D2 417 F McDonald 30 yrs @ 3s. per acre A2 348 J Cameron 30 yrs @ 10s. per acre B2 284 J Cameron 30 yrs @3s. per acre B4 385 A Cameron 30 yrs @ 3s. per acre A1 1618 Mr & Mrs Cameron Precedent consent1768 B3 253 E Cameron Precedent consent South L 116 D Hannan 21 yrs @ £29 12s. per annum South O 46 D Hannan 21 yrs @ £8 7s. per annum South R 50 H Hannan 7 yrs @ £7 7s. per annum South J 282 J & W Ryder 21 yrs @ £49 South K 320 J Hannan £72 per annum

1767 Schedule of sales and leases at May 1911 with ‘Horowhenua – Correspondence re acquiring land for close settlement’, MA-MLP 1/103/v 1911/133, [CFRT DB, A67(b): 12815]. 1768 Where land was held by more than 10 owners ‘precedent consent’ provided for in the Native Land Act 1909 enabled a prospective purchaser/lessee to seek consent from the DMLB to proceed with a transaction without recourse to a meeting of owners. 354

South P 108 T Hannan £16 5s. per annum South G 521 WS Park

Before moving on to discuss subsequent pressures on Muaupoko’s remaining estate, it is worth pausing to consider the economic implications of their new individualised titles. As alluded to in the previous chapter, Muaupoko’s sheep industry was in decline by the mid-1890s, the number of sheep farmers at Horowhenua falling from 16 in 1895 to 7 in 1900, and to just four by 1905. Anderson and Pickens relate this downturn in Maori involvement in pastoralism was district-wide, and contrasted markedly with the upsurge in European sheep-farming in this period.1769 Muaupoko’s Kawiu lands were suited for dairying, and by the standards of the day, the 1903 partitions arguably had the potential to give each family group of owners a viable dairy farm. Farming, however, required capital, a reality that was acknowledged by the government in its Advances to Settlers Act 1894. Raeburn Lange writes that a total of £63,610 was advanced to 115 Pakeha farmers in the Rangitikei electorate in 1895-96; and £20,595 to 58 farmers in Otaki.1770 As Lange comments, the same State financial assistance to kick-start farming was not extended to Maori in this period. Mired in debt from the protracted litigation of the 1890s and precluded from any government assistance, the chance of Muaupoko land owners being able to enjoy possession of their new titles, through engaging with the business of farming, were remote.

7.4 ‘Closer settlement’

Second only to the very real threat of losing their land through debt enforcement was the increasing pressure from the residents of Levin to have the remaining areas of Muaupoko land made available for ‘closer settlement’. Levin achieved borough status in 1906. The first town mayor, who remained in office for the next 10 years, was none other than Basil Gardener. The burgeoning Pakeha settlement invariably turned to its local Member of Parliament as the conduit to the corridors of government. Apart from the term from 1911 to 1914, Levin’s local MP from 1900 to 1935 was William Hughes Field.

Interest in obtaining Muaupoko land under the rhetoric of ‘closer settlement’ became the primary focus of borough councillors in 1910, the campaign spearheaded by Gardener. The issue was first raised by Field and Gardener with Prime Minister Joseph Ward on his visit to open the Weraroa Post Office in April 1910.1771 Ward’s response was encouraging, the meeting reportedly told by the Premier that ‘he quite recognised the unsatisfactory position in regard to this matter of land adjacent to the town which should be available for closer settlement’ and that he was ‘prepared to see if they

1769 Anderson and Pickens, p. 305. 1770 Raeburn Lange, Wai 2200 #A1, p. 82. 1771 ‘The Premier at Levin’, Horowhenua Chronicle, 21 April 1910, p. 3. 355 could not get a larger area of Native land put on the market in small areas.’1772 In response to his request for particulars, a borough council committee was formed to ascertain ‘probable native and other lands suitable for closer settlement under the Government Land for Settlement Act’.1773 At a public meeting convened by Mayor Gardener in September 1910, this committee was opened up to the public, the resulting ‘Closer Settlement Committee’ reportedly meeting weekly.1774

The acquisition of Muaupoko’s land for subdivision into small holdings was now deemed by Levin’s leaders to be essential to grow the borough’s population and development. What seemed to irk Levin’s borough councillors was that ‘suitable’ land close to Levin occupied by Maori was ‘in the same state now as years ago.’1775 The fact that much of this land was under lease carried little weight in the polemic over ‘closer settlement’, its ‘basic principle’ being that land should not merely be occupied, but occupied ‘profitably’.1776

The issue was referred to the Under-Secretary of the Native Department for comment, who responded that the Native Land Court had been sitting at Horowhenua dealing with partition, a reference no doubt to the partition of Horowhenua 11B41, described above. Under-Secretary Fisher advised that land in the immediate vicinity of Levin was already ‘fairly well subdivided’, and that further subdivision was a question for the owners, not the government: ‘The Department cannot force their hands.’1777 This message was duly relayed by Ward to Field in July 1910, the Prime Minister pointing out that the settlement of Maori land lay with the District Maori Land Boards, and that there was no power under existing Lands for Settlement legislation to purchase Maori land for settlement purposes.1778

Field and others, however, argued that the recent partition of Horowhenua 11B41 presented an opportunity for the government to acquire the land for settlement, before it got leased out in large pastoral runs.

If the Native land above mentioned is allowed to be secured by large landed proprietors a threatened population of the District cannot be thereby increased, nor the place in any way advanced. If, on the other hand, the Government will take some active steps, and I submit that the present urgent demand for land imposes a duty on them in this respect, to secure the land from the Natives, and cut it up into small

1772 Minister of Lands to Prime Minister, 17 June 1910, MA-MLP 1/103/v 1911/133. 1773 Horowhenua Chronicle, 16 August 1910, p. 2. The borough councillors involved were Prouse, Framer, Palmer and Gardener. 1774 Horowhenua Chronicle, 14 September 1910, p. 2. 1775 Minister of Lands to Prime Minister, 17 June 1910, MA-MLP 1/103/v1911/133. 1776 Horowhenua Chronicle, 14 September 1910, p. 2. 1777 T Fisher, Under-Secretary Native Department to Kensington Under-Secretary Lands, undated, MA-MLP 1 103/v1911/133, [CFRT DB, A67(b): 12841]. 1778 Prime Minister Ward to WH Field MP, 8 July 1910, ibid, [CFRT DB, A67(b): 12840]. 356

holdings, the land in question will provide homes for scores of families, and the town of Levin and District will have a chance of development.1779

In reply, the Minister of Lands assured Field that the Native Land Purchase Board was prepared to purchase any land in the vicinity, but that ‘so far, though advised, none of the owners have made any offers.’1780 The Minister continued: ‘If you are aware of any owners desirous of disposing their land, or receiving offers from them, I will call a meeting of the Native Land Purchase Board to complete sale, if price is satisfactory.’1781

In November 1910 Field took the issue up with Apirana Ngata MP, forwarding a plan from the ‘Levin Development Association’ (the same Closer Settlement Committee mentioned above) showing the location of the land they wished the government to purchase: the whole of Horowhenua 11B36 and 11B41.1782 Field urged Ngata that there was no time to be lost, claiming that those who already held large areas were leasing land in the name of their relatives to get around restrictions on aggregation (discussed below). He also reiterated that the prosperity of Levin depended ‘entirely’ upon opening up these lands for settlement and small holdings. ‘There are plenty greedy to take it when opportunity offers. The phenomenal success of the two Government Village Settlements at Levin affords abundant proof of the wisdom of throwing open more land in small areas.’1783 By this time, Levin residents also had their eyes on Horowhenua 14, which the family of Walter Buller were said to be willing to sell.

In March 1911, Levin’s Closer Settlement Committee again pressed Field, drawing his attention to Section 636 of the Native Land Act 1909, which allowed the Governor to prohibit alienation of land pending purchase by the government. Field was asked to use his ‘best endeavour’ to block any leases going through at the next Native Land Court hearing scheduled in early April. Field had spoken to Carroll earlier in the week about the issue, and followed this up with a request to the Under-Secretary of Native Affairs that it be brought to the urgent attention of government.1784

Fisher responded with the suggestion to the Under-Secretary of Lands that the Crown Lands Ranger and the President of the Ikaroa District Maori Land Board visit Horowhenua to assess the land and interview the land owners, adding:

As far as my recollection serves me of these lands, they have been fairly well subdivided into individual holdings, and I know many of the owners are adverse to

1779 WH Field MP to Minister of Lands, 29 September 1910, ibid, [CFRT DB, A67(b): 12837]. 1780 Minister for Lands to WH Field, 15 October 1910, MA-MLP 1 103/v1911/133. 1781 Ibid. The Native Land Purchase Board responsible for the purchase of Maori land was made up of the Native Minister, Under-Secretary for Crown Lands, Under-Secretary for Native Affairs and the Valuer-General. 1782 WH Field MP to AT Ngata MP, 19 November 1910, MA-MLP 1 103/v1911/133, [CFRT DB, A67(b): 12832]. 1783 Ibid. 1784 WH Field to Under-Secretary Native Department, Fisher, 31 March 1911, ibid, [CFRT DB, A67(b): 12834]. 357

disposing of the fee simple. However, the Minister desires some enquiry to be made into the question.1785

By the end of the month data on the Kawiu blocks had been collated and forwarded to Fisher, including lists of owners and their respective shares in each block. The Under-Secretary of Lands had also supplied similar details of Horowhenua 11B41 partitions. Urgent government valuations of these lands were requested for the purpose. In July William Pitt of the Native Department was sent to Levin to put Crown purchase to the land owners.

Pitt met with around 30 Muaupoko land owners in Levin on 7 July 1911. The meeting had been called, Muaupoko were told, because of the representations made by the Levin Chamber of Commerce and Field that the ‘large area of Native land lying waste and adjacent to Levin’ – Horowhenua 11B36 and 11B41 – ‘should be acquired by the Crown for the purpose of cutting up for closer settlement.’1786 Any offer of sale, ‘collectively or individually’ would be considered, and the price paid would not be less than the government valuation. According to Pitt:

In reply they stated that, as far as they were aware, all the Horowhenua subdivisions were under profitable occupation, that is, under lease to Europeans or in occupation by the owners. Portions had been sold and other areas were pending awaiting the approval of the Ikaroa District Maori Land Board. Several Natives also drew attention to the fact that, although they had their interest partitioned by the Native Land Court, they were still awaiting completion of same by survey. Until this has been completed they are unable to occupy or improve the land in any way, as they could not locate their respective holdings. They further stated that they did not wish to be a bar at all to settlement, but they recognised it as in the interests of all that settlement should proceed.1787

Pitt reported that Muaupoko ‘did not wish to part with their free-holds.’ In their desire to assist settlement, they were reportedly willing to lease land, ‘if the Government so desired’, to the Crown ‘for a period’. They were also said to be unanimous in their offer of Horowhenua 11 B42, the coastal belt of sand hills, for sale to the Crown. Individual shares in three other sections were also offered to Pitt as a result of this meeting.1788

Two months later Horowhenua 11B42 and three 11B36 sections were gazetted under Section 363 of the Native Land Act, all private alienations of these titles prohibited for a period of one year.1789 All three Kawiu sections – 2L2, 2K, and 3G1 – were already subject to existing lease or purchase arrangements at the time, and nothing further seems to have come of Crown plans to acquire this land.

1785 Under-Secretary Native Department to Under-Secretary Lands, 11 April 1911, ibid, [CFRT DB, A67(b): 12831]. 1786 W Pitt to Under-Secretary Native Department, 10 July 1911, ibid, [CFRT DB, A67(b): 12606]. 1787 Ibid. 1788 The three sections were Horowhenua 11B36 2L2 (4 of 9 owners); Horowhenua 11B41 South 1, and 1 owner in Horowhenua 11 B41 A1, ibid, [CFRT DB, A67(b): 12808]. 1789 New Zealand Gazette, 28 September 1911. 358

Nor did the Crown proceed with the purchase of the coastal sand hills at this time. On the campaign trail in Levin in November 1911, Native Minister James Carroll countered local calls for closer settlement with the need to provide for Muaupoko’s future needs, and the right to equal citizenship enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi. The Horowhenua Chronicle reported:

The cream of the native lands was gone. He [Carroll] would commission any one of them to travel all round the dominion to-day and try to discover where there were any large areas of fine, first quality, native land. (Applause). They would find them in localities here and there; in Levin they would find a few good patches. He would advise natives to sell their poorer lands, because they were more suitable for European settlement in large areas. But there was a Maori population in Levin to provide for, and they would have to make provision for the natives themselves. The Maori race was never subjugated. This country did not pass to the Crown either by discovery or conquest. It was decided by solemn treaty and by such a treaty both parties were placed on an equality.1790

What was required, Carroll argued, was ‘to equip and put the Maoris on their land’, extending to them the same financial help available to Pakeha farmers in order to prevent a future burden on the state. These sentiments were undermined somewhat by his response in the question time that followed to the call for closer settlement of the ‘4000 acres of land on the other side of the lake’ (Horowhenua 11B41 and 11B42): ‘If you will point me out any land that is native and is suitable for closer settlement I will look into the matter: let me know of any idle land and I will obtain it.’1791

Local Pakeha ambitions to obtain Maori lands seem to have been thwarted on this occasion by steadfast resistance to sale. Over the following decade, the battle for ‘closer settlement’ turned on lessees with long association with Muaupoko, namely the McDonald family.

‘Dummying’ There were statutory limitations in this period about just how much Maori land any one person could acquire: Section 193 of the Native Land Act 1909 set this limit at 3000 acres. One tactic used to side- step this ceiling was to purchase or lease land in the names of other people – family members or employees – a practice known as ‘dummying’.

At an October 1916 sitting of the Ikaroa District Maori Land Board, Judge Gilfedder refused to confirm a number of leases of Maori land near Lake Horowhenua applied for by Roland Russell on the basis that Russell was ‘dummying’ for Lindsay McDonald.1792 Russell was a shepherd on the farm of the late JR McDonald Snr, known as the Heatherlea Estate, and employed by Lindsay McDonald of the same family. Lindsay McDonald had allegedly used Russell’s name to obtain the leases, a practice

1790 Horowhenua Chronicle, 7 November 1911, p. 2. 1791 Ibid. 1792 Extract from Minutes of Ikaroa DMLB, 30 October 1916, attached to M Gilfedder, President Ikaroa DMLB to Under- Secretary Native Department, 28 Nov 1916, MA 1/1182 1918/98. 359 said to have been used by the McDonald family in the past.1793 Under cross examination, Russell told Gilfedder that ‘I acted under instructions from Lindsay McDonald. I was to get leases for him.’ At the hearing in October, McDonald denied being a ‘land grabber’, claiming ‘although I am one of the McDonald family who aggregate a good deal of Native Land I only possess 289 acres of freehold.’1794 His family background seems largely behind Gilfedder’s objections to the transaction:

The present applications for confirmations of leases and for a meeting of assembled owners formed a glaring case of ‘dummyism’….It was sought to make use of a simple young and inexperienced workman [Russell] to mislead the Board and assist a member of a land- monopolising family to secure further areas of Native land.1795

In November 1916 the New Zealand Times reported on the case, the newspaper further alleging that Russell’s signature on the declarations had been forged.1796 A police investigation into the allegations, however, concluded that the signatures on the declaration appeared to be genuine and the declarations themselves were not false because they did not require a statement that Russell was applying for the land on his own behalf. The Crown solicitor referred the matter to the Native Department, stating that ‘the only offence that has been committed, if one has been committed, is that McDonald is holding more land than he is entitled to hold.’1797 Somewhat surprisingly however, it transpired that Gilfedder himself was unsure of the extent of McDonald’s landholdings and could not say whether he would have been disqualified from having the leases confirmed on account of the size of his landholdings at the time.1798 Details of the McDonald family holdings which were then compiled from the District Maori Land Board records by the Crown solicitor indicate that Lindsay McDonald’s landholdings amounted to just over 337 acres, 216 acres of which were leased.1799

Table 12: McDonald family landholdings in Horowhenua 111800

Date Land owner Section Area (a-r-p) Instrument 1894 JR McDonald Snr 3C1 lots 1-9 944-3-31 Lease 1894 JR McDonald Snr 3A 515-1-19 Lease 1896 F McDonald 3C1 lots 3, 5, 6, 8 419-3-36 Sale 1899 F McDonald 3C1 lot 1 104-3-39 Sale 1899 F McDonald 3C1 lot 2 104-3-39 Sale 1904 M McDonald 3A1 102-3-01 Sale 1906 JR McDonald Snr 11B36 3G2A 40 Lease

