Wai 898, #A67
LAND ALIENATION IN THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1866–1908: AN OVERVIEW
LEANNE BOULTON
AUGUST 2011
Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Te Rohe Potae Inquiry (Wai 898)
THE AUTHOR
Leanne Boulton has been employed as a Research Analyst/Inquiry Facilitator at the Waitangi Tribunal since May 2002. She has completed a report on Native Townships in the Whanganui inquiry district (Wai 903, #A39), co‐authored a report on Trusts and Incorporations for the Central North Island Stage 1 inquiry (Wai 1200, #G4) and completed a contextual scoping report on socio‐economic issues for the Tongariro National Park inquiry (Wai 1130, #A57). She has also produced research reports for the Tauranga Moana twentieth century inquiry (Wai 215, #S5 and #S6). In that inquiry she was commissioned to prepare two reports: a socio‐economic and demographic profile of Maori in the Tauranga district, 2001 and a report on the impact of town and country planning on Tauranga Maori communities between 1953 and 1990. Her most recent work is a report on hapu and iwi land transactions with the Crown and Europeans in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, c. 1840–1865 (Wai 898, #A19). She holds a Bachelor of Arts in English Literature and First Class Honours and a Master of Arts with Distinction in History from the University of Canterbury.
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Author ...... i
Abbreviations ...... ix
Acknowledgements ...... x
Introduction and overview ...... 1
The commission ...... 3
Land alienation and statements of claim ...... 5
Structure of report ...... 8
Sources for policy and legislation ...... 9
Sources and methodology for land alienation data ...... 11
Overview: Rohe Potae land alienation in a national context ...... 16
The alienation of Maori land: North Island, 1870–1909 ...... 16
The alienation of Maori land: Rohe Potae inquiry district, 1889–1909 ...... 21
Conclusion...... 36
Prologue: The King Country, 1866–1883 ...... 38
1. Preparations for land purchasing in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, 1883–1889 ...... 59
1.1 Introduction ...... 59
1.2 The Crown’s intentions for the Rohe Potae, 1884–1886 ...... 63
1.2.1 Provisions for Crown preemption and restrictions on alienation, 1884 ...... 63
1.2.2 Rationale for Crown preemption and restrictions on alienation, 1884 ...... 65
1.2.3 Provisions for the administration and disposal of Maori Land, 1884–1886 ...... 70
1.2.3(a) The Native Land Settlement Bill 1884 ...... 70 1.2.3(b) The Native Land Disposition Bill 1885/Native Land Administration Act 1886 ...... 73 1.2.3(c) The failure of the Native Land Administration Act 1886 ...... 77 1.2.3(d) The Native Land Act 1888 and the Native Land Court Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888 ...... 79 1.3 Maori intentions for the Rohe Potae, 1884–1886 ...... 80
1.3.1 Hapu and iwi vision for the Rohe Potae, 1884–1888 ...... 81
1.3.1(a) Pursuing the package of initiatives and reforms set out in the 1883 petition ...... 82
1.3.1(b) Sole authority to determine title to, control and dispose of their land ...... 85 1.3.1(c) Kawhia Native Committee to be empowered to determine title and manage the land ...... 87 1.3.1(e) Maori would then decide on leasing and/or selling areas of land ...... 100 Contents 1.3.2 Hapu and iwi responses to the Crown’s intentions and legislation, 1884–1888 ...... 103 of
1.3.2(a) Hapu and iwi knowledge of the Crown’s plan for largescale land purchasing ...... 104 1.3.2(b) Hapu and iwi understandings about Crown preemption and restrictions on alienation .. 111 Table ii
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1.4 The Crown’s response to Maori aspirations in relation to land in the Rohe Potae, 1884–1886 ..... 115
1.5 Funding for Crown purchasing prior to 1889 ...... 120
1.6 Determining land quality and resources ...... 124
1.7 Conclusion ...... 126
2. Land purchasing legislation for the Rohe Potae, 1889–1900 ...... 134
2.1 Introduction ...... 134
2.2 Crown pre‐emption & restrictions on alienation in the railway restriction zone after 1890 ...... 139
2.2.1 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889 ...... 140
2.2.2 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Amendment Act 1891 ...... 142
2.2.3 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Acts Amendment Act 1892 ...... 145
2.2.4 The Native Land Purchase Act 1892 ...... 149
2.2.5 The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893 ...... 151
2.2.6 The Native Land Court Act 1894 ...... 153
2.3 Funding for land purchasing after 1890 and the end of the railway loan funding in 1894 ...... 158
2.4 The decision to cease land purchasing, 1897–1899 ...... 163
2.5 Conclusion ...... 166
3. Developing a plan for the Crown’s purchasing programme, 1886–1889 ...... 174
3.1 Introduction ...... 174
3.2 Crown advances prior to the Court determing title? ...... 176
3.3 Monitoring the Native Land Court’s progress ...... 182
3.4 The decision to begin purchasing ...... 185
3.5 Assessing the prospects for purchasing ...... 186
3.6 Prioritizing blocks for purchase ...... 189
3.6.1 Wilkinson’s assessment of blocks for initial purchase ...... 189
3.6.2 Ellis’ assessment of blocks for initial purchase...... 203
3.7 Deciding how purchasing would be carried out ...... 206
3.8 Deciding on a maximum price per acre ...... 209
3.9 Instructions for the district land purchase officer ...... 211
3.10 Conclusion ...... 213
4. Carrying out the plan: initial purchases and causes of frustration, 1890–1892 ...... 221 Contents 4.1 Introduction ...... 221 of
4.2 Factors constraining the Crown’s land purchasing programme, 1889–1892 ...... 221 Table iii
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
4.2.1 Maori resistance to selling land ...... 221
4.2.2 Maori motivations for selling land ...... 231
4.2.3 Delays in defining relative interests ...... 234
4.2.4 Delays in completing surveys ...... 245
4.3 Other policy changes during initial purchasing ...... 246
4.3.1 Dealing with minors’ shares ...... 247
4.3.2 Provision of 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserves ...... 249
4.4 Conclusion ...... 251
5. Attempts to negotiate a land purchasing agreement, 1891–1892 ...... 259
5.1 Introduction ...... 259
5.2 April 1891 meeting with Native Minister Cadman ...... 260
5.3 Ngati Maniapoto evidence before Native Land Laws (Rees‐Carroll) Commission, April 1891 ...... 265
5.4 December 1891 meeting with Native Minister Cadman ...... 270
5.5 May 1892 meeting with Native Minister Cadman ...... 281
5.6 March 1894 meeting with Premier Seddon ...... 287
5.7 Conclusion ...... 288
6. Outcomes for hapu and iwi, 1893–1900 ...... 297
6.1 Introduction ...... 297
6.2 How real were the restrictions on alienation to hapu and iwi? ...... 298
6.3 To what extent did restrictions constrain private leasing and purchasing? ...... 305
6.3.1 Leasing in the 1880s ...... 307
6.3.2 Leasing in the 1890s (outside the inland Mokau area) ...... 309
6.3.3 The extent of private purchasing (outside the inland Mokau area) before 1909 ...... 315
6.3.4 The policing of private leasing in the 1890s ...... 317
6.3.5 Leasing and private purchasing in the inland Mokau area in the 1890s ...... 329
6.3.6 Leasing by 1907/1908...... 350
6.4 Land valuation and price per acre...... 351
6.4.1 Attempts by Maori owners to utilize valuation procedures in the Native Land Purchase and
Acquisition Act 1893 ...... 352
6.4.2 Attempts by Maori owners to negotiate over price per acre ...... 355
6.5 Crown control of the pricing of Maori land ...... 360 Contents
of 6.5.1 Use of surveyors to assess the value of the land ...... 361
6.5.2 Determining price per acre without a surveyor’s report ...... 366 Table iv
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
6.5.3 Raising price per acre by not providing 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserves ...... 371
6.6 The persistence of low prices ...... 372
6.7 Conclusion ...... 374
7. Patterns of land alienation in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, 1893–1908 ...... 383
7.1 Introduction ...... 383
7.2 The sequence and progression of Crown purchasing ...... 384
7.2.1 Phases in the sequence of Crown purchasing ...... 385
7.2.2 Changes to the planned direction of purchasing ...... 392
7.3 The rate of land alienation in the Rohe Potae inquiry district ...... 408
7.3.1 The overall pattern in rate of alienation ...... 409
7.3.2 Geographical patterns in the rate of alienation ...... 410
7.4 The proportion of land alienation to pay for survey liens ...... 428
7.5 The alienation of 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserves ...... 432
7.6 Reasons for the acceleration of Crown purchasing after 1893 ...... 435
7.7 Conclusion ...... 439
8. Summary and Conclusions ...... 445
Appendix 1: Commission ...... 491
Appendix 2: Schedule of blocks with price to be paid, upset price and profit, Surveyor General, November 1889...... 493
Appendix 3: Surveyor General’s prices of Kinohaku East subdivisions, 1893 ...... 494
Bibliography ...... 495
FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of the Rohe Potae inquiry district ...... xi Figure 2: Map of the Rohe Potae area investigated by the Stout‐Ngata Commission, 1907–1909 ...... 15 Figure 3: Map of the Rohe Potae inquiry district showing areas discussed in land alienation patterns chapters ...... 23 Figure 4: Map showing the railway restriction zone and main railway route, 1884 ...... 62 Figure 5: Topographical map showing land quality, attached to report of District Surveyor, Lawrence Cussen, 1885...... 123 Figure 6: Maps showing changes to the boundaries of the railway restriction zone, August 1888 to August 1891 ...... 137
Figure 7: Maps showing changes to the boundaries of the railway restriction zone, August 1891 to October 1894 ...... 138 Figures v
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Figure 8: Map showing blocks in which purchases were carried out using funds raised under the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Acts and amendments by 1894 ...... 162 Figure 9: Map of the Rohe Potae inquiry district showing land blocks ...... 173 Figure 10: Wilkinson’s sketch map showing the route of the North Island Main Trunk Railway line through blocks potentially available for purchase, June 1889 ...... 193 Figure 11: Wilkinson’s sketch Map showing the route of the North Island Main Trunk Railway line through the ‘Kakepuku’ blocks, June 1889 ...... 194 Figure 12: Topographical map showing land quality, attached to report of District Surveyor, Lawrence Cussen, 1885 and blocks prioritised for purchase by Wilkinson in June 1889 (inset) ...... 198 Figure 13: Close up of ‘Map of the Native Lands of New Zealand shewing their Occupation, Tenure and Use’, 1891 ...... 199 Figure 14: Map showing the state of survey, Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, 1890 ...... 244 Figure 15: Map showing blocks in the inland Mokau area ...... 328 Figure 16: Maps showing blocks entered into for the first time by the Crown during Phase 1: 1889/1890 and Phase 2: early/mid‐1891 to mid‐1893 ...... 387 Figure 17: Maps showing blocks entered into for the first time by the Crown: Phase 3, late 1893 to mid‐ 1895 ...... 388 Figure 18: Map of blocks entered into for the first time by the Crown: Phase 4, late 1895 to mid‐1896 .. 389 Figure 19: Maps of blocks entered into for the first time by the Crown: Phase 5, late 1896 to mid‐1899 390 Figure 20: Map of blocks entered into for the first time by the Crown: Phase 6, late 1899 to mid‐1908 .. 391 Figure 21: Map showing the Taorua parent block and the current boundaries of the blocks within it ...... 394 Figure 22: Map showing the change in the percentage alienated for each block in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, 1890 & 1892 ...... 411 Figure 23: Map showing the change in the percentage alienated for each block in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, 1894 & 1896 ...... 412 Figure 24: Map showing the change in the percentage alienated for each block in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, 1898 & 1900 ...... 413 Figure 25: Map showing the change in the percentage alienated for each block in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, 1902 & 1904 ...... 414 Figure 26: Map showing the change in the percentage alienated for each block in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, 1906 & 1908 ...... 415 Figure 27: Map of the ‘Rohe Potae area’ showing six geographical zones ...... 419
Figures vi
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLES
Table 1: Crown purchase costs and prices, 1870–1910 ...... 21 Table 2: Time series showing the amount of land alienated as a proportion of the ‘Rohe Potae area’, 1889– 1908 ...... 26 Table 3: Summary of the alienation statistics for the ‘Rohe Potae area’, 1840–1908 ...... 29 Table 4: Summary of the alienation statistics for the Stout‐Ngata Rohe Potae area, 1840–1907/08 ...... 29 Table 5: Summary of the alienation statistics for the Rangitoto Tuhua Block, 1900–1908 ...... 31 Table 6: Summary of alienation statistics for the Northern area, 1840–1908 ...... 33 Table 7: Amount and proportion of land in the ‘Parish extension area’ returned to Maori in Crown grants after raupatu ...... 34 Table 8: Alienation of land granted to Maori in the ‘Parish extension area’ as compensation for raupatu, 1870 to present ...... 35 Table 9: Summary of accounts under the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889 for 1899–1913 ...... 161 Table 10: Blocks surveyed by June 1889 ...... 190 Table 11: Blocks shortlisted by Wilkinson for purchase, June 1889 ...... 191 Table 12: Wilkinson’s list of blocks between Pirongia and Kakepuku, October 1889 ...... 195 Table 13: Alienation Data for Hauturu East 1A and 3A ...... 203 Table 14: Maximium price to be paid, upset price, and profit per acre, Surveyor General, November 1889 ...... 210 Table 15: Timber leases in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, 1900–1908 ...... 313 Table 16: Private purchases, 1889–1908 (arranged by date) ...... 316 Table 17: Private purchasing in the remainder of the ‘Rohe Potae area’, before 1909 ...... 317 Table 18: Comparison of leases and private purchases in the inland Mokau area before 1909 ...... 330 Table 19: Private purchasing in the inland Mokau area and south of the inquiry district, before 1909 .... 331 Table 20: Amount and proportion of land under lease or negotiation for lease in Stout‐Ngata Rohe Potae area by type of lease, 1908 ...... 350 Table 21: Comparison of price per acre requested by Maori and that offered by the Crown for Maraetaua subdivisons, 1899 ...... 358 Table 22: Surveyor General’s prices of Kinohaku East subdivisions, 1893 ...... 364 Table 23: Price per acre (range), 1892–1901 ...... 372 Table 24: Land alienation statistics for the seven southern blocks up to the end of 1908 ...... 404 Table 25: Quartile analysis of blocks in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ and Rangitoto Tuhua blocks, end of 1908 (No. of blocks) ...... 417 Table 26: Quartile analysis of blocks in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ and Rangitoto Tuhua blocks, end of 1908 (percentage of the total land in each area) ...... 417
Table 27: Amount of land in each zone located in blocks where more than 75 per cent or more than 50 per cent of the block was alienated by the end of 1908 ...... 421 Tables vii
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Table 28: Quartile analysis of blocks in the northern‐central and northern zones, end of 1908 (No. of blocks) ...... 422 Table 29: Quartile analysis of blocks in the northern‐central and northern zones, end of 1908 (percentage of the total land in each area) ...... 422 Table 30: Degree of subdivision of the Kinohaku block, 1907 ...... 424 Table 31: Blocks split off from Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in 1886: Proportion alienated by the end of 1908 ...... 426 Table 32: Land known to have been lost to pay for survey costs in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ and Rangitoto Tuhua blocks by the end of 1908 ...... 431 Table 33: 10 per cent seller reserves and their alienation ...... 433
GRAPHS
Graph 1: Acreage purchased by period (average per year) in the North Island, 1870–1910 ...... 20 Graph 2: Acreage purchased by period (average per year) for the Rohe Potae inquiry district ...... 20 Graph 3: Change in the proportion of the ‘Rohe Potae area’ alienated, 1889–1908 ...... 27 Graph 4: Alienation of Maori land in North Island by type, 1865–1910 ...... 28 Graph 5: Alienation of Maori land in the Rohe Potae inquiry district by type (excluding extension areas), 1889–1908 ...... 28 Graph 6: Proportion of Stout‐Ngata Rohe Potae area alienated by 1907/1908 ...... 30 Graph 7: Comparison of the change in the proportion of the Rangitoto Tuhua blocks alienated with that in the ‘Rohe Potae area’, 1889–1908 ...... 31 Graph 8: Comparison of the change in the proportion of the Northern area alienated with that in the ‘Rohe Potae area’and Rangitoto Tuhua Blocks, 1889–1908 ...... 32 Graph 9: Proportion of Northern area alienated by 1 January 1909 ...... 33 Graph 10: Rate of alienation of land granted to Maori in the ‘Parish extension area’ as compensation for raupatu, 1870 to present ...... 35 Graph 11: Change in proportion of the Rohe Potae inquiry district alienated, 1889–1892 ...... 405 Graph 12: Change in proportion of the Rohe Potae inquiry district alienated, 1893–1899 ...... 406 Graph 13: Change in proportion of the Rohe Potae inquiry district alienated, 1900–1908 ...... 407 Graph 14: Proportion of all land in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ and the Rangitoto Tuhua blocks accounted for by blocks in each percentage‐alienated range, 1908...... 418 Graph 15: Proportion of all land in the northern‐central and northern zones accounted for by blocks in each percentage‐alienated range, 1908 ...... 423
Graphs viii
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
ABBREVIATIONS
AJHR Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives
AJLC Appendices to the Journals of the Legislative Council
ATL Wgt Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington
ANZ Wgt Archives New Zealand, Wellington
ANZ Auck Archives New Zealand, Auckland col. Column (in a newspaper)
CFRT Crown Forestry Rental Trust
Govt Government
Illeg illegible n/d No date
No. Number (of a publication)
NZJH New Zealand Journal of History
NZPD New Zealand Parliamentary Debates p page pp pages para paragraph
Pt Part
ROI Record of inquiry
SO Survey Office plan
USND Under Secretary, Native Department
Vol. Volume (of a publication)
Wai Waitangi Tribunal Record of inquiry number Abbreviations ix
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank a number of people and organisations which assisted me during the research and writing of this report, in particular the staff of the Alexander Turnbull Library and Archives New Zealand, Wellington and Auckland. Thanks is also due to my colleagues Cathy Marr, Paul Thomas, Paul Husbands, Andrew Francis and Jonathan Sarich who provided support and pointed me to a number of useful sources. Thanks also to the Tribunal’s Mapping Officer, Noel Harris, for drawing and refining many of the maps in this report. Finally I would like to thank several research assistants. Firstly, Kesaia Waigth for her thorough and diligent work as research assistant, in particular her work on the alienation of the Umukaimata and Waiaraia blocks. Also to Steven Oliver for his Maori Land Court Minute book research and research on the alienation of 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserves in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, and Jamie Mitchell for work on the land alienation data for the period up to the end of 1908.
Acknowledgements x
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 18661908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 1: MAP OF THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT
xi
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
This report is part of the casebook of research being prepared for the Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Rohe Potae district inquiry (Wai 898). It is the second in a series of four reports investigating land issues in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Rohe Potae inquiry district (Wai 898). The first, also by this author, deals with old land claims and early Crown purchases from c.1840 to 1865. The current report provides an overview of land alienation between 1865 and 1908. Two further reports deal with the land issues in the district during the twentieth century. The period from 1900 to 1930 will be covered in a report by Terry Hearn, and the post‐1930 issues will be examined by Heather Bassett.
In addition, Paul Thomas has written a report about the Crown purchasing, the Native Land Court and land alienation in the Mokau region during the nineteenth century. Terry Hearn has also written an extensive report documenting private and Crown land purchasing in the Raukawa rohe from 1865 to 1971. Much of this land is outside the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae inquiry district, however, his report does provide case studies of land alienation in blocks on the eastern side of the inquiry district, such as Wharepuhunga, Tokanui, Rangitoto A and Maraeroa, where Raukawa has customary interests. The report also gives a detailed picture of the activities of land speculators and the Crown in the area north and east of the inquiry district during the 1870s and early 1880s, which were a source of considerable anxiety for hapu and iwi within the aukati.
A similar series of political engagement reports examining the relationship and negotiations between the Crown and hapu and iwi in the inquiry district were also commissioned as part of the casebook. Vincent O’Malley has written two reports on the period prior to 1865: the first dealt with Te Rohe Potae, war and raupatu, and the second with Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement, 1840–1863. Several other reports will deal with the twentieth century and with these relationships in the remainder of the overview nineteenth century. The period from the late‐1860s to about 1890 will be dealt with in a and report by Cathy Marr. Several other reports will deal with these issues in the remainder of the nineteenth century and the whole of the twentieth century. These political engagement reports provide the broad context in which the more specific events of land alienation took place and should be read alongside the land reports. Introduction 1
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
At the time of researching and writing this report a draft of Cathy Marr’s report covering the 1880s and 1890s was not available and I have had to rely on Marr’s 1996 Rangahaua Whanui report on the Rohe Potae, Loveridge’s report on the opening of the King Country and other research on Tribunal records of inquiry for this context.1 A partial draft of Marr’s political engagement report covering the period from 1864 to 1882 became available in at the end of June 2011 as final amendments were being made to the current report.2 The period covered by Marr’s draft report is dealt with in the prologue of this report, which simply endeavours to sketch out and summarise key development prior to the legislation being passed in 1884 in preparation for renewed land purchasing by the Crown. Such was the size and depth of Marr’s draft report it has not been possible to incorporate its insights into the prologue any comprehensive way. Instead, summary comments refer the reader to Marr’s draft where particular events are dealt with in greater detail.
Land alienation, especially the Crown’s land purchasing operation in the inquiry district prior to 1909, is closely connected with the operation of the Native Land Court and its interactions with Crown land purchase officers. This overview of land alienation was initially intended to form part of a larger report dealing with the operation of the Native Land Court and land purchasing in the inquiry district between 1866 and 1908 together. However, for operational reasons a decision was made late in 2010 to split this topic into two separate reports. Paul Husbands and James Mitchell will provide a report on the Native Land Court and land purchasing in the Rohe Potae between 1886 and 1908.3 Their commission asks them ‘to prepare a research report examining, land titles and the Native Land Court from 1866–1907 for the Te Rohe Potae district inquiry.’ In particular, that report will deal with five topics:
overview
and 1 Cathy Marr, The Alienation of Maori Land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea Block), 1840–1920, Waitangi Tribunal, Rangahaua Whanui Series, District 8, December 1996 2 Cathy Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864‐1886, Part 1: 1864‐1882, draft for comment, June 2011 3 Paul Husbands’ commission (Wai 898, 2.3.47), James Mitchell added as co‐commissionee in April 2011
(Wai 898, 2.3.67) Introduction 2
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
‘The Native Land Court and its relation to the exercise of political authority by Maori throughout the period’; ‘The costs of engagement with the court and land title system including direct court costs and survey’; ‘The operation of Native Land Court process in the district including how it managed cases of multiple, overlapping or contested rights, the appeal process and the nature of the titles created’; ‘The relationship between the operations of the Native Land Court, Native land laws and Crown land purchasing. This should include examination of the extent to Which the Crown dealt with individuals or with Maori collectively, how the interests of minors were dealt with by the court, what safeguards the law provided in land transactions and how effective these were’; and, ‘The effect of the Native Land Court and land transactions on hapu and iwi.’4
THE COMMISSION
With regard to Crown land purchasing policy, legislation and practice, and hapu and iwi interaction with that framework, the commission for this report asked that the following issues be examined:
The Government’s reasons for seeking to purchase land in the Te Rohe Potae district; Maori reasons for entering into land transactions as far as can be determined from available sources; The imposition of the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884 and other legislation imposing Crown pre‐emptive rights to purchase land in the inquiry district. In particular, what were the respective roles of the Crown and Maori in
the decision to impose widespread restrictions on private land transactions over Rohe Potae lands through this Act? overview The effects of these restrictions on land transactions involving the Crown and and
hapu and iwi, their effects on land use and on prices paid in land transactions;
4
Wai 898, #2.3.47 Introduction 3
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The extent of leasing and other types of Maori land use such as land development for farming. To what extend did these present alternatives to land sales? Evaluate the idea that Maori leaders and communities implemented policies of strategic selling of certain lands to fund retention and development of others.
The commission and project brief also required the report to: Describe patterns of Crown and private land purchasing in the Te Rohe Potae district throughout the period. To what extent did logistical difficulties of the Land Court process, particularly around surveys, influence Crown land purchasing patterns?5
Therefore, this overview confines itself to three principle matters: the Crown’s Native land purchasing policy and legislation from the advent of the Rohe Potae agreement in 1883, the development of policy concerning land purchasing practices in the inquiry district from 1884 to 1908 and the resulting patterns of land alienation during that period. The report makes only limited comment about the interactions between land purchasing officials and the Native Land Court. As an overview the report uses examples of land purchasing in various blocks in discussing these larger issues but it does not set out comprehensive case studies of how land purchasing occurred. As their commission indicates, both of these functions will be taken up by Husbands and Mitchells’ report on the Native Land Court and land purchasing during this period. The two reports are intended to be complementary and should be read together.
The current report covers the period from 1866 to the end of 1908. However the events of between 1866 and 1884 are dealt with in a brief prologue. This provides a summary of Maori aspirations and concerns during the 1870s and early 1880s and the Crown’s responses to these up until 1883. Political engagement reports by Cathy Marr (for the
Tribunal) and Donald Loveridge (for the Crown) for this inquiry will explore these issues in considerably more detail. Likewise, this report has limited discussion about
Native land administration policies and mechanisms between 1900 and 1908 to a overview
summary of those measures. Terry Hearn’s land report for the 1900 to 1930 period will and provide a comprehensive examination of these matters.
5
Wai 898, #2.3.46 (reproduced as Appendix 1 of this report) Introduction 4
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
LAND ALIENATION AND STATEMENTS OF CLAIM
Land alienation and its impact upon hapu and iwi are central to a large portion of claims in this inquiry district. Current statements of claim reveal five key areas of concern: legislation and its impact; methods of Crown purchasing; land alienation through survey and court costs; issues relating to Crown pre‐emption and price; the creation and alienation of reserves, and the consequences of land loss.
Many claims focus on the role of legislation governing the operation of the Native Land Court. However, there are several which deal specifically with Native land purchasing legislation. Claimants allege the Crown acted in contravention of the Rohe Potae agreement (‘Sacred Compact’) in passing the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884 and the Railways Authorisation Act 1884 and their various amendments, and in embarking, from 1889, upon a land purchasing programme which led to further alienation of land.6 Others argue that legislation was enacted and amended by politicians outside of the Ngati Maniapoto area, ‘which until the 1900s was not under the authority of settler government.’ Furthermore they allege that this legislation prejudiced the original and subsequent owners of the land to such an extent that they were dispossessed of their land against their wishes and tikanga, resulting in marginalisation, and eventually, landlessness.7 They also argue that land legislation from 1865 onwards caused and permitted the alienation, fragmentation and individualisation of communal tribal titles to the lands of Te Rohe Potae, without proper consultation or consent of particular hapu.8
With regard to the Crown’s method of purchasing Maori land in the inquiry district statements of claim allege that the Crown purchased interests in land prior to the title being determined by the court 9 and that the Crown legislated for and acquired the interests of the individual owners without the sanction of the tribal group as a whole.10
Many claims argue that land alienation took place without the full, informed consent,
overview
6
Wai 928, Raymond Tawhaki Wi et al and Ngati Raerae, p 7 and 7 Wai 868, James Rauputu et al of Ngati Rungaterangi, Ngati te Paemate, & Ngati Waiora all of Ngati Maniapoto, July 2000, pp 1‐2 8 Wai 1113, Wai 1759 and Wai 1760 9 Wai 928, Raymond Tawhaki Wi et al and Ngati Raerae, p 9; Wairehu R. Te Huia and others on behalf of themselves and Nga Uri o Te Whakataute, 20 August 2008, p 12 10
Wai 729, Hardie Peni and Ngati Rereahu or Ngati Maniapoto Introduction 5
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 participation or knowledge of hapu members, or against their wishes.11 Some allege that sales were forced by the Crown and unscrupulous land dealers.12 Claimants also argue that the Crown persisted in purchasing and then partitioning their purchased interests out of blocks against the express wishes of the remaining owners of blocks. This reduced the resource for the rest of the hapu to the point where it was unsustainable to remain there.13
In addition, there are specific allegations that land was purchased as a result of questionable actions by Crown purchasing agents,14 and that the Crown used ‘unfair and bad faith procedures to encourage Maori to sell, or purport to sell, their lands’,15 or used ‘sharp and unfair practices.’16 Claimants have also been particularly concerned by the purchase and ‘taking’ of land by the Crown to cover survey liens and costs incurred during the Native Land Court process. Some claims allege that these costs and the amount of land lost in this way were excessive.17
The fourth set of concerns raised in claims in this district relate to the Crown’s establishment of a pre‐emptive right of purchase and the impact this had upon the price per acre received by Maori owners for their land. Several claims allege that the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884, the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889 and other legislation re‐instated a right of Crown pre‐emption and this restricted the ability of the iwi to deal with their lands and allowed the Crown to set the terms for land dealings in the Rohe Potae.18 Claims also argue that through this legislation and various proclamations, Maori were prohibited from dealing with anyone other than the Crown.19 Some claims state that this created a monopoly situation, which ‘dispossess[ed] Maori owners of their lands’ through
11 Wai 556, Daniel Vaikai Ormsby and Ngati Rora Hapu of Ngati Maniapoto, 1 September 2008, p 6 and
Wai 1584, Roderick Tiwha Bell on behalf of all marae, iwi and hapu of Maniapoto, 2 September 2008, p 6 12 Wai 2015, Sonya Kararaina Parangi and others of Ngaati Paretekawa, 27 August 2008, p 6 13 Wai 1599, Pani Sinclair Chamberlin and Ngati Rereahu, 12 August 2008, p 4 14 Wai 847, Representatives of hapu in the Ngati Maniapoto Rohe 15
Wai 1584, Roderick Tiwha Bell on behalf of all marae, iwi and hapu of Maniapoto, 2 September overview 2008, p 3 16
Wai 928, Raymond Tawhaki Wi et al and Ngati Raerae, p 9 and 17 Wai 483, 535, Wai 551, Wai 556, Wai 587, Wai 847, Wai 928, Wai 800, Wai 1974, Wai 1597, Wai 1599 and Wai 1994 18 Wai 1584, Roderick Tiwha Bell on behalf of all marae, iwi and hapu of Maniapoto, 2 September 2008, p 5 19 Wairehu R Te Huia and others on behalf of themselves and Nga Uri o Te Whakataute, 20 August
2008, p 12 Introduction 6
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 extremely low or inadequate land prices. They allege that there was an ‘inequality in prices paid by the Crown and successive Governments in Maori land in comparison to European land’ and this was inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.20
A small number of claims are concerned with the creation of reserves and their alienation for Maori ownership. There are allegations that Maori were confined to reserves of unsold, usually inhospitable lands, away from their turangawaewae, and that the claimants have since been substantially excluded from access to the economy and resources of the area as a result. 21 One claim relates specifically to the alienation of the ten per cent reserves made for ‘sellers’ in the Te Kopua No. 1 block. 22
Finally, a number of claims allege that the large scale purchasing of Maori land in the inquiry district by the Crown had a negative impact on Maori communities. Many claims cite the failure of the Crown to ensure sufficient land was set aside and made inalienable for the present and future needs of hapu and iwi, including the maintenance of tikanga.23 In particular, they argue that land alienation cut off access to traditional food, medicine and other resources, and the ability to generate income from the lands, waterways and resources.24 They consider that this resulted in penury, subsistence farming and economic marginalization and that the incidence of ill‐health substantially increased as a result.25 Some claims allege that the purchase of any land other than that contemplated in the agreement between the Crown and the tribes of the Rohe Potae was contrary to the undisturbed possession of land, estates and forests that those hapu wished to retain, which was guaranteed in the Treaty.26
20 Wai 868, James Rauputu et al of Ngati Rungaterangi, Ngati Te Paemate, & Ngati Waiora all of Ngati Maniapoto, July 2000, p 3 and Wai 729, Hardie Peni and Ngati Rereahu or Ngati Maniapoto 21
Wai 729, Hardie Peni and Ngati Rereahu or Ngati Maniapoto overview 22 Wai 551, George Searancke and Ngati Ngawaero 23
Wai 800, Wai 847, Wai 993, Wai 556, and Wairehu R. Te Huia and others on behalf of themselves and and “Nga Uri o Te Whakataute,” 20 August 2008, p 9 24 Wai 1584, Roderick Tiwha Bell on behalf of all marae, iwi and hapu of Maniapoto, 2 September 2008, p 9 25 Wairehu R. Te Huia and others on behalf of themselves and Nga Uri o Te Whakataute, 20 August 2008, pp 13‐14 26
Wai 729, Hardie Peni and Ngati Rereahu or Ngati Maniapoto Introduction 7
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
STRUCTURE OF REPORT
As already mentioned, this report begins with a prologue covering the period from the establishment of the aukati around 1866 to the Rohe Potae agreements in 1883. This is intended to bridge the gap between the first land report, which dealt with matters up to 1865, and the discussion of land purchasing policy and legislation which begins in Chapter 1 of this report with the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act of 1884. 27
Chapter 1 explores the Crown’s vision for the future of the Rohe Potae, and examines the policies and legislation it put in place to allow that vision to be realised. In particular, it examines the reason for and effect of four interconnected measures: the re‐ establishment of the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase, prohibitions on direct leasing and selling between Maori and Europeans, government loans to fund land purchasing, and assessments of land quality and its suitability for European settlement. This chapter also explores the aspirations Rohe Potae hapu and iwi held about the future of their land and communities, as well as considering how hapu and iwi leaders responded to the legislation the Crown was putting in place for the district. The final section of this chapter investigates the Crown’s responses to these aspirations. Chapter 2 traces the continuation of these distinctive policies for the Rohe Potae and other areas traversed by the North Island Main Trunk Railway line until they merge with wider reforms introduced by the Liberal Government after 1892.
Chapters 3 shifts the focus to the role of land purchasing officers and other officials in the decision to begin purchasing Maori land in the Rohe Potae, and how and why certain areas of the district were targeted initially for purchase. These chapters also trace some of the fundamental decisions made in the district about how the purchasing would be conducted, especially how the price offered to Maori would be determined. Chapter 4 evaluates how these decisions worked in practice in the initial years of the Crown’s
purchasing in the district from 1889 to 1892, and the factors constraining purchasing and causing frustration for the Crown. overview
and
27 Leanne Boulton, ‘Hapu and Iwi Land Transactions with the Crown and Europeans in Te Rohe Potae
Inquiry District, c.1840–1865, Wai 898, #A19 Introduction 8
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Chapter 5 presents a detailed account of negotiations between hapu and iwi leaders and the Native Minister over land purchasing during a series of meetings from 1891 to 1894. In particular, this chapter documents requests by Maori to have the restrictions on private dealings removed from the majority of their land, and to be involved in the setting of price per acre in exchange for selling pre‐designated blocks of land to the Crown. Chapter 6 considers ongoing attempts by Maori communities to have these requests met as Crown purchasing accelerated between 1893 and 1900. The chapter assesses the actual extent of the restrictions on alienation and its impact on Maori ability to lease their land, and also examines how much influence Maori were able to exert in terms of the price per acre being offered to them by the Crown. Chapter 7 presents and discusses the expansion and rates of land alienation in the inquiry district from 1889 to 1908, giving particular attention to the reasons why some parts of the district were more heavily alienated than others. The chapter ends with a discussion of some of the factors which facilitated the acceleration of Crown purchasing after 1893. Chapter 8 sets out conclusions.
SOURCES FOR POLICY AND LEGISLATION
The policy and legislation chapters of this report reply upon statues, parliamentary debates and select committee evidence. Donald Loveridge’s overview report of Maori land alienation and land purchasing legislation in New Zealand has also been useful. The planning and first two years of the Crown’s purchasing programme in the inquiry district are reasonably well documented in the MA 13/78 file, one of a series of Maori Affairs Department special files for the Rohe Potae, and in reports by the Native Agent (and later land purchase officer) George Wilkinson published annually in Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR) from 1883 to 1892. This material is supplemented by a comprehensive search of the MA‐MLP series 1 files; the files of the
Native Land Purchasing Department held at Archives New Zealand, Wellington. Unfortunately, after 1893 there appears to have been little in the way of general reports overview or discussion between officials about how the land purchasing would be conducted, the and focus having shifted to the day‐to‐day activity of acquiring interests from individual owners. Introduction 9
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Attention has been given to recovering Maori voices and perspectives from these sources. However, the fact that almost all of the historical records were generated by and kept by Government officials has undoubtedly limited the extent to which that is possible. It is hoped that tangata whenua evidence will further illuminate many of the tipuna and events mentioned in this report. In particular, the voices of Maori women are rarely heard in the official record, and when they are it is as suplicants. As witnesses at Korero Tuku Ihu hui for this inquiry in 2010 pointed out women of mana played important diplomatic and political roles in Maori communities, and many hapu and iwi within the Rohe Potae inquiry district trace their origins to eponymous female ancestors. Heather Thompson speaking at the Raglan hui encapsulated the strength and importance of women in the whatatauki:
E kia nei, ko te maungarongo o te wahine e kore e takahia, ko te patunga o te wahine e kore e horoi.
The peace of a woman will never be trampled,
The death of a woman can never be clensed. 28
It is therefore regrettable that official records relating to this inquiry district rarely reflect these realities. It is hoped that this imbalance will be addressed by tangata whenua evidence.
A series of important meetings from 1891 to1894 between hapu and iwi in the district and the Native Minister over land purchasing in the Rohe Potae have been reconstructed using newspaper sources. Only limited official comment about these meetings has come to light. Evidence given by Ngati Maniapoto and other iwi before the Native Land Laws Commission in 1891 and a petition by a large number of hapu and iwi from the Rohe Potae in 1897 provides further evidence of the aspirations and requests made by Maori communities to the Crown regarding land purchasing in the region.
Discussion about the nature and extent of leasing, private purchasing, and pricing of land have drawn heavily on the MA‐MLP files but also on a range of secondary sources,
manuscripts, newspapers, petitions and other primary sources. The reports and overview
statistics generated by the Stout‐Ngata Native Lands and Native Land Tenure and
28 See for example evidence of Heather Thompson, Korero Tuku Iho Hui No. 3, Raglan, 12‐13 April 2010,
transcription, Wai 898, #4.1.3, pp 112‐114 Introduction 10
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Commission, 1907–1909 have also been utilised. Wherever possible the evidence given by claimants at the Oral and Traditional Hui held in the inquiry district during 2010 has been incorporated. All unpublished archival sources, and historical maps cited and reproduced will be included in a document bank to accompany this report.
SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY FOR LAND ALIENATION DATA
Raw land alienation data for the Rohe Potae inquiry district between 1840 and the end of 1908 was supplied by a team of researchers working on the Rohe Potae land alienation project. Their data and findings have been presented by Tutahanga Douglas, Craig Innes and James Mitchell in their report ‘Alienation of Maori Land within Te Rohe Potae inquiry district 1840–2010: A quantitative study’ (Wai 898, #A21). This data did not cover the ‘parish extension area’ north of the Puniu River or the ‘Te Akau D extension’ on the northern side of the Whaingaroa Harbour (Figure 1). Land alienation data for the ‘parish extension area’ has been drawn from Craig Innes ‘Te Rohe Potae Parishes Extension Report.’ Similar data for the Te Akau D block has been provided by Jamie Mitchell and Craig Innes. These two extensions to the inquiry district sit within the Waikato‐Tainui Settlement area defined by the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995.29 That legislation put into effect a Treaty settlement between the Crown and Waikato‐Tainui hapu and iwi with regard to raupatu (confiscation) claims. However, the boundary of the Rohe Potae inquiry district was extended in order to allow the Tribunal to hear claims relating to non‐raupatu issues from Maori individuals and groups with interests in land in those extension areas and claims from groups with land interests in the confiscation district who were not covered by the settlement.30
The raw land alienation data for the main part of the inquiry district captured all subdivisions of land within the inquiry district at the point that title was granted to non‐
Maori owners. The data set included alienations resulting from old land claims, pre‐ 1865 Crown purchases, alienation of Native reserves (created in those purchases), overview
and 29 A map of the Waikato‐Tainui Raupatu Claim Area is filed as Wai 898, #3.1.86(b). Maps in the ‘District inquiry revised boundary description and maps’, May 2008 (Wai 898, #6.2.8) show the ‘parish extension area’ and ‘Te Akau D extension’ in greater detail 30 This also included the raupatu claims of Ngati Kauwhata in relation to Rangiaohia (which is situated in the ‘parish extension area’ defined by this Tribunal). For presiding officer’s directions on the boundary
extensions see Wai 898, #2.5.21 and #2.5.24 Introduction 11
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Crown purchasing after 1865, private purchases and takings under public works and other legislation. This enabled each alienation to be sorted into one of three categories: government, private or other (largely takings under the public works Acts). The date and reference of the purchase deed or title were also recorded. In addition, the original size of the parent blocks were calculated using GIS technology and Native Land Court records. This made it possible to express the amount of land alienated in each block, and in the whole inquiry district, at any given year as a percentage of the original area of the block or district.
This data had several limitations, it was not able to record leases, or to systematically record which blocks were sold to pay for survey liens. Because it records alienation at the point that the formal legal instrument vesting the land with the new party was registered it does not track the purchase of each individual interest in land as it happened. This means that the amount of land shown as alienated from Maori ownership at any given point in time does not include individuals shares the Crown had purchased in subdivisions but had not yet partitioned out to gain a title to a single piece of land. Because land alienation data cannot record these undefined interests it is likely to mask and underestimate the true extent of purchasing in the district in any given year.
In using this raw data the author decided to exclude from calculations all alienations of Native reserves and blocks excluded from Crown purchases in the 1850s. This decision was made to avoid the possibility of double‐counting. The area of each known Crown purchase was included in the alienation data but it is far from clear whether the figures for these blocks (derived from 1850s purchase deeds) included Native reserves and block excluded from the purchase or not, and whether this was consistent over all the purchases. As a result overall figures for land alienation in the inquiry district in this report differ somewhat from those in Innes et al, and mean that the alienation figures in this report are conservative. When the raw data was produced at the beginning of 2010
the alienation of ten per cent ‘seller’ reserves within a small number of subdivisions was overview not detected, so the amount of land alienated in those subdivisions was overstated. This and is a small error involving eight parent blocks, with the reserves in question totaling 5,008.94 acres (Table 33 in Chapter 7). Introduction 12
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Several other data sets have been used in a more limited way throughout this report, including data from the Stout‐Ngata Commission reports for the Rohe Potae and annual returns of land purchased and leased, both published in AJHR. The commissioners, Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice of New Zealand since 1899 and former Premier, and Apirana Ngata the recently‐elected Liberal Member for Eastern Maori and member of the Young Maori Party, were appointed in 1907. 31 Their primary focus was on the future use of Maori land. They were required to determine how much Maori land remained in the district and what areas of it were currently occupied and/or cultivated by Maori. They then made recommendations as to how ‘Native lands which are unoccupied or not profitably occupied’ could ‘best be utilised and settled in the interests of the Native owners and the public good.’32 However, as a starting point for their investigation the Commissioners looked back over the preceding decades of land purchasing in the district. It is their commentary on the rate and pattern of land loss in the Rohe Potae district and the figures for land alienation (including leasing), rather than their more detailed statistics about the future use of Maori land which are useful to our understanding of land alienation patterns in the inquiry district.
The Stout‐Ngata Commission produced several reports on the Rohe Potae district; the data in their 1908 report has been used here. The Commissioners’ stated in their 1908 report that they had found it necessary to revisit the district and to revise their 1907 recommendations. This was because during the interval between their two reports the Crown had passed the Native Land Settlement Act, 1907 and had purchased a considerable area of land. 33 In 1908 the Commissioners estimated that ‘nearly 40,000 acres’ which they had reported on last year had subsequently ‘been leased or had come under negotiation for lease to Europeans.’ As a result they order a revised data set to be prepared. This was received in May 1908 after the Native Land Court had finished
31 Rachael C Walkinton, ‘The Greatest Mechanism ever for Solving the Maori Land “Problem”?: A study of the Stout‐Ngata Native Lands and Land Tenure Commission, 1907–1908’, MA thesis (History), University
of Canterbury,1998, p 40 overview 32 ‘Native Lands and Native‐Land Tenure (interim report of the commission appointed to inquire into the
question of): Commission, AJHR 1907, G‐1, pp 1‐2 and 33 Under the Native Land Settlement Act of 1907 the Government could declare Maori land which the Stout‐Ngata commission had identified as unutilised to be vested in the District Maori Land Board for sale or lease. The 1907 Act also required the District Maori Land Boards to sell half the land vested in them under part I of the Act, and they could sell previously vested land to the Crown at an agreed price, even though at the time the land was vested it was regarded as being protected from sales. The District Maori
Land Board therefore, was given a major role in Maori land alienations through both leases and sales. Introduction 13
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 dealing with the Crown’s newly acquired interests in particular blocks.34 For these reasons the data in the Stout‐Ngata Commissions’1908 report ought to be considered the definitive data set. Their data is set alongside the data from the Tribunal’s land alienation project for this district as a point of comparison. The patterns in the two data sets are remarkably similar even though the Rohe Potae district investigated by Stout and Ngata had different boundaries from the Tribunal’s current inquiry district (Figure 2).35
The annual returns of land purchased and leased by the Crown for each financial year (beginning 1 April and ending 31 March) show land for which negotiations were complete and for which negotiations were in progress.36 Both lists show blocks and subdivisions of blocks under each land district, give the area acquired (in acres) and payments made during various periods (in pounds). The completed transactions are blocks or subdivisions thereof which the Crown claimed to have made the final payment on in that financial year. The subdivisions under negotiation were those in which the Crown had made a number of payments but had not yet had title awarded. In this report this data has been used to trace the expansion of the Crown’s purchasing programme.
34 ‘Native Lands and Native Land Tenure: Interim report of the Native Land Commission on Native Land in the Rohe‐Potae or King Country District’, AJHR 1908, G‐1o, p 1 35 The Stout‐Ngata commission took the boundaries of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block as defined by the Native Land Court in 1886 as its area of inquiry. The 1907 report into the Rohe Potae stated that they
were dealing with ‘Native lands in the Rohe‐Potae district, commonly known as the King‐country.’ They noted that the plan accompanying this report sufficiently defined the extent of the district. The key differences between the Tribunal’s current inquiry district and that used by the Stout‐Ngata commission in 1907–1908 are that Stout‐Ngata’s area of inquiry excluded the Mokau Mohakatino and Mohakatino
Parininihi blocks, all blocks purchased by the Crown prior to 1865, the area north of the southern overview boundary of the Moerangi block and the Maraeroa and Ketemaringi blocks on the eastern boundary of
our inquiry district. In addition, they included the Ohura South block and a number of blocks to the south and of the Tribunal’s current inquiry boundary (AJHR 1907, G‐1B, ‘Native Lands in the Rohe‐Potae (King‐ Country) District’, p 1). Stout and Ngata calculated that this area covered ‘1,844,780 acres, more or less’ (AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 2) 36 Data from 1891 had to be excluded because in that return all completed transactions and partial transactions were listed in a single table and it was impossible to know which ones were completed
during the 1890‐91 financial year. Introduction 14
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 2: MAP OF THE ROHE POTAE AREA INVESTIGATED BY THE STOUTNGATA COMMISSION, 1907–1909
(Source: AJHR 1907, G1B)
15
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
OVERVIEW: ROHE POTAE LAND ALIENATION IN A NATIONAL CONTEXT
It is consided useful at the outset of this report to use these statistical sources to provide a summary of the amount of land alienated in the Rohe Potae inquiry district between 1889 and the beginning of 1909. These patterns are investigated and explained in greater detail in Chapter 7. This section also places these patterns in a national context, highlighting similarities and differences between the Rohe Potae and the North Island generally.
THE ALIENATION OF MAORI LAND: NORTH ISLAND, 1870–1909
In most parts of the North Island, Crown purchasing of Maori land resumed in about 1870 under the immigration and public works policies of Julius Vogel, with Donald McLean, the chief land purchaser during the 1850s, as Native Minister. For much of the previous decade the colony had been preoccupied by war and European settlement had been retarded. Vogel, the Colonial Treasurer, designed an ambitious programme of road, railway and telegraph construction to serve and prompt European settlement. This work was to be spread over a decade and funded by overseas borrowing.37 There was also a renewed focus on the purchasing of Maori land in the North Island. This land was to be handed over to the provincial governments to provide them ‘with the means to attract and accommodate new immigrant settlers, and to generate revenue which would help pay for further public works and immigration.’38 It was expected that construction of public works would invigorate the immediate area with cash from wages spent on supplies and materials. In the long‐term it was believed that roading and railway would contribute to economic progress and prosperity by providing better access to major settlements and encouraged settlement which would create further markets. As Marr noted ‘The Government made every effort in the North Island, to co‐
opt Maori into working on projects such as roads and railways’ and officials expressed the hope that ‘employment on the projects would provide a ‘civilising’ influence on Maori by teaching regular work habits.’ In any case, many Maori communities in the overview
and
37 Donald Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy on the Purchase of Maori Lands, 1865–1910: A preliminary survey’, 2004, Wai 1200, #A77, pp 72‐73 38
Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 73 Introduction 16
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 interior were keen to earn cash to rebuild and develop their land after the wars of the previous decade.39
It is likely that Maori in the King country received little of the benefit of roads and infrastructure during the 1870s, because most of their land lay behind the aukati where the State had little control or input. It was not until 1887 that Government officials could report that the North Island Main Trunk Railway line had advanced into the Rohe Potae, some roads had been constructed through the area and a telegraph line had been erected between Raglan and Kawhia.40 The exception to this general state of affairs was in the Whaingaroa, Raglan and Aotea Harbour area. Jane Luiten noted that settlers in these western harbours were successful in lobbying government to proclaim road and highway districts in which roads boards could be established. By 1873 such districts were created for Alexandra Township, Karioi, Mangapiko, Pirongia, Rangiaohia, the Town of Raglan and Whaingaroa.41 Under the policies of Native Minister Donald McLean these boards received a proportion of their funding from the Native Department, on the condition that they employ Maori labour on the portions of the road that passed through Maori land. As Luiten concluded, this did result in ‘immediate income and longer‐term road access,’ which delivered some benefit to Maori communities in these areas.42
Vogel’s public works and immigration policies resulted in a rush of land purchasing by the Crown in the North Island in the early 1870s, but this slowed slightly after McLean’s death in 1876. Large‐scale purchasing gained new momentum under the Grey Government from 1877 until late 1879 but came to a virtual stop in the early 1880s, as the colony faced a prolonged economic depression. The Crown’s land purchasing programme gained renew impetus with the Stout‐Vogel Government’s focus on the
39 Cathy Marr, Marr, Cathy, The Alienation of Maori Land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea Block), 18401920, Rangahaua Whanui Series, District 8, December 1996, now Wai 898, #A55, p 10 citing Alan Ward, A Show
of Justice: Racial ‘Amalgamation’ in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, Auckland University Press/Oxford overview
University Press, Auckland, reprinted 1983, pp 231‐239 and The Waitangi Tribunal, Pouakani Report,
Legislation Direct, Wellington, 1993, Wai 898, #A33, pp 57‐58 respectively and
40 Wilkinson, Native Agent, Alexandra, to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 May 1887, AJHR 1887, Sess II, G‐1, No. 5, p 4 41 Jane Luiten, ‘Local Government in Te Rohe Potae’ January 2011, Wai 898, #A24, p 54 42 Luiten, ‘Local Government in Te Rohe Potae’, 2011, p 56. For example, local Maori under the direction of Hone Te One ‘were given the contract to build the Te Mata‐Aotea road between 1872 and 1874 and
Maori were employed on the Waipa‐Raglan Road in 1878 (p 55) Introduction 17
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 acquisition of land along the North Island Main Trunk Railway route, north and south of the Rohe Potae, from 1883. But by the time Premier Sir Harry Atkinson left office in January 1891 the amount of land being purchased had dwindled again. The early 1890s heralded another surge of land purchasing under John Ballance's Liberals, this continued throughout the 1890s until it was voluntarily brought to an end by his successor Richard Seddon in 1898 and 1899 and the District Maori Land Councils (later Boards) were established in 1900. There was a brief and limited rise in Crown purchasing under the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905. This was closely related to the drive to identify unused Maori land and to the findings of the Commission on Native Lands and Native Land Tenure (Stout‐Ngata) of 1907–1909.
This final phase of purchasing prior to 1909 met with considerable success in the Rohe Potae. In June 1907, the Under Secretary of Lands reported that W H Grace, former assistant land purchasing officer in the district in 1890, had been appointed to purchase land on behalf of the Crown in a very large district stretching from Mercer on the Waikato River to the Ohura Valley just south of Taumarunui. The Under Secretary noted that all such officers had been ‘singularly successful’ but an examination of the 1907 return of land purchased and leased showed that Grace was in negotiation for far more land (167,820 acres) than officers in districts elsewhere. In fact the area he had under negotiation was greater than that under negotiation in the Taranaki and Wellington land districts combined (107,975 acres).43
A new regime of Maori land administration was introduced by the Native Land Act 1909, under which considerable further land loss occurred during the first half of the twentieth century, but this was proportionally much smaller than that which had occurred in the late nineteenth century.44 Loveridge calculated the proportion of the total area of the North Island acquired by the Crown between 1870 and 1910, the
average area purchased per year, and the amount of money expended. He discovered that amongst these peaks and troughs in the Crown’s purchasing of Maori land in the
North Island two periods stand out: 1870/71 to 1882/83 and 1891/92 to 1899/1900 overview
(Graph 1). In other words, ‘the 1870s and 1890s … saw significantly higher levels of and
43 Maori Land Purchase Operations, report under “The Maori Land Settlement Act, 1905” for the year ended 31st March, 1907, AJHR 1907, G‐3A, p 1 44
Loveridge ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 66 Introduction 18
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 purchasing activity overall than either the 1880s or the first decade of the 20th century.’45
When AJHR data for completed transactions in the Rohe Potae inquiry district is plotted for the same four periods similar patterns emerge, with the average amount of land alienated in the period between 1891/92 and 1899/1900 considerably higher than that for the 1900/01 to 1909/10 period (Graph 2).46 The reason for the almost complete lack of land alienation in the district before 1890/91 is discussed below.
overview
and
45 Loveridge ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 71 46 No data was tabulated for 1906/07 because the schedule for that year did not distinguish between completed transactions and partially completed transactions. In addition, there were no recorded
completed transactions for land in the Rohe Potae in the 1902/03 and 1909/10 financial years. Introduction 19
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
GRAPH 1: ACREAGE PURCHASED BY PERIOD (AVERAGE PER YEAR) IN THE NORTH ISLAND, 1870–1910
350,000 289,021 300,000 267,435 250,000
200,000 164,620 150,000
100,000 76,491 50,000
0 1870/71 ‐ 1882/83 1883/84 ‐ 1890/91 1891/92 ‐ 1899/1900 1900/01 ‐ 1909/10
Source: Loveridge, 2004, Figure 19, p 70
GRAPH 2: ACREAGE PURCHASED BY PERIOD (AVERAGE PER YEAR) FOR THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT
70,000 59,626.08 60,000
50,000
40,000 34,484.87
30,000
20,000
10,000 635.00 0 1870/71 ‐ 1882/83 1883/84 ‐ 1890/91 1891/92 ‐ 1899/1900 1900/01 ‐ 1909/10
Source: Data from AJHR ‘Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island’ overview Crown expenditure on Maori land purchasing in the North Island ran to almost twice as and much per year, on average, during the 1870s and 1890s than it had in the 1880s or the first decades of the twentieth century. This was the case even through the price per acre in the early twentieth century was almost double what had been paid in the nineteenth Introduction 20
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 century. This rise in price per acre was probably the result of the provisions of the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905, which prohibited the Crown from purchasing Maori land at less than the assessed capital value (Table 1).47
TABLE 1: CROWN PURCHASE COSTS AND PRICES, 1870–1910
Approximate average (C) Total Average cost per price per acre (A) Total Acreage expenditure by C as shilling acre in period received by vendors Years purchased Crown (£) (x20) (shillings) (C/A) (shillings)* 1870/71 ‐ 1882/83 3,757,279 897,213 17,944,260 4.8 4.1 1883/84 ‐ 1890/91 1,316,966 299,266 5,985,320 4.5 3.9 1891/92 ‐ 1899/1900 2,406,918 739,804 14,796,080 6.1 5.3 1900/01 ‐ 1909/10 764,909 386,757 7,735,140 10.1 8.7
Source: Loveridge, 2004, Table 19, p 67
* This represents the "Average cost per acre" to the Crown, less 14 per cent for expenses.
THE ALIENATION OF MAORI LAND: ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1889–1909
In a significant portion of the Rohe Potae inquiry district the progress of Crown purchasing closely mirrored that in the North Island as a whole. Yet, in other locations around the district the pattern was markedly different. To understand why this was the case it is important to distinguish between four parts of the district. These are the ‘Northern area’, the ‘Rohe Potae area’, the ‘Rangitoto Tuhua blocks’ and the ‘extension areas.’ These four areas are shown in Figure 3.
The Northern area covers the territory within the inquiry district lying north of the boundary between the Pirongia West and Kawhia Blocks. It encompasses the Moerangi block as well as land between the Aotea Harbour and the southern side of the Whaingaroa Harbour. This land was outside the boundaries of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block dealt with by the Native Land Court in 1886. The area north of the Moerangi
block was also excluded from the railway restriction zone over which Crown pre‐ emption and restrictions on private dealings applied from 1884 onwards. The ‘parish extension area’ north of the Puniu River was defined by direction on 4 September overview
and
47 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 71 citing the Native Land Settlement Act 1905, s.25. This value was to be assessed according to the procedures laid down by the Government
Valuation of Land Act 1896 Introduction 21
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
2007.48 It included land in the Mangapiko, Ngaroto, Pirongia, Pukekura and Puniu Parishes and the towns of Alexandra East (now Pirongia East), Alexandra West (now Pirongia West), Te Awamutu Village, Cambridge East Township, Cambridge West Township, Harapepe Township and Kihikihi Township within those parishes.49 In addition it included the ‘Te Akau D extension’ – the southern portion of the Te Akau block on the northern side of Whaingaroa Harbour.
The ‘Rohe Potae area’ includes the whole of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block of 1886 as well as the Mokau Mohakatino and Mohakatino Parininihi blocks which were excluded from the 1886 block because they had already been dealt with by the Native Land Court in 1882. It also includes three blocks (Maraeroa, Ketemairangi and Huakia) which were part of the Tauponui‐a‐tia block but were included in the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae inquiry district because of claims to them by Ngati Maniapoto hapu and iwi.
‘The Rangitoto Tuhua blocks’ are the numbered subdivision of the large Rangitoto Tuhua block. These lie east of the ‘Rohe Potae area’. They have been analysed separately because purchasing in these subdivisions did not begin until 1899/1900, just as a nationwide halt was called to land purchasing. This late start to Crown purchasing had an obvious impact on the pattern and extent of land alienation before the end of 1908. These categories have been adopted as a framework for the discussion of land alienation patterns in this report. However, these labels are not meant to imply that the Rangitoto Tuhua block was excluded from the Rohe Potae at any time. In fact it was an integral part of the Rohe Potae of 1883 and the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block defined by the Native Land Court in 1886.
overview
and
48 Wai 898 #2.5.21 49 Craig Innes, ‘Alienation of Maori Granted Lands within Te Rohe Potae Parish Extension, 1863–2011,
Wai 898, #A30, p 16 Introduction 22
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 3: MAP OF THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT SHOWING AREAS DISCUSSED IN LAND ALIENATION PATTERNS CHAPTERS
23
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The ‘Rohe Potae area’
Unlike most parts of the North Island, there was no Maori land alienation in the inquiry district between 1865 and 1889. This was a consequence of the influence of the Kingitanga, the establishment and maintenance of the aukati from 1866 and the determination of hapu and iwi to keep the Native Land Court out of the Rohe Potae for as long as possible. The court began investigating title to the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in 1886 and then its various internal blocks and subdivisions. The individualisation of title to the land enabled land purchasing officers to purchase the interests (later the defined shares) of individual owners. Purchasing could not proceed until a list of owners was available and at least the outer boundaries of the blocks had been surveyed. This was largely responsible for delaying the start of the Crown’s purchasing programme in the Rohe Potae inquiry district until 1889/1890.
It is evident from an 1891 audit of Maori land in the North Island undertaken by the newly elected Liberal Government that this lack of land alienation in the 1870 to 1889 period placed the Rohe Potae in a highly unusual position. This 1891 map shows that by that time only two large areas of land in the country remained in Maori hands: Te Urewera and Te Rohe Potae. Both were regions where there Maori communities retained considerable political autonomy.50 As a result concerted efforts were made by the Government during the 1880s and 1890s to breaking open these two strongholds of tribal autonomy. In the case of the Rohe Potae this was coupled with a general desire for land for European settlement and strong pressure to push the main trunk railway line between Auckland and Wellington through the King Country. The presence of these two factors had a considerable influence on the development of Crown policy and practice with regard to the purchasing of Maori land in the Rohe Potae. In particular, land purchasing legislation and measures to facilitate the construction and economic
viability of the main trunk line through the Rohe Potae overlapped and became interwoven. A unique feature of these policies was the Crown’s imposition and maintenance of its pre‐emptive right to purchase Maori land and prohibitions on overview
and
50 District land purchase officer, George Wilkinson, also noted this: Ngati Maniapoto ‘and the Urewera Tribe may be said to be the only tribes in New Zealand whose lands are at the present time in what may be called a virgin or intact state, i.e., have not yet been affected by sales or leases.’ (AJHR 1891, G‐5, No. 3, p 5, Wilkinson, Native Agent to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 10 June 1891)
Introduction 24
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 private leasing and selling over all or most of the inquiry district for protracted periods of time. The development of these restrictions, their enforcement and hapu and iwi protests about this regime are traced in the chapters that follow.
All of this resulted in a particularly condensed and intensive period of change for Rohe Potae hapu and iwi. Within the space of less than 15 years from 1886 to 1900 ancestral land that had been held in customary title was brought under a Western legal title with individual owners holding defined shares. Nearly a third of the land south of the Moerangi block and west of the Rangitoto Tuhua block had been permanently lost from Maori control and ownership (Table 2). The land which remained was rapidly being subdivided into smaller, scattered pieces, while the number of owners for each parcel of land continued to increase as original owners died and succession orders were sought through the court. Equivalent change in neighbouring districts such as Taupo and Rotorua was spread over almost 30 years. 51
Despite these unique characteristics the rise and fall in the amount of land purchased each year between 1889 and 1908 in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ followed a very similar pattern to that found in the North Island as a whole. The proportion of the ‘Rohe Potae area’ acquired by the Crown between 1889 and 1893 was very modest (27,079 acres which represented just 2.37 per cent of the area). From 1894, after the advent of the Liberal Government, there was a significant upsurge in the amount of land alienated in this district: in 1893, 27,079 acres entered Crown ownership but in 1894 the Crown gained title toalmost five times as much (135, 584 acres).
The rate of alienation between 1895 and 1897 remained relatively constant, with 1896 recording a very low rate of alienation. It is unclear why this sudden drop in the amount of land recorded as alienated occurred. By the end of 1897, 15.95 per cent of the ‘Rohe Potae area’ had been alienated from Maori ownership. The period from 1898 to the end
of 1900 saw the pace of land acquisition increasing, so that by the end of 1900, 32.05 per cent of the area had been alienated. The percentage of the ‘Rohe Potae area’ overview recorded as alienated had more than doubled in just three years. and
51 Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims, Stage One, Legislation
Direct, Wellington, 2008, p 552 Introduction 25
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Between 1901 and the end of 1906 the rate at which land was being alienated was essentially static. This is typical of the ‘Taihoa’ period where purchasing ceased and it was only permitted to complete transactions that were already underway. There was then a small surge in the amount of land recorded as alienated in 1907 and 1908; bringing the percentage of the ‘Rohe Potae area’ lost from Maori ownership by the end of 1908 to 46.82 per cent (Table 2 and Graph 3).
TABLE 2: TIME SERIES SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF LAND ALIENATED AS A PROPORTION OF THE ‘ROHE POTAE AREA’, 1889–1908
Year Acres (acres) As % of original area Cumm % 1889 310.50 0.02% 0.02% 1891 12,360.00 0.71% 0.73% 1892 1,428.03 0.08% 0.81% 1893 27,079.00 1.56% 2.37% 1894 135,584.88 7.82% 10.19% 1895 52,226.40 3.01% 13.20% 1896 4.23 0.00% 13.20% 1897 47,789.61 2.75% 15.95% 1898 194,572.63 11.22% 27.17% 1899 69,325.32 4.00% 31.17% 1900 15,349.27 0.88% 32.05% 1901 64,776.87 3.73% 35.79% 1902 300.00 0.02% 35.80% 1903 5,391.14 0.31% 36.11% 1904 15,645.09 0.90% 37.02% 1905 4,195.78 0.24% 37.26% 1906 3,175.25 0.18% 37.44% 1907 45,589.65 2.63% 40.07% 1908 117,168.36 6.75% 46.82% Total alienated 812,272.01 46.82% Original area 1,734,779.39
Source: Data from the Tribunal’s Te Rohe Potae land alienation project
overview
and
Introduction 26
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
GRAPH 3: CHANGE IN THE PROPORTION OF THE ‘ROHE POTAE AREA’ ALIENATED, 1889–1908
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Proportion of original area alienated 10%
0% 1889 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905190619071908
Where patterns of land alienation in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ differ most from the national picture is in the proportion of the total alienation attributed to private purchases. Loveridge calculated private purchasing was responsible for 19 per cent of Maori land alienation in the North Island between 1865 and 1909 (Graph 4). In contrast, just 1.1 per cent of the land alienated from Maori ownership in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ between 1889 and 1909 was purchased by private parties (Table 3 and Graph 5). The low rate of private purchasing is hardly surprising given the restrictions on alienation in force for virtually the whole period from 1884 to 1900. A more detailed discussion of the private purchasing can be found in Chapter 6.
overview
and
Introduction 27
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
GRAPH 4: ALIENATION OF MAORI LAND IN NORTH ISLAND BY TYPE, 1865– 1910
Crown 1905 Act Purchases, 2%
Other Crown (Provincial and Private PW takings), Purchase, 19% 2% Crown IPW Confiscation Purchases, (land retained 54% by Crown), 17% Crown Purchases of 'returned' confiscations, 6%
*IPW purchases were those made by the Crown using the immigration and public works (IWP) loan fund between 1870 and 1908 (see Loveridge, 2004, Table 2, p 20).
Source: Loveridge, 2004, Figure 1, p 22
GRAPH 5: ALIENATION OF MAORI LAND IN THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT BY TYPE (EXCLUDING EXTENSION AREAS), 1889–1908
3.22%
Alienated by pre‐1865 Crown purchasing
Alienated to Government 1889‐1908 44.19% 51.43% Alienated to Private
parties 1889‐1908
Calculated as remaining
Maori land overview
and
1.10%
Source: Data from the Tribunal’s Te Rohe Potae land alienation project Introduction 28
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF THE ALIENATION STATISTICS FOR THE ‘ROHE POTAE AREA’, 1840–1908
Summary Acres % of RP area Alienated by pre‐1865 Crown purchasing 57,707.32 3.22% Alienated by OLCs 515.30 0.03% Alienated to Government 1889‐1908 793,143.94 44.19% Alienated to Private parties 1889‐1908 19,766.78 1.10% Other alienation 556.29 0.03% Calculated as remaining Maori land 923,093.02 51.43% Total alienated by 1 Jan 1909 871,689.63 48.57% Calculated original area 1,794,782.65 100.00%
Source: Data from the Tribunal’s Te Rohe Potae Land alienation project
The Stout‐Ngata commission’s figures for alienation by sale in their Rohe Potae district (of which the boundaries differed slightly from ours) are broadly in line with these results. That data puts the proportion of the Stout‐Ngata Rohe Potae area alienated by sale by 1907/08 at 44.6 per cent. Once again, the vast majority of this was purchased by the Crown, with only one per cent sold to private parties. The commission found that a further 12.5 per cent of the area was leased or under negotiation for leasing (Table 4 and Graph 6).
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF THE ALIENATION STATISTICS FOR THE STOUT NGATA ROHE POTAE AREA, 1840–1907/08
Summary Area % of SN RP area Sold to Crown 804,769.00 43.6% Sold to private individuals 17,818.00 1.0% Leased or under negotation to lease 231,423.98 12.5% Area dealt with (for which Stout‐Ngata made recommendations) 294,129.21 15.9% Proportion not accounted for 496,639.82 26.92% Total area of StoutNgata Rohe Potae area 1,844,780.00 100.00%
Source: Data from ‘Native Lands and Native Land Tenure: Interim report of the Native Land Commission on Native Land in the RohePotae or King Country District’, AJHR 1908, G1o overview
and
Introduction 29
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
GRAPH 6: PROPORTION OF STOUTNGATA ROHE POTAE AREA ALIENATED BY 1907/1908
Sold to Crown
Sold to private individuals 26.9%
43.6% Leased or under negotation to lease
15.9% Area dealt with (for which Stout‐Ngata made 12.5% recommendations) Proportion not accounted 1.0% for
Rangitoto Tuhua blocks
Given that land purchasing in the Rangitoto Tuhua blocks did not begin until 1899/1900 it is unsurprising that patterns of land alienation in those blocks was markedly different from the ‘Rohe Potae area’. This late start meant that the proportion of the original Rangitoto Tuhua block alienated by the end of 1908 was 26.7 per cent, considerably lower than in the ‘Rohe Potae area’. As was the case in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ the buyer was almost always the Crown with less than one per cent of the original area purchased by private individuals (Table 5 and Graph 7).
overview
and
Introduction 30
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF THE ALIENATION STATISTICS FOR THE RANGITOTO TUHUA BLOCK, 1900–1908
Summary Acres % of R‐T Block Alienated to the Crown 122,866.29 26.53% Alienated to private individuals 300.00 0.06% Other alienations 542.27 0.12% Calculated as remaining Maori land 339,348.02 73.28% Total alienated by 1 Jan 1909 123,708.56 26.72% Calculated original area 463,056.57 100.00%
Source: Data from the Tribunal’s Te Rohe Potae Land alienation project
GRAPH 7: COMPARISON OF THE CHANGE IN THE PROPORTION OF THE RANGITOTO TUHUA BLOCKS ALIENATED WITH THAT IN THE ‘ROHE POTAE AREA’, 1889–1908
60%
50% Rohe Potae 40% area
30% Rangitoto‐ Tuhua Blocks 20%
10% Proportion of original area alienated 0%
The Northern area
By 1865, 41.7 per cent of the land in the Northern area had been alienated from Maori
ownership through Crown purchasing before 1865 and old land claims (OLCs). This is a significant contrast to the ‘Rohe Potae area’ itself where pre‐1865 Crown purchases account for just 3.2 per cent of the total area alienated by 1909. This reflects a history of overview widespread resistance to land selling in the 1850s and 1860s south of the Puniu River and (Graph 8). Introduction 31
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
GRAPH 8: COMPARISON OF THE CHANGE IN THE PROPORTION OF THE NORTHERN AREA ALIENATED WITH THAT IN THE ‘ROHE POTAE AREA’AND RANGITOTO TUHUA BLOCKS, 1889–1908
60%
50%
40% Rohe Potae area 30% Rangitoto‐ Tuhua Blocks Northern area 20%
10% Proportion of original area alienated
0% 1889 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
Almost no further land was lost in the Northern area between 1865 and the beginning of 1909. Part of one small Native Reserve, Te Uku (in the Whaingaroa block) was purchased by the Crown in 1907. The original area of the reserve was 21.2 acres, of this 17.1 acres was alienated. The circumstances behind this purchase are unclear. This took the proportion of the Northern area alienated by 1 January 1909 to 41.74 per cent (Table 6 & Graph 9).
overview
and
Introduction 32
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF ALIENATION STATISTICS FOR THE NORTHERN AREA, 1840–1908
Summary Acres % of N area Alienated by pre‐1865 Crown purchasing 43,532.60 41.22% Alienated by OLCs 534.00 0.51% Alienated to Government 1889‐1908 17.10 0.02% Alienated to Private parties 1889‐1908 0.00 0.00% Other alienation 0.00 0.00% Calculated as remaining Maori land 61,527.60 58.26% Total alienated by 1 Jan 1909 44,083.70 41.74% Calculated original area 105,611.30 100.00%
Source: Data from the Tribunal’s Te Rohe Potae Land alienation project
GRAPH 9: PROPORTION OF NORTHERN AREA ALIENATED BY 1 JANUARY 1909
Alienated by pre‐ 1865 Crown purchasing Alienated by OLCs 41.22% 58.26% Calculated as remaining Maori land
0.51%
The Extension areas
The history of land in the extension areas is significantly different from that in the remainder of inquiry district. These areas, the ‘parish extension area’ situated in
parishes and townships north of Puniu River between Pirongia and Cambridge and the ‘Te Akau D extension’ on the northern side of the Whaingaroa Harbour were confiscated overview by the Crown under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863.52 Formal confiscation took and
52 A comprehensive discussion of the New Zealand Wars in the Waikato and the subsequent confiscation of Maori land in that district by the Crown can be found in Vincent O’Malley, ‘Te Rohe Potae War and
Raupatu’, 2010, Wai 898, #A22 Introduction 33
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 place by proclamation in 1864 and 1865.53 Affected hapu and iwi then made application to the Compensation Court for the return of their land. Individuals were then awarded a Crown grant or cash in compensation under various statutes. Craig Innes identified grants of land in the ‘parish extension area’ issued to Maori.54 His figures show that just 6.82 per cent of the original area of this extension was returned to Maori after confiscation, the great majority of this was in grants under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 and its amendments (Table 7). Innes calculated that the majority of the land granted to Maori in the Parish Extension (78.32 percent) was returned to those classified by the Crown as ‘loyal’ or ‘neutral.’55
TABLE 7: AMOUNT AND PROPORTION OF LAND IN THE ‘PARISH EXTENSION AREA’ RETURNED TO MAORI IN CROWN GRANTS AFTER RAUPATU
Type of Grant Total acres % of land granted to Maori NZ Settlements Act Grants 7,311.49 85.71% Volunteers and Others Lands Act Grants 1,104.55 12.95% Special Contracts Act 1.02 0.01% Not Specified 1.18 0.01% Crown Grants Act No. 2 1862 3.31 0.04% Friendly Natives Contracts Confirmation Act 1866 108.53 1.27% Unknown 0.52 0.01% Total area of granted Maori lands 8,530.60 100.00% Total area of extension 125,075.00 6.82%
Source: Data from Innes, ‘Alienation of Maori Granted Lands within Te Rohe Potae Parish Extension, 1863–2011’, Wai 898, #A30, p 250
By 1910, just after the end of this study, 70 per cent of the land granted to individual Maori as compensation for raupatu had been alienated from Maori ownership. There was an initial period of rapid alienation during the 1870s so that by 1880 over a third of the granted area had been lost. The other period of particularly intensive alienation was between 1900 and 1920 (Table 8 and Graph 10).
53 For further details see Vincent O’Malley, ‘Te Rohe Potae War and Raupatu’, 2010, Chpt 6 (pp 467‐473) 54 Innes noted that by definition this included lands granted to a person described as an “aboriginal
native”, (or “half caste” where the grant is shown as a grant to a “native” on surviving map ‘AAFV 997 overview Miscellaneous Plan A[uckland] (D)71, “Plan of Surveys on the Confiscated Land, Upper Waikato”, April
1871 or similiar). But it did not include grants with owners who might in some instances be described as and Maori or “half caste” but positively identified as a settler on the grant and where the land is not shown as a “native” grant on A71. Land was deemed alienated for the purpose of his study at the point it was transferred ‘away from the original grantee or natural successors to the government or someone positively identified as a settler. (Innes, ‘Alienation of Maori Granted Lands within Te Rohe Potae Parish Extension ...’, pp 27‐28) 55
Innes, ‘Alienation of Maori Granted Lands within Te Rohe Potae Parish Extension ...’, pp 254‐255 Introduction 34
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 8: ALIENATION OF LAND GRANTED TO MAORI IN THE ‘PARISH EXTENSION AREA’ AS COMPENSATION FOR RAUPATU, 1870 TO PRESENT
Year Acres alienated As % of total granted 1870 1,358.44 15.92% 1880 3,387.09 39.71% 1890 3,889.09 45.59% 1900 3,899.46 45.71% 1910 5,873.95 68.86% 1920 7,503.97 87.97% 1930 7,736.84 90.70% 1940 8,016.35 93.97% 1950 8,056.00 94.44% 1960 8,416.33 98.66% 1970 8,416.33 98.66% 1980 8,416.78 98.67% 1990 8,426.92 98.78% 2010 8,432.42 98.85% Total granted 8,530.60
Source: Data from Innes, ‘Alienation of Maori Granted Lands within Te Rohe Potae Parish Extension, 1863–2011’, Wai 898, #A30, p 250
GRAPH 10: RATE OF ALIENATION OF LAND GRANTED TO MAORI IN THE ‘PARISH EXTENSION AREA’ AS COMPENSATION FOR RAUPATU, 1870 TO PRESENT
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
In contrast to the area within the inquiry district proper, all alienations in the ‘parish overview extension area’ up to the end of 1908 were to Europeans privately. Selling land held in and Crown grants was possible for Maori because this form of title differed little from those held by European settlers and there were no blanket restrictions on alienation in the ‘parish extension area.’ The ‘Te Akau D extension’ contained 17,418.04 acres. Alienation of the block began in 1908 and by the end of that year the Crown had purchase 2,159.90 Introduction 35
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 acres (12.40 per cent of its total area). Crown purchasing continued in 1909 and 1910, accounting for more than a third (37.8 per cent) of its total area.56 The remaining alienations, the last of which was in 1959, were through private sales. In all, just 8.94 percent of the original area remains as Maori land today.57 As James Julian Mitchell and Craig Innes have pointed out this pattern is the result of changes to the legislative regime governing land purchasing. Prior to the Native Land Court Act 1909 Maori land could only be alienated to the Crown or through District Maori Land Boards, however after 1909 all existing restrictions on alienation were removed and Maori land could be sold or leased to private parties.58
CONCLUSION
By the beginning of 1909 around 47 per cent of the Rohe Potae inquiry district had been alienated from Maori ownership.59 These figures broadly agree with those produced by the Stout‐Ngata Commission in 1907/1908. This represented a significant reduction in the economic base and natural resources of hapu and iwi in the district. As the succeeding chapters will demonstrate this loss was also contrary to the consistently expressed wish of Maori communities to retain and use their land and to control the way in which its title was determined.
Several things make the experience of land alienation in this inquiry district distinctive. In 1889, when the Crown began its purchasing programme, the Rohe Potae was one of the few substantial areas of land in the country wholly owned and controlled by hapu and iwi, and it bears comparison with the Urewera in this respect. The other characteristic was how rapid the pace of change was in this district in comparison with neighbouring regions. In only 15 years from the title investigation of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in 1886 until 1901, when the rate of land acquisition levelled off, just over a third of the inquiry district had been lost from Maori ownership. At the start of that
overview 56 The Crown’s final purchase of land in Te Akau D was 8.25 acres acquired under the Native Purposes Act
1940 in 1938 (Jaime Mitchell & Craig Innes, ‘Te Akau D Alienation History’ (Draft), 9 May 2011, Appendix and C: Alienation Tables, pp 97‐99) 57 Mitchell & Innes, ‘Te Akau D Alienation History’, Draft 9 May 2011, p 66, Table 12, p 83 and Appendix C pp 97‐99 58 Mitchell & Innes, ‘Te Akau D Alienation History’, Draft 9 May 2011, pp 67‐68 59 This figure excluded alienation of Native reserves and of blocks excluded from Crown purchases during
the 1850s Introduction 36
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 period the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block had been a more or less autonomous Maori territory where all land was held in customary title. By 1901, the land was divided into numerous blocks and heavily subdivided, title was awarded to individuals (not hapu or iwi) and Crown purchasing from individuals resulted in a patchwork of Crown and Maori owned subdivisions. By comparison, in other parts of the North Island this degree of change was the culmination of 30 years, from the time that the Native Land Court began operating and Crown purchasing resummed in the late 1860s and early 1870s.60 The enormity and intensity of this transformation, and the condensed timescale over which it took place, posed challenges for hapu and iwi leaders trying to understand, control and minimise the impact of those changes.
Yet, there were also strong similarities between the rate of land purchasing in the inquiry district and the pattern in the rest of the North Island during the 1890s and early 1900s. The rapid increase in the amount of land purchased in the inquiry district during the 1890s mirrors the national trend, as does the dramatic slowdown in land alienation between 1900 and 1905. As was the case in the country as a whole, the majority of purchases were made by the Crown. However, the proportion of land alienation by private purchases after 1865 was markedly lower in the inquiry district than in the North Island; just one per cent compared to 19 per cent.
In terms of the overall pattern of land alienation prior to 1909 the inquiry district was not a homogenous region. In the Northern area (north of the Pirongia West block) about 42 per cent of the land was lost from Maori ownership by 1909. Almost all this was the result of Crown purchasing prior to 1865, with just one small piece of land alienated during the 1889–1909 period. In the Rangitoto Tuhua block land purchasing did not begin until 1899/1900, and was considerably slowed but not halted by legislation prohibiting new purchases from 1900 to 1905. This resulted in around a quarter of that
block being alienated from Maori ownership by 1909. In the remainder of the inquiry district (excluding the extension areas) almost half (48.57 per cent) of the land was
alienated by the end of this period. overview
and
60 By comparison, in the Tribunal’s Central North Island (CNI) inquiry Region (Rotorua, Taupo and Kaingaroa) almost three decades of land alienation, mostly by the Crown, between 1873 and 1900 had resulted in just over half (52.9 per cent) the Maori land base of that inquiry region (and associated resources)
being alienated (Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo..., 2008, p 560) Introduction 37
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
PROLOGUE: THE KING COUNTRY, 1866–1883
There was a twenty year hiatus in Crown land purchasing within the Rohe Potae inquiry district between the Waipa‐Waitetuna purchase in 1864 and the beginning of a new wave of Crown purchasing in 1889. To a considerable extent this was the result of hapu and iwi encircling the district with an aukati from about 1866 until after the Rohe Potae agreement in 1883. In the Mokau region hapu and iwi retained their allegiance to the Kingitanga and the aukati remained intact. However, from the mid‐1870s onwards they began to cautiously and selectively re‐engage in trade and economic opportunities with Europeans, while retaining their land and resources under their authority and control. The Mokau Mohakatino and Mokau Parininihi blocks, where both Ngati Maniapoto and Ngati Tama of Taranaki claimed interests, were taken through the Native Land Court in 1882; in part as a result of Europeans seeking to gain legal sanction for lease‐like agreements made with some members of communities there in the 1870s. These events and the reasons behind them are examined by Paul Thomas in his report on the Mokau district for this inquiry. 61
Throughout the 1870s there were a series of largely unsuccessful diplomatic efforts by the Crown to reach agreement with King Tawhaio and Rewi Maniapoto and other iwi leaders, who represented the Kingitanga, about opening up the ‘King Country’ to European settlement. The origins, extent, evolution and operation of the wider area under the King’s authority (the ‘King’s territory’), the aukati within that and the negotiations of the 1870s are dealt with by Cathy Marr in her report for this inquiry on
62
Crown‐Maori political engagement from 1866 to 1886. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the strong desire of hapu and iwi to retain control of their territory under the auspices of the Kingitanga, which prompted the aukati, made it extremely difficult for 1866–1883
Crown officials to gain entry to what later become known as the Rohe Potae, part of which now forms the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae inquiry district. This greatly delayed the establishment of the Native Land Court in the district. Under those circumstances it was Country,
almost impossible for the Crown to have recommenced land purchasing in the inquiry King
The
61 Paul Thomas, ‘The Crown and Maori in Mokau, 1840–1911’, 2011, Wai 898, #A28, chapters 6 and 7 62 See Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864–1886 Part I: 1864‐1882’, draft for comment, June
2011, particularly chapters 1 and 2 (pp 4‐156) Prologue: 38
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 district before the later 1880s. Without the court to subdivide the vast Rohe Potae into manageable blocks, and grant title to individual owners the Crown could not easily purchase Maori land in a district where there was widespread opposition to land selling.
It is not intended here to give a full discussion of the Crown’s land purchasing policies in the 1870s for the simple reason that no land within the inquiry district was purchased by the Crown during that time. However, a brief consideration of this era is important in order to understand the experiences which shaped the concerns and aspirations Rohe Potae hapu and iwi expressed in the early 1880s. In particular, these experiences explain why they developed a strong aversion to both the Native Land Court and land speculators by 1883.
Marr noted that ‘in the period from 1870 through to 1882, the Kingitanga Rohe Potae was completely encircled by a mix of private and government purchasing and leasing helped by the extension of strategic public works.’ This, she concluded began ‘to ‘nibble away’ at the edges of the Rohe Potae and brought with it the extension of colonial government authority.’63 So from behind the aukati hapu and iwi had been observing the operation of the Native Land Court and of Crown purchasing in the neighbouring districts of Waikato, Taupo and Whanganui throughout the 1870s and early 1880s with increasing unease.64 As already mentioned in the introduction and overview, the 1870s heralded a surge in the Crown’s efforts to obtain Maori land for European settlement in the North Island. From 1870 the Vogel Government established a programme of immigration and public works. This involved the building of infrastructure and the
introduction of large numbers of new immigrants in order to stimulate settlement and economic development. The purchase of large areas of Maori land was integral to this scheme as it was to provide the resources and pastoral land that would be needed for 1866–1883
settlement.65 Country,
King 63 Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864–1886 Part I: 1864–1882’, draft for comment June 2011, p 255 The 64 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p11; Cathy Marr, ‘The Waimarino Purchase Report: The investigation, purchase and creation of reserves in the Waimarino block, and associated issues’, research report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2004, Wai 898, #A50, pp 67‐69; Tribunal, The Pouakani Report, 1993, Wai 898, #A33, pp 67‐78 65
Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo..., 2008, p 556 Prologue: 39
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In order to facilitate this renewed programme of land purchasing the Crown gave itself a pre‐emptive or monopoly right of purchase under the Immigration and Public Works Act 1871, and later the Native Land Purchases Act 1877 over blocks of Native land it was negotiating for or was interested in purchasing.66 The 1871 allowed proclamations to be issued prohibiting private parties from dealing with blocks of land that had not yet passed through the Native Land Court but which the Crown had already begun to purchase for specified public purposes such as gold mining, the establishment of special settlements, or for railway construction. These restrictions were to be in place for two years or until the notice was revoked. Section 3 of the Immigration and Public Works Act Amendment Act 1874 provided a similar government right for negotiating leases on Maori land in the North Island.67 The Government Land Purchases Act 1877 dropped the proviso that such notice relate to blocks being acquired by the Crown for specified public purposes and extended the provision to deal with Maori land regardless of whether it had come before the Native Land Court or not. The Government could revoke such restrictions as it chose, after which private dealing was possible.68
The provision was further amended in 1892, so that the Government no longer had to have already entered negotiations or begun purchases in a block before excluding private parties. The use of notices under the 1892 Act in this inquiry district will be discussed later in this report.69 In the year following the passage of the 1877 Act notices were issued for some 277 blocks, encompassing around 4.9 million acres of land in the North Island. These provisions were still being widely used by the early 1880s. The AJHR return of Maori land purchased and leased for the 1882/1883 year across the
country listed 182 blocks under negotiation, of these 149 (81.9 per cent) had been covered by a notice under the 1877 Act.70 1866–1883
Country, 66 Donald Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, pp 93‐94, 97‐98 67 Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo..., 2008, p 576 King 68 The Government Land Purchase Act 1877, ss. 2‐3 69 The Central North Island Tribunal noted that in that region Crown agents had been instructed to make The deposits or initial payments on as many blocks as possible. ‘Proclamations could then be used to bind all those with interests in the block and prevented them from dealing in lands or resources in any part of the block ... There was no requirement to consider any matter other than what the Government needed in either applying or lifting the proclamations’ (Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo..., 2008, pp 576‐577) 70
Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, pp 98‐99 Prologue: 40
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In the neighbouring Taupo, Rotorua and Kaingaroa regions this mechanism was widely used and land under such restrictions was secured by paying advances to individual Maori for purchases or long‐term leases, often prior to the court determining who the owners were.71 By 1878 the Crown had acquired 2.17 million acres of Maori land in the North Island and a further 6.5 million were classed as ‘under negotiation’. A significant proportion of the land that was under negotiation was in the Kaingaroa, Northern Taupo, and inland Rotorua area. In reality this meant that advance payments had been made for scattered interests over a wide area but relatively few transactions were legally complete formal transfers to the Crown of defined blocks.72 Throughout the 1880s hapu and iwi leaders, particularly within Ngati Maniapoto, would voice their opposition to any system of purchasing where payments, loans and advances were paid to individuals, a clear reference to what they had seen in neighbouring districts during the preceding decade and a half.
By the late 1870s the Crown was increasingly competing with Auckland‐based speculators and their companies and syndicates to purchase Maori land in the North Island. However, from 1880, when the Crown decided to pull back from land purchasing, speculators became the dominant players in the market for Maori land, including in the adjacent districts of Waikato, Taupo and Whanganui.73 For a brief period from 1877 until 1879 the Grey Government was in power, with John Sheehan as Native Minister. They were critical of the large number of incomplete purchases and leases of Maori land entered into by the previous administration. In November 1877 Sheehan announced that the Government had resolved to complete those transactions in order to secure the land for the colony. But the Crown would then withdraw from ‘the field as land purchasers on a large scale’ on the basis that ‘private persons’ should be left ‘to be the chief operators in the purchase of Native land.’74 1866–1883
Country,
King 71 Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo ..., 2008, p 556 72 Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo..., 2008, p 557, also see Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown The Policy ...’, 2004, pp 90‐91 73 R C J Stone, ‘The Maori Lands Question and the Fall of the Grey Government.’, NZJH Vol. 1, No. 1, 1967, p 71 74 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 115 citing Sheehan’s statement on Native
Affairs, 15 November 1877, NZPD, Vol. 27, 1877, pp 230‐240 Prologue: 41
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
However, despite these intentions, the Grey Government launched a renewed programme of land purchasing in 1878. It is not entirely clear why the Government decided to continue buying Maori land. Sheehan later explained to a Legislative Council committee that between 1877 and 1878 the Government had changed its mind and decided to ‘go into the purchase of Native lands.’75 On another occasion in 1879 he suggested that the momentum of the purchasing programme and pressure for settlers contributed to that decision: ‘the negotiations going on were so extensive, and the public feeling was so strongly in favour of the system, that I determined to ask my colleagues to indorse [sic] my proposal to keep the system up.’76
The upsurge in Crown purchasing aroused considerable opposition from those advocating ‘free trade’ in Maori land: the direct selling and leasing between Maori and European speculators.77 They were individuals who had a vested interest in or sympathy for this view and for whom political and business interests were often closely aligned. Included were a number of Members of the House and Legislative Council as well as businessmen, lawyers, land and native agents, bankers and editors, many of them based in Auckland.78
Throughout 1878 and 1879 speculators waged ‘a fierce land‐buying race with the government,’ including in blocks that were on the doorstep of the inquiry district, notably the extensive Patetere and Maungatautari blocks north of the Puniu River, between Te Awamutu and modern Putaruru.79 In the case of Patetere, a wealthy group of speculators including E B Walker, John Wilson, W A Graham, F D Rich, James Dilworth, W L C Williams and John Howard, formed various syndicates to negotiate with
1866–1883
75 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 121 citing AJLC 1879‐II, No. 6, ‘Report of Native Expenditure Committee’, p 3 (testimony of 7 November 1879) 76 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 121 citing NZPD 1879, Vol. 32 p 366 77
R C J Stone, ‘The Maori Lands Question and the Fall of the Grey Government.’, NZJH Vol. 1, No. 1, Country, 1967, p 58 78 Amongst the politicians were Members of the House: J D Ormond, Captain W R Russell and Frederick King Sutton (Hawkes Bay), J S Macfarlane, R Hobbs, Reader Woods, J B Whyte, Frederick Whitaker and his son F A Whitaker (Auckland). From the South Island were John Studholme and his lawyer W S Moorhouse, In The the Legislative Council their spokesmen included Thomas Henderson, James Williamson, Daniel Pollen and G M Waterhouse (Stone, The Maori Lands Question ...’, NZJH Vol. 1, No. 1, 1967, pp 56‐57) 79 Land purchasing by the Crown and private speculators in these blocks and in the wider Raukawa rohe are discussed in detail in Terry Hearn, ‘Raukawa, Land, and the Crown: A review and assessment of land
purchasing in the Raukawa Rohe, 1865 to 1971’, 2008, Wai 898, #A12 Prologue: 42
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Raukawa.80 A survey was begun and the speculators encouraged Maori to bring the block to the Native Land Court so title could be determined prior to sale. In response to this and other cases, the Crown used its power to proclaim land as wasteland of the Crown. By issuing such proclamations for the Waitoa and Piako blocks (200,000 acres), close to the boundary of the inquiry district between modern Putaruru and Tokoroa, and Patetere (249,000 acres) the Government was able to shut out private competitors.81 The complex relationships between syndicates of speculators, their agents and the Crown in the areas bordering the inquiry district are fully explored by Cathy Marr in her political engagement report for this period.82
In September 1879, the Grey Government was deposed by a vote of no confidence over their handling of the Native land purchasing question and John Hall took over as
Premier.83 The Hall Government abandoned Crown land‐buying in favour of a system of direct purchase. Support for the new administration by those advocating ‘free trade’ in Maori land certainly played a part in the fall of Grey Government, as those parties had a vested interest in a system that gave freer reign to speculators.84 But the Government’s withdrawal from land purchasing was also a pragmatic response to an economic crisis, which was just beginning to develop in 1879. It would deepen into a recession and extend throughout the 1880s and early 1890s.85 The Crown abandoned attempts to complete the purchase of blocks over which it had made advances and new purchases were not started. By June 1883, the Crown had withdrawn proclamations previously issued under the Native Land Purchases Act 1877 on 57 blocks encompassing around 576,440 acres of land in the North Island. Loveridge noted that:
1866–1883
80 Hearn, 2008, pp 75‐79 81 Stone, ‘The Maori Lands Question ...’, NZJH Vol. 1, No. 1, 1967, pp 58‐59. For further discussion of the operation of land speculators and their syndicates see Hearn, 2008 and Bruce Stirling, ‘Taupo‐Kaingaroa
Nineteenth Century Overview Project, Vol. 2’, 2004, Wai 898, #A53, pp 841‐842, 879, 2124‐1226, 1306‐ Country, 1309 and 1314‐1327 82 See Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864–1886 Part I: 1864–1882’, draft circulated for King comment, June 2011, Chapters 83 Stone, ‘The Maori Lands Question ...’, NZJH Vol. 1, No. 1, 1967, p 64 The 84 Stone, ‘The Maori Lands Question ...’, NZJH Vol. 1, No. 1, 1967, p 71. As evidence of this influence he noted that ‘at the very time Grey made his accusations [about the mismanagement of Native Affairs], members of the Patetere syndicate were in Wellington, constant in their attendance upon the new [Hall] government’ 85
Stone, ‘The Maori Lands Question ...’, NZJH Vol. 1, No. 1, 1967, p 72 Prologue: 43
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
another 478,283 acres were "reverted" to Maori as a result of actions taken under Sec. 6 of the Native Land Act Amendment Act, 1877, which allowed the Crown to take blocks on which payments had been made to the Native Land Court, and have its interests partitioned out.86
So these 478,283 acres represented land which was not acquired. In all, the amount of Maori land in the North Island to which Crown had abandoned its claims in whole or in part by 1883 was 1,054,723 acres.87 As a consequence of this change in policy much of the Maori land purchased between 1880 and 1883 fell into the hands of a small group of wealthy speculators.88
In preliminary research Marr argued that by the early 1880s ‘the vast programme of public works being extended all around the district, and the operations of the Native Land Court which were beginning to whittle away at the outer edges of the district’ were placing considerable pressure on Maori communities behind the aukati.89 At the same time there was a growing desire amongst hapu and iwi leaders to engage with new economic opportunities. The public works programme itself offered one such opportunity, with the possibility of ‘much needed cash following the economic dislocation of war and capital to develop long‐term enterprises such as farming.’90 However, leasing land, especially for sheep farming, seemed to offer ‘the best chance of obtaining a sustainable income, as well as the cash and experience required for developing land to ensure future prosperity.’91 As a result there was increasing pressure within the Kingitanga to have land title settled and legally recognised by the Native Land Court so that land could not only be protected but used for economic gain.’92 But the challenge facing Maori communities was how to benefit from these new economic
86 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 126 87 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 126. Loveridge noted that these numbers do
not add up. ‘Known abandonments (1.1 million acres) and completions (about 2.2 million acres 1866–1883
purchased and leased) for 1878‐83, taken together with the amount of land remaining under negotiation at the end of the 1882‐83 fiscal year (1.8 million acres), do not account for all of the lands which were nominally under negotiation for purchase or lease in 1878‐79 (6.5 million acres). Further investigation is
clearly needed to work out exactly what happened to all of the lands caught up in the Crown's efforts to Country, acquire Maori land during this period.’ (Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, pp 127‐128) King The Tribunal’s Central North Island Stage One Report discusses how this process was carried out in the Taupo, Rotorua and Kaingaroa region (Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo..., 2008, p 557) The 88 Stone, ‘The Maori Lands Question ...’, NZJH Vol. 1, No. 1, 1967, p 71 89 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 9 90 Marr, ‘Waimarino,...’, 2004, p 103 91 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 9 92
Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 9 Prologue: 44
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 enterprises while controlling, and where necessary modifying, those pressures to avoid the destructive effects of the court and land speculators, which they had already witnessed.93 In particular, as the 1883 Rohe Potae petition shows, there were grave concerns about whether the Native Land Court could provide this ‘in a way that suited Maori communities.’ Marr argued that experience of the court in neighbouring districts had been largely negative and ‘closely associated with the loss of Maori land and the destruction of customary Maori authority rather than the protection of Maori communities in their holding and economic use of land.’94 In Marr’s view these were some of the reasons why:
By 1882, the Kingitanga leadership appears to have collectively decided to engage in negotiations with the Government over the railway as a means of gaining concessions and reforms they desired. These objectives did not necessarily rule out further economic development but required significant Maori control over it.95
By this time the Government had prioritised the completition of the North Island Main Trunk Railway line between Auckland and Wellington, and it seemed likely that this would need to pass through the Rohe Potae. Beginning in 1870, Cleaver and Sarich trace the evolution of the Government’s desire to construct a main trunk railway line through the North Island to connect Auckland and Wellington.96 They stated that during 1881 and 1882 the Crown saw hopeful signs that King Tawhiao and his supporters might be willing to engage in negotiations concerning the railway and the future of European settlement in the district.97 In particular, the Government was aware that a large hui held at Tawhiao’s settlement, Whatiwhatihoe, in May 1882 had been in favour of
‘Tawhiao’s proposal for a halt to the pressures on the King Country … – including Native Land Court activity, surveys and road construction – until some form of negotiated agreement had been reached regarding these important issues.’98 1866–1883
Country,
King
93 Marr, ‘Waimarino,...’, 2004, p 102 The 94 Marr, ‘Waimarino,...’, 2004, p 103 95 Marr, ‘Waimarino,...’, 2004, p 104 96 See Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, chapter 1 97 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, pp 49‐50 98
Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 50 Prologue: 45
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
At the same time ‘a potential North Island trunk had became a major political issue due to its general significance for settlement in the North Island’, particular after the ‘highly publicised failure of the Grey and Sheehan negotiations.’99 With political momentum gathering on the matter, and after considerable debate in the House, the North Island Main Trunk Loan Act was passed in August 1882. This authorized the Government to raise a £1,000,000 loan (when necessary) for the construction of a North Island main trunk line.
As Marr noted a venture of this magnitude could not reply on:
the previous piecemeal and somewhat haphazard mix of Government and private land purchasing that currently existed. Nor could it be rapidly finished with the prospect of widespread survey obstruction along the route, not to mention the stiff physical resistance such an intrusion might provoke.100
From the Crown’s perspective what was required was some form of agreement between the Crown and Rohe Potae leaders which would allow the railway line to be constructed through the district and the land to be opened to European settlement. However, Maori sought an ‘agreement over the wider issue of a managed opening of the Aotea Rohe Potae or King Country and its border areas’ so that Maori communities could participate in and manage these economic opportunities.101 Hapu and iwi leaders were anxious to avoid ‘as far as possible the harmful impacts and loss of land that seemed characteristic of the 1870s process.’102
During 1882 and 1883 hapu and iwi leaders and the Government ‘took part in a series of understandings or agreements which in total have been described as the Ngati
Maniapoto ‘compact’ or the Aotea agreement.’103 The nature and aspects of the meaning, intent and outcome of these agreements remains contested amongst historians. Both Cathy Marr and Donald Loveridge have previously explored these agreements and will 1866–1883 do so again for the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae inquiry.104 Therefore, this prologue does not
Country,
99 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 50 King 100 Marr, ‘Waimarino...’, 2004, pp 99‐100 101 Marr, ‘Waimarino...’, 2004, pp 99‐100 The 102 Marr, ‘Waimarino...’, 2004, p 100 103 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 20 104 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996; Marr, ‘Waimarino...’, 2004, Wai 903, #A60, especially Chapter 3; Donald Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country 1882–1885’, Report for the Crown Law
Office, 2006, Wai 898, #A41 Prologue: 46
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 offer a detailed treatment of this matter or draw conclusions about these agreements. It is sufficient to note that, equipped with the promise of funds for the project and knowledge of Tawhaio’s willingness to talk to the Government, Native Minister Bryce set about resuming negotiations with the Tawhiao and other hapu and iwi leaders who supported the Kingitanga in October 1882.105 However, this series of engagements ended with Tawhiao rejecting a package of personal benefits offered by Bryce and from that time. As Marr observed this meeting between Tawhaio and Bryce ‘would be their last formal discussions of a possible terms of settlement. The following year, as the government hoped, the focus of discussions would turn to territory chiefs.’106 As a result:
Tawhiao and the Kingitanga played a limited role in the negotiations regarding the NIMT. After this meeting an ‘interior alliance’ of chiefs, as Marr defines it, rose to prominence with Ngati Maniapoto’s Wahanui as their representative. The following iwi were represented in the alliance, Northern Whanganui, Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngati Hikairo, Raukawa.107
Marr and Loveridge will evaluate to what extent this signaled a split or rupture within the Kingitanga. But in her draft report Marr has concluded that the Kingitanga concepts being articulated by Rewi Maniapoto by May 1882 to preserve all the land within ‘a line drawn round by Maungatautari, then to Taupo, then to Rangitoto, then to the West Coast, then along the coast to Mokau, then to Kawhia, Aotea and Pirongia’ and retain it under the mana of the King ‘were the same defining concepts that would later become prominent for the Rohe Potae.’108 This continuity is less surprising when we consider that both Wahanui and Taonui Hikaka had been initimately involved in the Kingitanga
from its inception in the late 1850s, and by mid‐1881 Wahanui was Tawhaio’s senior advisor.109
1866–1883
Country,
105 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, pp 50‐51 King 106 Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864–1886 Part I: 1864–1882’, draft for comment, June 2011, p 788 The 107 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 51 108 Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864–1886 Part I: 1864–1882’, draft for comment, June 2011, pp 698‐699 109 Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864–1886 Part I: 1864–1882’, draft for comment, June
2011, p 627 Prologue: 47
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Wahanui Huatare was born probably in the late 1820s. He was the son of Te Ngohi‐te‐ Arau, also known as Te Huatare, of Ngati Maniapoto. His mother, Tarati, belonged to Ngati Waiora of Mokau and came from the Piopio area. He was well schooled in the traditional knowledge of his hapu and iwi as well as educated at the Wesleyan Native Institution at Three Kings in Auckland. He brought those skills, his power as an orator and his great physical presence to his roles as a participant in the establishment of the Kingitanga in the late 1850s, as a warrior during the New Zealand wars and as a prominent Ngati Maniapoto leader in dialogue with the Crown throughout the 1880s and 1890s. He died on 5 December 1897 at Whataroa.110
Cleaver and Sarich noted that despite the breakdown of negotiations between Bryce and the Kingitanga in October 1882 ‘the Government attempted to proceed with preparations for railway construction and the general opening of the district.’111 This included the Crown’s ‘opening’ of Kawhia Harbour, which was met by protests from Tawhiao against the placement of bouys in the Harbour and resulted in a show of force in the form of Armed Constabulary stationed there.112 ‘Bryce also authorised the exploration of a potential railway route via Mokau to Waitara (western route) and triangulation surveys of the King Country.’113 These surveys during 1883 by Charles Hursthouse and Lawrence Cussen respectively met with resistence from hapu and iwi and this culminated in the capture of Hursthouse and his party by the prophet Te Mahuki in March 1883. His capture and release led to an agreement between Bryce, Wahanui and other leaders that Bryce’s plans for a triangulation survey be halted, pending further negotiations.114
1866–1883
Country,
110 Henare, Manuka. 'Wahanui Huatare ? ‐ 1897'. Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June King 2007. URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/. Whanaui’s role in the led up to and negotiation of the Rohe Pohe agreement, and his relationship with other Kingitanga leaders will be examined by Cathy Marr in her The nineteenth century political engagement report for this inquiry. 111 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 52 112 See Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, pp 18‐20 113 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 53 114
Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 54 Prologue: 48
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In 1885 Wahanui laid out his understanding of what had been agreed with regard to exploration the railway, stating that:
When Mr Bryce took office he made a compact with me, which was signed, that a search for the railway was to be made, and, if a suitable line were found, he was to return and let me know ... It was then agreed, on the understanding that it was only to be an investigation to find out the best route for the railway, and after it was found they were to return and let the Maoris know before doing anything else.115
Wahanui explained that this was in exchange for Bryce supporting a package of measures and reforms which hapu and iwi wished the Government to put in place. He went directly on in his explanation saying that:
I then said to Mr Bryce, ‘What you wish for has been agreed to; now I want you to agree to my request.’ Mr Bryce asked me ‘What do you want?’ I then said, ‘I am going to send a petition to the House, and I want you and your Cabinet to back it up.116
The petition signed by Wahanui, Taonui Hikaka, Rewi Maniapoto and 412 others was placed before Parliament in June 1883. The petition heading makes it clear that it was from an alliance of interior iwi: ‘nga iwi o Maniapoto, o Raukawa, o Tuwharetoa, o Whanganui.’ Late in 1883 a fifth iwi, Ngati Hikairo from the Kawhia area, appears to have decided to support the petition.117 The full text of the petition in Maori and English is reproduced as appendix 6 to the Tribunal’s Pouakani Report. There were other petitions at this time opposing that submitted by Wahanui and others.118 Marr will explore these petitions further in her political engagement report for this inquiry and place them in the context of inter‐iwi and Crown‐Maori politics of the time. However,
the 1883 petition was significant because it was written as part of ongoing negotiations over the railway, land and the opening of the district and requested a package of interconnected measures from the Government. 1866–1883
Taonui Hikaka, who was one of the prominent signatories of the 1883 petition, worked closely with Wahanui throughout the 1880s and early 1890s. He too was a physically Country, imposing figure but some years younger than Wahanui, being born sometime in the King
The
115 AJHR, 1885, G‐1, p 13 116 AJHR, 1885, G‐1, p 13 117 Marr, ‘Waimarino...’, 2004, p 112 & p 115‐116 118
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country...’, 2006, pp 89‐91 Prologue: 49
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 early 1840s probably at Paripari (near present day Te Kuiti). His father, Taonui Hikaka (known as Hikaka) of Ngati Rora was an esteemed warrior and leader in the inter‐tribal battles of the 1820s and it is thought that his mother was Niapo of Ngati Hia. As a young man he fought alongside his father against colonial troops at Waitara in 1863 and after his father’s death in the 1860s he assumed the leadership of Ngati Rora. With Wahanui and Rewi Maniapoto he was very much involved in negotiations with the Crown over the railway and the Rohe Potae agreement during the 1870s and 1880s. Taonui died suddenly at Te Kuiti on 2 December 1892.119
In this 1883 petition Rohe Potae hapu and iwi defined the boundaries of their land for the purposes of their request that they may be allowed to ‘fix the boundaries of the four tribes before mentioned, the hapu boundaries in each tribe, and the proportionate claim of each individual within the boundaries set forth in this petition.’120 This area (known as the 1883 Rohe Potae) stretch from beyond Pirongia in the north, followed the the Puniu and Waikato Rivers to the Waipapa River east of Mangakino, ran south bi‐secting Lake Taupo and then followed the course of the Tauranga River which flows into the lake. The boundary then ran south curving westward to encompass the central North Island mountains that now make up the Tongariro National Park, then taking a line south of present day Taumarunui in a north‐west direction until it meet the coast at the Waipingao Stream south of Parininihi. It then followed the coast to Aotea Harbour were it joint the northern boundary line.121 This boundary was not a sudden innovation. As Marr’s political engagement report makes clear, the boundaries of a protected territory had in fact been evolving from 1865 onwards. As has already been discussed Rewi had
outlined a similar but slightly different boundary in May 1882, and at the same hui the five tribes who would go on to submit the 1883 petition to Parliament were laying down their internal boundaries within the area to be protected.122 1866–1883
Country,
119 Gary Scott, 'Taonui Hikaka ? ‐ 1892', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007 King URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/ 120 Petition of the Maniapoto, Raukawa, Tuwharetoa and Whanganui Tribes, signed by Wahanui, Taonui, The Rewi Maniapoto and 412 others, 1883, AJHR 1883, J‐1 121 See Map 1 in Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864–1886 Part I: 1864–1882’, draft for comment, June 2011, p 1 122 Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864–1886 Part I: 1864–1882’, draft for comment, June
2011, pp 699‐700 Prologue: 50
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The petition also laid out their concerns and fears about the future of their land and requested a package of legislative, economic and social reforms which would allow their communities to benefit from new economic opportunities while safeguarding their future wellbeing. The fears and concerns they expressed in the petition about the court, its legal framework and operation, and purchasing by land speculators had clearly been shaped by their experiences in the 1870s and early 1880s. Their concerns played a particular role in their subsequent engagement with Crown over legislation in the 1880s. In addition, the petitioners stated that they were ‘striving to keep’ their land but found that the Government was already:
trying to open our country by making roads, carrying on trig. surveys and railways, thereby clearing the way for all these evils to be practised in connection with our lands before we have made satisfactory arrangements for the future.
They asked that:
‘we may be relieved from the entanglements incidental to employing the Native Land Court to determine our titles to the land, also to prevent fraud, drunkenness, demoralization, and all other objectionable results attending sittings of the Land Court.’ ‘Parliament will pass a law to secure our lands to us and our descendants for ever, making them absolutely inalienable by sale.’ ‘we may ourselves be allowed to fix the boundaries of the four tribes before mentioned, the hapu boundaries in each tribe, and the proportionate claim of each individual within the boundaries set forth in this petition …’
‘when these arrangements relating to land claims are completed, let the Government appoint some persons vested with power to confirm our
arrangements and decisions in accordance with law.’ 1866–1883
‘if, after any individual shall have had the extent of his claim ascertained, he should desire to lease, it should not be legal for him to do so privately, but an Country,
advertisement should be duly inserted in any newspaper that has been King authorized for the purpose, notifying time and place where the sale of the lease The
Prologue: 51
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
of such land will be held, in order that the public may attend the sale of such lease.’123
Although the concluding list of requests in the petition encompassed a number of closely connected legal and economic reforms, the body of petition was almost entirely given over to strong protests about the operation of the Native Land Court and the activities of European speculators. They stated that as a result of their experience of the Native Land Court at Cambridge and elsewhere they could not ‘see any good in any of the laws which you have enacted affecting our lands, when they are brought into operation, in adjudicating upon lands …’ In fact they went as far as to say that ‘the practices carried out at the Land Courts have become a source of anxiety to us and a burden upon us.’124 Their experience of the court was closely linked to dealings with land speculators. They explained that the hapu and iwi involved had allowed some of their land to come before the court and they had received a certificate of title from the court showing their right to the land. However, the nett result had often been the loss of land to speculators. They stated that:
through the superior knowledge of the Europeans we accepted foolishly the lawyers recommended to us by the speculators (land‐swallowers), thinking that they were to act in our interests, but in reality they were intended to prolong the investigations, thereby increasing the expenses to so great an extent that the Natives were unable to defray them, so that they (the speculators) might seize the land, the result being that we secure the shadow and the speculators (land‐ swallowers) the substance.125
These experiences, and fears that they would be repeated if the King Country was opened up south of the Puniu River, informed the requests hapu and iwi made to the
Crown in the 1883 petition. They sought to define the external limits of their customary land and for this boundary to be legally recognized by government and settlers. But within this boundary they wanted the Native Land Court excluded and to be able to 1866–1883 determine title themselves. Once they had settled title amongst themselves, hapu and iwi asked that individual owners who wanted to lease their land could do so by public Country,
King
123 Petition of the Maniapoto, Raukawa, Tuwharetoa and Whanganui Tribes, signed by Wahanui, Taonui, The Rewi Maniapoto and 412 others, 1883, AJHR 1883, J‐1 124 Petition of the Maniapoto, Raukawa, Tuwharetoa and Whanganui Tribes, signed by Wahanui, Taonui, Rewi Maniapoto and 412 others, 1883, AJHR 1883, J‐1 125 Petition of the Maniapoto, Raukawa, Tuwharetoa and Whanganui Tribes, signed by Wahanui, Taonui,
Rewi Maniapoto and 412 others, 1883, AJHR 1883, J‐1 Prologue: 52
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 auction. They emphasised that they had no desire to keep the land ‘locked up from Europeans’, or to prevent leasing, or roads and other public works being carried out. Overall, their fundamental aim was to balance growing desires to benefit from some degree of increased European settlement in the district with a strong determination to retain ownership and control of their land and resources. This primary concern, and the need for measures to control speculators, echoes through hapu and iwi responses to land purchasing policies and legislation for the Rohe Potae during the 1880s.
The Crown did make some legislative changes in 1883, which were seen by many Government officials as addressing the concerns raised in the 1883 petition. Agreement was reached between Native Minister John Bryce and Rewi Maniapoto, Taonui, and Wahanui that ‘the boundaries of their land would be marked out in one survey to be brought before the Court simultaneously, in a single, clearly‐defined ‘block.’126 Maori concerns about the control of liquor within the Rohe Potae, and the kinds of harm they had already seen it cause during prolonged sittings of the court at Kihikihi and Cambridge were addressed by a proclamation in December 1884 which prohibiting the issue of any licenses for the sale of alcoholic liquor across the entire Rohe Potae.127
The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1883 was drafted in direct response to the 1883 petition and introduced a number of measures to improve and simplify the Native Land Court’s process and to address some of the features of that process which hapu and iwi found most objectionable. Under the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1883 lawyers and agents were excluded from the court and speculators were discouraged by prohibiting all dealings with Native land, including leases and sales, until forty days after the title had been determined by the court.128 Any dealings with land prior to the award of title were deemed void and illegal and liable for a fine of up to £500.129 But these reforms were undermined by the fact that they offered no protection from the 1866–1883
Crown, which was explicitly exempt from the provisions of the Act.130 The Act also streamlined the process of bringing applications before the court and made it more Country,
King
126 ‘The Native Minister in Waikato. Meeting at Kihikihi between Mr. Bryce and the Ngatimaniapotos,’ The Waikato Times, 1 December 1883, p 2, col. 6 & 7 127 NZ Gazette, No. 130, 11 December, 1884, p 1685 128 The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1883, s. 4 and s.7 respectively 129 The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1883, ss.7‐8 130
The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1883, s. 13 Prologue: 53
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 difficult to have restrictions on alienation, which had previously been put in place by the court at the request of the owners, removed.131 However, the improvements had little effect as the Act was repealed by the Native Land Court Act 1886 after only three years. 132 Overall the scope of these legislative initiatives was limited and did not fully address the requests made in the 1883 petition.
One of the side‐effects of those 1883 protective measures was that Maori communities became frustrated by the inability to transact leases prior to the court determining title, and may have placed additional pressure on hapu and iwi to participate in the court process. In December 1885 the question of how to temporarily provide land for a European contractor who was engaged in the excavation of a rail tunnel at Poro‐o‐tarao (Parootarao) came before the Kawhia Native Committee. The chairman, John Ormsby, acknowledged that a legal lease could not be entered into because its title had not been defined by the Native Land Court. All he could recommend was that his fellow committee men ‘carefully consider this matter’ in the hope of finding some alternative ‘way of authorising the Europeans to reside at Poro‐o‐tarao.’133 At this same meeting members of the committee noted that they could not deal with the matter of coal mining in their district because any agreement with Europeans over coal extraction would involve a lease or something similiar, which they understood was prohibited under the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1883.134
The Native Committees Act 1883 complimented these more general measures and allowed for the establishment of Native Committees which were given power to deal with disputes between Maori where the cause of the dispute was less than £20 in
value.135 The committees were also given an advisory role in the Native Land Court process but this fell well short of hapu and iwi calls for the committees to be empowered to determine title to their land and for the court to be kept out of the Rohe 1866–1883
Potae. The committees were authorized to ‘make such inquiries’ as they saw ‘fit,’ ascertain the names of owners to particular blocks, locate the successors of ‘deceased Country, Native’ owners, and investigate boundary disputes between ‘lands claimed by Natives.’
King
The 131 See the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1883, s. 16 132 Stirling, 2004, Vol. 2, pp 808‐810 133 ‘Native Questions Discussed,’ Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p. 3, cols. 1 & 2 134 ‘Native Questions Discussed,’ Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p. 3, cols. 1 & 2 135
The Native Committees Act 1883, s. 11 Prologue: 54
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
A report of their decision could then be forwarded to the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court ‘for the information of the Court.’136
As O’Malley explained in his history of Native Committees in the nineteenth century, the Native Committees Act 1883 was not a direct response by the Crown to the 1883 petition, but rather the result of widespread agitation from many iwi around the country throughout the 1870s and early 1880s for existing tribal runanga to be given legal recognition, particularly as an alternative to the Native Land Court.137 Nevertheless, events in the Rohe Potae contributed to the decision to legislate. O’Malley noted that Native Minister John Bryce’s willingness ‘to consider legislating for committees at all was probably prompted by the delicate state of negotiations over the construction of a main trunk railway through the central North Island.’138 In August 1883, as the Native Committees Bill was being debated, the Native Affairs Committee reported to the House on the 1883 petition. They considered that the ‘complaints and fears expressed’ in the petition were ‘well‐founded’ and that the petitioners’ requests were ‘reasonable.’139 This may have encouraged the Government to pass the Act. In introducing the Bill into the Legislative Council the Premier Fredrick Whitaker noted that Maori ‘near the King Country … particularly desired to be able to deal with their affairs themselves’ and that the Bill was ‘a tentative meaure to enable them to do so.’140
O’Malley provides a detailed examination of the genesis, drafting and redrafting of the legislation. The original provisions were drafted by Hone Mohi Tawhai, the Member of the House for Northern Maori with the support of several other Maori MP; Henare Tomoana (Eastern Maori) and Wi Te Wheoro (Western Maori) in 1880. That draft gave committees complete control of surveys, sales and title investigation. O’Malley demonstrated how these ideas were progressively watered down.141 He concluded that the legislation as passed effectively restricted the committees: 1866–1883
Country,
King 136 The Native Committees Act 1883, s.14 137 Vincent O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy: Maori Committees in the Nineteenth Century, Huia Publishers, The Wellington, 1998, pp 129‐137 138 O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy...’, 1998, p 148 139 O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy...’, 1998, p 150 citing AJHR 1883, I‐2, p 9 140 NZPD, Vol. 46, 1883, p 341 141
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy...’, 1998, pp 137‐148 Prologue: 55
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
To arbitrating on petty disputes and reporting on title investigations for the benefit of a Court which was under no obligation to take any notice, and more often than not failed to do so.142
Certainly during debate on the 1883 Act a number of politicians freely admitted that the Act gave little real power to the committees. George Whitmore, Member of the Legislative Council for Napier vigorously objected to the Bill on the grounds that all it amounted to was the power to hear minor disputes if the parties involved decided to bring them before the committee. He ended by saying that with regard to the committee’s role in the Native land Court process, as far as he could see:
they had no power whatever. They could do nothing whatever, but they might express an opinion to the Land Court, which the Court might accept or reject as it thought fit.143
Whitmore alleged that chiefs in Wellington and Maori Members had already reached the conclusion that the legislation ‘gave them nothing but a sort of sop to keep their mouths shut’ and ‘they were not at all pleased with it.’144 Other Members of the Legislative Council were willing to support the Bill on the basis that it was ‘a move in the right direction’ and, on the rather patronising grounds, that was useful for Maori as a beginning of their ‘political education.’145 Others, including J C Richmond (Nelson), Whitaker and John Peacock (Canterbury) defended the Bill stating that it would provide information which would ‘do a great deal to expedite the work of the Native Land Court.’146 The consensus seemed to be that if the Bill did not do much real good for Maori at least it would do no harm to the colony. Whitaker described it as ‘innocent in itself, and he did not think harm at any rate could result from it.’147 Robert Hart
(Wellington) agreed describing the legislation as ‘a very useful measure, and certainly a harmless one.’148
1866–1883
Country,
King 142 O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy...’, 1998, p 151 143 NZPD, Vol. 46, 1883, p 341 The 144 NZPD, Vol. 46, 1883, p 342 145 NZPD, Vol. 46, 1883, p 344 (Williams) and p 342 (Hart) respectively 146 NZPD, Vol. 46, 1883, p 342 (Richmond) see similar comment by Whitaker, p 341 and Peacock, p 344 147 NZPD, Vol. 46, 1883, p 341 148
NZPD, Vol. 46, 1883, p 342 Prologue: 56
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The Native Committees Act 1883 was generally welcomed by Maori and amongst the hapu and iwi of the Rohe Potae. The Kawhia Native Committee was formed under the Act in 1884 and chaired by John Ormsby.149 Also known as Hone Omipi, Ormsby came to prominence in the 1880s as a young protégé of the Ngati Maniapoto chief Wahanui. Ormsby was born on 6 November 1854 at Te Kopua near Pirongia, the son of Robert Ormsby, the European schoolmaster at Waipa and Mere Pianika Rangihurihia. As the first chairman of the Kawhia Native Committee he worked closely with Wahanui and other hapu and iwi leaders. As chapters 1 and 2 will show, he was often nominated to speak at meetings with Crown officials alongside Wahanui, Taonui and others, and he had accompanied Wahanui to Wellington in 1884. He was later prominent in sheep farming in the district, in the establishment of Otorohanga Township, business, local government and in the Kingitanga. He died at Ngaruawahia on 11 June 1920.150
The records relating to the operation of the Kawhia Native Committee are limited so it is difficult to give a clear picture of the role they played in the community and in the Native Land Court process. Chapter 3 of this report indicates that by 1885 the committee was heavily involved with promoting, co‐ordinating and regulating a range of economic endeavours, particularly those based on extracting primary resources. Chapter 6 also provides some evidence that the committee played a part in regulating and resolving disputes between hapu and Europeans who had established businesses on Maori land in the district. In 1886 the committee met to set a scale of prices for timber and gravel being extracted for railway construction purposes and to oversee the exploration of the district for gold (Chapter 3). It is unclear to what extent these
functions continued after the court began determining title to the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, or for how long.
With regard to the Kawhia Native Committee’s involvement in matters of land title, 1866–1883
Chapter 1 of this report sets out the aspirations of Ngati Maniapoto leaders for their committee from 1883 until 1886. Husbands and Mitchell will consider the evidence for Country,
King
149 The committee’s district took in an extensive area which included parts of the Auckland, Taranaki and The Wellington provincial district, encompassing all or part of many iwi rohe NZ Gazette, 24 January 1884, No. 8, pp 110‐111. The problems that this caused because apparent within a few years (see Chapter 1 for further discussion) 150 Ormsby, M. J. 'Ormsby, John 1854–1927'. Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007
URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/ Prologue: 57
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the demise of the Kawhia Native Committee and the rise of other, hapu‐based committees who played significant roles in out of court negotiations over ownership lists and subdivisions. 151 As chapters 1 and 2 of this report will show, Ngati Maniapoto’s aspirations for the Kawhia Native Committee as an alternative to the Native Land Court played a significant role in negotiations between hapu and iwi leaders and the Crown during the 1880s and 1890s. Those chapters will also explore the ways in which those ambitions were ultimately thwarted.
1866–1883
Country,
King
The
151 Also see chapter 5 of Helen Robinson and Paul Christoffel, ‘An Overview of Rohe Potae Political Engagement, 1886 to 1913’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, draft for comment, July
2011 Prologue: 58
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1. PREPARATIONS FOR LAND PURCHASING IN THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1883–1889
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Throughout the 1880s hapu and iwi leaders within the Rohe Potae consistently pursued the matters they had raised in the 1883 petition with government ministers, and in doing so set out a programme for the future management and disposal of their land. These aspirations for the future of their communities, land and resources were reiterated and elaborated during intensive negotiations between Wahanui, John Ormsby and other leaders and Native Minister John Ballance, in Wellington and at various meetings in the Rohe Potae throughout 1884 and 1885. Wahanui, his wife and nine others arrived in Wellington on 9 June 1884, only a few days after the Parliamentary session for the year began on 5 June.152 One observer left his impression of Wahanui at this time. They described him as a ‘dignified old gentleman of five and 1883–1889 fifty with his portly figure, grey hair, tattooed countenance, and easy bearing, as free from arrogant assumption as from any suspicion of shyness or timidity’, and noted that district, he was ‘one of the most influential and respected chiefs of the great Ngatimaniapoto tribe.’153 The identity of all those who accompanied Wahanui in Wellington is unclear.154 inquiry However, one of those in the party was John Ormsby, the chairman of the recently formed Kawhia Native Committee.155 It also possible that William Mair, the District Potae
Officer for the King Country (later judge in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) Native Land Court Rohe case) was in Wellington for all or part of the parliamentary session of 1884. A reporter the
noted that Mair acted as an interpreter during Wahanui address to the House in in
November 1884.156 purchasing
land
152 Marr, ‘Waimarino...’, 2004, p 150 citing several letters written by Wahanui while in Wanganui (MA for correspondence registers, notes of Wahanui travels 84/1758, 84/1770, 84/1792 May 1884, register of correspondence re Tawhiao’s proposed visit to England, for example 84/2306 May 1884 and accounts of visit NO 84/3056) 153 ‘Parliamentary Notes ‐ Wahanui at the bar of the House’, Star, 3 November 1884, p 3 154 Evening Post, 3 June 1884, p 2 and Evening Post, 9 June 1884, p 2 155 Ormsby, M. J. 'Ormsby, John 1854–1927'. Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007
URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/ Preparations 156
‘Parliamentary Notes ‐ Wahanui at the bar of the House’, Star, 3 November 1884, p 3 1. 59
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Wahanui and his party seem to have remained in Wellington throughout the entire parliamentary session which closed on 10 November 1884. During that time Wahanui appeared before the North Island Main Trunk Railway Select Committee (17 September) and spoke before the House on the Native Land Settlement Bill on 1 November, and to the Legislative Council on the Bill in its redrafted form (the Native Land Alienation Restriction Bill) on 6 November. This Bill was passed as the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884 on the last day of the parliamentary session, 10 November 1884. After visiting other tribes in Marlborough, Wahanui and his party returned home via Wanganui where Wahanui attended a banquet in honour of John Ballance on 27 November 1884.157
Further engagements between Wahanui and his people and the Crown took place in
1885. Native Minister John Ballance toured the North Island speaking with Maori about the Crown’s proposal to legislate for boards and committees to administer and dispose of Maori land. Ngati Maniapoto met with Ballance at Kihikihi on 4 and 5 February 1885. 1883–1889
These provisions were included in the Native Land Disposition Bill 1885. This was debated in the House during July and August 1885. The Maori Affairs Select Committee
heard evidence on this Bill, and Wahanui appeared before the committee on 19 August district,
1885. The legislation was finally passed as the Native Land Administration Act 1886.
Once the Native Land Court began sitting in the district to investigate the title of the inquiry
Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in July 1886, the engagement between the Crown and hapu Potae and iwi became more sporadic. Nevertheless, meetings in 1886, 1887 and 1888 all
indicated that hapu and iwi leaders continued to seek a range of concessions from the Rohe
Crown. the
in
Wahanui and other Ngati Maniapoto leaders became the dominant channel of engagement between the Crown and Rohe Potae Maori within the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae inquiry district during the 1880s. As a result it is their voices that have been most purchasing comprehensively captured in official sources. This chapter draws on the views they land expressed during these engagements to delineate the aspirations of Rohe Potae Maori for with regard to their land and resources in this period. Wherever possible the view of
Preparations 157
‘Banquet to the Hon. John Ballance’, Wanganui Herald, 28 November 1884, p 2 1. 60
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 hapu and iwi leaders have been recorded, but such voices are rather muted in the sources available.
This chapter begins by exploring the Crown’s vision for the Rohe Potae during the period from 1884 to 1889 and demonstrates the fundamental connections between the construction of the North Island Main Trunk Railway through the central North Island, plans to purchase significant areas of land for European settlement and the desire to further the European colonisation of the King Country. That section also explores the legislation put in place by the Crown between 1884 and 1886 to facilitate those goals (see 1.2). The second section of the chapter examines the vision hapu and iwi had for the future of the Rohe Potae, setting out and tracing their pursuit of a package of interconnected measures designed to safeguard their control over their land and
resources, and the wellbeing of the people, while enabling communities to engage in new economic opportunities that a controlled opening of the district would bring. This includes a discussion of hapu and iwi responses to the legislation passed by the Crown 1883–1889
during this period (see 1.3). The third section of the chapter documents and evaluates the Crown’s response to hapu and iwi aspirations for the retention, control and
management of their land in the years between 1884 and 1889 (see 1.4). district,
inquiry
Potae
Rohe
the
in
purchasing
land
for
Preparations
1. 61
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 4: MAP SHOWING THE RAILWAY RESTRICTION ZONE AND MAIN RAILWAY ROUTE, 1884
(Source: AJHR 1884, I6, Sess. II)
62
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1.2 THE CROWN’S INTENTIONS FOR THE ROHE POTAE, 1884–1886
In August 1884 the Governor articulated the priorities of the newly formed Stout‐Vogel Government.158 He declared the completion of the North Island Main Trunk Railway line between Auckland and Wellington to be ‘a colonial work of vast importance, which must be hastened to a conclusion with the utmost possible expedition.’159 A number of possible routes for the railway had been explored but no decision had been made at that point about which route it would take through the central North Island. That decision was to be made by a Select Committee to be appointed during that parliamentary session. The North Island Main Trunk Railway Select Committee was duly appointed on 18 September and on 22 October 1884. They recommended that the line take the central route through the Rohe Potae. Large‐scale Crown purchasing of Maori land in the districts through which the line would run was considered integral to the completion and profitability of the railway. The Governor indicated that authority would ‘be asked to enable the State to acquire extensive blocks of land along the line of 1883–1889
this railway.’ Once acquired, this land was to ‘be set apart for the settlement of a large number of [presumably European] families.’ 160 But it was recognised that some district,
mechanism would need to be created through legislation to enable Maori ‘to dispose of their lands, when they desire to do so.’161 inquiry
1.2.1 PROVISIONS FOR CROWN PRE‐EMPTION AND RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION, 1884 Potae
On 9 October 1884, as foreshadowed in the Governor’s speech in August, Native Rohe
Minister and Minister of Lands John Ballance introduced the Native Land Settlement Bill the
in to the House. Ballance explained the Bill contained two distinct measures. Firstly, it ‘prohibited absolutely, within a certain defined territory, the dealing in Native lands by
purchasing
158 The first half of the 1884 parliamentary session was somewhat politically unsettled. There was a
general election in July 1884 but this did not produce a clear‐cut result, Robert Stout and Julius Vogel land
briefly pulled together a coalition in mid‐August but this Government fell two weeks later, this was for followed briefly by attempts by the ruling Premier Atkinson to form a Government, this failed and Stout and Vogel then returned to power, for what proved to be a three year term. As a result by the end of August 1884 John Ballance had replaced John Bryce as Native Minister. This instability may have been one of the reasons why the business of the session did not finally get underway in earnest until September 1884. (Loveridge, ‘The Opening of the King Country...’, 2006, pp 146 & 148) 159 ‘Governor’s Speech’, NZPD, Vol. 48, 1884, p 6 160 ‘Governor’s Speech’, NZPD, Vol. 48, 1884, p 6 Preparations 161
‘Governor’s Speech’, NZPD, Vol. 48, 1884, p 6 1. 63
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 private individuals’ (and re‐imposed the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase).162 Secondly, it provided for the establishment of a board to administer and dispose of Maori land by lease or sale to the Crown or at public auction to the highest bidder in accordance with the Land Act 1877, and enabled land to be reserved for the Maori owners. 163 Ballance envisaged that the board would initially be solely Government appointed but that in time Maori would have a greater role in electing members.164
These administrative provisions were dropped from the Bill on 1 November 1884 during its second reading, the restrictive measures were retained and redrafted, and the Bill was renamed to reflect its focus on alienation restriction. This was passed as the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884. That Act re‐asserted the Crown’s sole right to purchase Maori land. Section 7 of the Act stated that nothing in the Act would:
preclude the Governor from negotiating with the Native owners of any land within the territory aforesaid for the purchase or other acquisition by Her Majesty of any such land they may wish to dispose of, upon such terms and conditions as maybe agreed upon between the Governor and such owners. 1883–1889
The Act also prohibited private land transactions over a large area of land ostensibly deemed to be affected by the construction of the proposed North Island Main Trunk district, Railway line. Under section 7 both Europeans and Maori were prohibited from entering any agreement ‘for the sale or purchase or acquisition in any manner howsoever of any inquiry estate, right, title, or interest of any kind in any Native land’ within the area specified in
165 the schedule of the Act.’ Thus private leases as well as purchases were entirely Potae
restricted. Europeans who breeched these provisions were liable for a fine of between Rohe £150 and £500 and imprisonment for no more than 12 months.166 the
in The area to which these provisions would apply was set out in the schedule to that Act. Ballance estimated this railway restriction zone (the area described in the schedule to the Act) covered 4,628,185 acres of land in the centre of the North Island. It took in all purchasing but the northern tip and the boundary extension area of the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae
land inquiry district as well as extensive area of land in the Taupo and Whanganui regions. Of for
162 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 312 163 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 135 164 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 313 165 Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884, ss. 3‐4 Preparations 166
Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884, s 3 1. 64
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 this four and half million acres just over a quarter (730,628 acres) were already under negotiation for purchase by the Crown by 1884 – all of that land lay outside the inquiry district.167 The boundaries of this railway restriction zone are shown in Figure 4.168
The land administration provisions were dropped from the Native Land Settlement Bill 1884 in part because, as Ballance acknowledged, they had been put together as a stop‐ gap measure and ‘a more comprehensive measure ... making provision for other matters’ would have to be developed. Ballance indicated that it was ‘the intention of the Government next session to bring down such a measure.’169 The Governor had indicated to the Legislative Council that comprehensive land legislation was to be postponed with the hope that the Government could ‘come to an understanding with the natives during the recess for a way forward that would be acceptable to both parties.’170 The
administrative clauses were redrafted and introduced as the Native Land Disposition Bill 1885 which, after further amendments, was finally passed into law as the Native Land Administration Act 1886. 1883–1889
1.2.2 RATIONALE FOR CROWN PRE‐EMPTION AND RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION, 1884 district,
There can be no question that the Crown’s immediate intention in imposing these restrictions in 1884 was to preserve a significant area of the central North Island for inquiry
future Crown purchase and European settlement. This was considered necessary in order to ensure the profitability of the railway; a major public work, which the colony, Potae at a time of prolonged economic depression, had put itself into considerable debt to Rohe
construct. Ballance described this restriction zone as ‘the country to which the railway
171 the will be the feeder, and which the railway will enormously benefit.’ The chair of the in North Island Main Trunk Railway Select Committee, the Minister for Public Works, E
167 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 316
168 purchasing Loveridge noted this map was originally attached to the Native Land Settlement Bill and ‘appears to have been based on a ‘Map of the North Island, New Zealand shewing the Land Tenure’, which had been
produced by the Survey Department earlier in the year. An enlargement of the west central portion, land
entitled ‘The North Island Trunk Railway: Plan showing proposed routes and the tenure of the Country for through which they pass’, with proposed railway routes and the Rohe Potae boundary added, had been prepared for the use of the Select Committee on the Main Trunk route. The version attached to the Bill, presenting the same information as the latter plus the boundary of the district affected, was entitled ‘Native Land Settlement Bill: Plan of the Land included in the Schedule’ (Loveridge, ‘The Opening of the King Country...’, 2006, p 152) 169 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 313 170 NZPD, Vol. 48, 1884, p 6 Preparations 171
NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 312 1. 65
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Richardson, made it clear that a primary consideration in choosing the central route had been to ensure that the route ‘selected should be one fitted for agricultural carriage, and one that would open up the largest amount of land suitable for that purpose.’172 Therefore, the central route through the Rohe Potae was considered the most suitable because of the land’s greater potential for the development of agriculture and pastoral farming by a large European population.173 Ballance himself, in introducing the Native Land Settlement Bill to the House emphasised that the policy of the future ‘should be a policy of settlement of their country.’ That, he said, was ‘the main question.’ He envisaged the railways side by side with extensive European settlement. 174 However, the Crown’s rationale for these measures were not entirely economic; no doubt they also saw these plans as a means of completing the colonization of the Rohe Potae which had been largely beyond the control of the State until the 1880s.
The restrictions on all private dealings and the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase were designed to prevent European speculators from purchasing this vital zone of land 1883–1889
surrounding the railway. The long title of the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884 makes this explicit: it is subtitled: ‘An Act temporarily to prevent Dealings in
Native Land by Private Persons within a defined District of the North Island.’ In district, introducing the Native Land Settlement Bill for its second reading in the House, Ballance
described the prohibition on private dealings within the restriction area as one of the inquiry
‘cardinal features’ of the legislation. His introductory remarks made it clear that its Potae principle purpose was to prevent undue speculation by private parties in this so‐called
175
‘feeder’ zone. Rohe
the However, as Ballance himself admitted, it was initially intended to be an interim in
measure. He hoped to introduce a more comprehensive piece of legislation the coming year to cover the administrative scheme he had designed. In the meantime he was introducing ‘such provisions as will meet all temporary wants.’176 The Colonial purchasing
Secretary, Patrick Buckley, noted that the legislation had been drafted hastily: land
for
172 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 59 citing NZPD, Vol. 49, 1884, p 596 173 NZPD, Vol. 49, 1884, p 597 174 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 317 175 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 312 Preparations 176
NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 313 1. 66
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Because, after the line had been decided upon by the House of Representatives, it was necessary to take immediate action, with the view of preventing any interference in the carrying into operation of this scheme of railway construction.177
He also considered that ‘it was only right’ that the Government ‘should have some of the large advantages likely to be obtained by this restricting measure’ given the amount of money it was proposing to spend on constructing the railway. 178 Principle amongst these advantages was the monopoly the Crown would have in purchasing Maori land in the restriction zone now that competition from private buyers had been eliminated. In 1886 at a public meeting of his constituents in Whanganui Ballance was explicit about the advantage of this for the Crown. He stated that the four million acres under Crown pre‐emption ‘was now safe, and when the time came they [the Crown] would acquire it.’179
As already noted above, and evident from the map in Figure 4, the Crown placed these restrictions on an enormous area of land in 1884, much of it a considerable distance 1883–1889 from the railway line itself. In defining the extensive area over which the Act would come into force Ballance took his lead from the railway select committee, focusing on a district,
wider area, demarcated by the watersheds of particular river systems, rather than simply the width of the line and land immediately adjacent to it. The chairman of the inquiry
committee had reported to the House in October 1884 that the Native land ‘north of the Mokau watershed’ and that ‘north of the dividing range to Te Awamutu’ was: Potae
well adapted for settlement. By whichever way this railway is made it will Rohe benefit this land, and if we construct it without making some arrangement with
respect to the acquisition of that land from the Natives we shall do a great injury the
to the country.’ in
Richardson considered that if the area north of the dividing range to Te Awamutu was settled ‘it would bring a large amount of traffic to the railway.’ But the railway (and by purchasing
extension, the colony) would only benefit if speculators were prevented from acquiring large ‘blocks twenty, thirty, or fifty thousand acres.’180 Likewise, Ballance defended the land
for
177 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 438 178 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 438 179 ‘Post‐sessional Speech. The Hon. J. Ballance before his Constituents’, Wanganui Herald, 14 January
1886, p 2 Preparations 180
NZPD, Vol. 49, 1884, p 600 1. 67
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 extensive size of the restriction zone, explaining that the Government had initially planned to restrict private dealings over:
land within a certain distance from the railway‐line; but gradually our view became expanded, and we thought that – if we were to do justice to the colony, and, at the same time, to the Native people – we should take in at any rate that extent of country which would be served by the railway.181
It was decided that the most appropriate limits ‘would be boundaries enclosing the watershed in connection with the North Island Railway.’ Ballance then ‘took a map and traced a line in order to give the railway that land which seemed to be benefited by it.’182 There also seems to have been an element of ‘just in case’ in making the restriction zone so large in 1884. In introducing the Bill to the Legislative Council the Colonial Secretary admitted that the boundaries set out in the Act contained ‘a much greater area
than may be necessary’ but that it had ‘been deemed desirable to get as large an area as possibly can be got, with the view of protecting the interests of Maori and of the public.’183 1883–1889
Ballance was careful to make a clear distinction between land for the construction of the railway line itself and railway stations (an area he estimated as 3,360 acres), which he district, was sure Maori would offer to the Government, and other land for European settlement in the vicinity of the railway line. 184 Despite this there was some uncertainty and a inquiry diversity of views amongst Members of the Legislative Council about whether the
Government’s intention (and the purpose of the Act) was to allow land to be acquired Potae
for the railway line and stations themselves or for large areas to be purchased for Rohe European settlement as well. Daniel Pollen, the Member of the Legislative Council for the
Auckland considered that the Bill gave the Government the power to deal with not only in
the ‘land for the line of railway, but – for the whole of the land included within these boundaries, estimated to contain about three and a half million acres of land.’185 Walter
Mantell, Member for Wellington, also seemed under the impression that the object of purchasing the Crown’s sole right to purchase was ‘to enable the Government to acquire a strip of land two chains or so in width right through this block, with the view to the formation of the for
181 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 312 182 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, pp 312‐313 183 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 431 184 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 316 Preparations 185
NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 431 1. 68
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
North Island Trunk Railway.’186 In part these uncertainties were a result of the stop‐gap nature of the legislation, something that the Governor, Ballance and the Colonial Secretary had all alluded to.187
There was also some disquiet amongst politicians in 1884 about the amount of power these measures gave to the Crown and about the large area of land encompassed by this boundary. During debate on the Native Land Alienation Bill in the Legislative Council in November 1884, Daniel Pollen, the Member for Auckland, argued that the provisions were completely opposed to Wahanui’s request ‘that no dealings whatever with land within the prescribed boundaries should be permitted.’ Pollen considered that the effect of the Bill was to give the Government power to ‘deal with’, that is to purchase, land in the whole restriction zone. He pointed out that:
whatever may have been the misdoings of private individuals in dealing in Native lands, they have been equaled if not exceeded by the misdoings of Government agents in connection with the acquirement of Native land from time to time.188 1883–1889
Therefore, he could see ‘no reason why so much power as this should be given to this Government or any Government’ until a firm decision had been reached by debate in the district, House and Legislative Council about how the Government would deal with Maori land. George McLean, the Member for Otago, recognized that the Bill gave the Government inquiry wide powers but was convinced that no politician would ‘ever again tolerate the
Government going, as in former days, largely into the purchase of Native land.’ If that Potae
were the Crown’s intention then he would strongly oppose the Bill. However, he was Rohe sure that the Bill was ‘of a merely temporary nature, merely reserving the land through the
which the line passes’, and legislation would later be passed ‘in order to settle the in
country through which the railway will run.’189 In any case, he was sure that land purchasing would be limited because Maori would recognize the great benefits of the
190
railway and gift large areas of land to the Government. In reply to these concerns purchasing
Patrick Buckley, the Colonial Secretary, acknowledged the haste with which the Native land
for
186 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 433 187 NZPD, Vol. 48, 1884, p 6 (Governor); NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 438 (Colonial Secretary) and NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 313 (Ballance) 188 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, pp 431‐432 189 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 434 Preparations 190
NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 434 1. 69
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Land Alienation Restriction Bill was being passed, for that reason he considered that the legislation was simply a ‘sketch … of a very general character.’ But he assured his fellow members that ‘it is not intended by the Government to take possession of or to purchase the whole of the land within this area.’ Instead he suggested that ‘the land will be limited within a short time’, implying that the wide boundaries of the restriction zone were likely to be quickly amended by subsequent legislation.191
In summary, by 1884 the Crown had concluded that the viability of the railway depended upon the purchasing of large areas of Maori land to facilitate European settlement in the area through which the North Island Main Trunk Railway line would run, including the Rohe Potae. But no firm plans had been made as to how a land purchasing programme might operate. The Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884
seems to have been intended as a temporary holding measure to ensure that the land was not lost to private speculators. The Crown then planned to speak with hapu and iwi to develop land administration legislation that would be acceptable to both the 1883–1889
Government and Maori communities.
1.2.3 PROVISIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND DISPOSAL OF MAORI LAND, 1884–1886 district,
Ballance considered the administrative provisions of the Native Land Settlement Bill to inquiry
be critical in realizing this vision without inciting conflict with Maori communities. These were dropped in 1884 but later refined and elaborated in the Native Land Potae Disposition Bill in 1885 and finally passed into law as the Native Land Administration Rohe
Act 1886. This section of the chapter examines the evolution of this scheme from its the inception in 1884 until its passage into law in 1886. It also discusses Maori opposition in from Rohe Potae hapu and iwi to the 1886 Act during 1887 and 1888.
1.2.3(a) The Native Land Settlement Bill 1884 purchasing In introducing the Native Land Settlement Bill in October 1884 Ballance explained that the Government would appoint a board to administer and dispose of Maori land. This land
was not a new idea. The previous Native Minister John Bryce had tried and failed to for
introduce something similar in the Native Land Sales Bill of 1880, and he had based his
Preparations 191
NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 438 1. 70
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 proposal on McLean’s 1876 Bill of the same name.192 Ballance proposed that a board should consist of ‘a Commissioner appointed by the Governor, and an assessor nominated by him.’193 This he saw as a temporary arrangement and he hoped that ‘when the time comes’ Parliament would be prepared to give to Maori ‘extensive powers with regard to the administration of the land, and larger powers in the election of members of the Board.’194 But for the time being it seems hapu and iwi would have no representation on the board being proposed, or any control over its operation. Equally alarming for Maori land owners, it was proposed that half of the gross revenue from land sales and rents would be retained by the Government ‘for the purposes of making roads and surveys, for other expenses connected with the Court and the administration of the land.’195 Ballance defended this provision on the basis that as little as possible would be spent on these costs and any surplus would be handed back to owners, and he argued that if roads and other improvements were made the land would ‘be largely enhanced in value, and the Native owners will received the benefit in the increased price that will be obtained for the land.’196 At a banquet in his honour late in November 1883–1889 1884 Ballance elaborated on his design for this board stressing that it would enable Maori to offer their land ‘to the highest bidder under the land laws of the colony.’197 district,
Certainly in the House in 1884 Ballance was cautiously optimistic that Maori would
support the proposed board and alienate enough land for European settlement in the inquiry railway restriction zone. He acknowledged that Wahanui and other leaders had already Potae agreed to give land for the railway line and stations and hoped that if the Government
pressed Maori for land for settlement they ‘might receive large concessions of land from Rohe
them as a recognition of the value given to their land by the railway.’ He assured the the
in House that large‐scale purchasing would be possible because Maori had ‘arrived at the point at which they are able to see that it is in their own interest, highly desirable that their land should be thrown open, and that they should enjoy the benefit of its purchasing occupation.’198 Ballance declared that he was confident that Maori would gradually land
for
192 For further details see Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, pp 122‐126 193 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 313 194 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 313 195 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, pp 313‐314 196 NZPD, Vol. 50, p 314 197 ‘Banquet to the Hon. John Ballance’, Wanganui Herald, 28 November 1884, p 2 Preparations 198
NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 317 1. 71
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 bring their land under the board proposed in the Native Land Settlement Bill 1884 and thus land would be sold and leased to the Crown. In particular, he cited indications that Maori were eager to open up land along the Mokau River as evidence of this support. He also considered that there was significant support for the measure amongst the Whanganui people but admitted that Wahanui and his people were of a different opinion.199 Ballance acknowledged the opposition to the Bill expressed in Wahanui’s speech to the House that morning, but Ballance suggested that this was because Wahanui lacked familiarity with the Bill rather than because of anything it contained.200 This opposition from Wahanui, as voiced in his speech to the House on the morning of Ballance’s address on the Native Land Settlement Bill, will be examined in greater detail in the next section of this chapter. Ballance considered that the measures in the Bill would ‘protect the best interests of the Natives’, and were ‘the means best adapted for securing to the Natives the best price for their land and its right administration.’201 But he was quick to say that the Government would not coerce Maori into offering land on this scale.202 1883–1889
While Ballance framed the debate in terms of Maori co‐operation, protection and
mutual benefit others were more forthright in admitting that large‐scale land district,
acquisition was inescapably part of the Government’s agenda. For example, Walter
Mantell, Member of the Legislative Council for Wellington, and a man with considerable inquiry
experience of Maori affairs in the preceding decades, stated that he was not so sure that Potae the Government would be restrained in its use of the power the Bill gave them to
purchase Maori land because: Rohe
the The very lifeblood of the Government – at any rate, as regards its influence in the in North Island – is the acquiring of Native lands, on the good old system which prevailed formerly, namely, the getting of the largest possible amount of land for the least possible price.’203
But Mantell hoped that if the Crown really had no intention of undertaking large scale purchasing
land purchasing in the restriction zone they would amended section 7 of the Bill, land
containing the restriction and pre‐emption measures, to make that clear so that Maori for
199 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 313 200 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 312 201 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 312 & 316 respectively 202 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 316 Preparations 203
NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 433 1. 72
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
‘will not have their minds disturbed by apprehensions that under it the old system of land‐purchase … will be introduced in this district.’204
1.2.3(b) The Native Land Disposition Bill 1885/Native Land Administration Act 1886
As promised by Ballance when he announced the decision to drop the delay introducing the board system for administering and disposing of Maori land, he toured the North Island during the parliamentary recess in the summer of 1884/1885. He visited seven Native districts: Whanganui, the Rohe Potae (King Country), Waikato, Hauraki, Tauranga, Rotorua and the East Coast. Amongst the twelve meetings held, three took place in the Waikato/King Country district, the first with Te Kooti and his people at Kihikihi on 3 February 1885, the second a general meeting at Kihikihi on 4 February and the third with Tawhaio and his people at Whatiwhatihoe on 6 February 1885.