1793 According to McDonald’s solicitor, W Stewart Park, the late JR McDonald Snr had obtained Maori land in the names of two of his employees, William Batten and Michael Harrie Bailey. Copy of Letter from W Stewart Park to J Macintosh, Wright Stephenson & Co, 6 November 1916, MA 1/1182 1918/98. 1794 Extract from Minutes of Ikaroa DMLB, 30 October 1916, MA 1/1182 1918/98. 1795 Ibid. 1796 Copy of extract from the New Zealand Times, 3 November 1916, attached to letter from W Stewart Park to AL Herdman MP, Attorney-General, 2 March 1917, MA 1/1182 1918/98. McDonald’s solicitor and local land agent, W Stewart Park, had witnessed Russell’s signatures on the declarations and was upset over the allegations, W Stewart Park to J Macintosh, 6 November 1916, MA 1/1182 1918/98. 1797 Crown Solicitor Macassey, to Under-Secretary Native Affairs, 5 March 1917, MA 1/1182 1918/98. 1798 President Ikaroa DMLB Gilfedder to Under-Secretary Native Department, 28 November 1916, MA 1/1182 1918/98. 1799 Crown Solicitor Macassey to Under-Secretary Native Department, 5 March 1917, MA 1/1182 1918/98. 1800 MA 1/1182 1918/98. Family members also held neighbouring Manawatu-Kukutauaki lands to the north. 360

Date Land owner Section Area (a-r-p) Instrument 1907 JR McDonald Snr 11B36 3G1 74 Lease 1909 JR McDonald Snr 11B36 3H lots 1-4 162-0-20 Lease 1911 LG McDonald 11B36 2L1E 66-3-12 Lease 1911 LG McDonald 11B36 2L1E 40 Sale 1912 JR McDonald Jnr 11B36 1C2B 18-0-18 Sale 1912 JR McDonald Jnr 11B27 9-2-10 Sale 1912 JR McDonald Jnr 11B36 3H2A 24-0-00 Sale 1912 F McDonald 11B34 16-0-30 Sale 1912 F McDonald 11B29 10 Sale 1912 F McDonald 11B27 9-2-10 Sale 1913 JR McDonald Snr 11B36 2K1 25-2-27 Sale 1913 JR McDonald Snr 11B36 2K4 6-0-26 Sale 1913 JR McDonald Jnr 11B36 2K3&4 10-1-03 Sale 1913 JR McDonald Jnr 11B36 3H4A 15 Sale 1913 LG McDonald 11B36 31A, 35A, 18-3-09 Sale 36 3G3C 1914 JR McDonald Jnr 11B36 3H1 45-2-00 Sale 1914 JR McDonald Jnr 11B36 3G1 74 Sale 1914 JR McDonald Jnr 11B36 2K2B 41-0-10 Sale 1914 F McDonald 11B41A 106 Sale 1914 LG McDonald 11 31B 10-1-30 Sale 1914 LG McDonald 11B36 3G2B 5 Sale 1914 LA McDonald 11A33 3-1-34 Sale 1914 A McDonald 11B41 North A1A 742-0-25 Lease

John McDonald Snr had died in 1915, described in his death notice as the largest landholder in the Horowhenua District.1801 Within a month of his death, Field MP brought the Heatherlea Estate to the attention of the Minister of Lands, William Massey, proposing Crown purchase for ‘closer settlement’. His letter was published in full in the local newspaper:

I should like the Land Purchase Department to make enquiry into the matter, and if the land is for sale endeavour to acquire it. I would not, of course, be a party to any injustice to Mrs. McDonald or her family, but probably she might be quite willing to sell at a price satisfactory to the Land Purchase Department. More than once during Mr. McDonald’s lifetime I was urged to have his property acquired if possible, and as you probably know, he did cut up and sell a small portion of it on his own account. There is, however, a large area of it still in the occupation of his widow and family which would be well suited for small settlements.1802

Massey’s response, that Land Purchase Commissioners were in negotiations with trustees of the estate, and that purchase had been under consideration ‘for some time’, was also published.1803 Crown purchase did not proceed, despite continuing efforts of Field to obtain the land for returned soldier

1801 Horowhenua Chronicle, 20 May 1915, p. 3. 1802 Horowhenua Chronicle, 2 July 1915, p. 2. 1803 Ibid. 361 settlement as late as March 1918.1804 The Heatherlea Estate, comprising 1848 acres of freehold and 3549 acres of Maori leasehold, was publicly auctioned in September 1919.1805

Earlier that year JR McDonald Jnr was prosecuted in another case of dummyism. It was alleged that in 1905 he had made false declarations by taking up leases in his own name for the benefit of his father, the late JR McDonald Snr.1806 These were the leaseholds of the Kawiu sections vested in the Aotea District Maori Land Council, described above. According to the Solicitor-General John Salmond, the transactions represented an ‘elaborate scheme of illegal aggregation both of leaseholds and freeholds’ carried out by the late JR McDonald Snr, who ‘held the lands so acquired by him in the names of several of his children.’ Salmond maintained that it was necessary for the purpose of the proper administration and distribution of the estate that the freeholds and leaseholds so acquired should be openly recognised as belonging to the estate of the deceased, urging the Native Minister:

If the provisions as to non-aggregation are to be a reality and not a mere dead-letter it seems to me imperative that when such cases of dummyism are ultimately discovered a prosecution should ensue. Even if a prosecution is not successful it would at least have the good result of making transactions of this sort public.1807

The case against McDonald was dismissed however, because the Magistrate did not think there was a possibility of the jury convicting McDonald for declarations made fourteen years earlier.1808

The extent of the McDonald family’s Muaupoko landholdings by the late 1910s looks incredibly damning: over 1200 acres purchased in 23 transactions in the 20 years from 1894 to 1914. Certainly it was portrayed as such by Levin’s civic leaders from 1911 onward. On the other hand however, there is no evidence that the McDonald family entrapped Muaupoko individuals in the same kind of debt cycles like that of Donald Fraser’s hold over the Hunia family, or that of Levin’s mayor, Basil Gardener. The meeting between Muaupoko land owners and Native Department officer Pitt in July 1911 indicates that the rising generation of Muaupoko was well aware of Pakeha imperatives surrounding ‘productive’ land. Leasing was one way to ensure that Pakeha demands were met while still keeping the freehold in Maori ownership. One of the most popular lessees among Muaupoko in this period was the McDonald family. Hector McDonald and his son John, of course, had been a source of welcome income for the tribe since the 1850s, in an arguably mutually beneficial arrangement with flexibility shown by both parties. In this light, the lease of a considerable proportion

1804 The Ministerial visit with Crown purchase for returned soldier settlement in mind was reported in the Horowhenua Chronicle on 19 March 1918, p. 2. 1805 Horowhenua Chronicle, 19 September 1918, p. 2. 1806 Section 26 of the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900 required that McDonald Jnr sign declarations stating that he was acquiring the leases solely for his own use and benefit and not directly or indirectly for the use or benefit of any other person or persons in 1905. For details on case see MA 1/1182 1918/98. 1807 Solicitor-General Salmond to Under-Secretary Native Department, 2 September 1918, MA 1/1182 1918/98. 1808 Copy of letter Crown Solicitor Macassey to Under-Secretary Native Department, 16 July 1919, MA 1/1182 1918/98. 362 of Horowhenua 11 to the McDonald family could arguably reflect long-held trust and protection, rather than the ‘land-grabbing’ it was presented to be. Whatever the relationship, however, the result for Muaupoko land owners was the transfer of their lands into the hands of others. And it was the occupiers of the land who largely dictated the management of the resource, primarily the drainage of Muaupoko’s former food basket of swamp and lagoons into pasture.

7.5 Crown purchase of Horowhenua 11B42C, 1926

Public agitation to have the Crown purchase the coastal belt of sand hills in order to arrest ongoing sand drift was evident as early as 1910, with Field and Gardener once again fronting the lobby to Prime Minister Ward on his visit to the town in April.1809 Muaupoko’s offer to sell Horowhenua 11B42C the following year did not result in Crown purchase. The matter was raised again in 1916, again at the instigation of Levin residents (see pp. 333-334), the Crown ranger on this occasion advising against the purchase of the coastal belt, on the grounds that it was:

valueless for grazing purposes, is more or less drifting sand dunes which will always be a source of nuisance to the owners also to the country lying immediately to the east, inland. 1810

As set out earlier, in 1923 the block was partitioned into four: two 100-acre blocks on either side of the Hokio township (with a 1.5 acre deduction, 11B42D, from the northern 100-acre section 11B42B), the bulk of the coastal belt renamed 11B42C North (1278 acres) and 11B42C South (598.5 acres).1811

In 1926 the problem of sand drift within Horowhenua 11B42 was raised by an adjoining farmer and Levin solicitor, W Stewart Park. Park wrote to the Minister of Lands proposing that the government purchase and reclaim Horowhenua 11B42, arguing that in addition to the lands being a ‘standing menace’ to the lands directly eastward (11B41, of which Park leased parts), the land was:

being put to no use whatever by the owners, no rates are being paid on it, no land tax is being paid on it, and apart from its menace with regard to drifting sand, it is a breeding place for rabbits and noxious vermin. 1812

Park explained that his own attempts to purchase the land had been frustrated, the owners ‘so multitudinous in number and the value of the land was so small, it was impossible to get a resolution

1809 Horowhenua Chronicle, 21 April 1910, p. 3. 1810 Crown Lands Ranger Smith to Commissioner Crown Lands Wellington, 29 December 1916, in MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1945]. 1811 Otaki MB 57, pp.53-54, 57-58. 1812 Park’s letter of 6 August was repeated in Park to Minister of Lands, McLeod, 25 August 1926, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1938]. 363 of assembled owners passed to the effect that the land be sold.’1813 He proposed that the government compulsorily acquire the block on his behalf and he would repay in cash the cost of acquiring the land at government valuation – which he understood to be around £400 – plus 10 per cent.1814 Park was initially turned down by the Commissioner of State Forests on the grounds that the government had no money for reforestation, but in the face of his persistence the issue was referred by the Minister of Lands to the Native Department.

In response to Park’s request, Under-Secretary RN Jones reported on the history of the block in October 1926, commenting that Horowhenua 11B42C was unlikely to be ‘a material means of support’ to the 147 owners as it had been deemed valueless for grazing purposes in 1916. The Under- Secretary referred to the 1911 offer to sell which had not been acted on, the land being unfit for settlement. He also referred to Park’s 1920 offer of 10 shillings per acre, which had been turned down by the owners then ‘averse to selling’. ‘Probably the Crown could acquire this Block’, Jones went on, ‘but there would be no power to grant it to Mr. Park unless he was a lessee.’1815 In relaying this advice back to the Minister of Lands, the acting Native Minister RF Bollard suggested that the land might be purchased by the Native Land Purchase Board, and then sold to Park under Section 150 of the Land Act 1924.1816 The response was sufficiently encouraging to prompt Lands Department officials to inquire further:

There is of course no power to take the land compulsorily in order to sell it to Mr. Park, but in order that his application may be looked into further to see whether it would be possible to acquire the area so that it could be disposed of under the provisions of Section 150 of the Land Act, 1924, I should be glad if you would have an inspection made of the area in order that the exact position may be known.1817

In February 1927 FM Waters, Deputy Commissioner of Crown Lands, visited Park and reported on his ambitions to arrest the sand drift through replanting ‘providing he can get title to the land.’ Waters was supportive, ‘I consider that the Department should lend its aid by acquiring this area in order to dispose of it to Mr. Park…’1818 In March the Assistant Under-Secretary of Lands informed his counterpart in the Native Department that he had no objection to steps being taken to acquire the Native interests in the block, provided Park paid in cash sufficient to recoup any expenditure.1819

1813 Ibid. 1814 Ibid. 1815 Under-Secretary Jones to Native Minister, 1 October 1926, in MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1921]. 1816 Acting Native Minister Bollard to Minister for Lands, 1 October 1926, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1929]. Section 150 provided for the sale of Crown land made up of mainly sand dunes, or any other worthless Crown and, to the holders of contiguous lands. 1817 Under-Secretary Lands to Commissioner Crown Lands Wellington, 18 October 1926, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71 [DB:1920]. 1818 Deputy Commissioner Crown Lands Waters to Under-Secretary Lands, 14 February 1927, ibid [DB:1919]. 1819 Assistant Under-Secretary Lands to Under-Secretary Native Department, 10 March 1927, ibid [DB:1914]. 364

In April 1927 Park was asked what he would pay for 640 acres in Horowhenua 11B42C should the Crown go ahead with acquiring the land, whether he would be willing to deposit a third as down- payment, and what interests he held in adjoining lands.1820 By May 1927 Park signalled his willingness to purchase 640 acres of Horowhenua B1142C (about half of the northern part), at 6s/6d per acre, ‘double the present Government valuation’.1821 The lithograph below shows Park’s leasehold interests in 11B41; he was also farming land in partnership with an M Best.

Figure 34: Proposed Crown purchase of 11 B42C on behalf of Park and Best1822

In May 1927 Jones cautioned the Under-Secretary for Lands that the transaction might not be so straightforward. A valuation would be required to begin with, and, he went on:

it may not be practicable to acquire the land as a whole, but possibly we could acquire sufficient interests to cover the area required. No guarantee could be given that the area so acquired would be cut out in the position desired, but it is not unlikely that the Court seeing the purpose of the purchase, would do so.1823

1820 Assistant Under-Secretary Lands Robertson to Stewart Park, 8 April 1927, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71 [DB:1911]. 1821 W Stewart Park to Assistant Under-Secretary Lands, 2 May 1927, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1912]. 1822 The lithograph also shows Park and Best’s land interests in Horowhenua 11 B41, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71 [DB:1909]. 1823 Under-Secretary Native Dept. Jones to Under-Secretary Lands, 24 May 1927, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71 [DB:1901]. 365

Given that the interests acquired might fall short of the area required, he suggested an undertaking be secured from Park that he would buy any interests acquired by the Crown, lest these be left on its hands.

The acquisition was approved by the Native Land Purchase Board on 5 July 1927, with Park’s undertaking duly received on 7 July, and the government valuation of £345 for the northern portion (described as 1388 acres) finally received on 11 August.1824 A meeting of owners was duly called to consider the Crown purchase of 640 acres of the coastal belt for £213 6s 8d.1825 At the meeting in Levin on 20 October 1927, the Crown’s offer was unanimously rejected.1826

Faced with the resolution of assembled owners, Under-Secretary Jones turned his attention to acquiring individual interests. Stewart Park, who had attended the meeting, claimed the owners had been told at the time the Crown was interested in purchasing individual shares. Writing to the Under- Secretary of Lands in November 1927 Park asked for authorisation to obtain the necessary signatures of any vendors:

Since that date I have been interviewed by quite a number of the natives who are desirous of selling and I am quite sure that with the assistance of the Crown in the above direction I can purchase individual interests to an extent that will enable me to obtain the necessary amount of foreshore which I require for the purpose of effectually dealing with the sand breaks on my own country.1827

Park was advised that Shepherd of the Native Department would be in Levin from 19-23 December to obtain signatures, and in a subsequent telegram he was asked to ‘arrange for as many sellers as possible to be present.’1828 In the meantime a revised valuation of £465 for the whole block comprising 1871.5 acres was obtained.1829

A schedule of the 272 owners, some of them listed twice as successors was also prepared, setting out their relative share, and what this translated to in money terms: the highest share worth £18/14s/9d; for a number of successors a matter of a few shillings.1830 On Shepherd’s first visit on 23 December he managed to purchase just seven such interests and a week later another eight. In February 1928 one more interest was purchased, and at the end of April, three more. By this time Native Department

1824 Decision dated 5 July 1927, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1888]; W Stewart Park to Under-Secretary Lands, 7 July 1927, [DB:1886]; Valuer-General to Under-Secretary Native Department, 11 August 1927, [DB:1878]. 1825 MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1876]. 1826 Registrar to Under-Secretary Native Department, 21 October 1927, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1870]. 1827 W Stewart Park to Under-Secretary Lands, 18 November 1927, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1866]. 1828 Under-Secretary Native Department to Stewart Park, 13 December 1927; and telegram, 21 December 1927, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1857]. Stewart Park had again approached the Ikaroa DMLB about the issue in early December, see [DB:1859]. 1829 Valuer-General to Under-Secretary Native Department, 23 December 1927, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1860]. 1830 Schedule in MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71. 366 officials had evidently given up on any chance of obtaining enough interests through purchase, resorting instead to enforcing a charging order for survey of £126/4s obtained in October 1924. On 21 May 1928 Native Minister Coates applied to the Court for an order vesting in the Crown such part of 11B42C as would satisfy the charging order, plus interest.1831 On the basis of the valuation, this was calculated to equate to almost 406 acres.1832 In the meantime, departmental officers kept purchasing interests until June 1928. By the time the Crown’s application was heard in August 1928, 36.5 percent of the shares in the block had been purchased for £169/13s/4d, equating to 682 acres 3 roods. To this was added the area taken in satisfaction for survey costs, the total Crown share determined to be 1088.5 acres of the 1871.5 acre block.1833 In people terms, the ‘non-sellers’ represented 71 per cent of the interested owners.1834 Their interests were now located in Horowhenua 11 B42C2 comprising 783 acres in the southern portion of the coastal strip.