From the Crown’s perspective these hui had two purposes: to continue negotiations for the construction of the railway through the Rohe Potae and to promote the Stout‐Vogel administration’s idea of boards to administer and dispose of Maori land.205 The railway 1883–1889
was certainly a live issue for hapu and iwi who Ballance met with at Kihikihi. Just a few months prior to Ballance’s 1885 tour, Taonui Hikaka of Ngati Maniapoto wrote to district, Ballance conveying his feelings of dismay that the railway construction had begun without full discussions with the Government: inquiry
Friend we are at a loss to know what wrong we and our people have done that Potae you should have ignored us when you commenced Government Works in our localities, that is that you should have commenced the construction of the Rohe
railway before coming to see us, the owners of the land, and discussing the matter fully with us in accordance with the promise made by Mr. Bryce to the Wahanui at Whatiwhatihoe when he asked Wahanui to allow the preliminary in survey of the line to be made?206 purchasing
land
204 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 433 for 205 Michael Allen noted that ‘A search through contemporary newspapers, parliamentary debates and government archives reveals that Ballance made no definitive statement before, during or after the tour, explaining why he was visiting Maori communities in the central North Island.’ However, these two issues seem to have been driving this tour. Michael Allen, ‘Maori Political Thought in the Late Nineteenth Century: A microhistorical study of the document of speeches from John Ballance’s tour of seven Maori districts, 1885’, MA thesis (History), University of Canterbury, 2004, p 65
206 Allen, Maori Political Thought in the Late Nineteenth Century ...’, 2004, pp 63‐64 citing Taonui Hikaka Preparations
to Ballance, 3 December 1884, MA 13/43A, NO 84/3668, ANZ Wgt 1. 73
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Ballance referred obliquely to this letter in his reply to opening speeches of welcome at Kihikihi. He acknowledged that such promises had been made and that when he heard this he ‘lost no opportunity of announcing that I should appear amongst you.’207
Provisions for a Government‐led system of boards and committees to administer and dispose of Maori land had featured in the Native Land Settlement Bill in 1884 but had been withdrawn during debate on the Bill. When Ballance withdrew these measures from the 1884 legislation he had indicated that a ‘more comprehensive measure’ was planned for the next session of Parliament.208 It appears he used this tour to explain his ideas to Maori around the North Island and to gauge the level of support for introducing such boards. Refined and elaborated, these measures would then be debated extensively later in 1885 as the Native Land Disposition Bill.
The Bill was essentially a revision of the provisions that had been dropped in 1884, except that it was intended to apply to the whole country, not just the railway restriction zone. The Act was only to apply to land which had passed through the Native 1883–1889 Land Court.209 As the Stout‐Ngata Commission commented in 1907, the potential gains from having local committee with a level of control over land alienation were district, unavailable to Ngati Maniapoto and other hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae because ‘as yet they had no titles to alienate.’ The 1886 Act was repealed in 1888 before title was inquiry finally determined to all blocks within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block.210 Potae A board for that district would then be appointed consisting of a Commissioner, who would chair the board, another Crown appointee and the Chairman of the district’s Rohe
Native Committee. These committees were formed under the Native Committees Act the
in 1883 and many were already established and operating by this time. In addition, a seven member ‘block’ or ‘local’ committee could be formed by owners who could recommend the disposition and alienation of their land to the Commissioner. The Board purchasing would then publish a report and carry out the planned alienation and disposal. All land
was to be disposed of in accordance with the Land Act 1885 (which allowed for public land
for
207 ‘Notes of a meeting between the Hon. Mr Ballance and the Natives at the Public Hall at Kihikihi, on the 4th February, 1885’, AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 13 208 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 313 209 The Native Land Administration Act 1886, s. 2 210 ‘Native Lands and Native Land Tenure (interim report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Preparations
question of), AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 2 1. 74
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 auction on the open market).211 But the Native Land Administration Act 1886 also allowed owners to dispose of land directly to the Crown ‘without or not withstanding a Committee.’ This effectively undercut any collective authority committees of owners might attempt to exercise. The Committee itself could also ‘convey or demise land to the Crown.’212 All revenue generated by selling or leasing land would be paid into a Native Land Fund Account. Owners would then be paid a regular return, less a five per cent charge for costs, and the costs of any surveying, advertising and roadwork required.’213
The Native Land Administration Act 1886 repealed the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884.214 Under the 1886 Act Maori owners did not face the same prohibition on selling or leasing to Europeans because the committee was able to sell or lease on the open market under the general land laws of the colony. The Crown did not
have a monopoly on land purchasing under the 1886 Act. Nevertheless, the Committee could sell or lease land to the Crown on behalf of owners and the Crown retained a distinct and critical advantage by enabling any owners to by‐pass the committee 1883–1889
dispose of their land directly to the Crown.
During debate on this Bill Ballance represented the committee/board administrative district, scheme as one which would deliver advantages to Maori and to the colony. He considered that in putting forward the measures in the Native Land Disposition Bill inquiry 1885 the Government would not only fulfill its obligations to Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi but would provide a greater level of benefit than the Treaty guaranteed. He Potae
acknowledged that all legislation brought to the House ‘must proceed according to the Rohe Treaty of Waitangi.’ This was particularly the case as the British Parliament had recently the laid down ‘that the Treaty of Waitangi is still binding, and we must proceed on its lines.’ in
Ballance argued that the Government would ‘abide by the strict letter of the Treaty’ if it decided to restore the Crown’s pre‐emptive right to purchase. However, he considered that the Government was offering Maori ‘better terms’ than this: purchasing
land
for
211 The Native Land Administration Act 1886, s. 29 212 The Native Land Administration Act 1886, s.20 213 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 140 Preparations 214
The Native Land Administration Act 1886, s. 47 1. 75
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
but we go further and say that, while we retain the right of purchase in our hands, we give the Natives an opportunity of getting a better price for their land by placing it in the open market, by offering it to competition … It is just and fair to the Natives; for instead of having one purchaser, as under the Treaty, they will have the whole public of New Zealand – of the whole world, in fact – as the purchasers of their land, under the Bill now before the House.215
Ihaka Hakuene, the Member for Northern Maori, was in favour of the committee/board system stating that the Bill was a ‘step in the right direction’ because it gave ‘the owners of the land full authority to decide what shall be done with it. It gives the chiefs the power of deciding whether the land shall be sold or leased, or disposed of in any other way.’ For that reason he considered that the Bill moved ‘in the direction of the Treaty of Waitangi.’216
Ballance was also fully alive to the considerable advantages which a system of boards
and committees would give the Crown in its endeavour to purchase and supply land for European settlement. The administrative scheme was seen as a way of speeding up the purchasing of Maori land by doing away with the necessity of purchasing the interests 1883–1889 of each individual owner. Ballance considered that the new regime he was trying to introduce would enable the owners of a block to collectively ‘dispose of their lands for a district, certain sum to the Government of the country’ meaning that ‘a purchase which would formerly extend over perhaps twenty years can be made in a week.’217 Ballance also inquiry argued that the ability of the committee to lease or sell land to Europeans at public auction would be a positive advantage for settlers, enabling anyone to buy a small Potae
parcel of land. This was important to Ballance as he alleged that the market had become Rohe dominated by speculators and companies with large sums of capital to employ the the lawyers, interpreters and surveyors necessary to seal a purchase with Maori.218 in
The Bill was debated extensively throughout July and August 1885. In general it received ‘a relatively hostile reception in the House of Representatives, from Maori and purchasing European Members alike.’219 Loveridge and Cleaver & Sarich provide full accounts of the land
for
215 NZPD, Vol. 52, 1885, p 396 216 NZPD, Vol. 52, 1885, pp 495‐496 217 NZPD, Vol. 52, 1885, p 396 218 NZPD, Vol. 52, 1885, p 396 Preparations 219
Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 140 1. 76
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 numerous objections made by members of the House.220 The Bill was then sent to the Native Affairs Committee for scrutiny, where time ran out before anything more could be done in 1885.221 Wahanui gave evidence before this select committee about his understanding of the Bill and his ideas about the control and disposal of land in the Rohe Potae. This is discussed in detail in the next section of this chapter. Some amendments were made to the Native Land Disposition Bill before it was considered again by the House in 1886.222 In particular, its name was changed to the Native Land Administration Bill. The word ‘Disposition’ was removed from the title, because ‘it implied, in the Native language, giving away, parting with, or handing over or abandoning their land.’223 The Native Land Administration Bill 1886 was supported by three of the four Maori Members. However, there was opposition from Te Puke Te Ao, the Member for Western Maori in which the Rohe Potae was located. He opposed the Bill because he objected to any and all attempts by settlers to control Maori and Maori land. It easily passed through the House and Legislative Council and was made law as The Native Land Administration Act, 1886 on 9 August 1886 and it came into effect on 1 1883–1889 January 1887.224
1.2.3(c) The failure of the Native Land Administration Act 1886 district,
Although the Native Land Administration Act 1886 came into force at the beginning of inquiry
1887 only a few applications had been made to utilize it by mid‐1887, and no Maori land in the North Island had been placed in the hands of the Commissioners for sale or Potae lease.225 The failure of Ballance’s policies undoubtedly contributed to the fall of the Rohe
Stout‐Vogel Government in 1887. The new Government was led by Sir Harry Atkinson
226 the and Ballance was replaced as Native Minister by Edwin Mitchelson. in
220 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, pp 140‐143 and Cleaver and Sarich, purchasing 2009, pp 81‐84 221 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 143 citing NZPD, Vol. 52, 1885, pp 515‐520 222 The principal changes included a change from district boards each headed by a Commissioner to have land a single Commissioner in each district under which local committee would be constituted. This gave local for committees a more prominent role in decision‐making. 223 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 144 224 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 145 225 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 148, citing ‘Reports by Commissioners under 'The Native Land Administration Act, 1886’, AJHR 1887 Sess. II, 0‐8 The reports for the following year (AJLC 1888 No. 16, same title), record a single completed transaction involving the sale of 1,216 acres by auction. A few existing leases were also renewed. Preparations 226
Cleaver and Sarich, ‘2009, p 90 citing Ward, A Show of Justice..., 1983, pp 298‐299 1. 77
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In the Rohe Potae itself there was dissatisfaction with the Act, because as John Ormsby explained to Ballance in January 1887, ‘the Government still retained the power to purchase land.’227 In March 1887 a correspondent from Auckland informed Sir George Grey that ‘the Natives everywhere I have been to lately condemn in strong terms the Native Land Administration Act 1886.’228 The letter noted that Wahanui, who was in Auckland at that time, expressed himself ‘in the strongest terms against this measure, and means to oppose its being made use of by the Natives in every possible way.’ The reason given for this opposition was that the Act appeared to Maori:
as an instrument working solely for the benefit of the Government against the interests & very independence of the Maori race; and precisely as you expressed yourself respecting it in Parliament ‐ , whilst professing to put an end to Land Sharking, it virtually creates the Native Department into the most dangerous and greatest Land Shark that ever existed in New Zealand.229
When Ngati Maniapoto and hapu and iwi of the northern part of the Rohe Potae and railway restriction zone met with Native Minister Mitchelson at Otorohanga in April 1888, they once again voiced their objections to the Native Land Administration Act 1883–1889
1886 and to Crown purchasing.230 Ormsby implied that Rohe Potae communities had had little involvement in the passing of the Act and had not been consulted or at least district, not as publicly and extensively as hapu and iwi in other districts. He stated that the Act had been ‘passed by the wish of the natives from Whanganui, round by Gisborne, to inquiry
Hauraki.’231 This was despite dialogue with Wahanui in the Native Affairs Select Potae Committee during debate in 1885 and the amendments Wahanui and Wi Pere put forward (these are discussed in the next section of the chapter). However, they had Rohe
heard that the Government was about to repeal the 1886 Act and were anxious about the
in
purchasing
227 ‘Native Minister at Otorohanga’, Waikato Times, 27 January 1887, p 3 land
228 Richard J Duncan, Auckland to Sir George Grey, 15 March 1887, GLNZ D20.1, Grey New Zealand for Letters, Auckland Memorial War Museum 229 Richard J Duncan, Auckland to Sir George Grey, 15 March 1887, GLNZ D20.1, Grey New Zealand Letters, Auckland Memorial War Museum 230 Amongst those reported as present were Wahanui, Taonui, John Ormsby, Wetere te Rirenga, Te Rangianini, and Hanauru (Mr Mitchelson’s Visit – meeting with Wahanui and the Ngatimaniapoto Chiefs’, Waikato Times, 12 April 1888, p 2) 231 Mr Mitchelson’s Visit – meeting with Wahanui and the Ngatimaniapoto Chiefs’, Waikato Times, 12 April Preparations
1888, p 2 1. 78
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 what might replace it and asked that they be given clear information about how any new legislation would affect them.232
Mitchelson confirmed that the 1886 Act would be repealed but assured them that the Government ‘intend giving the natives the control of their own lands, for the time has arrived for it.’ As a safeguard ‘no dealings will be permitted until three months after the land has passed the Court and anyone wishing to sell can do so on its being shown that they have kept sufficient for their support.’ However, the Government would ‘retain the pre‐emptive right to buy before the Europeans.’ Ormsby considered the three month time period insufficient and continued to oppose the Crown’s pre‐emptive right. 233
1.2.3(d) The Native Land Act 1888 and the Native Land Court Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888
The Native Land Administration Act 1886 was repealed by section 3 of the Native Land
Act 1888 on 30 August 1888. It was repealed because it had failed to attract support from Maori communities.234 On the same day as the 1886 Act was repealed the Native Land Court Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888 was passed, explicitly restricted any private 1883–1889 dealings on land dealt with or to be dealt with by the Native Land Court in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, which was two years into its title investigations of the block. None district, of the block could be ‘in any way dealt or interfered with before the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act’, that is until 30 August 1891.235 This did not ‘apply to inquiry
or affect the Crown’ or any person acting for the Crown. In other words, the Crown was
to retain its pre‐emptive right of purchase over the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. Potae
Rohe
This block was also made subject to sections 5 and 7 of the Native Lands Frauds the
Prevention Act 1881 Amendment Act 1888 and deemed to be Native land within the in meaning of that Act.236 These sections prohibited private dealings on ‘Native Land’ unless the land had been included in a Crown Grant or Certificate of Title issued to 20 or fewer Maori owners and that title had been issued for more than 40 days.237 It is not purchasing
land
for 232 Mr Mitchelson’s Visit – meeting with Wahanui and the Ngatimaniapoto Chiefs’, Waikato Times, 12 April 1888, p 2 233 Mr Mitchelson’s Visit – meeting with Wahanui and the Ngatimaniapoto Chiefs’, Waikato Times, 12 April 1888, p 2 234 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 148 235 The Native Land Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888, s. 15 236 The Native Land Court Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888, s. 15 Preparations 237
The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881 Amendment Act 1888, s. 5 1. 79
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 clear whether these types of titles had been issued in the Rohe Potae during the time these clauses exempting Native land from restrictions on private dealings were in force. Confused about the application of this provision in the Rohe Potae in the early 1890s is discussed in Chapter 6.
1.3 MAORI INTENTIONS FOR THE ROHE POTAE, 1884–1886
At the same time as the Crown was establishing its priorities for the Rohe Potae and legislating to ensure that its future needs for land for European settlement would be met hapu and iwi leaders from the Rohe Potae were putting their own vision of the future of the Rohe Potae, its land and its people to the Government, confirming and fleshing out the requests made in the 1883 petition. This section explores these
aspirations articulated by Wahanui, Taonui, John Ormsby and others on behalf of Ngati Maniapoto in numerous encounters with the Crown between 1884 and 1888.
As will become clear in this section, there was little common‐ground between the two 1883–1889 visions. There was some dialogue during 1885 around the possibility of committees administering and controlling the sale and lease of Maori land in the Rohe Potae. But the district, two parties could not reach agreement on the critical issue of who would have authority over these, the Government or Maori. Hapu and iwi concerns about the activities of inquiry European speculators in the district were raised in the 1883 petition and a request made that the Crown protect Maori from such companies and syndicates. This matter Potae
does not seem to have been raised in the encounters between hapu and iwi leaders from Rohe the Rohe Potae and Maori in 1884. But in introducing the Native Land Settlement Bill to the the House in 1884, Ballance implied that the restrictions on private dealings the Crown in
was putting in place over the railway restriction zone met with Wahanui’s approval because of these concerns. This matter is discussed in the next section of this chapter which deals with the Crown’s response to Maori intentions for the Rohe Potae. purchasing
land
Inevitably efforts to have the 1883 petition honoured by the Crown became intertwined for with responses to legislation being put through the House about the railway and the land around it. This section considers the responses of hapu and iwi leaders to the Crown’s intention to conduct large‐scale land purchasing in the Rohe Potae at some time in the near future. It also examines the reaction of Wahanui and other leaders to Preparations
1. 80
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the provisions of the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884 and the Native Land Administration Act 1886 with regard to the three mechanisms the Crown put in place to further their goal: the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase, prohibition on private transactions, and a system of committees and boards to administer and dispose of Maori land.
1.3.1 HAPU AND IWI VISION FOR THE ROHE POTAE, 1884–1888
Wahanui’s purpose in visiting in Wellington in 1884 was two‐fold, as he explained to the House in November 1884, he had come to set out his ‘sentiments’ before Parliament but also to ‘look upon the works that are being done in this House,’ that is to discuss the legislation relating to the Rohe Potae which was being passed at that time.238 On his way to Wellington Wahanui and his party stopped at Wanganui and while there he had
discussions with Native Minister Bryce’s private secretary Butler (who remained in that position to serve Ballance once he replaced Bryce as Native Minister in August 1884). There is some evidence that it was Butler who Wahanui contacted for copies of draft 1883–1889
legislation while in Wellington during 1884.239 It is likely that he met with Whanganui Maori leaders at that time as well. Indeed, a petition by the Whanganui leader Meiha district,
Keepa Rangihiwinui (Major Kemp) and 19 others dated 13 October 1884 requested that Wahanui may be allowed to address the House ‘to make known the wants and desires of inquiry his people in respect of the now proposed laws.’240 Wi Pere, the Maori Member for the Potae
East Coast, was one of those who signed this petition, and it was Pere that gained permission for Wahanui to appear before the House.241 Rohe
the Wahanui repeatedly emphasised that he had came to speak on behalf of ‘his people’. In in addressing the House in November 1884 he stated that it was his ‘great desire to speak before this House on behalf of my people. That brought me here.’242 More specifically he indicated that one of the reasons that he was sent to Wellington by his people was the purchasing
land
for
238 Wahanui’s speech to the House, 1 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, Appendix, p 555 239 Marr, ‘Waimairo...’, 2004, p 150 citing MA correspondence register entry NO 84/2725 5 September 1884 W J Butler forwarding Acts etc, requested by Wahanui, ANZ Wgt 240 Appendix to debate on the Native Land Settlement Bill, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 555 241 Cecilia Edwards, ‘Crown Purchasing in the Whanui Inquiry District, 1865‐1900’, November 2006, Wai
903 #A102, p 289 Preparations 242
Wahanui’s speech to the House, 1 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, Appendix, p 555 1. 81
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 great uncertainty the surveying was causing. He following year he reminded Ballance that:
We were not consulted with regard to the erection of trig. stations; the consequence of this was that the Maoris got unsettled seeing what was being done, as one brother could not advise the other or tell the other anything about it, and I was sent to Wellington by the people.243
Overall, as Loveridge concluded, ‘it appears that the plan was for him to watch over the interests of the Four Tribes [who had signed the 1883 petition] while the railway and related matters were being considered by Parliament.’244 In particular, as Marr put it, the tribes were seeking a commitment from the Government ‘to the agreements already reached and the process of negotiation already underway’ but also to remind it ‘that while agreements had been reached over exploring the best route for the railway, they
still had not reached agreement over the final railway construction over whichever route was chosen.’245 For Wahanui and his people ‘there would be no railway until they were guaranteed reform to Maori land administration.’246 In discussing the matter of 1883–1889 the railway in September 1884 Wahanui made it clear that he expected reciprocity, stating that he needed ‘the little matters that I brought down in my calabash to have put district,
right’ before dealing with the question of the railway. If the Government would ‘assist me’, he said, ‘in the objects with which I have come to Wellington, I will do all in my
247 inquiry
power to assist the Government in carrying out this matter [the railway].’ For Maori the matter of the railway became intertwined with wider discussions about how the Potae title to Maori land within the vicinity of the railway would be determined, and who Rohe would control, administer, and dispose of the land. the 1.3.1(a) Pursuing the package of initiatives and reforms set out in the 1883 petition in
In each of the encounters between Crown officials and Wahanui and other Rohe Potae leaders between 1884 and 1888, a package of initiatives and reforms was requested. purchasing
These were all aimed at securing hapu and iwi control of their land while allowing new economic opportunities that would come from a controlled opening up of the district land
for
243 AJHR 1885, C‐1, p 14 244 Loveridge, The Opening of the King Country ...’, 2006, p 143 245 Marr, ‘Waimarino...’, 2004, p 149 246 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 60 247 Loveridge, ‘The Opening of the King Country...’,, 2006, p 149 citing Wahanui at Railway select Preparations
committee, AJHR 1884, I‐6, p 16 1. 82
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 and protecting communities from the adverse effects of greater contact with Europeans. In his introductory speech to Ballance at Kihikihi in February 1885 Wahanui reminded the Minister and the assembled crowd of his visit to Wellington the previous year, and listed the wide range of matters he had discussed with Ballance while there. Wahanui stated that:
When I got to Wellington I spoke to Mr. Ballance, and he will remember what I said to him: (1) With regard to the external boundary‐line; (2.) To leave us to sanction the making of the railway line; (3.) That the gold should not be worked by Europeans without our authority; (4.) With regard to giving power to the Maori Committees to conduct matters for the Maori people; (5.) That no liquor licenses should be granted within certain boundaries; (6,) That the Native Land Court should not try any of our lands without our first sanctioning it, and that the Europeans should refrain from interfering with the Maori lands, but leave the Natives to manage them themselves. I spoke to Mr Ballance at Wellington about
all these matters. I am mentioning these matters that Wilkinson‐and your people, the Ngatimaniopoto, may hear. I referred to all these matters in my speech to the House … The reason I went to Wellington was I might lay these matters before both Houses.’248 1883–1889 However, he did not say what Ballance’s response to these requests was, nor did Ballance himself allude to the discussions he had had with Wahanui and his party in district,
Wellington in 1884. This list of issues tallies closely with those set out in the 1883 petition, which strongly suggests that Wahanui’s visit to Wellington was intended to inquiry
pursue those matters which the four Rohe Potae tribes had placed before Parliament the year before. Potae
When Ballance met with hapu and iwi at Kihikihi early in February 1885 the matters for Rohe discussion remained consistent with those that Wahanui and other leaders had pursued the
in Wellington and reflected this holistic view that hapu and iwi were taking of what they in
required from the Government to secure the kind of future they wanted for their land and communities. Again the connection between what was to be discussed at this
meeting and the 1883 petition were explicitly drawn. John Ormsby opened his speech purchasing
by referring to that petition as the only thing that had been done to enable them to do land
away with the estrangement between Maori and European. The petition set out some of for
the causes, in the minds of hapu and iwi, of that situation. Ormsby stated that the petition ‘set forth everything that the Maoris were afraid of [sic] would do them harm,
Preparations 248
AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 14 1. 83
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 and also what they desired should be done to benefit them.’249 At the close of his lengthy speech at Kihikihi in 1885 Ormsby summarized the requests they were making to Ballance:
I will now repeat the heads of the matters that I have already brought before you. The first is the Native Land Court. We object to it, and we have shown our disapproval of it in the petition. (2.) The roads and the railway. Our objection to them is the fear that we may be rated in connection with them. (3.) We ask for extra powers to be given to the Native Committees; and (4.) That it shall not be left for a person to consent or not to take his matter before the Committee, but that it shall be compulsory for him to do so. (5.) To adjudicate the lands in favour of hapus, and not individuals. (6.) To have a Committee appointed for each hapu. (7.) For the Boards to conduct all matters relating to sales or leases, as the case may be, and that the Government and private Europeans have nothing at all to do with it. Let them‐the Committees or Boards‐be independent of the Government or companies. (8.) Do away with all prospecting for gold, coal, iron, or any other
mineral that may be found under the ground‐that is, do not allow prospecting for these things to take place during the present time, not until things are settled. (9.) That the number of Maori members of the House be increased, and whenever it is proposed to pass an Act that affects the Maori race that copies of the Bill should be circulated beforehand amongst the Native people; and, if these 1883–1889 things that I have referred to are carried out, I believe that good will be the result‐that is, your knowledge and experience will be combined with my knowledge, and good will be the result.250 (10.) To have the boundary of the district, prohibition licensing district rectified, and make the prohibition to be enforced in that district very stringent indeed. Should these things be carried out I am sure that good will be the result of them.251 inquiry
In 1886, Wahanui again invoked the 1883 petition as the starting point for what hapu Potae and iwi were seeking from the Government and indicated that these matters were still being pursued, he asked Ballance to remain there at Kopua (just south of modern day Rohe
the
in
249 purchasing AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 14 250 The issue of Maori representation in Parliament had been hotly debated in 1881 during the passage of
the Representation Act 1881. In particular the member for Western Maori, Major Te Wheoro had argued land
‘for more representation for Maori more equivalent to the Maori population, but without losing special for representation in the form of separate seats, in case this led to a loss of Maori representation altogether.’ The Act provided for an increase in European seats from 84, (as previously established in 1875) to 91, to better cater for representation for the still rapidly growing Pakeha population, but did not change the number of Maori seats. In 1882 another attempt to increase Maori representation failed when the Maori Representation Act was voted down (Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement ... Part 1: 1864–1882’, draft for comment, June 2011, pp 596‐599 & p 722 respectively). Also see Chapter 4 of Robinson and
Christoffel, ‘An Overview of Rohe Potae Political Engagement, 1886 to 1913’, draft for comment July 2011 Preparations 251
AJHR 1885, G‐1, pp 15‐16 1. 84
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Pirongia) to ‘talk over those things I proceeded to Wellington about. I ask you to see about our petition and other matters.’252
1.3.1(b) Sole authority to determine title to, control and dispose of their land
The abiding message given by Wahanui and other Rohe Potae leaders to the Crown from 1884 to 1886 was their determination to retain complete control over their land and resources. In his speech before the House on 1 November 1884 Wahanui began by stating that his first subject was ‘our lands – the ancestral lands of myself and my people. I say that we wish to have the sole administration of those lands.’253 He repeated that message to the Legislative Council a few days later on 6 November 1884. For him the paramount or ‘principal, object that I have in view is that I should have the full control and power over my own lands, subject to the authority of His Excellency the
Governor.’254
His reason for this stance rested upon his status as tangata whenua, on rangatiratanga and on the mana and control he already exercised over the land which had belonged to 1883–1889
his ancestors. Wahanui explained to the House that: district,
the reason of [sic] this request is, that the lands that I speak of are ancestral lands, and the hands of Europeans have never touched them. No white man’s foot has trodden upon those lands, nor has any European obtained authority over 255 inquiry
them, either by lease or otherwise.
He gave a further analogy, demonstrating how fundamental this concept of Potae
rangatiratanga was to his view of his role and that of the Crown with relation to land in Rohe the Rohe Potae. Wahanui likening the land to his watch, and the Crown to a watchmaker the who, working under the owner’s specific directions, could repair the watch but must in ultimately return it to the possession and control of the owner:
When I saw those sharp teeth [in the Native Land Settlement Bill] I thought in this way: This watch which I hold in my hand is mine; and, if it require repairs, purchasing let me take it to the watchmaker and have it repaired. I will explain to the watchmaker what requires to be done to it, and then he can repair it according to land my directions. Then, when he was [sic] repaired it, he returns it to me, and I pay for
252 ‘Mr Ballance and the Natives. Important meetings with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato Times, 20 April 1886, p 4 253 Wahanui’s speech to the House, 1 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, Appendix, p 555 254 Wahanui’s speech to the Legislative Council, 6 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 427 Preparations 255
Wahanui’s speech to the House, 1 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, Appendix, p 555 1. 85
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
him for it, and then it is mine to do what I please with. I apply this idea to my land, and I think it is a parallel case to my land.256
Other hapu and iwi leaders expressed sentiments and concerns that mirrored those of Wahanui. In May 1884, Rangituatea, Reupena Paramoa, Hami Haereiti, Te Haere, Putahanga and Rawiri Te Hauparoa wrote to the Native Minister, John Bryce from Mohoaonui near the Waipa River objecting to their land being placed under the Native Reserves Act. They stated that:
What we wish is that we ourselves should have the control of our lands so that we can have them reserved, lease them or do whatever we like with them not leaving it for you or your officers to deal with them.257
This overarching request was echoed by John Ormsby at Kihikihi in 1885, he explained that hapu and iwi ‘wished that we should be allowed ourselves to manage matters concerning our own lands.’ Again, this was seen as a right inherent in their possession of the land, Ormsby explained that they wished to manage their land themselves ‘because we, being the owners of land, know all about it, and are the proper persons to manage 1883–1889 it.’258 In his evidence before the Native Affairs Select Committee in 1885 Wahanui’s core message remained entirely consistent with the messages he had given the Crown since district, 1883: that the control of the land must remain with Maori owners. He stated that his:
great desire in coming here is to have the authority of administering my own inquiry land – to have that vested in ourselves. Why should our land be taken from us, or why should our authority over that land be held back? This is the representation Potae
I made to Mr Bryce formerly, and again I make that representation to this Committee.259 Rohe
the
in
256 purchasing Wahanui’s speech to the House, 1 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, pp 555‐556. A reporter recorded that ‘Taking the watch from his waistcoat pocket (I forgot to mention that Wahanui wears the
easy tweed suit of the ordinary nineteenth century gentleman), he explains, “This watch is mine. I do land
what I like with it, and when it needs repairs I do not ask anybody, but take it straight to the watchmaker, for and he does what is necessary. That is the principle upon which we wish to deal with our lands” and so on and so forth’ (‘Parliamentary Notes ‐ Wahanui at the bar of the House’, Star, 3 November 1884, p 3) 257 English translation of letter from Rangituatea, Reupena Paramoa, Hami Haereiti, Te Haere, Putahanga and Rawiri te Hauparoa, Mohoaonui, Waipa to John Bryce, 20 May 1884, NO 84/2382 in MA 13/43, ANZ Wgt 258 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 14 259 ‘Evidence of Wahanui before the Native Affairs Committee on the Native Land Disposition Bill’, 19 Preparations
August 1885, AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 5, line 48 1. 86
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1.3.1(c) Kawhia Native Committee to be empowered to determine title and manage the land
In order to achieve this objective Wahanui and other leaders proposed that the Kawhia Native Committee, a group of elected representatives of Ngati Maniapoto and other hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae, be given the authority to investigate and determine title to land and to control all subsequent dealings with it. In advocating for the Native Committee to be empowered in this way Wahanui, Ormsby and others expressed a strong opposition to the Native Land Court and insisted that it be kept out of the district and the committee act in its place. As already mentioned in the prologue, this committee had been established under the Native Committees Act 1883, which gave such committees limited powers to investigate the ownership of land, but confined the committees’ role to that of an advisory body, which the Court, if it chose to, could ignore.
1.3.1(c)(i) Desire for the Kawhia Native Committee to determine title
Having stated his desire for sole administration of his land, Wahanui told the House in 1884, ‘I do not wish the action of the Native Land Court to be brought into force over 1883–1889 those lands.’ He asked the House ‘to give effect to my wish and the wish of my people, and that the authority over our lands may be vested in our Committee.’260 Not district, surprisingly, given that he was speaking during debate on the Native Land Settlement Bill, Wahanui seems here to be referring to the land in the railway restriction zone inquiry defined by that Bill and later enshrined in the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act
1884. In his speech to the Legislative Council a few days later Wahanui repeated his Potae opposition to the court operating within the 1884 restriction zone. But he indicated that Rohe he and other leaders would be willing to re‐evaluate that position once they had the
negotiated with the Government and land laws had been agreed to their satisfaction. He in stressed his desire to work in partnership with the Government. In particular he did not ‘wish to oppose the Government, but I wish to work together with them, in order that
261
we may arrange to deal satisfactorily with that district.’ Nevertheless, Wahanui was purchasing firm in the ‘wish that my Committee – that is, the Native Committee – should be land empowered, so that all dealings should be left in the hands of that Committee.’262 for
260 Wahanui’s speech to the House, 1 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, Appendix, p 555 261 Wahanui’s speech to the Legislative Council, 6 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 427 Preparations 262
Wahanui’s speech to the Legislative Council, 6 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 427 1. 87
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
This position was supported by Wi Pere, the Member for Eastern Maori, who opposed the administrative provisions in the 1884 Bill and elaborated Wahanui’s central principal of control in a call for a partnership which would give Maori considerable power over Native land policy and the extent of European settlement in the railway restriction zone. He asked that all pressures (surveying, selling and leasing) be removed to allow Maori and the Crown to jointly ‘devise a law which the Native Minister could bring to this House for confirmation.’ Wi Pere wanted Maori to retain control of who they dealt with over land, rather than be placed under a blanket restriction which prohibited dealings with Europeans:
Let a fence be placed round this land, and, if the gate is to be opened to let any one in upon the land, let it be done by the owner of the soil: let him open the gate himself … Do not let the Government take to itself altogether the authority over
the Native lands … I think the Europeans should be satisfied with that [the taxes and revues on the land], and leave [it] to the Native Committees to say what shall be done in the way of settling the land by putting Europeans on it.263
In line with Wahanui’s preferences, Wi Pere proposed that the Native Land Alienation 1883–1889 Restriction Bill be amended to require the Crown to deal only with the Native Committees formed under the Native Committees Act 1883. This would mean that all district, negotiations with the Crown could be conducted publicly by representatives of the owners of the land who had been duly endorsed by the Native Committee. This inquiry alteration, however, was rejected by the House, on the grounds that the requirement for public negotiations was ‘not justified by experience’, and that there was ‘no reason to Potae
suppose that Native Committees have yet attained the position which would justify the Rohe Legislature in placing them as arbiters between the owners of the land and the the representatives of the Crown.’264 This was certainly premature; the committees had in
barely begun to operate by the end of 1884. The districts in which they were to operate were only gazetted in January that year.265 In the end, the Councillors voted by 18 to 12 not to insist upon the amendment, and the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884 purchasing was passed.’266 land
for
263 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, pp 318‐319 264 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 137 citing NZPD, Vol. 51, 1884, p 486 265 NZ Gazette, No. 8, 24 January 1884, pp 110‐111 Preparations 266
Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 137 citing NZPD, Vol. 51, 1884, p 489 1. 88
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In February 1885, the chairman of the Kawhia Native Committee, John Ormsby expressed their disappointment about the extent of the powers granted to them. He complained that the Native Committees had not been ‘carried to such an extent as we wished. It was only a shadow when we came to take hold of it to work it ‐ it was not substantial.’ He repeated the request that Wahanui had already made ‘that the Committees be placed in the position of the Native Land Court.’267
Like Wahanui, Ormsby was highly critical of the Native Land Court. He informed Ballance that:
We have never seen any good yet come out of the work of the Native Land Court. Where now are the numerous blocks of land which have been passed through the Native Land Court? They are not in the possession of the Maoris, but they are in the possession of Europeans; therefore I say there can be no good result to us 268 from the action of the Native Land Court.
The following year Ormsby also made some specific criticisms of the way the court operated. At Kopua in April 1886 he repeated his assertion that ‘the troubles are caused 1883–1889 by the Native Land Courts.’ He objected to judges of the court who were ‘totally ignorant of the Maori language’, to the influence of ‘interested Europeans’ on the court’s district, decisions, and to the practice of European men making claims to the court ‘through their connection with native women.’269 Ormsby’s remarks and those of Wahanui in inquiry 1884 and 1885 were consistent with the views expressed by the five tribes in the 1883 petition. Potae
At Kihikihi in 1885 Ballance queried this opposition to the court, citing the 1883 Rohe
petition as evidence that ‘most of the important chiefs and people and landowners’ of the
in
the Rohe Potae wished ‘that the Native Land Court might sit and adjudicate upon their title’ and stated that it was their right to bring their land before the court.270 This was undoubtedly a reference to the 1883 petition’s calls for a secure boundary around the purchasing
Rohe Potae and the subsequent decision in December 1883 by Ngati Maniapoto and land
for
267 At the same time Ormsby was concerned with getting the Native Committee running smoothly on all fronts. He asked Ballance to give some power to the committee ‘to enable them to force disputants to being their cases before the Committee.’ AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 15 268 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 14 269 ‘Mr Ballance and the Natives. Important meetings with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato
Times, 20 April 1886, p 4 Preparations 270
AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 17 1. 89
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 others to make an application to the Native Land Court for a survey of that boundary to be carried out. Marr has investigated the circumstances surrounding this decision and the different understandings Maori and Crown officials held of this application, and it is likely that she will address this matter in her current political engagement report for this inquiry.271
In reply to Ballance, Ormsby admitted that ‘some chiefs, owners of the land, had already sent applications in to the Native Land Court for hearing’ but argued that they had made those application because ‘there was no other course open to them.’272 He was not specific about why many communities and individuals felt compelled to initiate court proceedings. However, in her preliminary research on the Rohe Potae Marr noted that prior to the court’s investigation of title to the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in July 1886 a
number of applications were filed. She observed that this may indicate that ‘some within the district did welcome the court and were prepared to take their chances with it.’ But as rumours spread of applications being made by other groups many felt under 1883–1889
pressure to make applications as ‘expressions of concern and attempts to “register” land interests in some official way.’ Marr also suggests that although it was assumed that the
court would only be concerned with the external boundary of the Rohe Potae (as set out district, in the 1883 petition), ‘there was uncertainty about how this would be done in practice.
As a result there was apparently considerable anxiety to take steps to protect interests inquiry against whatever might happen.’273 Potae
A few months later, before the Native Affairs Select Committee in August 1885 Wahanui Rohe repeated and elaborated on his request that the Kawhia Native Committee be placed in the sole charge of determine title to land in the Rohe Potae. He also faced extensive in
questions about his response to the Crown’s own idea for boards and committees to administer and dispose of Maori land which were embodied in the Native Land Disposition Bill. It was not an altogether comfortable encounter with considerable purchasing
pressure being applied to Wahanui by members of the committee including John Bryce land and John Ormond, Members of the House who had opposed the Bill and were strong for advocates for large‐scale European settlement in the railway restriction zone.
271 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, pp 33‐36 272 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 18 Preparations 273
Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, pp 36‐37 1. 90
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Nevertheless, Wahanui remained firm and clear in his views about the future of the Rohe Potae land.
With regard to the Government’s proposed committees and boards Wahanui stated that he had ‘petitioned that we might be allowed to elect our own Committee; but my Committee would be different from those provided for in this Act.’ When asked how exactly his Committee would differ, Wahanui said that what they desired was for ‘our own Committee to have full power to administer the lands; and the whole of the administration should be vested in the Committee.’274 Clearly, Wahanui considered that the committees proposed by the Act did not meet those requirements: ‘I do not think this Bill gives me what I wish for. I wish this Bill to state expressly that the whole administration of the land shall be given to the Committee – to my Committee.’275
Questioning soon established that the committee that Wahanui was referring to as ‘his’ was the Kawhia Native Committee, and that he wished it to administer all the land belonging to Ngati Maniapoto.276 At a further meeting with Ballance at Kopua in April 1883–1889
1886 Ormsby again reiterated the desire of the people ‘to investigate the title and settle it amongst themselves by the native committees, but found they had not the power to
277
do so.’ As already mentioned in this chapter, throughout 1887 and 1888 Wahanui and district,
other leaders continued to voice their opposition to the establishment of boards and
committees under the Native Land Administration Act 1886 (see 1.2.3(c) above). inquiry
1.3.1(c)(ii) Decline in support for the Kawhia Native Committee to determine title Potae
The intention of hapu and iwi leaders to have the Kawhia Native Committee determine Rohe
title instead of the Native Land Court seems to have endured until just a few months the
in before the court opened in Otorohanga to hear the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block case in July 1886. At a meeting of the Kawhia Native Committee on 1, 2 and 3 December 1885 Whaoro, a member of the committee, stated that he was: purchasing
land
for
274 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 5, lines 60‐62 275 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 6, line 63 276 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 6, lines 64‐69 277 ‘Mr Ballance and the Natives. Important meetings with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato Preparations
Times, 20 April 1886, p 4 1. 91
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
not willing that our block should be submitted to be dealt with by the Native Lands [sic] Court, but am in favour of all claims inside the boundary being dealt with by the committee.278
Another member of the committee, Ngakuru, supported this position explaining that in his opinion they should use the court simply to define the boundary of their land so that they could then get on with the work of the committee in determining title within that area. The focus was firmly on reviving and strengthening the committee’s role in dealing with land title matters. He stated that he had made the proposal ‘because many years have elapsed since we agreed that the committee should deal with it, and as yet nothing has been done in the matters.’ The motion had unanimous support and was carried. 279 It appears that members of the committee were asked to consider this motion further overnight. The following day the chairman proposed ‘that a public
meeting be called at an early date for the purpose of having bona fide claims sent in for the consideration of the committee.’ Ormsby concluded that ‘if the people will not send in their claims to be dealt with by the committee’ then he could ‘see no other legitimate 1883–1889
way of preventing the Native Lands Court from dealing with the land inside the Rohe Potae.’ This was unanimously agreed to by the committee.280 However, even the
prospect of the court being involved in a strictly limited fashion faced some opposition. district,
Taonui Hikaka immediately sent a telegram to the Native Office asking that ‘if any
person makes an application for the survey or adjudication of this external boundary, inquiry
do not on any account give effect to such applications.’281 Potae
Between December 1885 and April 1886 there seems to have been a further shift Rohe amongst hapu and iwi away from the Kawhia Native Committee determining title to the land in the district. A large hui took place at Kopua on 21 April 1886, where around 200 in
people were assembled including Tawhaio’s rival committee, who had been invited to attend by Ormsby.282 There was discussion on passing ‘all the tribal lands included in
purchasing
278 ‘Native Questions Discussed’, Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p 3. Loveridge puts the date of this land
meeting at 1 December 1885 (Loveridge, ‘The Opening of the King Country...’, 2006, footnote p 192) for 279 ‘Native Questions Discussed’, Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p 3 280 ‘Native Questions Discussed’, Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p 3 281 Loveridge, ‘The Opening of the King Country...’, 2006, p 192 footnote citing Taonui (Otorohanga) to the Native Minister, 9 December 1885, NO 84/4136, MA 13/93, ANZ Wgt 282 ‘The Ngatimaniapoto Meeting at Kopua. The King Country to be put through the Court’, Waikato Times, 27 April 1886, p 2. The report is dated 22 April and states that the meeting took place
yesterday (i.e. 21 April). Wilkinson reported that in November 1885 ‘the Natives at Whatiwhatihoe Preparations
started what they called a King Committee in opposition to the Kawhia Native Committee ... This policy of 1. 92
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the boundary survey termed the Rohi Potae [sic] through the Native Land Court’. The newspaper reported that there was only ‘slight opposition’ to the idea ‘and it was eventually decided to apply to the court to have the lands adjudicated.’ The land was described as extending ‘from Kawhia to Pirongia thence to Tunia, to Taupo, Tongariro, Wanganui and Mokau, thence to Kawhia’ (approximately the boundaries given in the 1883 petition).283 By 25 May 1886 this application had been made by Ngati Maniapoto, Raukawa, Whanganui, and Ngati Hikairo and the court began hearing the application at Otorohanga in July 1886.284
It is not clear what promoted this decision to engage with the court after so much opposition to it in the preceding years, or whether this was largely driven by a decrease in confidence in the Kawhia Native Committee. There is some evidence that the
committee was dominated by Ngati Maniapoto and that other hapu and iwi objected to this. There was some dissatisfaction with the way that this committee had been appointed. In particular, Raukawa protested that many people had not been aware of 1883–1889
the election and alleged that the committee had been ‘appointed in a hole‐in‐the‐corner fashion by Mr Wilkinson, Government Agent at Alexandra’. They objected to eight of the
members of the committee being of ‘Wahanui’s party’ [Ngati Maniapoto] and only one district, from Raukawa.285 In 1885 Ormsby admitted that the committee was not as
286
representative as it could be but was willing to call a fresh election if required. This inquiry
imbalance in the hapu and iwi representation on the committee may have weakened Potae support for proposals that it determine title to land across the whole Rohe Potae. It is
also unclear what influence the splitting off of the Taupo‐nui‐a‐tia block had on the Rohe
decision of the other four tribes to go to the court. On 31 October 1885 Te Heuheu the
in Tukino Horonuku and others had made an application to the court to determine title of the eastern part of the original 1883 Rohe Potae. By the time the four tribes made their decision to engage with the court in April 1886 the court was already hearing the purchasing
land
the King party in setting up Committees was not only carried out at Whatiwhatihoe, but also at Kawhia, for Aotea, Thames, Ohinemuri, Piako, and other places where Tawhiao had any supporters.’ (AJHR 1886, G‐1, No. 5, Wilkinson, Native Agent, Alexandra to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 25 May 1886, p 4) 283 ‘The Ngatimaniapoto Meeting at Kopua. The King Country to be put through the Court’, Waikato Times, 27 April 1886, p 2 284 AJHR 1886 G‐1, No. 5, p 6, Wilkinson, Native Agent, Alexandra to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 25 May 1886. The application itself has not been located. 285 Hearn, 2008, p 250 citing Waikato Times, 10 June 1884 Preparations 286
AJHR 1885, C‐1, p 18 1. 93
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Tauponuiaitia case; they had begun sitting on 14 January 1886.287 Further research is required to understand how and why the four tribes made this decision. In particular, it is unclear why the Kawhia Native Committee was unable to command the support it needed to investigate the title.
3.1.1(c)(iii) Maori desire for hapu title and a hapu‐based committee structure
Ngati Maniapoto leaders demonstrated a strong preference for title to land to be held by hapu and for hapu‐based committees to be at the heart of decisions about the use and disposal of land. In February 1885, Ormsby indicated to Ballance that Ngati Maniapoto could endorse a system of local committees but they had to be hapu‐based, consist solely of hapu representatives, and have wide powers to control the use, sale and lease of their land. This suggests that they were not totally opposed to selling some land for
European settlement but wanted to control the process themselves. Ormsby argued that ‘it would not be proper to individualize the titles’ to the land, a reference to the Native Land Court’s practice, but titles should ‘given in favour of hapus.’ This, he indicated, was 1883–1889 consistent with tikanga: ‘because from the time that our ancestors first settled on this land it was always divided amongst hapus; nothing was known about individualizing district, titles.’ Therefore, in their view it made sense that once titles were issued to hapu, each hapu would then ‘appoint its own Committee, and then the Committee representing inquiry each hapu could manage or decide whether their land should be rented or sold.’288 Potae Wahanui’s ideas about how a committee structure wholly devised and controlled by hapu and iwi might work were teased out during his appearance before the Native Rohe
Affairs Select Committee in August 1885. Wahanui affirmed that he was in favour of the
in block committees elected by owners and wanted one committee per block, but envisaged that ultimately the land would be divided into blocks that reflected the customary rights of hapu; hence the block committees would be hapu‐based. 289 His purchasing understanding was that if the Native Land Disposition Bill was passed ‘our land will be
cut up into portions, belonging to the respective hapus [sic]. Each hapu will have its own land
290 for
Committee.’ He considered that all block committee members should be elected by
287 Waitangi Tribunal, The Pouakani Report, 1993, p 116 288 AJHR 1885, G‐1, pp 14‐15 289 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 7, lines 96‐98 Preparations 290
AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 7, line 96 1. 94
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the owners of the block.291 This was all consistent with the wishes that Ormsby had outlined in Kihikihi a few months before. Wahanui seemed to be envisaging a two‐tiered structure where block committees (based on hapu‐rohe), having reached a consensus, brought matters to the main committee or board to be confirmed and put into action. With regard to block committees, he stated that:
The only powers of the Committee should be to carry out the express directions of the owners of the land; and that the Board should also only carry out the written instructions of the owners as conveyed by them to the Committee, and by the Committee to the Board.292
Two years later Ormsby reinforced this position, stating that:
The natives considered that now the block had passed through the Land Court the next thing was to have it sub‐divided, first amongst the tribes and then amongst the hapus and when the court sat again on the 3rd March he hoped the
matter would be commenced.293
This suggests that there was a general agreement amongst Ngati Maniapoto that the title should be granted to hapu. But the point on which Wahanui and the Crown could 1883–1889
find no common ground was the insistence of Rohe Potae hapu and iwi that the Native Land Court be kept out of the district. Wahanui understood that the 1885 Bill’s district,
proposals for boards and committees relied upon the land being taken through the court before it could be administered by these bodies.294 But he was implacably inquiry
opposed to the court dealing with Ngati Maniapoto’s land: Potae Do you think that I would hand over my land to be destroyed, to be swallowed up? Owing to the improper manner in which the Native Land Court is carried on Rohe we will hold back our land: we will not give it up, for we have seen the evil result the of handing it over to the Court. In consequence of the way the Native Land Court in acts I will not hand over my land; I will positively refuse.295
When Wahanui was asked whether his objection to the Native Land Court was ‘on account of its refusal to grant a rehearing’ Wahanui answered yes, but he immediately purchasing went on to outline a number of other reasons why he objected to the court including land
fears that those with better knowledge of the court would gain greater interests than for
291 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 13, line 206 292 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 13, line 206 293 ‘Native Minister at Otorohanga’, Waikato Times, 27 January 1887, p 3 294 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 10, line 142 Preparations 295
AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 10, line 149 1. 95
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 their customary rights warranted and that ‘officers of the Court and the Assessor may be paid money to award the land to other persons than the owners.’296 When asked if he would consent to bring the land ‘under the Committee or the Native Land Court’ [emphasis added] if a law was passed to provide ‘for granting rehearings, and the power of refusing a rehearing is taken out of the hands of the Chief Judge’ of the court Wahanui said he would. Crucially, this question did not rule out the possibility of the Native Committee determining title.297
1.3.1(c)(iv) Decline in support for hapu title
But by April 1888, as the subdivision of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block into smaller blocks was underway support for hapu title seems to have collapsed. During the meeting in April 1888, John Ormsby addressed Native Minister Mitchelson saying that
during Mr Ballance’s time ‘they wanted the land awarded to hapus’ but they now ‘wish our land individualized.’298 Ormsby indicated that this change was the result of pressure from ‘Natives outside of us’ who held Crown grants. Ormsby stated that ‘however much 1883–1889 the natives around here were satisfied with the hapu titles, if the majority outside desired it, it would be better to bow to their wishes and have them individualised.’299 district, There was, therefore, a sense of bowing to the inevitable. This change of view requires further research as does its implications for the way hapu and individual owners inquiry conducted themselves in the court. What is also unclear is how this change impacted on intentions to create a base of hapu or block committees under the Kawhia Native Potae
Committee. Rohe
1.3.1(d) Participation in drafting legislation the
in As already discussed, Wahanui expressed a desire to reach a satisfactory agreement with the Government over the future of the Rohe Potae land and for that to then be put into law. A closer examination of a number of the engagements between the Crown and purchasing Wahanui and other leaders between 1884 and 1886 reveals that those leaders expected land to work in partnership with the Government to frame that legislation. In setting out his
for
296 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 10, lines 202‐202 297 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 10, line 207 298 ‘Mr Mitchelson’s Visit. Meeting with Wahanui and the Ngatimaniapoto Chiefs’, Waikato Times, 12 April 1888, p 2 299 ‘Mr Mitchelson’s Visit. Meeting with Wahanui and the Ngatimaniapoto Chiefs’, Waikato Times, 12 April Preparations
1888, p 2 1. 96
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 requests to the House in 1884 Wahanui stated that he would ‘ask this House to help me to devise a law for administering them [his land].’300 This implies that he aspired to take a greater role in this process than simply being an advisor to the House while Ministers and Members drafted Bills.
In February 1885, Ormsby voiced concerns about how little input hapu and iwi had into the legislative process, despite the presence of Maori Members in Parliament. He asked that Maori be ‘consulted’ in ‘the formation of Acts that refer to the Native race’ and that at the very least ‘copies of the proposed Bill should be circulated amongst the Natives beforehand, so that they may have something to say about them.’ But they hoped for even greater autonomy in devising laws that would meet the needs of their people. He asked that ‘it might be left to the Natives themselves to propose an Act, and leave it to
the Parliament to ratify it.’ He was convinced that ‘something of this kind might be done, as we are trying to meet each other's views.’301 Ballance readily agreed that all draft legislation affecting Maori should be circulated amongst Maori communities prior to
1883–1889
being introduced into the House. But he did not comment further on Ormsby’s suggestion for Maori themselves to draft and submit legislation.302 district, The experience of Wahanui during his stay in Wellington while the Native Land Settlement Bill/Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884 was being drafted, debated inquiry and passed into law seems to have fallen short of these aspirations. The extent and content of discussions between Wahanui and his party and Ballance prior to the first Potae
reading of the Native Land Settlement Bill 1884 in early October is unclear. It is Rohe apparent that some dialogue had occurred. On 26 September 1884 Wahanui wrote to the Ballance ‘with reference to the subjects we have conversed upon lately viz: – the course in
& wish your government to adopt regarding certain matters.’ Wahanui stated that Ballance’s replies on the matter had ‘been satisfactory’ but Wahanui was: purchasing anxious to be quite clear as to your views. In order that there be no misapprehension in future will you please write me before I leave here informing land me of your intentions in the matter of the request I made to you that the Native for
Land Court should not deal with any lands within the exterior boundary of the territory owned by me and my four tribes, so that we may have time to frame a
300 Wahanui’s speech to the House, 1 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, Appendix, p 556 301 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 15 Preparations 302
AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 17 1. 97
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
law satisfactory to both races, and to secure the repeal of the bad laws that are now in force.
However, it appears that no such written clarification was given. A note on the cover sheet of this letter by Under Secretary of the Native Department, T W Lewis on 6 October 1884 simply recommended that the Native Minister’s ‘general reply’ would be sufficient. This was initialled by Ballance to indicate his approval.303
As already noted, Wahanui indicated that his discussion with Ballance was wide‐ranging during 1884.304 In his speech to the House on 1 November 1884 Wahanui did say that he and Ballance had talked about legislation for administering Maori land and that Ballance had told him his ideas were ‘good. ‘305 Yet Wahanui’s next comment implies that this was the extent of his involvement with the drafting of the Native Land Settlement Bill, he told the House that ‘After I had been in this place some time, I saw
the proposed Bill ... Since I have seen the Bill I asked the Native Minister if he would consent to my inserting some provisions.’306 1883–1889 Wahanui made his opposition to the administrative clauses of the Native Land Settlement Bill very clear when he addressed the House on 1 November 1884. In his district, opinion the Bill had ‘great sharp teeth from the head to the mouth, and there was a sting in its tail’ and these were ‘designed to swallow up the people’ and would ‘destroy the inquiry land.’307 By the end of the day’s debate Ballance announced his intention to drop those clauses from the Bill, because, as he acknowledged, they had been put together as a Potae
stop‐gap measure and ‘a more comprehensive measure ... making provision for other Rohe matters’ would have to be developed. Ballance indicated that it was ‘the intention of the the Government next session to bring down such a measure.’308 But opposition from Rohe in
Potae Maori was also a significant factor in this decision. Ballance later indicated that he had dropped the idea of boards ‘in consequence of the wishes of certain individuals and of certain members in this House, as well as of the distinguished Waikato chief purchasing
land
for
303 ‘Extract from letter (translation) from Wahanui to the Hon. Native Minister’, 26 September 1884, NO 84/2929 in MA 13/93, ANZ Wgt and Loveridge, ‘The Opening of the King Country...’, 2006, pp 149‐150 304 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 14 305 Wahanui’s speech to the House, 1 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, Appendix, p 555 306 Wahanui’s speech to the House, 1 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, Appendix, p 555 307 Wahanui’s speech to the House, 1 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, Appendix, p 555 Preparations 308
NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 313 1. 98
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Wahanui.’309 Wahanui later referred to the way in which his objections had been heard and responded to. He recalled that he had:
said, "Let the teeth be taken out of that Bill "‐ that is, let the objectionable parts be expunged. Mr. Ballance was the Native Minister, and my request was agreed to–the objectionable provisions of the Bill were stuck out. I was pleased when that was done–I was satisfied.310
Nevertheless, it is difficult to know just how much influence Wahanui’s opposition had on Ballance’s decision. Loveridge has argued it is likely that Ballance had already made his decision prior to hearing Wahanui speak before the House that morning ‘as it is unlikely that the Native Minister would have made such a major policy decision on the spur of the moment, without discussing [it with] his cabinet colleagues.’311 The Native Land Settlement Bill was redrafted in the days between 1 and 6 November 1884. The
rewritten legislation was introduced to the Legislative Council as the Native Land Alienation Restriction Bill on 6 November. On the same day Wahanui addressed the Legislative Council on the redrafted legislation. By this time Wahanui had seen a copy of 1883–1889 the rewritten Bill. In his speech to the Council he stated that after he ‘had an opportunity of addressing the other Chamber, I found that the Government had made
312 district, improvements in it [the Bill].’ This would imply that he had not been privy to that redrafting process. inquiry Wahanui was also present in Wellington while the Native Land Disposition Bill 1885
(later passed as the Native Land Administration Act 1886) was debated. This was a Potae
reworking of the Crown’s boards and committees scheme for administering and Rohe disposing of Maori land which he had strongly objected to in its original form the the
previous year. At the Native Affairs Select Committee hearing Wahanui explained that in
he had been able to examine the provisions of the Bill ‘as it was first brought out a few days ago’ and had also been keeping track of amended versions, complaining that ‘it was
313 afterwards altered; and then when I have mastered the alterations it is again altered.’ purchasing
He then drew up and submitted his own set of amendments to Ballance, setting forth his land wishes for how the scheme might be modified to better fit the aspirations of Rohe Potae for
309 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 136 310 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 5, line 46 311 Loveridge, ‘The Opening of the King Country...’, 2006, p 156 312 Wahanui’s speech to the Legislative Council, 6 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 427 Preparations 313
AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 4‐5, line 46 1. 99
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Maori.314 However, confusion then arose about whether Wahanui’s amendments had been included with those submitted by the Member for Eastern Maori, Wi Pere. They had been written in Maori and Wahanui had given them to Ballance’s private secretary, Mr Butler, for translation but uncertainty remained about whether they had finally been submitted.315 Throughout this dialogue there are suggestions that Wahanui and others had been working with Wi Pere on a set of amendments which they all supported or approved of.316 Wahanui’s amendments were eventually located. A copy of the Bill with amendments suggested by Ballance, by Wi Pere and jointly by Te Puke Te Ao (Western Maori) and Wahanui was appended to the committee’s final report on the Bill.317 Loveridge noted that Wahanui’s amendments ‘were relatively minor, and were designed mainly to give greater power to the block committees and to ensure that these committees paid due attention to the wishes of the owners.’318 While this process gave Wahanui and his people some input into the shape of the final legislation it would appear to fall well short of the kind of partnership and reciprocity that Wahanui had hoped for. 1883–1889
1.3.1(e) Maori would then decide on leasing and/or selling areas of land district,
Hapu and iwi leaders sought responses from the Crown to fulfill the package of initiatives and protections set out in the 1883 petition. Their overriding concern was to inquiry retain control of the administration of their land via the Kawhia Native Committee, and for this and other measures to be included in legislation. Only when this had been Potae achieved were they willing to entertain questions about whether, and to what extent Rohe they would be willing to lease or sell their land to the Crown. Wahanui told the the legislative Council in 1884 that only ‘when the law is agreed to’ would they be in a in position ‘to discuss the prospects for the future.’319
At Kihikihi in February 1885, Ormsby followed the speeches of welcome made by
Wahanui and other leaders by setting out the concerns of the people on a range of purchasing
land
for
314 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 5, lines 46‐48 315 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 5, lines 49‐56 316 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 5, lines 49‐56 317 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, ‘Native Affairs Committee, report on the Native Land Disposition Bill, together with Minutes of Evidence and Appendix 318 Loveridge, ‘The Opening of the King Country...’, 2006, p 191 Preparations 319
Wahanui’s speech to the Legislative Council, 6 November 1884, NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 427 1. 100
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 issues related to land. He indicated that it was the wish of the people at the present time for the Government ‘to look after our lands for us – that is, that no person should be allowed to come in and interfere with our management of them’ while the community was ‘ignorant [undecided] as to what should be done.’320 In essence, Ngati Maniapoto were asking for a breathing space to allow them to make informed and considered decisions about how they would manage, use and dispose of their land.
During debate on the Native Land Disposition Bill in 1885 the Maori Affairs Select Committee questioned Wahanui extensively about Maori intentions with regard to selling and leasing land. In particular, Ormond repeatedly pushed Wahanui to give his opinion of whether ‘the machinery of the Bill, as you understand it, will lead to the settlement of those lands which the Natives do not want for their own use, in a way that
321
will be profitable to them and profitable to Europeans.’ Wahanui was wary of making any statement that could be construed as a promise on the part of hapu and iwi that they would part with a portion of their land. When asked by Ormond whether ‘Natives 1883–1889
are willing to treat with the Government for the cession of the land along the railway for settlement Wahanui emphasised the good‐will they had already shown to the
Government by gifting the land for the railway track and stations and ended by saying, ‘I district,
do not think I should be asked to state whether Maoris will give the land along the
322
line.’ Ormond repeated the question and again Wahanui parried it away saying, ‘This inquiry is not the time for going into that question. The Natives are suspicious, and are on their Potae guard against others.’323 It was likely that Wahanui was referring to the disquiet and
mistrust amongst some hapu and iwi about the survey of the external boundaries of the Rohe
Rohe Potae being carried out by Lawrence Cussen and his survey party which began in the
in the previous year, and about the tensions caused by various Maori individuals making application to the Native Land Court to obtain legal title to areas within the district.324 Again, Ormond pressed him for an answer and Wahanui became frustrated and purchasing expressed his sense of being trapped into answering. He admitted the questions was ‘a
land
for 320 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 15 321 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 7, line 104 322 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 8, lines 106‐107 323 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 8, line 108 324 For example see the account of Raukawa people stopping Cussen’s survey at Wharepuhunga in June 1884 (‘Telegrams’, Evening Post, 6 June 1882, p 2) and Hitoia Te Paerata, Kihikihi, to Wahanui and Mr
Bryce [Native Minister], 5 June 1884, NO 84/1915 in MA 13/93, ANZ Wgt regarding Whiti Patato & others Preparations
destroying trig stations at Wharepuhunga 1. 101
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 very proper one’ but wanted ‘carefully to consider before I answer it. You have hedged me round, and if I do not make a very careful answer I will be caught. I do not know whether I should answer the question.’325
Ormond backed off somewhat and tried a different tack asking whether Maori would favour selling or leasing land for settlement. Wahanui acknowledged that opinions amongst hapu and iwi were likely to be mixed on the issue and that the legal framework would have to be ‘clear and satisfactory before they take one step or the other.’326 The following day, when he was asked the question again he stated this plainly: Wahanui said that it was possible that Maori would be willing to lease and sell land ‘if the Native owners are first assured that they shall have authority – full authority – over their land, then perhaps, it may come to pass that the land will be occupied and settled.’327
Wahanui was hesitant in his answers to these questions in part because he was aware that although he had the chiefly authority to express the views of the people that authority only went so far. He noted that if he ‘were the sole owner of these lands I 1883–1889 would answer at once; I should be in a position to answer.’328 But because many others were involved he thought it only fair that he should be able to consult his people before district, answering these questions. Ormond continued to press him, telling him that he did not want him to answer ‘in such a way as to constitute a promise’ but simply give his inquiry opinion. Wahanui finally ventured a cautious ‘maybe’: ‘If this railway is made, and the Government and the Native owners can come to a unanimous understanding, then, Potae perhaps, the land will be sold and leased.’329 Rohe
For the first time, the Government floated the idea that they might favour some kind of the
in agreement with Maori about land purchasing in the Rohe Potae: Ormond asked Wahanui whether ‘a satisfactory arrangement might be made between the Governor and the tribes for the cession of the land along the railway rather than by the ordinary purchasing machinery for individual sale.’ Wahanui would not commit himself or his people saying land
for
325 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 8, line 109 326 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 8, line 111 327 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 10, line 186 328 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 8, line 120 Preparations 329
AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 9, lines 121‐123 1. 102
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 that ‘it depends entirely on the shape that the negotiations would take.’330 Although Wahanui was deeply and fundamentally opposed to the Native Land Court entering the Rohe Potae he cautiously conceded that:
if the sole administration of our land is assured to us, then perhaps we will hand over a portion to be dealt with by the Court, to be used for settlement. If that power is not given to us generally as owners, we will not hand over the land at all (emphasis added).331
This suggests that a willingness to compromise, but on strictly Maori terms and conditionally. It further suggests that Wahanui envisaged that only those areas to be alienated for settlement purposes would be subject to the court. Chapter 5 of this report explores an attempt at such an agreement over land purchasing during 1891 and 1892, but this is an interesting early indication that the Crown was willing to pursue an
agreement. It also raises the question of why such negotiations did not take place until the Crown had experienced considerable frustration in attempting to purchase the interests of individual owners. 1883–1889
The desire of Maori communities to be given time to make these decisions was noted by Judge W G Mair, who presided over the title investigation of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) district, block in the Native Land Court. In 1886 he stated in a private letter that the ‘people will not be hurried. They wish to get their land question all settled and then they will set inquiry apart some for sale, some for lease and make permanent reserves for their own use.’
Mair was sure that the Native Department was aware of these views but noted that the Potae
Government was under considerable pressure from settlers to open the district up Rohe quickly.332 the
in
1.3.2 HAPU AND IWI RESPONSES TO THE CROWN’S INTENTIONS AND LEGISLATION, 1884–1888
The response of Wahanui and others to the boards and committees the Crown hoped purchasing
Maori would use to sell and lease land in the railway restriction zone was clear. This section of the chapter examines hapu and iwi understandings of the Crown’s aspirations land
for the Rohe Potae, specifically what Maori communities in this inquiry district knew for
330 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 9, line 125 331 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 10, line 186 332 Marr, Rohe Potae..., 1996, p 51 citing Alan Ward ‘Whanganui ki Maniapoto: Preliminary Historical Preparations
Report’, 1992, Wai 898, #A35, pp 80‐81 1. 103
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 about the Crown’s intention for future large‐scale land purchasing and European settlement in the railway restriction zone established by the Native Land Alienation 1884. This is followed by a discussion about what hapu and iwi understood about the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase and restrictions on private dealings; the two other mechanisms the Crown put in place in 1884 to enable it at some future time to purchase large amounts of Maori land without competition from European speculators.
1.3.2(a) Hapu and iwi knowledge of the Crown’s plan for largescale land purchasing
There is conflicting evidence about whether and to what extent the Crown intention for future large‐scale land purchasing had been communicated to or discussed with Maori within the Rohe Potae at this time. On the one hand, during debate on the Native Land Alienation Restriction Bill in late 1884 he Legislative Council Member for Nelson, James
Richmond, indicated that it was his understanding that there had been no real communication with Maori communities about the intention to purchase land at some future point. He stated that he: 1883–1889
should like very much to believe that the Government will, at the very earliest moment possible – if not in this Bill, at events very early in the recess – make
known in a distinct manner to the Natives what their intentions are with respect district, to the land. I hope they will not seek to buy much land; I hope they will buy no more than may be necessary for the purposes of the railway.333 inquiry As we have already seen, both Wahanui and Ormsby asked the Crown for time for hapu and iwi to reach a consensus about whether, and to what extent they would be willing to Potae
sell and lease land for European settlement. At Kihikihi in February 1885, Ormsby Rohe indicated that the people were already aware of the connection between the court and the the alienation of land. They were opposed to the Native Land Court entering the district, in
in part because they had seen the way that offers by both government and land speculators in neighbouring districts had been instrumental in some of the owners bringing the land into the court. Ormsby concluded that where the Native Land Court purchasing
went land purchasing would soon follow: he had ‘found out that a Court is merely a land machine by which the lands are transferred by the Native owners to either the for
companies or the Government.’334
333 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 436 Preparations 334
AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 14 1. 104
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In answer to these concerns Ballance gave no indication that the Crown might in future embark on a large‐scale purchasing programme at all. On the contrary, he indicated that although the Government’s primary goal was to settle Europeans on the land, he considered that the Crown could obtain all the land it needed if Maori were willing to lease their land through the boards and committees which he hoped would be established under the proposed legislation. He reassured Maori that:
With regard to the Government purchasing land from the Natives, I am not anxious that the Government should purchase land. The Government had advanced large sums of money on lands that are under Proclamation, and will be satisfied if they get that money back. The Bill that we intend to introduce will prevent the necessity of the Government acquiring lands, the principal object of the Government being to get the land and country settled; and, if, the Natives will do that themselves by leasing their lands, the Government will assist them and not otherwise interfere.335
This position was consistent with that which he had put forward in the House when similar measures were first debated in 1884. This seems, at first glance to offer support for hapu and iwi aspirations to lease their land. Particularly since Ballance also 1883–1889
reassured the meeting that ‘with respect to the Board’s power of leasing the land, it is the intention that the land shall be in every case submitted for public competition, so district, that the highest price will be obtained for the land, and there will be no favouritism.’336 inquiry Much of the remainder of the meeting focused on reaching agreement about whether Maori were willing to gift land for the railway line and stations. In the context of this Potae
discussion Ballance again reassured hapu and iwi that the Crown had no intention, at Rohe that time, of purchasing large areas of land within the Rohe Potae, but simply wished to the acquire what was needed for the railway and roads: in
One of the speakers said he did not intend to let his land go. Of course he did not refer to the land for the railway. He referred to his land generally I suppose. We do not wish him to let his land go. All the Government asks is for the land for the
337 purchasing
railway and for roads, and that they shall pay a fair price for it.
land
for
335 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 18 336 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 20 Preparations 337
AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 23 1. 105
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In his meeting with Tawhiao at Whatiwhatihoe the following day Ballance also reassured him and his people that ‘the only land that will be taken for it will be the land on which the railway will stand, and that will be paid for, unless, when the owners are determined, they may give it for the purpose of the railway.’338 These statements by Ballance were in complete opposition to the Crown’s clear intention to purchase significant areas of Maori land for European settlement in the railway restriction zone. It is likely that they left Maori with the impression that the Crown would support any attempts they made to use the boards and committees to lease their land to Europeans, and that the Government had no intention, certainly in the near future, of purchasing large areas of land in their district.
This was in great contrast to Ballance’s statements to the House during debate on the
Native Land Disposition Bill in July 1885 when Parliament resumed after his tour of the North Island. In explaining the provisions of the Bill and making a case for it to be passed Ballance emphasised that its central purpose was promote European settlement 1883–1889
by the purchase of land. He explained that:
The Government shall provide Boards and other machinery by which the Native district,
land should be sold in something the same manner as the waste lands of the Crown are at present sold in the colony [emphasis added].339
Ballance continued to stress that the Bill would provide ‘a ready means of selling their inquiry lands to the Government, or selling land through the Boards by public competition to Potae the public at large if they wish [emphasis added].’340 In the House Ballance repeated his earlier position that European settlement was critical to viability of the railway. In his Rohe
view no railway connecting major centres of population could be profitable ‘unless you the
in had a large producing population along the line.’341 However, Ballance did recognize that any move to take Maori land for settlement compulsorily, and pay the owners compensation would be strongly opposed by Maori.342 Some means of securing land for purchasing settlement was required that was fair to Maori, protecting ‘that portion of the land
which public policy required should not go from their hands’ and fair to the people of land
for
338 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 26 339 NZPD, Vol. 52, 1885, p 393 340 NZPD, Vol. 52, 1885, p 396 341 NZPD, Vol. 52, 1885, p 395 Preparations 342
NZPD, Vol. 52, 1885, p 396 1. 106
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the colony who, ought, in Ballance’s view have ‘the opportunity of acquiring a portion of that land.’343 It is difficult not to conclude that Ballance was less than truthful with Rohe Potae communities both about the Crown’s long‐term plan to purchase significant land in the railway restriction zone and about its commitment to leasing as an alternative to selling.
The evidence Wahanui gave before the Native Affairs Select Committee in August 1885 may suggest that Wahanui was not aware that the Crown planned at some future date to purchase large areas for European settlement. In the midst of questioning about hapu and iwi thoughts on selling and leasing land, committee member John Ormond suddenly seemed to try another avenue for getting at the larger question of land for European settlement. This part of the exchange is revealing in that it suggests that the Crown’s
underlying agenda to open up the Rohe Potae to organized, large‐scale European settlement had not been communicated to or discussed with Maori. It was simply assumed that this was a proper and inevitable goal, part of the continued colonization of 1883–1889
the land and of Maori. Ormond asked:
Do you know, Wahanui, that the building of that railway has been agreed to district,
mainly for the purposes of getting the country settled; entirely for getting the country settled?
In reply Wahanui wanted to know who agreed to this policy of settlement. When he is inquiry told that it was the Europeans who voted money to pay for the railway, Wahanui replied Potae ‘I do not understand that. I did not hear that was the reason.’ Ormond’s next question was more specific, he asked Wahanui: Rohe
the Have you never understood or heard that the Government and people of the in House have agreed to that, believing that the Natives would treat with them for the cession of the land along‐side of it?