Horowhenua 11B42C1 was proclaimed Crown land on 8 November 1928.1835 A week later Under- Secretary Jones forwarded the gazette notice to the Under-Secretary for Lands of the Crown block ‘acquired to enable Mr. W. S. Park of Levin to purchase same from the Crown…’1836 A certificate of title was issued on 29 July 1931, the land was renamed ‘part section 602 Town of Foxton’.1837 In 1960 the land was set apart as permanent state forest land, the Waitarere forest.1838 The certificate of title shows that in 1994, a Crown Forestry Licence was registered on the title under Section 30 of the Crown Forest Assets Act.1839

7.6 Title consolidation

By the end of World War One, multiple ownership and fragmented titles were increasingly seen as the cause of underlying ‘problems’ with Maori land, including lack of development and low rates returns. The Crown’s solution, arrived at by Apirana Ngata MP in the early 1920s and implemented from 1929 onwards, was a complicated rationalisation of fragmented land interests through an exchange scheme known as ‘title consolidation’, followed by state-supported land development.1840 While Ngata was primarily interested in getting Maori into the business of farming for their own economic wellbeing – the ‘profitable occupation’ of their land – this too was arguably driven by the underlying

1831 Native Minister Coates to Native Land Court, 21 May 1928, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71. 1832 ‘Application for partition dealt with by the Native Land Court…’, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1836]. 1833 Ibid. 1834 The file contains lists of ‘sellers’ and ‘non-sellers’, some listed twice, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1830]. 1835 New Zealand Gazette, 1928, p. 3235. 1836 Under-Secretary Native Department Jones to Under-Secretary Lands, 16 November 1928, MA-MLP 1/169/i 1916/71, [DB:1826]. 1837 WN428/136. In 1994 this CT was cancelled and replaced with WN45C/203. 1838 New Zealand Gazette, 1960, no 35 p. 726. 1839 WN45C/203, see also WN1300/21. 1840 Title consolidation has been the subject of a number of studies in various inquiry districts, see for example T Hearn, ‘Land Titles, Land Development and Returned Soldier Settlement’, (CFRT, 2009), Wai 898 #A69. 367 imperative of ‘use it or lose it’: that Maori engagement in land development and farming would ‘justify’ the retention of their lands (and enable future rates payments). As Prime Minister Coates told local bodies in 1925, ‘if Maories want the land they must work it and accept the whole responsibility of citizenship, and they must pay their rates the same as anyone else.’1841

The initial partition of Horowhenua 11 in 1898 had itself been remarkably fragmented, the court bent on an equitable division of arable land in the block between the 81 owners. Half a century of ongoing partition and succession had only fractured interests further. By the mid 1940s, the second term of the 21-year renewable leases granted at the beginning of the twentieth century was drawing to a close. Some of the Kawiu lands it will be remembered had been vested in the Ikaroa District Maori Land Board, and others leased privately. The consolidation of Taueki family interests from the mid-1940s took place in the context of family members wanting to farm their own land once the 42-year leases fell in. Raeburn Lange relates that it also took place in the context of a Maori housing crisis in Horowhenua County, a 1941 housing survey conducted by the District Health Office categorising nearly half of the 256 Maori homes in the county as ‘fit for demolition’, including 8 out of 22 in and around Levin, and 13 out of 26 at Hokio.1842 Concern about the living conditions of Maori families in Levin – including over-crowding, substandard housing, poor drainage, sanitation and ventilation – and the associated health problems this posed, had been raised by concerned locals since the mid-1930s, and confirmed by District Nurse reports from 1937.1843 Lange relates that in Levin, after an outbreak of dysentery in 1944, the Borough Council drew attention to a number of Maori houses that were ‘not only a detriment to the occupants thereof but also a potential source of danger from a health point of view to the district as a whole.’1844 He also writes of a Muaupoko Tribal Authority deputation to Wellington in 1946 to promote their own housing scheme on Maori land at Weraroa, on the southern outskirts of the town. Their proposal envisaged the consolidation of five titles to relocate ten families who were living in substandard housing, with a new marae.1845 There has not been time to research this initiative further, which did not eventuate. Lange relates that there was some frustration among the Maori community of Levin about the inaction of Maori Affairs to remedy the housing crisis. The issue is discussed here because it has relevance to the Taueki consolidation discussed below.

Taueki family consolidation The end of the leaseholds anticipated by the mid-1940s naturally raised the issue of what was to happen next. In terms of the Taueki landholdings, Maori Affairs officer AF Blackburn considered title

1841 Minutes of deputation, 29 July 1925, MA 1 401 20/1/1 part 1, cited in Luiten, ‘Local Government in Te Rohe Potae’, (Wai 898, #A24), p. 132. 1842 District Health Office, Palmerston North, Maori Housing Survey 1941, ABQU 632 W4452 194/3, cited in Lange, Wai 2200 #A1, pp. 184-185. Lange relates that the housing crisis was nation-wide and apparent from the 1930s. 1843 Ibid, p. 183. Lange cites the correspondence from the Women’s Christian Temperance Union branch at Levin to Savage and Fraser, and that of G McGregor to Savage, both in 1936. 1844 Town clerk, Levin to LG Lowry MP, 17 May 1944, AAMK 869/1017b, cited in Lange, p. 191. 1845 Lange, pp. 91-92. 368 consolidation to be a necessary prerequisite, and claimed that the family members he had spoken to were agreeable to this course.1846 On the strength of Blackburn’s recommendation, five months later the registrar of the Maori Land Court was directed to begin collating the interests ‘of the various members of the Taueki family.’1847 The exercise took staff a full year to complete.

By December 1945, staff had singled out 19 titles, comprising a total of just over 986 acres, owned by the same 25 family members, in different configurations. Of the 25 family members identified, two were deceased and 16 minors, for whom trustees were appointed (in the case of one family, the Native Trustee). In the records of the consolidation, these various members were treated as seven households or groups, one other member having a life-time tenancy. In the context of national title consolidation efforts, the Taueki consolidation was a small ‘family exchange’.1848 The ostensible aim seems to have been to concentrate the interests of these owners, with few exceptions spread over all 19 titles, into compact areas for each household.1849 Blackburn’s forwarding of the schedules to the Chief Welfare Officer, with an accompanying note confirms the socio-economic factors behind the consolidation:

This is really a welfare matter and it is desired to carry it out in order to ameliorate the condition of the members of the family and to provide them with homes and farms. At present they have just a number of scattered interests more or less useless to them.1850

An Order in Council prohibiting alienation of the Taueki family lands included in the proposed consolidation scheme, set out below, was gazetted on 16 May 1946.1851

1846 Chief Supervisor AF Blackburn to Under-Secretary Native Department, 18 June 1944, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1847 Under-Secretary Native Department to Registrar, Wellington, 2 November 1944, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1848 See for example, ‘Taueki Consolidation Scheme Schedules. 2. Value and Location of Owners’ Interests in New Titles’, MA 1 584 29/7/4/1. 1849 See for example file memo, nd, ibid. 1850 ‘AF’ [Blackburn] to Chief Welfare Officer Royal, 29 February 1946, ibid; see also Under-Secretary Native Department Shepherd to Native Minister, 5 March 1946, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1851 New Zealand Gazette, 16 May 1946, no. 32, p. 678. Note the B42 lands listed in this schedule were not subsequently included in the consolidation. 369

Table 13: Taueki lands under Consolidation, 19461852

Horowhenua Section Area (a-r-p) Lease status @ 1945 Capital Value 3E1sec5 6-2-30 Nil £330 (1939) 11A5E2 71-2-16 23a-3r-04p to TJ Bartholomew 21 years from £2360 9/11/1927 now sublet to J Manson. 57a-3r-04p to S Jones 21 years from 11/6/1924. 11B9 4-0-08 Nil £30 11B40 17-1-00 Nil £430 (1939) 11B36/ 1E6B1A 6-2-10 JK Knight for 10 years from 24/12/1939 @ 18/ per £220 (1939) acre per annum 11B36/ 1B1 80-1-23 Part leased to F McDonald for 21 years from £3330 (1939) 1/4/1926 and part to SB Read. 11B36/1B2 68-1-28, less 2r Part leased to F McDonald for 21 years from £3335 (1939) sold to SB Read 1/4/1926 and Part to SB Read. 11B36/1E3C 7-2-28 Nil £265 (1939) 11B41 southQ1 35-1-19 Nil £35 (1939) 11B41 southQ2 20-0-23 Nil £5 (1939) 11B36sec1E3B2 19-3-21 Nil £1435 (1939) 11B36sec1E3B1 1-0-0 Nil £50 (1939) 11B41northA1A2 443-3-31.4 Nil £3465 (1935) 11B41northA1A1B 232-2-24 FHA Nicholson for 21 years from 11/2/1936 £1840 (1935) 11B42A3B 2-3-13 Nil Nil 11B42A11 4-0-05 Nil Nil 11B42A14 29-1-28 Nil Nil 11B42B 96-2-00 Nil Nil 11B42C2 776-3-12 Nil Nil

Figure 35: Location of Taueki lands under consolidation, shaded blue, 19461853

1852 Taueki family list forwarded by Registrar to Under-Secretary Native Department, 14 December 1945, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1853 Plan showing Taueki family lands to be consolidated, in MA 1 584 29/7/4. 370

The consolidation scheme Now that the lands were proclaimed, the task of arranging the exchange began. From the correspondence set out below, it seems that the process was guided largely by Maori Affairs staff who nonetheless sought approval from resident owners before the arrangement was submitted to court, although the extent of this consultation is not evident from the record.

The two Kawiu blocks, B361B1 & 1B2, the best farmland, were now divided in three roughly similar areas (two at 43 acres, and one at 56.5 acres) for three different households, each parcel considered big enough to make an ‘excellent dairy farm’.1854 In addition, 14 quarter-acre residential sites were laid off fronting Kawiu Road, each household receiving from one to three such house sites. The description of these residential sections in departmental records as ‘would be readily saleable’ indicates that sale was indeed envisaged as a possibility. The four existing titles north-west of the lake were now amalgamated into one (with a small deduction for an urupa, A5G), again envisaged as an ‘excellent’ dairy farm for three Taueki entities treated together, including the two families of minors, in conjunction with the isolated 6.5 acre title A5A further west.1855 Again, four more one-acre sections were also laid off here, bringing some parity between households in terms of residential sections. The fragmented titles south of the lake were similarly amalgamated into two titles for the benefit of one household. It was considered that with draining, fencing and pasture improvement, two farms might be made of this area, but in the meantime both titles would be farmed together. The bulk of the land, the residual area in Horowhenua 11B42A1A1B and A1A2, seems to have been used to balance out the relative owner shares. The blocks were under lease for sheep farming, containing a mixture of good pasture, sand hill and swamp. According to Maori Affairs staff, none of the owners were interested in farming sheep, it being envisaged that the land would continue to be leased.

To summarise, consolidation promised to redistribute the wider Taueki family interests so that five households would each receive a single farm title of some 50 acres odd, with two to four residential sections, and each household retaining an interest in the leasehold in 11B41, albeit to a changed extent. The noticeable anomaly in this scheme is the grouping of three households, primarily made up of minors, in the one title of A5F. The creation of 18 residential house sites is significant in the context of the housing crisis, described earlier.

Obstruction to consolidation An early objection to the scheme was received from one of the Taueki lessees at Kawiu, SB Read:

1854 ‘Taueki Consolidation Scheme Schedules. 3. ‘Description of proposed new titles’, MA 1 584 29/7/4/1. 1855 The interests of Tiemi Keneriki, the Wiremu family minors and the Greenland family minors appear to have been all lumped together in this north-west portion. On file it was noted ‘Owners are a closely related family group which has sufficient values for one good dairy farm’, MA 1 584 29/7/4/1. 371

While I appreciate & applaud the Native Dept’s policy in re-establishing the natives on their land, when health and ability [of] such natives permits. In this instance I have reason to believe that some of the owners are neither able nor fit for such responsibility. In such cases, is it the Dept’s policy to let their land to anyone else who could pay them probably more than they could take off the land themselves?1856

Read was a dairy farmer whose current lease was due to expire on 31 March the following year, which he stated was not suitable as it was ‘practically in the middle of the season’. He requested that the expiry date be pushed out several months to July 1947 and asked whether he could continue his lease on a yearly basis from July to July while the Department was ‘making preparations for the natives to be rehabilitated’ so that ‘production would go on and the natives would not be losing their income during the stages of preparation’. Read also stated that it would take a considerable amount of time to subdivide, survey and make the necessary improvements to start the owners farming: ‘During such a time it would be a pity for such rich highly productive land to lapse into little or no production.’1857 The Under Secretary’s response spelled out the ostensible aim of the consolidation, and indeed pointed to future development under Maori Affairs:

The purpose of this scheme is to re-arrange the titles so that each family group will own a compact area instead of many scattered interests as at present. When the consolidation is complete it is considered that the owners should have an opportunity of farming their own lands under the supervision of the Native Department. As you probably know, some of these families are living under conditions which are not at all conducive to the health and welfare of their children and it is felt that they should at least be given a chance to rehabilitate themselves by making use of their own property.1858

The same message was communicated to the lawyers of Hurihanganui Taueki, one of the nine adult family members affected by the consolidation who, until October 1946, had been oblivious to the scheme. A resident of Taranaki, Hurihanganui was said to welcome title consolidation ‘as it will enable any tenancies to be placed on a proper basis and assure that occupiers are paying reasonable rents’, a somewhat different perspective to that of owners wanting to farm themselves.1859 Again, Under-Secretary Shepherd explained:

The primary purpose of the scheme is to enable some of the members of the family, who are now living in adverse conditions, to obtain a compact area which they will be able to farm for themselves. 1860

Hurihanganui was reassured that all the owners would be ‘given an opportunity to state their views when the preliminary work had been completed.’1861

1856 SB Read to Under-Secretary Native Department, 29 June 1946, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1857 Ibid. 1858 Under-Secretary Shepherd to SB Read, 9 July 1946, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1859 Standish Anderson & Brokenshire to Under-Secretary Native Department, 4 October 1946, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1860 Under-Secretary Native Department to Standish Anderson & Brokenshire, 9 October 1946, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1861 Ibid. 372

In February 1947 the Dominion published a statement that the Health Department was proposing to acquire the properties occupied by SB Read and NM Ryder for a tuberculosis sanatorium at Levin.1862 The ‘special committee’ had reportedly inspected 11 locations in the wider region and had decided on locating their new medical facility on Horowhenua 11B36/1B1&1B2: over 148 acres of fertile Taueki lands at Kawiu included in the consolidation. The news provoked an immediate response from the Registrar of the Maori Land Court, disconcerted at the lack of consultation with the Ikaroa District Maori Land Board, as legal owner of the land. The land in question, the Director General of Health was told, was some of the best farming land in the district and part of a consolidation scheme:

It was explained to the owners in open Court [Native Land Court] that the completion of the scheme would enable them to secure individual titles and undertake farming themselves with financial assistance from the Native Department….

If the land is taken from the Natives at this stage without land of equivalent worth and quality being offered in exchange, I have a grave fear that the Natives will accuse the Government of breach of faith, and not without reason.1863

Nor had the press article gone unnoticed among the Maori community of Levin. On 2 March 1947 Rangi Wiremu, of Hokio Beach Road, wrote to the Native Minister (also Prime Minister) Peter Fraser to express his dismay:

we as the Owners have waited 42 years for the lease of this place to expire…. Now we find that the Health dept has the privilege or priority of having this place back, that we were intending of farming it ourselves. Therefore we as owners do object to the attitude adopted by the Health Dept. in taking our property before consulting the [owners].1864

Wiremu was duly told:

The selection of a site for the sanatorium at Levin is not yet finalised, the report in the newspapers having been somewhat premature….The interests of the owners are being kept in view and in the meantime I suggest that you await the final decision as to the site for the sanatorium.1865

In July 1947 MB Howard, Minister of Health, asked Fraser to reconsider the Department’s opposition to locating the sanatorium at Kawiu, suggesting it might be practicable to facilitate the acquisition of the land, while still meeting the Government’s obligations under the consolidation scheme.1866 She emphasised that ‘there is such a strong preference for these two properties that I am anxious to

1862 Taranaki Herald, 10 April 1948, in MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1863 Registrar Dudson to Director General of Health, date? MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1864 R Wiremu to Native Minster, 2 March 1947, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1865 Minister Maori Affairs Fraser to R Wiremu, 26 March 1947, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1866 Minister Health Howard to Minister Maori Affairs Fraser, 16 July 1947, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 373 explore the possibility of securing them’.1867 The Minister acknowledged that if the Health Department acquired the properties, the Maori owners would have to be provided with land of equivalent worth and quality. In reply the Native Minister asked her for a detailed plan showing the exact areas proposed for the sanatorium site to assist with its consideration of the proposal, but stated that Maori Affairs shared the Registrar’s view, as stated in his earlier memorandum to the Director General of Health. 1868

In September 1947 the consolidation was approved in court by Judge Whitehead, who recorded that the scheme had been decided ‘with the complete agreement of the owners of the land.’1869 He also recorded, however, that the same owners had stressed in court that their agreement was conditional on whether or not the proposed sanatorium would be located at Kawiu: ‘This land is situated near the homes of most of the owners and if it should be taken they desire to have the whole scheme re-opened to permit of an equitable distribution of the remaining lands.’1870 In October Under-Secretary Shepherd relayed to the Minister of Maori Affairs that the Muaupoko owners were ‘unanimously opposed to the taking of the land.’1871 Shepherd, too, considered the Department was under an obligation to complete the consolidation scheme, given that the work had been undertaken well before the question of lands for the sanatorium site arose. In his advice to the Minister of Maori Affairs, emphasis was placed on value of the land, both economic and, perhaps for the first time, ancestral:

The land in question is the richest land owned by the family and comprises some of the finest farming land in the Horowhenua district, one block being valued at approximately £68 per acre….This family is one of the last families of the Muaupoko tribe to retain any worthwhile lands after a continuous occupation of some centuries, and they have waited a number of years for the expiry of leases to enable them to have their interests consolidated and the lands made available to those members of the family who wish to engage in farming for themselves.1872

In conclusion, Shepherd recommended that ‘every possible effort should be made to have the sanatorium located elsewhere’, urging that a final decision be made as soon as possible so that the Taueki owners could begin planning how to use their newly-titled lands.1873 The Under-Secretary was instructed by his Minister to ‘hold this matter over’ until the decision about the location of the sanatorium had been made, and to keep in touch with the Health Department.1874

1867 Ibid. 1868 See memo on above. 1869 Judge Whitehead, 23 September 1947, in papers supplied by P Taueki. 1870 Ibid. 1871 Under-Secretary Native Department Shepherd to Minister Maori Affairs, 3 Oct 1947, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1872 Ibid. 1873 Ibid. 1874 Note on above, 4 November 1847. 374

The sanatorium proposal at Kawiu was endorsed, if not driven, by the Horowhenua County Council. In November 1947 when the Maori Affairs district officer approached council staff regarding the multiple quarter-acre residential sites proposed as part of the consolidation scheme, he was told that the county council was ‘actively advocating’ the sanatorium proposal instead, and would await the government decision before ‘officially considering any other proposals affecting the land.’1875 The Levin Junior Chamber of Commerce, too, was part of the lobby in support of the sanatorium, telling the Minister of Health: ‘It will be a great pity if your department lets such an opportunity slip by for the sake of giving the Maori owners a price equivalent to that which can be secured by the proposed subdivision.’1876 This letter was forwarded to the Minister of Maori Affairs, who responded to the misconception that the title consolidation scheme had been undertaken with market sales in mind. Again, his response provides an insight into the objectives of the scheme:

During the consolidation proceedings officers of the Native Department suggested that as the land fronting on to Kawiu Road was so admirably suited for building purposes, it would be advisable to cut out several sections and allot two or three to each of the five family groups interested in the whole of the lands. The purpose of this suggestion was to ensure that each family would have suitable sites upon which to build homes, even though the remainder of the block upon which the building sites are located would be awarded to one family only.