Wahanui answered in full, denying that this was his understanding of the Crown’s purchasing intentions: land ‘I did not know that the railway was to be made with the object or with the for understanding that the land was to be settled on each side. I thought it was to connect two places, so far as to enable people to come from one end of the Island to the other. I have now heard for the first time that there is another object in
Preparations 343
NZPD, Vol. 52, 1885, p 394 1. 107
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
view, and that the Europeans look on the land on each side of the railway as having become their own. What I mean is this: I never understood before that the object Europeans had in consenting to that railway being made was that the Maoris would give or dispose of land on each side of it, or agree to such land being settled, or that the real object was the settlement of the land on each side.344
Ormond continued his questioning underlining what he considered to be Maori obligations to provide land for settlement. He put it to Wahanui that the railway would ‘give enormous value to the land’ beyond what it was currently worth, and therefore surely it was only fair that ‘the Natives should assist in the disposal of their land, so as to obtain settlement along the line?’ At this Wahanui replied in what appeared to be sarcastic manner, now fully aware that the railway was not primarily being built for the benefit Maori: ‘I like to laugh over that question for a good while before I answer it. If
that railway is being made for the benefit of the Maoris, then, I say, it is better to stop it; if it is restricted to the Maoris, then let it be stopped.’345 Ormond then challenged Wahanui’s commitment to assisting the progress and settlement of the country, 1883–1889
implying that if Wahanui really wanted to support European settlement he would recognize that ‘the cession of land for settlement’ would assist that goal.346 district, Yet there is some evidence that points in the other direction; that Wahanui did have some knowledge of the Crown’s intentions. For example, it appears that Wahanui had inquiry read Governor Jervois’ speech of August 1884 which explicitly stated that the Crown planned to purchase a significant amount of land for European settlement in the vicinity Potae
of the railway. A newspaper reported that Wahanui told the Governor shortly Rohe afterwards that he had ‘read your [Opening] speech, oh Governor, and your intentions the regarding native lands fall like lead upon my heart. Your written words are not like your in
spoken ones.’347 A letter from Wahanui paraphrased by the Te Atiawa politician Wi Tako Ngatata, Member of the Legislative Council for Wellington, during debate on the 1884 Bill in early November 1884 shows that Wahanui was certainly aware of the purchasing
possibility that the Crown would attempt to buy some land in the Rohe Potae. His wish land was for hapu and iwi not be called upon to decide what land they would sell to the for
344 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 8, line 116 345 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 86 citing AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 8, line 118 346 AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 8, lines 118‐119 347 Loveridge, ‘The Opening of the King Country...’, 2006, p 145 citing ‘Wahanui meets the Governor’, Preparations
Yeoman, 27 June 1884 1. 108
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Crown ‘until the mode is made clear by which dealings can be undertaken, and then will be the time to open such negotiations.’ He expressed a strong desire to maintain control of that process and for it to as public and transparent as possible. He explained to Ngatata that:
he wished the dealing with the land to be left in his own hands; and, when the Government desire to purchase lands from him, it should be made public to all the Natives having an interest in that part of the district, and when the Government desire to make a purchase it should interview the tribes of that district, and also make the matter known to the Committee of the district.348
By contrast, Wahanui made a point of saying that he was absolutely opposed to ‘the system of advancing money to individual Natives.’ No doubt he had seen the damage this had done to hapu and iwi authority and eventually to Maori land ownership in other areas. He asked that this practice be stopped and substituted for publicly agreed sales involving all those with customary interests in the land.349 Despite Wahanui’s desire for a very different way of managing and deciding what land should be sold to the Crown, the 1890s would come to be dominated by purchasing from individual owners, 1883–1889 often in secret. This letter incorporates three themes which will be seen again and again from Wahanui and other leaders during the 1880s and 1890s: the willingness to district, negotiate with the Crown at a hapu and iwi level over land purchasing, the need to be given time to decide what to do with their land and how they would engage with Crown, inquiry
and the overriding concern to retain their control over their land and resources. Potae
Regardless of what hapu and iwi understood about the possibility of Crown land Rohe purchasing in the Rohe Potae during 1884 and 1885, by January 1887 Ballance was the making clear statements that land purchasing would happen. At a meeting with Maori at in
Otorohanga Ballance made it very clear that the Crown intended to purchase, advising those present that it was ‘in their interest to set aside blocks of land for European settlements, and thus advance the value of the remainder [of their land].’ But he purchasing
reassured them that ‘the Government would not purchase any land until the sub‐ land divisions had been made.’350 Ballance’s intentions with regard to large‐scale land for purchasing reflects the position that had evolved amongst politicians on the issue since
348 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 489 349 NZPD, 1884, Vol. 50, p 489 Preparations 350
‘Ballance at Otorohanga’, Waikato Times, 29 January 1887, p 3 1. 109
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1884 but may also have been influenced by the considerable electoral pressure facing the Government at that time. It was widely believed in the settler community that the construction of the railway and the opening up of the district to European settlement was the answer to the economic recession of the 1880s. In particular, the opening up of the King Country was a major election issue in 1887.351
By April 1886, before the Native Land Court opened its title investigation of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, Ormsby was expressing concerns that money was being ‘advanced before the lands are passed this court.’352 This was emphatically denied by Ballance who stated that:
No person had been appointed by Government to purchase or advance money on land before it has passed through the court. No negotiations are entered into until the owners are entitled to sell.353
He assured them that all land would ‘be fairly bought, and a fair price paid for them to the natives when they have a clear title. That is the policy of the Government.’354
Chapter 3 considers these accusations, about payments prior to title being determined, 1883–1889
in greater detail. district, Although land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block itself had not officially commenced, by April 1888 those in other parts of the railway restriction zone were inquiry already experiencing the buying up of individual interests by the Crown and were concerned about the impact of this method. Herekiekie addressed Native Minister Potae
Mitchelson asking that: Rohe
buying cease from one or two persons. If all the people agree it will be good. the
Taupo and Waimarino are dead (purchased by Government) owing to sales by in single individuals. That is how that place has suffered. The lists of names were not conducted properly, neither the subdivisions. I wish all these matters to be rectified.355 purchasing
land
351 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, pp 51‐52 citing Ward ‘Whanganui ki Maniapoto...’, 1992, p 81 for 352 ‘Mr Ballance and the Natives. Important meetings with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato Times, 20 April 1886, p 4 353 ‘Mr Ballance and the Natives. Important meetings with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato Times, 20 April 1886, p 4 354 ‘Mr Ballance and the Natives. Important meetings with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato Times, 20 April 1886, p 4 355 Mr Mitchelson’s Visit – meeting with Wahanui and the Ngatimaniapoto Chiefs’, Waikato Times, 12 April Preparations
1888, p 2 1. 110
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1.3.2(b) Hapu and iwi understandings about Crown preemption and restrictions on alienation
One of the puzzling aspects of hapu and iwi response to the Crown’s reassertion of its pre‐emptive right of purchase and its prohibition on private transactions in 1884 was how little recorded comment by Wahanui, Ormsby and other leaders exists. Ballance claimed that Wahanui not only approved of the boundaries of the railway restriction zone but also the ban on private dealings within them:
I had an interview with Wahanui, and his inclination seemed to be to take in and reserve from private dealings not only the land which was likely to be benefited by the railway, but the whole of the Waikato, including his lands. I believe I interpret his views very fully when I say that I think the wish of Wahanui is to include the land the boundaries of which are marked off on the map which is now before the House. So that we have made an important advance in getting his assent to the prohibition of private dealings in Native land in this country.356
Ballance also informed the House that the Government had ‘the consent of Wahanui, Kemp, and the Natives in the lower part of Wanganui’ and of ‘the great body of the
357
Native people’ to the prohibition on private dealings.’ 1883–1889
These statements by Ballance require closer examination. It is certainly true that the district, tribes who were party to the 1883 petition were extremely concerned by the activities of land speculators, particularly in areas of the wider district (Waikato and Taupo) inquiry where the Native Land Court had already been active. These experiences were one of the factors behind hapu and iwi desires to have the external boundaries of the greater Potae
Rohe Potae legally recognized and to exclude the Native Land Court from operating Rohe within that area.358 Given these concerns it is likely that Wahanui expressed his the agreement to any proposal made to keep land speculators out of the district. Wahanui in
was silent in his speech to the Legislative Council on the Native Land Alienation Restriction Bill on the matter of the provisions for Crown pre‐emption and the complete restriction on private dealings. This silence could also be read as confirmation of purchasing
Ballance’s assertion that Wahanui approved of the restrictions on private dealings. land
for
356 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 313 357 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 316 Preparations 358
Petition of the Maniapoto, Raukawa, Tuwharetoa and Whanganui Tribes, 1883, AJHR 1883, J‐1 1. 111
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
But it seems unlikely that Wahanui both fully understood and agreed to these provisions. Wahanui’s speeches to Legislative Council indicates that he had seen copies of both the Native Land Settlement Bill and the Native Land Alienation Restriction Bill, but it is doubtful whether it would be immediately apparent to him or to any intelligent lay reader that the legislation gave the Crown a monopoly on land purchasing and prevented Maori from dealing with Europeans. Given the strong emphasis he and his people placed on retaining control of their land and the power to decide how they would be used it is doubtful that Wahanui would have agreed to blanket ban of private dealings. The extent to which Ballance explained these provisions is unclear, but it is unlikely that he explained that the Crown was to assume the right of monopoly purchase and would undertake an aggressive land purchase programme under the auspices of the Native Land Court (acquiring land at a heavy discount) in a manner totally at odds with Maori wishes.
Two other explanations for Wahanui’s silence on these provisions in 1884 should be 1883–1889 considered. First, throughout 1884 and 1885 Ballance envisaged and promoted a system of boards and committees through which Maori would sell or lease their land district, alongside these pre‐emptive/restrictive clauses. It is likely that in discussion with Wahanui and his party during that time Ballance emphasised the ability of Maori to inquiry lease or sell to Europeans on the open market via the boards, diminishing any concerns Wahanui and others may have had about the Crown’s pre‐emption and restrictions on Potae dealing directly with Europeans. Some indication that this may have been the substance Rohe of the conversations Ballance and Wahanui had during 1884 can be found in Ballance’s the speech at a public banquet in Whanganui after the 1884 Act was passed. On that in occasion, at which Wahanui was also present, he assured his audience, that he was completely opposed to any move to impose the Crown’s pre‐emptive right widely on the grounds that it was ‘immoral’ to restrict Maori to dealing with one purchaser. By purchasing contrast, he explained that the regime of boards and committees would enable Maori to land offer their land ‘to the highest bidder under the land laws of the colony’, which to his for mind was ‘a totally different thing from [a] pre‐emptive right.’359 Yet Ballance also stated the Government’s commitment to purchasing land for settlement, so this
Preparations 359
‘Banquet to the Hon. John Ballance’, Wanganui Herald, 28 November 1884, p 2 1. 112
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 mechanism, even if it could be successfully implemented, would inevitably face pressures from the Crown as a buyer of significant quantities of Maori land.360 This kind of focus would certainly have made the pre‐emptive/restrictive clauses appear much less threatening than they would appear when they were passed into law in the 1884 Act detached from the mechanism that offered this possibility.
But why did Wahanui not comment on these provisions in his speech before the Legislative Council when they did appear in a Bill on their own (the Native Land Alienation Bill 1884)? As we have seen, Wahanui and other hapu and iwi leaders in the Rohe Potae were seeking a package of measure to ensure the future control of their land. This involved the exclusion of the Native Land Court from the district and the empowerment of the Kawhia Native Committee in its stead. Therefore, these requests
were the focus of Wahanui’s speech to the Legislative Council. He also may have made a tactical decision to use the opportunity to address the Legislative Council to voice his opposition to the court entering the Rohe Potae because it seemed at that time a larger, 1883–1889
more immediate threat to hapu and iwi control of their land.
Overall, as Parliamentary debate of the 1884 measures show, the Act’s complete ban on district, private dealings within the railway restriction zone was principally a means for the Government to preserve large tracts of land for settlement from purchase by inquiry speculators until it was in a position to begin purchasing itself. It may have complied with the wishes of Wahanui and others and offered them protection from the activities Potae of speculators but in the process it greatly restricted the options available to Maori Rohe communities to benefit from their land by leasing or selling to Europeans and ensured the there were few options for land they were not living on, other than selling to the Crown. in
This state of affairs became evident to hapu and iwi leaders in the Rohe Potae as early as 1885. In addressing Ballance at Kihikihi Ormsby acknowledged that by passing the purchasing Native Land Alienation Restriction Act the previous year the Crown had legislated to
exclude speculative land companies from the district: ‘There were two things granted to land
for us out of the petition: One was to keep in future the companies from dealing with our lands; the other was to give the Native Committees power.’361 But at the same time he
360 ‘Banquet to the Hon. John Ballance’, Wanganui Herald, 28 November 1884, p 2 Preparations 361
AJHR 1885, G‐1, pp 14‐15 1. 113
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 expressed the strong opposition of the people to restrictions which took away their freedom to sell their land to whoever they chose. Ormsby stated that:
It has been said that the Government is the proper person to purchase Native lands, but I say “No”. There are no persons who have more right to dispose of Native land than the owners of that land; and I say that if the Government have the selling or the purchasing of Native lands it shuts the Natives out of the market; and we wish the Government at the present time, during the time that we are ignorant as to what should be done, to look after our lands for us – that is, that no person should be allowed to come in and interfere in the management of them.362
In particular Ormsby considered that if ‘everything that hapu wanted to do would be done through their Committee or Board’ there would be ‘no road opened by which a single person from a hapu could go to the Government, and say, “Give me a couple of pounds on account,”’ thus opening the block up to purchasing and being taken into the
court.363
In August 1885 Wahanui was asked directly whether Maori would agree to Crown pre‐ 1883–1889 emption. In reply he indicated that he thought they would if they were given full authority over their land. Ballance intervened with a question to Wahanui, asking him to district, explain the concept of pre‐emption as he understood it. He probably considering Wahanui’s insistence on full Maori control over their land was at odds with accepting inquiry the restrictions on private dealings that would inevitably be entailed. Wahanui’s answer after a long, intense and sometimes frustrating interrogation by Ormond had a sarcastic Potae
edge: Rohe
The principal I understand is this: if the Governor gives a higher price than any the one else, I approve of selling the land to him. That is my idea of pre‐emption; for in what person would be so foolish as to take a small price when a large one was offered him?364
Clearly Wahanui did not see how full authority over the land was compatible with being purchasing restricted to dealing only with the Crown when private sellers offered a much higher
return for the land. land
for
362 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 15 363 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 16 Preparations 364
AJHR 1885, I‐2B, p 13, line 200 1. 114
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
By early 1886, prior to the court granting title to land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, there were concerns about the impact restrictions on alienation, particularly leasing, was having on hapu and iwi ability to use their land as they saw fit. In particular they pointed out that European workmen employed on railway construction wanted to build homes for themselves and their families on Maori land but the law did not allow the Native committee to issue a lease in such cases. Ballance admitted that there was no way to give European railway workers a legal title but since their work was temporary he recommended that ‘some mutual arrangement should be come to, that for a certain sum the contractor could put up a house without a legal title.’365 Ballance seemed to be suggesting that Maori simply ignore the restrictions and make an informal agreement for such temporary leases. These concerns became a major focus of hapu and iwi engagement with the Crown in the 1890s as Crown pre‐emption and prohibitions on private transactions were maintained by a series of statutes over much of the Rohe Potae inquiry district. 1883–1889 1.4 THE CROWN’S RESPONSE TO MAORI ASPIRATIONS IN RELATION TO LAND IN THE ROHE POTAE, 1884–1886 district,
This section of the chapter considers the Crown’s responses to the aspirations of Rohe
Potae hapu and iwi for their land up until 1886 and evaluates the extent to which the inquiry
Crown succeeded or failed to honour those requests. In particular, it examines the Potae Crown’s strong stance in support of the Native Land Court as the proper and only viable
body with the authority to determine title to Maori land (albeit one which could Rohe
possibly be reformed to address specific criticism of the way it operated), and its the
in subsequent refusal to empower the Kawhia Native Committee to determine title to land in the Rohe Potae instead of the court.
On a number of occasions during 1884 and 1885 the Native Minister John Ballance purchasing
freely acknowledged to his fellow politicians and to hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae that land the Native Land Court had ‘not given satisfaction’ to Maori. But he argued that for
expressions of lack of confidence in the court by leaders such as Wahanui were not
365 ‘Mr Ballance and the Natives – Important meetings with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato Preparations
Times, 20 April 1886, p 4 1. 115
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 surprising given that the overriding purpose of the court was to deal with the rights of individuals. Ballance observed that:
No European tribunal adjudicating in reference to the ownership of Native property can ever be entirely successful, because, according to Native custom, there never has been in the past individual right to property in the sense in which we understand it … any Court which does not recognize their socialistic customs would fail to give satisfaction to the Natives.366
In answer to criticisms of the court voiced by Ormsby in 1885, Ballance admitted that the court sometimes made mistakes and could not be said to be ‘immaculate’ or perfect.367 He agreed with Ormsby that ‘to a large extent that the court has not worked very well in the past’ and ‘blocks of land went through the court and the Natives saw very little of the money, the proceeds, or the land either’ with lawyers and ‘land sharks’ being the main beneficiaries.368
Despite these acknowledgements of Maori dissatisfaction with the court the Crown was unwilling for the Native Land Court to be abolished or to entertain the request of 1883–1889 Wahanui and other Rohe Potae leaders that it be replaced by Native Committees appointed under the Native Committees Act 1883. The clear message from the Crown district, was that the Native Land Court would remain. Ballance put it succinctly in 1884 in his introduction to the Native Land Settlement Bill’s administrative provisions. He inquiry considered that the Court was ‘an institution that must remain amongst us as long as Native title requires to be ascertained.’369 Although Ballance considered that the court Potae
had not given satisfaction to Maori, he rejected the idea of Native Committees being Rohe solely responsible for determining title, describing the movement amongst Maori the towards forming committees under the 1883 Act as ‘but in its infancy.’370 In his view, in
the court had not ‘broken down’ but required some refinement. The answer was to make ‘a few amendments in the present law’ in order to make it ‘the best tribunal that we could have at the present time.’371 However, these reforms would do little to address purchasing
the fundamental mismatch between Maori customary ways of holding land and land
for
366 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 315 367 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 17 368 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 19 369 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 316 370 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 312 Preparations 371
NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 315 1. 116
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 individualized Western systems of land tenure that Ballance had already identified as the root cause of Maori dissatisfaction with the court.
At Kihikihi in 1885 Ballance noted some of the reforms already made in 1883 (such as the exclusion of lawyers from the court) and indicated that it was ‘the desire of the Government to remove from the operation of the court all objections which might be taken by the people themselves who own the land.’ He hoped that the additional powers he planned to give to the Native committees (discussed below) would ‘tend to remove most of the evils remaining’ in the process of determining title to land.372 He promised reforms to deal with some of the specific criticism of the court voiced by Ormsby; for example he agreed to tighten up procedures so that people with ‘very little’ claims to land could not initiate a title investigation by filing an application for survey.373 In
response to Ormsby’s criticisms of judges and other court officials, Ballance assured him that he would ‘take care that when a court sits for this district that there shall be one at least who does understand the language’ and that ‘no objectionable assessors or
374 1883–1889
interpreters shall be allowed in any court held in this district.’ But all the emphasis on reforming the court did not take hapu and iwi any closer to their desire to have
complete control over the investigation and determination of title to their land. district,
Ballance admitted that there was a good deal to be said in favour of committees but he inquiry feared that committee members could never be impartial where the interests of their whanau were involved.375 But he tentatively suggested that the committees might be Potae
made more than simply advisory bodies to the court. He considered that they might be Rohe given ‘slightly larger powers’ than they had under the Native Committees Act 1883, so the that they ‘might act as a court of first instance, allowing the Native Land Court to act as a in
Court of Appeal.’ Ballance stated that he intended to bring in legislation to this effect. 376
In reply to Ormsby’s request that the Kawhia Native Committee be empowered to purchasing determine title Ballance questioned whether the committee would be any better than
the court. In particularly he raised the issue of partiality again: land
for
372 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 19 373 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 17 374 ‘Mr Ballance and the Natives. Important meetings with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato Times, 20 April 1886, p 4 375 NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 315‐316 Preparations 376
NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 316 1. 117
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Might it not also make errors? Might it not be partial in its decisions, and fail to do justice? Might not the majority of the Committee be entirely on one side, and might not that majority favour the people of its own tribe to the injury of the people of the other tribes?377
Nevertheless, Ballance indicated that some further powers would be granted to the Committee. The minutes of his meeting at Kihikihi in 1885 were not as clear as his statement to the House the year before about how far these reforms might go. In that statement he suggested that the committee would be a lower level court with the Native Land Court becoming a forum for appeals only. Whereas at Kihikihi he was simply recording as saying that the Government was proposing to give the committees:
larger powers on preparing cases for the Native Land Court, so that all cases will come before the Native Committee in the first instance, and then go on to the Native Land Court, which will finally deal with the matter.378
Ballance also promised greater support for the committee’s civil functions particularly the hearing of disputes between Maori. This included the ability to raise income through collecting dog taxes to defray the committee’s expenses.379 Ormsby attempted to have 1883–1889
the Kawhia Native Committee released from its role in adjudicating on criminal (robbery and assault and other petty crimes) and civil matters involving Maori. They district, could then concentrate on what they regarded as ‘the larger subjects, such as dealing with land.’ But this proposal was rejected by Ballance.380 inquiry
As O’Malley noted, despite Ballance’s best efforts ‘there was no legislative boost to the Potae powers of the Committees elected under the 1883 Act during his three‐year tenure as
381 Rohe
Native Minister, nor were ‘any independent sources of revenue granted to them. As the already mentioned, as early as 1885 the chairman of the Kawhia Native Committee, John in Ormsby was expressing disappointment with the lack of real authority given to the committee.382 In 1888, two years after the Native Land Court began sitting in the Rohe Potae, the Government’s Native Agent for the district, George Wilkinson (later district purchasing
land
for 377 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 17 378 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 17 379 AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 17 380 AJHR 1885, G‐1, pp 19‐20. Also see Ormsby’s request for a policeman to act alongside the Native Committee (‘Mr Ballance and the Natives. Important meetings with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato Times, 20 April 1886, p 4) 381 O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy..., 1998, pp 172‐173 Preparations 382
Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, pp 23‐24 citing AJHR, 1885, G‐1, pp 14‐15 1. 118
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 land purchase officer, see Chapter 3) offered his assessment of why the Native Committees in the Waikato, Rohe Potae and Thames district had been largely unsuccessful:
One reason, I think, for their not being a success was because the Committee districts were altogether too huge, some of the members having to travel over fifty miles to attend a meeting of Committee. Another reason is that they are not properly supported by the tino rangatiras, principal chiefs, the reason, perhaps, being that the Committee appeared to usurp the power that principal chiefs think should rest only in them‐viz., the power of saying what shall or shall not be done with regard to matters that concern the whole tribe. Another reason, possibly, was the very limited powers given to the Committees, as they can only act where both parties to a suit are agreeable to put the matter into their hands. But I think the most important reason that is ‐ so far as this district is concerned ‐ is the fact that, now the land is being passed through the Court, and settlement is commencing to take place, the owners of the land see that property in land
means money and social position, and they prefer each one to look after his own rather than trust their affairs to the hands of a Committee, some of the members of which may be, or have been, in opposition to them regarding claims to land in the court], &c.383 1883–1889 The Native Land Laws (Rees‐Carroll) Commission of 1891 was scathing about the lack of authority the Native Committees Act 1883 provided. They described the Act as ‘a district,
hollow shell, the object of which it is difficult to see. It mocked and still mocks the Natives with a semblance of authority.’384 inquiry In 1893, Rees complained to Premier Richard Seddon that the committees were ‘at best
385
but an impotent and cruel farce.’ Historians, within the Treaty process and beyond Potae
have also concluded that the Crown failed to provide the committees with any real Rohe authority.386 the
in
purchasing
land
for 383 Wilkinson, Native Agent, Alexandra to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 2 June 1888, AJHR 1888, G‐5, No. 4, pp 4‐5 384 AJHR 1891, Sess. II, G‐1, part 1 ‘Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of the Native land Laws’, p xvi 385 O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy.., 1998, p 164 citing W L Rees To the Honourable the Premier, 15 March 1893 (published pamphlet), ATL Wgt 386 O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy.., 1998, pp 163‐164 reviews the conclusions of a range of historians on Preparations
the Native Committees scheme 1. 119
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1.5 FUNDING FOR CROWN PURCHASING PRIOR TO 1889
At the same time as the Crown was putting in place legislation which effectively created a monopoly on land purchasing in their favour, steps were also taken from 1882 onwards to fund both the construction of the railway and the purchase of further Native land in the railway restriction zone. These various loans, and the legislation governing them, were important because they made land purchasing in the inquiry district viable. A significant amount of this ‘railway loan’ money was used to finance the initial land purchasing in the Rohe Potae from 1889 until 1894 when these funds were exhausted and land began to be purchased using the general land fund.
By 1882 the North Island Main Trunk Railway line had reached as far south as Te Awamutu, just north of the Puniu River and it was anticipated that ‘the obstacles in the way of carrying on the extension from Awamutu may shortly be removed.’387 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Act 1882 authorized a loan of one million pounds (£1,000,000) to be raised in Great Britain for the purposes of constructing the line 1883–1889 itself.388 During 1884 the central route was authorized, the restrictions on alienation placed over the extensive railway restriction zone, and Rohe Potae Maori agreed to gift district, the land needed for the track and stations. As a result of these developments it was considered that further funding was needed for purchase of land for European inquiry settlement in the railway restriction zone. The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act 1886 allowed for up to £100,000 of the initial one million pound loan to Potae
be spent in ‘acquiring Native or other lands lying within the boundaries described in the Rohe Schedule to “The Native Land Alienation Restriction Act, 1884.”’389 The land purchased the
with this money was intended to: in
constitute a railway reserve, the proceeds of which shall be applied, as Parliament shall from time to time direct, in the construction of the said Main Trunk Railway, and of branch railways, tramways, or roads in connection purchasing therewith.390 land
for
387 Preamble to the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Act 1882 388 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Act 1882, s. 3 389 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act 1886, s. 4(5) Preparations 390
The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act 1886, s. 5 1. 120
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
This land would also provide endowments for public purposes, with the Act stating that two and a half per cent of the land purchased with this money was to be ‘set apart and reserved’ for Education Boards and Hospital and Charitable Aid Boards and other institutions within the North Island.391
In introducing the Bill to the House the Colonial Treasurer, Julius Vogel, noted that normally the proceeds from the sale of land would be applied ‘to all the purposes of the colony’ but this Bill proposed that ‘a specific endowment for the purpose of opening up the country adjacent to the North Island Trunk Railway.’ But in this case it was decided that the ‘proceeds of the sale of the land should be specifically tied down for the proper purposes of the railway.’392 This explanation makes it plain that the intention was not to set aside a special block or blocks of land to be a ‘railway reserve’, in the way that Native
reserves or scenic reserves were created but that the money from the sale of land was to form a ‘reserve’ of funds for railway purposes and to provide money for infrastructure such as roads and branch lines when the district was settled by Europeans. 1883–1889 Building up such a fund of course depended on the Crown purchasing Maori land and selling it to individual settlers at profit, thus populating the railway restriction zone district, with the European families which the Governor and Ballance had visualized in 1884. Vogel, in anticipation of criticism that part of the loan was being ‘taken away for the inquiry purchase of Native land’, emphasised that the net effect will be ‘the opening up of the country connected with the railway’ parts of which Vogel considered ‘unquestionably Potae very rich in mineral wealth.’393 There was strong opposition to the use of borrowed Rohe funds for Crown purchasing, and to the idea of tying revenue from the alienation of the Crown Land to any specific district. Attempts were made to strike out the provisions in relating to land purchasing but these were defeated.394
The effect of this loan was an upswing in the amount of land the Crown was purchasing purchasing within the railway restriction zone. In the four years from 1886 to 1890 the Crown
completed the purchase of blocks containing more than 900,000 acres of land in the land
for
North Island. ‘Nine‐tenths of this (89.1 per cent) was acquired in only two years, during
391 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act 1886, s. 5 392 NZPD, Vol. 56, 1886, p 314 393 NZPD, Vol. 56, 1886, p 314 Preparations 394
Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, pp 146‐147 1. 121
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1886‐87 and 1887‐88. Of this total, 555,976 acres (59.9 per cent) lay within the North Island Main Trunk Railway district, and 372,983 acres (40.2 per cent) outside of it.’395 All of this railway restriction zone land lay outside the Rohe Potae inquiry district (much of it in the large Waimarino block in the Whanganui inquiry district). Further allocations of funds from the railway loan for the purposes of land purchasing after 1889 are discussed in the next chapter.
1883–1889
district,
inquiry
Potae
Rohe
the
in
purchasing
land
for
Preparations 395
Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 147 1. 122
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 5: TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP SHOWING LAND QUALITY, ATTACHED TO REPORT OF DISTRICT SURVEYOR, LAWRENCE CUSSEN, 1885
(Source: AJHR 1885, C1A, after p 24)
123
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1.6 DETERMINING LAND QUALITY AND RESOURCES
The exploration of various options for the route of the North Island Main Trunk Railway line and the survey of the outer boundaries of the Rohe Potae between 1883 and 1886 focused heavily on documenting the quality of the land, in particular, its utility for agriculture and pastoral farming, minerals, timber and water to support European settlement. This focus was largely a consequence of the close connection between plans for the construction of the railway and the Crown’s early and consistent intention to open the district through which it ran to European settlement. In addition to government exploration and surveying an English gentleman‐explorer J H Kerry Nicholls travelled throughout the King Country during 1883 and his descriptive reports were published in the New Zealand Herald as a serial from May 1883 onwards. In 1884 an updated version of these reports accompanied by a map showing much of the King Country was published.396 So by the time the Crown began its purchasing of Maori land in the inquiry district in late 1889 land purchase officers had a considerable body of 1883–1889 knowledge about where the best land for settlement lay.
In considering which of several proposed routes for the railway was most viable the district,
1884 parliamentary select committee on the railway questioned numerous witnesses
focusing very much on ‘land quality and tenure, extractive resources and engineering inquiry
difficulties (including estimated costs) of each route.’397 Another key source of Potae information about land quality in the railway restriction zone was the work of the
surveyor Lawrence Cussen. During 1884 Cussen was engaged in the triangulation of the Rohe
boundaries of the Rohe Potae 1883 block. His 1885 report on that survey, accompanied the
in by a map, classified all the land in the Auckland Land District which lay within the boundaries of his survey into three classes depending on their suitability for agricultural and pastoral purposes.398 purchasing
land
for 396 Loveridge, ‘The Opening of the King Country...’, 2006, pp 101‐102 397 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 59. Amongst those questioned were Rochfort and the surveyors of the additional lines, Chief Surveyor Marchant, Under Secretary of the Native Land Purchase Department R J Gill, Land Purchase Commissioner Major Robert Parris, John Sheehan, John Bryce, Wahanui, a local Rangitikei farmer as well as a miner. 398 The area around Kawhia Harbour was not shown in his map or discussed in his report as this was an
area yet to be surveyed: ‘The balance of the survey in my charge will, I hope, be finished during the Preparations
present season, when the whole country will be mapped more in detail, and a further description, 1. 124
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Cussen had clearly been asked to gather this type of information by the Government. He began his report with the words: ‘In compliance with your instructions, I have the honour to report on the general character of the land in the King Country over which my survey extends.’399 In doing so he:
divided this area on the map into three classes of land. The first class is that which has the greater part of its area good agricultural land [sic]; the second is more broken, and is better suited for pastoral purposes; and the third class is chiefly very broken or poor country, and has a smaller proportion suitable for settlement.400
The areas of land he identified under each of these classifications are shown on the map which accompanied his report. This map is reproduced as Figure 5. Cussen found that:
The first‐class land lies within the open country through which the Waipa and Mokau rivers, with their tributaries, flow. The area is about 390,000 acres, more
than one‐half of which is good agricultural and the remainder good pastoral land.401
This first class land was is in the north and east of the inquiry district, and also 1883–1889 stretched through the centre with some smaller pockets in the south. It is shown coloured pink in Figure 5. There was also a large area of second‐class land chiefly in the district, limestone country to the west of the Mokau and Mangapu rivers, and on the plateau which lies between the valleys of the Mokau and Ongarue Rivers. Cussen estimated that inquiry this covered an area of ‘about 724,000 acres.’ He was of the opinion that ‘the greater part of this is capable of being made good pastoral land, and here and there throughout Potae
it there are small patches suitable for agricultural purposes.’402 This is coloured yellow Rohe in Figure 5. Finally there were areas of third‐class land; rougher land along the coast the between Awakino and Kawhia and in the Rangitoto Tuhua district (shown in orange of in
Figure 5). Cussen described this as containing ‘about 986,000 acres’ and including:
purchasing
land
for
including Kawhia and the other localities now omitted, will be submitted to you.’ (AJHR 1885, C‐1A, Appendix 3, p 24, ‘Geographical Surveys: The Triangulation of the King Country Auckland, Report by District Surveyor Lawrence Cussen’) 399 AJHR 1885, C‐1A, Appendix 3, p 21 400 AJHR 1885, C‐1A, Appendix 3, p 21 401 AJHR 1885, C‐1A, Appendix 3, p 21 Preparations 402
AJHR 1885, C‐1A, Appendix 3, p 21 1. 125
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
the high wooded ranges of Hurakia, Hauhangaroa, and Rangitoto, the rugged mountainous country on the West Coast between Kawhia Harbour and the Mokau River, and the pumice‐plains in the valley of the Ongarue and on the west side of the Waikato River.403
While he considered that this land could be made into pastoral country the depressed state of the farming industry at that time meant that ‘while better land can be had cheap in more accessible places, this will be valued more for its timber or the minerals it may possible contain.’404 More detailed descriptions of each of these areas followed including an assessment of topography, soil, climate, proximity to settlement/railway, availability of water and timber for building.
In this way the potential for European settlement was being measured and compared in various locations across the inquiry district as early as 1885. The role these
assessments of land quality played in the strategies devised by land purchase officers and Native Land Purchase Department staff, and its impact on land alienation patterns in the inquiry district are discussed later in this report. 1883–1889
1.7 CONCLUSION district,
In the five years between the Rohe Potae petition of 1883 and the beginning of the Crown’s large‐scale purchasing of Maori land in the district in late 1889, the Crown inquiry
largely pursued its own agenda, at the expense of Maori aspirations for their land. It put Potae
in place interlocking policies and legislation that were critical to the ultimate success of its purchasing programme. Five closely related measures were taken by the Crown: Rohe
Firstly, a decision was made that large‐scale purchasing of Maori land in the districts the
in
through which the railway would run would take place at some time in the future. Secondly, to protect this land from being acquired by speculators the Crown re‐asserted its pre‐emptive right of purchase and restrictions on private dealings. When the
provisions were first introduced in the Native Settlement Bill in 1884, Ballance purchasing
represented these changes as ones which would prevent undue speculation on the part land
of Europeans in land which was considered vital as a ‘feeder’ zone for the railway. But for
there was also some recognition amongst politicians that they would place the land in a
403 AJHR 1885, C‐1A, Appendix 3, p 21 Preparations 404
AJHR 1885, C‐1A, Appendix 3, p 21 1. 126
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 holding pattern and make Crown purchasing of large uninterrupted tracts of land possible at a later date. The Colonial Secretary Patrick Buckley explained that the decision to impose them had been made very rapidly in the wake of the railway committee’s decision favouring the central route. In essence he admitted that they were aimed to protect the land from ‘interference’, that is, rival purchasers, so that the railway could be constructed and land could be purchased by the Crown for European settlement to ensure that the railway paid for itself. Buckley admitted that the Crown would in all likelihood derive considerable advantage from these restrictive measures. The third measure taken was to legislate for loans to fund land purchasing. Fourthly, assessments of land quality for the purposes of European settlement were made, and finally, the Native Land Court was introduced into the district. Each of these developments was inextricably linked to the construction of the North Island Main Trunk Railway line through the Rohe Potae, and to wider Government aspirations about the part that the railway would play in opening up the district to European settlement. 1883–1889
Throughout the period from 1883 to 1888 hapu and iwi within the Rohe Potae set out their own aspirations for the future of their land, resources and communities before
Government ministers, and asked the Crown to honour their requests. Hapu and iwi district, leaders were willing to work in partnership with the Crown. They were not utterly
opposed to European settlement in the district but wanted it to remain in their control inquiry and on their own terms. Until April 1886, just a few months before the Native Land Potae Court began sitting at Otorohanga to investigate the title to the Rohe Potae (Aotea)
block Wahanui and other leaders were strongly opposed to the Native Land Court Rohe
entering the district. Instead they asked the Crown to empower the Kawhia Native the
in Committee, which had been established under the Native Committees Act 1883, to determine title to their land. Only once issues relating to the construction of the railway, which were still pending in 1884 and 1885, were resolved, and over these requests and purchasing land laws in general, and such agreements passed into law were Wahanui and others land
prepared to discuss the question of whether, and to what extent communities might be for willing to sell or lease land for European settlement.
Throughout 1884 and 1885 there was discussion between Native Minister Ballance, Wahanui and others about the Crown’s proposed boards and committees, which were Preparations
finally legislated for in the Native Land Administration Act 1886. But ultimately these 1. 127
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 were firmly rejected by hapu and iwi leaders for a number of reasons. Firstly, such boards could not be constituted unless the land had passed through the Native Land Court, which was a prospect strongly opposed by Wahanui and Ormsby. Secondly, this type of administration did not meet the wishes of hapu and iwi to have the Kawhia Native Committee determine title to, and then oversee all future dealings with the land. Finally, when the Act was passed in 1886 there were strong objections that it gave the Crown power to purchase their land.
The Crown was fundamentally opposed to the Native Committees replacing the court. Wahanui’s call for the Native Committees to be empowered in this way was supported in the House by Wi Pere, the Member for Eastern Maori. However, the House rejected this solution because it considered that the Native Committees were not sufficiently
established and competent to be the mediators between Maori owners and the Crown, an unfair criticism when the committee districts had only been gazette in January of that year. Native Minister Ballance also argued that the committees were unfit for that role 1883–1889
because they were as yet ‘in their infancy’ and would naturally make decisions on the basis of whanau and hapu loyalties. Instead Ballance offered limited reforms to the
court’s procedures in order to address those aspects of its operation Rohe Potae hapu district, and iwi found most objectionable. This did not take Maori any closer to having their
wish for a committee solely controlled by them and comprised of their representatives inquiry to work out how land ought to be owned, managed and used. Ormsby, the chairman of Potae the concluded that the Native Committees Act 1883 gave them merely the shadow of
what they sought, while it denied the substance of it to them. In 1885 Ballance had Rohe
indicated to the House that he was considering additional powers for the committees, the
in perhaps even as far as giving the powers of a lower court, with the Native Land Court becoming a court of appeal. However, nothing came of this idea and no further legislation was passed to empower the committees. purchasing
By April 1886 hapu and iwi had reluctantly concluded that the only option remaining to land them was to bring their land before the court to have the land held by each hapu defined for and title granted to it. By imposing pre‐emption, while at the same time encouraging the introduction of the Native Land Court and failing to provide an alternative Maori‐ controlled hapu or iwi mechanism for title determination, the Crown was ensuring that Preparations
a large territory, much of it capable of being turned into farm land, would be available 1. 128
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 for it to purchase without competition from speculators. Land could then be sold at a profit to fund the construction of the railway (see chapters 2, 3 and 7 for discussion of the pricing of Maori land).
It is unclear whether hapu and iwi leaders in the district were aware prior to 1889 that the Crown planned to purchase large areas of their land for European settlement. Evidence suggests this intention was not immediately communicated to hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae. Although Wahanui and his party had a number of meetings with the Native Minister John Ballance in Wellington during October and November 1884, there is no evidence that these future plans were made plain to him. During Ballance’s tour in early 1885 Wahanui, Taonui, John Ormsby and other hapu and iwi leaders were reassured by Ballance that the Crown did not intend to purchase large areas of their
land. It seems that Ballance hoped that the Government would be able to obtain all the land it required through the proposed boards and committees. Ballance also gave hapu and iwi leaders the impression that if Maori were willing to lease their land through 1883–1889
those avenues then there would be little or no need for land to be sold. So it seems that Wahanui, and his people, were ignorant of the Crown’s plans for large‐scale land
purchasing in their rohe until Wahanui was explicitly informed of those intentions district, during questions put to him by members of the Native Affairs Select Committee in 1885. inquiry Yet Wahanui’ s letter to the Western Maori MP Wi Tako Ngatata in early November 1884 indicates that Wahanui was aware that the Crown would want to purchase some Potae land in the Rohe Potae. Wahanui was not, at that stage, utterly opposed to the European Rohe settlement or even the prospect of some land being permanently transferred out of the hapu and iwi ownership. But what his letter and his answers to questions posed by the in select committee the following year indicate is that Maori communities in the Rohe Potae had not yet made firm decisions about how their land would be used or disposed of in the future. They asked the Crown for more time to consider the matter and were purchasing willing to work with the Government to put in place suitable legislation. But the land overriding and unshakable conviction of Wahanui and other hapu and iwi leaders was for that any process for selling or leasing land was to remain in full Maori control.
Preparations
1. 129
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Wahanui expressed a strong wish that decision‐making through the committee about the disposal of land be public, communal and consensual with no advances or payments made to individuals by Crown officials. Under considerable pressure during questioning in 1885 Wahanui cautiously conceded that if sole administration of the land remained with hapu and iwi and there were assurances that enough would be retained for the people they might be willing to hand over a portion of their land to be dealt with by the Land Court and used for settlement. It is also not surprising that in 1884 and 1885 Wahanui and other leaders were reluctant to engage with the questions from politicians about selling land to the Crown in the Rohe Potae. There were a number of more immediate threats to be dealt with, of which the negative impact was already apparent to hapu and iwi in the inquiry district. Negotiations over the route and land for the railway were still continuing, at the same time the Native Land Court was already operating in the adjacent Taupo and Whanganui districts, and its effects were of real concern to leaders like Wahanui, especially since applications were being made by people around Kawhia and Aotea, for land to be investigated. Keeping the court out of 1883–1889 the Rohe Potae was a major focus of negotiations with the Crown. By comparison the prospect of Crown purchasing sometime in the future was pushed further down the district, agenda.
Ballance also promoted the establishment of Crown pre‐emption and prohibitions on inquiry private dealings as a positive government response to hapu and iwi pleas for Potae speculators to be kept at bay. In particular, he assured the House that Wahanui had
specifically supported the ban on private transactions. Ballance also told his fellow Rohe
Members that Wahanui had requested that all his land be included in the railway the
in restriction zone and so approved of the extensive boundaries of the zone. As already mentioned, the activities of land speculators and the companies they formed in Waikato and Taupo were a significant concern to many hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae. The purchasing 1883 petition asked the Crown to take action to stop their influence. So it is likely that land
Wahanui did express his approval of the restrictions Ballance was promoting. for
Preparations
1. 130
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
But it should be remembered that up until Ballance withdrew the administrative provisions of the Native Land Settlement Bill on 1 November 1884, he would have discussed the restrictive measures with Wahanui (who had been in Wellington with his party since June) as they would function when boards and committees were established. In all likelihood Ballance would have emphasised, as he did in his late November speech at the banquet in Wanganui, that Maori would be able to sell or lease their land to the Crown or on the open market. In that context the ban on direct private dealings between Maori and Europeans would have been far less threatening to Wahanui than it would become when it was separated from the administrative provisions and passed as the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884. So when put to him in this way it would not be surprising if Wahanui had offered his support for the restrictions and the extent of the restriction zone, if it meant that speculators would be kept out of the territory. In any case, with so many pressing issues facing Wahanui and his people – railway, fears about the impact of speculators and the land court, as well as the survey of the external boundaries of the district – there was little time or energy to 1883–1889 consider the long‐term ramifications of Crown pre‐emption and restrictions on direct dealings with Europeans. district,
But by 1887 hapu and iwi leaders in the Rohe Potae were voicing their opposition to the
Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase and expressed fears that the Crown would come inquiry into the district and begin purchasing before the land of each hapu within the Rohe Potae Potae (Aotea) block had been defined. Ballance assured them that they had freedom to
sell or not under the committee/board scheme and promised that the Crown would not Rohe
begin purchasing until the subdivision of the block was completed. These fears were the
in legitimate given that Whanganui Maori present at an 1888 meeting with Native Minister Mitchelson at Otorohanga raised concerns about the Crown’s purchasing from individual owners in their rohe. Ngati Maniapoto continued to oppose Crown pre‐ purchasing emption, even when told by Ballance that the new administration intended to repeal the land
1886 Act but ensure that no land could be sold for three months after it passed through for the court and that all sellers had to show they had sufficient other land for their support.
Although the 1884 Crown pre‐emption and prohibitions of private dealings, and the area they covered were quickly repealed after two years, they were later reimposed and Preparations
between 1888 and 1900 became a more‐or‐less permanent measure. Their ultimate 1. 131
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 effect was to freeze the land which the Crown alleged would be able to support the railway until the Native Land Court could determine title and the Crown could begin large‐scale purchasing. By 1888, the year before Crown purchasing started in the inquiry district, all the land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block remained under a blanket prohibition on direct agreements between Maori and Europeans, with the Crown reserving to itself the right to purchase. This placed the Crown in an advantageous position as the sole buyer of a territory unbroken by extensive private leases or purchases. In large part the restrictive measures that led to this position were generally justified as the only practical way to keep speculators out, protecting Maori from a threat they had already asked the Crown to protect them from. Yet the legislation was rather a blunt instrument that gave no latitude for hapu and iwi to lease their land to bona fide settlers and to generate income from it without selling.
Alongside the re‐assertion of the Crown’s pre‐emptive right or purchase and prohibition on private dealings over the railway restriction zone a dedicated pool of funding was 1883–1889
established, which went a considerable way to providing the money necessary for Crown purchasing in the Rohe Potae after 1889. In 1882, the Government took out a
one million pound loan in Britain to pay for the completion of the Main Trunk line. The district,
North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act 1886 set aside up to £100,000 of
that initial loan for purchasing land within the 1884 railway restriction zone. This was inquiry in accordance with the Crown’s policy of using the land within that zone for European Potae settlement that would ‘feed’ the railway and ensure it was economically viable. Railway
loan funds were exhausted in 1894, by which time purchasing in the inquiry district had Rohe
been underway for at least four years. The Liberal Government then poured more the
in resources into land purchasing across the North Island and this sustained land purchasing in the inquiry district until the inception of the District Maori Land Councils (later Boards) in 1900. purchasing
Information about the land quality in various locations was gathered by surveyors land exploring possible railway routes and during the survey of the external boundaries of for the Rohe Potae during 1884‐1885. So far as the Crown was concerned the Rohe Potae inquiry district was not a blank on the map within whose boundaries nothing was known. By 1886, the Crown had a fairly accurate and comprehensive knowledge of the Preparations
quality of land in various locations and its potential for agriculture, pastoral farming and 1. 132
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 mining for minerals. This knowledge shaped and facilitated the Crown’s land purchasing programme and the pattern of land alienation that emerged. The Crown’s land purchasing officers were able to add to this knowledge of the land’s quality, the legal boundaries and ownership of that land as it was defined by the Native Land Court. This facilitated the piecemeal purchasing of individual interests in land as a means of acquiring land for European settlement.
1883–1889
district,
inquiry
Potae
Rohe
the
in
purchasing
land
for
Preparations
1. 133
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
2. LAND PURCHASING LEGISLATION FOR THE ROHE POTAE, 1889–1900
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The commencement of large‐scale land purchasing by the Crown in the Rohe Potae inquiry district more or less coincided with the election of the Liberal Government in 1890. This chapter explores the ways in which the Liberals modified and enhanced Crown pre‐emption, restrictions on private dealings and railway loan funding already established in the Rohe Potae during the 1880s. This stream of policy and legislation relating specifically to the North Island Main Trunk Railway flowed on into the 1890s; separate and parallel to Liberal policy on Native land in general. In 1892, partial Crown pre‐emption was introduced and by 1894 Crown pre‐emption over the whole country was re‐established. This firmly locked the Rohe Potae into a regime which it had been under more or less continually since 1884 and the Crown’s purchasing programme in the King Country became swept up in the wider national agenda of Maori land acquisition and expansion of European settlement.
The advent of the Liberals heralded a determination on the part of the Crown to purchase as much Maori land as possible in the North Island. Under the Atkinson
administration (October1887 to January 1891) and the failed experiment of the Native 1889–1900
Land Administration Act 1886 land alienation had slowed considerably, with only
405 Potae, 865,000 acres purchased in the colony between 1887 and 1890. But the first years of the 1890s saw an acceleration in land acquisition, so much so that by 1894, Premier Rohe
Richard Seddon was boasting to the Minister of Lands John Mckenzie that they were the
406 going to break the annual record for Maori land purchase. In fact, the Liberal for
Government purchased some 3.1 million acres of Maori land between 1891 and 1911 and then sold about a half million acres on the open market over the same period.407 Of legislation course, this required a considerable reserve of money to be made available. The railway
405 Tom Brooking, ‘”Busting Up” the Greatest Estate of All: Liberal Maori Land Policy, 1891‐1911’, NZJH, purchasing Vol. 26, No. 1, April 1992, p 82 406 Brooking, ‘Busting Up the Greatest Estate of all ...’, NZJH, Vol. 26, No. 1, April 1992, p 82 citing Seddon to McKenzie, 29 October 1894, file 95/7, box 37, MA‐MLP series 1, ANZ, Wgt Land 407
Brooking, ‘Busting Up the Greatest Estate of all ...’, NZJH, Vol. 26, No. 1, April 1992, p 78 2. 134
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 loan funding was exhausted by 1894, and the railway restriction zone ceased to exist when nationwide Crown pre‐emption was reimposed the same year. However, general land purchasing funds were provided in legislation from 1892 onwards and this enabled Crown purchasing in the inquiry district to accelerate after 1894.
The Liberals had come to power on the back of promises of more land for settlement, especially land for small farms.408 These policies promoted ‘progress’ through closer European settlement, which aimed to increase the amount of land in 'productive' usage.409 These were the common ideas and priorities underpinning and connecting both the Liberal’s policy of breaking up large settler‐owned rural estates into smaller farms and their desire to purchase large areas of Maori land and onsell it to Europeans. Although Native land and general land legislation remained largely separate policy domains, both were considered by the Liberals to be fundamental to their vision of closer settlement and economic and social wellbeing. In June 1892, the Native Department was abolished and the Land Purchase Office was transferred to the Department of Lands and Survey. This enabled the Minister of Lands to direct both the purchase of Maori land and the breakup of the great estates, so cementing the Liberal’s popularity with settlers in both Islands.410
Late‐Victorian cultural ideals also help to explain why, beyond the economic rationales, Seddon and other Liberal politicians were so vehemently opposed to land speculators 1889–1900 and the prospect of Maori ‘landlords’ living off rents from their land. In particular, these ideals point to some of the reasons why the Liberals were not open to policies that Potae,
would have allowed controlled leasing and private selling in the Rohe Potae. Behind Rohe widespread support for the goal of closer settlement of land were powerful ideas about the the desirabilitiy of a colony based on rural and agricultural wealth and an aversion to for the urban and industrial. ‘A vigorous and well‐peopled countryside’ was seen as an antidote to over‐rapid urbanization.411 One of the overriding ideas about how rural land use should be organized was the ‘simple idea that no one, whatever their race or class, legislation
408 Cathy Marr, ‘The Urewera District Reserve Act 1896 and Amendments, 1896–1922’, 2002, Wai 894, #A21, p 19 purchasing 409 Tom Brooking, 'Use it or Lose it: Unravelling the land debate in late nineteenth‐century New Zealand, NZJH, Vol. 30, No. 2, October 1996, p 146 410 Brooking, ‘”Busting Up” The Greatest Estate of All...’, NZJH, Vol. 26, No. 1, April 1992, p 84 Land 411
Brooking, Use it or Lose it ...’, NZJH, Vol. 30, No. 2, October 1996, pp 146‐147 2. 135
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 had a moral right to own land unless they used it productively.’412 So those who owned large areas of land without using them were to be condemned. This applied to Maori holding land in customary title and to European speculators buying large areas of land with no intention of occupying and farming.
These ideas about land and its use were reinforced by Biblical injunctions to go forth and cultivate the land and in Brooking’s view ‘the Bible was the most important influence in creating a climate hostile to monopoly.’413 There was also a strong desire to prevent land monopolies of any kind on the basis of social and economic equality. The ability of settlers to obtain land for a small farm was critical to a vision of a new society in the colony with a social order ‘based on the independent farmer as the most attainable alternative to the 'gentry' ideal of social hierarchy and deferential behaviour’ which had dominated the societies from which migrants had come.414 This powerful web of ideals and thought influenced politicians during the 1890s and echoes through debate around Native land legislation and land purchasing throughout the period.
1889–1900
Potae,
Rohe
the
for
legislation
purchasing
412 Brooking, Use it or Lose it ...’, NZJH, Vol. 30, No. 2, October 1996, p 145 413 Brooking, Use it or Lose it ...’, NZJH, Vol. 30, No. 2, October 1996, p 147 Land 414
Brooking, Use it or Lose it ...’, NZJH, Vol. 30, No. 2, October 1996, pp 148‐149 2. 136
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 6: MAPS SHOWING CHANGES TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RAILWAY RESTRICTION ZONE, AUGUST 1888 TO AUGUST 1891
137
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 7: MAP SHOWING CHANGES TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RAILWAY RESTRICTION ZONE, AUGUST 1891 TO OCTOBER 1894
138
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
2.2 CROWN PRE‐EMPTION & RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION IN THE RAILWAY RESTRICTION ZONE AFTER 1890
Between 1889 and 1894 complex situation emerged with regard to the boundaries within which Crown pre‐emption and restrictions on private dealings applied. During this time land within the Rohe Potae inquiry district was covered by a number of overlapping provisions. These included railway loan legislation, which became connected to Native land fraud prevention legislation from 1888 to 1894, and Rohe Potae specific provisions in the Native Land Court legislation. These changing and overlapping boundaries are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7.
In late 1889, at the start of the Crown’s purchasing programme, Crown pre‐emption and restrictions on alienation applied to the whole of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. This remained the case until 30 August 1891.415 However, before these restrictions expired the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loans Application Act Amendment Act 1889 was introduced to target railway loan money to land purchasing within part of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. This resulted in a period between 1 January 1890 and 30 August 1891 where both sets of restrictions were in place. 416 Once the restrictions on the Rohe
Potae (Aotea) block under the Native Land Court Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888 lapsed at the end of August 1891 restrictions under the railway loans legislation remained only over this area to which railway loans money was targeted. Initially these restrictions 1889–1900 were to expire on 1 January 1892 but were extended for a further year until 1 January 1893.417 These restrictions did not run for their full term because a greatly expanded Potae,
railway restriction zone was reintroduced in October 1892 by the North Island Main Rohe Trunk Railway Loan Application Acts Amendment Act 1892. This extended the the restriction zone to almost what it had been in 1884 but excluded a portion of the for western side of the inquiry district.418
legislation
415 The Native Land Court 1886 Amendment Act 1888 s. 15 416 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889, s. 3(2) & Second Schedule purchasing 417 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889, Second Schedule and the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1891, s. 2 respectively 418 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Acts Amendment Act 1892, ss.3 & 4, and Land
Schedule 2. 139
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
2.2.1 THE NORTH ISLAND MAIN TRUNK RAILWAY LOAN APPLICATION ACT AMENDMENT ACT 1889
By the final months of 1889 the Crown’s purchasing programme in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block was in its intensive planning stage. Therefore, it was considered that funds should be earmarked for the rapid acquisition of the blocks identified as a priority for purchasing by George Wilkinson, the district land purchase officer. Therefore, under the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889 the restriction zone was narrowed to two areas: the north of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and an area around the Tongariro National Park. The Act allowed £100,000 of the railway loan money to be used for land purchasing in those areas. Within these demarcated areas this money would be ‘applied in completing land purchases at present incomplete, and making further land purchases.’419 The targeted area that lay within this inquiry district conformed almost exactly to the area covered by the list of blocks Wilkinson recommended for purchase in October 1889.420
In order that funds could be directed towards purchasing that was already underway the originally boundaries set out in the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884 were modified. The 1889 boundaries excluded all the land in the original railway
restriction zone that fell within the old Taranaki provincial district boundaries. This meant that a significant area in the south western corner of the Rohe Potae inquiry district was effectively opened to free trade in Maori land for a period of about two 1889–1900 years until this area was again placed under restriction in 1892. Debate on the 1889 Act suggests that the reason that land in the Taranaki provincial district was left out of the Potae,
schedule was the fear that if it were included the New Plymouth Harbour Board would Rohe then receive 25 per cent of all the revenue generated by the sale of that land. There was the general opposition to the idea that revenue from the sale of land in the railway for restriction zone would be diverted away from paying for the construction of the line, branch lines and roads to support the railway.421 Section 4(4) of the 1889 Act was inserted to ensure that this could not happen. It stated that ‘no person or body shall legislation have any right or claim to the proceeds of the sale, lease, or other alienation or disposition’ of land acquired using these funds.
purchasing
419 The North Island Main Trunk Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889, s.3(2) 420 The North Island Main Trunk Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889, s. 5 & schedule 2 Land 421
See NZPD, Vol. 66, 1889, pp 232‐236, 404‐407 & 515‐517 2. 140
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
As had been the case with the Native Land Court Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888, restrictions were created by stating that the all the land included in schedule 2 of the 1889 railway loan Act, which defined the boundaries of the area, would be deemed to be Native land as defined by section 2 of the Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881 Amendment Act 1888. This Act would apply to such land for two years as from 1 January 1890.422 The following year this was extended to three years.423 With only a few exceptions, the 1888 Frauds prevention legislation prohibited private dealings with Native land.424 These prohibitions did not apply to the Crown or any person acting on behalf of the Crown, so in essence the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase was preserved over the land in schedule 2 of the Railway Loan Act 1889.425 As noted there was some confusion about whether any titles in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block met the criteria to be excluded from these restrictions. This is discussed further in Chapter 6.
Debate in the House on the 1889 Act made almost no mention of these restrictions on private transactions or the Crown’s pre‐emptive right to purchase. The only comment was made by the Member for Western Maori, Hoani Taipua (in whose electoral district this land was located). He stated that he had been ‘elected to a seat in this House for the express purposes of objecting to restrictions placed upon the lands by the late Native
Minister [John Ballance].’ He expressed disappointment that the Atkinson administration was ‘now following the same line of policy laid down by the late Government in imposing restrictions upon the Native lands, and giving the Government 1889–1900
a monopoly.’426 However, Taipua’s was a lone voice, and the issue was ignored during Potae, the remainder of the debate. Rohe
the
for
legislation
422 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889, s. 5 423 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1891, s. 2 424 Except where the land was held in a title issued by the Court or under the Land Transfer Act to ‘not more than twenty Natives’ for at least 40 days prior to any transaction. The Act also required that all such purchasing titles be listed in the New Zealand Gazette and a date given for the expiry of this 40 day holding period (The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881 Amendment Act 1888, s. 5) 425 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889, s. 5 Land 426
NZPD, Vol. 66, 1889, p 233 2. 141
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
2.2.2 THE NORTH ISLAND MAIN TRUNK RAILWAY LOAN APPLICATION AMENDMENT ACT 1891
In 1891 the decision was made to extend the time that the 1889 loan/restriction area would remain in place by a further year to 1 January 1893.427 This Act was passed in September 1891 just a few weeks after the restrictions on the Rohe Potae (Aotea) Block under the 1888 Act expired in August of that year. This extension of the 1889 loan and the accompanying restrictions received considerable attention in the House in 1891.428 It is clear that the Government was motivated by hopes that once it had begun, land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block would proceed rapidly. In introducing the Bill, the Native Minister Cadman stated that the decision to extend the timeframe of the restrictions was made because ‘within the last few months something like fifty thousand acres have been acquired of this area so restricted’. Cadman considered that if the time extension was granted he had ‘no doubt that within the time asked for we shall be able to acquire a very large portion of the area so restricted.’429
Once again the Member for Western Maori, Hoani Taipua was highly critical of the Bill, informing the House that Ngati Maniapoto strongly objected to the restrictions. He scathingly remarked that:
The proper designation of this Bill would be, “A Bill to steal the Natives’ land from them.” Why should not the Natives have the option of leasing these lands to Europeans if they wish to do so? Seeing that the hapus [sic] and the Natives have subdivided these lands they should be at liberty to lease them to whom they 1889–1900 please.430
In Taipua’s opinion, Rohe Potae Maori had individualized the title to their land and Potae,
subdivided it at significant cost to themselves in order to be able to lease it to Rohe Europeans and generate revenue.431 He considered that as a result of these long‐ the running restrictions hapu and iwi in the railway restriction zone had been for
disadvantaged compared to Maori elsewhere in the country:
legislation
427 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Amendment Act 1891, s. 2 purchasing 428 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Amendment Act 1891, s. 2 429 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 771 430 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 771 Land 431
NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 771 2. 142
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In all other parts of New Zealand, when the Natives have had their lands surveyed and subdivided, they have had the privilege of leasing them to Europeans, and have derived benefit in consequence. That privilege is now denied to those Natives in the King‐country.432
He remarked that this was particularly unfair at a time when Ngati Maniapoto had come out of isolation and ‘come forward to live under the laws of the colony’ and he reminded the House that the Government had ‘locked up this land since 1884 to the present time.’433 Although Taipua favoured ‘free‐trade in Native lands’ he advocated a compromise which would allow the worse excesses of land speculators to be kept out of the district but also enable Maori owners to lease at least some of their land. He asked the Government to:
allow the Natives to lease blocks of land not exceeding five thousand acres in that district … If the Government will agree to apply the restriction only to large blocks of land, then I should have no objection, provided the Natives had the right to lease small portions … of land up to two thousand or even five thousand acres, supposing the titles to those lands have been individualised, and supposing the land has been subdivided.434
Taipua was clearly putting forward this proposal in response to the concerns of Ngati Maniapoto. He noted that the Native Minister had recently met with Ngati Maniapoto
chiefs and that they had asked him to remove the restrictions.435 These meetings between the Native Minister and Wahanui and others during 1891 where hapu and iwi attempted to have these restrictions removed are discussed in Chapter 5. 1889–1900
Taipua was not the only Maori Member to propose a compromise with regard to Potae, restricting private dealings. James Carroll, the Member for Eastern Maori also expressed a view that the restrictions need not be absolute. Carroll considered that all the Rohe
Government needed to do to guard against an extensive area falling into the hands of the
for
speculators was:
legislation
purchasing 432 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 772 433 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 772 434 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 772 Land 435
NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 772 2. 143
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
To impose a restriction that no larger an area than two, or three, or five thousand acres – I leave that to yourselves – shall be acquired by any single European; or in the case of leases, that no larger an area than from seven to ten thousand acres … shall be acquired by any single European … let the Maori and European meet and arrange terms between themselves, and put the facilities in the way whereby the transaction can be completed between them.436
He argued that this would ‘bring about the settlement of the country more quickly than by locking up the territory, as is now proposed.’437 Carroll also asked that the restricted area be reduced in size, arguing that much of the area was not or never would be wanted by the Government, nor were they in a position ‘to acquire it for many years to come.’ Instead he proposed that now the Government had fixed the route of the railway they ought to ‘have a clear and definite idea as to how much land they require … on either side’ of the railway line.438 In his view the Government ought ‘to confine the restriction to that area they want.’439 Carroll reminded the House that he had been one of the Commissions who visited the King Country earlier in 1891 as part of the Native Land Laws Commission and:
the one grievance they brought before us was this: that the Government had tied and fettered their hands; that they had put restrictions over all their lands, and put a Land Court in their district; had made them incur considerable expense in clothing their lands with titles, in making them subdivide their lands; and after all, they get no benefit.440
The evidence of Ngati Maniapoto before this commission is discussed in Chapter 5. 1889–1900
Such proposals from Maori Members of Parliament strongly suggests that they
considered that there were viable alternatives to the complete restrictions Maori were Potae,
placed under, which would have kept speculators out but allowed bona fide European Rohe settlers to lease land from Maori and for Maori owners to generate revenue from their the land. for
legislation
436 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 773 purchasing 437 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 773 438 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 772 439 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 774 Land 440
NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 773 2. 144
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Several of the European Members also expressed opposition to the restrictions being continued over such a large area, George Hutchinson, the Member for Waitotora considered that the ‘area reserved under the Act is so large and indiscriminate as really to operate very injuriously on the Native and other interests’, and noted that many blocks included within the restriction zone were a considerable distance away from the railway line.441 William Kelly, the Member for East Coast vigorously opposed the Act and went as far as to say that the measures had ‘practically confiscated the whole of this Native territory.’442 Even some of those who had been strong supporters of the restrictions in the past expressed some concern about the impact on Maori. For example Alfred Newman, the Member for the Hutt admitted that he had ‘always thought the Act was an absolute necessity’ but he admitted ‘that it does press hardly on some of the Natives, in so much as the colony is the sole buyer, and no doubt, if the Government desire to drive a hard bargain, they can get an unfair advantage.’ However, he still saw merit in the argument that if millions had been spent on the railway it was essential to ensure ‘that the land shall not pass away from the Government.’443 Despite these misgivings and the suggested compromises put forward by various Members, attempts by Hutchinson to amend the Act to allow the restrictions to be removed from particular
blocks by proclamation were defeated by 34 votes to 14.444
2.2.3 THE NORTH ISLAND MAIN TRUNK RAILWAY LOAN APPLICATION ACTS AMENDMENT ACT 1892 1889–1900 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Acts Amendment Act 1892 repealed the 1891 Act and greatly expanded the boundaries of the loan/restriction Potae, zone, making it again almost the same size and shape as the 1884 railway restriction Rohe zone. It also extended the loan/restrictions for a further year until 1 January 1894.445 the There were two marked differences between the 1884 and 1892 restriction areas. The for
1892 boundaries excluded a significant portion of the Taupo‐nui‐a‐tia block on the eastern side and followed the western boundary of the 1889 area. This meant that the land within the Taranaki Provincial District which had been excluded from the legislation
441 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 774 ‐ 775 purchasing 442 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 775 443 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 775 444 NZPD, Vol. 74, 1891, p 776 Land 445
The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Acts Amendment Act 1892, s. 3 2. 145
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 restriction area in 1889 was once again subject to those restrictions. Significantly, any private transactions that had taken place during that time, or were in the process of being finalized, on land within the 1892 boundaries but outside of the 1889 area were to be considered valid.446 By reverting to a modified form of the 1884 railway restriction zone a slice of the inquiry district west of a line from Pirongia to the northern tip of the Mokau Mohakatino block remained free of Crown pre‐emption/restrictions on private dealings during the period from October 1892 to October 1894. Technically, this meant that Maori owners of this western land had been permitted to lease and sell to Europeans for more than three years from late August 1891 to October 1894 (Figure 7). The impact of these gaps in the restriction zone on the extent of private leasing and selling is examined in Chapter 6.
In introducing the 1892 railway loan Bill the Native Minister stated that it was ‘proposed to extend the area over which this money could be used.’ The reason he gave for this extension was that there was currently ‘hardly sufficient scope for the purchase of Native land within the area set aside if this money was to be used quickly.’447 This implies that land purchasing in the areas targeted for railway loan fundings in 1889 was slower than anticipated. Chapter 4 documents the slow pace of land purchasing
between 1889 and 1892 in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and its causes.
Comments during the debate suggest that there was confusion about whether the 1892 1889–1900 boundaries took in more land than had been restricted in 1884. George Richardson, the former Minister for Public Works, stated that the ‘under the original schedule Potae,
something like two million acres’ were restricted but that ‘under the present schedule Rohe the restricted area was increased approximately to 4,600,000 acres.’448 The Minister of the Public Works, Richard Seddon stated that ‘the limits prescribed in the Bill were the for limits of the Hon. Mr Bryce, who ought to know this country well.’449 This was disputed by Edward Lake, the Member for Waikato who pointed out that ‘when this large area legislation
446 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Acts Amendment Act 1892, s. 4 purchasing 447 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 344 448 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 346. There is some confusion here because if by ‘original’ schedule he means the
1884 schedule, Ballance estimated that had contained about 4 million acres Land 449
NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 351 2. 146
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 was included it was included a long time before this North Island Railway was commenced.’450
Virtually everyone who spoke during the course of the debate on the 1892 Act considered the area being restricted to be too large and they were concerned that the restrictions were being extended over too long a period. Richardson questioned whether it was ‘reasonable to call the coast‐lands of Mokau and round Kawhia Harbour’ or the ‘interior around Taupo’ land likely to be affected or benefited by the construction of the railway.451 He considered that the amount of money set aside for the purchasing of land in the restriction area was insufficient and considered that:
the reservation ought to be reduced to something like half the proposed area in this schedule … It should be limited to lines parallel to the proposed line [and] not exceeding, say, two million or two and a half million acres.452
Lake agreed and also had particular concerns about the coastal area being included. He did not object to the Crown purchasing land south of Kawhia but did not support them using the railway loan money to do so.453 Even those who were strongly in favour of restrictions on land in the vicinity of the railway line expressed doubts about the size of the restriction area under the 1892 Bill. William Russell, the Member of the House for
Hawkes Bay, argued that the Bill prevented Maori from dealing with any of their land at all in a very large territory. He considered that the restriction area was ‘not sufficiently defined,’ and that three years was too long for the restrictions to be retained.454 1889–1900
Several of the Maori members were also strongly opposed to the area being restricted Potae, and the length of time the restriction was being extended by. Taipua, the Member for Rohe Western Maori whose constituents were most affected by the Act, again voiced strong the opposition. He stated that he: for
legislation
450 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 354 purchasing 451 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 346 452 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 346 453 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 354 Land 454
NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 345 2. 147
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
opposed the Bill for the reason that he had received a great number of petitions protesting against the measure, and he had received numbers of letters to the same effect. Petitions had been sent to the House quite recently from Natives interested in the land in question, and they protested against the Bill.455
One of these petitions was from Taonui Hikaka and 50 others asking that Native land legislation be amended to allow for restrictions on alienation to be removed.456 Taipua was opposed to the size of the restricted area being increased, saying that ‘if the same boundaries were adopted as had been adopted in the past, then, in his opinion, the objection would not be so great.’ He noted that the extension would ‘include a large quantity of land belonging to the Ngati Maniapoto Tribe, and a large quantity belonging to the Taupo Natives.’ He repeated his former judgment that these measures were ‘tantamount to confiscation.’457 His concerns were echoed by Tame Parata the Member for Southern Maori and William Kelly of the East Coast. 458 Premier Seddon mounted a brief defense on behalf of the Government against these criticisms. He maintained that the restricted area needed to be as large as proposed in order to ‘prevent speculators ‐ those Maori‐land grabbers, if they liked to call them so – from dealing within the area prescribed by the law.’459 These complaints by such a variety and number of MPs suggest that the area covered by these restrictions and their duration were considered excessive and unfair to Maori even at the time they were imposed.
There was also some suspicion amongst Members of the House about the provisions in 1889–1900
the Bill which allowed existing leases or leases already under negotiation to be validated. There was some concern that this could be used as a back‐door way for Potae, Europeans to have their private dealings in the restriction area legalized, with the
support of certain politicians. William Rees, Member for Auckland city stated that this Rohe
provision ‘had a very strange look to it’ and ‘thought the House ought to be informed as the
for to what lands were intended to be affected and as to who the authorities were in whose favour these exemptions were made.’460 Rolleston was concerned that such leases ‘might be granted on the individual feeling of the Minister of the day – to particular legislation
455 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 346 456 AJHR 1891, Sess II, I‐3, p 12: Petition No. 227/1890 of Hikaka Taonui and 50 others, reported on by the Native Affairs Committee on 21 July 1891 purchasing 457 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 346 458 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, pp 353‐355 459 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 351 Land 460
NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 345 2. 148
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 individuals’ and left the impression that the Minister of the day would have the power ‘to determine what were inchoate purchases legally entered into by Europeans and what were not.’461 Seddon reassured the House that the Bill was to meet very specific circumstances. The Bill would not legalize private transactions that had been entered into in defiance of the restrictions on private dealings:
If within the area prescribed there had been attempts at negotiations this Bill would not validated those negotiations. These were all entirely illegal transactions, and it was not left with the Native Minister to determine them in any way.462
Seddon went on to explain, that section 4 was intended to deal with cases of negotiations that had taken place for land outside of the original 1884 restriction area but which, by virtue of the extension of that area in this Bill, would now be within the restriction zone.463
2.2.4 THE NATIVE LAND PURCHASE ACT 1892
Alongside these specific provisions for land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and the wider railway restriction zone, the Liberal Government was also strengthening
provisions for the Crown to assert its pre‐emption and restrict private dealings over any block of Maori land which they intended to purchase or had already begun negotiations for. The Native Land Purchase Act 1892 gave the Crown power to remove restrictions 1889–1900 on alienation which had been placed on blocks of Maori land by the Native Land Court or under various Acts. The removal of these restrictions was to ‘only operate in favour Potae, of the Crown.’464 In addition, the Governor could publish a list of blocks in the New Rohe
Zealand Gazette and in Kahiti, in which the Crown was already negotiating or intended the to negotiate for the acquisition of Maori land. From the date of publication of such a for notice or any date set by the notice, it was unlawful for anyone other than the Crown to deal with the blocks listed.465 These provisions were not new but simply extended powers which had existed since the 1870s. legislation
461 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 350 purchasing 462 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 351 463 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 351 464 The Native Land Purchases Act 1892, s. 14 Land 465
The Native Land Purchases Act 1892, ss. 16‐17 2. 149
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The available evidence suggests that land purchasing officials in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block utilized this mechanism from 1894 onwards. Two gazette notices dated 15 February and 22 March 1894 have been located. Between them they list subdivisions of 25 blocks.466 It might have been expected that Crown officials would use the notices to have Crown pre‐emption restored on the blocks on the western side of the district that were wholly or partly outside the 1892 boundary. Wilkinson was certainly aware of this possibility. In December 1892 Wilkinson reminded Sheridan that he ought to make:
arrangements to gazette those of the Hauturu East & West subdivisions referred to in my memo of 3rd inst that are not within the Railway area otherwise there is nothing to prevent them [Rattenbury and two other Europeans already in negotiation for land in the Mahoenui and Mangaawakino blocks] or others from negotiating for them … where we want to buy Blocks not covered by Proclamation & for which we cannot get a proper deed signed yet through want of proper plan or similar reason.467
Wilkinson went as far as to suggest that because Europeans were getting agreements to sell by making advance payments the Government ought to do the same. He argued that ‘if they can do it safely surely Govt can.’468 The following year Wilkinson began purchasing interests in the Kahakaharoa block on the shores of the Kawhia Harbour
adjacent to the Pirongia West Block. He asked Sheridan to take steps to have it proclaimed under the Native Lands Purchase Act 1892 because it was not covered by the railway loans area.469 1889–1900 However, the proclamation under the 1892 Act also listed many blocks and subdivisions that lay within the 1892 restriction zone. It is curious that it was still considered Potae,
necessary to issue proclamations over particular blocks and subdivisions of blocks Rohe under this Act even though the Crown already had the pre‐emptive right of purchase the within that zone. A number of examples of responses to restrictions under these notices for by Europeans in the throws of leasing or purchasing land are discussed in Chapter 6.
legislation
466 NZ Gazette, 15 February 1894, p 265 (Kahiti, 15 February 1894, pp 91‐93) and NZ Gazette, 22 March 1894, p 457 (Kahiti, 22 March 1894, p 173) 467 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 14 December 1892, NLP 92/171 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt purchasing 468 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 14 December 1892, NLP 92/171 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 469 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 5 June 1893, NLP 93/102 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP Land
1901/52, ANZ Wgt 2. 150
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In areas, such as the inland Mokau district, which lay outside the boundaries of the railway restriction zone between the end of August 1891 and October 1894, there is at least one example that shows that Crown officials were aware of the potential of the proclamations under the 1892 Act for blocking competition from European buyers. Wilkinson recognized that if just one share in a block could be purchased by the Crown the block a notice could be issued giving the Crown sole right to purchase (see the case of the Mahoenui block, section 6.3.5(c) of this report).
2.2.5 THE NATIVE LAND PURCHASE AND ACQUISITION ACT 1893
In 1893 the Liberals introduced additional measures designed to accelerate the rate at which Maori land was being purchased. The preamble to the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893 stated that this was considered necessary because:
the existing law for extinguishing by purchase the Native title over a large proportion of such land fails to afford adequate means for supplying the rapidly increasing demand for land for settlement purposes.470
The legislation enabled Maori to either sell their land to the Crown or vest it in the Crown to be leased on their behalf on the same terms as if it were Crown land.471 However, the Act contained a disincentive to lease land; as the Minister of Lands, John McKenzie, explained to the House those choosing to lease or have their land dealt with under the land laws would ‘have to give a certain area of land sufficient to cover the cost 1889–1900 of surveying and roading the land.’472 These costs did not apply to those who sold their land to the Crown. Potae,
A ‘Native Land Purchase Board’ was to be appointed. The five member board, chaired by Rohe
the Surveyor General, would consist of various government officials plus the Maori MP the
473 for
for the district, and a ‘Maori Commissioner’ who was to be a Maori. The Act could only come into effect in ‘such areas of Native territory’ as the Governor proclaimed by Gazette notice.474 These provisions were acknowledged to be experimental, Richard legislation Seddon, Premier and Native Minister, told the House that the Government would at first
470 The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893, preamble purchasing 471 The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893, s. 7 472 NZPD, Vol. 81, 1893, p 514 473 The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893, ss. 3 and 4 Land 474
The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893, s. 4 2. 151
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 only allow proclamations to cover small areas ‘to see what the Natives will do to meet the Government in this respect.’ No proclamation was to remain in place for more than three years.475 Seddon thought that the Government would try the scheme out in ‘certain districts, where settlement is retarded’, if were successful it was hoped that Maori in other districts would embrace the scheme.476
Once a district was established the Governor could ask the Board to report to him on the suitability of the land for settlement. The value of the land was to be ‘fixed by three indifferent persons’, including one appointed by the owners.477 This provision was eagerly embraced by hapu and iwi leaders in the Rohe Potae. Chapter 6 examines attempts by owners to use this provision to obtain better prices for their land from the Crown during the 1890s. No valuation could be made, however, without the consent of the owners, meaning that no report could be completed without their approval. 478 On receipt of the Board’s report the Governor could proceed, if he wished, to notify the owners requiring them to decide either to sell the land to the Crown at the value fixed by the Board; or to vest the land in the Crown ‘in trust for the Native owners thereof and their heirs’, to be leased under the terms of the Land Act.479 So this Act seems to have offered a way for Maori owners to have their land freed from the restrictions on private
dealings.
In addition, if the Board considered it ‘inadvisable’ to recommend to the Governor that 1889–1900 Maori land within a proclaimed area be acquired or at least two‐thirds of the Maori owners petitioned Parliament to have the proclamation withdrawn the proclamation Potae,
could be revoked. Provided the land was held in an unrestricted title, Maori owners Rohe could dispose of the land ‘either by sale or lease, and not otherwise, to any person the whomsoever.’ This had to be done by public auction and the area of rural land being for disposed of could not exceed 640 acres of first class land, or 2,000 acres of second class land, or 10,000 acres of pastoral land per auction. The land would be offered for sale under section 67 of the Land Act 1892.480 It is unclear whether hapu and iwi leaders in legislation
475 The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893, s. 34 476 NZPD, Vol. 81, 1893, p 520 purchasing 477 The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893, s. 6 478 The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893, s. 6 479 The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893, s. 7 and s. 11 Land 480
The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893, s. 26 2. 152
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the Rohe Potae were aware that these provisions offered a way out of the restrictions on private leasing and selling that they faced under the railway loans legislation. They were certainly aware of the other aspects of the Act, especially the provision for independent valuation before land was sold to the Crown, and may have discussed the Act as a whole with Seddon in 1894 (that meeting is discussed in Chapter 5).
Much of the parliamentary debate on the Bill focused on whether it was a compulsory measure, or, if it was truly voluntary, whether Maori would engage with the scheme and provide sufficient land for settlement. As far as can be determined, no districts were ever proclaimed under this Act, so that if a Board was ever formed, it was never able to function as intended. 481 In any case it seems to have proved unnecessary; the following year Seddon noted that Maori ‘had offered their land so freely that it had not been considered necessary to apply the provisions in any single case.’482
2.2.6 THE NATIVE LAND COURT ACT 1894
By 1894 the railway restriction area had been in place more or less continually for a decade, with considerable variations in its boundaries. The Native Land Court Act 1894
introduced full Crown pre‐emption and prohibition of private dealings over all Maori land in the country, and as a result the railway restriction zone was abolished.483 By the end of the same year railway loans funding for purchasing land in the railway 1889–1900
restriction area was exhausted and from that point on land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block was funded from the general land purchasing account. While there Potae, was certainly considerable land purchasing in the inquiry district after 1894 the
separate and distinctive stream of legislation that had been in place over the district Rohe
merged almost entirely with legislation which applied to the whole of the North Island. the
for
Therefore, it has been decided to limit discussion of legislation from 1894 onwards to a summary, except where measures explicitly relate to the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block.
The Native Land Court Act 1894 made it unlawful for anyone other than the Crown to legislation
acquire ‘any estate or interest in any land owned or held by a Native or Natives.’ The
purchasing
481 See Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, pp 169‐170 482 NZPD, Vol. 83, 1894, p 58 Land 483
The Native Land Court Act 1894, s. 117 2. 153
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 only exceptions related to the completion of bona fide purchases or leases.484 Several measures were introduced that offered limited opportunities for owners to sell and lease their land privately. Parts II and III of this Act allowed owners of Maori land to form an incorporation, with the body corporate headed by a committee nominated by the owners and sanctioned by the court. This gave owners some powers to alienate land with the consent of their district’s Commissioner of Crown Lands.485 Section 4 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895 made some provision for restrictions under section 117 to be lifted over specific blocks to accommodate leases.486
Under the Native Land Court Act 1894 leases and sales to Europeans by hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block faced a higher level of scrutiny that elsewhere in the country. The Act made provision for ‘any person’ who had purchased or leased Native land or was in the process of doing so before the Act was passed to bring their case before the Chief Judge of the district within six months of the Act coming into operation. If on investigation the transaction was found to be bona fide then a certificate of confirmation would be issued. This then allowed a European who had leased or purchased a half‐share in the land to lease the other half share for 21 years within 12 months of this certificate being issued.487 However, this means of legistimising existing
private leases and sales was not available for land within the 1884 railway restriction zone ‘except in the case of leases for which the Trust Commissioner has given his certificate prior to the passing of this Act.’488 This did not expressly forbid private 1889–1900
dealings in the Rohe Potae inquiry district but it effectively retained the restrictions that Potae, had been in place almost constantly since 1884. Leases and purchases arranged between Europeans and Maori owners after the date of the Act would not be legally Rohe
recognized, and only those that had been investigated and confirmed by the Trust the
Commissioners prior to October 1894 had any legal status. Potentially this made private for
leasing and selling less attractive to Europeans thinking about entering such arrangements with Maori owners in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. legislation
484 The Native Land Court Act 1894, s.117 purchasing 485 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 171 486 Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo...’, 2008, p 577 487 The Native Land Court Act 1894, s. 118 Land 488
The Native Land Court Act 1894, s. 118 and Second Schedule 2. 154
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
During debate on the Native Land Purchases Act 1892 and the Native Land Court Act 1894 there was considerable discussion about the reintroduction of Crown pre‐ emption, but this was intertwined with ‘comments about the purchase of Maori lands by the Crown (past, present and future) and about Maori land administration.’489 Restoration of Crown pre‐emption over the North Island faced considerable opposition. The Member of the House for Eden, Edwin Mitchelson ‘claimed that three of the four Maori Members (‘if not four’) opposed this measure and observed that ‘a very large number of petitions’ against it had been received, ‘sent both by Europeans who reside on the East Coast and by Natives,’ while several chiefs had appeared before the Native Affairs Committee ‘protesting and making powerful speeches against the passage of that particular part of the Bill.’490 William Russell of Hawkes Bay stated that in his understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi that the pre‐emptive provision of Article Two only gave the Crown the first right of purchase, and this supported his strong opinion that there ought to be a free trade in Maori land.491 He finished by concluding that the right of pre‐emption was as much ‘in violation of the rights of the Native people’ in 1894 as it had been in 1862.492
As had been the case during the 1880s, several politicians argued that there were viable
alternatives to imposing blanket restrictions on private transactions. William Massey, Member of the House for Waitemata and later Prime Minister, argued that Maori ought to be allowed to ‘treat for the sale of their lands with bona fide European settlers.’ In 1889–1900
response to those who considered this impossible and feared that Maori ‘would be Potae, swindled, and the land be bought for speculative purposes’ Massey reminded the House that the Government had managed ‘to prevent land speculation very effectively in the Rohe
case of Crown lands’ and he considered that Maori land could be treated in exactly the the
for
489 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 172 490 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 172 citing NZPD, Vol. 86, 1894, p 464. legislation
Reports of petitions dealt with by the Native Affairs Select Committee in 1893 show that 22 petitons were received from Maori protesting against the passing of the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Bill, and other Bills relating to Native Affairs (AJHR 1893, I‐3, p 18, No. s 411, 422 etc) and 9 petitions were received from Maori and Europeans in 1894 asking that the clauses relating to the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase be removed from the Native Land Court Bill (AJHR 1894, I‐3, p 9, No.s 622, 680 etc). One of these petitions, 1894/618 was submitted by the Whanganui leader, Meiha Keepa Te Rangihiwinui purchasing (Major Kemp) and 649 others. A search of the Parliamentary Library and the LE 1 series at Archives New Zealand failed to locate copies of speeches before the Native Affairs Select Committee by chiefs in 1894. 491 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 172 citing NZPD, Vol. 86, 1894, pp 378‐380 Land 492
Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 172 citing NZPD, Vol. 86, 1894, pp 378‐380 2. 155
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 same way, through Waste Land Boards or some similar board or committee.493 Henry Williams, Member of the Legislative Council for Auckland, asked why two systems could not sit side by side. In his view large areas could be subject to Crown pre‐emption and purchased by the Government and smaller pieces of land, particularly steeper land suitable for pastoral farming rather than close settlement, would be purchased by private enterprise. He pointed out that a number of recent Acts (the Native Land Purchase Act 1892, the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893 and the Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquisition Act 1894) provided sufficient mechanisms and flexibility for this. He argued that the frauds prevention Acts ‘furnish a sufficient guarantee that the Natives would not be imposed upon by the settlers under free‐ trade.’494
However, Premier Seddon continued to argue that it was necessary to stop all private dealings in order to protect Maori from fraud and improper influences. He considered that the restoration of pre‐emption was necessary because wherever Crown‐funded development was underway ‘the land‐grabber, the land‐shark, the Pakeha‐Maori is at work, and we must not allow that to go on … We have a right to put our foot down and stop it.’495 But as we have seen, these measures also advanced the Crown’s long‐
standing goal of acquiring large areas of Maori land for European settlement in the railway restriction zone by eliminating competition from private buyers. Although several changes were made before the 1894 Natiev Land Court Bill was passed there 1889–1900 was no chance of the Government abandoning its decision to restore the pre‐emptive Potae, right. ‘Despite the volume and intensity of the arguments mounted against it – notably by Hone Heke of Northern Maori – the legislation evidently passed without much Rohe difficulty.’496 the
for There was considerable Maori criticism of and opposition to the reassertion of Crown pre‐emption in 1894. Such protests were supported by the Kingitanga, and by the Kotahitanga; a movement that had begun taking shape in the 1880s amongst the tribes legislation of the North Auckland, East Coast and Hawkes Bay regions and culminated in the first
493 NZPD, Vol. 86, 1894, p 475 purchasing 494 NZPD, Vol. 86, 1894, p 657 495 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, pp 172‐173 citing NZPD, Vol. 86, 1894,
pp 370‐375 Land 496
Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 173 2. 156
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Maori Parliament in 1892. Both movements focused on strengthening Maori society through self‐government and retention of the land. In particular, in 1895 there were attempts to organize a nationwide boycott of the Native Land Court.497 It is unclear how prolonged or widespread this boycott was in the Rohe Potae inquiry district. In April 1895, applicants to the court from Kawhia withdrew their claims from the court which was then sitting at Otorohanga. The newspaper noted that:
the Court would not grant the withdrawal of the claims; still it has no power to force the applicants to proceed with their claims. Therefore, having placed their desire before the Court, they will stand aloof, and give it no work to do.498
Despite the court’s refusal to sanction the withdrawal of their claims it was reported that those involved ‘are combined, and the feeling is hardening.’499 A few weeks later, on 4 May 1895, it was reported that the Kawhia people who had withdrawn their claims had returned home. Their protests clearly had an impact on the court, the newspaper noting that over a three day period the court ‘has opened for the half‐day only and adjourned again, literally doing no work.’500 However, around the North Island the boycott had little impact with the Government dismissing it as an attempt to resurrect the ‘land leagues’ of the 1850s.501
As the discussion of policy and legislation throughout the 1880s indicates Ngati Maniapoto and other hapu and iwi within the railway restriction zone had constantly protested about the restrictions that had been placed on their land. As the negotiations 1889–1900
between the Crown and Wahanui and his people during 1891 and 1892 will show, this Potae, discontent continued into the 1890s. In 1897, Rohe Potae and Whanganui Maori petitioned Parliament over ‘the injustice under which we suffer through the Rohe
Government alone having the right to purchase our land.’ Tukino Te Heuheu of Ngati the
Tuwharetoa submitted an identical petition at the same time.’502 for
legislation
497 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 177 498 ‘The Native Land Court at Otorohanga – Withdrawal of the Kawhia Tribe’, New Zealand Herald, 27 April 1895, p 5 499 ‘The Native Land Court at Otorohanga – Withdrawal of the Kawhia Tribe’, New Zealand Herald, 27 April 1895, p 5 purchasing 500 ‘The Natives and the Land Court’, New Zealand Herald, 4 May 1895, p 5 501 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 177 citing NZPD, Vol. 87, 1895, pp 1‐3 502 Pepene Eketone and 163 others, Petition No. 217 in J 1, 1897/1516, and Tukino Te Heuheu, Petition Land
321/1897 in LE 1, 1897/9, both at ANZ Wgt 2. 157
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
2.3 FUNDING FOR LAND PURCHASING AFTER 1890 AND THE END OF THE RAILWAY LOAN FUNDING IN 1894
Not only were the 1890s characterized by the Crown’s increasingly tight grip on Maori land through restrictions on private dealings and Crown pre‐emption, the amount of money available to pay for Native land continued to rise to keep pace with the Crown’s purchasing activities. From 1889 to 1894 the Government increased the amount of money available to land purchasing from the railway loan. These increases coincided with and were critical to the operation of the first five years of the Crown’s land purchasing programme in the Rohe Potae inquiry district.
Just prior to the start of the land purchasing in the inquiry district, the railway loan legislation was amended to increase the amount of money which could be taken from the loan for land purchasing purposes from £100,000 to £220,285. Of the total sum, £100,000 was to be used to complete and make further land purchases within the two parts of the railway restriction zone whose boundaries were laid out in the schedule to the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889.503 The increase in funding was necessary because by this time ‘most of the initial £100,000
raised from the North Island Main Trunk Railway loan had already been spent on purchases in the Taihape, Taupo and Whanganui areas within the railway restriction area.’504 This led the Minister of Public Works to propose that another £100,000 of the 1889–1900 North Island Main Trunk loan be used to purchase a ‘large area of Native land suitable for settlement … at both ends of the line, and within easy reach of it.’505 A view was Potae,
expressed that ‘construction should not continue until this proposed purchasing Rohe programme was complete.’506 the
The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889 for marked the end of a separate pool of funding for land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and the railway restriction zone generally. The Native Land Purchases Act legislation
503 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889, s. 3, particularly s.3(2) 504 By 1889, 566,179 acres of land at a total cost of £71,693 had been acquired within the area defined by purchasing the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884 (Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, pp 91‐92 citing AJHR 1889, G‐ 3, pp 3‐4) 505 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 92 citing AJHR 1889, D‐1, p 4 Land 506
Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 92 citing AJHR 1889, D‐1, p 4 2. 158
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1892 empowered the Colonial Treasurer to borrow money each year for the purposes of land purchasing as long as the annual amount borrowed was not more than £50,000.507 There appeared to be widespread support for further funds for land purchasing with several members of the House considered that the amount should be doubled to £100,000.508
By the end of 1894 the railway loans funding allocated for Maori land purchase within the alienation restriction area had been exhausted. These funds had been used to purchase land in many blocks in the northern, eastern and southern parts of the Rohe Potae inquiry district. These blocks are shown shaded in Figure 8. Government purchases continued throughout the district in the 1890s using funds from the general ‘Native Lands Purchase Account.’509 The Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquisition Act 1894 provided for a further £250,000 to be raised and set aside in a separate Crown account called ‘The Native Lands Purchase Account.’510 This money could be used for the construction of roads and bridges to give access to Maori land already purchased.511
The linking of alienation of these blocks of land with the word ‘railway’ has been the
source of considerable confusion and misconceptions about how this land passed from Maori to Crown ownership. In particular, claimants speaking at the Mokau oral and traditional hui at Mokau on 17‐18 May 2010 stated that the Waiaraia, Umukaimata and 1889–1900 Taurangi blocks were ‘taken’ by the Crown for a railway that was proposed but never completed, and the land was not returned.512 It is true that one of the routes proposed Potae,
and explored for the main trunk line was via Mokau. There were on‐again off‐again Rohe attempts to explore and survey such a route from 1878 until 1883, some years before the the purchasing of these blocks began in 1891/92.513 for
But there is no evidence to suggest that these purchases were in any way different from others in the inquiry district. They were all part of its large‐scale purchasing of Maori
legislation
507 The Native Land Purchase Act 1892, s. 3 508 NZPD, Vol. 77, 1892, p 225 and 228 509 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, pp 97‐98 510 The Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquisition Act 1894, s. 12 purchasing 511 The Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquisition Act 1894, s. 14 512 Transcript of the Rohe Potae Inquiry Oral and Traditional Hui No. 5, Mokau 17‐18 May 2020: Evidence
of Mark Bidios, p 16 Land 513
Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, pp 43‐44 citing AJHR 1878, G3, pp 46, 53 & 76 2. 159
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 land in the Rohe Potae inquiry district and within the wider boundaries of the restriction zone set up under the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884, and subsequently modified by various Acts until 1894. Land for the railway line and stations was gifted by hapu and iwi and other land required for railway operations was taken under the Public Works legislation. It is difficult to know to what extent today’s oral accounts reflect the understandings of the owners of these blocks during the purchasing of the 1890s.
The money used to pay for this land came out of a fund to support the purchase of land for settlement in the extensive zone around the railway line not for railway construction. However, profits from the onselling of this land to settlers were required by law to be used to fund ongoing construction of the railway. The Crown established a separate account under the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889 for these profits and kept track of how much was received and how much was expended on railway construction between 1899 and 1913 when this account was closed. During that 15 year period the Crown made over a quarter of a million pounds profit (£269,423.5.5) from onselling the Maori land it bought in the North Island, all of which was expended on public works (Table 9).514
1889–1900
Potae,
Rohe
the
for
legislation
purchasing
Land 514
These figures were compiled and supplied by Mark McGee, Counsel for claimants 2. 160
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS UNDER THE NORTH ISLAND MAIN TRUNK RAILWAY LOAN APPLICATION ACT AMENDMENT ACT 1889 FOR 1899–1913
Receipts Expenditure Year ending 31 March £sd£sd 1899 53,388 4 6 48,653 1 0 1900 8,572 13 3 10,503 6 11 1901 9,449 7 8 7,486 2 11 1902 8,238 12 5 11,011 9 9 1903 10,317 4 3 4,590 6 2 1904 12,070 0 1 1,138 7 3 1905 9,010 18 8 18,740 1 1 1906 9,427 12 9 6,153 7 3 1907 15,279 8 9 19,508 1 10 1908 24,249 8 4 6,247 0 7 1909 17,934 0 5 37,617 5 8 1910 20,481 17 3 1,008 13 0 1911 24,283 2 4 10,000 5 6 1912 33,663 3 9 3,586 18 7 1913 13,057 11 0 83,178 17 11 Total 269,423 5 5 269,423 5 5
By the end of 1894, with a virtual monopoly position as purchaser in the North Island and ample funds the Seddon administration was equipped to pursue large‐scale land purchasing. Consequently the amount of Maori land purchased ‘rose steadily from 352,581 acres in 1893‐94 to 385,671 acres the following year, then leapt to 516,055 acres (the high point in the Liberal era) in 1895‐96.’515 By 1896, all of the money 1889–1900
approved by Parliament for the purchase of Maori land was declared exhausted.516 As a Potae,
result the Colonial Treasurer, Joseph Ward proposed that another £250,000 be provided to continue the land purchasing programme. In the ensuing debate Seddon Rohe boasted about the absence of opposition to the idea of raising another £250,000 for land the
purchase and declared this was an indication that the Government’s policies had the for
unanimous support of the House and the country.517
legislation
purchasing
515 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 174 516 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 176 citing NZPD, Vol. 93, 1896, p 168‐169 Land 517
Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 176 citing NZPD, Vol. 93, 1896, p 385 2. 161
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 8: MAP SHOWING BLOCKS IN WHICH PURCHASES WERE CARRIED OUT USING FUNDS RAISED UNDER THE NORTH ISLAND MAIN TRUNK LOAN APPLICATION ACTS AND AMENDMENTS BY 1894
(Source: Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, Wai 898, #A20, figure 12, p 96)
162
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
2.4 THE DECISION TO CEASE LAND PURCHASING, 1897–1899
By 1897, there were signs that the Seddon Government was considering bringing Crown purchasing to a halt and renewing its focus on the administration and leasing of Maori land instead. This change of direction was first articulated by Seddon in 1897 in reply to a question about progress in purchasing Native land. It seems that this change was at least partly a response to what Seddon admitted had been ‘difficulty in connection with the proposed acquisition of land in the King Country.’ He told the House that ‘he had a scheme under way’ to deal with such difficulties:
By which the Government would constitute a Board, composed of elective members of the Native race, to take over the whole of the land from the Natives, and deal with them in the same way as Crown lands, simply giving the Natives the proceeds derived from the leasing of the land.518
This proposal was in fact very like that favoured by Ballance in 1884 and legislated for in 1886 and 1893. ‘The prohibition on all sales, however, was a new ingredient for any plan put forward as a government measure.’519 But the reasons for reintroducing boards and halting Crown purchasing at this particular time are not entirely clear. Loveridge described the Government’s decision to halt purchasing as somewhat puzzling because the land purchasing programme was far from completed. He noted that by 1897 the Liberals had acquired ‘less than half of their nominated target‐figure’ in terms of acres. Nor had demand for land slackened. The economy was booming during this period, so 1889–1900 there was considerable demand from settlers for land, and in general Maori landowners seemed as willing as ever to sell land.520 Potae,
It is possible that the Liberals may have become increasingly concerned about Maori Rohe
landlessness, and feared that Maori would become a burden on the state. From at least the
for
1891 there had been concerns about landless Maori in the adjacent Waikato district where only a relatively small amount of land had been return to Maori after the confiscations of the 1860s.521 In 1898, Henare Kaihau, the Member for Western Maori legislation whose electorate included the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, asked if or when restrictions on private dealings would be removed from land in the district as requested in the 1897
purchasing 518 NZPD, Vol. 100, 1897, p 867 519 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 181 520 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 178 Land 521
NZPD, Vol. 72, 1891, p 136. Also see NZPD, Vol. 102, 1898, pp 185‐186 2. 163
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 petition. By way of reply Seddon stated that under the Native Land Court Act 1894 application had to be made to have restrictions removed. He did not favour ‘free trade’ in Maori land, as he feared that Ngati Maniapoto would also become landless.522 When asked by Kaihau whether the Government intended to cease purchasing in the Rohe Potae, Seddon assured him that legislation would soon be submitted to the House to call a halt to purchasing. He considered that this was necessary because ‘if the purchasing continued, the result must inevitably be that there would be a large number of landless Natives who would ultimately be a burden to the colony.’523 In July 1897, the court expressed fears that Ngati Hikairo, who were owners of land in the Kawhia, Pirongia West and Mangauika blocks, would be left without sufficient land if minors’ interests in Pirongia West were sold.524 Time did not permitted a systematic search of the court’s minute books, but further research may well bring to light other examples of landlessness in the inquiry district.
However, in 1899 Kaihau was very concerned about a number of elderly owners who had allegedly been told by Government officials that they needed to sell all their land if they were to qualify for a pension, and the risk this posed in terms of landlessness. Kaihau stated that he would:
endeavour to explain to the House what seems to me to be the position of affairs. There are a large number of old people in the district known as the Rohepotae, and these old Maoris in the Rohepotae district have – a number of them – 1889–1900 become applicants for pensions under “The Old‐age Pensions Act.” They have called upon and interviewed the resident Government official in that district, and
the reply which they have received from that Government official is this: that it is Potae,
not competent for them to become applicants for old‐age pensions under the Act
unless they first of all sell all the land they possess to the Crown. That is the Rohe position as represented to them, and if they sell all their land they will be left the absolutely landless, and when they have rendered themselves landless it will for
then be competent for them to draw pensions under the Act. I should say there are about fifty very old Maoris in that district.525
Another possible factor in the decision to halt purchasing was that by the late 1890s the legislation
Crown had acquired far more land than they could immediately handle: between 1893 and 1897 they had acquired 1.6 million acres, but had only manage to dispose of
purchasing 522 NZPD, Vol. 102, 1898, p 185 523 NZPD, Vol. 102, 1898, pp 187‐188 524 Otorohanga Native Land Court Minute Book, Vol. 28, p 261 Land 525
NZPD, Vol. 108, 1899, p 636 2. 164
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
210,000 acres of this.526 The Government also faced pressure from Maori political movements in the 1890s, including the Kingitanga and the Kotahitanga, and petitions from owners of Maori land which sought greater hapu and iwi control of their remaining land.527
The land administration scheme was set out more fully in the Native Lands Settlement and Administration Bill 1898. The country was to be divided into Native districts, each with a board of three Crown appointed officials and two elected Maori representatives. Maori in district were to vote as to whether they wanted to come under the Act. Unused Maori land was to be leased and no land vested in the board was to be sold or occupied with a right to purchase. ‘Neither Crown nor private purchasing, in other words, would be permitted.’528
Before the Bill was read for the first time in the House James Carroll (now Colonial Secretary, and de‐facto assistant Native Minister to Seddon) stated that halting purchasing of Native land by the Crown and by private individuals would ‘conserve to the Natives, in the interests of settlement and general colonization, the balance of the lands that are left in their hands.’ Carroll considered this particularly important as the approximately five million acres remaining in Maori ownership was only on average ‘of a very indifferent quality’. But he was of the opinion that a halt to purchasing alone would not benefit the colony or Maori, an administration mechanism was needed so 1889–1900 that land would not ‘lie idle, unutilized, and bringing nothing in.’529 Although this Bill went to Committee, the measures were placed on hold while extensive consultations Potae,
with Maori around the country took place over the final shape of the administration Rohe provisions. 530 Meanwhile, in 1899, the decision to halt purchasing of Native land was the translated into legislation. for
526 Hearn, 2008, p 271 citing Alan Ward, National Overview, Vol. II, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui legislation
series, Wellington, 1997, p 248 527 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 129 citing John A Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, Protest and Cooperation, 1891–1927, Auckland, 1969 528 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 179. Land could be taken for public works, with compensation (Cl. 19) and outstanding Crown and private dealings could be completed (Cl. 37 & 38). Copy of the Bill can be found in ‘Report on the Native land Settlement and Administration Bill; with purchasing Petitions and Minutes of Evidence, ’AJHR 1898, I‐3A 529 NZPD, Vol. 101, 1898, pp 88‐89 530 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 181. Nothing specific about this consultation Land
in the Rohe Potae has been found. There was a meeting between King Mahuta, the Governor and Henare 2. 165
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1899 prohibited the alienation of Maori land to the Crown by way of sale. In cases where a transaction was already underway it could be ‘completed in so far only as is necessary for the adjustment of boundaries and partition of the respective interests of the Crown and Native owners.’531 This clause was included in the Act to enable the numerous purchases the Crown was already involved in to be completed. It was also a holding measure until wider reforms to the administration of Native land could be drafted. It was considered that as Parliament was ‘unable to pass a Bill dealing comprehensively with the administration of Native lands, they ought to put an embargo on all transactions between now and next session.’532
The Maori Lands Administration Act 1900 ushered in this new regime of Maori land administration. It established District Maori Land Councils, which were operating in the Waikato and Ngati Maniapoto‐Tuwharetoa districts between 1902 and 1905. These were converted to District Maori Land Boards by the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905. This Act also empowered the Crown to resume purchasing Maori land where the majority of owners were in favour of selling.533
This new regime, the response to it by Maori communities and the outcome in terms of
land alienation in the Rohe Potae inquiry district will be covered by Terry Hearn in his twentieth century land alienation report for this inquiry. 1889–1900 2.5 CONCLUSION Potae,
By 1888/1889 there had been significant change in the inquiry district. The Main Trunk Railway line was being constructed through blocks in the north and centre of the Rohe
district, reaching Otorohanga in March 1887. Despite opposition from hapu and iwi the
leaders, the Native Land Court had entered the district in 1886 and the title to the Rohe for
Potae (Aotea) block was being investigated, and the block was progressively subdivided into smaller units. The circumstances surrounding the introduction of the court into the
legislation
Kaihau (MP for Western Maori) in Auckland in March 1899 that discussed ‘legislation put forward by Kaihau’ but no mention was made of a halt to purchasing (Editoral, Waikato Argus, 21 March 1899, p 2) 531 The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1899, s. 3 532 NZPD, Vol. 110, 1899, p 899 purchasing 533 The Maori Land Settlement Act 1905, s. 20. The Stout‐Ngata Commission considered that this provision was ‘contrary to natural justice’ because the Crown could complete its title to a whole block
irrespective of the wishes of the minority or ‘non‐sellers’ (Hearn, 2008, p 318 citing AJHR, 1907, Land
G‐1B, p 5) 2. 166
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 district will be dealt with by Husbands and Mitchell in their report on the Native Land Court and land purchasing for this inquiry. Lists of owners, often reluctantly submitted by hapu and iwi, and the survey of the external boundaries of many blocks enabled the Crown to begin its programme of purchasing from individual owners in late 1889. A period of frustration for the Crown from 1889 until about 1893 meant that the expected flow of land did not eventuate. Contributing factors such as Maori resistance to land selling and to having the relative interests of owners defined by the court as well as delays in surveying blocks are examined in Chapters 3 and 4.
These developments on the ground were certainly reflected in and substantially shaped policy and legislation relating to the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block during the 1889 to 1894 period. By January 1890, £100,000 of railway loan money was specifically set aside to for the purchase of Maori land two target areas, one of which covered the northern and central‐northern area of Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. This reflected the fact that the Crown had prioritized this land at the start of its land purchasing programme in the district. How this came about is dealt with in Chapter 3. This targeted area, in which Crown pre‐emption and restrictions on alienation applied, was initially intended to run for two years from 1 January 1890 until 1 January 1892. The rationale behind this was that the Crown had purchased some land in the priority area in the last few months of 1889 and the Native Minister hoped that by extending the restrictions and targeted funding the Crown would be able to purchase a very large portion of that area within 1889–1900 the next three years. Potae,
With purchasing underway these measures, whose foundations had been laid from Rohe 1884, became critical to the Crown’s long‐held ambition to acquire large areas of the the district for European settlement. They ensured that the Crown had no competition as a for land buyer and could set the price that would be paid to Maori. For these reasons it was unlikely from this point on that these restrictions would be lifted before the Crown had acquired a significant amount of land. In fact the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase legislation and prohibition on private dealings between Maori and European were repeatedly rolled over in railway loans legislation until 1894. These measures became entrenched and increasingly came to be regarded as the most appropriate way to deal with the purchasing Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. The Government continued to cite the dangers of speculators Land
as a reason for maintaining the restrictions. This stance was reinforced after 1890 by 2. 167
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the Liberal Government’s economic and philosophic objections to land monopolies by any private individuals, Maori or European.
However, other politicians argued that an all‐or‐nothing approach was not required and that there were feasible alternatives to blanket restrictions on private dealings, which would allow Maori to lease to bona fide settlers but ensure that no European individual or company was able to buy or aggregate large areas of land. In particular, a number of politicians and hapu and iwi leaders suggested that these restrictions were excessive. Some noted that Maori communities in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block were uniquely disadvantaged because they had faced these severe constrains on their ability to deal with their land for such a prolonged period. For example, in 1891 the proposal to extend the restrictions over the targeted funding area for three years was strongly opposed by Hoani Taipua, the Member of the House for Western Maori, in whose constituency the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block was located. He considered it particularly unjust that hapu had borne the cost of subdividing the land but were prevented from leasing them to whoever they chose. He pointed out that Maori in other parts of the country had long had this freedom and had benefited from it and yet the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block had been ‘locked up’ in this way since 1884. This was, in his view, particularly unfair when Maori in the King Country had showed their willingness to co‐ operate with the Crown by coming out of the isolation of the aukati and ‘submitted to the laws of the colony.’ James Carroll, who had served as a commissioner inquiring into 1889–1900
Native land law in 1891, objected to the size of the restriction area stating it had long Potae, been excessive. He argued that it ought to be reduced because the Government had fixed the route of the railway and should by then have had a clear idea of how much land it Rohe required. In his view the restriction zone should have included just the land the Crown the
definitely wanted to purchase. for
Maori Members of the House were not alone in protesting that the restrictions had been particularly onerous for Maori in the King Country. George Hutchinson, the Member of legislation the House for Waitotara described the restriction area as large and indiscriminate with many blocks being a considerable distance from the railway line they were allegedly supporting. He argued that the restrictions had been very injurious to Maori interests. purchasing William Kelly a Member of the House for the East Coast was even more vocal in Land
opposition to the restrictions being extended, stating that it amounted to a ‘practical 2. 168
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 confiscation’ of the whole area. These complaints suggest that by the early 1890s at least some politicans believed that the extent and duration of the restrictions placed on Maori and their land in the inquiry district were excessive and detrimental to Maori interests.
During the period between 1891 and 1894 Taipua and Carroll, as well as a number of European politicians considered that a compromise with regard to restriction on private dealings was both warranted and achievable. Carroll proposed that speculators could be guarded against by restricting the amount of land which could be acquired or leased by any single European. Similarly, Taipua was of the opinion that once the land had been dealt with by the court Maori should be allowed to lease smaller blocks (up to 2,000 or possibly 5,000 acres) directly to Europeans, even if the restrictions remained on larger areas. Several of the European Members set out their ideas about what a workable compromise on the extent of the restrictions might look like. William Massey, Member of the House for Waitemata and later Prime Minister, considered that there was a strong case from King Country Maori to be able to negotiate sales of land with bona fide European settlers. Against those who argued that Maori would be taken advantage of in such dealings or speculators would gain a foothold Massey argued that such issues had been successfully dealt with in the case of Crown land and he could not see why the same mechanisms could not be applied to Maori land. In the Legislative Council in 1894, Henry Williams of Auckland put forward a similar solution to that 1889–1900
Hoani Taipua had proposed in 1891: that large restricted areas could sit side by side Potae, with smaller blocks where Maori would be free to deal with Europeans. He maintained that this could be achieved using existing land legislation and laws which protected Rohe
Maori from fraudulent dealings. This certainly suggests that the there were viable the
alternatives to the blanket prohibition on private dealings should the Crown have for chosen to develop them.
Instead the Liberal Government expanded the restriction zone again in 1892 to cover legislation almost the same territory that had been restricted in 1884. By the end of 1892 purchasing of Maori land within the priority area of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block which had been set up in 1889 had not been as extensive as the Crown had hoped. The Native purchasing Minister explained that the rationale for extending the boundaries of the railway zone Land
was that the money that had not been used there could be deployed in land purchases 2. 169
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 elsewhere along the railway. This decision can also be seen as part of more general moves by the Liberal Government to accelerate the rate of land purchasing in the country. It was also in keeping with the progressive re‐establishment of Crown pre‐ emption and restrictions on alienations over the North Island as whole. This began with the power for the Government to declare restrictions over blocks of land it had begun purchasing or planned to purchase by proclamation under the Native Land Purchase Act 1892 and was completed when the Native Land Court Act 1894 re‐established full Crown pre‐emption and restrictions on alienation over the whole of the North Island.
As it had done during the second half of the 1880s, the Liberals coupled their restrictive measures with money to enable officials to purchase Maori land in the railway restriction zone. Up until this zone was disestablished in 1894, a proportion of this money continued to be provided from the railway loan. As the Crown’s purchasing programme got underway in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in 1889 the total amount of money available from this source for land purchasing was increased from £100,000 to £220,285. One hundred thousand pounds of this was to be spent in the ‘targeted’ areas sets out in the schedule, this included the area idenitified by Wilkinson as a focus of purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. The increase was necessary because much had already been expended purchasing land in other parts of the 1884 restriction zone. This boost in funding coincided with and was critical to land purchasing in the inquiry district until 1894. 1889–1900
By 1894, the legislative and policy framework which had been in place over the Rohe Potae,
Potae (Aotea) block since 1884 was dissolved into the mainstream of the Liberal Rohe Government’s Native Land policies. Maori within the Rohe Potae had been vigorously the opposing the Crown’s pre‐emption and restrictions on their ability to deal with for Europeans to lease and sell their land since 1887, just three years after the railway restriction zone was first established. Those protests, and attempts to have the restrictions removed, gathered momentum during the 1891–1894 period. During that legislation time there were a series of meetings between hapu and iwi leaders and successive Native Ministers, these are dealt with Chapter 5. However, after Crown pre‐emption was re‐established over the whole country in 1894 Maori from many other regions voiced purchasing their opposition. There was a largely unsuccessful nationwide boycott of the Native Land
Land Court in 1895 and there was opposition from the Kotahitanga movement. The 2. 170
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 extent of the boycott in the Rohe Potae is not clear, nor is it known why it ultimately failed at a national level.
Similarly, the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889 marked the end of a separate stream of funding for purchasing in the railway restriction zone. The Native Land Purchases Act 1892 enabled the Colonial Treasurer to borrow up to £50,000 per year to fund land purchasing across the country. In addition, a further £250,000 could be raised and set aside in a separate Crown account called ‘The Native Lands Purchase Account.’ By the end of 1894, railway loan funds were exhausted and purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block became dependant on this general land fund.
The use of railway loan money to purchase land for European settlement has caused confusion amongst the claimant community, some of whom believe that because it was purchase with ‘railway loan money’ it must have been intented as land for railway lines and other infrastructure that contributed directly to the operation of the railway system. This is not the case, this land was purchased with the intention of on‐selling it to European settlers, who would then farm it and contribute to the prosperity of the district and the viability of the railway. Profits from the sale of this land to settlers were required by law to be used to pay for the railway’s construction. Statistics show that between 1899 and 1913 the Crown made over a quarter of a million pounds in profit 1889–1900 from such land sales, and this was all spent on public works. Potae,
Land purchasing funding policies made a significant contribution to a marked national increase in the amount of Maori land purchased between 1893/94 and 1900. These Rohe trends were also reflected in the rate of land alienation in the inquiry district during the that period. However, by 1897 the Seddon Government were considering calling a halt for to direct Crown purchasing of land and instituting a scheme of district boards to administer and dispose of Maori land. The reasons for this change are not entirely clear legislation
but Seddon indicated that this was partly in response to the difficulty associated with land purchasing in the King Country. Other historians have speculated that the Liberals’ concern Maori landlessness and the prospect of Maori requiring state assistance and purchasing
growing protests from hapu and iwi who had lost a sizable proportion of their land may have been factors in this change of direction. There is evidence that politicians feared Land
2. 171
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 that Maori in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block would become landless unless purchasing ceased.
The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1899 prohibited the alienation of Maori land to the Crown by way of sale but allowed negotiations already underway to be completed. A year later the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900 introduced the District Maori Land Councils. These were rapidly converted to District Maori Land Boards by the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905. This new regime will be examined in the twentieth century land report being prepared for this inquiry district.
1889–1900
Potae,
Rohe
the
for
legislation
purchasing
Land
2. 172
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 9: MAP OF THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT SHOWING LAND BLOCKS
173
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
3. DEVELOPING A PLAN FOR THE CROWN’S PURCHASING PROGRAMME, 1886–1889
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter shifts the focus away from national policy and legislation for the Rohe Potae and examines the discussion between Crown officials between 1886 and 1889 over when, where and how Maori land in the district was to be purchased. As discussed in Chapter 1, hapu and iwi desire to retain complete authority to determine title to their land and to use, manage and dispose of them as they saw fit was thwarted. Their requests for the Kawhia Native Committee to be empowered to determine title and manage all subsequent land transactions were not granted. Instead the Crown insisted that the Native Land Court remain the only legitimate mechanism for determining title. Hapu and iwi strongly opposed the court between 1883 and 1885, and it was with great
reluctance that tribal leaders agreed in April 1886 to bring their land before the court for title investigation.534 The Crown’s refusal to give the Kawhia Native Committee the power it sought to determine title played a significant role in undermining hapu and iwi 1886–1889 confidence in the committee and after a call by the committee for the people to submit their claims to land to it in December 1885 the court seemed to be the only means available to gain a legally recognized title. programme, The Native Minister John Ballance had long acknowledged that getting the court into the district was essential if the purchasing was to happen. In 1885 Ballance reminded the House that ‘every authority’ in the colony admitted ‘that until the Native title was purchasing known the land could not be ceded.’535 Presumably it was to this end he assured his fellow Members that with regard to the King Country all the Governments: Crown’s
the
for
plan
a
534 Four tribes made application for the survey of the external boundaries of their lands in December 1883. This application was made to the Native Land Court. Although there is debate amongst historians about what various parties intended this application to achieve it appears that hapu and iwi did not
intend this to be an application for the court to investigate and determine title to this land. Developing 535
NZPD, Vol. 52, 1885, p 517 3. 174
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
efforts have been directed to paving the way to a sitting of the Court, and to getting the Natives to agree among themselves to hold a Court, and to enable it to go on without interruption.536
In the first half of the 1880s the Crown had taken practical steps that would ultimately facilitate that purchasing programme: the re‐establishment of Crown pre‐emption, prohibitions on private dealings, loans to fund the railway construction and land purchasing, and surveys and assessments of land quality. The entry of the Native Land Court into the district to investgate the title to the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in July 1886 was the final piece in this strategy.
From July 1886, when the Native Land Court began its investigation of the title to what would subsequently be known as the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, the Crown was actively preparing for the commencement of a large‐scale land purchasing operation in the district. That same month the Native Minister and Minister of Lands and Immigration John Ballance announced to the House that he intended to increase the number of
Crown land purchasing officers working in the railway restriction zone. He stated that:
Again and again the necessity of acquiring land for the purposes of settlement along this North Island Trunk Railway has been pressed upon the Government,
and it is only for this that the commission agents have been appointed, and only 1886–1889
for the purpose of purchasing this land that we have increased the number of Land Purchase officers.537
Ballance considered that the purchasing of Maori land adjacent to the North Island Main programme, Trunk Railway line was of ‘very great urgency’ and that the ‘necessity for acquiring these lands within a reasonable time is a sufficient justification of what we have done’.538 He added that the purchasing was ‘really a public work’ to emphasise its
539 purchasing priority above standard land purchase elsewhere.
This chapter begins by introducing the land purchasing officers appointed by the Crown Crown’s for this task and considers accusations by hapu and iwi leaders that those officials were the making advanced payments to Maori prior to the title of the land being determined by for
the Native Land Court. The next section examines the role of the Native Agent/District plan Land Purchase Officer in monitoring the progress of the Native Land Court in the a
536 NZPD, Vol. 52, 1885, p 517 537 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 90 citing NZPD, Vol. 56, 1886, p 33 538 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 91 citing NZPD, Vol. 56, 1886, p 33 Developing 539
Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 91 citing NZPD, Vol. 56, 1886, p 33 3. 175
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 district and offering advice to the Native Land Purchase Department about the feasibility of commencing purchasing. The chapter then moves on to consider how the decision to begin purchasing in the district was made in 1889 and what, if any, plans were put in place by officials with regard to which land would be purchased and when. In particular, attention is paid to the circumstances that led to the Crown’s decision to begin purchasing when they did in late 1889, and to what extent Rohe Potae hapu and iwi were consulted about that decision, and the programme that would follow.
3.2 CROWN ADVANCES PRIOR TO THE COURT DETERMING TITLE?
The decision to officially commence purchasing Maori land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block was made in June 1889. However, there is some evidence that land purchasing officers were making advanced payments prior to the court determining the title to land in the block. As already mentioned in Chapter 1, Ormsby complained to Ballance, three months before the court began sitting that money was being ‘advanced before the lands
are passed this court.’540 This was categorically denied by Ballance who assured Ngati Maniapoto that ‘no person had been appointed by Government to purchase or advance money on land before it has passed through the court.’541 This practice seems to have 1886–1889
continued despite Ballance’s firm promises that it was not, and would not, happen. In a private letter on 22 October 1886 Judge Mair, who was in the early stages of determining title to the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, stated that: programme,
Wahanui was already concerned about the activities of land purchase officers. He knew that Grace and Butler had been making advances, and that Wilkinson was also making inquiries to see if any owners were willing to sell.542 purchasing Mair described Wahanui as ‘very wrath’ because he considered that Ballance had ‘broken faith with him’ and that his words were not to be trusted.543 Crown’s
the
for
plan
a
540 ‘Mr Ballance and the Natives. Important meetings with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato Times, 20 April 1886, p 4 541 ‘Mr Ballance and the Natives. Important meetings with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato Times, 20 April 1886, p 4 542 W G Mair to Gilbert Mair, 22 October 1886, cited by Ward, ‘Whanganui ki Maniapoto ...’, 1992, pp 80‐81 Developing 543
W G Mair to Gilbert Mair, 22 October 1886, cited by Ward, ‘Whanganui ki Maniapoto ...’, 1992, pp 80‐81 3. 176
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Mair’s letter referred to William Henry (W H) Grace who had been appointed a land purchasing officer by the Government ‘for the Kihikihi portion of the King Country’ and Taupo in December 1885.544 Grace had considerable land purchasing experience and expertise as an interpreter, in his case in the Taupo and Thames districts.545 However, his career and reputation were checkered. In 1874 he took over land purchase in Thames, and shortly after he moved to the Cambridge‐Kihikihi area.546 In August 1879 he was appointed Government agent for the Upper Waikato, however the position was short lived and he was dismissed in December 1879, when his position was retrenched.547 He spent the 1880 to 1885 period working as an interpreter and private land purchasing agent, sometimes in partnership with his brother Lawrence Grace.548 Marr concluded that Grace was well versed in some of the more unsavoury tactics used to manipulate Native Land Court hearings to assist purchasing.’ For example in the Native Land Court hearings on the Mohakatino Parininihi block in 1882 he acted as court agent or Kaiwhakahaere for Ngati Maniapoto.549 ‘However, Evelyn Stokes has
submitted diary extracts that show that he was actually employed by Joshua Jones at this time. He was acting for Ngati Maniapoto in order that Jones could preserve his lease.’550 He was also ‘accused on oath, for example, of coaching a witness to give false 1886–1889 evidence in the 1884 hearing of the Maungatautari block.551 His activities in the Taupo region came to light at the Taupo‐nui‐a‐tia commission of inquiry.552 He only avoided dismissal and prosecution for such activities because he had already left the
Government’s service by the time the inquiry was held, including an admission that ‘that programme,
he had arranged with storekeepers to supply certain Maori owners on his
purchasing
544 ‘Kaiti and Makauri’, Poverty Bay Herald, 12 December 1885, p 3 and ‘The King Country’, Poverty Bay Herald, 12 January 1886, p 2 545
He was official appointed as an interpreter under the Native Land Acts 1865 and 1867 on 1 August Crown’s 1871 (NZ Gazette, 2 February 1871, p 81) and for the Thames district under the Native Land Act 1873 in the
1874 (NZ Gazette, 28 February 1874, p 179) 546 Waikato Times, 5 September 1875. In 1874 he was an interpreter at Kihikihi under s.12 of the Native for Land Act 1873 (MA 25/4, p 5, ANZ Wgt) 547 Waikato Times 5 September 1878
548 plan See advertisement in the Waikato Times, 1 April 1880. They had offices in Cambridge and Tauranga. a 549 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996 citing Waitangi Tribunal, Pouakani Report, 1993, p 109 550 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 63 citing Diary extracts of W H Grace, 1882, submission of Evelyn Stokes, Wai 143, #H18 551 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 63 citing MA‐MLP, box 61, NLP 92/112, attachment to 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 552 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 63 citing Waitangi Tribunal, Pouakani Report, 1993; MA‐MLP 1, box 26, Developing
NLP 89/240 and attachments, ANZ Wgt 3. 177
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 recommendation. The advances were then paid off when the owners received money for their land.’553
The other official mentioned in Mair’s letter as having made advances prior to title being confirmed by the court was William Butler. In December 1885 newspapers reported his promotion to ‘Senior Native Land Purchase Commissioner.’ They describe him as an experienced official, ‘an admirable Native scholar’ and a man ‘thoroughly acquainted with the Native character’ and therefore popular with Maori and settler alike.554 Butler had been native secretary and interpreter for Native Minister Bryce and then secretary to his successor, John Ballance. It seems Butler was stationed in the Whanganui district as an article from April the following year has him concluding negotiations with Upper Whanganui leaders Tupia Turoa and Wiremu Turoa for a block known as ‘Waimaranui’ [Waimarino].555
In contrast to Butler and Grace operating within the wider Rohe Potae defined by the
tribes in the 1883 petition, it seems that George Wilkinson had not made advanced payments for land within what would become the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block prior to its title being fully determined by the court. But he was certainly gathering information and 1886–1889 perhaps even putting pressure on prospective owners to promise to sell their interests once the court had awarded title. By 1889, George T Wilkinson was employed by the Crown as the Native Land Purchase Officer for the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block.556 In June 1889, the New Zealand Herald reported that: programme,
‘It is understood that Alexandra will be made the headquarters of the Native Land Purchase Agency. Mr G T Wilkinson and Mr Hursthouse being the officials appointed to carry out the work, and that a sum of £100,000 will be devoted by purchasing the Government to that object.’557 Crown’s
the
553 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, pp 63‐65 citing MA‐MLP 1, box 27, NLP 90/172 and attachments, ANZ Wgt for 554 ‘Native Matters’, Poverty Bay Herald, 8 December 1885, p 2 555 ‘Native Lands’, Timaru Herald, 22 April 1886, p 2. Marr noted that he was appointed land purchase plan officer for the Waimarino block (Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement ... Part 1: 1864–1882’, draft a for comment, June 2011, p 609) 556 A search of the New Zealand Gazette for the period 1888 to 1891 failed to locate a notice of appointment 557 ‘Alexandra, Thursday’, New Zealand Herald, 14 June 1889, p 6. Charles Wilson Hursthouse had been employed as a surveyor by the Crown in 1883 when he and his party were captured and held by the Ngati
Maniapoto prophet Te Mahuki. He was later employed as resident engineer in the King Country Developing
(Scholefield, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, 1940, p 422). His relationship with and whakapapa 3. 178
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
By this time Wilkinson already had previous experience as a land purchase officer for the Crown in the neighbouring districts of Thames and Waikato and as a surveyor in the Waikato confiscation district.558 He was far from a stranger to hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. At the time of his appointment he had been the Government’s Native district officer or Native agent in the region since 1883.559 In this capacity he developed an extensive knowledge of Maori communities, their land, their leaders and political allegiances. He reported on the health of the population, Maori economic activity, and meetings between hapu/iwi leaders and the Government which he attended. In many cases he acted as an interpreter for those meetings, including during Premier Ballance’s meeting with Ngati Maniapoto and other hapu/iwi at Kihikihi in 1885 and further meetings in 1887 when Ballance was Native Minister and with Native Minister Mitchelson in 1888. Wilkinson was equally well known in the settler community, amongst other roles he was for a time the proprietor of the Star Hotel at Kihikihi.560
He also had close links to the Maori community through his Ngati Maniapoto wife, Hariata Raurau, who appears to have had influential connections within the iwi, and whose sister married the prophet Te Mahuki. 561 He had worked closely with John 1886–1889
Ormsby and members of the Kawhia District Native Committee in 1885 over gold prospecting in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block by Europeans. The committee was very active at this time, co‐ordinating and often regulating the growing range of economic programme,
into Ngati Maniapoto are explored in Christine Chaplow’s book, Who Planted the Tree?: A story of Waikato, purchasing Taranaki and the King Country, Christine Chaplow, Te Kuiti, 2003, p 268 (Wai 898 #G31) 558 Marr, Rohe Potae...’,1996, p 60, citing MA‐MLP, box 26, NLP 89/256 and G H Scholefield, A Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 1940, Vol. 2, p 509) 559
The position had been established by Donald McLean during his tenure as Native Minister as a role Crown’s that was ‘non‐judicial, and mainly concerned with land questions and political relations between Maori the and settler.’ Wilkinson’s predecessor in the role had been William Gilbert Mair who had been moved from his Resident Magistrate’s post at Opotiki on the East Coast to Alexandra (later Pirongia) on the border for between Waikato and the Rohe Potae in 1871 (Ward, A Show of Justice...’, 1983, p 238). He was appointed as government agent for the King territory in January 1880 (Cathy Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political plan Engagement 1864–1882’ draft circulated for comment, June 2011, p 592). In 1882 he was appointed a a judge of the Native Land Court (Scholefield, A Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, 1940, Vol. 2, p 46). He presided over the Rohe Potae case from July 1886. Wilkinson’s first report as District Officer was published in AJHR 1883, G‐1 560 Advertisement for the Star Hotel, Waikato Times, 18 March 1884, Advertisements col. 2 561 Marr, Rohe Potae...’,1996, p 61 citing MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 99/74 attachment to NLP 1901/66, ANZ
Wgt and Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement ... Part 1 1864–1882’, draft for comment, June 2011, p Developing
681 3. 179
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 ventures being entered into in partnership with Europeans coming into the district. Wilkinson reported that during committee meetings in October and December 1885:
A scale of prices was fixed for different classes of timber, a considerable quantity of which was then and is now being used by railway and other contractors. Arrangements were also made for granting by the Committee of temporary occupation‐leases to contractors and storekeepers who wished to live in their district. These and other matters were settled by the Committee at that time; but the most important of all the subjects dealt with and disposed of by them was the agreeing to throw open the whole of the King country for gold‐prospecting under certain conditions.562
Another account of this meeting indicates what a wide range of economic matters the committee was taking charge of. An English translation of the minutes of the December 1885 meeting stated that the subjects to be addressed were:
The Native Land Court, price of timber, leases, gold prospecting, sale of lands, coal mining, limestone, gravel, toll gates, establishment of stores and butchers shops, prices of cattle, horses, pigs, wheat, oats and potatoes.563
During 1884 and early 1885 both Wahanui and Ormsby had requested that the Government assist hapu and iwi in keeping unwanted European prospectors out of the Rohe Potae.564 By the end of 1885 the Kawhia Native Committee had decided to take 1886–1889 control of the situation so that ‘before the country should be overrun with anyone and everyone who chose to rush there under the name of prospectors’ they would stage a controlled exploration for gold by authorising a limited number of European
565 programme, prospectors. Hapu and iwi had mixed views on whether they wanted prospectors in the district but the committee felt it should intervene because some people had ‘surreptitiously consented to prospecting for gold’ and prospectors were working purchasing
Crown’s
562 the
Report of G T Wilkinson, District Officer, Alexandra for Waikato (including Kawhia, Waipa and Upper Mokau), 25 May 1886, AJHR 1886, G‐1, p 4 for 563 ‘Native Questions Discussed’, Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p 3. The lease in question was to a European working on the railway tunnel at Te Poro‐a‐tarao, this has already been discussed in the plan prologue in relation to restrictions on private dealings imposed by the Native Lands Amendment Act a 1883 564 Wahanui stated that while he was in Wellington in 1884 he had talked to Native Minister Ballance about unauthorised gold prospecting (AJHR 1885, G‐1, p 14). Ormsby also put the matter of Europeans prospecting for gold, iron , coal and other minerals to Ballance at Kihikihi in February 1885 (AJHR 1885, G‐1, pp 15‐16) 565 Report of G T Wilkinson, District Officer, Alexandra for Waikato (including Kawhia, Waipa and Upper Developing
Mokau), 25 May 1886, AJHR 1886, G‐1, p 4 3. 180
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 unregulated in the district. The committee was also concerned that European labourers on the roads and railway would also undertake prospecting on the side.566
At the wish of the committee Wilkinson brought in a gold‐mining expert (Warden of Thames Goldfield, Mr Kenrick) and men from the Thames goldfield. Wilkinson and Kenrick worked together with the Committee to divide the district into six areas and assign two gold prospectors to each area. The European teams of two were then accompanied by ‘two Native guides or companions.’567 The exploration continued into March 1886 with some initial opposition from Maori communities at Kawhia (under Tawhaio) and in the Tuhua district. But the expedition ultimately yielded little gold and any hope of opening a significant goldfield was abandoned. It appears this work with the committee contributed to Ngati Maniapoto generally good opinion of Wilkinson prior to the start of his work as a land purchase officer.
At a meeting of Ngati Maniapoto and other iwi leaders with the Native Minister John
Ballance at Otorohanga in January 1887 John Ormsby, professing to speak for Ngati Maniapoto as a whole, expressed considerable confidence in Wilkinson. They had heard that the Government were retrenching Native Department staff and planned to remove 1886–1889 Wilkinson from the district and were ‘grieved’ by the prospect. Ormsby stated that he and Wahanui had written to Ballance about the matter but had received no reply. They considered that: programme, From the time of Mr Wilkinson’s arrival we have seen nothing in his conduct to warrant his services being dispensed with. We know that he has been a perfect slave to the Government and the natives. We think, indeed, that his services should be taken into consideration by the Government, and that instead of being 568
dismissed he should be rewarded. We therefore ask you to retain his services. purchasing
In fact the level of trust in Wilkinson was such that they had petitioned Ballance asking
that Wilkinson be appointed a judge of the Native Land Court. Ormsby noted that: Crown’s
the
for
plan
a
566 ‘Native Questions Discussed’, Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p 3 567 Report of G T Wilkinson, District Officer, Alexandra for Waikato (including Kawhia, Waipa and Upper
Mokau), 25 May 1886, AJHR 1886, G‐1, pp 4‐5 Developing 568
‘Ballance at Otorohanga’, Waikato Times, 29 January 1887, p 3 3. 181
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Amongst the many Government officers whose services are still retained are many in whom we cannot believe. Mr Wilkinson, on the contrary, has our entire confidence, and we thoroughly believe in him.569
However, this genuine esteem for Wilkinson was inevitably laced with political considerations. Judge, W G Mair, who was presiding over the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block case from July 1886 onwards, noted this request and commented that Ngati Maniapoto’s desire to have Wilkinson appointed as a judge in the district was ‘not out of any regard for him, but because they think that he has a prejudice against Waikato’, the main party opposing Ngati Maniapoto claims in the court.570 There may have been some truth to this comment although Mair’s tart tone may also indicate some professional jealousy or fear of being displaced. This relationship of trust and co‐operation between Ormsby and others and Wilkinson during the mid‐1880s, and his marriage to a high ranking woman within Ngati Maniapoto must have been a considerable advantage when he began offering money to individual owners for their shares in the land on behalf of the Crown after December 1889.
3.3 MONITORING THE NATIVE LAND COURT’S PROGRESS 1886–1889 As the government official on the ground with a comprehensive knowledge of the land and its people, one of Wilkinson’s roles after 1886 was to monitor and report on the progress of title investigation and subdivision of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. His periodic employment as a court interpreter at the Otorohanga sittings between 1886 programme, and 1890 certainly gave him firsthand knowledge which which enabled him to provide advice to the Native Land Purchase Department.571 Throughout the 1880s and 1890s he routinely attended meetings in the district between hapu and iwi and Government purchasing
Ministers as an interpreter. His personal connections and involvement with Ngati Maniapoto through his wife also placed him in an ideal position to report on the Crown’s
progress of the court. Judge Mair noted that in 1888, Wilkinson and his Ngati Maniapoto the
wife were living at Wahanui’s camp at Otorohanga where the court was in session, and for
plan
a
569 ‘Ballance at Otorohanga’, Waikato Times, 29 January 1887, p 3 570 W G Mair to Gilbert Mair, Otorohanga, 30 July 1886, MS‐Papers 93, Folder 9, ATL Wgt 571 Marr, Rohe Potae ...’, 1996 citing as an example an 1889 note from Lewis – when resume duties as interpreter to the Otorohanga court – can make copies of lists of owners for own use; memo from Lewis
to Wilkinson, 8 July 1889, NLP 89/190 in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt. Also see, Wilkinson, Native Agent, Developing
Alexandra, to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 20 June 1889, AJHR 1889, G‐3, No. 4, p 2 3. 182
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Wilkinson was attending the court taking full notes at Maniapoto’s ‘Kaiwhakahaere table as if he was Counsel for them.’572
Wilkinson also had access to the lists of owners being submitted to and confirmed by the court. In December 1886, Judge Mair began circulating lists of owners to the district land purchase officers and the Native Minister.573 Owners became aware that these lists were making their way to Wilkinson and Grace and were very reluctant to provide lists to the court until compelled to in order to have title awarded. For example in 1890 Grace explained that owners had been trying very hard to limit the court to determining title to land on a hapu basis. For example he described the reluctance of owners of the Rangitoto Tuhua block to hand in lists, and the subsequent threats by the court that in lieu of lists of owners they would simply decide which individuals owned the land.574
In May 1887, Wilkinson reported that since June the previous year the court had investigated the title to the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block (1,636,000 acres), and that the
number of owners on the combined ownership list stood at 4,369, and more names were likely to be added. But Wilkinson was convinced that until the Court had subdivided ‘each tribe's and, where possible, each sub‐tribe’s or hapu’s portion … the
575 1886–1889 land cannot be satisfactorily dealt with for the purposes of European settlement.’ That is, until title was determined purchasing could not begin. In April 1887, this process of subdivision had still not commenced but by June 1888 some subdivision along tribal lines had occurred, with title to be awarded to individual owners.576 programme,
Wilkinson was of the view that the tide of opinion amongst Maori was turning towards subdivision of this kind and noted that ‘from the number of applications for subdivision sent in, there is work, I think, for the Court here for several months to come.’577 purchasing
Crown’s
572 the
W G Mair, Otorohanga to Gilbert Mair, 6 September 1888, Mair Family Papers, Series 2: Outwards Correspondence of William Gilbert Mair, MS‐Papers‐0093‐10, 11, & 18, ATL Wgt for 573 H Cowper, Clerk of the Native Land Court, Otorohanga to Lewis, Under‐Secretary, Native Department, (hereafter USND), 24 December 1886, NLP 86/494 (with 88/238) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt
574 plan Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, pp 58‐59 citing W H Grace to Lewis, 24 May 1890, NLP 90/172 and a attachments in MA‐MLP, box 27, ANZ Wgt 575 Wilkinson, Native Agent, Alexandra to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 May 1887, AJHR 1887, G‐1, No. 4, p 5 576 Wilkinson, Native Agent, Alexandra to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 2 June 1888, AJHR 1888, G‐5, No. 4, p 3 577 Wilkinson, Native Agent, Alexandra to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 2 June 1888, Developing
AJHR 1888, G‐5, No. 4, p 3 3. 183
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
By the end of 1888 Wilkinson, still in his role as Native Agent for the district, was in regular communication with the Under Secretary of the Native Land Purchase Department, T W Lewis, providing a detailed assessment of which blocks had been defined by the Court, the number of owners (adult and minor), and whether the acreage had been defined by survey or remained an estimate only. This was the beginning of Wilkinson’s detailed advice to Lewis about the state of title and survey in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. In October 1888 he listed 13 blocks (some already subdivided) as having been defined by the Court (all but Wharepuhunga/Korokonui were situated close to and north of Otorohanga between Pirongia and Waipa, and around the shores of Kawhia Harbour).578 The area of only two of these blocks – Kawhia and Kahakaharoa – had been fixed by survey.579
Even at this stage Wilkinson was careful to note the location of blocks in relation to the railway line, especially those bisected by it:
You will notice that the Main Trunk Railway Line runs through one of the blocks (Otorohanga‐Orahiri) for nearly four miles and that the Otorohanga railway station is upon it. The railway line also runs through a portion of the Hauturu East No. 1 block unless the boundaries at the eastern end of that block are altered when a proper survey takes place.580 1886–1889
It is clear that Lewis based his judgements about whether and where purchasing could commence on this advice. In a note from Lewis to the Native Minister attached to this letter on 13 October 1888 Lewis concluded from the information Wilkinson had programme,
provided that ‘it does, at present, seem to offer much prospect of purchases on reasonable terms.’581 Despite this assessment Lewis seemed willing to commence negotiations with Maori owners, perhaps to test how viable purchasing would be. He purchasing
stated in reply that although an immediate start to purchasing seemed out of the question he would ‘be able to form a better opinion when negotiations are Crown’s commenced.’582 Lewis continued to keep a close watch on the progress of the court in the subdividing, surveying and determining owners of blocks within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) for
plan
a 578 The schedule included Ohura South block which lies outside this inquiry district 579 Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 3 October 1888, NLP 88/238 (with 88/282) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 580 Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 3 October 1888, NLP 88/238 (with 88/282) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 581 Minute: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 13 October 1888, on cover page of NLP 88/238 (with 88/282) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 582 Minute: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 13 October 1888, on cover page of NLP 88/238 (with Developing
88/282) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 184
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 block. Just a month later he telegraphed Wilkinson asking for an update of which blocks had been dealt with by the court since his schedule of 3 October.583
3.4 THE DECISION TO BEGIN PURCHASING
At some time between November 1888 and June 1889 Lewis made the decision to commence purchasing within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. On 19 June 1889, Wilkinson wrote to Lewis that ‘in view of the proposed commencement of the purchase by Government of Native lands within the Rohepotae block’ he was forwarding updated information ‘regarding the blocks survey of which have so far been completed, also their proximity or otherwise to the Main Trunk Railway line, and the quality of the land comprised in each.’584
A small number of hapu and iwi leaders in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block were told about this decision but it is doubtful whether what transpired amounted to consultation. In a
telegram to the Native Minister in early June 1889 Lewis reported that he had arrived in Kihikihi after having been at Otorohanga. He informed the Minister that while he was there he ‘had long conference with Messrs Wilkinson, Hursthouse & Ellis.’585 He also
586 1886–1889 ‘saw Wahanui & other Natives.’ No further record of what passed between Lewis and Wahanui and other leaders has been located so it is unclear whether the Crown’s plan to begin land purchasing was discussed. Several leaders were later informed that purchasing was about to start. On 24 June 1889, Lewis drafted letters from the Native programme,
Minister to Wahanui, Taonui and Hauauru to give them:
early information of the intention of the Government to purchase land within the
Rohepotae Blocks so soon as the title shall have been ascertained, in accordance purchasing
with the Native Land Court Act.
The Minister reassured the rangatira that it was ‘not the desire of the Government’ for Crown’s
Maori to be ‘denuded of their lands.’ Instead the Government promised ‘to see that the
for
583 plan Telegram: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 22 November 1888 and Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, a 24 November 1888, both NLP 88/282 (with 89/177) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 584 Wilkinson to the Lewis, USND, 19 June 1889, NLP 89/177 (with 89/180) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 585 C W Hursthouse was rumoured to have been appointed as a land purchasing officer in the Rohe Potae but later took the role of district surveyor. J W Ellis was a storekeeper and partner in a timber milling business in the Rohe Potae, his involvement as an advisor to the Native Minister in 1889 is dealt with in
the next section of this chapter. Developing 586
Telegram: Lewis to the Native Minister, n/d, NLP 89/332 with 90/11, ANZ Wgt 3. 185
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 sufficient reserves are made for them.’ The leaders were urged to part with their ‘surplus’ land rather than let it ‘remain waste and unoccupied.’ The Minister assured them that their remaining land would then ‘be greatly increased in value by the progress of settlement upon the area disposed of.’ Finally, the Minister expressed the hope that these rangatira would assist the Government ‘in connection with the acquisition of the surplus Native Lands in your District.’587 In broad terms, the Government assured these leaders that Maori would retain sufficient land to enable them to benefit from the railway and European settlement and the future prosperity of the colony. As to the land the Crown wished to purchase it indicated that it was only interested in the ‘surplus’ land of Maori communities. The Government seems to have defined ‘surplus land’ as that which was not currently occupied or cultivated (see the mapping of land tenure and use carried out by the Government in 1891, reproduced as Figure 13). There is no evidence that they held conversations with hapu and iwi about what, if any, land Maori considered ‘surplus.’588
3.5 ASSESSING THE PROSPECTS FOR PURCHASING
Having made the decision that purchasing should proceed in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) 1886–1889
block the Crown then sought further information and advice about the likelihood of Maori offering land for sale. As already noted, from 1888 Lewis had been asking Wilkinson for regular updates about the state of title and survey of blocks within the programme, Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. This flow of advice continued, however, late in 1889, the Native Minister also sought advice from J W Ellis, a storekeeper and businessman with commercial interests in the Waikato and King Country. Like Wilkinson, Ellis was well purchasing known to Maori in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. In the late 1870s he set up business as a storekeeper at Matakotako between Kawhia and Raglan. His clients were almost all Crown’s Maori and he did brisk business in pig dealing. He owned a schooner which ran the regularly between Manukau, Raglan and Kawhia. It was there he married his first wife, for Kauki Tauira, and their only child, Lucy (Ruihi) was born in 1879. By 1863 he had plan
started business as storekeeper in Kihikihi and later owned branches at Te Kuiti and a
587 Draft letter to Wahanui, Taonui, and Hauauru, 24 June 1889, NLP 89/184 (with 89/190) in MA 13/78,
ANZ Wgt Developing 588
Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 77 3. 186
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Otorohanga. His Matakotako store burnt down in 1885 and in 1886 he began a sawmilling business at Kihikihi. In 1889 Ellis remarried, his second wife was Manawa Francis of Kihikihi. In 1890 he had entered partnership with H Burnard at Otorohanga.589 They gradually expanded their business interests acquiring timber rights over large areas of Maori land at Maounui, Otorohanga and Mangapehi. In 1905 Ellis and Burnard established a joinery firm at Hamilton.590 Ellis’s background and connections in the district suggest that he had a vested interest in seeing large scale land purchasing taking place in the district. As a storekeeper he had the means to place economic pressure on individual land owners, and as a sawmiller and entrepreneur he had a very strong interest in the alienation of land and resources for commercial purposes (mostly his own but Pakeha generally).
Both Wilkinson and Ellis gave their opinions about the likelihood of Maori owners being willing to sell their shares to the Crown in sufficient numbers to enable the Crown to acquire large blocks of land for European settlement. On 20 June 1889, Wilkinson admitted to Lewis that there was considerable resistance amongst Maori to selling land. He considered that ‘the Native owners of the Rohepotae blocks are not likely as a whole to take kindly at first to any system of wholesale land‐purchase by the Government.’ 1886–1889
However, he noted that there were ‘a considerable number who are ready at once to sell their interests in one or more blocks.’ On this basis Wilkinson considered that it was a good time to begin purchasing. He was optimistic that once the purchasing began the programme, Crown would soon ‘have acquired a considerable area of land in the King‐country which could be thrown open for settlement.’591
Ellis was less optimistic about the long‐term prospects for land purchasing in the purchasing
district. He considered that there was ‘no doubt but that the Govt will be able to buy a proportion of the lands here’ and that this could be achieved ‘as soon as you are Crown’s
prepared to commence.’ However, in his opinion he did not ‘think the proportion will be the
so great as in many other districts.’ He put forward a number of reasons why many for
plan
a
589 Phillip Cleaver’s report on timber, coal and other natural resources in the inquiry district contains considerable detail about the activities of Ellis and Burnard on Maori land in the inquiry district (Wai 898, #A25) 590 Obituary of J W Ellis, Waikato Times, 6 August 1918 and R T Vernon & C R Buckeridge, Te Mata – Aotea,
A O Rice Ltd, Hamilton, 1973, p 76 Developing 591
Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 20 June 1889, AJHR 1889, G‐3, No. 4, pp 3‐4 3. 187
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Maori in the district had little desire to sell land. Firstly, he characterized the people as ‘naturally of a careful & cautious nature.’ He noted that they were not used to a cash economy and so ‘the great bulk have at present not many wants not having had in the past the handling of much money’ (although he was convinced that ‘this will soon be got over’). He observed that the Crown was unlikely, in his opinion, to acquire large areas of land because:
the blocks as a rule are small and the same people are owners in large numbers of them & they are likely only to sell their shares singly as they require money. That is they are hardly likely to sell a second share while they have any of the proceeds of the first sale in hand.592
In addition, he saw signs of a strong and widespread desire amongst Maori owners to retain and develop their land and earn income from it. Those he had come in contact with through his store, and probably in his private life amongst Ngati Maniapoto, ‘were all ambitious to become flock owners.’ He predicted that ‘the desire to get money to buy sheep will lead them to sell parts’ of their land but they were also likely to hold on tenaciously to the open country suitable for sheep.593 Yet, in contrast to this general picture of resistance to selling, Ellis also reported that: ‘of course they nearly all talk as if they never intend to sell their lands but this is all nonsense.’ He also reported that 1886–1889
Wahanui had recently ‘expressed his intention to sell parts of his land’ and Ellis considered that if he did do so others might well follow suit.594 In the next few years Wilkinson would frequently cite economic factors, particularly Maori access to cash from programme, wage labouring, as one of the reasons for the Crown’s lack of success in securing large areas of land before 1892. In short, both Wilkinson and Ellis reported considerable, widespread resistance amongst Maori to selling their land. But each considered that purchasing that some land could probably be purchased initially and that opposition could then be broken down one way or another. However, there was uncertainty about just how much Crown’s land the Crown could obtain. the
for
plan
a
592 J W Ellis to Native Minister Mitchelson, 26 September 1889, NLP 89/326 (with 89/327) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 593 J W Ellis to Native Minister Mitchelson, 26 September 1889, NLP 89/326 (with 89/327) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 594 J W Ellis to Native Minister Mitchelson, 26 September 1889, NLP 89/326 (with 89/327) Developing
in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 188
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
3.6 PRIORITIZING BLOCKS FOR PURCHASE
Once the decision to begin purchasing was made in June 1889 Wilkinson began giving advice to his superiors about which blocks of land should be purchased first. These recommendations rested largely on three factors: state of title and survey including status of any appeals lodged, quality of the land, and proximity to the railway line. On the whole it was land in the northern part of the district from Pirongia to Kakepuku and west to parts of the Hauturu block that Wilkinson considered would met these criteria in mid‐to‐late 1889.
3.6.1 WILKINSON’S ASSESSMENT OF BLOCKS FOR INITIAL PURCHASE
Immediately after the decision to begin purchasing was made in June 1889, Wilkinson took stock of the land within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. He reported that just 13 of the 88 blocks created by the court had been surveyed. However, Wilkinson considered that only three or four of these 13 blocks were in a state to be purchased because
although the external boundary of the block had been surveyed subsequent internal partitions had not. In his opinion ‘it will only be after the surveys of these subdivisions
have been completed, and the area of each is known, that they will be in a position to be 1886–1889
purchased.’595 In a report to Lewis the day before, Wilkinson had listed 10 blocks as having been surveyed (Table 10).596 The location of these blocks can be seen in Figure 9 at the beginning of this chapter. programme,
purchasing
Crown’s
the
for
plan
a
595 Wilkinson, Native Agent, Alexandra to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 20 June 1889, AJHR
1889, G‐3, No. 4, pp 3‐4 Developing 596
Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 19 June 1889, NLP 89/177 (with 89/180) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 189
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 10: BLOCKS SURVEYED BY JUNE 1889
Block Acres Kakepuku (parent) 18,210 Tokanui 10,200 Ouruwhero 10,123 Puketarata 16,984 Takotokoraha 2,798 Maungarangi 700 Otorohanga 15,382 Orahiri 8,100 Hauturu 85,000 Kinohaku East 80,000 Total 247,497
3.6.1(a) Northern blocks bisected by or close to the railway
Wilkinson noted that this list included only land in the Waipa Valley, which was more or less adjacent to the railway line, but not land at Kawhia (presumably excluded from
consideration at this time because of its distance from the Main Trunk line). So it appears that the three blocks left off this list were in the vicinity of Kawhia Harbour.597 Here he was probably referring to the Kawhia and Kahakaharoa blocks which he had 1886–1889 reported as having had their areas fixed by survey by October 1888.598
For reasons stated in his general report, Wilkinson considered that only three of these 10 blocks (Puketotara, Ouruwhero and Maungarangi) were available for purchase at programme, that time. As he had hoped he was able to add Kakepuku, (later subdivided into the Pokuru, Mangamahoe, Rapaura and Kakepuku blocks), to that shortlist of seven blocks a few days later (Table 11).599 Wilkinson also anticipated that he would soon be able to purchasing add the Tokanui block to this list.