This suggestion was agreed to by the owners and the subdivisions were included in the consolidation scheme submitted to me by the Court.

The small farms were not laid off for the purposes of sale, but to give the Taueki family an opportunity to farm the lands themselves, without having the difficulties previously arising from the large number of owners in each block.

If the consolidation scheme is completed, however, it will then be a matter for the owners alone to decide whether they will farm the land or dispose of it by way of lease or sale. I understand however that the majority of them are strongly opposed to selling.1877

In February 1948 Shepherd again jogged the Director General of Health about whether an alternative site had been found for the facility, pointing out that it was now nearly five months since the scheme had been completed, and that the continuing delay was ‘most unfair to the owners’. 1878 Faced with the ongoing silence from the Health authorities, two months later Shepherd put the issue on the line with his own Minister:

This family owns a number of blocks of rich farming land round the shores of Lake Horowhenua. There are a number of owners and the existing titles are so complicated

1875 Registrar Dudson to Under-Secretary Maori Affairs, 24 November 1947, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1876 Levin Junior Chamber of Commerce Secretary to Minister of Health Howard, 16 October 1947, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1877 Minister Maori Affairs to Minister Health, 26 November 1947, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1878 Under-Secretary Maori Affairs Shepherd to Director-General of Health, 6 February 1948, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 375

that no individual member of the family has a compact area sufficient for an economic farm. The lands have been leased to Europeans for many years.

Some years ago the Department undertook to consolidate the titles to enable the family to commence farming themselves as soon as the leases expired and the preliminary work on the titles was commenced early in 1944.

….

The position now is that the leases affecting the various blocks have nearly all expired, some of them over two years ago, and the owners, after waiting over twenty years for an opportunity to farm the land for themselves, are still unable to do anything owing to the uncertain state of the titles. …1879

After more than a year of uncertainty about the location of the sanatorium, matters were evidently coming to a head:

Apart from the extreme undesirability of leaving some of the best farm lands in the Wellington Province in a non-productive state at a time like the present, the position is intolerable from the point of view of the Maori owners who have sons who are ready to take up farming, but are prevented from doing so by the indecision of the sanatorium authorities.

The owners are naturally extremely dissatisfied and are accusing this Department of a breach of faith.

… it is felt that every possible effort should be made to secure an alternative [sanatorium] site on less productive lands and not on the last remaining area of any worth still owned by the Muaupoko tribe who have lived in the locality since the time of Kupe.1880

The following day, Shepherd received word from the Director General of Health that the proposal to locate the sanatorium at Kawiu had been abandoned.1881 On 20 May 1948, Minister of Maori Affairs, Peter Fraser, formally approved the consolidation scheme, which was gazetted on 27 May 1948.1882 The Maori Land Court completed all the title orders for the new consolidated titles, to take effect from 1 June 1948. The Order in Council of 8 May 1946 prohibiting alienation of the lands to be included in the scheme was revoked on 8 July 1948.1883

Title consolidation and land development The Taueki consolidation had taken four years to implement, incurring some £190 in survey costs, over £28 in valuation fees, and other court fees besides. In September 1948 Under-Secretary Shepherd advised against charging these costs against the lands, reasoning:

1879 Under-Secretary Maori Affairs Shepherd to Minister Maori Affairs, 7 April 1948, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1880 Ibid. 1881 Director-General of Health to Under-Secretary Maori Affairs, 6 April 1948, MA 1 584 29/7/4. Note the letter was sent the day before Shepherd’s memorandum to his Minister. 1882 Copy of gazette notice, New Zealand Gazette, no 30, 27 May 1948, p. 621, in MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1883 Copy of gazette notice, New Zealand Gazette, no 39, 8 July 1948, p 859, ibid. 376

The orderly and permanent settlement of Maori lands usually requires the consolidation of numerous and scattered interests. By doing so the difficulties of acquiring leases for our nominated units will be reduced and for this reason, consolidation is really part and parcel of our land administration, and so far the total cost has been paid out of Consolidated Fund Vote: Maori Affairs.1884

Shepherd’s ostensible munificence with regards to the cost raises less laudable aspects of the overall scheme. Fragmented and multiply-owned title was only one factor working against the Taueki family in developing their land. Lack of capital and technical expertise was just as important. Without the necessary capital investment to begin farming operations, (which the field supervisor estimated would cost around £2,200 in each case, see below), there was very little point to title consolidation, something Ngata was aware of from the outset. State-assisted Maori land development was the corollary of title consolidation, which in time became the primary focus of Maori Affairs.1885 However Ngata’s preference for large-scale development, where multiple farming units would be subdivided once development was complete, was ill-suited for this inquiry district, where few large areas remained in Maori ownership. Lange writes of Native Department assistance for Maori farming in the district from 1930, stating that at Horowhenua the government scheme was met with some suspicion.1886 From the examples in his study, it seems that state financial assistance was extended to a handful of Maori farmers on small dairy holdings in the wider district, one of them achieving financial independence as early as 1936. By 1939, Lange writes there were 1605 acres under development, supporting 232 individuals.1887 This can be compared to the 903,448 acres under development nation-wide in 1940, less than 0.1 percent. Lange also writes of Judge Shepherd’s 1939 pilot project to establish market gardening at Horowhenua, the industry’s potential to absorb a larger workforce and yield a greater return per acre of land regarded by the judge as a necessary alternative to dairying.1888 Interest in expanding horticulture on Maori land was kept alight during the 1940s, with a government-appointed supervisor, George McIndoe, working with Maori growers in the district including those at Hokio Beach and Lake Horowhenua.1889 By 1948, however, McIndoe was critical of the lack of official support for the programme, which was wound down altogether in 1951, Maori Affairs arguing that the number of Maori growers in the area was too low to justify the operation.1890

1884 Under-Secretary Shepherd to Wellington Registrar, 14 September 1948, ibid. In August 1951 the owners were advised that no costs were to be charged for the title consolidation, Registrar to Under-Secretary Native Department, 15 August 1951, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1885 In the Rohe Potae, for example, title consolidation ground to a halt and was eventually abandoned while Maori land development schemes went on regardless, see Hearn, ‘Land Titles, …’, Wai 898 #A69, pp. 84-106. As early as 1931 Ngata acknowledged that title consolidation was ‘in its nature … too slow to keep pace with the demand that lands should be brought into use’, AJHR 1931 G-10 p. iv cited in Hearn, p. 85. 1886 Lange, pp. 147. 1887 Ibid, p. 152. 1888 ‘Native Land Development as we know it’, wrote Shepherd, ‘will never find a place for the people whom it is hoped the gardening schemes will benefit…’, Shepherd to Under Secretary, 6 and 9 October 1939, MA 31/32 cited in Lange, p. 165. 1889 Lange, pp. 166-169. 1890 Ibid, p. 170. 377

With regard to the development of Taueki family lands, there is very little evidence on file of just what was offered. It seems clear from the references to welfare cited above, together with Lange’s study of the social impact of colonisation, that by the mid-1940s the Taueki family and Muaupoko generally were living in relative poverty. It also seems clear that Taueki family members wanted their lands ‘returned’ to them. As indicated by Shepherd’s memorandum to the Minister of Maori Affairs, some had aspirations of farming the land themselves: the younger generation on two of the Kawiu farms were mentioned in particular. Others, like Hurihanganui Taueki who lived away, saw the scheme as an opportunity to put leaseholds in order.

Shepherd had spoken of family members ‘farming their own lands under the supervision of the Native Department’ and Native Minister Fraser had similarly talked of them undertaking ‘farming themselves with financial assistance from the Native Department.’ The Registrar wrote of state financial assistance being spoken of in open court in 1947; Blackburn, the district officer, wrote of visiting Tame Taueki in December 1947 with development proposals in mind.1891 It is not evident why Maori Affairs development did not proceed, whether it was offered, or even contemplated. It is possible that the cumbersome Maori Affairs model available at the time, one prerequisite of which entailed vesting lands under development in the Crown, was not attractive to the land owners. The point needs to be stressed, however, that without a corollary, robust development plan in view, there was very little prospect of Taueki family members being left to enjoy their new possession. For the Minister to say that ‘it was a matter for the owners alone to decide whether they will farm the land or dispose of it by way of lease or sale’ without state assistance was disingenuous. In effect, without financial and technical support to begin farming, all consolidation achieved was to facilitate further alienation: turning the wheel full circle to early twentieth century circumstances which had resulted in the lands being leased and sold in the first place. This is discussed further below.

What is also striking is the failure to utilise the 18 residential sections created by the consolidation for the benefit of Muaupoko, particularly given the housing crisis described above. Rather, as set out below, seven of the 18 sections were sold to Pakeha within a decade, two such purchasers obtaining four sections each.

7.7 The ‘return’ of leased land, rates and land alienation

The Taueki family consolidation set out above was one Maori Affairs response to the 42-year leaseholds of the early nineteenth century coming to an end. The same issues were faced by other Muaupoko land owners whose lands had been vested in the District Maori Land Council from 1905 for debt recovery (see pp. 346-349). Four such adjoining 11B36 land blocks at Kawiu due to expire in 1947 were 1D2 (20 acres 3 roods), 2L4A (50 acres), 2L5 (20 acres 1 rood 26 perches) and 2L6 (46

1891 Blackburn to T Taueki, 5 December 1947, telegram, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 378 acres 33 perches). In June that year a meeting was called by the Registrar of Ikaroa District Maori Land Court to consult the owners of each block ‘as to the future use of the land’. The options put to the owners in the panui about the meeting were:

1. To revest the land in the owners so that it would become ordinary Maori land. 2. To keep the land vested in the Ikaroa District Maori Land Board, in which case the Board would have the power to:  lease the land by public tender, or by private contract to a European for a period of 10 years;  lease the land to a Maori for such term as the Board thinks fit, to an owner in the first instance, if ‘a fit and proper person’, otherwise to any Maori;  manage the land itself as a farm on behalf of and for the owners;  sell the land at its present valuation, with the consent of the Minister of Maori Affairs. 3. To bring the land under the Maori Land Development Scheme if the owners wished to nominate suitable Maori to occupy the land.1892

A fourth option was the possibility of sale to a Maori or Pakeha returned serviceman, under the government’s rehabilitation scheme. The owners of all four blocks were to discuss the issues together, although the decision would lie with the respective owners of each block.

The sections, though leased, do not appear to have been farmed well. Just prior to the meeting, a site visit was made by the Maori Affairs field supervisor, JW Wallace. He described the land as good dairying, grazing and fattening land, which together could make two ‘first class’ dairy farms, with potential, too, for market gardening or cropping.

Of course to establish dairy farmers to-day would incur a heavy initial expenditure, housing, cowsheds, machines, tools, dairy stock etc, a considerable amount for fencing, probably incurring in each case approximately £2200.0.0 at least: that is if they were to be decently housed and established.1893

The field supervisor also noted shortcomings in existing fencing and pasture management. His recommendation, given the ‘present high cost of buildings and all farm requirements’, was that it would be better for the owners ‘to let someone else farm the land for a period’, with a ‘water-tight’ lease of at least 10 years which could provide them with an annual income of £490. Alternatively, he suggested the Board farm the land, the initial investment in farm improvement projected to increase the annual income for owners in the long term.1894

1892 ‘Notice of Meetings of Owners under Part XVIII of the Native Land Act 1931…’ 4 June 1947, AAMK 869 W3074/63/b 5/9/41 [DB:1986]. 1893 Field Supervisor Wallace to Registrar, 17 June 1947, AAMK 869 W3074/63/b 5/9/41 [DB:1988]. 1894 Ibid. 379

Over 60 owners attended the meeting held two days later, voting unanimously for the Kawiu sections to be revested in themselves as owners.1895 In communicating this outcome to Head Office, the Registrar emphasised the need to act quickly given the high value of the land. It seems that the sections at this time were being sub-leased, the lessees allowed to remain on the properties until September 1947.1896 The application for revesting duly signed by acting Minister of Maori Affairs Tirikatene on 11 July 1947 noted that the lands had been originally vested to save them from being sold ‘to satisfy certain debts owing by the owners’, and that these debts had ‘for many years now been fully repaid out of the revenue from the said lands’.1897

Rating pressure on Kawiu lands Once the 42-year leaseholds came to an end, evidence suggests that it was not long before rating pressures were brought to bear on the newly restored land owners. A systematic review of remaining Muaupoko land has not been attempted for this report, but if we return to the Taueki family consolidated lands, some patterns do emerge. The details set out below have been extracted from the Block Order Files where these have been found, considering first the five ‘compact’ areas intended as family farms.

Table 14: Taueki consolidated lands: the five ‘family farms’1898

Title Acreage Fate 1 Horowhenua A1A 57-3-04 Lease: to GE Lee for 21 years from 1 Aug 1948, for £133 p.a. Sale: Part (13a 1r 05p) to GE Lee in 1954, with 0a 3r 25.9p of A1B below (total 14a 0r 20p), for £1250 Horowhenua A1B 43-2-24 Lease: to GE Lee for 21 years for Part (18a2r10p) from 1 Aug 1948 Lease: to RS Proctor for 21 years for Part (25 acres) from 1 Aug 1948 Rates charging orders (part 11A1B 25 acres):  3 Apr 1963 for £6.18.5 plus 10/- costs for 1958-1962. Discharged 7 Nov 1966.  3 Aug 1964 for £6.0.0 plus 10/- costs. Discharged 7 Nov 1966.  19 Nov 1965 for £3.6.11 plus 10/- costs. Discharged 7 Nov 1966 Sale: Part sold to GE Lee for £2750 21 July 1966. 2 Horowhenua A2A 43-0-11 Lease: 42a 0r 11p to KL Read for 15 years from 1 Apr 1953 at £252.8.3 p.a. Charging order:  4 Nov 1969 (amount not specified). Lease: to DH Murray for 5 years from 1972 at $2,000 p.a. Sale: Part (6.601 ha from total of 17.42936 ha) for $40,000, 23 Dec 1980. 3 Horowhenua A3A 43-0-0 Court order: under Maori Housing Act 1938 dated 16 May 1951. Released 18 Jan 1978. Lease: of certain shares to YF Young and YK Lee for 5 years from 1 Sep 1962 at £133.6.8 pa. JH Hudson appointed receiver: 28 Apr 1971. Discharged 7 Nov 1974 Lease: GH Vickers for 10 years from 20 Sep 1971 All apart from 880m2 (Lot 4, DP 64636) current Maori land, owned by the Maori Trustee, administered by the Horowhenua A3A trust. 4 Horowhenua A4 56-2-24 Lease: to NW Ryder for 21 years from 1 Jul 1948 at £3.10.0 per acre p.a. Vested in Maori Trustee 29 Apr 1969 under s.438/53 Lease to RG Weggery for 15 years from 1 Jun 1970 for £1134 p.a.