Crown’s
the
for
plan
a
597 Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 19 June 1889, NLP 89/177 (with 89/180) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 598 Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 3 October 1888, NLP 88/238 (with 88/282) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 599 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 23 June 1889, NLP 89/180 (with 89/184) in MA 13/78, Developing
ANZ Wgt 3. 190
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 11: BLOCKS SHORTLISTED BY WILKINSON FOR PURCHASE, JUNE 1889
Block Acres Ouruwhero 10,123 Puketarata 16,984 Maungarangi 700 Kakepuku (proper) 13,350 Mangamahoe 954 Pokuru 3,450 Rapaura 456 Total 46,017
Provided that the title and surveys were in order the other significant factor in Wilkinson’s choice of which blocks should be purchased was their location relative to the railway line. The sketch plan accompanying his 19 June 1889 memorandum showed the location of the three blocks which were available for purchase immediately as well as the Kakepuku block (which would very soon be subdivided into Kakepuku proper,
Mangamahoe, Pokuru and Rapaura) as well as the Tokanui and Takotokoraha blocks (Figure 10).600 Wilkinson made his case by stating that the railway ran through three of the blocks and there was a railway station on each block. In addition, Kakepuku and 1886–1889 Tokanui blocks had the advantage of being not far from the township of Kihikihi.601 A plan supplied with his letter of 23 June showed the line of the railway through the subdivisions of the Kakepuku parent block (Figure 11). programme, The great importance placed on the location of land relative to the railway line as a criterion for determining which land would be targeted for purchasing is shown in Wilkinson’s hesitation in recommending the blocks at Kawhia be purchased. He purchasing admitted that purchasing could start in those blocks because both the surveys and lists of owners were completed ‘but they are a long way distant from the Main Trunk Crown’s Railway and the occupation of them by settlers would not in any way benefit or feed the the railway.’602 This need to facilitate settlement in such a way as to repay some of the huge for cost of constructing the railway line through the centre of the North Island had long
plan
a
600 Wilkinson explained that the sketch plan (Figure 10) was ‘kindly made for me by Capt. Thomas who is draughtsman for several parties of surveyors who have lately been surveying the subdivisions of Rohepotae referred to herein.’ (Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 19 June 1889, NLP 89/177 (with 89/180) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt) 601 Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 19 June 1889, NLP 89/177 (with 89/180) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt Developing 602
Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 19 June 1889, NLP 89/177 (with 89/180) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 191
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 been a concern of central government. The wording of Wilkinson’s report, so reminiscent of Ballance’s words in 1884, suggests that this concern had a direct influence on the Crown’s plan for land purchasing in the inquiry. Wilkinson’s reports (and accompanying sketch maps) illustrate his need to demonstrate that the blocks being considered for purchase were close enough to the railway to make a difference.
Whether or not owners had lodged an appeal against the court decision regarding ownership, and whether the outcome of that appeal was known yet or not, was also an important factor in Wilkinson’s recommendations about which blocks ought to be purchased immediately. In his published report of June 1889 he noted 11 of the 88 blocks within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block were subject to appeals but only two of these cases had been heard ‘leaving nine in an unsettled state.’603 In October 1889, Wilkinson was asked by the Native Minister to ‘furnish a list of all blocks within [the] Rohepotae block, adjacent to the railway line which are now beyond the possibility of rehearing.’604 This was a consideration because it was likely that changes to the list of
owners would be made as a result of rehearing and it was important for the land purchaser not to risk buying land from those who were later to be found to have been wrongly included on the original ownership list. However, when the requirement that 1886–1889
blocks be free of appeals was added to the necessity of being bisected by the railway Wilkinson’s shortlist of seven blocks for purchasing shrunk to just two: Puketarata and Ouruwhero.605 In the case of Kakepuku its subdivision into a number of new blocks programme, meant that there were incomplete surveys and there were a number of applications for rehearing for Kakepuku, Pokura, Te Iakau and Mangamahoe blocks. The situation was much the same for the Otorohanga, Orahiri and Tokanui blocks.606 purchasing
Crown’s
the
for
plan
a
603 AJHR 1889, G‐3, p 3 604 Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 605 Wilkinson Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt Developing 606
Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 192
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 10: WILKINSON’S SKETCH MAP SHOWING THE ROUTE OF THE NORTH ISLAND MAIN TRUNK RAILWAY LINE THROUGH BLOCKS POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE, JUNE 1889
(Source: MA 13/78, p 14, ANZ Wgt)
193
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 11: WILKINSON’S SKETCH MAP SHOWING THE ROUTE OF THE NORTH ISLAND MAIN TRUNK RAILWAY LINE THROUGH THE KAKEPUKU BLOCKS, JUNE 1889
(Source: MA 13/78, p 6, ANZ Wgt)
194
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
3.6.1(b) Block between Pirongia and Kakepuku
However, Wilkinson noted that if the Crown was willing to purchase land further from the railway there were a number of blocks between Pirongia and Kakepuku over which no appeals had been lodged or those that had been, had been dismissed. These blocks are listed in Table 12:
TABLE 12: WILKINSON’S LIST OF BLOCKS BETWEEN PIRONGIA AND KAKEPUKU, OCTOBER 1889
Block Area (acres) Number of owners Mangauika 5,480 110 Kaipiha 2,000 10 Whakairoiro 1,045 153 Ngamahanga 66 26 Kopua No. 1 9,375 86 Parihoro 1,242 29 Takotokoraha 2,798 119
Waiwhakaata 11,508 131 Maungarangi 700 63 Total 34,214 1886–1889 In Wilkinson’s view these blocks were slightly less attractive to the Crown because they were ‘not immediately adjacent to the railway line, some of them being from 4 to 6 or more miles distant from it.’ In addition, the Waipa River ‘would have to be bridged in some suitable spot (most likely at [Te] Kopua) before settlers on the west side of it programme,
could avail themselves of the railway line.’ In any case, there was still a chance that some of these blocks would be subject to rehearing. Only the Maungarangi block was safe from this possibility. Wilkinson noted it ‘abuts upon Puketarata block and, purchasing
consisting as it does mostly of bush, would be a valuable addition to it.’607 Crown’s
The other consideration for Wilkinson was whether these blocks contained enough high the quality land to make them attractive to European settlement. For example, in for Wilkinson’s assessment the Mangauika block containing little useful land. He noted that plan
‘it consists mostly of land on the slopes of Pirongia Mountain and is therefore very much a broken, and part of it is heavily timbered.’ The area of level fertile land on the block near
Developing 607
Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 195
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the Waipa River was small in extent. On the other hand, the two larger blocks – Te Kopua No. 1 and Waiwhakaataa – were a good size with fertile soil and Wilkinson considered that they ‘would be very suitable for settlement if the owners can be got to part with them.’608
Wilkinson dismissed the possibility of the Crown being able to successfully purchase land in some of the blocks listed in Table 12, on the basis that they were highly prized by Maori. In particular, Maori were ‘more or less in occupation’ of the Kaipiha, Whakairoiro and Parihoro blocks or they ‘have some tapu associations connected with them.’609 Takotokoraha was ruled out for the time being because the survey of a recent internal subdivision had not yet been completed. Takotokoraha No. 1 had been awarded to ‘some of Tawhiao’s family because of tapus on it’ but there was a list of owners for the remainder of the block (1,798 acres) and Wilkinson did not see any great objection to that purchase being commenced should it be thought advisable to acquire that block.610
In addition to these constraints, the court, at the request of owners, had placed restrictions on alienation on some of the blocks under Native Land Court legislation. In 1886–1889 October 1889, Wilkinson mentioned these restrictions but seemed unconcerned by the impact they might have on the Crown’s ability to purchase land in the district. He noted that he had not mentioned these restrictions before ‘as I take it for granted that such restrictions would not interfere with Govt purchases.’611 Husbands and Mitchell’s report programme,
on the Native Land Court for this inquiry will discuss why and how these restrictions were imposed. purchasing The 10 blocks Wilkinson identified as potentially available for purchasing in June 1889, and those between Pirongia and Kakepuku he reported on in October 1889, were, with Crown’s the exceptions Wilkinson noted, all high quality land. When the location of these blocks the is compared with the land quality map produced by the surveyor Lawrence Cussen in for 1885 it is immediately apparent that these blocks make up a large proportion of the plan
‘first class’ land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block (Figure 12). Unsurprisingly this a
608 Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 609 Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 610 Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt Developing 611
Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 196
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 northern and central ‘wedge’ of productive land was also the area being intensively occupied and cultivated by hapu and iwi. An 1891 map showing land occupation, tenure and use for the whole country shows significant portions of this area being used by Maori communities for pasture or agriculture (Figure 13).612
The rate of alienation of blocks within this fertile area will be discussed in Chapter 7, however, the alienation of a significant proportion of this land from Maori ownership by 1908 raises questions about degree of economic loss suffered by hapu and iwi within the Rohe Potae inquiry district as a result. It is also unclear how it came to be that the land most coveted by Europeans for its potential for settlement and agriculture were amongst those dealt with by the Court and surveyed in the first few years of the Land Court’s operation in the district when other, less desirable blocks that had also passed through the Court remained unsurveyed.613 It seems difficult to believe that it was simply a coincidence that the blocks through which the railway ran between Te Awamutu and Otorohanga and those immediately adjacent were amongst the first to be
surveyed. In fact in August 1890 Wilkinson recommended to Lewis that if the Crown wanted to acquire land in the district ‘we must for some time to come, take the initiative and, having first decided which are suitable purchases, get those blocks surveyed as 1886–1889
soon as possible and let the owners know we are purchasing in them.’614 This suggests that land purchasing officials may have intervened to ensure the blocks the Crown most desired to purchase, which were high quality land near the railway line, were surveyed programme, first. Further research is required to establish whether this was the case.
purchasing
Crown’s
the
for
612 plan ‘Map of the Native Land of New Zealand shewing their occupation tenure and use’, AJHR 1891, G‐5. The a map was ‘compiled to an order of the House of Representatives 30th January, 1891 on the motion of T Kennedy Macdonald, M.H.R’ (see NZPD, Vol. 70, 1891, p 121) 613 Compare this list of blocks with those created by the court between 1886 and June 1889 in Paula Berghan, ‘Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District Research Assistance Projects: Block Research Narratives’, 6 July 2009, Wai 898, #A60, pp 87‐88 614 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 101 citing Wilkinson to Lewis, 21 August 1890, NLP 90/286 attached to Developing
NLP 90/255 in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 197
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 12: TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP SHOWING LAND QUALITY, ATTACHED TO REPORT OF DISTRICT SURVEYOR, LAWRENCE CUSSEN, 1885 AND BLOCKS PRIORITISED FOR PURCHASE BY WILKINSON IN JUNE 1889 (INSET)
198
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 13: CLOSE UP OF ‘MAP OF THE NATIVE LANDS OF NEW ZEALAND SHEWING THEIR OCCUPATION, TENURE AND USE’, 1891
(Source: AJHR 1891, G5)
199
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
3.6.1(c) Hauturu East 1 & 3: Waitomo Caves
Beyond the immediate imperative to purchase land that would make the Main Trunk line profitable and the practical considerations of the state of title, appeals and surveys, the Crown also had an eye to securing the Waitomo Caves and the land above them. In 1889 the caves had only recently become known to European settlers and to the Government. In February 1888, the surveyor Frederick Mace and a party of Europeans, accompanied by one of the owners of the land, Tane Tinoru, explored the cave system.615 Mace’s account of the caves drew the attention of the Government and in 1889 Thomas Humphries, Chief Surveyor at Auckland and later Surveyor General, examined the caves and presented a full report (including photographs) to the House.616 The caves were a major discovery which the Government hoped would go some way towards compensating the country’s tourist trade for the loss of Pink and White Terraces destroyed by the Tarawera eruption in 1886. It is apparent from Humphries’ report that hapu and iwi had already built landing stages and ladders within the caves
and were guiding settlers through the attraction for a small fee, thus establishing a fledgling tourist venture.617 Despite this Humphries, noting that some graffiti had already damaged the caves, recommended that in order to protect them ‘the 1886–1889 Government should either purchase the site of the caves or in some way, with the consent of the Natives, assume the control and management of them.’618
In June 1889, Wilkinson reported that there were blocks of limestone country ‘that will programme, grow almost anything, although some of it was rather broken terrain.’ He noted that ‘on one of these blocks – viz., Hauturu East – are the celebrated limestone caves which have lately been discovered, descriptions of which have already appeared in the purchasing newspapers.’619 On 16 October 1889, he was instructed by the Native Minister that he should include the ‘Waitomo Caves blocks’ in his list of land he was reporting on with Crown’s
the
for
615 Deric N Birchan, Waitomo Tourist Caves, AH & AW Reed Ltd, Wellington, 1975, pp 9‐10
616 plan Birchan, 1975, p 11. Humphries’ expedition was facilitated by Major Mair, who arranged access with a Maori; H D Johnston, Native Land Court Interpreter, accompanied the party (‘Report on the Waitomo caves, King Country, by Thomas Humphries, the Chief Surveyor, Auckland’, AJHR 1889, H‐18, p 1) 617 Birchan, 1975, p 11 618 ‘Report on the Waitomo caves, King Country, by Thomas Humphries, the Chief Surveyor, Auckland’, AJHR 1889, H‐18, p 1 619 Wilkinson, Native Agent, Alexandra to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 20 June 1889, Developing
AJHR 1889, G‐3, No. 4, p 3 3. 200
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 regard to whether they were clear of the possibility of rehearing.620 Meanwhile, in anticipation of controlling the caves, the Crown Lands Department, who were responsible for supervising the tourist industry in New Zealand until 1901, appointed J L R Fraser of Otorohanga as a custodian to the caves in October 1889. 621 The following month, Crown officials signaled that they anticipating making ‘some extensive improvements’ to the caves, including iron ladders, punts, and wire netting to protect the caves features from vandalism. But this work was dependant upon ‘satisfactory arrangements … by purchase or otherwise’ being made with the Maori owners.622 There was also some public pressure for the Government to do more to open the caves to tourists and visitors.623
There had been some uncertainty as to which subdivision of the Hauturu East blocks held the caves, but by October 1889 Wilkinson was able to report that ‘it appears almost certain that the Caves are within Hauturu East No. 1A only.’ Wilkinson did not consider their precise location in relation to subdivision boundaries to be critical because he thought it ‘advisable to obtain a portion of the other block (Hauturu East No. 3) in order to secure plenty of room adjacent to the mouth of the cave.’ The two subdivisions (Hauturu East 1A and No. 3) had not been surveyed and there was still the possibility 1886–1889
that an application for rehearing would be lodged.624 When purchasing finally began in December 1889, Wilkinson was instructed by Lewis to pay no more ‘five shillings as outside limit of price of land and five hundred pounds for caves.’ But it was possible that programme, ‘if purchase cannot be effected on these terms Government will be prepared to go a little further.’625 purchasing
Crown’s 620 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, the
ANZ Wgt 621 Philip Cleaver, ‘Maori and the Forestry, Mining, Fishing, and Tourism Industries of the Rohe Potae for Inquiry District, 1880–2000’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2001, Wai 898, #A2, p 291 and Chaplow, 2003, p 268
622 plan Clever, ‘Maori and the Forestry, Mining, Fishing, and Tourism Industries ...’, Wai 898, #A25, p 291 a citing Humphries to the Under Secretary of Lands, 9 November 1889 cited in Robert Arrell, Waitomo Caves: a century of tourism, 1984, p 18 623 ‘Kihikihi, Thursday’, New Zealand Herald, 18 October 1889, p 6, col. 6 624 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 625 Telegram: Lewis, USND, to Wilkinson, 21 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, Developing
ANZ Wgt 3. 201
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Wilkinson pursued the purchase of the caves and land almost immediately. In January 1890 he reported that he planned to ‘go to Waitomo to see owners of cave blocks during the week.’626 A few days later he wrote to Lewis seeking clarification about whether the deed of sale for interests in the block on which the caves are situated should specify that payment was being made for the land and the caves.627 He was told that the conveyance of the freehold in the land was to include the caves and all interests in them. The consideration in the deed was to be the total amount to be paid for both caves and land.628
Wilkinson initially had little success in securing the ‘caves blocks’ for the Crown. In January 1892 he reported that while he had instructions to purchase both Hauturu East 1A and Hauturu East No. 3 so far he had ‘only succeeded in securing one share in Hauturu East No. 3.629 There appears to have been some tensions amongst owners in the Hauturu Block during the early 1890s, but it unclear what those disputes were about or whether Wilkinson’s approach to owners to sell their interests caused or exacerbated those problems. In May 1892 Wahanui asked the Native Minister Cadman to delay the subdivisional survey of the Hauturu Block until the owners had settled certain disputes amongst themselves. Cadman rejected this request, informing Wahanui 1886–1889 that they had already been given time to arrive at a settlement ‘and as the waiting parties had been the losers by the delay, it was only fair to them that the surveys should now proceed. Therefore he must order the survey to proceed.’630 Land alienation programme, records show that it was not until 1899 that the Crown was awarded title to parts of Haurutu East 1A. But it was not until 1901 that they were awarded title to Hauturu East No. 3 (Table 13). purchasing
Crown’s
the
for
626 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 14 January 1890, NLP 90/11 (with 90/69) in MA 13/78, plan ANZ Wgt a 627 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 16 January 1890, NLP 90/11 (with 90/69) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 628 Telegram: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 17 January 1890 (Approved and sent 18 January), NLP 90/11 (with 90/69) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 629 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, Native Department, Wellington, 29 January 1892, NLP 91/255 in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt) Developing 630
‘The Native Meeting at Otorohanga – The reply of the Maoris’, New Zealand Herald, 5 May 1892, p 5 3. 202
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 13: CROWN PURCHASING OF HAUTURU EAST 1A AND 3A BEFORE 1908
Subdivision Acres Year Hauturu East 1A1 291 1899 Hauturu East 1A2 1 1899 Hauturu East 1A3 2 1899 Hauturu East 3A 218 1901 Total acres alienated 512
Source: Data from the Tribunal’s Te Rohe Potae land alienation project and Berghan, Block Research Narratives, p 144
Maori owners of the caves continued their efforts to retain management and control of the caves, and to develop them for tourism purposes. By 1903 Tane Tinorau and his co‐ owners had employed a European, Frank MacGuire to act as a caretaker‐manager and planned to make improvements to the caves themselves. In 1904 the Crown reserved Hauturu East 1A6 near the caves under the newly passed Scenery Preservation Act
1903. Having secured this land the Tourist Department began running the operation of the glowworm caves and in 1905 they purchased a privately‐owned accommodation house at Waitomo. Philip Cleaver concluded that, as a result, ‘the former Maori owners 1886–1889
were effectively shut out of the tourist trade.’631 Between 1904 and 1911 the Crown took numerous parcels of land around the Waitomo Caves for scenic purposes under Scenery Preservation and Public Works legislation to develop and consolidate its programme, control of the tourist attraction.632
3.6.2 ELLIS’ ASSESSMENT OF BLOCKS FOR INITIAL PURCHASE purchasing
In his letter to the Native Minister in September 1889, J W Ellis also gave his opinion about which land within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block ought to be purchased first. Crown’s Although he made no mention in that letter of the state of title or survey, Ellis seemed to the
for
631 plan Philip Cleaver, ‘Maori and the Forestry, Mining, Fishing, and Tourism Industries of the Rohe Potae a Inquiry District, 1880–2000’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2001, Wai 898, #A25, pp 293‐294 632 For further details of these taking see Cleaver, ‘Maori and the Forestry, Mining, Fishing, and Tourism Industries ...’, Wai 898, #A25, pp 294‐296, and a discussion of a 1990 settlement between descendant of the original owners and the Crown (p 298). Also see David Alexander, ‘Public Works and other takings in
Te Rohe Potae District’, a report commissioned by CFRT, Wai 898, #A63, pp 218‐221, 337‐348, 433‐439 Developing
and 546‐555 3. 203
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 have known which blocks were potentially available for purchasing. Like Wilkinson, he considered that the best land for settlement was close to the railway line, but expressed concerns about the effect such purchasing would have in setting a precedent with regard to price. He considered that:
it is doubtful if it would be wise to commence by buying the higher valued lands close to the railway. Although those are of course the ones wanted but I expect it would have the effect of making them hard to deal with for the balance and at present they have very extravagant ideas of the value of their lands close to the line.633
In fact, as evidence over the next few years shows, rather than been ‘extravagant’ or inflated the prices Maori considered they should receive for their land was based on comparisons with the market value of commodities such as pigs and on the prices being offered by Europeans hoping to buy directly from them (see 4.2.1(a) in the next chapter).
Ellis agreed with Wilkinson that the best place for the Crown to start its purchasing operation was in the northern blocks bisected by the railway, in particular Puketatara, which Ellis regarded as ‘one of the best for commencing operations on’ because ‘it is a
fairly large one (some 250,000 acres) average quality & very clear of Kaingas.’ In his 1886–1889 opinion the only kainga ‘of any importance’ was ‘one occupied by Waikatos who are not owners.’634 The Ouruwhero block was also attractive, being ‘also nearly clear of Kaingas’ but the Kawa swamp there would make farming more difficult. Ellis suggested that it programme,
‘could possibly be easily drained.’ He regarded this as a cost well worth incurring because it would ‘be possible to buy this block as a whole at a cheap rate.’ In relation to the Kakepuku block he noted that it was subject to an application for rehearing, and he purchasing considered the Tokanui block to be a ‘good block’ but the list of owners was not yet available.635 These comments also suggest that Ellis may have considered that land that Crown’s appeared to be thinly populated could be more easily acquired from the owners, or that the this would make for less resistance to selling or fewer complications in the court later for
plan
a
633 J W Ellis to Native Minister Mitchelson, 26 September 1889, NLP 89/326 (with 89/327) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 634 J W Ellis to Native Minister Mitchelson, 26 September 1889, NLP 89/326 (with 89/327) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 635 J W Ellis to Native Minister Mitchelson, 26 September 1889, NLP 89/326 (with 89/327) Developing
in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 204
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 when the Crown partitioned out a portion land to represent the interests it had purchased.
Ellis’ perspective on the worth of these blocks was based on the economic value of the land for settlement. It ran contrary to the traditional patterns of Maori resource use over wide areas of hapu and iwi rohe and did not consider intrinsic worth of these places to those communities. In fact the Kakepuku blocks and Te Kawa swamp were highly valued economically, culturally and spiritually.636 The wider area of the Waipa valley had long been a prosperous economic centre, renowned for the quality and quantity of its wheat and other crops. Primary sources from the 1840s and 1850s paint a picture of extensive cultivation, prosperity and investment in flourmills, ships and other agricultural technology across the Waipa valley and Otawhao (now Te Awamutu).637 Andrew Francis’ report on Maori economic development from 1840 to 1886 for this inquiry provides a more detailed account of these economic activities in the Waipa and elsewhere in the inquiry district.638 Judge Mair, who presided over the
Rohe Potae (Aotea) case in the Native Land Court, also noted that the whole Kakepuku area abounded in ‘papawhenua, papakainga and urupa.’639 Even according to land use information produced by the Crown the blocks suggested for purchase by both 1886–1889
Wilkinson and Ellis were intensively occupied and cultivated by hapu and iwi in the early 1890s (Figure 13).640
Ellis also believed that the Crown could successfully purchase land around Otorohanga. programme,
He noted that the ‘blocks round Otorohanga are all small, of average quality & parts could be bought.’ He rather cynically suggested that this could be achieved by exploiting divisions or ‘ill feeling between the owners especially in the Otorohanga block purchasing
Crown’s
636 the
See for example Transcript of Rohe Potae Inquiry Oral and Traditional Hui, No. 1, Otorohanga, evidence of Tame (Tom) Roa (p 14); Shane Te Ruki (pp 67‐69, 71 & 90‐91); Wayne (Waitiahoaho) Te for Ruki (pp 79‐81); Sonny Te Whiwhi Maniapoto (pp 49‐50). Transcript of Rohe Potae Inquiry Oral and Traditional Hui, No. 2, Kawhia: Meto Hopa (pp 31‐34)
637 plan See Vincent O’Malley, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement, 1840–1863’ 2010, Wai 898, #A23, a pp 123‐128 638 Andrew Francis, ‘The Rohe Potae Commercial Economy in the Mid‐Nineteenth Century, c.1830–1886’, 2011, Wai 898, #A26. Also see Transcript of Rohe Potae Inquiry Oral and Traditional Hui, No. 1, Otorohanga, evidence of Rawiri Bidios (p 136) with regard to association with the Waipa River today 639 W G Mair, Otorohanga to Gilbert Mair, 21 June 1889, Mair Family Papers, Series 2: Outwards
Correspondence of William Gilbert Mair, MS‐Papers‐0093‐10, 11, & 18, ATL Wgt Developing 640
‘Map of the Native Land of New Zealand shewing their occupation tenure and use’, AJHR 1891, G‐5 3. 205
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 subdivisions.’641 Casting his eyes further afield Ellis identified two other areas that might be purchased. He was convinced that there was ‘a deal of good country amongst the broken & bush country between the [Main Trunk Railway] line & the coast especially in the Hauturu and Kinohaku blocks,’ that would ‘make valuable pastoral country in time.’ He also noted that the Wharepuhunga block contained ‘a lot of good land’ although ‘parts are poor & other parts very broken.’642
3.7 DECIDING HOW PURCHASING WOULD BE CARRIED OUT
There was only limited discussion amongst Crown officials in the latter part of 1889 about how the purchasing itself would be carried out. Aside from the importance of regular updates from the court as to title and survey, there was still the question of devising a method for carrying out the purchasing. By October 1889, Wilkinson had proposed a strategy which the Crown would use to purchase land in the district throughout the period between 1889 and 1908.
Wilkinson concluded that given the considerable opposition to land selling in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block the best way to procede was to commence purchasing in several 1886–1889 blocks at once, ‘if such blocks are considered suitable and the titles are clear.’ Under Secretary for the Native Land Purchase Department, T W Lewis later explained that having multiple blocks under negotiation at the same time increased the odds of the Crown acquiring some land because ‘if the owners in one are not willing to sell the programme,
owners in others may be.’ Lewis also argued that this would result in a significant amount of money from land sales circulating in the district, and this in itself would ‘form a strong inducement’ for individuals to sell.643 purchasing
Wilkinson considered that it was unlikely that the Crown could purchase whole blocks. Crown’s Instead it would be necessary to pick off the interests of individual owners over a period the of time. He was sure that by this method ‘a considerable area of several blocks may be for obtained.’ He also recommended that rather than wait ‘an indefinite time to secure the
plan
a
641 J W Ellis to Native Minister Mitchelson, 26 September 1889, NLP 89/326 (with 89/327) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 642 J W Ellis to Native Minister Mitchelson, 26 September 1889, NLP 89/326 (with 89/327) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 643 Telegram: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 18 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in Developing
MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 206
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 interests of those who refuse to sell’ the Crown should make an application to the court for a partition order ‘to have the Crown’s interest defined in the blocks the purchase of which has advanced sufficiently for that purpose.’ The purchasing of the last remaining interests could then continue ‘should it be advisable to do so.’644 Wilkinson felt sure that his strategy of engaging in many blocks simultaneously, purchasing as many individual shares as possible and then taking the block to the court to have the Crown’s interests cut out would result in ‘considerable areas of several blocks … more or less quickly become Crown property which collectively may be sufficient to meet the present requirements for settlement.’645
Wilkinson’s unwillingness to recommend purchasing in blocks where owners’ lists were not confirmed or which were subject to appeal indicates how critical obtaining up‐to‐ date lists of owners for each block in the district was to the land purchasing operation. These lists enabled land purchase officers to identify all the individual owners of a block of land and to approach them to negotiate the purchase of their particular interests in
the land. These lists were also used as a starting point in keeping track of which owners had sold their interests. Almost as soon as the decision to begin purchasing was made in June 1889 moves were made to set up a system for recoding purchases at the Native 1886–1889
Land Purchase Department’s head office. Lewis wrote to a Mr Hammond at the Land Purchase Office in Wellington on 15 June 1889 stating that he was:
anxious to have the lists of owners of the Rohe Potae blocks copied in the books programme, of the Land Purchase Department as soon as possible after each partition, which, for the time being at least, is supposed to be final.646
The interconnection and relationship between the court and land purchase officers in purchasing the inquiry district will be explored in Husbands and Mitchell’s report on the Native Land Court and Land Purchasing for this inquiry. Crown’s
the
for
plan
a
644 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 645 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 646 Lewis, USND to Mr Hammond, Native Land Purchase Office, Wellington, 15 June 1889, NLP 89/190 Developing
(with 89/326) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 207
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
However, the fact that by the end of 1889 the court had not yet defined what relative share each of the owners on the title held posed a considerable challenge to the land purchasing operation. This meant that the Crown did not know what proportion of the block was held be each owner, so in purchasing the interests of individuals the Crown would have no certainty about whether those interests amounted to a significant portion of the block or not. Wilkinson had alerted Lewis to this situation in October 1889 stating that in ‘hardly any, if any’ of the blocks that had been dealt with by the court had ‘the interests of the owners been defined in any way.’ He pointed out that as a result ‘it would be impossible for a person unacquainted with the Native owners to form any opinion as to their relative ownership.’ Wilkinson suggested that even for someone acquainted with the owners, it would be no ‘easy matter’ to divine who owned what proportion of the block.647
Lewis raised the matter with the Native Minister in December 1889. He lamented the fact that ‘the court does not on making its order decide whether the shares are equal or
not & if unequal the relative proportion.’ But suggested that this could probably be remedied reasonably quickly: ‘the time which need not necessarily be long in arriving at such a decision would be compensated for by the security & satisfaction to the seller & 1886–1889
purchaser of shares in any of the blocks.’ In the meantime, Lewis suggested that the land purchase officers should presume that the shares in the block were equally divided amongst the owners. programme,
From Lewis’ perspective there were several good reasons for adopting this policy. In particular, he considered that for officials to do otherwise by ‘deciding the relative interest’ and thus making differential payments’ to individuals was ‘a course … open to purchasing
abuse & grave objection’ and one which would create ‘jealousy and dissatisfaction’ amongst owners, and ‘hinder the work of purchase.’ He also supported working on the Crown’s
assumption that all owners held equal shares because doing so would be ‘an incentive the
to them to assist the Court to decide the relative interests’, presumably because Maori for
with greater rights to land in the block would soon realise that they would be plan
a
disadvantaged in terms of the payment they would receive and press the court to define
Developing 647
Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 October 1889, NLP 89/332 with 90/11, MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 208
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 their interests.648 Often those with the largest share in a block were men and women of influence in their community so it was to the Crown’s advantage to encourage them to press for relative interests to be defined in the hope that the rest of the community would follow. Maori resistance to providing lists of owners and relative shares to the court is discussed in the next chapter.
3.8 DECIDING ON A MAXIMUM PRICE PER ACRE
By November 1889, officials were involved in discussions about what price per acre the Crown would offer for the blocks Wilkinson had identified as suitable for purchase. This was the final stage of the Crown’s planning before it embarked on purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. On 2 November 1889, the Native Minister was informed that there were ‘seven blocks as written ready to start with exclusion of the Waitomo caves and two blocks of 1,000 acres each adjoining’ and as soon as a price limit was fixed negotiations could begin.649
The Surveyor General was asked to give an indication of the price per acre that should be offered for land in each block. He pointed out that it was ‘somewhat difficult to assign 1886–1889 a value above which it would not pay the Govt to purchase’ because it was likely that the blocks would be ‘further divided’ and the value of each subdivision would vary ‘according to position and quality.’ However, he gave a price per acre value for a list of blocks to indicate the ‘prices beyond which it would not pay the Govt to go’, that is the programme,
maximum price per acre that should be paid if the Crown were to retain the desired level of profit. The Surveyor General was careful to emphasis that these were maximum values, concluding that the price he gave ‘should not I think be needed unless for some purchasing
smaller divisions close to the Railway.’650 He also implied that the land purchase officers should, at least in the beginning, offer Maori owners a lower price per acre: he warned Crown’s
that ‘it does not necessarily follow that it would be advisable to offer those prices to the the
for
plan
a
648 Telegram: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 18 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 649 Minute: Sheridan to the Native Minister, 2 November 1889, on cover page of NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 650 Minute: Surveyor General to the Under Secretary for Land Purchase, 8 November 1889, on cover page Developing
of NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 209
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Maoris now.’651 This list was revised later that month to show the maximum price per acre Maori were to be offered, the recommended upset price (the price the Crown thought it would sell the land for) and the difference between these two figures, described on the revised list as ‘profit ’ (Table 14). This margin was important as it was necessary to offset the cost of constructing the Main Trunk line and servicing the railway loan. It would also help to pay the costs of getting the land ready for settlement and constructing infrastructure such as roads.652
TABLE 14: MAXIMIUM PRICE TO BE PAID, UPSET PRICE, AND PROFIT PER ACRE, SURVEYOR GENERAL, NOVEMBER 1889
Blocks Acres Buy (min) Buy (max) Sell at Profit Pirongia West 3/‐ 7/‐ 6d 2/‐ 7.5d Mangauika 5,480 5/‐ 12/‐ 6d 4/‐ 4.5d Kopua No. 1 9,375 5/‐ 12/‐ 6d 4/‐ 4.5d Waiwhakaata 11,508 6/‐ 15/‐ 5/‐ 3d Takotokoraha 2,798 8/‐ 20/‐ 7/‐ Otorohanga 15,382 10/‐ 25/‐ 8/‐ 9d
Orahiri 8,180 7/‐ 17/‐ 6d 6/‐ 1.5d Hauturu (West of range) 2/‐ 7/‐ 6d 3/‐ 7.5d Hauturu (East) 5/‐ 12/‐ 6d 4/‐ 4.5d Kinohaku East 57,000 7/‐ 17/‐ 6d 6/‐ 1.5d Kinohaku West 3/‐ 7/‐ 6d 2/‐ 7.5d 1886–1889 Kakepuku 17,200 10/‐ 25/‐ 8/‐ 9d Ouruwhero 10,123 7/‐ 17/‐ 6d 6/‐ 1.5d Puketarata 17,984 10/‐ 25/‐ 8/‐ 9d Maungarangi 700 10/‐ 25/‐ 8/‐ 9d Wharepuhunga 135,057 5/‐ 10/‐ 2/‐ 6d Tokanui 10,205 10/‐ 25/‐ 8/‐ 9d programme,
Source: NLP 89/332 with 90/11, MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt (original reproduced as Appendix 2 of this report)
On 21 December 1889, Wilkinson was instructed to pay no more than five shillings per purchasing
acre and to ‘assume the shares to be equal where the contrary is not apparent or decided by the Court.’ 653 This maximum price was half that originally determined for Crown’s four of the most desirable blocks, and below that named for a five others. Lewis the
considered five shillings per acre to be the maximum price rather than the ‘going rate’. for
Just days before, he had recommended to the Native Minister ‘the experiment to be tried plan
a
651 Minute: Surveyor General to the Under Secretary for Land Purchase, 8 November 1889, on cover page of NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 652 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 90 653 Telegram: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 21 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, Developing
ANZ Wgt 3. 210
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 of a lower acreage rate all round say three or four shillings with an additional reserve’, although he feared that this would result in delays in Maori selling their interests.654 Lewis acknowledged that this was far lower than Maori in the district were expecting but he was not unduly worried by the shortfall between Maori expectations and the price the Crown was willing to offer. He expected it would be ‘some time before they sell in numbers but when once the ice is broken they will come in.’ He seemed to be advocating a firm line on not paying more than five shillings per acre, predicting that Maori owners would accept these low prices especially when they learn that, what Lewis term ‘their unreasonable expectations are not likely be realized.’655 Of course, the prohibition on private selling also meant that Maori could not simply go to another buyer who might offer more.
This is a significant policy decision which indicates that the Crown would offer Maori in this district much less than the maximum price they had determined blocks were worth, even though offering those prices would have still, by the Crown’s own reckoning, have
provided a sufficient margin to pay the Crown’s costs. So in effect the Crown planned to make even larger profits than they calculated in 1889. This certainly raises grave doubts about whether Maori received a fair price for their land. 1886–1889
3.9 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT LAND PURCHASE OFFICER
By the end of December 1889 Wilkinson had received official instructions to begin programme,
purchasing land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, these reflected the policy discussion he had been part of since 1886. The instructions confirmed that the blocks that he was in a position to deal with were Puketarata, Ouruwhero, Mangauika, Te Kopua No. 1, purchasing
Takotakoraha, Waiwhakaata and Mangarangi as well as the two ‘cave blocks’, Hauturu East No. 3 and Hauturu East No. 1A.656 Crown’s
the With regard to the matter of the failure of the court to apportion relative interests Lewis for informed Wilkinson that this was a temporary setback only and the need to purchase plan
a
654 Telegram: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 18 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 655 Telegram: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 18 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in
MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt Developing 656
Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 28 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 211
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 ahead of such definitions would therefore only last for a short period. He assured Wilkinson that ‘when the Court resumes at Otorohanga it will at once proceed to determine & apportion the relative interests of the owners in all the Blocks in which orders have been made up to date.’657 Lewis had discussed the issue with the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court and with Judge Mair. This confirmed his understanding that Section 21 of the Native Land Court Act 1888 required the court to determine relative interests at the time the title order was made. However, his advice was that the court’s failure to do so, did not make such orders invalid but it was agreed determining relative interests would be a priority once the court reconvened at Otorohanga.658
To assist the court to do this Wilkinson was asked to communicate with the owners about the process of allocating relative shares and to ask them to ‘send in to the Court a list & apportionment of the respective shares in the blocks which are authorized to be purchased.’ However, Lewis warned that if owners could not reach agreement about what proportion of the block each was entitled to ‘it is probable that you will not find
them willing to sell on the assumption that the shares are equal and it may therefore be necessary for you to suspend operations until the shares are determined.’659 As a first step in purchasing land in the district Wilkinson was told to place himself ‘in immediate 1886–1889
communication with the principal owners of the blocks’ so that he could begin purchasing as soon as the court had met to determine their relative interests. In preparation for purchase negotiations Lewis was having plans placed on pre‐printed programme, deeds of conveyance and would forward those to Wilkinson as soon as they were available.660
Lewis also instructed Wilkinson to make reserves for ‘sellers.’ He informed Wilkinson purchasing
that ‘a reserve [is] to be made say of ten per cent for each individual of the land he conveys.’ Although this would effectively increase the maximum price per acre to five Crown’s
shillings and sixpence Lewis believed that the additional cost was worthwhile as such the reserves ‘would be an incentive to sell.’ He also had larger strategic reasons for making for
these reserves. He considered that the 10 per cent reserves would be ‘an inducement to plan
a
657 Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 28 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 658 Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 28 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 659 Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 28 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt Developing 660
Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 28 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 3. 212
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the seller to contend for the extent of the share sold if disputed in Court.’661 That is, Lewis hoped that because the size of the reserve made for each owner was dependant on the amount of land sold sellers would argue their interests represented the maximum amount of land possible, thus increasing the size of their reserves and the Crown’s domain. With regard to the price Wilkinson should offer, he had already been instructed by Lewis on 21 December to offer no more than five shillings per acre.
3.10 CONCLUSION
Between 1886 and mid‐1889, Crown officials developed a plan and rationale for which blocks of land within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block would be immediately targeted for purchasing and how purchasing would be carried out. The formulation of this plan was highly dependent upon the land being in a state to purchase. In particular, the large Rohe Potae (Aotea) block being dealt with by the Native Land Court from July 1886, had to be subdivided into smaller blocks each held by a number of named individual owners,
preferably with the share each held defined. However, there was initially some resistance to this amongst hapu and iwi, with some favouring a division of the land along hapu lines with each hapu holding a large block collectively. 1886–1889
From the very beginning of the court’s work in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block the Crown had an official on the ground in the district to reporting on the court’s progress and offering their assessment about whether there were sufficient blocks of land ready for programme, purchase. This was George Wilkinson who became the pivotal figure in the planning and execution of the Crown’s purchasing programme in the inquiry district. Since 1883 he had been employed by the Crown as a district officer or Native agent, stationed first purchasing
at Alexandra (Pirongia) and later at Otorohanga. In that capacity he developed a detailed knowledge of the land and the various hapu and iwi to whom it belonged. He Crown’s
was a fluent Maori speaker who married into Ngati Maniapoto; his wife’s sister was the
married to the prophet Te Mahuki. By 1887/1888 many of the prominent leaders of the for district were expressing their confidence and trust in him, asking the Government not to plan
a retrench his position and even recommending that he be appointed as a judge of the
661 Telegram: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 21 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, Developing
ANZ Wgt 3. 213
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Native Land Court. He also brought his previous experience as a surveyor in the Waikato confiscation area, and interpreter and land purchase officer in the Thames district to his role.
Therefore, Wilkinson was ideally placed to gather information about the progress of the court and surveys. From 1886, the judge presiding over the Rohe Potae case, W G Mair, included Wilkinson amongst those who received copies of lists of owners when the title of blocks were determined. Wilkinson also attended the court, seemingly in his private capacity, Judge Mair recorded that in 1888 Wilkinson and his Ngati Maniapoto wife were living close to Wahanui in the camp at Otorohanga where the people had gathered during sittings of the court. Wilkinson seems to have been entrusted with an ‘insider’ role, Mair described him as sitting at Ngati Maniapoto’s ‘Kaiwhakahaere table as if he was Counsel for them.’
It was not until the end of 1888 that Wilkinson considered that the Rohe Potae (Aotea)
block had been sufficiently subdivided for the Crown to contemplate land purchasing. From early October 1888 Wilkinson began to advise the Native Land Purchase Department which blocks had passed through the court and reported on progress in 1886–1889 surveying the boundaries of those blocks. As Wilkinson’s reports continued throughout 1888 and 1889 he developed four criteria for determining whether a block should be prioritized for immediate purchase. The list of owners had to be confirmed, the survey of the external boundaries of the block needed to be completed, the period in which programme, owners could appeal the court’s decision had to have lapsed or an appeal been dealt with, and the blocks had to be good quality land located within close proximity to the North Island Main Trunk Railway line. These factors shaped but did not completely purchasing determine which blocks the Crown targeted for purchase in the first few years of land purchasing; other desirable resources such as land around Kawhia Harbour and the Crown’s newly discovered Waitomo cave were also targeted. the
for In June 1889, the Under Secretary of the Native Land Purchase Department, largely on plan
the basis of Wilkinson’s reports, decided to begin purchasing. Although Wilkinson had a identified 13 blocks with titles sufficiently advanced to warrant purchasing only eight of these met the criteria of proximity to the railway and complete surveys. These were the Ouruwhero, Puketarata, Maungarangi, Kakepuku, Mangamahoe, Pokuru and Rapaura Developing
3. 214
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 blocks, all in the north of the inquiry district. He estimated their total area as 46,017 acres. Eight other blocks further west met the title and survey criteria but these were slightly further from the railway. However, these were all, Wilkinson reported, desirable agricultural land. They included: Maungaika, Kaipiha, Whakairoiro, Ngamahanga, Te Kopua No.1, Parihoro, Takatokoraha and Waiwhaata. Wilkinson gave their total area as 34,214 acres. In addition, he recommended that the Crown purchase the Hauturu East No. 1A & No. 3 blocks in order to secure the newly discovered Waitomo caves for the Crown. The primacy of the policy of purchasing land near the railway line in order to support or ‘feed’ the railway can be seen in Wilkinson’s exclusion of blocks near Kawhia Harbour from his shortlist of blocks on the basis that they were too distant from the railway line.
Wilkinson sometimes added other considerations to these basic criteria for deciding where Crown purchasing should begin. The quality and amount of good agricultural land in a block was certainly a factor. For example, in June 1889 he noted that the much of the Mangauika block lay on the slopes of Mount Pirongia and was heavily timbered and therefore less attractive than the Te Kopua No. 1 and Waiwhakaataa blocks where there were large amounts of flat fertile land. Wilkinson was also aware that some blocks 1886–1889 were heavily occupied (Kaipiha) or contained wahi tapu and so the owners were unlikely to part with them (Whakairoiro and Parihoro). Some blocks, at the request of owners, had been declared inalienable by the court. However, Wilkinson did not programme, consider that these restrictions applied to the Crown.
The Native Minister also took advice from a European shopkeeper in the district, J W Ellis about which blocks should be purchased. Like Wilkinson he had married into Ngati purchasing
Maniapoto. His advice was very similar to that given by Wilkinson. Ellis favoured the northern blocks bisected by the railway but also recommended that the Crown Crown’s purchase land around Otorohanga, and possibly further afield in the Kinohaku and the
Hauturu blocks. It is clear that Ellis had a vested interest in ensuring that the Crown’s for purchasing programme was a success. He had established a timber milling business at plan
a
Otorohanga in the same year as he gave his advice to the Native Minister.
One of the consequences of the Crown’s intention to focus its initial energies on purchasing land in the northern and central‐northern part of the district as far south as Developing
3. 215
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Otorohanga was that this put the Crown in direct competition with hapu and iwi for the flattest more fertile land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. According to the Crown’s own 1891 map of land occupation and tenure these were the areas most heavily occupied and cultivated by hapu and iwi. In particular, the Waipa valley and the Kawa swamp had been the food bowl of the people and a centre of agricultural and commercial innovation since the 1840s. The oral and traditional hui held for this inquiry during 2010 indicate that Mount Pirongia and Kakepuku and the surrounding land are rich in cultural and spiritual significance to the people of the district. The areas that the Crown chose to target for purchasing also corresponded very closely with what they already knew about the location of the most productive and desirable land. The location of blocks that the Crown prioritized for early purchase are almost a perfect match with the largest areas of first class land on Cussen’s 1885 survey map of the King Country.
Given that purchasing a large portion of this land had the potential to deprive hapu and iwi of an important economic and cultural base there was an obligation on the part of the Crown in planning the scope, location and method of land purchasing to ensure that Maori interests were protected. The obligation was even greater because the Crown had the sole right to purchase Maori land and all private dealings were prohibited in much 1886–1889 of the inquiry district for an extended period of time. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that the Crown consulted hapu and iwi between 1886 and 1889 about its plan to acquire a large portion of the land and resources that held the highest economic and programme, cultural value. There was a meeting between Lewis, the Under Secretary of the Native Land Purchase Department and Wahanui and others at Otorohanga early in June 1889, at the same time as Lewis was meeting with Wilkinson and Ellis to finalise plan for land purchasing purchasing in the district. No record of this meeting has been found so it unclear whether Maori were even told which blocks the Crown was most interested in Crown’s purchasing. The letter which went out to Wahanui, and two other leaders, Taonui and the Hauauru, on 24 June 1889 certainly did not contain this detail. It simply informed them for that the Government intended to commence purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block plan as soon as title was ascertained and urged them to part with their ‘surplus’ land. a
However, they were promised that sufficient land would be reserved for their use. There is no evidence that before purchasing began officials sought agreement from hapu and iwi leaders about what land, if any, they were willing to part with, that is, what Developing
3. 216
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 land they considered to be ‘surplus’ and which they the community wished to permanently retain or reserve.
Wilkinson and Ellis were both of the opinion that the Crown would face significant opposition to land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, especially initially. However, they considered that some land could be acquired almost immediately and that one way or the other Maori resistance would be broken down. This assessment was important in shaping decisions about how the land purchasing would be carried out. Wilkinson advised that Maori would be unwilling to offer whole blocks for sale and therefore, it would be necessary to buy the interests of individual owners over a period of time. Because owners often had interests in multiple blocks Lewis reasoned that owners might be persuaded to part with their interests in some blocks but not others. In order to increase the odds of getting enough interests in a block to have a piece of land partitioned out for the Crown it was decided to buy interests in many blocks at the same time. It was hoped that this would rapidly increase the amount of money circulating in the Maori community, tempting those resisting sales to part with their interests in order to obtain cash for themselves. 1886–1889 The initial failure of the court to determine relative interests meant that between 1890 and 1895 this had to be done for all the blocks which had previously been dealt with. This slowed the pace of the court further. It also became apparent to Wilkinson that there were a number of risks for the Crown if it were to purchase the interests of programme, owners in blocks without knowing for certain how much land was in the block, or what share of that land each owner held. When it investigated the title to blocks within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block the court had failed to define the relative interests of each purchasing owner. Wilkinson was aware that some owners were considered to have a greater customary right, while others, such as minors, held a smaller share. But with no official Crown’s definition of the shares it was impossible for the Crown to know how much they ought the to pay each owner, or how much land they were purchasing. for
plan
Even when the relative shares were defined this did not indicate where each a individual’s piece of land was on the ground. So the Crown had no certainty at the point of purchase about where the land represented by the shares they had bought was actually located on the ground. This had to be determined when the Crown applied to Developing
3. 217
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 have their interests partitioned out into a subdivision some time later. It appears that, at least initially, Wilkinson was satisfied that the subdivisions awarded to the Crown on partition contained a high proportion of good land. In April 1894, Wilkinson listed 40 subdivisions awarded to the Crown by the court as a consequence of land purchasing. In each case Wilkinson assured his superiors that he had been able to get agreement amongst the ‘non‐sellers’ ‘by discussion and negotiation outside the court’ about how the block was to be partitioned. He reported that the only instance in which this was not straightforward was the Wharepuhunga block. His comments about this are revealing. He noted that acted on his instructions ‘to be firm in my determination to get a satisfactory portion of the Block for the Crown, and to fight the matter out in Court if necessary.’ As a result the remaining owners ‘finally agreed to an amicable subdivision of the Block.’ In his opinion he ‘obtained for the Crown contains some of the best (if not the very best) part of the block and will I think be readily taken up when put into the market.662 Husbands and Mitchell will examine this aspect of interaction between the
land purchase officer and the court system in more detail in his report for this inquiry.
Despite the risks of proceeding before relative interests were defined Wilkinson was instructed to continue purchasing, in the optimistic belief that the court and surveyors 1886–1889
would soon catch up. In the meantime, Wilkinson was to presume that all owners held equal shares in the block and pay them accordingly. Lewis even suggested this might persuade major shareholders to urge the court to define the relative interests of programme, owners, in order to ensure that they received the price they were due. This was cunning because those with the largest share in a block were generally men and women of influence in their community and it was probably hoped they would lead by example purchasing and this would speed up the process of defining shares.
Important decisions were also made prior to purchasing about how much the Crown Crown’s
would offer per acre for Maori land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. In November 1889, the
the short‐list of blocks to be purchased immediately was finalised and the Surveyor for
General was asked to give his opinion about what price per acre should be offered for plan
a
each block. This list was later revised to show the maximum price per acre Maori were
662 Memorandum: Wilkinson to the Premier and Native Minister, 13 April 1894, MA‐MLP 1, box 34, Developing
NLP 94/126, ANZ Wgt 3. 218
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 to be offered, the recommended upset price (price land would be sold for on the open market) and the difference between these two figure, which on the list was clearly labeled as ‘profit’. It is acknowledged that the Crown needed to generate income to cover legitimate expenses incurred in preparing the land for settlement and in constructing infrastructure to support settlement. However, Wilkinson was instructed to pay no more than five shillings per acre for any block. This maximum price of five shillings per acre was half that originally determined for four of the most desirable blocks, and below that named for five others.
In essence, in many cases the Crown was offering Maori much less than the minimum amount they had determined the block was worth, even though those minimum rates would have, according to the Crown’s own calculations in 1889, ensured the Crown an acceptable profit. As profits from sales of land funded by the railway loan were required by law to be used for railway purposes there was a strong incentive for the Crown to ensure that prices were kept low to maximise profits and thus ensure that the railway could be completed (see Table 9 in Chapter 2). This raises significant questions about whether Maori in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block received a fair price for their land. Particularly, because prohibitions on private dealings meant that the Crown was the 1886–1889 sole buyer and owner could not simply find someone else who would give them a greater return on their land.
The formal instructions issued to Wilkinson in December 1889 as to how he ought to programme, conduct land purchasing operations were reasonably brief and embodied the decisions which had be made to date. The formal instruction confirmed that he was to begin by purchasing the Puketarata, Ouruwhero, Mangauika, Te Kopua No. 1, Takotakoraha, purchasing
Waiwhakaata and Mangarangi blocks as well as the two ‘cave blocks’, Hauturu East No. 1A and Hauturu East No. 3. Wilkinson was to try to persuade owners of blocks already Crown’s dealt with by the court to bring their land back to the court for the relative interests of the each owner to be defined but he was to commence purchasing in those blocks in the for meantime. Wilkinson had already been instructed to pay no more than five shillings per plan
a acre for the land in a telegram from Lewis on the 21 December 1889. In buying interests from individuals Wilkinson was required to set aside a reserve for each seller that equated to 10 per cent of the land they had conveyed. In a telegram to Wilkinson a week Developing
before these instructions were issued Lewis had indicated that such reserves were 3. 219
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 intended as an incentive for owners to sell. He also hoped that when the time came for the interests the Crown had bought to be subdivided out of the block sellers would tell the court that the area had been large, thus securing themselves a larger reserve and increasing the size of the Crown’s domain. These instructions suggest that the ‘seller’ reserves were not primarily designed as a way of ensuring sellers had enough land to live on. In the face of strong opposition from hapu and iwi these intentions and policies would be tested and modified during the first two years of purchasing in the district.
1886–1889
programme,
purchasing
Crown’s
the
for
plan
a
Developing
3. 220
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
4. CARRYING OUT THE PLAN: INITIAL PURCHASES AND CAUSES OF FRUSTRATION, 1890–1892
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In carrying out the Crown’s plan for land purchasing in the inquiry district Wilkinson, Lewis and others were confronted with widespread opposition amongst hapu and iwi to selling land. This, combined with a number of other factors, resulted in the proportion of the inquiry district alienated by sale barely changing between 1889 and 1892. This chapter begins by examining the factors that frustrated the Crown’s efforts to purchase more land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, including the resistance to selling, continued delays in the Native Land Court’s conversion of ownership lists into registers of relative interests, and the delays in surveying blocks and internal subdivisions. This chapter also evaluates the way that these three main constraints influenced the decisions made about which land was to be purchased and how much the Crown was willing to pay for
it. The discussion then focuses on the policy decisions that sprung out of this period of 1890–1892 frustration, in particular, whether to press on with purchasing or wait until relative interests had been determined and surveys completed. frustration,
of 4.2 FACTORS CONSTRAINING THE CROWN’S LAND PURCHASING PROGRAMME, 1889–1892 causes
and
4.2.1 MAORI RESISTANCE TO SELLING LAND
Correspondence amongst land purchasing officials between 1889 and 1892 indicate that there was significant, strong and widespread resistance amongst hapu and iwi in purchases the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block to selling land to the Crown. In January 1890, Wilkinson, initial writing from Otorohanga, reported that there were few Maori in the vicinity at that time and that ‘none that I have seen yet have shown a disposition to sell.’ But Wilkinson plan:
attributed this to the fact that ‘the news of the govt purchase having started has not got the
well inculcated among them yet.’663 He indicated that he was willing to apply some out
663 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 14 January 1890, NLP 90/11 (with 90/69) in MA 13/78, Carrying
ANZ Wgt 4. 221
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 pressure. He intended to do his ‘best to try and induce any Natives I come across to sell.’664 In his annual report in June 1890 Wilkinson noted that the purchasing had begun at the start of that year ‘but up to the present very little progress has been made, as the natives, with very few exceptions indeed, have shown a decided disinclination to sell.’665 Little had changed 12 months later. In June 1891, Wilkinson again lamented the fact that purchasing had ‘not progressed at a very rapid rate during the past year, as the natives still have a decided objection to selling.’666
At least initially, selling was considered by many Maori owners to be shameful and such was the climate of resistance and the stigma attached to selling land that the first payments were made in secret under the cover of darkness. In April 1890, Wilkinson described how he had purchased ‘two shares in the Mangauika block’ the ‘first shares within any of the Rohepotae blocks that have yet been sold by the Natives.’ The two
owners who agreed to sell their shares had not taken the decision lightly, taking ‘fully a fortnight, after discussing the matter with me, before they could screw up their courage to sell.’ Even then they met Wilkinson at 9 o’clock at night to receive the payment, 1890–1892 having ridden ‘12 miles since sundown (they would not leave their own settlement until dark) and returned that night lest any of the local natives should see them and surmise that they had been land selling.’ They took the cheques they received in payment to the frustration, bank at Te Awamutu rather than cash them at the local store. Wilkinson cited these of
details ‘as instancing how great is the objection that most of them have to selling their
interests and how fearful they are lest it should be known by others that they have sold.’ causes
However, he was optimistic that such resistance would soon be overcome.667 and
4.2.1(a) Unattractive prices being offered
One of the immediate reasons for the failure of the Crown to acquire as many interests purchases
in land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block as they had hoped was that the Maori owners initial
considered that the price per acre being offered to them was far too low. Only a few plan:
the
664 Copy of Memo from W H Grace to Wilkinson, n/d, attached to Wilkinson to Lewis, 10 March 1890, out NLP 90/51 (with 90/60) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 665 Wilkinson, Native Agent, Otorohanga to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 June 1890, AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, p 4 666 Wilkinson, Native Agent, Otorohanga to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 10 June 1891,
AJHR 1891, G‐5, No. 3, p 4 Carrying 667
Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 7 April 1890, NLP 90/173 (with 90/248) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 4. 222
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 months into the Crown’s purchasing programme three shillings and sixpence per acre had become the default price for land in the district. In 1889, before the decision to commence purchasing was announced, Lewis had decided that five shillings per acre would be the maximum sum to be offered for land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and had instructed Wilkinson to pay no more than five shillings per acre. 668 However, in January 1890 Wilkinson opened his negotiations for land in nine blocks the district by offering five shillings per acre.669 These nine blocks were those Lewis had instructed him to proceed with in his instructions to Wilkinson on 28 December 1889.670 Lewis quickly informed him that his calculations were ‘at the maximum price’ and that if possible he should start by offering a ‘lower figure, say three and sixpence.’671 It is worth noting that even the five shillings per acre maximum was considerably less than many of the maximum price per acre figures recommended by the Surveyor General as a guide in 1889 where some blocks were shown at seven shillings or 10 shillings per
acre (Table 14).
Wilkinson argued that three shillings and sixpence per acre was unrealistically low for 1890–1892 these blocks because they contained some of the best land in the district, and Maori would simply not be tempted sell at that price. He stated that he had formed the impression from his conversations with Lewis at Otorohanga that five shillings per acre: frustration,
of was to be the price for the better class of blocks such as those suitable for occupation & agriculture which were in the Waipa Valley & at all adjacent to the railway line but that a lower price would be given for the broken bush Country causes with the exception of part of the Mangauika block and also portions of two cave 672
blocks. and
He explained that all the blocks he was proposing to purchase at that time would be classified as agricultural land. In any case, he found it necessary to offer the maximum purchases price for those blocks because he knew ‘that the owners would not listen for anything
initial
668 Telegram: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 21 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78,
ANZ Wgt plan: 669 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 14 January 1890, NLP 90/11 (with 90/69) in MA 13/78, the
ANZ Wgt 670 The nine blocks were: Puketarata, Ouruwhero, Mangauika, Kopua No. 1, Takotakoraha, Waiwhakaata out and Mangarangi as well as the two ‘cave blocks’, Hauturu East No. 3 and Hauturu East No. 1A (Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 28 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt) 671 Telegram: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 17 January 1890 (approved and sent 18 January), NLP 90/11 (with 90/69) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 672 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 21 January 1890, NLP 90/11 (with 90/69) in MA 13/78, Carrying
ANZ Wgt 4. 223
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 less.’ Wilkinson reported that even at five shillings an acre none of the owners had shown any sign of wishing to sell. He also pointed out to Lewis that very few of the owners would receive much in the way of a lump sum even at this maximum rate. Just three owners would receive more than £12, and one would receive just £3. Wilkinson then asked Lewis to clarify whether he was now being instructed to offer just three shillings and sixpence per acre for land in each of the nine blocks he proposed to purchase. 673 Lewis confirmed that these were indeed his instructions but acknowledged that he was willing to reconsider the question if the owners would not sell at that price.674
The Crown tried offering three shillings and sixpence per acre for several of these blocks but as Wilkinson had predicted none of the owners would accept such a low price. In March 1890, Wilkinson reported that he had stationed assistant land purchase
officer William Henry (W H) Grace at Kihikihi because ‘a large number of owners in Puketarata and Ouruwhero blocks reside near to that place.’675 This was a short lived arrangement, Grace had requested employment in May 1889 having heard that 1890–1892 Hursthouse or Wilkinson were going to be put in charge of land purchasing. He stated that he had applied for the position ‘after a conversation with Mr Ellis [the Waikato/King Country storekeeper] and at his suggestion’. In support of his application frustration, he enclosed a letter to him from the Under Secretary of the Native Department on 1 of
March 1888 promising ‘employment in purchase of lands when opportunity offers.’676
After 1892, he appears to have fallen out with Wilkinson. He then acted as agent for causes
Ngati Raukawa ‘non‐sellers’ opposing the Crown’s case during Native Land Court and
hearings for the Wharepuhunga block in April and May 1892.677 Like Wilkinson he had married into the Maori community, his first marriage was to Mary Matuku Atahua (with purchases
initial
673 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 21 January 1890, NLP 90/11 (with 90/69) in MA 13/78,
ANZ Wgt plan: 674 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 21 January 1890, NLP 90/11 (with 90/69) in MA 13/78, the
ANZ Wgt 675 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 10 March 1890, NLP 90/51 (with 90/60) in MA 13/78, out ANZ Wgt 676 W H Grace to Native Minister Mitchelson, May 1889, William Henry Grace Letterbook 1880–1892, MSY‐4506, ATL, Wgt. For a full discussion of W H Grace and his career see Waitangi Tribunal, The Pouakani Report, 1993 and Stirling, 2004, Vol. 2 677 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 65, citing MA-MLP, box 61, NLP 1892/112 attached to NLP 1901/95, Carrying
ANZ Wgt 4. 224
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 whom he had one son). He later married Makereti Te Hinewai of Ngati Maniapoto and Ngati Raukawa.
As mentioned in the previous section, the Puketarata and Ouruwhero blocks were high quality land bisected by the railway line and the Crown had prioritized their purchase.678 Grace had informed Wilkinson that although he had ‘seen a good number of the owners in some of the blocks available for purchase’ he had not yet been ‘able to induce any of them to agree to sell.’ They had told him that ‘the price is too low and that they can get more money for a pig than the amount offered for one interest.’679 Grace reported that the owners he had spoken to ‘all seem highly amused at the price offered and one old fellow said “The Govt don’t wish to buy or else they would not offer such a price.”’680 This suggests that the Crown’s offer of three shillings and sixpence per acre was derisory. A surveyor working in the Kinohaku and Te Kuiti areas in the early 1890s
reported that Maori there had said ‘that the Government virtually confiscate the land in only paying them 3s. an acre for it. They know that they can get £1 an acre from private
parties.’ 681 James Mackay who was employed by the Government in railway 1890–1892 compensation cases in 1891 also ‘found the Natives complaining of the low price the Government was offering them for the land ‐ not more than 5s. an acre ‐ while there were Europeans willing to give them £2 or £3.’ The Crown’s price per acre was also a frustration, considerable contrast to some of the compensation offered for railway land. Mackay of
admitted that ‘we valued some of this railway land as high as £2 per acre.’682 causes
and
678 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 10 March 1890, NLP 90/51 (with 90/60) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 679 To put this in perspective Wilkinson noted that the payment per share for land in the Maungarangi and purchases Takotokoraha blocks at three shillings and sixpence per acre was £1 18s 10d and £2 12s 10d respectively (Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 10 March 1890, NLP 90/51 (with 90/60) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt) initial 680 Copy of Memo from W H Grace to Wilkinson , n/d, attached to Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 10 March 1890, NLP 90/51 (with 90/60) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 681
Evidence of Oliver Mason Creagh, surveyor, before the Native Land Laws Commission, AJHR 1891, plan: G‐1, p 27
682 the
Evidence of James MacKay before the Native Land Laws Commission, AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 43. Marr noted that compensation for land taken for railway construction was only to be paid on land which had passed out through the Native Land Court (Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, pp 44‐45). In 1885 Native Minister John Ballance outlined to Ngati Maniapoto at Kihikhi the process for determining compensation. He explained that when ‘the owners are found and the title is determined, the matter will go to arbitration, and the owners will be paid for the amount of land taken for the railway. When the payment is made will entirely
depend upon yourselves – that is to say, when you are prepared to go and prove your title to the land.’ Carrying
(AJHR 1885, G‐1, pp 22‐23) 4. 225
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The following month Wilkinson was granted discretion to raise the price per acre being offered in order to induce more owners to part with their interests, but only to a maximum of five shillings per acre. In April 1890, Wilkinson reported that he therefore proposed ‘to raise the price of Puketarata, Takotokoraha & Waiwhakaatu Blocks to five shillings per acre as they are the best blocks we have under purchase at present.’683 The Native Minister explained his decision to grant this discretion, telling Lewis that it would ‘enable the Land Purchase Officers to discriminate between the good and the bad land.’ However, there was still an expectation that Wilkinson would offer only enough to ‘induce the natives to commence selling’ and no more.684 In other words, the focus remained firmly on paying as little as possible for the land even while trying to break through Maori resistance to selling.
A few months later Wilkinson reported that one of the reasons for Maori refusing to sell was ‘that they consider the prices offered by the Government are too small, and they could get more if they were allowed to sell to private purchasers.’685 Owners of various blocks continued to make unfavourable comparisons between the price per acre they 1890–1892 were offered by the Crown and that being offered by private individuals. The fact that dealings between private individuals and Maori remained prohibited in much of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block during the 1890s became a source of growing frustration and frustration, led Maori leaders to ask that these restrictions be removed. This is discussed further in of
the next chapter. causes In summarising progress in 1890 Lewis reported to the Native Minister that ‘very little and advance’ had been ‘made in the acquisition of lands in the Rohe Potae.’ He ascribed this to ‘the very strong disinclination on the part of the natives to sell’ coupled with what he regarded as ‘the exaggerated idea’ that Maori owners had of ‘the value of their interests.’ purchases Thus he considered that the Crown’s standard rate per acre was not the problem but rather Maori expectations as to price were unreasonable. He was convinced that these initial
‘exaggerated’ expectations had been fueled by ‘everything from the construction of the plan:
the
out
683 Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 5 April 1890, NLP 90/255 (with 90/261) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 684 Minute: Native Minister Mitchelson to Lewis, UNSD, 17 April 1890 on cover page of NLP 90/60 (with 90/75) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 685 Wilkinson, Native Agent, Otorohanga to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 June 1890, Carrying
AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, p 4 4. 226
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Railway line through their land to the last newspaper article on the desirability of purchasing and settling the land.’686
In fact, the Crown itself, in its internal reports and in meetings with Maori during the 1880s, had emphasised how much more valuable land would become once the railway had been put through it. In 1885, Ballance had told hapu and iwi at Kihikihi that they could currently expect to received three or four shillings per acre for their land but once railway and roads were constructed they could expect to sell their land for as much as a pound per acre. In April 1886, Ballance expressed the hope that Ngati Maniapoto would soon realise the benefit of the railway ‘by the increased value of their lands.’687 As early as 1891 there was a high demand for land in the district from Europeans. A surveyor working in the Kinohaku and Te Kuiti areas at that time reported that he had ‘had hundreds and hundreds of Europeans at me about the land, asking for information.’688
The fact that this land had long been prized by hapu and iwi as its food bowl, the high demand for land from settlers, and the higher pricers offered to them by Europeans meant that it was not unreasonable for Maori to consider that their land was worth 1890–1892 more than they were being offered by the Crown in this initial period.
4.2.1(b) Little need to generate cash frustration,
Wilkinson repeatedly asserted that one of the principle reasons why Maori owners of were refusing to sell their land to the Crown was that they felt no pressing need to generate cash. He acknowledged that the ‘smallness of price offered per acre’ was causes
certainly a factor but the real reason in his opinion was that Maori were not actually in and want of money. In Wilkinson’s assessment Maori had:
not any great calls upon their financial resources. They do not go in for large feasts on the death of any of their people as do other tribes, when large purchases quantities of European food is consumed, and sometimes clothing and money distributed. There is very little European settlement in the district therefore initial
plan:
the
out 686 Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 14 October 1890, NLP 90/395 (with 90/399) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 687 ‘Mr Ballance and the Natives – Important meeting with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato Times, 20 April 1886, p 4 688 Evidence of Oliver Mason Creagh, surveyor, before the Native Land Laws Commission, Carrying
AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 27 4. 227
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
there is no feeling of emulation amongst the Natives to live and dress as do their European brethren.’689
In his published report of June 1890, he considered that the key reason for Maori resistance to selling was simply that hapu and iwi ‘do not yet feel sufficiently the want of money to cause them to part with their land to obtain it.’690
What little need there was for cash to purchase European goods could easily be satisfied by selling flax, working in flax mills, being paid by the Government for rabbit skins, and selling the occasional cow or pig, and day labour on public works projects. There was also seasonal work outside the district in the Thames goldfields and in the far north gumfields.691 This suggests a reasonably robust economy, albeit one that was becoming more dependent on wage labouring. Wilkinson considered that Maori resistance to selling was highly contingent upon this financial independence and was sure that when
these sources of revenue ceased Maori, like Europeans, would ‘sell at almost any price.’692 Although Wilkinson’s observations were astute, if rather cynical, his focus on economic drivers reduced the land itself to an economic commodity to be traded for 1890–1892 cash, overlooking its cultural and spiritual significance as land inherited from and previously inhabited by the tupuna. This focus on economic imperatives also fails to take into account the strong wish of hapu and iwi to retain rangatiratanga and hapu frustration, structures. of
4.2.1 (c) Desire to retain land for pastoral farming causes Hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae had a long history of seeking out and engaging in new and economic opportunities, with considerable success.693 So it is unsurprising that by the early 1890s many were eager to retain and use their land for pastoral farming. In June 1890, Wilkinson reported that this desire amongst Maori was one of the key reasons for purchases the high level of resistance to land selling. He rather dismissively talked about the ‘craze initial
plan: 689 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 27 March 1890, NLP 90/60 (with 90/75) in MA 13/78, the
ANZ Wgt 690 Wilkinson, Native Agent, Otorohanga to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 10 June 1891, out AJHR 1891, G‐5, No. 3, p 4 691 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 27 March 1890, NLP 90/60 (with 90/75) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt and Wilkinson, Native Agent, Otorohanga to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 June 1890, AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, p 4 692 Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 June 1890, AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, p 4 Carrying 693
See Francis, ‘The Rohe Potae Commercial Economy ...’ 2011, Wai 898, #A26 4. 228
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 throughout the district for sheep‐grazing’, and estimated that ‘there are now fully six thousand sheep grazing within the Rohepotae Block.’ He noted that the sheep were ‘owned mostly by the natives.’694 He reported that many of those who purchased sheep to run on their land did so with ‘surplus cash’ others probably ran up debts by making arrangements with storekeepers and others parties.695 The need to repay such debts, especially in cases where the farming venture had turned out to be less profitable than hoped, made individual owners vulnerable to offers to purchase their interests. In a few cases Maori and Europeans were involved in joint‐ventures where the European would buy the sheep and they would be run on Maori land, with the land owners being paid ‘a proportion of either lambs or wool, or both, as the case may be.’696 To some extent this engagement with sheep farming was driven by a need for hapu and iwi to pay the considerable costs they faced in obtaining a secure title to their land through the Native Land Court. Wilkinson noted that some of the Maori owners involved hoped to make
large profits and ‘talk of being able to pay all the costs incurred for the survey of their lands, as well as the Native Land Court fees, out of the sale of the wool and lambs.’697 1890–1892 In his reports Wilkinson tried to reassure his superiors that Maori desires to hold on to their land and use it for sheep farming would quickly wane and thus posed little long‐ term threat to the success of the Crown’s purchasing operation. In June 1892, he frustration, reported that many Maori farmers had suffered losses through lack of knowledge and of
expertise in sheep care, problems of having been supplied ageing sheep, and of disease
control for lung worm etc. He noted that ‘one or two of the intelligent half‐castes have causes
already given up keeping sheep, and are going in for cattle and the breeding of a and
superior class of pigs, expecting to get better results from them than from sheep.’698 Yet even a cursory examination of sheep returns for the Otorohanga district shows that
699 purchases
Maori individuals continued to own flocks of sheep throughout the 1890s. In any case, Wilkinson was sure that he could capitalize on friction between sheep owners and initial other owners of blocks to advance the land purchasing. He anticipated that ‘this sheep
plan:
694 the
Wilkinson, Native Agent, Otorohanga to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 June 1890, AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, pp 4‐5 out 695 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 27 March 1890, NLP 90/60 (with 90/75) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 696 Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 June 1890, AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, pp 4‐5 697 Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 June 1890, AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, pp 4‐5 698 Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 28 June 1892, AJHR 1892, G‐3, No. 3, pp 2‐3 Carrying 699
Annual Sheep Returns can be found in AJHR H‐series (various numbers) throughout the 1890s 4. 229
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 running business will very soon cause dissatisfaction and dissension amongst the owners of the land’ because those with sheep ran their stock ‘indiscriminately over the blocks owned by themselves and those who have no sheep.’ Wilkinson considered that those owners not involved in sheep farming would then object and this would ‘probably lead to the sheepless and discontented ones selling their interests in some of the blocks in order to spite the others.’700 These kinds of tensions were a product of the type of title imposed by the Native Land Court. In particular, they were symptomatic of the breakdown in hapu and iwi collective control and decision‐making, brought about by the individualising of title by the Native Land Court.
All in all, Wilkinson concluded that that ‘the desire that the land should change ownership is on the side of the Govt only.’ He considered that:
very little progress is to be expected in land purchase unless the same is either
made more attractive by increasing the price per acre, or unless something happens that will change the present feelings of the Natives & make them desirous of selling. 1890–1892
However, he was also optimistic that the Crown could wait out Maori resistance to land selling in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. The way in which hapu and iwi had accepted the Native Land Court, and allowed the railway line to be constructed through the district
also convinced Wilkinson that these delays were ‘only temporary, and this reluctance frustration,
of will gradually wear off and pass away.’ In particular, he anticipated that the jealousy ... now at 'work amongst them’ would before long ‘bring about a complete disintegration causes of their policy of anti‐selling.’701 In his opinion, the Crown should simply wait and ‘be and prepared to act promptly, and take advantage of the disintegration as soon as it takes place.’702 Wilkinson was confident that once ‘the ice is broken the rush then will be great.’ In the meantime he advocated a low key approach. He considered that: purchases
it would be a mistake and only further retard matters, if Govt makes it appear initial that it is very desirous indeed to get possession of the land, but rather, if possible, the Natives should be got to think that Govt is indifferent to the 703 plan:
matter. the
out
700 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 27 March 1890, NLP 90/60 (with 90/75) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 701 Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 June 1890, AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, p 5 702 Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 June 1890, AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, p 5 Carrying 703
Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 27 March 1890, NLP 90/60 (with 90/75) in MA 13/78, 4. 230
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
4.2.2 MAORI MOTIVATIONS FOR SELLING LAND
Although the amount of land the Crown was able to purchase in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block by the end of 1892 was far more limited than officials had hoped there were individual owners who accepted money for their interests. There were a variety of reasons why individuals were willing to part with land at this time. As discussion about the role of the Kawhia Native Committee in this report demonstrates there was a keen desire amongst many Maori communities in the Rohe Potae to engage with new economic opportunities throughout the 1880s and 1890s. Sheep farming was particularly popular, but this required capital to purchase stock and transport the wool and lambs to markets. Land selling was a means of obtain funds for such ventures. But the most obvious, and well documented, reasons for land selling resulted from the process of obtaining title in the court. As evidence from Wahanui before the Select
committee in 1885, Ngati Maniapoto testimony to the Native Land Laws (Rees‐Carroll) Commission in 1891 and the outcome of the 1891 and 1892 negotiations with Cadman (see Chapter 5) suggests, the granting of title to individuals significantly undermined 1890–1892 the collective control of rangatira and of hapu over their land. This made it easier for individual owners to sell their interests.
There were significant costs associated with obtaining a title in the court. These frustration,
of included fees charged for making applications for partition, succession and appointment of trustees. A daily sitting fees and witness fees were charged while cases were before causes the court, and once the court had given its judgment there were fees to be paid for each and order or certificate issued.704 On top of these costs Maori owners were required to pay the cost of surveying blocks and subdivisions defined by the court. The need to pay these costs was repeatedly cited by Maori in their correspondence with Crown officials purchases over land during the 1890s. As already mentioned in comments about Maori sheep farming in the district, many owners had a pressing need for cash to pay for survey initial
plan:
the
out ANZ Wgt 704 See ‘Rules of the Native Land Court,’ NZ Gazette, 4 June 1885, pp 719‐720; ‘Rules of the Native Land Court,’ NZ Gazette, 20 March 1890, p 317; ‘Rules and Regulations of the Native Land Court,’ NZ Gazette, 7 March 1895, p 456; ‘Additional Rules and Regulations of the Native Land Court,’ NZ Gazette, 19 March
1896, p 488 Carrying
4. 231
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 costs, both for the survey of the boundary of the Rohe Potae block itself and for the survey of internal blocks and their subdivisions.
In March 1890, Wilkinson reported that ‘the Natives made great efforts to get money together to pay for the surveys of the Rohepotae blocks as subdivided by Court.’ At first it had been agreed that ‘the work was to be done by private contract without any interference by Gov[t] other than the usual office supervision in order to ensure the work being done correctly.’ According to Wilkinson, in January 1889 the Government then ‘elected to make the surveys for the Natives and pay for same.’705 Maori were given a grace period of ‘two years or perhaps more’ before the payment was expected.706 Agreements around the survey of the Rohe Potae and about survey costs will be discussed in greater detail in Marr’s political engagement report and Husbands and Mitchell’s Native Land Court reports for this inquiry. The key point here is that the
survey costs were to be borne by hapu and iwi.
In June 1891, Wilkinson reminded the Native Department that it had been ‘more than
two years since the surveys of some of the blocks within Rohepotae were completed 1890–1892
and paid for by Government, on behalf of the Native owners.’ He wondered whether it was time to take steps ‘to obtain re‐payment by the Native owners, either in land or money, of the amounts due for such surveys.’707 Wilkinson was very hopeful that this frustration,
of would greatly increase the flow of land into the Crown’s possession:
It is very likely that a movement of that sort on the part of Government … will causes have the effect of causing the owners to either give up portions of those blocks and
and possibly sell the remainder, or else to sell other blocks in order to enable them to pay their liabilities for survey charges.708
Lewis recommended to the Native Minister that a ‘return of the amounts paid to 30th ult purchases & the dates of payment with the names of surveyors & blocks surveyed should be prepared at once.’709 A return was duly drawn up by the Surveyor General.710 Lewis initial
plan: 705 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 27 March 1890, NLP 90/60 (with 90/75) and the
Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, 23 June 1891, NLP 91/163 (with 91/255) both in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 706 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 27 March 1890, NLP 90/60 (with 90/75) in MA 13/78, out ANZ Wgt 707 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 23 June 1891, NLP 91/163 (with 91/255) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 708 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 23 June 1891, NLP 91/163 (with 91/255) in MA 13/78,
ANZ Wgt Carrying 709
Minute: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 1 July 1891, on cover page of NLP 91/163 (with 91/193) 4. 232
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 then advised the Minister that the matter should be dealt with after the next session of Parliament ‘when it is seen what legislation will have passed relating to Native lands.’711
In fact, by this time the owners of the Te Kopua block had already earmarked one of the subdivisions of the block, Te Kopua 1U, for sale to the Crown in order to raise money to pay for survey costs on that block. In January 1891, it was noted that Te Kopua 1U was ‘vested in four trustees to pay survey charges.’712 The Court order for Te Kopua No. 1 noted that 1U was ‘set on one side to meet expenses connected with original Te Kopua No. 1 block.’ The order to issue in favour of Hone Omipi [John Ormsby], Kapata Omipi, Wiri Herangi [William Nicolls Searanke], & Horiwhenua Herangi who are ‘to carry out matters in connection with the block for the benefit of those owners of Te Kopua No. 1 who are entitled to participate.’ Wilkinson had been told by one of the owners, John Ormsby (also chair of the Kawhia Native Committee) that the ‘expenses’ referred to in
the order:
are putting the [Te] Kopua No. 1 through the court in the final instance (in 1888) and the cost of survey of same which they wish to repay to Govt minus 1890–1892 proportion Crown has to pay for shares acquired by it. Any balance to be extended for benefit of whole of owners entitled to participate.’713
It is not known how much was owed in court fees but the survey lien on Te Kopua No. 1
714
was £129 14s 6d. The Crown offered four shillings per acre with the total purchase frustration,
of money coming to £207 12s 0d. Once the survey costs were paid this left £77 17s 5d to be shared amongst the four owners.715 causes
The need to generate income to pay for court fees also seems to have been a factor in and
the intention of some of the owners of the Puketarata block to sell their interests to the Crown. An application had been made by some of the owners for the block to be purchases subdivided but the case had not ‘been settled yet because of non‐agreement among
initial
in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 710
Minute: Lewis, USND to the Surveyor General, 3 July 1891, on cover page of NLP 91/163 (with plan: 91/193) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt
711 the
Minute: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 20 August 1891, on back of cover page of NLP 91/163 (with 91/193) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt out 712 Sheridan to Wilkinson, 20 January 1891, NLP 91/13 (with 91/30) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 713 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 21 January 1891, NLP 91/13 (with 91/30) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 714 Telegram: Wm C Kensington to the Surveyor General, 19 February 1891, NLP 91/13 (with 91/30)
in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt Carrying 715
Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 24 February 1891, NLP 91/13 (with 91/30) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 4. 233
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 owners.’ During the case, in June 1890, ‘one hapu numbering some 25 owners proposed to sell their interest.’ Wilkinson reported that one of the reasons for that offer was that ‘they want money to carry on the fight in court as it affects other blocks as well as Puketarata.’ He suggested that ‘shares be secured as soon as offered.’716 The Crown did not seem open to lending individual owners money with their interests as security, but preferred to purchase outright. In September 1890, Whipa Te Whakaraunga Maniapoto wrote to the Government asking that they lend him ‘£12 to be refunded within six months.’ If he failed to repay the loan in that time he proposed that his ‘interest in Puketarata Block will be given in payment for same.’717 He was told that they would be willing to ‘purchase his interest for £12 1s 9d which is the value of the share but cannot make any advance by way of loan.’718 Husbands and Mitchell’s report on the Native Land Court and land purchasing for this inquiry will provide more detailed case studies of the costs of taking land through the Court and having it surveyed, and how these debts were frequently paid for by selling land. In particular, they will examine the impact of successive rounds of subdivision had on debt burden faced by owners. They will
highlight the decreasing control non‐sellers had over partitioning, and the ensuring 1890–1892
costs associated with it, as the 1890s wore on and the Crown increasingly initiated partition of the block in order to have the interests it had purchased cut out. frustration,
4.2.3 DELAYS IN DEFINING RELATIVE INTERESTS of
Reports by Wilkinson between 1889 and 1892 contain numerous references to the causes impact that the court’s failure to define the relative interests of each owner was having and on the Crown’s fledgling purchasing operation. This section deals with a number of aspects of this delay and its impact. It begins by exploring a number of factors which contributed to this situation and then examines some of the consequences for Maori of purchases the purchasing continuing without the Crown knowing what proportion of the block initial each owner held, and Maori opposition to purchasing under these conditions. The section ends with a discussion of how, and to what extent, these delays were resolved. plan:
the
out 716 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 17 June 1890, NLP 90/248 (with 90/255) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 717 Letter in Maori with English translation: Whipa Te Whakaraunga Maniapoto to the Government, 6 September 1890, NLP 90/320 (with 90/336) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 718 Minute: Lewis, USND to Mr Buller [?], 19 September 1890, NLP 90/320 (with 90/336) in MA 13/78, Carrying
ANZ Wgt 4. 234
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
4.2.3(a) Causes of delays in defining relative interests
As discussed in the previous chapter, by December 1889 it was decided that once the court began sitting again in Otorohanga it would begin defining relative interests in blocks the court had already dealt with. In order to hasten the work of the court Wilkinson was instructed to inform owners of this and to request them to send in lists of owners showing relative shares as soon as possible.719 The decision having been made, a public announcement was made in the Native Land Court at Otorohanga on 20 May 1890. Maori attending the court were told that ‘that interests of individuals’ would henceforth ‘be defined’ and that the orders for all blocks adjudicated since the passing of the ‘Act of 1887’ ‘would be kept open until this was done.’720 This significantly increased the court’s workload because for several years afterwards the court needed to fit this backlog of work in around its ongoing sittings where title to blocks and
subdivisions were determined.
Resistance amongst many Maori to providing ownership lists and lists apportioning the block between owners to the court certain contributed to delays in having relative 1890–1892 interest defined. In his annual report in 1890, Wilkinson testified to widespread reluctance amongst owners to co‐operate in the individualization of the title to their land. He noted that: frustration,
of Having put their land through the Court in one large block, in accordance with the survey of the external boundaries, it became necessary for them to send in
the name of each individual who had ownership to it. This they objected to for a causes
long time, and, wanted it awarded to tribes and hapus only, and not to and individuals. This was for the purpose of preventing sales &c., and to keep the power in the the hands of the chiefs ...721
Marr concluded that applications to the court ‘were very commonly for title purchases determinations only’ and that ‘owners were noticeably reluctant to go any further and hand in lists of owners or to have the court define interests or undertake any process initial that led to further individualisation of title.’722 She also suggested that one of the plan: reasons for this reluctance was that hapu and iwi knew that the lists were sent to the the
out
719 Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 28 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 720 Otorohanga Minute Book No 9, p 82 721 AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, Wilkinson, Native Agent, Otorohanga to the Under Secretary, Native
Department, 19 June 1890, p 5 Carrying 722
Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 38 4. 235
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 land purchase officer.723 As an example she cited a report by assistant land purchase officer, W H Grace in 1890 who stated that owners of the Rangitoto Tuhua block were reluctant to hand in ownership lists. The court then threatened to determine who the owners were without input from the people themselves.724 Delays in the court determining relative interests were partly a procedure issue, then a matter of capacity and workload but Maori resistance to the court individualizing title to the land was also a significant factor in this delay.
4.2.3(b) Consequences of purchasing without knowing what proportion owners held
The Crown’s 1889 decision to proceed with purchasing in blocks where the relative shares of each owner had not yet been defined by the court, and to treat all owners of particular block as holding equal shares in the absence of this information, created significant problems for the Crown, and for the owners, and was strongly opposed by
Ngati Maniapoto.725 Wilkinson was certainly aware that this decision did not reflect the reality of land ownership in the district. He admitted that it was well known amongst officials that ‘in most of the blocks the individual ownership of the grantees is not equal, 1890–1892 some having, according to recognized Maori custom, much larger interests than others.’ However, without the relative interests being defined there was ‘nothing to show who have the larger and who the smaller interests.’726 Wilkinson also recognized that the frustration,
there were some individuals on the ownership list who had no customary rights but had of been ‘included in the lists of names by the real owners through aroha (affection, or out
727 causes of compliment), or through marriage with those who have ownership.’ and By April 1890, however, the Native Minister was having doubts about the risks of this policy and informed his officials that at the very least ‘blocks must be all surveyed and the owners defined before any negotiations are entered into.’728 Yet only a few months purchases
later Lewis concluded that although it was ‘very desirable’ that the relative interests initial
plan: 723 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 58
724 the
Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, pp 58‐59 citing W H Grace to Lewis, 24 May 1890, NLP 90/172 and attachments in MA‐MLP 1, box 27 out 725 Telegram: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 18 December 1889, NLP 89/332 (with 90/11) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 726 Wilkinson to Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 June 1890, AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, p 6 727 Wilkinson to Under Secretary, Native Department, 10 June 1891, AJHR 1891, G‐5, No. 3, p 4 728 Minute: Native Minister Mitchelson to Lewis, USND, 17 April 1890 on cover page of NLP 90/60 Carrying
(with 90/75) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 4. 236
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 should be defined in blocks within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block before purchase by the Crown Wilkinson ‘need not delay his purchase operations waiting for such definition.’729 The following day this decision was relayed to Wilkinson by Sheridan.730 The decision to allow purchasing to proceed under these circumstances suggests that this was seen as necessary if a breakthrough in purchasing was to be achieved.
Purchasing was carried out without the Crown or owners knowing what share of the land each owner held (and under the presumption that all owners held an equal share). This caused confusion and uncertainty as to which land and how much land the Crown had acquired in each block. The Crown could only estimate the acreage it had acquired by taking the estimated area of the block (with delays to surveys this was often all that was available) and dividing it by the number of owners. This gave an ‘average’ landholding for each owner. This was then multiplied by the price per acre to determine
the value of the share. This was clearly Wilkinson’s practice. In the case of the Te Kopua No. 1 block he noted that he was working on the basis of all shares (including those of minors) being equal as the relative interests had not yet been determined. The block 1890–1892 contained 9,375 acres and was awarded by the Court to 86 owners so:
Each share would represent as nearly as possible 109 acres, which, at the rate of 3/6 per acre (the price paid for the land) represents £19.1.6 as the value of each
731 frustration, share, and that sum has been paid for each share that has been bought. of
Wilkinson noted that seven interests had been purchased and so he calculated that the Crown had acquired 763 acres.732 causes
and The practice of calculating how much land each owner had a right to on the basis of each holding an equal share in the block meant that many owners were not paid a fair price for their land, and had no way of claiming compensation for underpayment when purchases relative shares were finally determined. In the case of Te Kopua No. 1, it was subdivided after these seven shares were paid for. The relative interests of the owners in the new initial
plan:
729 the
Minute: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 3 June 1890, on cover page of NLP 90/173 (with 90/248) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt out 730 Minute: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 4 June 1890, attached to cover page of NLP 90/173 (with 90/248) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 731 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 6 August 1890, NLP 90/255 (with 90/261) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 732 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 6 August 1890, NLP 90/255 (with 90/261) in MA 13/78, Carrying
ANZ Wgt 4. 237
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 subdivisions were determined and Wilkinson found that the total area held by the seven owners who had already sold their interests came to 1,165.5 acres, 402 acres more than the calculations Wilkinson had made when presuming that each held an equal share in the block. The Crown had in fact underpaid the owners, paying just £133 10s 6d altogether when the sum ought, based on their shares, to have been £203 19s 3d – a shortfall in payment of £70 8s 9d.733 There seemed to have been no thought of making a further payment to the seven owners, instead Wilkinson noted with satisfaction that the difference would ‘more than cover the cost of survey [into sections for settlers] and the 10 per cent of area for reserves which is to be returned to the sellers.’734
In a similar case in August 1890, Lewis asked Wilkinson whether any of the 23 owners of the Puketarata block had sold their interests to the Crown. It is clear that the relative interests in the block had yet to be determined. He questioned what would happen if
having sold their interests, shares were determined, and particular owners then found that their share was worth more (or less) than what they received for it. Lewis presumed that ‘each native who sells before definition of interest clearly understands … 1890–1892 that he will have no further claim’ on the Government.735 Wilkinson indicated that only one of the 23 had so far sold their interest. He assured Lewis that he had done all he could to make ‘each native understand when signing that they sell all their interests & frustration, have no further claim except for reserves’ but he had no doubt that: of
some of those who are bound to have a larger area than is represented by the causes
amount they have received at five shillings or three and six per acre are sure to raise the question by and by and say that they ought to get land for every acre and that share represents.736
Wilkinson cautioned Lewis that in these sorts of situations sellers might become dissatisfied and antagonistic to further selling if they discovered that interests they had purchases
sold were really worth more on determination, but the Crown would not pay the initial
balance. However, Lewis replied that purchasing should go ahead anyway. He agreed
plan:
733 the
Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 6 August 1890, NLP 90/255 (with 90/261) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt out 734 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 6 August 1890, NLP 90/255 (with 90/261) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 735 Telegram: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 8 August 1890, NLP 90/248 (with 90/255) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 736 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 8 August 1890, NLP 90/248 (with 90/255) in MA 13/78, ANZ Carrying
Wgt 4. 238
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 there was some risk in purchasing undefined shares but hoped that this would be a temporary state of affairs which would soon be settled by the court.737
In some cases the Crown was even willing to proceed with land purchasing when doubts had been raised about the accuracy of the list of owners. In July 1891, a Mr C R Morrison wrote to the Native Minister stating that ‘a number of omissions have been made in the list of owners’ names of the Wharepuhunga, Puketarata, Puketarata No. 6, Tokanui No. 1 and Pokouru blocks.’ In addition, he alleged that ‘a number of people have had their names inserted in these Blocks who have no interest whatever in them.’ He asked the Native Minister to have the purchasing in these block stopped until the court had amended the ownership lists.738 For whatever reason, this information was dismissed and Lewis wrote on the bottom of the letter ‘I do not think this needs any reply.’739 These kinds of problems, in this district and elsewhere, led Native Land Court
officials at Auckland in July 1891 to issue a memorandum requesting that purchasing cease for a while, until the lists were put in better order and corrected. It is unclear whether the Native Land Purchase Department took any notice of this. On receiving this 1890–1892 memorandum Lewis, once again, advised the Native Minister that it needed no reply.740
Irregularities in the ownership lists for Hauturu East No. 3 (under which the Waitomo caves were located) and Hauturu East 2A were found in June 1892. Wilkinson explained frustration,
of that on principal only the owners of the main block could be confirmed as owners in subsequent subdivisions of that block. But in the in the case of Hauturu No. 3 there were causes three names in the list of owners of the Hauturu No. 3 block that did not appear and amongst the owners of the original Hauturu block. This was certainly a problem because the ownership lists had been used by the land purchase officers to acquire part of Hauturu East No. 3, and one of the three ‘suspect’ owners (Poihaere Tuhoro) had sold purchases her interest to the Crown. In the case of Hauturu East 2A the problem was even more glaring. There are only 10 owners to the former block, but not one of them appeared initial
plan:
the
737 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 81 citing Telegram: Wilkinson, 8 August 1890; Lewis reply, 18 August out 1890, NLP 90/248 (with 90/255) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 738 C R Morrison to the Native Minister, 14 July 1891, NLP 91/193 (with 91/255) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 739 Minute: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 22 July 1891, on cover page of NLP 91/193 (with 91/255) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 740 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 105 citing NLP 91/193 and Note to Minister, 22 July 1891, NLP 91/193 Carrying
respectively, both in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 4. 239
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 amongst the owners of Hauturu East No 2.741 It is not clear how these cases were resolved.
4.2.3(c) Hapu and Iwi opposition to purchasing prior to relative interests being determined
Not surprisingly given these experiences, there was considerable opposition from Ngati Maniapoto to the purchasing of interests from individual owners before their shares had been determined. On 27 May 1890, J H Edwards wrote to the Native Minister representing owners in the Puketarata, Takotokoraha, Maungarangi and Ouruwhero blocks to inform the Government that the individual interests were not equal [this letter was written after a number of shares in these blocks were sold at the beginning of May.] Edwards said that his reason for writing was ‘to prevent any misunderstanding between the Govt & the owners when partition takes place, should the Govt acquire any interests’. Edwards believed that it would be better for both sides if interests were
individualised before they were purchased and ‘the firmness on the part of the Court will greatly hasten individualisation of interests.’742 1890–1892
Wilkinson also referred to Ngati Maniapoto complaints about purchasing taking place prior to the definition of relative interests in his memorandum on the proposed subdivision of Te Kopua No. 1 in August 1890. He feared that if the Crown opposed the frustration,
owners plans to partition the block this ‘would bring the Native owners of that block at of least, and possibly others in direct antagonism with the Govt land purchase operations as at present carried out in this district.’ This was a particular concern because Maori causes had ‘frequently expressed their opinion that Govt was too hasty in commencing to and purchase land before the numerous interests to shares were defined.’743
Ngati Maniapoto leaders considered that such purchasing was a breach of an agreement purchases they had with the Government not to interfere in the process before title was settled. In particular, as discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, they alleged that Ballance had initial promised in January 1887 that the Government would not purchase any land in the plan:
the
out
741 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 29 January 1892, NLP 91/255 in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 742 J H Edwards to the Native Minister, Wellington, 27 May 1890, NLP 90/173 (with 90/248) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 743 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 6 August 1890, NLP 90/255 (with 90/261) in Carrying
MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 4. 240
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Rohe Potae (Aotea) block until subdivisions had been made.744 This promise was raised again in a complaint from the chief Hauauru to W H Grace in March 1890. Hauauru was considered by the Crown to be one of the leading rangatira of the district. This is evident in a draft letter to him identical to those sent to Wahanui and to Taonui in June 1889 informing them that the purchasing was about to start. Hauauru understood that the agreement meant that the Government would not begin purchasing until each hapu had their land title settled, subdivided and surveyed into separate blocks. Wilkinson’s view was rather different. He maintained that in all the meetings he had attended in the Rohe Potae from 1883 onwards he had ‘never heard any Minister propose, or agree to any such arrangement as mentioned by Hauauru viz. not to commence purchase until the portion of each hapu was subdivided and surveyed into a separate block.’ In Wilkinson’s opinion this would create ‘endless delay’ and ‘unlimited and in many cases unnecessary expense.’ Instead he insisted that the Native Minister had always advocated for ‘the
definition of the interests of the owners as to area or value of each.’745
4.2.3(d) Resolving delays in defining relative interests 1890–1892
Unfortunately Lewis’ optimistic prediction that the need to purchase land without the relative interests being known would be a short‐term expediency was misplaced. In March 1891, more than a year and a half after the Crown declared that it would begin frustration,
purchasing land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block block, Wilkinson estimated that in 91 of blocks or subdivisions, representing ‘three fourths of the whole area dealt with by the causes
N.L. Court since it commenced its sittings here in 1886,’ the relative shares of the
owners had yet to determined. In Wilkinson’s view this made them ‘practically useless and as to any benefit that can be got from them either by the Native owners themselves, or anyone else who may desire to acquire them.’746 Wilkinson was still requesting that the purchases Chief Judge of the Native Land Court be instructed: initial
plan:
the
out
744 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 83 citing Ward, ‘Whanganui ki Maniapoto...’, 1992, p 81 745 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 27 March 1890, NLP 90/60 (with 90/75) in MA 13/78,
ANZ Wgt Carrying 746
Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 26 March 1891, NLP 91/125 (with 91/133) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 4. 241
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
that when the Court next opens here it shall be the first duty of the Court to take up the blocks set forth in the schedule attached (or some of them) and define the shares of the owners with as little delay as possible.747
Part of the problem, in Wilkinson’s view, had been that the court, having determined the owners of the blocks, then moved directly into ‘making partitions of the land previously adjudicated upon.’748 This not only meant that the determining of relative interests was delayed but the subdivisions had the effect of multiplying the number of owners making the task of purchasing the interests of all owners in any given block even more difficult and time consuming. 749
These delays in determining relative interests for blocks already dealt with by the court were not helped by a hiatus in the court’s operation in the district. Wilkinson reported that the court had resumed its work on 19 January 1892 ‘after an absence of more than twelve months.’750 At last it appeared that the process of defining relative interests was
beginning. In June 1892, Wilkinson noted that the court was now sitting at Otorohanga and: 1890–1892 doing some of this much‐required work, and when it has had occasion to deal with new blocks, or subdivide old ones, where the interests of owners have not been already defined, it is defining them at once, thus leaving a clear and open track behind it in the shape of a well‐defined title for those who follow after, be
they Government or private speculators, who desire to purchase or lease Native frustration,
751 of
land for the purpose of settlement.
Wilkinson’s mention of the possibility of private speculators purchasing and leasing causes land from Maori is curious given the longstanding restrictions on private dealings in the and Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. A few days after Wilkinson’s annual report was written a notice appeared in the New Zealand Gazette stating that on 14 July 1892 the Native Land Court would be proceeding with the definition of relative interests for 41 blocks in the purchases north, west and centre‐north of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block.752 It appears that all but three of these cases were heard between July and December 1892. These three cases, initial
plan:
747 the
Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 26 March 1891, NLP 91/125 (with 91/133) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 748 Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 14 October 1890, NLP 90/395 (with 90/399) in MA 13/78, out ANZ Wgt 749 Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 14 October 1890, NLP 90/395 (with 90/399) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 750 Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 28 June 1892, AJHR 1892, G‐3, No. 3, p 5 751 Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 28 June 1892, AJHR 1892, G‐3, No. 3, p 5 Carrying 752
NZ Gazette, No. 51, 30 June 1892, p 898 4. 242
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Kinohaku East and West and Tokanui, were held over for a hearing to be held at Otorohanga on 9 January 1894.753 Hearings to define relative interests in blocks already dealt with by the court seem to have continued into 1895. On 2 May 1895, Wilkinson sent a copy of a Native Land Court panui to Sheridan notifying the Crown’s application for definition of interest in 44 Rohe Potae (Aotea) blocks for hearing on 14 May that year.754
1890–1892
frustration,
of
causes
and
purchases
initial
plan:
the
out
753 NZ Gazette, No. 97, 14 December 1893, p 1849 Carrying 754
Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 2 May 1895, MA‐MLP 1, box ?, 1895/229, ANZ Wgt 4. 243
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 14: MAP SHOWING THE STATE OF SURVEY, ROHE POTAE (AOTEA) BLOCK, 1890
(Source: AJHR 1890, C5, Appendix 1)
244
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
4.2.4 DELAYS IN COMPLETING SURVEYS
Closely connected to issues of title, and the delay in determining relative interests, were delays in the surveying of blocks and their subsequent subdivisions. Before the purchasing began in early 1890 the general view of officials was that the survey of the boundaries of blocks and their internal subdivisions should be completed before purchase negotiations began. During 1889, Wilkinson listed as available for purchase only those blocks where such surveys were complete. But during 1890, as the subdivision of blocks proceeded apace in the court and frustration mounted at the lack of progress made in purchasing land for settlement, there was a growing sense that what little land Maori agreed to part with ought to be purchased as soon as possible, irrespective of the state of the survey. This led to a relaxation of Wilkinson’s former practice with regard to how far advanced the survey needed to be before he would
initiate purchasing.
A map showing the state of survey in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in 1890 indicates
that surveys was underway but incomplete in a considerable number of blocks. There 1890–1892
were also a number of blocks where surveys of subdivisions were still to be completed (Figure 14). In March 1890, Wilkinson was considering whether Otorohanga should be added to the list of blocks available for purchase. He reported favourably on the block, frustration,
of noting many features that made it potential valuable for European settlement: it was bisected by the railway; the area east of the Waipa River was mostly good ‘rolling fern causes land’ and the extreme southern end of block (NE of Waipa) was ‘valuable because it and immediately abuts on the present Otorohanga Township.’ On the basis of this report the Native Minister informed Wilkinson that the block should be ‘included within our negotiations without waiting for the surveys mentioned.’755 purchases
Yet, the Native Minister seems to have had serious misgiving. The day after his initial instructions for Wilkinson to purchase the Otorohanga block without waiting for the
survey to be completed he issued a general instruction that ‘no attempt should be made plan:
to acquire unsurveyed land. The Blocks must be all surveyed and their owners defined the
out
755 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 20 March 1890; Minute: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister,
18 April 1890 on cover page of NLP 90/70 and Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 19 April 1890, all NLP 90/70 Carrying
(with 90/57) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 4. 245
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 before any negotiations are entered into.’756 Even Wilkinson does not seem to have been entirely comfortable with a formal practice of purchasing prior to the completion of survey. Around this time he rejected Grace’s idea of purchasing unsurveyed blocks by paying a portion of the purchase money upfront and the balance when the surveys are complete. Wilkinson noted that this method had ‘been tried in years past in the Thames and other districts with most unsatisfactory results.’757
But despite these misgiving Wilkinson continued purchasing land in advance of the survey. In August 1890, Lewis reported to the Native Minister that he considered it desirable for Hursthouse, the district surveyor, to report on the Pirongia West and Pukeroa Hangatiki blocks and for the Surveyor General to hasten the survey of the blocks ‘as much as possible but Mr Wilkinson’s purchase operations do not unfortunately keep pace with the Survey.’758 The same month Lewis was notified by the
Native Department that ‘the sketch plan which was good enough for the investigation of title should be sufficient for the purchase.’759 Under section 18 of the Native Land Court Act 1886 a sketch plan was acceptable to the court for the purposes of title investigation 1890–1892 but only where specifically approved by the Governor. These instructions suggest an understanding amongst officials that the purchasing should procede despite the survey delays. frustration,
of
4.3 OTHER POLICY CHANGES DURING INITIAL PURCHASING causes The Crown’s frustrated attempts to purchase large amounts of Maori land in the Rohe and Potae (Aotea) block between 1889 and 1892 led to several other decisions that had been made during the planning stage of the purchasing programme in 1888/1889 being reversed. In particular, changes made to the way that minors’ shares were to be dealt purchases with and to the provision for 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserves undermined hapu and iwi
attempts to retain their land. initial
plan:
756 the
Minute: Native Minister Mitchelson to Lewis, USND, 17 April 1890 on cover page of NLP 90/60 (with 90/75) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt out 757 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 27 March 1890, NLP 90/60 (with 90/75) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 758 Minute: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 20 August 1890, on cover page of NLP 90/262 (with 90/263) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 759 Minute: Sheridan to Lewis, USND, 19 August 1890, on cover page of NLP 90/261 (with 90/262) Carrying
in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 4. 246
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
4.3.1 DEALING WITH MINORS’ SHARES
During investigation of title to their land in the Native Land Court it was common practice for hapu and iwi to include children and young adults in list of owners for particular blocks. Native land legislation, beginning with the Maori Real Estate Act 1867, made provision for protecting the property of minors (those under 21). By the time Crown’s purchasing programme recommenced in the Rohe Potae inquiry district in early 1890 the Maori Real Estate Management Act 1888 was in force. This required the Court to appoint trustees (usually a parent or older relative) to administer the shares of minors and enabled the Court to appoint new trustees as required.760 The 1888 Act provided a number of checks and balances aimed at ensuring that trustees could not easily sell minor’s shares or financially profit from doing so. Under this legislation any sale or lease of minor’s shares required the approval of a Judge of the Supreme Court.761 Any money received from such transactions was to be held in trust for the minor by the Public Trustee, and could only be paid out with the assent of a judge of the Native Land Court. 762
These relatively tight restrictions on the selling of minor’s shares may have contributed to the 1890–1892 initial caution with which Wilkinson and other Crown officials approached the purchase of the interests of minors in this district. However, correspondence over such cases did not refer to these restrictions but were more often concerned, at least before 1892, with the problems frustration,
that could be created by buying minors’ shares before the relative interests of all the owners of had been determined by the Court. In particular, land purchasing officials recognized that causes it was highly likely that the court would not consider minors’ shares to be equal in size and
to the adult shares in a block, therefore, if minors’ shares were purchased on the basis that all owners held an equal share, the Crown would end up paying more than the minors’ shares were deemed to be worth. So for example, in the Puketarata block in purchases 1890 Wilkinson asked whether it would be: initial
plan:
the
out
760 Maori Real Estate Management Act 1888, ss 3 & 4 761 Maori Real Estate Management Act 1888, s 5 762 Ibid., s 6. Carrying
4. 247
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
advisable for me to commence purchase of minors’ shares in Puketarata block Rohepotae from trustees before the interests have been defined. There are one hundred & eleven minors shares altogether in [the] block but it is generally understood that they will have a much smaller area allotted to them than the adults shares in some cases perhaps as little as twenty acres each.763
In reply Lewis agreed that ‘it certainly is not advisable to purchase any minors’ shares until the relative interests are defined’ but urged Wilkinson to push for the court to define the relative interests ‘as speedily as possible.’764
In the case of the Waiwhaakata block the same year, Jeremaia Ormsby (the brother of John Ormsby) had sold his interest to the Crown. He was also trustee for a minor and he indicated to Wilkinson that he was willing to sell the minors’ shares as well as he intended to ‘permanently occupy part of the adjoining block ([Te] Kopua No. 1).’765 Wilkinson asked for instructions on the matter and was told that ‘until a great deal more
progress has been made with the purchase of shares of adults in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) blocks it would not be safe to purchase those of minors.’766 However, even this was not a hard and fast policy. The Native Department advised Wilkinson that because the 1890–1892 purchase of the minors’ share would ‘complete a title’ they could ‘always strain a point under such circumstances.’767
In fact by 1891 Wilkinson had purchased minors’ shares in at least one block. In May frustration,
of
1891, he wrote to Lewis enclosing ‘an affidavit re: the purchase by the Crown of Minors shares in [Te] Kopua No. 1Q block sworn by myself, for production in the Supreme causes Court at Wellington.’768 The affidavit seems to have been part of proceedings under the and
Maori Real Estate Management Act 1888, which stipulated that an order from a Judge of the Supreme Court was required for a conveyance or lease by a trustee.769 These
purchases
763 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 5 August 1890, NLP 90/248 (with 90/255) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt initial 764 Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 6 August 1890, NLP 90/248 (with 90/255) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 765 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 23 December 1890, NLP 91/13 (with 91/30) in MA 13/78,
ANZ Wgt plan: 766 Telegram: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 23 December 1890, NLP 91/13 (with 91/30) in MA 13/78, the
ANZ Wgt 767 Telegram: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 21 January 1891, NLP 91/13 (with 91/30) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt out 768 The case before the Supreme Court involved succession to a deceased minor who was an owner of Te Kopua 1Q (Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 11 June 1891, NLP 91/133 in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt) 769 The Maori Real Estate Management Act 1888, s. 5. This requirement was amended by s. 15 of the Native Land Purchase Act 1892 so that the approval of a Judge of the Supreme Court, or of the Native
Land Court, to the sale of the share of a minor was only required if the value of the share exceeded 10 Carrying
pounds. This was further amendment by s. 2 of the Maori Real Estate Management Act 1888 Amendment 4. 248
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 minors’ interests had been purchased despite Wilkinson noting that even as he wrote ‘the area representing the minors interests (in fact all the interests) in [Te] Kopua No. 1Q block is only in pencil in the Court’s Order, and the Order is not yet signed.’770 The purchase money for the three minors’ shares in Te Kopua No. 1Q was then forwarded to the Public Trustee to be administered under section 6 of the Maori Real Estate Management Act 1888.771
Statutory measures protecting the interests of minors were progressively weakened under the Liberal Government. Under the Native Land Purchase Act 1892 judicial approval for the sale or lease of minors’ interests could be granted by a judge of the Native Land Court instead of the Supreme Court. But perhaps more significantly, no judicial consent was required for the sale or lease of minors’ shares valued at £10 or less.772 Protection for minors holding a small share in blocks was further eroded by the
Maori Real Estate Management Act 1888 Amendment Act 1893. Section 3 of that Act allowed the rents or proceeds of the sales that amounted to £10 or less to be paid directly to the trustees rather than be held by the Public Trustee on behalf of the minor. 1890–1892 Potentially this provided a greater incentive for trustees to sell minors’ shares, particularly at a time when the owners of blocks were struggling to pay survey and court costs. As unpalletable as selling minors’ shares may have been disposing of shares frustration, that represented small areas of land may have been seen by hapu and iwi as preferable of
to sell whole subdivisions to the Crown to pay for survey and court costs. Husbands and
Mitchell’s report on the Native Land Court and land purchasing for this inquiry will causes
explore how land purchasing officials in the Rohe Potae responded to this decrease in and
restrictions on the sale of minors’ shares during the remainder of the 1890s.
4.3.2 PROVISION OF 10 PER CENT ‘SELLER’ RESERVES purchases
In December 1889, Wilkinson had been instructed to set aside land for each seller equal initial to 10 per cent of the area which they were estimated to have sold to the Crown. plan:
the
out Act 1893 by deleting the words ‘of the Supreme Court’ in the original section. An endorsement by any Judge was now sufficient for the approval of a sale or lease by a trustee. 770 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 29 May 1891, NLP 91/133 in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 771 Lewis, USND to the Public Trustee, 12 June 1891, NLP 91/133 and Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 27 May
1891, NLP 91/125 (with 91/133), both in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt Carrying 772
Native Land Purchase Act 1892, s 15 4. 249
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
However, the land purchase officers were soon given the discretion to decide whether to create these reserves or not. In January 1890, recalling these instructions, Wilkinson asked Lewis to confirm whether or not it was still intended to make these reserves.773 In reply, Lewis stated that such reserves could be made in ‘large blocks’ (implying that they were less likely to be made in small blocks). The location of the reserve was to be selected by the Government, presumably to stop Maori holding onto the prime land in the form of a reserve. The provision for the reserve was to be recorded in the purchase deed. However, if Wilkinson considered such reserves ‘undesirable or unnecessary in any purchase’ they did not have to be provided.774 This rather cynical reserves policy had little regard for the interests of Maori owners and was instead designed primarily to assist purchasing. This conclusion seems to be supported by the way in which the offers of ‘seller’ reserves diminished once the Crown had broken down resistance and purchased a significant area of the block. Marr cited the example of the Wharepuhunga
block ‘when the Government began purchasing in the non‐seller Wharepuhunga No.2 block, after interests had been defined, reserves were not included.’775 1890–1892 There are indications that in some cases the sellers had little input into the location of the 10 per cent reserves or over the quality of the land they would receive. In December 1894, Hitiri Paerata, one of those who had sold their interests in the Wharepuhunga frustration, block, wrote to the Native Minister on behalf of Ngati Pare[te]kawa and Ngatitekohera of
complaining that their reserve had not been set out on the ground and requesting that it
776
be located either at Hingaia where they were living or at Tututawa. Sheridan asked causes
the Chief Surveyor about whether the reserve had been surveyed and where it was (or and was going to be) located.777 Although the survey had not been undertaken the position of the reserve was fixed on the map and the Chief Surveyor was strongly of the view that purchases
it should not be moved in response to the request in case it took up some of the better land in the block. This was implied by his comment that ‘there is really so little good initial
plan: 773 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 14 January 1890, NLP 90/11 (with 90/69) in MA 13/78, the
ANZ Wgt 774 Telegram: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 17 January 1908 (approved and sent 18 January), NLP 90/11 out (with 90/69) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 775 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 88, citing MA‐MLP 1, box 61, NLP 94/82 attached to 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 776 Letter in Maori with English translation: Hitiri Paerata to the Native Minister, 5 December 1894, on cover page of NLP 94/414 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 777 Minute: Sheridan to the Chief Surveyor, Auckland, 5 February 1895, NLP 94/414 filed with MA‐MLP 1, Carrying
box 62, NLP 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 4. 250
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 land in the Crown award.’778 As a result Hitiri Paerata was told that ‘the reserve has been laid off at Kahikatea . . . and cannot be altered.’779
4.4 CONCLUSION
The Crown made its first purchases from individual owners for land within the Rohe Potae inquiry district early in 1890. Contrary to the hopes of Crown officials this did not herald a steady and increasing flow of individuals wishing to part with their interests. In fact, the first two years of Crown purchasing from 1890 until the end of 1892 were characterised by a growing sense of frustration amongst land purchasing officials. Prior to 1889 it is calculated that 3.24 per cent of the inquiry district had been alienated from Maori ownership – the vast majority through Crown purchasing in the 1850s. By the end of 1892 this figure was 4.03 per cent, less than a one per cent increase. These
figures include only completed purchases, that is, only subdivisions awarded to the Crown by the court within this time period. There were of course many other blocks in which the Crown had not yet purchased sufficient interests to gain title to a 1890–1892 consolidated piece of land. Nevertheless, this is a reasonable indication that the frustration expressed by Wilkinson and other officials had a basis in reality.
Correspondence between officials reveal three factors that contributed to this initial frustration,
of lack of success: strong resistance by Maori to selling, delays in defining relative interests cause in part by Maori resistance to individualisation of title and the way that such lists causes facilitated land purchasing; and delays in completion of surveys. Wilkinson repeatedly and reported that many Maori in the district were unwilling to sell their interests in the land. In June 1890, he summed up the situation that had prevailed over the first six months of land purchasing, noting that very little progress had been made because purchases Maori showed a strong disinclination to sell. A year later the situation remained almost
the same with Wilkinson reporting that during the 1890/1891 year purchasing had not initial
proceeded very rapidly, as Maori still objected to selling their land. It is clear that this plan:
the
out
778 Minute: Chief Surveyor to Sheridan, 12 February 1895, on cover page of NLP 94/414 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 779 Minute: Sheridan to Davies, 18 February 1895, on cover page of NLP 94/414 filed with MA‐MLP 1, Carrying
box 62, NLP 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 4. 251
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 resistance to selling was a major factor in the Crown’s failure to obtain the land it sought in the first two years of land purchasing in the inquiry district.
No doubt there were multiple political, cultural and economic reasons why a significant number of Maori owners were so tenuous in holding onto their land between 1890 and 1892. The land was precious, provided homes, sustenance and economic opportunities. It was rich in wahi tapu, and integral to whakapapa and identity. It held the bones of the tupuna. The influence of the Kingitanga and Te Whiti and Tohu were strong in many communities, and these prophets and political movements were strongly opposed to the sale of land. In addition, it became clear almost immediately to Crown officials that the amount per acre being offered to those who could be persuaded to sell their interests was considered by Maori to be unreasonably low, and this also contributed to the small amount of land being acquired. In late 1889, Lewis the Under Secretary of the Native
Land Purchase Department had decided that five shillings per acre was the maximum price the Crown would offer for land in the Rohe Potea (Aotea) block. However, when Wilkinson began by offering this price in early 1890 he was quickly instructed to begin 1890–1892 by offering three shillings and six pence per acre. Hereafter this became the default base rate. Wilkinson was quick to point out that the blocks he had identified for immediate purchase were amongst the best land in the whole district and therefore worth the frustration, maximum amount the Crown was willing to pay. of
Wilkinson also recognized that few owners would be tempted to part with such good causes land at three shillings and six pence per acre. This proved to be the case, most telling of and all were the comments of the owners of the Puketarata and Ouruwhero blocks who told assistant land purchase officer W H Grace that payment for their interests at three shillings and sixpence per acre was less than they could earn from selling a pig. One man purchases laughed and suggested that the Government could not be serious about buying if it was offering those prices. Put in the perspective of trade and income of the time, the Crown’s initial three shillings and six per acre rate amounted to a small return indeed. In February plan: 1890, these responses did cause Wilkinson to successfully persuade his superiors to the give him discretion to offer five shillings per acre for the high quality northern blocks. out However, there was still an expectation that wherever possible Willkinson would offer as little as necessary to obtain a sale; and this policy did little to prompt further sales. Carrying
4. 252
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Hapu and iwi were not in a state of isolation when it came to assessing what their land might fetch on an open market. It is true that no such market existed in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block because direct sales between Maori and Europeans were prohibited under legislation, yet they were, according to Crown officials, aware of and influenced by press coverage about the strong demand for land in the district from settlers, offers of £1 or more per acre from Europeans and predictions that the value of land would rise rapidly once the railway was constructed. These were all signs that they held an asset for which there was considerable demand. When this was coupled with hapu and iwi knowledge of where the most fertile and productive land was located it was not unreasonable for Maori to expect the Crown to offer higher prices for their best land. Yet Lewis and Wilkinson considered that the problem was not that Crown prices were too low but that Maori expectations about how much their land was worth were inflated. Beyond allowing Wilkinson to offer the maximum rate of five shillings per acre,
Lewis was very firm on the matter of price in the first two years of purchasing.
During the first few years of the 1890s Wilkinson was also convinced that one of the 1890–1892 reasons why so few Maori were willing to sell their land was that in general people in the district were living relatively self‐sufficiently and were not driven to generate cash from land sale to pay for large quantities of western goods. In part, Wilkinson suggested, frustration, this was because the Rohe Potae had long been an almost exclusively Maori district with of little European settlement so there was no widespread desire amongst hapu and iwi to
adopted European lifestyles. When cash was required it could be provided by selling causes flax or rabbit skins, working in flax mills, day labouring on roads or further afield in the and goldfields and gumfields of Thames and Northland. Rather cynically Wilkinson suggested that land sales were bound to increase once the desire for cash had increased purchases and/or Maori income decreased. The Crown simply had to be patient and wait until Maori began to suffer financial stress. initial
The restrictions on private leasing and selling in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block did limit plan: Maori options for economic ventures on their land (this is discussed fully in Chapter 6). the Nevertheless in the early 1890s some owners were engaging in sheep farming in parts out of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, either independently or in partnership with European farmers. There are signs that for some owners they hoped that this would provide Carrying
enough income to pay court and survey costs that were beginning to mount after four 4. 253
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 years of court sittings. Wilkinson certainly considered that the desire to hold onto and use land for sheep farming was contributing to Maori resistance to selling to the Crown. In June 1890, Wilkinson report that there were about 6,000 sheep running on land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, most of these owned by Maori. By 1892, he was reporting that many Maori were finding sheep farming difficult because of lack of knowledge about stock quality and disease control. He was rather dismissive of these enterprises and doubted that they could be profitably sustained long‐term. Wilkinson probably believed this to some extent but he may also have been eager to assure his superiors that Maori sheep farming posed no serious threat to the Crown’s plan to purchase large areas of land for European settlement. In any case, he saw opportunities for the Crown to capitalize on friction between those owners running the sheep and other owners who objected to the sheep trespassing on their parts of the block.
All in all Wilkinson was convinced that this period of frustration was temporary and resistance to selling would gradually die away. Once a few individuals sold their interests he anticipated that this would create jealousy and discontent leading to a 1890–1892 breakdown in the widespread resolve not to sell. In effect his practice of engaging in many blocks at once, buying a few shares here and there, was sowing the seeds that he hoped would undermine the collective will to resist selling. In Wilkinson’s view, the frustration, Crown simply needed to wait until such disintegration happened. He was confident that of once that process began there would be a rush of land selling. causes The reasons that individual owners accepted payment from the Crown for their and interests in land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block are probably as complex and various as the reasons that many owners resisted selling during this initial phase of the purchasing operation. The agenda of meetings of the Kawhia Native Committee, and purchases their role in regulating economic activities (see Chapter 6), and Wilkinson comments about the extent of Maori sheep farming and forms of wage labour all suggest that by initial the mid‐1880s Maori communities in the district were vigorously pursuing a new plan: economic opportunities. Many of these required some capital for stock and equipment the and this made selling some land attractive. out
Carrying
4. 254
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Official sources from the early 1890s suggest that one of the key reasons why land was being sold was to pay for survey costs and court costs. In January 1889, the Crown and Rohe Potae leaders agreed that the Government would undertake the necessary surveys in the district and Maori would pay for them, but payment was to be held over for two years. In June 1891, Wilkinson reminded his superiors that this period of grace was drawing to an end and wondered whether the survey costs should be enforced. He was hopeful that this might be decisive in motivating Maori to ‘give up’ portions of a block and then sell the remainder of the block to the Crown, or sell other land to generate cash to pay off survey charges. In fact there were some early examples of this amongst the small number of blocks wholly acquired by the Crown before 1893. In the Te Kopua block owners deliberately placed only four owners on the Te Kopua 1U block so that it could be sold to the Crown to pay for survey costs. In another case 25 members of a hapu felt compelled to sell their interests in part of the Puketarata block to provide money to pay for court fees to continue to fight for their rights in other parts of the block. 1890–1892 Maori resistance to selling land clearly was a significant constraint on the success of the Crown’s purchasing programme from 1890 until the end of 1892. But the failure of the Native Land Court to define the relative interests of each owner in each block created frustration, uncertainty and risks for the Crown. Although Wilkinson had identified many of these of problems before he commenced purchasing they became fully apparent once
purchasing began. In late 1889 it was decided that in lieu of relative interests being causes known it was decided that purchasing could proceed by simply acting as if all owners and held an equal interest in the block in question.
The Native Land Court had initially failed to define the relative share or interest held by purchases each owner in a block. By December 1889 it was agreed that the court would go back through the blocks it had already dealt with and determine the share of each individual initial on the list of owners. Wilkinson was asked to persuade Maori to bring ownership lists to plan: the court and where possible add to these lists what share each owner held. There was the resistance amongst Maori to supplying such lists to the court, as they were aware that out the lists would then be circulated to the land purchase offices who would be able to target individuals to sell their shares. Lewis considered that the the court would soon Carrying
4. 255
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 catch up with its backlog of relative interests cases, hence his instructions to Wilkinson to continue purchasing while the matter was resolved.
Wilkinson continued to purchase blocks where the relative interests had not been defined. He calculated how much land each owner had a right to on the basis of each holding an equal share in the block and paid them the per acre rate for that amount of land. As a result there are several known cases where this practice meant that some owners who were later deemed to hold a larger share in the block were underpaid. In these cases there seems to have been no way of claiming compensation for that loss. Wilkinson was concerned this would cause dissatisfaction amongst sellers and further retard attempts to buy other land on behalf of the Crown. However, Lewis instructed Wilkinson to proceed with the purchase and hoped that the court would be able to resolve the matter later. There also seems to have been a number of cases where it was discovered after purchases had been made that the ownership lists were incorrect resulting in payments to those with no rights in the block. A call from an owner of several blocks in the district for purchasing to be halted while lists were corrected was 1890–1892 dismissed by Lewis. This suggests that there were times in the early 1890s that the Crown’s haste in purchasing land before individual interests were defined by the court led to mistakes that resulted in injustices. In 1890, Ngati Maniapoto leaders asked the frustration, Crown to delay purchasing until the relative interests had been determined, but the of purchasing continued. Lewis was optimistic that the practice of purchasing ahead of
relative interests being defined was a temporary one. But in reality this situation, and causes presumably these kinds of inequities, remained until the Native Land Court determined and relative interests in blocks that already had ownership lists. This took place in stages over three years from 1892 until 1895. purchases In this early period Wilkinson also continued to purchase undefined interests in blocks where the survey was incomplete. In the planning phase during 1888 and 1889 he had initial been careful, indeed cautious, about what blocks he listed as available for Crown plan: purchasing. Only those whose external boundaries had been surveyed were included on the such lists. In 1890 the Native Minister’s stance on the issue of whether purchasing out should continue before this surveying was completed was inconsistent, in the case of the desirable Otorohanga block he recommended that purchasing should proceed Carrying
without waiting for the survey to be complete. Yet the following day he issued a general 4. 256
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 instruction to land purchasing officials that no attempts were to be made to purchase unsurveyed land. What the practice was on the ground in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block before 1893 is not entirely clear but there are several examples where Lewis and other officials decided that Wilkinson should not delay purchasing until surveys were complete, in one case a sketch plan was deemed sufficient for purchasing to go ahead. This had potential for mistakes to be made because if the land purchase officer did not know the true size of the block (something possible only from the survey) they could not accurately calculate how much each owner held, and therefore how much they should be paid as sellers.
There is also some evidence that there was a tendency for measures that safeguarded Maori interests in the purchasing process to be ignored or cut back in an attempt to keep the purchasing programme moving. This was the case with two other policies set out prior to purchasing commencing: purchasing of minors’ interests and ten per cent ‘seller’ reserves. In the first few months of purchasing Wilkinson sought advice from his superiors about whether or not he should purchase the interests of minors. Under the 1890–1892 Maori Real Estate Management Act 1888 the Crown could, with certain safeguards, purchase the shares belonging to minors. However, because Wilkinson was working on the basis that all owners held equal shares, there was a real risk that he would pay too frustration, much for the minors’ interests as it was generally found that children were allocated of smaller shares than adult owners. For this reason he was instructed to avoid buying
minors shares, at least until relative interests were determined or a large portion of the causes adult shares were purchased. Yet, by January 1891 Wilkinson was told that this rule and could be applied with discretion in cases where purchasing minors’ shares would complete the purchase of a block. In one case Wilkinson did purchase minors’ interests purchases in the Te Kopua 1Q block. It is not clear whether he completed the purchase of the Waiwhaakata block by acquiring minors’ interests. initial
In December 1889, Wilkinson had been instructed to make a reserve for each individual plan: who sold their shares. That reserve was to be equivalent to ten per cent of the land they the had conveyed to the Crown. In practice these reserves were aggregated and a out subdivision of the block was designated as a reserve. Yet only a month later Wilkinson was told that he was to use his discretion as to whether or not to create ‘seller’ reserves. Carrying
A list of all the ten per cent ‘seller’ reserves created in the inquiry district shows that 4. 257
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 after the first few years of purchasing the Crown ceased to make these reserves. There were a variety of reasons for this, which are explored in later chapters, but by removing the compulsion for the land purchase officer to provide these reserves the ability of those who sold their shares in a block to retain some land for their support was compromised.
1890–1892
frustration,
of
causes
and
purchases
initial
plan:
the
out
Carrying
4. 258
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
5. ATTEMPTS TO NEGOTIATE A LAND PURCHASING AGREEMENT, 1891–1892
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The Crown was not alone in reflecting on the progress of the land purchasing operation in the first few years of the 1890s and how it was being carried out in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. With the purchasing of land from individual owners hapu and iwi began to understand in a much more immediate way the full implications of three closely related policies: the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase, the prohibition of private selling and leasing, and low prices. Throughout the 1880s Wahanui and other Rohe Potae leaders had consistently opposed restrictions over their land, this did not change but the first few years of the purchasing programme lent this opposition, and the desire to find a solution, new urgency. So despite the individualisation of title by the Native Land Court hapu and iwi leaders sought to act collectively and bring a halt to these events by a direct negotiation with the Native Minister. This suggests that hapu and iwi still considered that they had a political relationship with the Crown. These meetings continued a tradition of face to face negotiations with Native Ministers. In many ways they can be seen as the last in a series of engagements where important agreements 1891–1892 over the railway, Native Land Court and land laws were sought.
For its part the Crown desperately needed to make some progress in acquiring land for agreement,
European settlement in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. As Chapter 4 shows, Maori resistance to selling land for cultural and political reasons remained strong. The low prices offered by the Crown to those who did offer land for sale also retarded the pace purchasing of land alienation. The Crown’s land purchasing operation was further hampered by Maori resistance to handing owners’ lists and lists of relative shares to the court. This land
a contributed to delays in determining relative interests. Delays in surveying blocks and subdivisions also frustrated Crown attempts to purchase any sizable area of land between 1889 and the end of 1892. It was clear early on in the purchasing programme negotiate
to that Maori opposition to land selling was such that it was not going to be possible to purchase whole blocks. Instead land purchasing officials resorted to the slow, relatively costly method of purchasing individual shares. Yet, if agreement could be reached with Attempts
5. 259
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Maori to hand over whole blocks for sale then the land purchasing would become faster and cheaper for the Crown and European settlement could take place sooner. It also meant that the Government would end up with consolidated blocks of land not scattered subdivisions and they would not have to go to the court for partition of their interests.
This chapter examines a series of meetings arranged by hapu and iwi with the Native Minister during 1891 and 1892 at which Maori leaders attempted to negotiate an agreement about land purchasing, and to regain their ability to lease and sell to whoever they chose. The discussion that follows looks at each of these meetings in turn with a focus on determining what, if any, agreement was reached between hapu and iwi and the Crown with regard to land purchasing in the inquiry district, and whether there could be said to have been a mutual understanding of what had been agreed. This chapter also examines accounts of these meetings and makes some comment about what that evidence reveals about hapu and iwi opinions about the desirability of leasing or selling land, and what they asked of the Crown regarding the removal of restrictions
on private dealings.
5.2 APRIL 1891 MEETING WITH NATIVE MINISTER CADMAN 1891–1892
A two day meeting at Otorohanga between Maori and the Native Minister Alfred Cadman took place during the first week of April 1891. It is not clear from the available sources (newspaper reports) who initiated the meeting. Cadman had only been agreement, appointed to the position of Native Minister a few months earlier in February 1891 so it possible this was somewhat of an orientation tour for him. He was appointed by the Premier John Ballance and may have decided to emulate Ballance, who as Native purchasing Minister in the 1885 had toured Maori districts. He came to the position as a forty year land old. He had previously: a
negotiate
to
Attempts
5. 260
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
taken some interest in the Maori land question, but it was chiefly to argue for the restoration of the Crown’s pre‐emptive right and to complain that the mystery and rascality that surrounded native land matters prevented honest men or poor men from buying Maori land.780
It is also possible that he was invited by Wahanui, who had previously formed close working relationships with several Native Ministers. This is most likely as the Native Land Tenure and Land Laws Commission alluded to this meeting with the Cadman in its opening remarks at the sitting at Otorohanga a few months later. It stated that the the Native Minister had visited them ‘because he was requested to come and hear the complaints which they had to make, and the requests they had to prefer to the Government.’781
The meeting was held in the public hall at Otorohanga, and although not a huge gathering (estimated to be about 80 people in attendance) it was clearly a very significant occasion. The principal chiefs of iwi from right across the area named as the Rohe Potae in 1883 were present. Ngati Maniapoto were represented by Wahanui, Taonui, Te Kanawa, Te Aroa and Te Naunau (the brother of Taonui).782 Hone Kaore
Taonua of Ngati Hikairo, Hitiri Paerata of Raukawa and Hauraki Hapapa, Kerekeha and Te Heuheu of Ngati Tuwharetoa were also present.783 This was a show of strength and solidarity suggesting a serious commitment to being heard by the Crown and having 1891–1892 their issues addressed. Both Lewis and Wilkinson, the two officials most heavily involved in the land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, were present with Wilkinson acting as the official interpreter.784 agreement,
As had often been the case in the mid‐1880s it was John Ormsby, chairman of the Kawhia Native Committee, who put the issues before the Minister. He ‘strongly urged the removal of all restrictions from land held by the Natives in the King Country as purchasing
passed through the Native Lands Court.’ As the newspaper report remarked, ‘this means land
the Government’s withdrawal from pre‐emptive right to purchase, and practical a
negotiate 780 G V Butterworth and H R Young, Maori Affairs: A Department and the People who made it, Iwi to Transition Agency/GP Books, Wellington, 1990, pp 53‐54 781 ‘Minutes of Meetings with Natives and others: Evidence before the Native Land Laws Commission, Otorohanga, 15 April 1891, AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 29 782 See account of Taonui’s tangi: ‘Te Kuiti, Thursday’, New Zealand Herald, 9 December 1892, p 6, col. 6 783 ‘Native Minister at Otorohanga’, New Zealand Herald, 2 April 1891, p 5 Attempts 784
‘Native Minister at Otorohanga’, New Zealand Herald, 4 April 1891, p 5 5. 261
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 reversion to free trade in Native land.’ He also addressed several related matters including ‘the desirability of the simplification of the Native land laws generally. His position had widespread support; the report noted that ‘several influential chiefs followed, entirely endorsing Mr Ormsby’s views.’ The meeting resumed at 11am the next morning to allow all the speakers to have their say.
Ormsby had first hand experience of the Crown’s refusal to lift restrictions over specific pieces of land. In April 1890 he and John Hetet (a.k.a. Hone Taonui Ruihi) had attempted to sell a small areas or sections on the Otorohanga flat for a proposed township. They had offered half an acre of this land to the Crown for £700 because the price also included the Temperance Hotel, stores, stables and other buildings, which they owned. Ormsby and Hetet also asked that in the event that the Crown rejected their offer that an Act be introduced to lift the restrictions on private dealings under the railway loans legislation. They argued that this was the only way that Europeans could ‘be got to come and reside in the district’ as the current restrictions prevented them from getting title to small pieces of land for a house or business.785 This incident again demonstrates that
Maori wanted settlement, but on their own terms. The offer of land was ultimately rejected and nothing was done with regard to lifting restrictions on alienation for this particular block or in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block more generally.786 1891–1892
Cadman’s reply to these concerns voiced at the April 1891 meeting was honest but not particularly encouraging. He warned them that he would not make promises that he could not keep and that anything he proposed would have to be ratified by Parliament, agreement, who might reject it. With regard to the request to remove restrictions on private leasing and selling he reminded hapu and iwi that:
purchasing
land
a
negotiate
to
785 John Ormsby and John T Hetet to Wilkinson, 12 April 1890, NLP 90/105 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 29, NLP 91/94, ANZ Wgt 786 Minute: Native Minister to Lewis, USND, 9 May 1891, on cover page of NLP 91/94 in MA‐MLP 1, box Attempts
29, NLP 91/94, ANZ Wgt 5. 262
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
it was recognised as unfair to give favoured individuals of great influence an undue share in public expenditure, the interest on which was paid by all. Public expenditure made lands valuable, and to prevent large acquirements and inevitable public expenditure the restrictions were imposed.787
His reply (as reported) was not clearly phrased but he seemed to be defending the continued restrictions on the basis that their removal would lead to European speculators acquiring large areas of land and selling them at a profit at the expense of planned settlement and its accompanying government‐funded infrastructure. Such individuals would be taking advantage of the added value (‘the unearned increment’) that the railways and roads constructed by the Crown gave to the land. Cadman considered that to be unfair. This interpretation of his reply seems to be supported by the fact that in his next comments he:
forcibly pointed out that the Government did not buy their land for speculative purposes, but really to sell it for settlement, and make it bear fair share of taxation, and thus try to place all on the same footing.788
Although not recorded in the newspaper account of the meeting, Wilkinson’s reports during this period (discussed in the previous chapter) show that Maori in the district had accused the Crown of paying very low prices to sellers and then selling the land at a profit. Hence Cadman may have felt the need to distinguish the Crown from the speculators by pleading that its land buying and selling would benefit the colony as a 1891–1892 whole, not simply enrich a few Europeans. It is doubtful whether this distinction meant very much to owners who had been paid such a low rate for their land and who knew that speculators would have given them a much higher return. agreement,
Wilkinson too was a strong supporter of the restrictions. His comments on the meeting suggest that he considered that Maori requests for the restrictions on private dealings purchasing be lifted were part of a plan to cynically exploit the Government. He concluded that Maori saw ‘plainly that their land is enhanced in value’ by the railway and roads and land
a ‘from evidence that is not wanting they believe that Government is not likely to do anything more in the way of spending public money on their property’ so they planned to free themselves ‘from the incubus of the Government restriction over their land, and negotiate
to be allowed to sell it in the best market whenever they are ready to do so.’ He objected to
787 ‘Native Minister at Otorohanga’, New Zealand Herald, 2 April 1891, p 5 Attempts 788
‘Native Minister at Otorohanga’, New Zealand Herald, 2 April 1891, p 5 5. 263
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 this on the basis, much as Cadman had, that Maori would then reap ‘all its improved value caused by Government expenditure.’789
Cadman ended his reply to hapu and iwi at Otorohanga in April 1891 by saying that ‘he could not promise to remove the restrictions on the sale of their land, but he confidently hoped a better state of things would result from this proposal.’790 Despite this discouraging reply, Ormsby continued to press on in an attempt to eventually reach common ground with the Government. The article records that he stated that ‘the Minister’s reply had gladdened their hearts, although there were still differences of opinion between them.’ Ormsby then proceeded to define those differences ‘in a lengthy speech,’ which unfortunately was not included in the newspaper report.791 Again, several chiefs spoke after him, all ‘generally regretted, however, that no declaration had been made of the intention to remove the restrictions from the sale of their land.’792
Wahanui then took the floor explaining to the Native Minister that he had already ‘applied to the Land Court judge to remove restrictions.’ It is unclear whether he was referring to land that had restrictions placed in it during the Native Land Court process
or the blanket restrictions on private dealings that applied over large areas under the railway loans legislation. Wahanui then expressed, what for him was the heart of the matter, that as the owner of land he ought to be free to deal with it as he chose. He could 1891–1892
understand the Crown’s desire to protect Maori and he did not object to that but the reality for him was, as he said in a striking analogy, that: agreement,
the horse [land] was his, also the rope [mana or control], and he wanted to tie the horse himself. If he tied the horse himself with his own rope he would know how to untie him.793
This metaphor was a very similar to the one he used before the select committee in purchasing 1885, where he likened his land to his watch. In both analogies the central point was land that Wahanui expected and desired to control the disposal of his land and to choose a
789 Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 10 June 1891, AJHR 1891, G‐5, No. 3, p 5 790 ‘The Native Minister at Otorohanga – Interview with Te Kooti – Meeting of Natives’, New Zealand negotiate Herald, 3 April 1891, p 6 to 791 ‘The Native Minister at Otorohanga – Interview with Te Kooti – Meeting of Natives’, New Zealand Herald, 3 April 1891, p 6 792 ‘The Native Minister at Otorohanga – Interview with Te Kooti – Meeting of Natives’, New Zealand Herald, 3 April 1891, p 6 793 ‘The Native Minister at Otorohanga – Interview with Te Kooti – Meeting of Natives’, New Zealand Attempts
Herald, 3 April 1891, p 6 5. 264
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 who to lease or sell it to. Again, Cadman was opposed to removing the restrictions, warning that:
supposing all restrictions were taken off, in the present state of their titles, all the evils of which they had heard existing in Gisborne and other places, would become intensified in their cases a hundredfold.794
So the first meeting closed with little indication that the Crown was willing to forgo its pre‐emptive right of purchase or lift the restrictions on leases and sales between Maori and Europeans.
5.3 NGATI MANIAPOTO EVIDENCE BEFORE NATIVE LAND LAWS (REES‐ CARROLL) COMMISSION, APRIL 1891
In the same month that hapu and iwi met with the Native Minister at Otorohanga they had another opportunity to set out their concerns about land purchasing and the impact of restrictions on alienation before the Native Land Laws Commission. One of the first initiatives of the newly elected Liberal Government had been ‘to signal their intention to
overhaul that legislation by appointing a commission to look into its operation.’ They established the commission to inquire and report on the ‘operation of the existing laws to the alienation and disposition of interests in Native lands’. It was also to examine the 1891–1892
operation of the Native Land Court, the problems of titles that were defective and ‘the principles on which interests in Native lands should in future be alienated or disposed of by or on behalf of the Native owners, and the manner, terms, and conditions in which
795 agreement,
the same can be carried into effect.’ The commission comprised W. Rees (a long‐time critic of the legislation and an advocate of tribal dealings), James Carroll (Member for Eastern Maori), and Thomas Mackay (a former West Coast Commissioner). They toured
the country, holding 11 large hui with Maori and taking evidence from many people purchasing
regarding the defects of the existing legislation and possible remedies.796 The discussion land
a that Ngati Maniapoto leaders had with the commissioners at the hearing at Otorohanga negotiate
to
794 ‘The Native Minister at Otorohanga – Interview with Te Kooti – Meeting of Natives’, New Zealand Herald, 3 April 1891, p 6 795 Robyn Anderson, ‘Whanganui Maori and the Crown, 1880–1900’, Wai 898 #A38, p 97, citing ‘Report of the Commission ... into the subject of Native Land Laws’, AJHR 1891, G‐1, p iii Attempts 796
Stirling, 2004, Vol. 2, pp 1447‐1449 5. 265
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 provides an additional source of information about the agreement they were seeking to make with the Government over land purchasing.
Taonui Hikaka and Henry Edwards of Ngati Maniapoto appeared before the commission. Both clearly expressed the wish of the people that the Crown remove the restrictions on alienation from their land. Taonui stated that:
The first thing that I wish to say to you is with regard to the land that is subject to restrictions placed upon it by the Government. It is that the Ngatimaniapoto wish the restrictions removed from that land. The reason why we wish this done is, because what we desire to do with the land we cannot do while the Government impose restrictions upon it.797
After further discussions amongst Ngati Maniapoto, Edwards again spoke reiterated the desire of the iwi ‘that the restrictions imposed upon all our lands within the Rohe Potae be removed.’798
However, the Commissioners repeatedly pushed both men to say what Maori owners would do with the land should the restrictions be lifted. In particular, they wanted clear answers about whether Ngati Maniapoto favoured selling or leasing, and whether they
would permit individual owners to sell or lease without the consent of the owners of the whole block. Taonui, in stating the iwi’s desire for the restrictions to be lifted then ventured his personal opinion about these issues, stating that: 1891–1892
Should the restrictions be taken off, I am not one who is in favour of land‐selling, but I am in favour of leasing the land. If the restrictions of the Government are, removed, I should be in favour of leasing; but I ought to have in my own hands agreement, the making of the arrangements with respect to the leasing of my land – that is, the land of which I am the owner. I should have the fixing of the conditions for leasing that land. That is all I have to say upon that.799
Edwards stated that the iwi was ‘not in a position to go into other matters so long as purchasing
that restriction remains over the land.’ But he was also clear that the iwi did not give land
a
their consent to law being made that would appoint a committee to deal with land sales and leases and take control away from Maori, such as the one being advocated by the commissioners.800 At the outset of the Otorohanga hearing Commissioner Rees had negotiate
to
797 Evidence before the Native Land Laws Commission, Otorohanga, 15 April 1891, AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 31 798 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 32 799 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 31 Attempts 800
AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 32 5. 266
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 asked Maori ‘whether, in the future, dealings with their lands should be by the whole people through Committees associated with a Government Commissioner in each district, or in any other way they might choose, and not by individuals.’801
The commissioners continued to press Edwards to say whether the iwi wished to have the current law amended, and again Edwards stated unequivocally that only after the restrictions were removed from the land would they ‘be in a position to see what course we would pursue.’802 Carroll also tried to get to the bottom of the iwi’s intention with regard to selling and leasing, particularly whether each land owner would be able to lease or sell their own interests or whether such decisions would require the consent of the hapu. Under pressure Edwards stated that ‘we think that, should any persons hold in severalty, he should be allowed to lease or sell as he likes’ but where interests were held collectively Edwards stated cautiously that although ‘this is a rather new thing to us’ and they would like time to consider their views further, ‘we think that if the owner of a block of land wishes to lease or sell, his interest should be divided off in order that he might be allowed to sell’ and that the principal owners ought to ‘decide what portion
803 of the land he was entitled to in respect of his share.’ Rees considered that if these were the views and intentions of the iwi they had been badly advised and he did not believe that the Government would lift the restrictions ‘if they believed that everybody 1891–1892
was going to sell individually to Europeans.’ If this did happen, Rees feared that it would not be clear ‘where the land represented by those shares was, or what their true value was.’ In his opinion, this would mean ‘trouble, loss, and legal proceedings without
804 agreement,
end.’
Edwards then admitted that he felt he had no choice but to give the commission some view on the matter, even though the iwi were not at the point of considering how they purchasing would deal with their land; instead all their focus was on getting the Crown to remove land the restrictions over it. He replied that: a
negotiate
to
801 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 31 802 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 32 803 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 32 Attempts 804
AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 33 5. 267
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
What I said in regard to individual and collective dealings with land is the result of the questions that were put to me. It is not that we of our own accord gave that matter consideration.805
In fact, Edwards indicated that it would more accurate to say that Ngati Maniapoto was opposed to sales of interests full stop: ‘With regard to individual and collective sales, our fixed opinion is that we do not approve of them. We have no desire for individual or collective sales.’ When asked by Carroll to clarify their stance, Edwards agreed that they opposed sales ‘but that if any individual desires and persists in desiring to sell, his portion should be cut out so that no trouble may result to the non‐sellers through his sale.’806
With regard to leasing, Edwards indicated that Ngati Maniapoto were ‘agreeable to leasing’ but only ‘in accordance with our own arrangements and terms.’ As to whether individuals could lease their interests without the consent of the other owners in the block, that was an issue that was still to be worked through: ‘we will know that’, said Edwards, ‘when the time arrives for the desire to lease.’807 Again he emphasised that Ngati Maniapoto simply were not ready to consider in detail the issue of leasing until
they had the restrictions lifted and control of the land returned to them:
We have not arrived at a definite conclusion as to what course we should pursue in the future with regard to leasing. We are not in a position to lay our views 1891–1892 before you ... The subject has not been considered by us. The first thing we require done is to have the restriction removed.808
In short, Edwards was clear that restrictions should be removed, however, as to what agreement, happened after restrictions were removed, he could not say, as there had been no consensus reached yet, and he clearly felt unwilling to make firm statements in the absence of hui and agreement. But Edwards was plain that at this time Ngati Maniapoto
809 purchasing had ‘not expressed a desire to sell or lease our lands.’ land
a
negotiate
to
805 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 33 806 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 33 807 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 33 808 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 33 Attempts 809
AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 33 5. 268
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
A stalemate soon developed. Ngati Maniapoto had made it clear that they could not advise the commissioners on what laws should be made for the disposal of their land, or consider the issue in any detail until the Government had lifted the restrictions on alienation off their land. But the commissioner told Ngati Maniapoto that:
until there is some substantial reason for removing the restriction why should it be removed? Now, you have not shown any reason why the restriction should be removed from the land. If you were to say, for instance, “well we desire to have the restriction removed from the land, so that we may lease it,” that would be a reason. Or, if you were to say, “we wish the restriction removed from these lands, so that we may be enabled to sell them”, that would be a reason. But your present request, “Remove the restriction. We do not want to lease; we do not want to sell;”– that is no reason; there is nothing in it.810
Rees and Carroll also pointed out that the commissioners needed to know the views of Ngati Maniapoto regarding whether they wished to sell or lease because any legislation removing the restriction would also put in place a system for the disposal by sale and lease of Maori land. The commissioners wished to know their views so they might be considered in shaping such legislation.