1895 Registrar to Head Office, 20 June 1947, AAMK 869 W3074/63/b 5/9/41 [DB:1985]. 1896 Ibid. 1897 Application dated 11 July 1947, AAMK 869 W3074/63/b 5/9/41, [DB:1984]. 1898 Data taken from record sheets and block order files for the Horowhenua block, CFRT Maori Land Court Records Document Bank, Wai 2200, #A70(a)-(g). 380

Title Acreage Fate Current Maori land. 5 Horowhenua A5F 48-3-24 Lease: Part 47a3r24p leased to GH Vickers for 10 years from 5 Aug 1949 for £140pa. Partition: 6 April 1951 in A5F1 (1 rood) & A5F2 (47a3r24p) Charging order:  27 Jul 1953 for £6.2.7 + costs for 1951/52 and 1952/53 JH Hudson appointed receiver Lease: A5F2 lease to GH Vickers for 7 years from 1 Jan 1959 at £6 per acre A5F2B & A5F2C (46.5 acres) current Maori land A5F1 (1 rood) Europeanised in 1968 A5F2A Europeanised in 1968

Consolidation, as it happens, did not assist the Taueki family to retain the last of their ‘worthwhile lands after a continuous occupation of some centuries’, as promised by officialdom. Nor does it appear that the owners got to enjoy the possession of their rearranged titles. Of the five ‘compact areas’ intended as family farms, two were immediately re-leased for a further 21-year term. In the case of the land south of Lake Horowhenua, parts were subsequently sold to the lessee, the coincidence between the sale date of Part A1B and the discharge of charging orders for unpaid rates suggesting rates liabilities may have been a factor in the sale. It is not clear from existing research why charging orders would have been granted over land under lease.

Two of the five blocks were subsequently affected by rates receiverships, the receiver appointed by the court in each case the Horowhenua County Clerk, JH Hudson. Two of these blocks were also subsequently revested in the Maori Trustee, possibly to overcome similar liabilities. While land owners were still under pressure to have their land ‘profitably occupied’ in order to retain ownership, on the whole the data reflects a preference for shorter-term leases, with no compensation for improvements.1899

The 18 residential sections In November 1947, Fraser, in his capacity as Minister of Maori Affairs, had declared that the residential sections provided for in the Taueki consolidation was to ‘ensure that each family would have suitable sites upon which to build homes…’1900 As Lange relates, in a housing survey conducted the following year by the Department, several cases of overcrowding (including two extended families totalling 21 people in a five-bedroom house, and two cases of nine or ten people in two- bedroom houses) were reported on around Levin, the living conditions of the 12 households described from ‘satisfactory’ to ‘very bad’.1901 The Taueki consolidation was completed at a time when housing was a major concern to the local tribal authorities, including that of Muaupoko. As Maori Affairs staff noted in 1948: ‘it is discussed every month they meet’.1902 Lange relates how Crown plans to develop

1899 This is true of the two larger leaseholds in the scheme, Horowhenua A6A and A6B, which continued to be leased and are still currently Maori land. 1900 Minister Maori Affairs to Minister Health, 26 November 1947, MA 1 584 29/7/4. 1901 Lange, p. 191. 1902 ‘Meeting of Raukawa Tribal Executive at Koputara’, 24 October 1948, MA 1 30/5/9 part 1, cited in Lange, p. 192. 381

Maori housing in Levin at this time came unstuck because the land chosen was next to the town saleyards.1903 Using the Kawiu sections as an alternative to meet this very real need does not appear to have been entertained. On the contrary, as the table below indicates, within a decade seven of these 18 residential sections had been sold. A further four sections were sold over the next ten years by the Maori Trustee as a direct result of unpaid rates charged against the land.

Table 15: Taueki consolidated lands: the fate of the residential sections1904

Title Acreage Fate Horowhenua A2B 0-1-24 Sale: to LC Baker for £500 – confirmed 18 March 1955. Horowhenua A2C 0-1-24 Sale: to GE Lee (total 1a 0r 32p) for £600 – confirmed 1 Nov 1951. Horowhenua 0-1-24 A2D 0-1-24 Horowhenua A2E Horowhenua A2F 0-1-24 Not known Horowhenua 0-1-24 Sale: to NM Thomson for £262.10.0 – confirmed 21 Oct 1952 A2G Horowhenua 0-1-24 Rates charging orders: A2H  27 Jul 1953 for £2.14.4 for 1951/52 and 1952/53 plus 3/- costs. Discharged 22 Oct 1963.  13 Nov 1963 for £7.1.1 plus 10/- costs for 1962/63 Europeanised 1968 Horowhenua A2I 0-1-24 Not known Horowhenua A2J 0-1-24 Rates charging orders:  27 Jul 1953 for £2.15.4 plus 3/- costs for 1951/52 and 1952/53. Discharged 11 April 1956.  9 Nov 1956 for £3.1.7 plus 3/- costs for 1954/55 and 1955/56. Discharged 13 Mar 1957. Sale: to L Tyree for £400 – confirmed 19 Aug 1957. Horowhenua 0-1-24 Rates charging orders: A2K  27 Jul 1953 for £2.15.4 plus 3/- costs for 1951/52 and 1952/53. Discharged 11 Apr 1956.  9 Nov 1956 for £3.1.7 plus 3/- costs for 1954/55 and 1955/56. Discharged 13 Mar 1957. Horowhenua A3B 0-1-24 Rates charging orders:  27 Jul 1953 for £12.6.5 plus 10/- costs for 1951/52 and 1952/53 JH Hudson appointed receiver 1 June 1956  3 Apr 1963 for £12.16.1 plus 10/- costs, for 1960/61 and 1961/62  13 Nov 1963 for £7.6.5 plus 10/- costs for 1962/63. Discharged 20 Oct 1965 Europeanised 1968 Horowhenua A3C 0-1-24 Rates charging orders:  3 Apr 1963 for £7.7.4 plus 10/- costs for 1961/62.  13 Nov 1963 for £7.9.1 plus 10/- costs for 1962/63. JH Hudson appointed receiver, for £15-16-0 plus £1 fee. Block vested in Maori Trustee under s.109 Rating Act 1925 for the purpose of a sale, approved by Minister Maori Affairs, 3 August 1964 Sale: to LC Baker, for £3500, 8 September 1967. Horowhenua 0-1-24 Rates charging orders: A3D  3 Apr 1963 for £7.8.8 plus 10/- costs, for 1961/62.  13 Nov 1963 for £7.10.5 plus 10/- for 1962/63. JH Hudson appointed receiver: 3 April 1963 for rates due, plus £1 fee. Sale by Maori Trustee under s. 109 Rating Act 1925 to LC Baker, for £3100, 19 July 1964 Horowhenua A3E 0-1-24 Rates charging orders:  3 Apr 1963 for £7.10.0 plus 10/- costs for1961/62.

1903 Lange, p. 192. 1904 Data taken from record sheets and block order files for the Horowhenua block, CFRT Maori Land Court Records Document Bank, Wai 2200, #A70(a)-(g). 382

Title Acreage Fate  13 Nov 1963 for £7.11.9 plus 10/- costs for 1962/63. JH Hudson appointed receiver 3 April 1963 for £16.9.0 plus £1 fee. Sale by Maori Trustee under s.109 Rating Act 1925 to LC Baker for £3100, on 29 July 1964 Horowhenua A5B 1-0-0 Rates charging order:  9 Nov 1956 for £7.8.10 plus 8/-costs for 1954/55 & 1955/56. Discharged 13 March 1957. Sale: to L Tyree for £500, confirmed 25 Nov 1957. Horowhenua A5C 0-3-20 Current Maori land Horowhenua 1-2-03 Rates Charging orders: A5D  3 Apr 1963 for £10.8.8 +10/- for 1960/61 and 1961/62. Discharged 17 December 1963 Europeanised 1968 Current Maori land Horowhenua A5E 1-0-0 Rates charging orders:  1 June 1956 for £25.8.4 + 15/6 costs for 1954/55 and 1955/56.  18 July 1962 for £4.4.4 + 10/- costs  3 Jan 1963 for £5.5.3 + 10/- costs for 1961/62 and consolidated with above 1962 order, totalling £9.9.7 +£1 costs order. Discharged 8 March 1968  3 Aug 1964 for £12.0.4 +$1 costs. Discharged 8 March 1968  8 November 1966 for £14.1.1 +10/- costs. Discharged 8 March 1968. Hudson appointed receiver 3 April 1963 for £10.9.7 plus £1 fee. Discharged as receiver 12 February 1968 Vested in Maori Trustee under s.109/1925 for the purpose of a sale, 3 Aug 1964 Sale: to Pekapeka Properties Ltd for $800, 16 Oct 1969

What this data suggests is that the Horowhenua County Council was assiduous in its efforts to recover rates from Muaupoko land, particularly in the first half of the 1950s and again in the 1960s. Applications for charging orders for unpaid rates were being made every two years, and in some cases yearly. Again, Hudson as receiver was the Horowhenua County ‘rating clerk’ prosecuting the applications for charging orders. In four of the five cases listed above where Hudson was appointed as receiver, this was followed by the sale of the land by the Maori Trustee for unpaid rates within a year, again suggesting a rigorous local body approach to recovering rates from Maori land, to the full capacity of the law.

A comprehensive study of the impact of rating on Muaupoko land has been beyond the scope of this report. The evidence suggests that it was a major contributing factor of land alienation in the early twentieth century when titles were freshly issued, and that it continued to be a factor in the alienation of what little remained in Muaupoko’s possession from 1950. On the one hand, the evident concern of Maori Affairs staff like Shepherd to explore ways of enabling Muaupoko land owners to utilise their remaining land, represented a novel regard on the part of the Crown to ameliorate the circumstances of Muaupoko. By 1948, remarkably, in public servants’ minds the ‘defeated remnants’ of Muaupoko were now the children of Kupe. On the other hand, like Judge Mackay and Carroll before them, the concern of individuals within Maori Affairs was no match for the systemic alienation pressures posed by rating. Kawiu had been identified by Judge Mackay at the turn of the century as Muaupoko’s remaining economic resource of any note. The extent of Kawiu land in Muaupoko possession today is set out below. 383

Figure 28: Kawiu, Horowhenua 11B36, showing extent of current Maori land1905

‘Europeanisation’ of Muaupoko land By the mid-1960s, multiple and increasingly fragmented ownership were once again perceived by the government to be the main factors hampering the economic utilisation of Maori land.1906 Included in the resulting Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 were provisions for the compulsory purchase by the Maori Trustee of ‘uneconomic’ interests in a block; and to ‘Europeanise’ Maori freehold land, by declaring land with four or fewer legal and beneficial owners to no longer be Maori land, and removing it from the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court. The change in status meant that provisions regulating sale and succession, for example, no longer applied. In terms of rates enforcement, rates from such properties could now be recovered under general provisions.1907

The table below lists Horowhenua 11 blocks Europeanised under Part 1 of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 compiled from Maori Land Court record sheets retrieved from the MLIS

1905 ML 1798, restricted Maori Land Online GIS data. 1906 Both the Rating Act 1967 and the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 were heavily influenced by the Prichard- Waetford report with its call for the better utilisation of Maori land, discussed for example T Hearn, Wai 898 #A69, pp.138- 145; Luiten, Wai 898 #A24, pp. 47. 1907 The other rating implication under the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 was that all unregistered charging orders would be wiped as a result of the change in status (s.7), and registered charging orders older than 12 years similarly discharged (s.8(2)), Luiten, ibid, pp. 322-23. 384 system.1908 The table is not comprehensive: several blocks that are listed on record sheets as having been Europeanised but are currently Maori freehold land have not been included.

Table 16: Horowhenua 11 ‘Europeanised’ lands

Date created/ Block name partitioned Area (a-r-p) Horowhenua 11B10&12 22/9/1898 3-2-28 Horowhenua 11B18 22/9/1898 16-1-12 Horowhenua 11A14 14/10/1898 16-3-0 Horowhenua 11B42A1B 16/5/1925 0-1-0 Horowhenua 11B36no1D1 30/5/1947 0-1-0 Horowhenua 11B41E1 &9A2A1A 20/11/1947 3-3-38.5 Horowhenua 11B41E1 &9A2A1B 20/11/1947 3-3-38.5 Horowhenua A2H 20/5/1948 0-1-24 Horowhenua 11A4B2 24/3/1949 1-2-7 Horowhenua 11B36no1D2A 12/10/1950 0-1-0 Horowhenua A5F1 6/4/1951 0-1-0 Horowhenua 11A6C1 23/10/1952 0-2-0 Horowhenua 11B41D1A 28/7/1953 0-1-0 Horowhenua 11B41D1B 28/7/1953 2-1-0 Horowhenua 11A7B2 16/3/1955 0-2-0 Horowhenua 11B36no2L4C1 21/6/1955 0-2-0 Horowhenua 11B36no2L4C2 21/6/1955 0-2-32.5 Horowhenua 11B36no2L4A2A 19/10/1955 0-1-0 Horowhenua 11B36no2L4A2B 19/10/1955 0-1-0 Horowhenua 11A4A1, 2 &11A3sec2A 26/3/1956 0-1-0 Horowhenua 11B41D2A 31/5/1956 0-3-13.3 Horowhenua 11A7B3 29/7/1957 0-2-0 Horowhenua 11B42A2A1 12/11/1957 0-0-33.4 Horowhenua 11B42A2A4 12/11/1957 0-0-32.5 Horowhenua 11A4A1, 2 &11A3sec2B1 30/7/1958 0-1-3.4 Horowhenua A5F2A 14/11/1960 1-0-0 Horowhenua 11B36no2L3B1 15/11/1960 0-1-0 Horowhenua 11A4B1A 31/5/1961 0-1-0 Horowhenua 11B41South I 2A2C 21/11/1961 15-1-38

1908 This data has not been checked against the memorial schedules in the Block Order files for Horowhenua 11 lands. 385

Current Maori land 2014 There has not been time to consider the extent of Muaupoko land taken for roads and other public works. Approximately 6068 acres (or 11.6 per cent) of the original 52,460-acre Horowhenua block remains as current Maori land today, with the bed of Lake Horowhenua (991 acres) making up the single largest piece of Maori land within the block.1909 The bulk of this, 78 per cent, lies within Horowhenua 11. Just under a third (approximately 4738 acres) of the 15,000-acre Horowhenua 11 block remains as current Maori land today.

Figure 36: Current Maori Land in the Horowhenua Block

One important aspect of claim that this report has not been able to address relates to the disposal of Crown lands undertaken in more recent times.1910 It is alleged that properties like the Kohitere Institute have been offered to the Muaupoko Tribal Authority without notice to the rightful beneficial

1909 Information is based on restricted GIS Data from Maori Land Online and is dated as at 1 Dec 2014. For the purposes of this report, ‘current Maori land’ is defined as land owned by (or on behalf of) Maori and recorded as being under the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court. This includes land that has a corresponding record within the Land Transfer Act system. Current Maori land does include land converted to General or European title if the land is no longer recorded as current Maori land by the Maori Land Court, even if the original owners or descendents of the original owners still own the land. These definitions have largely been based on those provided by Tutahanga Douglas, Craig Innes and James Mitchell, ‘Alienation of Maori Land Within Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1840-2010: A Quantitative Study’, Wai 898, #A21, which also used data from Maori Land Online. 1910 See Wai 108, Wai 623, Wai 624, and Wai 1629. The issue was raised at Kawiu Marae during the scoping exercise in 2014, while Eugene Henare cited recent examples of Crown land disposals as an ongoing source of grievance, telephone conversation, 6 July 2015. 386 owners; that the return of properties like the Hokio Boys’ School have occurred without adequate consultation, and pose a significant liability; and that surplus Crown lands within Muaupoko’s rohe continue to be disposed of without first offering Muaupoko such lands.

7.8 Reflections on twentieth century land alienation and political engagement

In 1958, in the context of the lake celebrations at Kawiu marae, Prime Minister Nash called Keepa Te Rangihiwinui ‘one of the most magnificent characters in the history of this country’.1911 The ongoing regard within Muaupoko for their rangatira was similarly reflected in the proposal of the Muaupoko Tribal Committee at this time to call the new park development at the domain the ‘Major Kemp Memorial Park’.1912 As Paul Hamer relates, the cause of celebration on this occasion was the Crown’s legislative acknowledgement – after half a century of ‘much suspicion, bitterness and strife’ – that Muaupoko did indeed ‘own’ their lake and the associated Hokio stream: that is, the lake bed, dewatered area and surrounding chain strip; and the stream bed and chain strip on its northern bank.1913 As Hamer’s report demonstrates, the struggle over Lake Horowhenua was the principal focus of political engagement between the Crown and Muaupoko in the twentieth century, which forms important context to the alienation pressures outlined in this report.

In May 1893, even before he was aware of the Crown’s intention to proceed with the state farm purchase from Warena Hunia, a disconcerted Keepa Te Rangihiwinui wrote a lengthy letter from Waipatu to Sir George Grey about the state of affairs generally:

I te mea ko te tino whakaaro nui o te iwi pakeha ko te tango atu i nga whenua o te iwi maori i runga i te raupatu etahi i runga i te hoko tinihanga etahi i runga i te muru o nga ture o te paremata i pupuke nei ia tau ia tau me te tini o era atu raweke a te iwi pakeha e kite nei matou.1914

Because the single preoccupation of the Pakeha is to take the land from the Maori, either by confiscation, or by underhand purchase, or through appropriation by the laws of parliament that appear year after year, and numerous other Pakeha artifices we witness…’

Maori were beginning to think, he told the former governor, that they would be reduced to ‘hei iwi haereere pikau putea i nga huarahi te mutunga he pinono kai ki nga roro o nga whare. [H]e mate tona otinga.’ / ‘a wandering people, with only what they could carry, destined to beg food from the porches

1911 From newspaper articles cited in Hamer, p. 162. 1912 Hamer, p. 159. 1913 Assistant Commissioner of Crown Lands to Director General of Lands, 16 June 1958, cited in Hamer, p. 163. 1914 Te Rangihiwinui Keepa to G Grey, 25 May 1893, GNZMA 706, Auckland City Libraries, available online at http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz. My translation. 387 of houses. Death is the result.’1915 As the custodian of Muaupoko’s tribal estate since 1873, Kemp had experienced firsthand the kind of pressures he described. And yet, publicly at least, he seemed to have continued to put his faith in the system of individual title held out by the Crown, expressing confidence in his farewell address in court in 1897 that, in the court determination of the beneficial ownership of Horowhenua 11, ‘my people have recovered possession of what Wirihana Hunia and the Government have attempted to deprive them of.’1916

In fact, in terms of land ownership, the very process of transforming the tribal estate into individual titles rendered it vulnerable to further alienation. The examples outlined in this report tell of twin alienation processes at work: direct Crown appropriation in response to ‘public’ demand for private Muaupoko resources, and indirect, systemic pressures brought to bear on Maori land through the local government regime. In the first case, exemplified by the Hokio Native Township, individual property titles did not protect Muaupoko from such appropriation occurring without the knowledge or consent of the owners. The Crown’s 1926 acquisition of the coastal belt of Horowhenua 11B42C in order to satisfy the whim of a neighbouring land owner is another case in point. To these can be added the examples enumerated in Hamer’s research regarding Lake Horowhenua, paramount of which must be Native Minister Carroll’s 1905 so-called ‘agreement’ securing public access to the lake, without any transparent dealing with the appointed legal trustees.

The second, much more inexorable, pressure acting on individual Muaupoko land owners from the point of partition was the imperatives of a local government system that demanded that land parcels be economically productive in order to bear annually recurring rates. Local development and prosperity was seen to depend upon it. Local and central government tended to justify the campaign for recovering rates from Maori land on the grounds of ‘equal citizenship’, seemingly blind to the contributions towards Pakeha settlement Maori had made in the way of cheap land (exemplified by the establishment of Levin township itself). The related rhetoric of ‘closer settlement’, too, added to the ‘public’ clamour precluding Maori from the undisturbed occupation of their lands. Over and above the costs associated with partition and obtaining individual title, the indirect impact of Crown policies based on the productive utilisation of land has arguably been the most profound. As Muaupoko’s experience shows, without the required capital to farm their land, ‘ownership’ – if not surrendered entirely – amounted to little more than the privilege of watching others occupy, transform, and reap economic benefits from their homeland.

In terms of political engagement, the individualisation of Muaupoko’s tribal title at the beginning of the twentieth century also had a profound impact. In the case of direct Crown appropriation

1915 Ibid, my translation. 1916 Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, 28 July 1897, AJHR 1898 G-2A, p. 147. 388 mentioned above, the Crown simply ignored the owners, or dealt with them as individuals. The Native Land Court and District Maori Land Boards too, dealt with individual owners, rather than the tribe.

Individual title seems to have taken the wind from the sails of the ‘defeated remnants’ narrative, bringing an end, too, to the era of ‘strong men’. What seems to have replaced it is a narrative of a fractious, ‘selfish’ tribe, riven by internal strife and suspicious of any government overtures.1917 Again, such a narrative demands scrutiny. Hamer’s research discloses that the relationship between Muaupoko and local government has been exceedingly strained, with the Crown often posing – on the recycled 1950s Domain Board for example – as an independent, impartial mediator. Indeed, there are numerous examples throughout the twentieth century in which Crown officials have stepped in to smooth over or bridge a local impasse. Again, Native Minister Carroll’s intervention in 1905 with regard to public access to Lake Horowhenua; Internal Affairs and Maori Affairs intervention over drainage in 1926; and Minister of Maori Affairs Corbett’s intervention with regard to the issue of lakebed ownership in the early 1950s spring to mind. On all of these occasions, and others besides, Muaupoko presented a united front, more often than not accompanied by an associated petition to Parliament. Government intervention in each case papered over the crisis, but the resultant legislative fix invariably left Muaupoko in a worse position. The public stakehold introduced by the Horowhenua Lake Act 1905 undermining Muaupoko’s control and even ownership of the lake; the drainage operations at Hokio provided for in the Local Legislation Act 1926 destroying the bulk of the patuna in the Hokio stream and significantly lowering the water level of the Horowhenua lake; the 1956 ‘return’ of the lake into Muaupoko ownership and control signified in Section 18 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1956 coinciding with the worst pollution of the lake waters through the influx of Levin’s treated effluent from 1952. By the same token, Muaupoko’s determination to hold onto their lake in the face of increasing encroachment and degradation has been interpreted as selfishness. There is a glaring incongruity in the Under-Secretary of Lands’ 1935 call for ‘a nice gesture’ from Muaupoko – to gift the public an area of chain strip and dewatered lakebed – when their eel fishery and flax industry had been all but destroyed in a time of economic depression by local body drainage just years earlier.1918

In the struggle over their lake and lands, Muaupoko continue to be confronted with issues of mandate and identity posed by historical circumstances such as the nineteenth century resettlement on the Muaupoko ‘homeland’ of Horowhenua, and the 1898 reduction of the tribe to 81 individuals. The implications of these events continue to resonate within the tribe. As Hamer’s research suggests, tribal

1917 Muaupoko’s ‘domestic differences’ have been noted by Maori Affairs staff since at least the 1950s, (Hamer, p. 276); see also the Commissioner of Crown Lands’ 1965 comment, ‘the Muaupoko tribe is a difficult group of people to reach unanimity on any proposition’, (Hamer, p. 274). Hamer himself writes that friction within Muaupoko, particularly over the lake, became ‘a regular theme’ throughout the second half of the twentieth century, p. 167. 1918 Hamer, p. 118. A similar attitude is evinced in the 1971 opinion of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, ‘this generation of Maoris is much more civic minded than the previous one’, cited in Hamer, p. 287. 389 cohesion has been further challenged by the various competing tribal authorities since the 1950s, primarily the Muaupoko Tribal Committee (and after 1987 the Muaupoko Runanga, and now Muaupoko Tribal Authority), the lake trustees reconstituted in 1951, and the Lake Horowhenua Domain Board reconstituted in 1956; all of whom, however, have been powerless to prevent the degradation of their prized fishery and waters of Horowhenua. Untangling the dynamics at work within Muaupoko in the latter twentieth century is beyond the scope of this report but the context of this disempowerment, it is suggested, has contributed to ongoing internal raruraru.

Muaupoko, it seems, welcomed the prospect of Pakeha settlement among them, looking forward to ‘their’ township and the prosperity it promised. The Crown’s reneging on this 1886 deal and the subsequent eviction of Muaupoko occupiers to make way for the newcomers did not bode well. In the twentieth century, the Crown continued to promote the ‘public’ interest of Levin’s community in which Muaupoko patently did not have a place. The 1981 opinion expressed by Horowhenua County Council’s chairman, that unless Muaupoko permitted unrestricted recreational use of Lake Horowhenua, ‘the town’s sewerage effluent may as well go into it forever’, provides a relatively recent insight into the consequences of excluding Muaupoko from any part of the ‘public’ interest.1919 On the one hand, Muaupoko’s history stands as an incredible story of survival. That said, the failure of the Crown to uphold the mana of Muaupoko within the fabric of community life is felt most keenly by the tribe themselves, reflected in their material and spiritual circumstances today. In a nation based on a Treaty relationship, to what extent were tangata whenua to make room for tangata tiriti? To what extent was it incumbent on the Crown to ensure that tangata whenua were not dispossessed altogether?

1919 As reported by Horowhenua Chronicle, 10 September 1891, cited in Hamer, p. 311. 390

Overview

Muaupoko’s world within Te Upoko o Te Ika turned upside down well before the advent of the Crown. Roving, aggressive taua from the north in the early 1820s were closely followed by more deliberate migration south. Tangata whenua resistance to these newcomers was ultimately overcome, partly because of the technological arms advantage Te Rauparaha and his allies manufactured through the musket trade at Kapiti from 1826, and partly because new waves of migrants kept arriving.

In this decade of unparalleled violence whole communities were killed; and survivors were captured. Those who had earlier sought sanctuary among distant kin were again overtaken by war when Te Rauparaha’s campaign crossed the strait to Te Tau Ihu. At Horowhenua however, Muaupoko fires continued to burn. Taueki and others did not leave and nor were they taken in battle. After an historic peace accord with Te Whatanui of Ngati Raukawa around 1833, this enclave of Muaupoko resistance emerged from the cover of their forest, creating at Horowhenua a haven for the wider Muaupoko tribe displaced by war. Within a tribal landscape in which tangata heke were themselves in a degree of turmoil and resettlement, from this time Muaupoko were among a number of tangata whenua entities living within the wider district as a distinct, recognised, socio-political entity. Taueki of Muaupoko signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840.

By 1845 we know that the Muaupoko community at Horowhenua numbered around 100, their settlement at Te Rae o Te Karaka larger than that of their closest Ngati Raukawa neighbours, at Poroutawhao and at Muhunoa. In addition, Kawana Hunia’s 1852 hapu list suggests that as many Muaupoko lived outside the Horowhenua heartland. Both Te Rangimairehau and Te Waitere Kakiwa, for example, lived with their Rangitane kin at Puketotara. For the first two decades of colonisation, Muaupoko, like other hapu within the inquiry district, were left to explore the innovations it presented, including literacy, agriculture, law, wage labour, and land lease, very much on their own terms. Intertribal runanga held to resolve boundary disputes in this period are evidence of such experimentation: indigenous applications of new ways to resolve new problems, which support too, the thesis of generally harmonious relationships in a tribal landscape so recently unsettled by war and relocation.

Porirua ki Manawatu remained a Maori realm in this period primarily because Crown land acquisition was limited. After purchasing land on both ends of the district in the late 1840s, Land Purchase Officer McLean gave up further negotiations in the face of the complex and contested rights. As he well knew from Rangitikei-Turakina, Crown purchase was viewed by Maori as a vehicle for tangata whenua entities to reassert rights lately appropriated by newcomers, and the Crown at this time 391 proved reluctant to inflame this battle further. Muaupoko were not party to early land deals brokered over their former domains to the south, but by the same token, the Crown was hard-pressed to acquire anything between the Rangitikei River and Porirua before 1863. The vast Ahuaturanga purchase from primarily Rangitane vendors in 1864 reflected the same tangata whenua/tangata heke dynamic, transacted by the Superintendent of the Wellington Province who proved much less circumspect about exploiting tribal division to secure land for Pakeha settlement.

The extent to which Muaupoko engaged in the developing fracas over rights is uncertain. Two of the prominent leaders of the ‘tangata whenua’ challenge apparent from the early 1860s – Kawana Hunia, who pressed for the sale of Rangitikei-Manawatu in 1866, and Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, who organised a Maori military contingent for the Crown in 1865 – both had Muaupoko parents. Evidence of Muaupoko support for both men’s initiatives could be construed as support for the overall cause. In any event, the tribe at Horowhenua were forced to confront the issue directly when the theatre of contest moved there in 1869.

The detail of the Horowhenua dispute provides an insight into the wider issues affecting the district. In early 1869, following the death of the last of Te Whatanui’s sons, his relations organised a survey of land at Mahoenui as the first step towards title determination. The women claiming title on the strength of Te Whatanui’s mana had not lived there since they were children; indeed, Te Whatanui’s immediate household had been the only Ngati Raukawa presence at Horowhenua since the early 1840s. Muaupoko objected to the survey and the claim it represented. When an intertribal runanga found for Te Whatanui’s descendents having a rohe running from Tauateruru, the tribe turned to Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, now a major in the colonial army, for support. In 1871 McLean’s intervention and promise of runanga adjudication headed off outright conflict. The following year, Muaupoko were coerced instead towards Native Land Court adjudication.

The title investigation of Manawatu-Kukutauaki in November 1872, running from the coast to the Tararua ranges, and that of the resulting Horowhenua Block in March 1873, proved to be the culmination of a decade of dissension along tangata whenua/tangata heke lines. Muaupoko were an essential element of the tangata whenua case mounted by the ‘five tribes’ as counter-claimants to Ngati Raukawa. They emerged from the skirmish as ostensible winners – the 52,000-acre Horowhenua block bigger than what they had asked for – but the flip-side of this politically-contrived deal was having to share their title with members of the other four tangata whenua tribes who had been otherwise dispossessed by the finding. In the absence of any provision for tribal title and well aware of the pitfalls associated with representative owners, the block was vested in Kemp alone, a further 143 individuals listed as registered owners. Fresh conflict at Horowhenua broke out within months, instigated by Kawana Hunia against Ngati Raukawa residents who, aggrieved at the 392

Horowhenua judgement, refused to leave. Though registered owners of the block, Muaupoko were not party to the settlement of this dispute negotiated by Native Minister McLean, in which Kemp agreed to forfeit 1200 acres at Raumatangi. No measures, however, were taken to enforce the agreement until the block was partitioned in 1886.

From 1873 to 1886, under Kemp’s stewardship the Horowhenua Block remained intact in spite of both internal and external pressures to have the land partitioned and sold. Kawana Hunia’s attempt to have the block subdivided on hapu lines was stymied by Kemp’s sole title (and forcibly rejected by Muaupoko on the ground at Horowhenua); Crown efforts to acquire individual interests were thwarted by the same legality. Even so, throughout most of this period the block was proclaimed subject to Crown purchase, on the basis of supposed advances. As one of the few remaining large tracts still in Maori ownership, the Crown purchase of Horowhenua was also anticipated to satisfy contractual promises made to the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company for the construction of the railway line by 1886. In June 1886, on the strength of Native Minister Ballance’s promise to establish a township in which Muaupoko would receive concrete economic benefits, Kemp finally agreed to apply for partition.

The 1886 partition was a crucial turning point inasmuch as the restrictions preventing alienation which applied to the 1873 title were ended. On this occasion the Muaupoko community that gathered at Palmerston North were presented with propositions not of their making, and were largely compelled by their inexperience to take matters at face value. On the other hand, the evidence suggests that they largely supported the out of court arrangements come to after three weeks of discussion, which were then ratified by the court.

Horowhenua was carved 14 ways. A railway strip, Te Whatanui’s 1200 acres at Raumatangi, and the 4000-acre township block to be sold to the Crown all received tribal sanction and were processed first. Kemp also secured the tribe’s agreement to vest him 800 acres in order to satisfy an outstanding debt unrelated to Muaupoko. Relatively small areas were subdivided as ‘pataka’ in which registered owners deemed to be ‘outsiders’ were located. The tribe’s interest in individual title was reflected in the setting aside of two blocks: one for Muaupoko registered owners and the other for those who had been overlooked in 1873 (the ‘rerewaho’), with the intention that each person would receive title to their own surveyed, 100-acre section, complete with road access. Significantly, however, Muaupoko chose to retain their tribal title over their ancestral kainga. Horowhenua 11, the bulk of the land from the railway line to the coast, including their prized lake, was again entrusted to Kemp. At the last moment, in court, Wirihana Hunia succeeded in having his brother’s name included as well. Horowhenua 12, an equally vast inland block comprising the Tararua ranges, was similarly entrusted to Ihaia Taueki. 393

All things being equal, the partition had much to commend it. Up against native land legislation profoundly weighted towards land alienation and a Crown intent on promoting settlement at the expense of Muaupoko, however, things quickly fell apart. The first casualty was the conditions on which Muaupoko had agreed to the township. On the strength of its bogus proclamation, Kemp was forced six months later to accept the Crown’s offer at half the market value for the 4000 acres, and to give up altogether any Muaupoko stake in the venture, including the promise that every tenth section would be held by the tribe. When Levin township was surveyed the following year, Muaupoko farmers on the block were simply evicted. The systematic survey and roading of individual sections did not occur. Horowhenua 3 was partitioned in 1890, with a third of the 100-acre interests sold before the hearing was over, and survey liens charged against those titles still in Muaupoko ownership.

The most destructive challenge to Muaupoko’s undisturbed possession of their tribal estate, however, was that posed by Warena Hunia’s claim as the legal owner of Horowhenua 11. From 1889 dissatisfaction within Muaupoko at Kemp’s authoritarian approach was exploited by Wirihana Hunia to mount a claim for half of the block on behalf of Ngati Pariri. The Hunia brothers’ claim was advanced by their long-standing creditor, Donald Fraser, and Muaupoko became embroiled in a legal battle to protect the implicit trust over their ancestral lands. The partition hearing of 1890 and rehearing of 1891 split the tribe and the land. In the midst of ongoing controversy and legal action, the Crown entered the fray by purchasing from Warena Hunia 1500 acres for a state farm. When Kemp and Muaupoko finally proved the trust status over Horowhenua 11 in the Supreme Court in 1894, the Crown was left with a partial purchase it could not register. Its response was to appoint a commission of inquiry to revisit the issue of trust, and to investigate all transactions over the whole block, with an eye to discredit Kemp.

The Horowhenua Commission of 1896 found a trust had been intended over Horowhenua 11, and it was deeply critical of Kemp’s trusteeship. It sanctioned the Crown’s purchase of the state farm on the grounds that this constituted the Hunia ‘share’, and then, as provided for in legislation, charged the costs of the commission against Muaupoko’s other tribal estate, Horowhenua 12. The findings of the commission, including the appropriation of Horowhenua 12 and the state farm, were translated into legislation later that year. One of the most significant provisions was the referral of relative interests in Horowhenua 11 to the Native Appellate Court. Having side-stepped the individualisation of their tribal estate for the best part of the nineteenth century, Muaupoko were now faced with yet another lengthy, expensive court proceeding which would lead them inexorably towards the minute partition of their land.

394

Muaupoko emerged from the 1897 hearing into relative interests reduced to 81 individual owners. The following year they were back in court tasked with locating these individual interests. In the result, the best of the land – economically speaking – was cut into a patchwork of individual titles with an assiduous attention to equity, but with less apparent regard to associated costs and future economic benefit. The bulk of the block comprised of swamp and sand hills left was undivided at this time. With the exception of Lake Horowhenua and the Hokio stream, requests for the reservation of fisheries fell by the wayside. Muaupoko were also submerged under crippling debt from more than a decade of litigation. The alienation of Horowhenua 12 and arguably Horowhenua 14 were directly related to legal debts absorbed by the tribe. In addition, by 1904 Muaupoko individuals were allegedly indebted to local storekeepers in Levin to the extent, in today’s terms, of half a million dollars. Evidence indicates that from 1897, the Crown was acting as virtual receiver with regard to such indebted individuals, advancing money for example in anticipation of the court hearing into the relative interests of Horowhenua 6, the rerewaho block. By 1899 Land Purchase Officer Sheridan had indeed purchased, interest by individual interest, the bulk of this block. After 1904, this receivership role was formalised by the arrangement to vest Kawiu sections in the Maori District Land Council, and to have the lease monies from such vested lands put towards debt repayment.

By the close of the nineteenth century, Muaupoko’s 52,000 acres had been whittled down to Horowhenua 11 (further reduced by the state farm purchase) and the unsold portions of Horowhenua 3. The individualisation of their remaining estate from 1897 coincided with an influx of Pakeha settlement which saw local affairs tipped very much in favour of the newcomers. The transfer of control was aided by further Crown appropriation, such as the establishment of the Hokio Native Township in 1902, and direct Crown intervention, such as the so-called 1904 agreement securing public access to Muaupoko’s private lake. Just as powerful, however, were systemic pressures which quickly rendered Muaupoko’s individual titles into liabilities. It is pertinent that at the turn of the century, both Judge Mackay and Native Minister Carroll could see the need for Muaupoko to utilise the productive lands left to them at Kawiu for their own economic wellbeing. The best intentions of individuals, however, could not combat a system heavily weighted against Maori proprietorship, and precluding altogether collective tribal tenure. Under the rubric of ‘closer settlement’ based on the productive utilisation of land, undisturbed possession or even subsistence living was no longer to be tolerated. On top of the survey liens charged against each title were annual rating liabilities. Already encumbered by substantial debt, and precluded from state financial development assistance available to Pakeha at this time, the only remaining option for Muaupoko land owners was to lease their new titles to others.

Title consolidation of Taueki landholdings in the late 1940s exposes the same fundamental forces underpinning land tenure in New Zealand: having converted customary title into marketable and 395 rateable property, Maori lacking the means to utilise the land themselves were forced either to lease it to others who could, or risk losing it altogether. In addition therefore to the extent of land alienation, is the issue to which the Crown is responsible, through its policies and practices, for the impoverishment of Muaupoko which has debarred them, along with other factors, from the full possession of their remaining lands.

In terms of political engagement, Muaupoko at Horowhenua were recognised as a distinct socio- political entity by the Crown from at least 1852, but as HT Kemp’s description suggests, the Crown afforded them seemingly little status. When Resident Magistrate Walter Buller introduced the government runanga system to the district ten years later, we know that Muaupoko at Horowhenua were included in his circuit: not from his official report which omitted any mention of his visit or their response, but from the newspaper report penned by Tamehana Te Rauparaha. In the dispute of 1869 McLean seems to have been genuinely bemused by the involvement of both Kawana Hunia and Te Keepa Te Rangihiwinui at Horowhenua, but the Native Minister continued nonetheless to manage the dispute through the relationships he held with both men, rather than the resident tribe. This tendency was further reinforced when title to the Horowhenua block was vested in Kemp.

There are numerous ways to view the sole award of Horowhenua to Kemp. Kemp himself later maintained it was a deliberate strategy on his part to keep the tribal estate intact. Certainly for 13 years it did just that. The downside for the Muaupoko community was the loss of local authority and control, exemplified by McLean’s negotiations with Kemp over the ‘gift’ of 1200 acres to Te Whatanui’s descendents in 1874, a decision which Kemp evidently felt uncomfortable relaying to the tribe. Over time, Kemp’s stewardship as the legal owner of the tribal estate was marred by similar autocratic decisions: the concessions following the 1886 partition testing the confidence of the tribe; and the most publicly controversial being the transactions over Horowhenua 14 with his long-term lawyer Walter Buller. At best, Kemp comes across as an egocentric leader with little patience for those questioning his authority; at worst – which is how the Crown chose to depict him by 1896 – he was charged with abusing the trust Muaupoko placed in him. However, as this report argues, portraying Kemp as the villain necessarily implies that Muaupoko were hapless victims. Indeed in the Native Appellate Court hearing of 1897, the Crown made its contempt for the notion of Muaupoko autonomy explicit. By the 1890s it was argued that Muaupoko had been helpless without Kemp (and Hunia), and helpless to resist him – in 1873, or 1886, or 1897.

The possibility that seems to have escaped the Horowhenua Commission and the Crown, was that entrusting the land to Kemp was a deliberate and mindful choice. Muaupoko would have been alive to the consequences of representative ownership: their intact estate an aberration in the fast disintegrating landscape of their Ngati Raukawa neighbours. In 1886 they chose again: experimenting 396 for sure with individual title, but clear that Horowhenua 11 was to remain intact under Kemp’s stewardship as a tribal estate. In the absence of any legal provision for tribal ownership or authority, vesting the land in Kemp was a profound gesture of trust. Nowhere in the extensive 1897 minutes is there any suggestion that the tribe regretted doing so, or felt that their trust had been misplaced. Irrespective of individual failings, however, the issue is the lack of any legal provision for collective tribal tenure and authority. A second issue, arising from the alternative ‘de facto’ trust arrangement, was the Crown’s insistence on dealing with these legal owners, over the objections of the tribe, knowing full well the trust status of the land. The 1904 negotiations for public access to Lake Horowhenua would also suggest that the Crown’s long-held tendency to deal with the ‘strong men’ of Hunia and Kemp had arguably little to do with legal title: the legal lake trustees appointed by the court do not appear to have been party to this agreement, just as the legal owners of Horowhenua 11B42 were not asked or even told of the appropriation for the Hokio Native Township.

Tribal authority in the twentieth century has not been helped by individualisation of title and partition, which has resulted in further land alienation through forces beyond Muaupoko’s control. The focus of political engagement in this century has been over Lake Horowhenua: the struggle initially to assert and prove their legal ownership, and the ongoing struggle to exert control over how the lake is managed. The degradation of the lake today provides a stark illustration of the failure of the Crown to protect the interests and wellbeing of Muaupoko within the business of colonisation.

397

Bibliography

Primary sources

Archives

Archives New Zealand, Wellington

A number of archives relating to the Porirua ki Manawatu inquiry district have been collated into document banks prepared by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust [CFRT DB] and readers have been referred to this in the first instance. The CFRT document banks referred to in this report are:

 Crown and Private Land Purchasing Records and Petitions Document Bank, Wai 2200,#A067, A67(a) & A067(b); and  Maori Land Court Records Document Bank, Wai 2200, #A70(a) to A70(g).

Note that the MA 13 files relating to the Porirua ki Manawatu inquiry district have also been collated into a document bank by the Waitangi Tribunal [WT DB], Wai 2200, #A159(c), which have been referred to in the body of this report. A degree of confusion arises from the different archive references to this material. ‘MA 13/75a’ in the Tribunal document bank, for example, is referred to by Archives NZ itself as ‘MA 13/119/75a’.

Please note that files marked with an asterisk below have not been consulted in the time available.

Department of Maori Affairs (ACIH) ACIH 16046 MA13 Special files MA13/109/69a parts 1-5 Rangitikei-Manawatu – Unregistered Correspondence – Native Letters – Native Land Purchase Department – Wellington 1864-1866 MA13/109/69b parts 1-5 Rangitikei-Manawatu – Papers Concerning the Rangitikei-Manawatu Purchase and subsequent dealings, 1859-1871 MA 13/111/70 a-h Rangitikei-Manawatu – Schedule consisting of papers on the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase, 1863-1871 MA 13/113/71 Rangitikei-Manawatu – Native Land Court papers, 1869-1873 MA 13/114/72a Rangitikei-Manawatu, Unregistered papers, 1866-1871 MA 13/115/72b Rangitikei-Manawatu, Unregistered papers, 1862-1870 MA 13/115/73a Rangitikei-Manawatu, Native Office and Native Secretary Registered Files, 1866 MA 13/116/73b Rangitikei-Manawatu, Native Office and Native Secretary Registered Files, 1867- 1871 MA 13/118/74a Rangitikei-Manawatu, Native Office, Native Land Purchase and Native and Defence Registered Files, 1871-1875 MA 13/119/74b Rangitikei-Manawatu, Native Office, Native Land Purchase and Native and Defence Registered Files, 1871-1875 MA 13/119/75a Rangitikei-Manawatu Special files, Wellington Provincial Registered Files, 1876- 1884 398

MA 13/120/75b Rangitikei-Manawatu Special files, Wellington Provincial Registered Files, 1872- 1874 MA 13/120/76 Rangitikei-Manawatu – Telegrams and correspondence received by the Native Department and telegrams received by Judge Rogan MA13/8/6x Sale Plans, Special File No. 92 - Ikaroa District Maori Land Board - Plan of Hokio Native Township - Plan of Parata Township, Otaki - Including Plans MA 13/1d Horowhenua; Manawatu 1908-1913 Parliamentary papers, reports and petitions regarding Manawatu Kukutauaki and Horowhenua

ACIH 16082 MA75 Horowhenua Commission MA75/1/3 Notes of a meeting of the Rangitane Tribe with Dr Featherston and Mr Buller at Puketotara – 19 January – Native Office File, 1867 MA75/1/4 Objection to surveying a boundary on certain land at Horowhenua - Native Office file. 1869 MA75/1/5 Various papers of the Native Office relating to Horowhenua including "A brief sketch of the Horowhenua Case" - Native Office file. 1869-1871 MA75/1/7 Bundle of telegrams relating to Horowhenua - to and from Donald McLean, 1871 MA75/2/9 Reports on dispute between Ngatikauwhata Tribe and Kawana Hunia - Native Office file. 1871-1873 MA75/2/11 Judgement of Native Land Court, concerning Horowhenua - Native Office file, 1874 MA75/2/14 File containing papers relating to Horowhenua - Native Office file, 1873-1886 MA75/3/15 File containing papers relating to Horowhenua - Justice file, 1890-1896 MA75/4/21 General file relating to Horowhenua, 1880-1899 MA75/4/23 Disposals of sub-divisions of Horowhenua No. II B, No. 36, Kawiu, 1904-5 MA 75/4/24 Miscellaneous papers, including a sketch plan of subdivisions of No. II Block, Horowhenua, 1893, 1896-1905

ACIH 18593 Registered files, commission papers, land transfer papers, indexes and other miscellaneous records MA W1369/27 1872/272 Te Watene Tiwaewae wants to sell part of Horowhenua, does Mr McLean still desire that arbitration should take place? 1872-73 MA W1369/27 1890/1531 Horowhenua Block telegrams MA W1369/27 1896/22 Horowhenua Block return of the District Land Register to the order of the Royal Commission MA W1369/27 [86] Statement of Warena Te Hakeke with regard to the Horowhenua block MA W1369/27 [87] Horowhenua Memorandum for Native Land Court Chief Judge re Horowhenua no.11 *MA W1369/28 [89] Horowhenua Commission 1896 (clerks notes) MA W1369/28 [90] Horowhenua correspondence, 1896 MA W1369/29 [93] loose papers re Horowhenua Block *MA W1369/29 [94] Horowhenua no 12 amounts unpaid MA W1369/29 [95] Kooti Whenua Maori ki Weraroa (Levin) MA W1369/29 [98] Kawiu (Horowhenua No.11b no.36), 1899 *MA W1369/29 [99] Kawiu Block: Maori Land Council recommendation 1904

ACIH 16036 Memoranda and registered files MA1/176 6/14 part 1 [Native Reserves] – Horowhenua, 1896 *MA1/176 6/14 part 2 Native Trust Office – Horowhenua, 1897 *MA1/176 6/14 part 3 Native Reserves – Horowhenua, 1897 MA1/584 29/7/4 Horowhenua Consolidation, 1946-1951 399

MA1/584 29/7/4/1 Taueki Consolidation Scheme - Final proposals (Horowhenua Consolidation), 1947-1960 MA1/1139 1915/688 Received: 15 March 1915 from Hon Dr Pomare, re Horowhenua XIB 36 3H4. John Broughton’s complaint as to refusal by Ikaroa Board to confirm sale. 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 16056 Maori Political and tribal matters MA 23 15/25 Register of chiefs and assessments of their character and behaviour, under various districts, nd

Department of Maori Affairs, Head Office (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 W3074/396/j 12/1/924 Maori Trustee Appointed Agent – Horowhenua XIB41 A2, 1951-1955 W3074/396/k 12/1/925 Maori Trustee Appointed Agent – Horowhenua XIB41 North B3 No.2B, 1951-1955 W3074/397/d 12/1/956 Maori Trustee Appointed Agent – Horowhenua 11B39A2, 1952-1955

Native Land Purchase Department (AECZ 18714) MA-MLP 1/65/s From: HG Seth Smith 13 Nov 1902, Report on petitions of Wirihana Hunia (2) Rihipeti Nireaha regarding Horowhenua MA-MLP1/169/i 1916/71 From: Parker and Vincent, Hon Secretaries for Levin Residents, Levin Date: 1 November 1916 Block: Horowhenua 11B 42 Subject: Asking that Crown acquire 50 acres of block adjoining Hokio Native Township for subdivision into allotments MA-MLP1/103/v 1911/133 Horowhenua 11B Section 2L2, 2K and 3G1. Horowhenua 11B 42. Re Purchase by Crown MA-MLP 1/1911/133 Map of Horowhenua North subdivision showing some valuation and purchase status information (pencil tracing)

Maori Land Administration Department (ADYU 18191) MA-MLA1/3 1904/79 From: JM Fraser, Whanganui Date: 25 August 1904 Subject: Forwarding transfers to Aotea Council of certain subdivisions of Horowhenua No 11B No36 (Kawiu), 1904 MA-MLA 1/3 1904/81 From: BR Gardener, Levin Date: 30 August 1904 Subject: Forwarding accounts of Natives interested in Kawiu with a view to payment

Land Corporation Limited, Wellington District Office (AAMA 619) W3150/27 20/278 Wellington – Hokio Native Township, 1901-1947

Justice Department (ACGS 16211) J1 695/ae 1903/700 From: W H Field, MHR, Otaki Date: 10 June 1903 Subject: Application of D Hannan for removal of restrictions on Section No. 9 Block XI A Horowhenua

Rt Hon Richard John Seddon (ACHW) *8634 Seddon2 6/25 NZ miscellaneous – Horowhenua Block purchase papers, 1897

400

Manuscripts and papers

Alexander Turnbull Library Note that a number of Donald McLean records are available online at http://mp.natlib.govt.nz

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 MS-Papers-0032 Donald McLean, Papers. Series 1 Inward letters (English) MS-Papers-0032 Donald McLean, Papers. Series 2 Inward letters (Maori) MS-Papers-0032 Donald McLean, Papers. Series 6 Telegrams MS-Papers-0032 Donald McLean, Papers. Series 7 Official papers MS-Papers-0048 Buller, Walter Lawry (Sir), 1838-1906: Papers MS-Papers-0075 White, John, 1826-1891: Papers MS-Papers-0151-01 McDonnell, Alexander Francis, 1866-1938: Papers/Inward letters in Maori MS-Papers-1579 McDonald, Hector Hughes, 1856-: Papers qMS-2247 Samuel Williams, Reports of the Rev Samuel Williams on Otaki and the surrounding districts, 1847-1858, 1 vol, typescript qMS 0891 James Grindell, Journal 8 Jul 1857 – 31 Jul 1858 qMS BUL Walter Buller’s cuttings book, 1866-1898

Auckland City Library, Auckland

Te Rangihiwinui Keepa to G Grey, 25 May 1893, GNZMA 706, Auckland City Libraries, available online at http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz.

Maori Land Court records Maori Land Court Minute Books (MB) Otaki MB 1A Otaki MB 1F Otaki MB 2 Otaki MB 7 Otaki MB 13 Otaki MB 14 Otaki MB 15 Otaki MB 15 Otaki MB 21A Otaki MB 35 Otaki MB 36 Otaki MB 37 Otaki MB 39 Otaki MB 40 Otaki MB 57

Maori Land Court Block Order, Correspondence and General land files in ‘Maori Land Court Records: Document Bank Project’, Porirua ki Manawatu Series, vols. VI-IX (Crown Forestry Rental Trust, CFRT 2088), Wai 2200, #A70(a) to A70(g).

401

Maori Land Plans (Wellington District) via Institute of Cadastral Surveying (ICS) Database. http://www.ics.org.nz/plans.html

ML508 ML1652 ML1653 ML1654 ML1655 ML1798 ML3860 ML4903.

Certificates of title (Wellington District) via Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). http://www.linz.govt.nz/land/landonline

WN45C/203 WN428/136 WN125/114 WN1300/21

Official publications Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR) via AtoJsOnline, from National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa. http://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/

AJHR 1861 C-1 Reports of the Land Purchase Department relative to the Extinguishment of Native Title AJHR 1864 E-7 Return of All Officers Employed in Native Districts in January, 1864 AJHR 1866 A-4 Further Papers Relative to the Manawatu Block AJHR 1867 A-19 Return of Correspondence Relative to the Manawatu Block AJHR 1871 F8 Papers Relative to Horowhenua AJHR 1871 G-10 Nominal Roll of the Civil Establishment of New Zealand on 1st July 1871 AJHR 1875 G-6 Statement Relative to Land Purchases, North Island AJHR 1883 C-3 Lands Purchased and Leased from Natives in North Island AJHR 1887 II, I-5 Reports of Waste Lands Committee AJHR 1887 II, I-5a Report of the Waste Lands Committee AJHR 1888 I-5b Reports of the Waste Lands Committee AJHR 1896 G-2 Report and Evidence of the Horowhenua Commission AJHR 1897 II, G-2 The Horowhenua Block: Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence in the Native Appellate Court … in Relation to Division XIV AJHR 1897 II, G-2a Horowhenua Case, Memorandum by the Hon. Minister of Lands in connection with Section XIV AJHR 1897 II, G-2b The Horowhenua Block. Memorandum re Proceedings in the Supreme Court under the Provision of Section 10 of ‘The Horowhenua Block Act 1896’ AJHR 1898 G-2 The Horowhenua Block. Minutes of Proceedings in the Supreme Court, and Judgements on the Special Case stated by the Native Appellate Court AJHR 1898 G-2a The Horowhenua Block. Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence in the Native Appellate Court under the Provisions of ‘The Horowhenua Block Act 1896” 402

AJHR 1898 G-2b The Horowhenua Block. Minutes of Proceedings in the Native Appellate Court on the Applications of Hetariki Matao and others for an order declaring Keepa Te Rangihiwinui to be a Trustee for Division 14 and for other relief. AJHR 1901 I-3 Reports of the Native Affairs Committee AJHR 1911 G-14e Report on Petition 397/1909 Relative to Horowhenua 3E2 Block AJHR 1931 II, G-10 Native Land Development. Statement by the Hon. Sir Apirana Ngata, Native Minister

British Parliamentary Papers (BPP) Volume 5: Correspondence and papers relating to Native inhabitants, the New Zealand Company, and other affairs of the colony, 1852 Volume 7: Correspondence and papers relating to Native inhabitants, the New Zealand Company, and other affairs of the colony, 1851 ‘Further papers relative to the affairs of New Zealand,’ BPP 1854, Vol XLV via University of Waikato Library. British Parliamentary Papers. Colonies: New Zealand. 2011. http://www.digital.liby.waikato.ac.nz/bppnz

0307.01.43 3425.01. 08

New Zealand Parliamentary Debates (NZPD) NZPD 1880, vol. 35 NZPD 1893, vol. 80 NZPD 1894, vol. 83 NZPD 1895, vol. 91 NZPD 1902, vol. 121 NZPD 1906, vol. 137

Other Via Victoria University of Wellington New Zealand Electronic Text Collection, http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz:

H H Turton, Maori Deeds of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand: Volume Two, (Wellington, George Didsbury, 1878) HH 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)

Pamphlets, articles Sir Walter Buller at Bar of the House and the history of the Horowhenua block, (Wellington, 1895) Buller, Walter, Sir Walter Buller’s objections to the report of the Horowhenua Commission, (Wellington, 1896) Buller, Walter, The Horowhenua case: reply by Sir Walter Buller to the Hon J. McKenzie, Minister of Lands, (Wellington, 1897) McDonald, Alexander, A true history of the Horowhenua Block: being a reply to Sir Walter Buller’s pamphlet, (Manawatu Farmer & Horowhenua County Chronicle, 4 March 1896)

Newspapers via Papers Past, from National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa. http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/

403

Dominion, 1907-1920 Evening Post, 1890-1945 Star, 1890-1920 Grey River Argus, 1866-1920 Horowhenua Chronicle, 1910-1920 Manawatu Herald, 1890-1900 Manawatu Standard, 1890-1915 Manawatu Times, 1890-1915 New Zealand Herald, 1890-1945 Star, 1868-1917 Wanganui Herald, 1867-1920 Wellington Independent, 1845-1874

Maps and images Charles D Barraud, ‘Lake Horowhenua, 1864’, Collection of Christchurch Art Gallery Te Puna o Waiwhetu, presented by Mrs M Trail, 1969, available online at http://christchurchartgallery.org.nz.

NZ Map 5510, Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland Libraries, available online at http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz.

Secondary sources

Books Adkin, George. Leslie, Horowhenua: its Maori place names & their topographical & historical background, (Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs, 1948; Christchurch: Capper Press, 1986) Ballara, Angela, Taua. ‘Musket wars’, ‘land wars’ or tikanga? Warfare in Maori Society in the Early Nineteenth Century, (Auckland, Penguin Books, 2003) Boast, Richard, The Native Land Court: a Historical Study, Cases and Commentary, (Wellington, Brookers Ltd, 2013) Carkeek, Wakahuia, The Kapiti Coast: Maori tribal history and place names of the Paekakariki-Otaki district, (Wellington, Reed, 1966) Dreaver, Anthony, Horowhenua County and its people: a centennial history, ( Palmerston North, Dunmore Press for Horowhenua County Council, 1984) Dreaver, Anthony, Levin: the making of a town, (Levin: Horowhenua District Council, 2006) Fargher, Ray, The best man who ever served the Crown? A life of Donald McLean, (Wellington, Victoria University Press, 2007) Galbreath, Ross, Walter Buller: the Reluctant Conservationist, (Wellington, GP Books, 1989) Howe, Kerry H., Singer in a Songless Land: A Life of Edward Tregear, 1846-1931, (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1991) McEwen, John, Rangitane: a tribal history, (Auckland, Reed Methuen, 1986) O’Donnell, Elliot, Te Hekenga; early days in Horowhenua, being the reminiscences of Mr. Rod. McDonald, (GH Bennett, Palmerston North, 1929) Taylor, Richard, Te Ika a Maui, or New Zealand and its inhabitants, (London, Wertheim and Macintosh, 1855) Travers, WTL, The Life and Times of Te Rauparaha (Wellington, 1872), republished in 1906 as The Stirring Times of Te Rauparaha, (Christchurch, Whitcombe and Tombs, 1906) Wakefield, Edward J., Adventure in New Zealand from 1839 – 1844, two volumes, (London, John Murray, 1845) Young, David, Woven by water: histories from the Whanganui River, (Wellington, Huia Publishers, 1998)

404

Articles and pamphlets Ballara, Angela, ‘Te Whanganui-a-Tara: phases of Maori occupation of Wellington Harbour, c.1800- 1840,’ in David Hamer and Roberta Nicholls, editors, The Making of Wellington, 1800-1914, (Wellington, 1990), pp. 9-34. Ballara, Angela, ‘Te Whatanui,’ Dictionary of New Zealand biography. Te Ara – the encyclopaedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz, updated 30 October 2012 Biltcliff, G., ‘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 (JPS), vol. 55, 1946, pp. 40-80. Dreaver, Anthony, ‘Te Rangihiwinui, Te Keepa,’ Dictionary of New Zealand biography. Te Ara – the encyclopaedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz, updated 30 October 2012. Dreaver, Anthony, ‘McDonald, Agnes and McDonald, Hector’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz, updated 13 November 2013. Foster, BJ, ‘Travers, William Thomas Locke’ from An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand edited by AH McLintock (1966), Te Ara – the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz, updated 22 November 2011.

Reports

Commissioned reports

Armstrong, David, ‘“A sure and certain possession:” the 1849 Rangitikei-Turakina transaction and its aftermath’, (Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2004) Bassett, Heather and Richard Kay, ‘The Impact of the Native Townships Act 1895 on the East Coast’, (Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2008) Wai 900, #A21 Bassett, Heather and Richard Kay, ‘The Impact of the Native Townships Acts in Te Rohe Potae: Te Kuiti, Otorohanga, Karewa, Te Puru and Parawai Native Townships’, (Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2010) Wai 898, #A62 Douglas, Tutahanga, Craig Innes and James Mitchell, ‘Alienation of Maori Land within Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District: 1840-2010: A Quantitative Study’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 2010), Wai 898, #A21) Gilling, Bryan, ‘Ihaia Taueki and Muaupoko lands: an interim report for the Ihaia Taueki Trust’, (Ihaia Taueki Trust, 1994), Wai 237 #A4 Gilling, Bryan, ‘“A land of fighting and trouble:” the Rangitikei-Manawatu purchase’, (Wellington, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2000), Wai 2200, #A9 Hamer, Paul, ‘“A Tangled Skein”: Lake Horowhenua, Muaupoko, and the Crown, 1898-2000’, (Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 2015), Wai 2200, Wai 2200, #A150 Hearn, Terry, ‘Land Titles, Land Development and Returned Soldier Settlement in Te Rohe Potae’, (Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2009), Wai 898, #A69 Hearn, TJ, ‘One past, many histories: tribal land and politics in the nineteenth century’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 2015), Wai 2200, #A152 Hutton, John, ‘“A Ready and Quick Method”: The Alienation of Maori Land by Sales to the Crown and Private Individuals, 1905-1930 (Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1996) Wai 1200, #A59 Lange, Raeburn, ‘The Social Impact of Colonisation and Land Loss on the Iwi of the Rangitane, Manawatu and Horowhenua Region, 1840-1960’, (Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2000), Wai 2200 #A1 405

Luiten, Jane, ‘An Exploratory Report on Early Crown purchases, Whanganui ki Porirua’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 1992), Wai 52, #A1 Luiten, Jane, ‘Local Government on the East Coast’, (Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2009), Wai 900, #A69. Luiten, Jane, ‘Local Government in Te Rohe Potae’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011), Wai 898, #A24 Luiten, Jane, ‘Muaupoko land and politics scoping report’, (Waitangi Tribunal, 2013), Wai 2200, #A55 Macky, Michael, ‘Kemp’s Trust’, (Crown Law Office, 2005), Wai 1130 #A55 Morrow, Dr. Diana, ‘Iwi interests in the Manawatu, c.1820-c.1910’, (Office of Treaty Settlements, 2002), Wai 2200, #A6 Walzl, Tony, and Christine Taylor, ‘History of the East Coast Trust Blocks within the East Coast Inquiry District, 1900-1971’, (Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2007), Wai 900, #A72

Non-commissioned reports

Alexander, David, ‘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)’, Wai 2200, #A12 Alexander, David, ‘Further Historical Report on Hokio Beach Land Definition and Status Issues: A report prepared for the Maori Land Court’, April 2010 Hunt, Anne, ‘Legend of Taueki’, Wai 2200, #A18

Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series

Anderson, Dr. Robyn, and Keith Pickens, Wellington district: Port Nicholson, Hutt Valley, Porirua, Rangitikei, and Manawatu, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series (Waitangi Tribunal, 1996) Bennion, Tom ‘The Maori Land Court and Maori Land Boards 1900-1952 , Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, Theme P, (Waitangi Tribunal, 1997) Loveridge, Donald, ‘The Maori Land Councils and Maori Land Boards: An Historical Overview’, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, Theme K, (Waitangi Tribunal, 1996) Marr, Cathy, ‘The Alienation of Maori Land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea Block) Part 2: 1900-1960, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, District 8, (Waitangi Tribunal, 1999) White, Ben, Inland Waterways: Lakes, Rangahaua Whānui Series Theme Q. (Waitangi Tribunal, 1998)

Waitangi Tribunal Reports

Waitangi Tribunal, Whanganui River Report, (Wellington, GP Publications, 1999) Waitangi Tribunal, Rekohu: A Report on Moriori and Ngati Mutunga Claims in the Chatham Islands, (Wai 64, 2001) Waitangi Tribunal, Te Whanganui a Tara me ona Takiwa: Report on the Wellington District, (Wai 145, 2003) Waitangi Tribunal, The Hauraki Report, (Wai 686, 2006) Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims, (Wai 1200, 2008) Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui: Report on Northern South Island Claims, three volumes, (Wai 785, 2008) Waitangi Tribunal, The Wairarapa ki Tararua Report 2010, three volumes, (Wai 863, 2010) Wai 2200, #2.3.6

Wai 2200

WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

CONCERNING the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

AND the Porirua ki Manawatū District Inquiry

DIRECTION COMMISSIONING RESEARCH

1. Pursuant to clause 5A of the second schedule of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal commissions Jane Luiten, historian, and Kesaia Walker, a member of the Tribunal’s staff, to prepare an overview research report on Muaūpoko land issues and political engagement with the Crown for the Porirua ki Manawatū district.

2. The report will provide an overview study of Muaūpoko’s relationship with the Crown and the impact of Crown legislation, policies and practices on Muaūpoko authority over and management of their tribal lands and their relationships with other iwi within Porirua ki Manawatū from 1840 to 2000, covering the following matters:

a) How did the relationship between Muaūpoko and the Crown evolve up to the early 1870s? In particular: i) What was the impact of war and migration on Muaūpoko in the decades before the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, with a particular focus on the area around Lake Horowhenua? Following the signing of the Treaty, to what extent and in what manner did the Crown recognise Muaūpoko customary interests? ii) What was the impact of Crown policies and actions on the exercise of rangatiratanga by Muaūpoko and on their relationships with neighbouring hapū and iwi? In what ways did Muaūpoko and the Crown seek to develop their relationship in the political and economic spheres and with what outcomes? b) In what ways did the introduction of the Native Land Court regime affect Muaūpoko and their relationship with the Crown up to 1900 and with what consequences? In particular: i) What were the circumstances and outcomes of the 1873 Native Land Court title determination of the Horowhenua block, with particular regard to the experience of Muaūpoko? ii) What were the causes, extent and impact of the partitioning of Muaūpoko land, in particular the Horowhenua block? What roles did

1

the Crown and Muaūpoko leaders and owners play? Were any agreements and understandings reached and were they adhered to? iii) Why was the Horowhenua Commission established in 1896? What impact did its proceedings and findings and the Native Land Court’s subsequent determination of interests in 1898 have on Muaūpoko? iv) What role did Crown legislation, policy and practice play in the alienation of Muaūpoko land? How much Muaūpoko land in the Horowhenua area had been alienated through Crown and private purchasing by 1900? To what extent were Muaūpoko land interests outside Horowhenua recognised and taken into account? c) How did the relationship between Muaūpoko and the Crown evolve during the twentieth century? In particular: i) What was the extent of ongoing attrition of Muaūpoko lands during the twentieth century and to what extent were the factors and processes that resulted in such alienation attributable to Crown legislation, policies and practices? How did Horowhenua 11 pass out of Muaūpoko control and ownership? ii) What were Muaūpoko’s aspirations for land development, what action and protest did they pursue in furtherance of their aspirations, and what was the Crown’s response? iii) Why and how was Hokio Native Township established and what was its impact on Muaūpoko land ownership, control and associated costs? iv) To what extent did Muaūpoko participate in the Māori councils and in other expressions of Māori autonomy in the twentieth century, and with what outcomes?

3. The commission commenced on 15 September 2014. A complete draft of the report is to be submitted by 15 June 2015 and will be circulated to claimants and the Crown for comment.

4. The commission ends on 27 August 2015, at which time one copy of the final report must be submitted for filing in unbound form. Indexed copies of any supporting documents or transcripts are to be filed by 14 September 2015. An electronic copy of the report should also be provided in Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF format. The report and accompanying material must be filed through the Registrar.

5. The report may be received as evidence and the author may be cross- examined on it.

6. The Registrar is to send copies of this direction to: Jane Luiten Claimant counsel and unrepresented claimants in the Porirua ki Manawatū District Inquiry Chief Historian, Waitangi Tribunal Unit

2

Manager Research and Inquiry Facilitation, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Principal Research Analyst, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Inquiry Supervisor, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Inquiry Facilitator, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Solicitor General, Crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements Chief Executive, Crown Forestry Rental Trust Chief Executive, Te Puni Kōkiri

Dated at Gisborne this 12th day of December 2014.

Deputy Chief Judge C L Fox Presiding Officer WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

3