Whitinui then spoke in clarification, perhaps realising that if they could declare themselves in favour either of leasing or selling they might have a better chance of the commissioners supporting their call for restrictions to be lifted. He told the 1891–1892 commissioners that he had asked the Native Minister ‘to take off the restriction from our lands, so that we shall be free to lease them.’ He pointed out that:
if the restrictions imposed by the Government had been against selling, but had agreement, allowed leasing, we would never have applied as we do now for the removal of the restriction. Our hardship, as the Commissioners are already aware, is that we cannot lease or sell, except we sell to the Government.811
When asked again whether he favoured leasing, Whitinui stated that ‘all of us are purchasing desirous of leasing, and that we ourselves should make the arrangements.’812 The land
a commissioners then questioned Whitinui more closely as to how these arrangements would be made. A consistent theme of these answers was that Maori themselves should make decisions with no interference from the Government. Rees seemed satisfied that negotiate
to
810 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 34 811 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 34 Attempts 812
AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 35 5. 269
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 in fact Ngati Maniapoto had indicated an intention to lease their land should restrictions be lifted. He stated that ‘because they say they will lease after making reserves [for their own occupation and use] ‘we can report in favour of that, for that is a distinct statement to some purpose.’813 However, in summing up Edwards warned that Ngati Maniapoto as a whole had not if fact been able to come to a clear decision about the future of their land yet. He reiterated that:
it is on account of our land being subject to that restriction that we have been unable to adopt any plan similar to that mentioned by the Commissioners ... we are not fully clear to‐day as to the course spoken of by the Commissioners, and that is why we say that, if the restriction is removed, then we can turn our attention to considering the best course to be adopted.814
He again emphasised that they felt obliged to give answers to the commissioners even though the iwi had not fully formed its view: ‘it was oweing to questions put to us on other matters by the Commissioners that Whitinui and myself have given the replies we have. But we have not actually come to definite conclusions.’ Edwards pleaded for the restrictions to be removed even if they could not give a definite answer about what they intended to do with their land in the future. In his mind it was enough to argue that
‘there is no reason for having the restriction on our lands.’815 Rees was inclined to take Whitinui’s indications that Ngati Maniapoto favoured leasing, rather than Edwards
816
more cautious statements, back to Parliament. But because they were simply 1891–1892 investigating and reporting on Maori views the Commissioners were unable to give any assurance about whether and when the restrictions were likely to be lifted. agreement,
5.4 DECEMBER 1891 MEETING WITH NATIVE MINISTER CADMAN
In the meantime Rohe Potae hapu and iwi leadership resumed their meetings with purchasing Native Minister Cadman and continued to press for the restrictions to be lifted in land
exchange for some concessions about what land they were willing to sell to the Crown a
for European settlement. By December 1891, hapu and iwi were facing some stark choices about how to manage the potential alienation of their land. One option taken by negotiate
to
813 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 35 814 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 35 815 AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 36 Attempts 816
AJHR 1891, G‐1, p 36 5. 270
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 some communities was to renew their resistance to land selling by reaffirming the mana of the King over their land. The day before a meeting with Cadman at Otorohanga in December 1891 a large group of people from the district met at Te Kumi near Otorohanga. The Taranaki Herald reported that several hundred people had gathered, ‘with a large number of principal chiefs of Ngatimaniapoto … Wahanui and Taonui were both unavoidably absent, but were represented.’ There were expressions of:
disgust at the action of the Government in first inducing them to pass their lands through the Native Land Courts, and afterwards declining to allow them to sell their property to anyone but the Government, at any price the latter chose to pay. They resolved that they would attend no Courts, and allow no surveyor … they declared they would not meet Mr Cadman, Native Minister. The decision of the meeting was to ‘return to “King” Tawhiao, and allow his mana to again hold sway over the lands.’817
Yet the meeting with Cadman did go ahead, because at least some of the hapu and iwi realised that a pragmatic response was required to the situation they found themselves in. With land purchasing already underway in the district, it would have been apparent to at least some Maori owners that the land purchase officers were willing to exert
considerable pressure on individuals to sell their interests. The Native Land Court had been operating in the district for five years, subdividing the land into blocks and the determining who the owners were. Realistically, the chances of either process being 1891–1892 stopped were slim. So these negotiations can be seen as an attempt to make the best of the situation at hand. The solution, from Ngati Maniapoto’s perspective, was to have the restrictions lifted to provide a way for Maori to regain control of the land by being able agreement, to lease or sell to Europeans. At the same time, they hoped to appease the Crown’s hunger for land, while benefiting from a level of European settlement. Perhaps hapu and iwi leaders considered that it was better to feed the ‘taniwha’ on their own terms purchasing than to starve it completely and risk it eating them (and their land) whole. land
It is recognised that setting up these two courses of action as competing responses may a
not reflect how Ngati Maniapoto involved in both meetings saw the situation. It is not clear whether there were tensions between individuals holding these two different negotiate positions, or in fact whether they were even seen by Ngati Maniapoto people as to
mutually exclusive and incompatible. But they do at the very least indicate that a range
Attempts 817
‘Large Native Meeting at Te Kumi’, Taranaki Herald, 22 December 1891 5. 271
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 of responses to the land purchasing operation were being considered although the campaign to have restrictions on transactions with Europeans removed seems to have been a major focus of engagement between Maori and the Crown.
In the lead up to the December 1891 meeting with Cadman there had been a considerable amount of discussion within Ngati Maniapoto about their request for restrictions to be removed, and what they might be willing to offer to the Crown by way of concessions over land purchasing. In welcoming Cadman Wahanui had alluded to the fact that they had ‘received notification of the visit, which prepared them to consider matters of great importance respecting Native land.’ In addition, it appears that a document had recently been circulated by the Government about their intentions with regard to land in the King Country. The newspaper article gave no further indication the contents of that document.818
The author of a newspaper article published ahead of the meeting at Otorohanga stated that he had learnt that the Government was ‘prepared to release some of the restrictions upon sale of Native lands if the Natives are prepared to meet the Minister in
an equitable spirit.’ He also had it on good authority that hapu and iwi had heard this too and had drafted ‘a counter proposition.’ He set out the key points of their proposal: 1891–1892
(1) That the Government shall be allowed to purchase land in the King Country at a reasonable price, the balance of land not purchased by the Government to be handed over to the control of Native owners; (2) That the land handed over to them should be alienable, and on being put under the Land Transfer Act the certificate should disclose whether the land was first or second quality; (3) Every agreement, European to make a declaration under the Land Acts that he does not hold more than 460 acres of first‐class, or 2000 acres of second‐class land; (4) No individual or company to purchase more than their quantity.819
These terms strongly suggest that Ngati Maniapoto were willing to use the only real purchasing
bargaining chip they had: a promise to sell a limited and specific amount of land to the land
a
Crown, in exchange for the greater benefits of having the restrictions taken off the remaining land and the prospect of being able to control the use and disposal of that land themselves. It is also possible that this was an attempt to try and satisfy the negotiate Crown’s hunger for land and slow or halt land purchasing in the district. to
818 ‘The King Country – Mr Cadman and the Natives – An important proposal’, New Zealand Herald, 21
December 1891, p 5 Attempts 819
‘Native Affairs – Land in the King Country’, New Zealand Herald, 4 December 1891, p 5 5. 272
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Partnerships between land owners and individual Europeans to develop sheep farming and flax milling were already underway in the district despite the prohibition on all forms of private dealings; these are explored in further detail in the next chapter. Cadman acknowledged this in his address to the people at Otorohanga.820 Wahanui and others were, therefore, fully alive to the benefits of European settlement, if it could be contained and controlled in a way that benefited Maori and did not lead to the wholesale dispossession of the people from their land. The terms they had reportedly drawn up indicate that Wahanui and others were trying to balance their own present and future needs by retaining land but allowing some European settlement in the district to bring economic benefits. Provisions three and four, limiting how much land any one individual could buy, demonstrate a strong desire by Maori communities to ensure that speculators were not let in but at the same time make it possible for bona fide settlers to get land. The proposals limiting the amount of first and second class land any one European could hold also show that hapu and iwi were concerned that the best land not be monopolized by settler but shared by Maori and Europeans. Overall, Ngati Maniapoto’s proposal was a canny appeal to the ideas that the Liberals held about the desirability of small farmer settlers.
On the first day of the December meeting Wahanui began the proceedings by welcoming 1891–1892
Cadman but did not immediately lay these proposals before the Native Minister. Instead he listened to what the Crown was willing to offer. It was reported that:
Mr Cadman makes a definite proposal that the Natives should hand over to the agreement, Government sufficient land for settlement purposes, and that from the remainder the restriction should be removed so that the Natives could deal with it as they chose, selling or leasing for the best price they can obtain.821
In making his proposal that Maori ought to cede land for settlement Cadman couched purchasing his words in terms of Maori obligations to the colony and the inevitability of a land
Government having to bow to pressure from settlers. In response to Maori calls for a control over their land Cadman stated that he: negotiate
to
820 ‘The King Country – Mr Cadman and the Natives – An important proposal’, New Zealand Herald, 21 December 1891, p 5 821 ‘The King Country – Mr Cadman and the Natives – An important proposal’, New Zealand Herald, 21 Attempts
December 1891, p 5 5. 273
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
would remind the natives of the railway constructed, and the land must be made to contribute towards the interest and cost. For such a railway to pay the land must be used for settlement purposes and cultivated.822
Therefore, he called on Rohe Potae Maori to ‘hand to the Government land sufficient for settlement purposes.’ 823 This was a blunt negotiating position, offering a ‘carrot’ – the prospect of freeing some land from the restrictions – but ultimately backed by a ‘stick’ – the threat that if hapu and iwi refused to agree to Cadman’s proposal the Government would legislate to force Maori to sell land to the Crown. Cadman stated that settler feeling ‘against allowing large areas of Native land to be unproductive and non‐ taxpaying’ were ‘so strong that unless’ Maori agreed to his proposal ‘Parliament would be compelled to legislate in the direction next session not only for Maori land, but also unimproved land held by Europeans.’824 He ‘hoped that they would not think he had come to rob them of their land’ but he was simply advising them of what would be the ‘inevitable result’ should they not reach ‘an amicable settlement.’825
Cadman also informed those gathered at Otorohanga that he had seen the number of partnerships they had entered into with Europeans in the district in contravention of
the restrictions. Cadman pointed out how little legal redress Maori had if such arrangements turned sour. He also made a veiled threat that unless they agreed to make land available for purchasing the Government would move to have those Europeans 1891–1892
removed. He stated that:
Ministers could not shut their eyes to the violation of the law in the Otorohanga district. He felt certain that the Natives could not compel occupiers to pay rent, agreement, and it was questionable if they evict tenants … This is another strong reason why they should carefully consider the position, and try to make a settlement without the intervention of the law or the interference of the Legislature.826
purchasing
822 land
‘The King Country – Mr Cadman and the Natives – An important proposal’, New Zealand Herald, 21 a December 1891, p 5 823 ‘The King Country – Mr Cadman and the Natives – An important proposal’, New Zealand Herald, 21 December 1891, p 5 824 When Ballance was questioned by reporters at Kihikihi on the evening of the first day of this meeting he said that ‘did not deem it prudent to give any details of the policy the Government intended to adopt in negotiate such a contingency, but it might possibly be by the initiation next session of legislation for taxing Native to lands in precisely the same way as was done on land held by Europeans’ (‘Native Land Proposals – Interview with the Premier’, New Zealand Herald, 21 December 1891, p 5) 825 ‘The King Country – Mr Cadman and the Natives – An important proposal’, New Zealand Herald, 21 December 1891, p 5 826 ‘The King Country – Mr Cadman and the Natives – An important proposal’, New Zealand Herald, 21 Attempts
December 1891, p 5 5. 274
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In a further newspaper article about this meeting this threat is reported as having been more explicit. It recorded that Cadman had:
forcibly reminded the Natives that restrictions were placed on the land which rendered any dealing with it outside the Government illegal, and other than these were liable to be removed at any moment.827
Cadman’s stance seems unduly agressive and coercive given that he was yet to hear any statement at the meeting by hapu and iwi leaders on whether, and to what extent, Maori were willing to sell land to the Crown for European settlement. It is possible that he read the newspaper report of their proposal on the 4 December and had found some aspects of it disagreeable, particularly the emphasis on a high level of Maori control and the demand for a reasonable price per acre. This may have led him to speak so strongly at the outset of this meeting.
Contemporary commentators certainly remarked on Cadman’s attempts to force Ngati Maniapoto to agree with the Crown’s proposal. The Editor of the New Zealand Herald and Daily Southern Cross noted that ‘Mr Cadman seeks to coerce the Natives into this
course by telling them that if they do not consent to come to an arrangement, Parliament will legislate next session so as to compel them.’828 The Crown’s willingness to use its power to compel Ngati Maniapoto to sell land for settlement is in marked 1891–1892 contrast to Ngati Maniapoto who sought and expected that a consensus could be reached by goodwill negotiations between the Treaty partners.
Given that many Ngati Maniapoto attending this meeting had witnessed the Crown’s agreement, confiscation of Waikato land in their lifetime, there must have been a real fear of what these threats could bring. In fact, the editor of the New Zealand Herald likened any such measure to confiscation. He predicted that: purchasing
if legislation has to be resorted to there will be great difficulties in the way. The land land has been adjudicated upon by the court, and belongs to certain individuals. a If certain blocks were to be scheduled to be taken in an Act of Parliament, the land of individuals would be practically confiscated, while other persons, exactly in the same position, would have their land made entirely free and be able to sell negotiate
to
827 ‘The Opening of the King Country’, New Zealand Herald, 23 December 1891, p 5 Attempts 828
‘Editorial’, New Zealand Herald, 21 December 1891, p 4 5. 275
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
it. Such legislation as this would not be just, and the attempt might lead the country into trouble.829
Although Cadman’s position seemed to be clear the details of how this might work in practice were vague. As the editor of the New Zealand Herald pointed out at the time ‘no statement is made by Mr Cadman as to the amount of land required by the Government, or as to whether an allowance would be made per acre for what the Natives gave up for settlement.’830 Nor had he indicated whether the Crown would seek land in certain locations as part of this proposal.
However, an interview with the Premier John Ballance at Kihikihi on the evening of this first day of the meeting indicates something of the official views on these matters. Ballance was asked by the reporter whether he could provide further information of the Crown’s intentions. He stated that:
All they asked of the natives was to dispose of blocks along the line for purposes of settlement, at a fair and reasonable price (cutting out the necessary inalienable reserves for the maintenance of the Natives) the land so taken to be paid for in bonds bearing 4½ per cent. That being done the restrictions would be
taken off the balance of the native lands, and the natives free to sell or lease their lands to whom they pleased, the Government only interfering so far as to see the land cut up in moderate blocks.831
This strongly suggests that the Crown wanted and expected Maori to make available 1891–1892 land adjacent to the railway, and as we have seen this was the land which was generally of the highest quality and they had already prioritized it for purchase. It was still hoped that Maori would accept at least some of the payment in debentures rather than cash. agreement, However, the interest rates being offered (4.5 per cent) were much lower than Maori could receive by investing elsewhere, albeit with the advantage of a government guarantee. purchasing
After Cadman’s initial proposal and his threats about what might happen if it was land
a rejected by Ngati Maniapoto, Wahanui asked that the meeting be adjourned for several hours to allow the people to hold further discussions. Cadman’s position most likely took hapu and iwi by surprise, and under these changed circumstances it was probably negotiate
to
829 New Zealand Herald, 21 December 1891, p 4 830 ‘Editorial’, New Zealand Herald, 21 December 1891, p 4 Attempts 831
‘Native Land Proposals – Interview with the Premier’, New Zealand Herald, 21 December 1891, p 5 5. 276
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 felt that the proposal that Maori had worked out in advance of the meeting needed to be reconsidered. Such was the seriousness of the situation that these deliberations took nearly two days.
So at this point in the negotiations hapu and iwi leaders were willing to set aside some land for the Crown to purchase in exchange for having the restrictions on leasing and selling to Europeans lifted off the remainder of the land (with some regulations designed to control land speculators). Cadman had told the meeting that if Maori were willing to hand over ‘sufficient’ land for settlement the restrictions would be removed from the rest of the land, allowing Maori to lease or sell for the best price they could obtain. Although Cadman seems to have been no more specific in his offer than this, a newspaper interview with Premier Ballance at the same time confirmed that the land the Government wanted Maori to offer for sale under such an agreement was the blocks close to the railway line. However, Cadman also made it clear that the Crown would apply heavy sanctions if Maori would not agree to the proposal. The Government would legislate to compel them to sell land to the Crown and would remove Europeans already
settled on the land under leases and partnerships that did not comply with the restrictions on private dealings. At this point both parties were in favour of an agreement where some blocks of land being offered to the Crown for purchase. But it 1891–1892 was less certain whether this could satisfactorily be arranged given Maori aspirations for control of such a process and the Crown determination that the blocks be comprised largely of the most valuable land near the railway. agreement, When the meeting reconvened several days later Edwards was chosen to speak on Ngati Maniapoto’s behalf. He laid out their counter‐proposal:
First, the restriction would be retained on the sale of the land which the purchasing
Government did not require, but they wished to have voice in fixing the price; land
second, they wished to obtain the right to lease the land which the Government a would not require, or to purchase it; third, they desired the simplification of the land laws, as so to make them suitable to both races, respecting sale and leases, which, he said, they all wanted to be included. It was only fair to the two parties fixing the prices, and who were desirous to so fix them as to facilitate settlement. negotiate He was further of [the] opinion that settlers would take advantage of having this to
Attempts
5. 277
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
power and thus increase occupation, and only by simple and inexpensive laws could this be affected.832
In some ways this proposal was not as specific about measures that would provide a degree of control over the extent and location of European settlement as the one they had reported prepared prior to the meeting. But it is likely that they had those ideas in mind when they asked that the laws around leasing and selling be reformed. The shift in focus to an agreement that would give Maori greater collective input into the way that price per acre was decided suggests an acceptance on the part of Ngati Maniapoto that some land selling would occur. It also recognised the widespread dissatisfaction amongst Maori owners of the prices they were being offered by the Crown.
Cadman’s response to this counter‐offer by Ngati Maniapoto indicates that the basic premise that Maori would offer some land for sale in return for restrictions being lifted off the remainder was acceptable to the Crown. He stated that:
So far as could be seen the Natives had fairly met the principles of the case, leaving only matters of detail for consideration … He could have no personal objection to removing restrictions from their lands if they desired to lease them. All the Government required was sufficient land for settlement, so as to secure a reasonable prospect of making the railway profitable.833
However, in an interview at Auckland a few days after the Otorohanga meeting Cadman 1891–1892 was asked about what agreement had been reached with Ngati Maniapoto. His understanding was that the iwi ‘do not want the restrictions wholly taken off their lands, with the exception of small blocks, which the Government may not consider it agreement, worth while to purchase, being too small for them.’ Instead he believed that they had asked ‘that the restrictions should be taken off the residue of their lands after the Government have selected what they want; that they should only be allowed to lease,
834 purchasing but not sell right out.’ The way he envisaged that this would work was that Maori ‘should point out the blocks they wanted to sell, and then the restrictions should be land
a
negotiate
to
832 ‘Native Lands – Mr Cadman’s proposal – Reply of the Natives’, New Zealand Herald, 22 December 1891, p 5 833 ‘Native Lands – Mr Cadman’s proposal – Reply of the Natives’, New Zealand Herald, 22 December
1891, p 5 Attempts 834
‘Interview with the Hon A J Cadman’, New Zealand Herald, 23 December 1891, p 5 5. 278
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 taken off, and an agent appointed to collect the rents and cut up any smaller areas and dispose of them in the ordinary way.’835
There were several other important caveats: firstly, as Ballance had indicated in his interview, the Crown wished to obtain land contiguous to the railway and land in suitable localities on which to place settlers. Restrictions on private sales would remain for all but the smallest blocks and limits would be placed on Ngati Maniapoto’s ability to lease their land. Cadman explained that he ‘would not consent to allow the land to be leased in large blocks, however so as to create a monopoly.’836 This was a serious restriction, if Maori could not lease their large blocks directly to Europeans, their potential income from leasing would be significantly reduced. Such a want of capital may then have made selling land more attractive, and over time this would permanently diminish their economic base.
During the meeting Cadman did not entirely dismiss Ngati Maniapoto’s request to have some input into setting the price per acre being offered by the Crown. Although he told them that neither Cabinet nor Parliament would agree ‘to fixing the price of land’ he
seemed to suggest that something might be done. He talked of ‘the arrangements’ applying only to ‘new blocks, as it would be unfair to those who had sold their shares in blocks partly purchased to have the prices increased on the balance.’837 The following 1891–1892
day he reinforced this impression. The article recorded that Ngati Maniapoto had ‘asked that the price of land shall be fixed by mutual arrangement.’ Cadman told the reporter that: agreement,
the only exception to that should be the blocks already under negotiation, under which a lot of interests have been acquired, and the arbitration would then go on for any fresh purchases.838 purchasing With all these caveats and exceptions noted, Cadman stated that he ‘would recommend land the acceptance by the Cabinet of their [Ngati Maniapoto’s] proposals, but should require a
their proposals to be submitted definitely in writing. As to legislation, it was a question
negotiate
to 835 ‘Interview with the Hon A J Cadman’, New Zealand Herald, 23 December 1891, p 5 836 ‘Native Lands – Mr Cadman’s proposal – Reply of the Natives’, New Zealand Herald, 22 December 1891, p 5 837 ‘Native Lands – Mr Cadman’s proposal – Reply of the Natives’, New Zealand Herald, 22 December 1891, p 5 also see ‘The Opening of the King Country’, New Zealand Herald, 23 December 1891, p 5 Attempts 838
‘Interview with the Hon A J Cadman’, New Zealand Herald, 23 December 1891, p 5 5. 279
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 for Parliament.’839 On the same date the newspaper announced that in accordance with this wish Maori had:
drawn up a document embodying the foregoing principles, and it has been duly signed by Taonui and Wahanui, the great Maniapoto chiefs, and personally handed over to Mr Bates, the Minister’s private secretary.840
As to the amendment of the land laws, Cadman invited Ngati Maniapoto to submit suggestions, assuring them that ‘anything reasonable and for their benefit would meet with his support, and it would not be his fault if they did not secure beneficial legislation.’841
Henry Edwards assured Cadman that his ‘reply was entirely satisfactory’ but also asked that they be permitted ‘to sell very small allotments if the Government had not any desire to buy.’ The Native Minister replied that ‘he had no objection to restrictions being taken off small sections as settlement would follow such a course.’ There was disappointment about the ‘Minister’s refusal to allow a readjustment of prices for shares in blocks where the purchase was not completed’ but Edwards was sure that with
842 further negotiation this ‘could be arranged’ or resolved. Cadman also considered that ‘the Natives had practically agreed to his proposals, the rest being merely detail’, presumably to be worked out later.843 1891–1892 By the end of 1891 Ngati Maniapoto and the Crown had agreed that Maori would offer some blocks of land for sale to the Crown in exchange for a lifting of restrictions on the remaining land. With this agreement in place both parties focused on working out the agreement, details of which restrictions would be lifted. Hapu and iwi leaders had moved away from a complete lifting of restrictions, instead asking that the restrictions on leasing be lifted, while those on selling to Europeans remained in place for all but the very small purchasing pieces of land. The decision not to press for complete freedom to sell land to Europeans, land at least at that time, may indicate continued misgivings about the honesty of speculators a
and their companies. Cadman agreed to these arrangements. But in newspaper
negotiate 839 ‘Interview with the Hon A J Cadman’, New Zealand Herald, 23 December 1891, p 5 to 840 ‘The Opening of the King Country’, New Zealand Herald, 23 December 1891, p 5 841 ‘Native Lands – Mr Cadman’s proposal – Reply of the Natives’, New Zealand Herald, 22 December 1891, p 5 842 ‘Native Lands – Mr Cadman’s proposal – Reply of the Natives’, New Zealand Herald, 22 December
1891, p 5 Attempts 843
‘Interview with the Hon A J Cadman’, New Zealand Herald, 23 December 1891, p 5 5. 280
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 interviews after this December 1891 meeting it became apparent that Cadman favoured significantly restricting the size of blocks that Maori could lease. Such a restriction were contrary to the freedom that hapu and iwi leaders were seeking, and had significant implications for how viable leasing their remaining land, under these circumstances, would be.
In addition, Ngati Maniapoto asked that they be given a voice in setting the price per acre for land they chose to sell to the Crown. No direct assurances to hapu and iwi leaders by Cadman have been found but the reported disappointment from Ngati Maniapoto about his refusal to consider adjusting prices for land already under negotiation, and Cadman’s reported comments in the press indicate that he willing to arrange some way for Maori to have input into the setting of prices for blocks as yet untouched by Crown purchasing. With promising agreements in place both parties envisaged that further details could be worked out between them.
5.5 MAY 1892 MEETING WITH NATIVE MINISTER CADMAN
With so much seemingly agreed at the December 1891 meeting Cadman returned to Otorohanga in May 1892 to work out how the land Maori were to offer the Crown would be decided on. Cadman assured Ngati Maniapoto that he had ‘reviewed the proposals 1891–1892
agreed upon at the close of their last meeting, and with those generally he agreed’ and that ‘their present meeting was to deal with matters relating to their own particular land.’ As a first step he: agreement,
advised them to form a committee in order to arrive at some agreement as to the blocks of land they would like to sell to the Government and to make proposals, which, if satisfactory, the Government would endeavour to have effect given to 844 by legislation. purchasing
Cadman reiterated the Crown’s commitment to allowing them to lease their land land
a ‘without restrictions, except those imposed by the land laws of the colony’ but only after the Government had obtained what it required first. Critically, restrictions were not to be lifted automatically but the owners of each block would need to apply to have them negotiate
to
Attempts 844
‘Native Meeting at Otorohanga’, New Zealand Herald, 4 May 1892, p 5 5. 281
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 removed, potentially making this a cumbersome process. In summary Cadman stated that:
he agreed to allow the restrictions to remain in the land until the natives asked to have them removed from those portions not required by the Government, and ended by saying that it may be an easy thing to arrange a programme especially suitable to their section of people.845
It appears that at some point in this discussion Cadman had told them that he:
was prepared to accede to their proposals if they could give him any guarantee that the owners of the blocks which the Crown desired to acquire would agree to come forward and sign the necessary deeds of transfer of the same within a reasonable time.846
The people then took some time to discuss the Minister’s comments. On their return to the meeting Edwards again spoke on behalf of Ngati Maniapoto. He indicated that the agreement had hit a significant obstacle, and as a result they could not guarantee the swift and complete transfer of blocks that the Crown desired. Edwards stated that ‘the natives were unable to offer the Government any particular blocks, as the owners were so numerous and interests so diversified.’ All they could offer instead was their assistance while the Government bought individual interests in blocks around the district. Wilkinson who attended the meeting as the official interpreter reported that hapu and iwi leaders had: 1891–1892
promised to use their influence where it was powerful amongst their own relatives in inducing them to sign the Government deeds; and also with a view to do away with the stigma and public condemnation that in the past had been agreement, passed upon those who were known to have sold land.847
This represented a significant collapse in support for a unified iwi strategy of earmarking particular blocks to be sold in exchange for being able to deal with their purchasing land free from all restrictions. There is a real irony here that by engaging, often with land
considerable reluctance, in the Native Land Court’s processes, promoted and sanctioned a
by the Crown, and individualising ownership, Maori leaders in this district then lost a considerable measure of their authority over the land. As a result those leaders could negotiate
not guarantee that their people would agree to sell certain blocks to the Crown. So the to
845 ‘Native Meeting at Otorohanga’, New Zealand Herald, 4 May 1892, p 5 846 Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 28 June 1892, AJHR 1892, G‐3, No. 3, p 5 Attempts 847
Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 28 June 1892, AJHR 1892, G‐3, No. 3, pp 4‐5 5. 282
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 agreement relating to purchasing and freedom from restrictions on private dealings which had looked possible at the end of 1891 could not be sealed. In effect hapu and iwi were being penalised for an absence of collective control over land, a possibility that had been profoundly undermined by the court operating in the district. The tensions between collective decision‐making under hapu and iwi chiefs and the right of each individual owner to sell or hold on to their interests in the land were very difficult to resolve after six years of the court operating in the district.
Despite not being able to offer whole blocks of land to the Crown, Ngati Maniapoto continued to press for the changes they had asked for in December 1891. They asked the Crown to keep the restrictions on selling in place, meaning that Maori could only sell to the Crown. But in return they ‘wished to aid the Government to arrange some plan upon which a fair price could be fixed for the purchasing.’ It was probably hoped that they could negotiate attractive price per acre deals with the Crown for their interests in particular blocks. However, as we have seen, Crown officials were extremely unwilling to go beyond a payment of five or six shillings per acre, so this hope was likely to prove
unfounded in the long‐term. However, they also ‘desired to have restrictions removed from leasing, and to give them a free hand to lease their lands to Europeans.’ In addition, they continued to press for the ‘simplification of native land laws, and certain reforms in
848 1891–1892 the Native Land Court.’
This left the Crown in the position of giving a number of concessions with little certainty about obtaining significant blocks of land for settlement. Without significant areas of the agreement, district being released to the Crown for purchasing Cadman considered that he could no longer agree to lift the restriction on leasing. He acknowledged the position the chiefs found themselves in: unable to guarantee ‘the sale of land by owners outside purchasing themselves’ but not interfering ‘with the action of those who desired to sell.’ But land Cadman also stated that ‘the Government were prepared to accept their late proposals a
as a whole, and could not take them piecemeal.’849 That is, now the possibility of setting aside whole blocks for purchase was more or less gone the Government was not willing negotiate to look at making the changes Maori had wanted in exchange. In particular, Cadman told to
848 ‘The Native Meeting at Otorohanga – The reply of the Maoris’, New Zealand Herald, 5 May 1892, p 5 Attempts 849
‘The Native Meeting at Otorohanga – The reply of the Maoris’, New Zealand Herald, 5 May 1892, p 5 5. 283
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Ngati Maniapoto that the Crown would not allow them to lease. To do so, in Cadman’s opinion, ‘would be to sanction a proposal which would cause great trouble and litigation between the native owners and the lessees.’850 Another account of this meeting indicates that Cadman hoped that the restrictions on leasing would ‘be eventually removed’ from blocks not required by the Crown but this would have to be ‘under proper conditions, so that no monopoly could result.’ Presumably Cadman was concerned by Maori or speculators withholding large areas of land.851 Yet, when there seemed to be a chance that the Crown would gain considerable land from an agreement Cadman was willing to allow leasing, even if he did hope to restrict its extent considerably, and no concerns about disputes between Maori and European were raised.
The Government was still willing to ratify the original agreement of December 1891 but Cadman indicated that he ‘would not pledge the Government, to do so for an indefinite period – certainly not longer than the time when Parliament will be in session.’852 It is unclear whether Cadman generally believed that the proposal agreed to in December
1891 would only be on offer for a very limited time, or whether he was simply putting pressure on Ngati Maniapoto to accept that agreement. Edwards and Wahanui both expressed a desire to get some agreement in place while Cadman remained Native 1891–1892
Minister:
as another king may arise who knew not Joseph, and they had faith and confidence that he (Mr Cadman) would honestly carry out all the conditions of any agreement he might make on behalf of the Natives.853 agreement,
But with the inability of Ngati Maniapoto leaders to guarantee blocks would be handed over for sale and the Crown rejecting any immediate provision for private leasing on the
remaining land there was little realistic hope of a lasting agreement. Yet the newspaper purchasing
optimistically reported immediately after the meeting that: land
a
negotiate
to
850 ‘The Native Meeting at Otorohanga – The reply of the Maoris’, New Zealand Herald, 5 May 1892, p 5 851 ‘Meeting between Maori and Native Minister’, Waikato Times, 10 May 1892, p 5 852 ‘The Native Meeting at Otorohanga – The reply of the Maoris’, New Zealand Herald, 5 May 1892, p 5 Attempts 853
‘The Native Meeting at Otorohanga – The reply of the Maoris’, New Zealand Herald, 5 May 1892, p 5 5. 284
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Many of the principal Natives assure me that now the intentions of the Government are definitely known, and the opposition of the chiefs withdrawn, immense blocks of land will be sold during the next eighteen months.854
This suggests that some Maori at least understood that an agreement had been reached.
Meanwhile the Crown was determined to push on with its purchasing programme despite objections voiced by hapu and iwi. After his meeting at Otorohanga Cadman met with hapu and iwi at Kihikihi, where there were requests for the Crown to stop buying Native land. He took an aggressive stance, telling them bluntly that:
they might as well as him to stop the river from flowing. The Government were being pressed on all sides to buy Native lands, and he had purchased a hundred thousand acres during the year, and could have purchased double that amount if money has been available. The Government only wanted to push on [with] settlement, and were indifferent whether Europeans or Natives cultivated. He asked whether the Natives would cultivate even one per cent of their reserves; also whether they were prepared to pay rates as Europeans did.855
From the Crown’s perspective the failure of the agreement was an inconvenience, land purchasing (and European settlement) would continue to be slow and costly, but
because the court had named individuals as owners in blocks of land the Crown always had the option of continuing to purchase from individual owners.
For hapu and iwi an agreement was a pivotal. The aspirations of the 1880s for sole 1891–1892
authority and control in determining the title to their land and then managing its use and disposal remained unfulfilled. The Crown failed to empower the Kawhia Native Committee to undertake these functions and support for the committee was agreement,
undermined to such an extent that by April 1886 there seemed little alternative than to engage with the Native Land Court, an application was made and the court began sitting at Otorohanga in July 1886. Despite the best efforts of Maori communities, the court purchasing process could not ultimately be controlled, and it became more difficult for rangatira land and for hapu to exercise collective control over their land. The desire by leaders such as a
Wahanui, Taonui and Ormsby for the court to define the ownership of the land to hapu level only was, by 1888, under pressure from those owners who saw the advantages of negotiate hold land in a Crown grant as Europeans did. In April 1888 Orsmby informed Native to
854 ‘The Native Meeting at Otorohanga – The reply of the Maoris’, New Zealand Herald, 5 May 1892, p 5 Attempts 855
‘Native Lands – Mr Cadman and the Natives’, Waikato Times, 7 May 1892, p 2 5. 285
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Minister Mitchelson that with great reluctance they would bow to this pressure and seek to have their land individualized. By 1892 the Crown’s land purchase officer was placing increasing pressure on individual owners to sell their interests to the Crown.
The agreement hapu and iwi attempted to reach with the Crown throughout 1891 and 1892 represented an opportunity for Maori to contain the spread of land purchasing across their district, obtain a better price for the land they did sell to the Crown and regain the freedom to lease their land directly to Europeans. Given how much autonomy they had already lost, and what was now at stake, the collapse of the 1891–1892 agreement was a considerable setback for hapu and iwi. With no way of quickly and effectively limiting the Crown’s purchasing to pre‐arranged blocks the whole of their territory remained vulnerable to being broken up by the purchasing of individual interests and progressive alienation from their ownership, which is exactly what ensued between 1893 and 1908. Even their attempt to have input into determining the price per acre of land when it was sold was a casualty of the collapse of these negotiations. The next chapter examines the ways in which hapu and iwi continued to fight to have
restrictions on leasing removed, attempted to engage in leasing despite the restriction, and to intervene in the Crown’s process for deciding how much it would offer per acre.
Despite the collapse of the negotiations it appears that Ngati Maniapoto were still eager 1891–1892 to pursue the matters that had been raised in negotiations with Cadman. On 8 July 1892 Wilkinson reported that Ngati Manaipoto were considering sending two delegates to Wellington ‘in connection with matters appertaining to Rohepotae lands & native land agreement, laws on the lines set forth by them to the Hon Mr Cadman on his visit here.’ It is unclear whether such a visit eventuated.856 Despite this Wilkinson optimistically stated that between the May 1892 meeting and his report in June that year there had ‘been a purchasing decided impetus given to land‐purchase proceedings in the King‐country’ and he was land optimistic that the land purchasing had ‘now “turned the corner”, and that, so far as the a
Natives are concerned, the worst of our difficulties have been overcome.’857
negotiate
to
856 Telegram: Wilkinson to Acting Native Secretary, Native Department, 8 July 1892, MA 1, 1892/1180,
ANZ Wgt Attempts 857
Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 28 June 1892, AJHR 1892, G‐3, No. 3, p 6 5. 286
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
5.6 MARCH 1894 MEETING WITH PREMIER SEDDON
As Ngati Maniapoto leaders had feared, Cadman resigned as Native Minister in 1893 and the position was taken up by Richard Seddon who also became Premier after the death of John Ballance in the same year.858 Discussion at a meeting between Seddon and Ngati Maniapoto at Te Kuiti two years later in March 1894 strongly suggests that Rohe Potae Maori had gained no concession with regard to the lifting of restrictions on private dealings during 1891and 1892. Premier Seddon accompanied by James Carroll came by rail to Te Kuiti (having previously visited Taumaranui and Mokau) and held a meeting with Maori at Te Kuiti on 9 March 1894.859 A newspaper article reported that ‘a discussion took place with regard to Native lands, the Natives desiring that the present restrictions should be removed and their lands dealt with under the Native Lands Acquisition Act of last session [1893].’ But no assurances were made and ‘the Premier came to no decision, leaving the Natives to think the matter over carefully.’
Seddon and Carroll then went on to Otorohanga ‘where Wahanui and other chiefs had an interview with him.’ A meeting was also arranged between Seddon and Tawhiao.’860
There were bitter complaints about the restrictions on leasing and selling and the very small return owners were offered by the Crown for their land. ‘Ngau Ngau [sic], a brother of the late great chief Taonui, said that the desire of Ngatimaniapoto was that 1891–1892 they be allowed to sell or lease their land.’ Then John Ormsby spoke declaring how unfair it was for officials to say that Maori paid no tax on their land. In fact, in his opinion, Maori ‘pay the worst of taxation, that is, the difference between what the agreement,
Government pays us of our land, from 2s 6d to 6s per acre, and the market value which is from 10s to 20s per acre.’861 purchasing
Edwards and Ormsby voiced the objections of the people to any proposal by the Crown to establish a board to control the leasing and selling of land. Interestingly, Edwards land
a stated that one of their reasons for this objection was that ‘Mr Cadman… had promised
negotiate
to 858 Entry for Alfred Jerome Cadman, Scholfield, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, 1940, p 131 859 The published account of Seddon’s 1894 tour does not provide any detail about the meeting at Te Kuiti (AJHR 1895, G‐1) 860 ‘Arrival of the Premier in Waikato – Tawhiao asks an interview – Mr Seddon consents – Kingites will
meet him at Hamilton’, New Zealand Herald, 10 March 1894, p 5 Attempts 861
‘Otorohanga, Tuesday’, New Zealand Herald, 18 April 1894, p 6, col. 8 5. 287
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 that they should lease to whom they chose.’862 This suggests that at least some within Ngati Maniapoto understood that the Native Minister had given them some concession with regard to leasing. With regard to price, it is clear that Ngati Maniapoto were still pushing for some better means for this to be set, something they would not have needed to do if any agreement on this had been reached in 1891 and 1892. Ormsby reminded the Premier of the injustice of their situation. They had been ‘told if they let the railway through the King Country it would enhance the value of their land. Yet, many years before they had been offered £1 an acre for half a million acres by private buyers but they could not accept it because they could sell only to the Crown. But ‘now when the line is made the Government would give them no more than 6s as the highest price, and they must sell to the Government or not at all.’ Despite these protests, nothing concrete came of the meeting.863
5.7 CONCLUSION
By 1891 land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block had reached a critical point,
both for the Crown and for hapu and iwi. As the Crown began to purchase the interests of individual owners the meaning, effect and interconnection between the Crown’s pre‐ emptive right of purchase, the prohibition on private leasing and selling and the low 1891–1892
price per acre being offered for their land started to become clear to Maori communities. The mid‐1880s had seen Wahanui and other leaders voicing their opposition to these restrictions, and expressing a strong desire to remain in control of agreement,
the use and disposal of their land. They did not waiver in these concerns and aspirations, but the first few years for purchasing lent them fresh urgency and a growing desire to reach an overarching agreement with the Crown about the future purchasing
extent and method of land purchasing. The negotiations which followed during 1891 and 1892 between hapu and iwi leaders and the Native Minister were in the tradition of land
a engagement by the people with Native Ministers from the 1870s onwards. They can be seen as the last in a series of such negotiations where hapu and iwi attempted to reach agreement with the Crown over large issues such as the railway, the Native Land Court negotiate
to
and land laws.
862 ‘The Native Land Question’, New Zealand Herald, 19 April 1894, p 6 Attempts 863
‘The Native Land Question’, New Zealand Herald, 19 April 1894, p 6 5. 288
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
As the previous chapter indicated, the initial few years of land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block had not yielded the results the Crown had hoped for and officials had been quick to identify and, where possible, modify land purchasing policies and practices in response to this. However, the fact remained that Maori resistance to purchasing was strong and widespread. Prior to purchasing it was recognized that it was highly unlikely that Maori would be willing to part with whole blocks. Therefore, officials made the decision to purchase the interests of individual owners in many blocks simultaneously in the hope that the Crown could gain enough shares to have pieces of land partitioned out and awarded in its favour. This process was both slow and costly for the Crown, and led to both the Crown and Maori estate becoming fragmented and intermixed, which was not considered ideal for European settlement. So for the Crown the prospect of reaching an agreement with Maori that allowed whole blocks or subdivisions to be rapidly purchased was attractive.
On three occasions during 1891 and 1892 hapu and iwi from the Rohe Potae gathered at Otorohanga to meet with the Native Minister Alfred Cadman. At first the hapu and iwi
leaders simply wanted all prohibitions on direct leasing and selling between Maori and European removed within the Rohe Potae. At the April 1891 meeting in Otorohanga both Wahanui and John Ormsby put this request to the Native Minister. This position 1891–1892 was supported by a number of speakers, whose names were not recorded. Cadman’s reply to this request was blunt, stating that he could make no promise that the restrictions would be removed but he did not close the door to further discussion. agreement,
Nevertheless, it was clear that he was not a strong supporter of lifting restrictions; he voiced his concerns to the meeting that removing the restrictions would open the way for European speculators who would unfairly benefit from the Crown’s investment in purchasing
the railway. Wilkinson himself feared that if the restrictions were lifted Maori, rather than speculators, would be in a position to profit from the added value the government‐ land
a funded railway had given to their land. There were further, quite lengthy speeches by Ormsby and Wahanui at the April 1891 meeting, but neither side altered their position and the meeting closed with goodwill but little chance that the restrictions would be negotiate
to removed.
Attempts
5. 289
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Before another meeting could be held with the Native Minister hapu and iwi had the opportunity to appear before the Native Land Laws Commission when it sat at Otorohanga on 15 April 1891. While this was not part of the formal negotiations between Rohe Potae leaders and the Native Minister the engagement between witnesses and the commissioners gives a fuller understanding of the concerns and aspirations of hapu and iwi and the Crown over land purchasing, and particularly in relation to whether, and to what extent, restrictions on alienation ought to be lifted. Again Taonui Hikaka and Henry Edwards, who spoke on behalf of Ngati Maniapoto, reiterated the request for the ban on private alienation to be lifted.
The commissioners, William Rees, James Carroll and Thomas Mackay, took the position that before the Crown could consider lifting any of the restrictions they needed a clear answer from hapu and iwi about whether they intended to lease or to sell their land if full control of it was restored to them. The commissioner also wanted to know whether the consent of all owners would be required in these transactions or whether individual owners would be able to sell or leases their portion of land without the permission of
the wider community. Edwards was questioned closely and considerable pressure was exerted on him to provide answers to these issues. With much reluctance he ventured a personal view and assessment of tribal opinion on these matters. His assessments 1891–1892 indicated that Ngati Maniapoto were generally opposed to selling land but recognized that in future a mix of selling and leasing would probably emerge. They favoured collective decisions where possible, but to avoid tensions individual owners who agreement, insisted on selling or leasing would be free to partition out their land and enter the transaction. But he repeatedly emphasised that this was not to be taken as the position of the tribe and that hapu and iwi had not yet come to a consensus or made a decision purchasing
on these issues. He asked that the restrictions be lifted first and the people be given time to make such decisions after that. This call for breathing space was hardly surprising, land
a nor unreasonable, given the pace of change being experienced in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in the five years since the court began operating in the district in 1886. negotiate The commissioners announced that unless Ngati Maniapoto could give a firm reason for to wanting the restrictions lifted, either so they could lease or so they could sell, they could not recommend to the Government that the ban on private dealings be lifted. This Attempts
effectively forced hapu and iwi leaders to make a decision on the spot if they were to 5. 290
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 enlist the support of the commissioners in the fight to have restrictions removed. The chief Whitinui then intervened telling the commissioners that the reason they had wanted the restrictions lifted was so they could lease. This seemed to satisfy Rees and Carroll, but they could give no assurance about whether and when the restrictions would be lifted.
In the months between the Land Laws Commission hearing and the next meeting with the Native Minister at Otorohanga in December 1891, there was considerable discussion amongst hapu and iwi about how to get the Government to move on lifting restrictions. It must have become apparent to Maori that the Crown was not going to grant their request in its present form. It is clear that the lifting of restrictions was an important goal for Ngati Maniapoto. They hoped that if this could be achieved it would return to the owners a measure of control over the land and its resources. It is likely they envisaged that this would allow them to use some for their own needs, generate income by leasing some to Europeans and sell designated pieces directly to Europeans in a controlled way and that this income would help to defray court and survey costs and
fund economic development. As a result they made the difficult decision to offer the Crown blocks of land for sale in exchange for lifting the restrictions off the remainder of their territory. It was far from ideal to permanently sacrifice ancestral land but given 1891–1892 the likely alternatives – piecemeal uncontrolled alienation by the Crown at a price set by the Crown, or equally uncontrollable selling to speculators – it probably seemed preferable to have an agreement which potentially offered certainty and control over agreement, which land would be sold and to be able to retain and use the rest of the land. However, even if sufficient land could be retained and controlled by Maori through a one‐off agreement where all the land the Crown would purchase was identified once and for all, purchasing
the land which would remain in Maori control had already passed through the court and was now held in titles that gave rights to individual owners. This would inevitably land
a increase the difficulty of making collective decisions about leases and sales, and made finance for development very difficult to obtain. negotiate By December 1891, the newspapers were reporting that Ngati Maniapoto were putting to forward a proposal that would allow the Crown to purchase land at a reasonable price but the balance of the land was to be freed of restrictions and dealt with under the Land Attempts
Act. Speculators were to be controlled by limiting each European to no more than 460 5. 291
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 acres of first‐class, or 2,000 acres of second‐class land. This proposition indicates that hapu and iwi were willing to share their territory with Europeans as long as no one was permitted to monopolise the best land and Maori could have control over the area they chose not to sell to the Crown.
However, before this proposal could be put forward Cadman met with hapu and iwi again at Otorohanga in December 1891 and put a new offer on the table. He informed Ngati Maniapoto that if they were willing to hand over sufficient land for settlement purposes the Government was willing to lift the restriction on the remainder so that Maori could sell or lease on the open market. So fundamentally the two parties were now thinking along the same lines. There was the will on both sides to then sit down and work out how this might work in practice but there were some difficult matters to be resolved. It was not clear how much land the Crown would require for settlement, nor where the Crown wanted that land to be located. There were clear indications in statements by Premier Ballance to a reporter at this time that the Crown would almost certainly seek a large proportion of the high quality land near the railway line across the
northern part of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block.
In any case, Cadman’s proposal was in fact highly conditional, and he was not above using the cohesive powers of the State to force an agreement to those conditions. Ngati 1891–1892
Maniapoto was told that if they decided not to accept the proposal legislation would be introduced to compel them to sell their land. He also intimated that he would no longer turn a blind eye to Europeans who were living and running businesses on Maori land in agreement, the district and would take action to have them removed. This blunt and agressive stance by Cadman, which he took prior to any of the leaders speaking at the December 1891 meeting, may indicate that he was aware of Ngati Manaipoto’s proposal and purchasing disapproved of the amount of control they were seeking. Or it could simply have been a land response to settler and Government pressure to accelerate land purchasing and a settlement in the Rohe Potae, which had almost ground to a halt by this time. It is also possible that the prospect of brokering a deal that would make it possible for the Crown negotiate to almost immediately obtain the land it required to support the railway and promote to
European settlement was so significant that he felt the extra pressure was warranted. Regardless of the reason the Crown’s willingness to resort to coercive measures was in Attempts
real contrast to Ngati Maniapoto leaders who were willing to make considerable 5. 292
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 compromises in order to reach an agreement and offer a way in which Maori and European could live harmoniously in the district sharing land and resources.
In the face of these threats Ngati Maniapoto reconsidered their position and after a two day hui returned to reply to Cadman’s proposal. They were willing for the Crown to purchase what it required for settlement but wanted to have a voice in fixing the price they would receive for that land. They wanted the restrictions on leasing over the land that remained in their ownership to be lifted, but had decided that they were happy for restrictions on private selling to remain on all but the smallest blocks. They also asked that the laws relating to leasing and selling be simplified so they worked for both races. Cadman’s response to this counter‐offer was positive, agreeing that the Crown should secure the land it needed for settlement in return for lifting restrictions on leasing over the remaining area. In his view this simply left ‘matters of detail’ to be finalized. Although Cadman did not think Parliament would agree to the request regarding pricing he did not rule out some solution being found, perhaps limited any bi‐partisan pricing model to any new blocks being purchased. Although Ngati Maniapoto were
disappointed by this they still hoped that in future negotiations some compromise could be reached. The Native Minister was willing to put the proposal to Cabinet and asked Ngati Maniapoto to put it in writing. It sounded as if a deal was well on the way to being 1891–1892 completed. A document was duly drawn up, signed by Wahanui and Taonui and given to the Minster’s Private Secretary (this has not been located).
Yet shortly after this December 1891 meeting Cadman made statements that suggest agreement, that the Crown had already decided to put limits on the extent to which Maori would be able to lease their remaining land. He told reporters that he would not allow King Country Maori to lease large blocks of land, on the basis that this would create a purchasing monopoly. This had potentially serious implications, making Maori leasehold land in the land district unattractive to settlers wishing to obtain large areas for pastoral farming and a reducing income Maori would receive from rents. Less income from rents would also had a negative impact on the ability of Maori owners to pay survey and court costs and negotiate result in more pressure on individual owners to sell their interests in order to generate to revenue. This is a reminder that the ‘devil’ was indeed in the detail; however, the main principles had been agreed to. Attempts
5. 293
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Ngati Maniapoto and Cadman met again in Otorohanga in May 1892 to resolve some of these matters of detail. The Native Minister informed them that the first task was for them to form a committee to decide on which blocks of land they were willing to sell to the Crown. If their offer was acceptable then legislation would be introduced to give it effect. At this point Cadman also confirmed that Ngati Maniapoto would be able to lease the remaining land. However, restrictions on this remaining land would not be a lifted automatically but the owners of each block would have to apply to have them removed. Potentially this would create further delays and costs for Maori.864 Throughout the whole negotiation there had been an assumption that the Crown’s needs in terms of land would be dealt with first. Although Maori were to ‘choose’ what land would be offered to fill that need, it left them in a position where they were under pressure to offer as much land as possible in order that their remaining land could be freed from restrictions on leasing. There was a danger that if the amount, quality and location of the land they offered did not meet the Crown’s expectations hapu and iwi would be under pressure to make a larger offer. This they were likely to do because they saw the ability to control and use their remaining land as critical to retaining their economic and
cultural base.
In the midst of the May 1892 meeting the arrangement between Ngati Maniapoto and 1891–1892
the Crown, which had seemed to be a promising agreement suddenly collapsed. Cadman told the meeting that the Government would continue with the agreement as long as they could give him a guarantee that the owners of the blocks which they earmarked for agreement,
sale to the Crown would come forward and sign deeds of sale within a reasonable time. After an adjournment in which Maori discussed the matter Henry Edwards informed Cadman that such a guarantee was not possible because there were large numbers of purchasing
owner with diverse (unequal) interests. All they could offer the Crown was the promise that they would use whatever influence they could to persuade their relatives to sell. land
a
negotiate
to 864 It is unclear whether lifting restrictions after a negotiated agreement such as this would have to follow the normal process for removing restriction previously placed on land by the court at the request of owners. At this time the owners (a majority was not required) could make application to the court for the restriction to be annulled or varied at a public enquiry before the Land Court to be advertised in the
Gazzette and Kahiti. The court was to be satisfied that the owners had sufficient other land (The Native Attempts
Land Laws Amendment Act 1890, s.3 and The Native Land Court Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888, s.6) 5. 294
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Ngati Maniapoto had found itself in a situation where it had to be pragmatic in order to save at least some of its land from a well‐planned programme of purchasing targeting areas of land of considerable economic, cultural and spiritual value. Yet they would not have needed to made this bid to regain control of their land had that control not been removed from hapu and iwi in the first place. In particular, the Crown had failed to grant their request for the Kawhia Native Committee to be empowered to determine title and manage the disposal of land in accordance with the will of block or hapu committees. Control had also been removed by legislation which placed blanket restrictions on leasing and private selling over the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. As we have seen in previous chapters, both Maori and European politicians during the 1880s and suggested ways in which those restrictions could have been loosened to allow Maori to engage with bona fide settlers, while still protecting Maori and the colony in general from the worst excesses of land speculators.
Having made the difficult decision to make this sacrifice in the hope of protecting at least some of their land from alienation and providing a better future for the people it
was a terrible irony that even this possibility was denied them by the fundamental nature of the Land Court’s process. In converting customary title to a legally recognized Western title the court required that individual owners be identified and each hold a 1891–1892 specified share in the land. This made collective decision‐making and chiefly authority more difficult to maintain, hence the leaders could not guarantee that their people would agree to sell certain blocks to the Crown. This raises the question of whether this agreement, agreement could have been concluded had some form of collective control been recognised by the Crown.
Although Ngati Maniapoto had now lost almost all their bargaining power they purchasing continued in May 1892 to press Cadman for the right to lease their land and for some land influence in terms of setting the price per acre the Crown would offer them. In addition, a they repeated their calls for Native land laws to be simplified and reformed. However, Cadman indicated that without the promise of significant areas for settlement the negotiate Crown would no longer agree to the lifting of restrictions on leasing. Suddenly, Cadman to raised the objection that leases between Maori and Europeans were bound to end in litigation and conflict. Although a newspaper report was optimistic that an agreement Attempts
had been reached this is highly unlikely given that the principal things each side sought 5. 295
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 were no longer on the table. In any case, little seemed to change in terms of the way purchasing was conducted after 1892 and Maori continued to protest about restrictions on leasing and prices throughout the 1890s.
For hapu and iwi the failure of this agreement had grave consequences. Because they could not set aside land for the Crown and regain control of the rest of their land they would struggle to protect their remaining land from what would become persistent and prolonged rounds of Crown purchasing from individual owners. Nor could they freely and legally lease their land, which limited the income available to pay debts and develop their land. With no formal mechanism for owners to influence the price offered by the Crown returns were limited for those who did sell their land. For the Crown the collapse of the agreement was inconvenient, it would have been faster and less costly to be able to purchase whole blocks of land with the cooperation of hapu and iwi, but buying from individual owners continued and title to numerous subdivisions was gained by the end of the 1890s.
1891–1892
agreement,
purchasing
land
a
negotiate
to
Attempts
5. 296
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
6. OUTCOMES FOR HAPU AND IWI, 1893–1900
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The following two chapters cover the period from 1893, when Crown purchasing in the inquiry district substantially increased, to 1908. Having examined the negotiations between hapu and iwi and the Crown over land purchasing in 1891 and 1892, this chapter considers what, if any, concessions Maori communities in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block were able to win during the remainder of the 1890s with regard to their two chief concerns: the lifting of restrictions on private dealings and a fairer system for fixing the price per acre being offered to them by the Crown. Chapter 7 then presents an overview of the patterns of land alienation that did occur in the inquiry district from 1893 to 1908. It is not the intention of either of these chapters to explore in detail the tactics employed by land purchase officers to purchase from individual owners, nor to examine the extent to which land purchase officers’ interactions with the Native Land Court. These issues will be covered in Husbands and Mitchell’s report on the Native Land Court for this district.
This chapter begins by investigating several questions relating to the impact of restrictions on private leasing between Maori and Europeans. The first of these questions relates to how ‘real’ these restrictions were to hapu and iwi, and the second to the impact such restrictions had on the number of private leases entered into, their duration and the amount of land involved across the 1880s, 1890s and early 1900s respectively. Throughout this section of the chapter, the situation in the inland Mokau district is contrasted with the patterns in the remainder of the ‘Rohe Potae area’. Both of these questions are important components of a wider topic: whether these restrictions 1893–1900 actually had any real force on the ground in terms of discouraging and stopping Maori iwi, owners and Europeans from entering private leases and partnerships. and
The second part of this chapter deals with the other principal concern of hapu and iwi hapu leaders during the 1891 and 1892 negotiations: how prices for land were determined. for
In particular, this chapter examines continued, largely unsuccessful, attempts by Maori owners in the district to have an influence over the prices being offered to them by the Outcomes
6. 297
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Government for their land. The chapter ends by documenting the continued control exercised over pricing by the Crown.
6.2 HOW REAL WERE THE RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION TO HAPU AND IWI?
For hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, restrictions on leasing and private selling were powerful and pervasive. This is evident in the fact that hapu and iwi leaders continually sought dialogue on, and solutions to, these issues with the Crown during the 1890s. Chapter 4 demonstrates that within two years of the Crown commencing its land purchasing in the district, hapu and iwi leaders were articulating deep concerns about the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase and restrictions on private transactions, and the way they were operating to lower the price owners were receiving for their interests. Their comments illustrate the growing sense of injustice and bitterness Maori owners in the district felt about the Crown as a monopoly land purchaser and, in particular, the way that Maori had been put in a position which made selling their land for such a poor return almost inevitable.
These protests continued throughout the 1890s as the Crown’s purchasing intensified and spread throughout much of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. In 1897, Pepene Eketone and 163 others from the ‘tribes and hapus [sic] of Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Hikairo, Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Tuwharetoa and Whanganui’ living within the area defined by the Native Land Court Act 1894 petitioned the Government about the land purchasing.865
They reminded the House that they had ‘continually by petition and in other ways’ 1893–1900
iwi,
865 Pepene Eketone of Ngati Uekaha and various other hapu of Ngati Maniapoto was born around
1855/56 and married Mere Patene (Mary Barton) of Ngati Pou. By the early 1880s he was a licensed and
Native Agent and interpreter. He often conducted cases for his people in the Native Land Court after 1886 for land in the Rohe Potae and Taupo‐nui‐a‐tia blocks. He was one of the key speakers for Ngati hapu Maniapoto before the Land Laws Commission of 1891. Although he had expressed doubts about the
scheme he was elected as a Member of the Hikairo‐Tuwharetoa‐Maniapoto District Maori Land Board in for 1902. He was involved in a petition seeking change to the Native Lands Administration Act in 1904 and he lead the submission of the Mokau community in front of the Stout‐Ngata commission in 1907. Pepene remained heavily involved in the Kingitanga and Ratana movements in the early twentieth century and was instrumental in having the anchor stone of the Tainui waka returned to Mokau. He died in 1933.
(Ballara, Angela. ‘Eketone, Pepene 1855/1856?–1933’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 Outcomes
June 2007 URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/ 6. 298
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 pointed out to the Government ‘the magnitude of the injustice under which we suffer through the Government alone having the right to purchase our lands.’866
Those who signed the 1897 petition expressed a sense of betrayal that the Crown, having kept land speculators out of the district, had effectively taken their place with damaging results:
We are entirely certain that in the matter of the law of the Government which prevents us from selling or leasing our lands to private Europeans, and the intense desire of the Government that we should speedily sell to them our lands for whatever price they please to give, they are not maintaining this restriction with a view to preserve and prevent our lands from being all purchased by land grabbers, but, for the purpose of enabling them to do whatever they like with our lands. The Government land purchases are quite as bad or worse than purchases by private Companies of which we were at first afraid.867
There was a terrible irony in the position that hapu and iwi found themselves in by the late 1890s. When leaders had petitioned Parliament in 1883 they had begged the Crown to pass legislation to protect their land from speculators. However, in legislating to completely prohibit all private dealings over substantial areas of land the Crown also took for itself the sole right to buy Maori land. Supported by legislation and funding, the Crown then began an intensive programme of land purchasing as the Native Land Court determined title. In essence, for Maori in this district, the protector they had enlisted began to seem more like a predator who could be as potentially damaging as the private speculators that they had feared for so long. It could be reasonably said that the State, with its vast resources and ability to make and utilise legislation, was far more
dangerous than private speculators. Under these circumstances the bewilderment and bitterness expressed by Maori at this turn of events is not surprising.
Maori in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block were aware of the fact that the restrictions had 1893–1900 been placed only on Maori land. They drew the Government’s attention to how iwi, inconsistent this was with what they had so often been told by Crown officials, that is, and that ‘there shall be one law for both races & their lands.’ In their opinion, ‘this unique
proceeding which is being practiced on our district is not a sign of the existence of only hapu
for
866 Petition of Pepene Eketone & others, Petition 217/1897 in LE 1, 1897/9, ANZ Wgt. The boundaries in the second schedule of the Native Land Court Act 1894 are identical to the boundaries in the second
schedule of the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884, that is, the ‘railway restrictions zone.’ Outcomes 867867
Petition of Pepene Eketone and 163 other, Petition 217/1897 in LE 1, 1897/9, ANZ Wgt 6. 299
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 one law for the two races.’868 The petitioners asked that the restrictions ‘be removed from off all lands in our district, which have passed through the Court, and in which the relative interest of each individual owners has been defined’ and that they ‘be permitted to lease or sell our unoccupied lands to whomsoever we please, whether such lands be the property of one owner, or of more than one.’869
It is unclear what action was taken in regard to the requests made in the 1897 petition. An unsigned and undated note on the English translation of the petition of Turakino Te Heuheu (which was identical to that submitted by Pepene Eketone and others) stated that the Native Affairs Committee considered that the requests were ‘fair and reasonable’ and recommended that the petition be referred to the Government for consideration.870 Evidence of further action has not been found.
In fact, under the Liberal Government the area covered by those restrictions had been expanded once again to take in almost all of the area that had originally been restricted in 1884. The prohibitions on private leasing and selling within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block under the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loans Application Act Amendment Act 1889 remained in place until 1 January 1892, and extended until 1 January 1893 by the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1891. Before these could expire the boundaries of the land covered by these restrictions were greatly enlarged by the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loans Application Acts Amendment Act 1892 in October that year.871 The 1892 restriction zone did, however, exclude the blocks located between the Mokau Mohakatino and Mohakatino Parininihi
blocks and the areas purchased by the Crown at Mokau and Awakino in the 1850s. This boundary also cut through many of the blocks on the western side of the inquiry district (Figure 7). 1893–1900
There is no indication that Maori understood that from 1889 to 1894 parts of the iwi,
district lay outside the railway loan restriction zone for periods of time and therefore and could be more easily leased or sold to Europeans. Even if some owners were aware of hapu
gaps in the restrictions it may have been far from easy for those individuals to for
868 Petition of Pepene Eketone & others, Petition 217/1897 in LE 1, 1897/9, ANZ Wgt 869 Petition of Pepene Eketone & others, Petition 217/1897 in LE 1, 1897/9, ANZ Wgt 870 Note on translation of Petition of Tukino Te Heuheu, Petition 321/1897 in LE 1, 1897/9, ANZ Wgt Outcomes 871
The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Acts Amendment Act 1892, s. 2 and Schedule 6. 300
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 understand just what restrictions applied and where. Wilkinson certainly admitted to a degree of confusion as to where the boundary of the restriction area lay. In 1891 he noted that the boundaries of the 1889 restriction/loan area cut right through a number of blocks. As Wilkinson noted there was a mismatch between the restriction boundary and block boundaries because the restriction boundaries were ‘fixed according to natural features of the country, and not according to boundaries of blocks.’ This had been the case since the 1884 restriction zone was drawn to follow natural landmarks and river catchments. Wilkinson admitted that in cases where he did not have a plan of a block to hand, he was not entirely sure where that line ran, and so which part of the block was restricted and which could be dealt with freely by the owners.872 If owners of blocks divided by the restriction boundary in this way did became aware of this situation it must have been difficult to understand why different rules applied to two pieces of land adjacent to one another, or why their block was treated differently from that of its neighbour.
In addition, it was difficult to understand the implications of the legislation itself. Wilkinson, the Crown official with the most intimate knowledge of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, admitted to being confused and uncertain about just which land was restricted. The confusion arose during 1890 when two overlapping railway restriction zones were in place. The Native Land Court 1886 Amendment Act 1888 had prohibited all private dealings within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block until 30 August 1891. A year later the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889 set aside an area within which additional railway loan money was to be spent on
completing purchases that were underway and on further land purchases. Private transactions within this area were no permitted. This area took in much of the northern, eastern and central portions of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. So in effect, from 16 1893–1900
September 1889, the date of the 1889 Railway Loan Act, to 30 August 1891 when the iwi,
restrictions under the 1888 Act expired, there were overlapping restriction zones. and
In July 1890 Wilkinson wrote to Lewis to draw his attention to the restrictions on hapu
private dealings in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block put in place by the Native Land Court for
Outcomes 872
Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 26 August 1891, MA‐MLP 1, box 29, NLP 91/209, ANZ Wgt 6. 301
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1886 Amendment Act 1888 which were about to expire.873 He was evidently unaware that part of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block was also covered by restrictions under the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loans Application Amendment Act 1889. This fact was pointed out to him by Lewis.874 Wilkinson’s reply to Lewis showed him trying to untangle the meaning of 1889 Act restrictions and their associated frauds prevention provisions and to determine what that meant for various pieces of land within 1889 restriction/loan area. He observed that the Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881 Amendment Act 1888 specifically excluded certain land from restrictions and he believed that a number of blocks within the 1889 boundaries could be said to meet the criteria for exclusion. That is, they were ‘owned under Crown grant, memorial of ownership, or certificate of title … to not more than twenty Natives’ and had been owned in that manner for at least 40 days.875 In ticking off these criteria Wilkinson concluded that everything required had been done. In cases where the certificate of title had not yet been issued, he considered that ‘morally, if not legally’ it could be said that those blocks were in the same positions as they would have been had a certificate been issued. 876
However, he was still uncertain whether the critical factor in deciding whether blocks with 20 or fewer owners remained under restrictions was whether or not certificates of title had been issued and he asked Lewis to clarify just what the legal position was. Wilkinson admitted to Lewis that ‘as a layman’ he may have misunderstood the effect of the two pieces of legislation or overlooked something in the Native Land Frauds Prevention Act 1888.877 The reply Wilkinson received from Lewis to his queries about
the effect of the restrictions seems to have done little to clarify just which blocks were restricted and which were excluded from those restrictions. In fact, Wilkinson began to ponder whether the effect of the two pieces of legislation was to nullify the creation of 1893–1900
title in the Native Land Court and return all land dealt with by the court up to December iwi,
1892 back to Native land held by Maori under their customs and usage. If this was and
indeed the case he feared that it would have serious implications for future rehearings, hapu
for
873 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 20 July 1891, MA‐MLP 1, box 29, NLP 91/209, ANZ Wgt 874 Memorandum: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 29 July 1891, MA‐MLP 1, box 29, NLP 91/209, ANZ Wgt 875 The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881 Amendment Act 1888, s. 5 876 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 4 August 1891, MA‐MLP 1, box 29, NLP 91/209, ANZ Wgt Outcomes 877
Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 4 August 1891, MA‐MLP 1, box 29, NLP 91/209, ANZ Wgt 6. 302
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 partitions and successions. At the very least, Wilkinson observed that it seemed to him ‘that that way of imposing a restriction is a complicated one, and may lead to confusion.’878 If Wilkinson was struggling with these matters it is likely that any Maori owners who looked more deeply into the legislation around restrictions on private dealings would have been equally uncertain.
Adding to this complex situation with restriction zones was a nationwide mechanism introduced in the Native Land Purchase Act 1892 which allowed the Crown to place restrictions on alienation and reassert its pre‐emptive right of purchase over particular blocks of land that they intended to purchase or had already begun negotiations for. This was done by publication of a proclamation in the New Zealand Gazette and Kahiti.879 It was intended that the Native Land Purchase Act 1892 would stay in place until 31 March 1897.880 However, in 1896 this expiry date was removed and the mechanism remained available to the Crown until the 1892 Act was repealed by the Native Land Court Act 1909. 881 So regardless of the untidiness of the various restriction zone boundaries, the 1892 Act allowed land within the inquiry district to be placed under Crown pre‐emption and private dealings forbidden. However, the proclamations over blocks in this inquiry district suggest that the Crown ceased to use this mechanism in this inquiry district after 1894.882 This was probably because the Native Land Court Act 1894 reimposed Crown pre‐emption and restrictions on private dealings over Maori land in the entire North Island.883
Hapu and iwi were certainly aware of and concerned by the impact of restrictions
placed upon their land by proclamations under the 1892 Act. There were several cases where the owners of a particular block attempted to have such restrictions removed. In October 1893, Kereama Herangi of Wairau and 23 others wrote to the Minister of Native 1893–1900 Affairs asking that the Government proclamation be taken off the Kinohaku East No. 4 iwi, Block (otherwise known as Mairoa), a block of about 8,000 acres. The request was made and
so that they could ‘lease it to private individuals outside of the Government.’ They
hapu
878
Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 26 August 1891, MA‐MLP 1, box 29, NLP 91/209, ANZ Wgt for 879 The Native Land Purchases Act 1892, ss.16‐18 880 The Native Land Purchases Act 1892, s. 22 881 The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1896, s. 36 882 Only two notices under the Native Land Purchases Act 1892 have been found for land within the
inquiry district and both were published early in 1894. Outcomes 883
The Native Land Court Act 1894 s. 76 & ss. 117‐118 6. 303
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 emphasised that they wanted the restrictions on leasing lifted but were more than happy for those relating to private selling to remain.884 The file noted that both Kinohaku East and West had been included in a proclamation under the Native Lands Purchase Act 1892 in March 1893 and that a Mr W B Parker, a flour miller and grain merchant, wished to lease the land for £300 per year.885 In June 1893, Parker was informed by Sheridan that the Minister of Lands had determined that the ‘proclamation against private dealings of any kind with Kinohaku No. 4 block cannot be withdrawn.’886
A similar situation occurred in the nearby Kinohaku West G block. On 1 June 1893, Charles Newsham wrote to the Native Minister explaining that several months before he had entered an agreement with the owners of the Kinohaku West G block ‘for a lease from them of a portion of that block containing 4,000 acres & had a lease prepared which was signed by the majority of them.’ Before he could gather all the signatures required a proclamation had ‘appeared in the N.Z. Gazette under the Native Land Purchase Act prohibiting further dealings with the lands mentioned therein including Kinohaku West G block.’ He asked that the notice be revoked ‘both on my account & on account of the Natives, with respect either to the Kinohaku West G Block or that portion of it which I have agreed to lease from them.’887
Sheridan asked Wilkinson to investigate the matter and he reported that the block had not yet been surveyed; hence the Crown had not begun to purchase the subdivision in question.888 On 26 June 1893, Sheridan informed Newsham that his request for restrictions to be withdrawn could not be compiled with because the land was ‘never in
a position to be legally dealt with by any private person’ through ‘want of survey and other reasons.’889 Sheridan’s reason for this decision is revealed in another letter to a Mr Pratt in September 1893. Referring again to the Kinohaku West block, he commented 1893–1900
iwi,
884 Letter in Maori with English Translation: Kereama Herangi to Te Minita mote taha Maori (Minister for
Native Affairs), Wairau, 16 October 1893, NLP 93/234 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, and
ANZ Wgt 885 Memorandum: W. B. Parker (Flour Miller & Grain Merchant) to Haselden Esq, 22 March 1894, MA‐MLP hapu 1, box 34, 1894/133 citing NZ Gazette, No. 17, 9 March 1893, p 305 886
Memorandum: Sheridan to W B Parker, 12 June 1894, MA‐MLP 1, box 34, 1894/133, ANZ Wgt for 887 Chas Newsham to the Native Minister, 1 June 1893, NLP 93/94 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1908/8, ANZ Wgt 888 Minutes: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 6 June 1893 and Minute: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 14 June 1893, both on cover page of NLP 93/94 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1908/8, ANZ Wgt 889 Sheridan to Chas Newsham, 26 June 1893, NLP 93/94 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1908/8, Outcomes
ANZ Wgt 6. 304
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 that the proclamation ‘was issued more as warning to the public not to throw money away than anything else’ and reassured Pratt that in due course the parts of the block not purchased by the Crown would be released from the restrictions. This implies that Europeans and Maori owners would then be free to come to an arrangement about a lease or sale for the remaining land. Sheridan ended by stating that ‘in the meantime it is neither to the interests of the Natives themselves or the Government to allow private speculators to pick the eyes out of the block.’890 The fact that the Crown would buy whole blocks consisting of patches of good land and poorer land was often held up to Maori as a valid reason for Crown pre‐emption. This was contrasted unfavourably with what was perceived as the more selective approach of land speculators who were said to favour buying only patches of high quality land (‘the eyes’). As Newsham indicated in his letter, the owners of Kinohaku West G also wrote to the Native Minister asking that the restrictions placed on the block by proclamation be removed.891 Te Wharehotu and eight other owners pointed out that their lease with Tare Nuihama [Charles Newsham] had been arranged before the notice was published in the Kahiti. No reply to this letter has been located, but given the reply to Newsham it is unlikely that this request was treated favourably. Protests voiced in petitions and meetings with Crown officials, and appeals against proclamations under the 1892 Act leave little doubt that the restrictions on alienation were very real for Maori owners in the inquiry district during the Crown’s purchasing programme of the 1890s.
6.3 TO WHAT EXTENT DID RESTRICTIONS CONSTRAIN PRIVATE LEASING
AND PURCHASING?
The intensive focus of hapu and iwi leaders during the 1890s on having the restrictions on leasing lifted in itself suggests that those restrictions were having an impact on the 1893–1900 extent of leasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. This section of the chapter draws iwi, together what is known about the location and nature of leasing in the inquiry district and across the 1880s, 1890s and the first few years of the 1900s. In doing so it discusses this hapu wider question about the practical extent to which the restrictions on alienation for
890 Sheridan to Mr Pratt, 18 September 1893, NLP 93/125 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 891 Letter in Maori with English translation: Te Wharehotu and 8 others to the Native Minister, 16 June Outcomes
1893, NLP 93/125 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 6. 305
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 constrained hapu and iwi ability to lease their land as an alternative to selling to the Crown.
It is difficult to know how many leases and partnerships were entered into by Maori and Europeans despite the restrictions because the record of such leases and partnerships in the inquiry district is partial. Details of some are recorded in the Native land purchasing files and general Maori Affairs files for the Rohe Potae. However, this sample is somewhat biased as we only know about these particular leases and private purchases because the European asked the Government to step in and resolve a dispute (this happened even in locations where leases were illegal), or the presence of such arrangements was hindering the Crown’s purchasing programme. It is possible that other leases went on smoothly and so were not recorded in land purchase files. Maori voices, other than the occasional letter preserved in those files, are almost entirely absent from the sources examined so far.
What can be discerned from the sources we have is a pattern of leasing that was small‐ scale, scattered and based almost entirely on extraction of natural resources (with the exception of use of land for sheep grazing). From the limited number of examples uncovered it is not possible to say which of these were easiest for Europeans to enter. In his reports Wilkinson gives the impression that sheep farming partnerships were relatively widespread. There prevalence suggests that European and Maori alike did not find them difficult to arrange and sustain (at least in the short‐term). This should not, however, be overstated as it is doubtful whether this small‐scale leasing could have
provided a long‐term pathway to hapu and iwi economic development.
The inability to generate a steady and substantial income from leasing was a considerable disadvantage to Maori landowners at a time when money was increasingly 1893–1900 needed to pay court and survey costs. Had private leasing been legal in the Rohe Potae iwi,
(Aotea) block it is likely that less land would have been sold to pay for survey costs (this and issue is covered in Chapter 7). It is also likely that lack of significant income from rents hapu created further pressure on individual owners to sell their shares in certain blocks in for order to raise money to live on or develop the land they retained. This was something that the Stout‐Ngata Commission commented on in 1907. They concluded that ‘the Outcomes
6. 306
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 restriction against private dealing operated indirectly as a deterrent to the proper utilisation and settlement of portions of their own lands by the Maori owners.’892
6.3.1 LEASING IN THE 1880S
During the period of the aukati from about 1866 until about the mid‐1880s, a number of Europeans remained in the Rohe Potae, operating small business ventures with the support and co‐operation of Maori communities. This pattern continued as the Native Land Court entered the district and title to land began to be determined and confirmed in that forum. The Kawhia Native Committee had been established under the Native Committees Act 1883, it had statutory roles in dealing with disputes and petty crimes committed by Maori against one another as well strictly limited power with regard to title investigation and boundary disputes between owners. Aside from these functions the committee was very much involved with promoting and regulating a range of new economic opportunities. In particular, it policed partnerships and leases between Maori and Europeans.
Native Agent, Wilkinson reported in 1886 that the Committee took a regulatory role in several aspects of economic engagement based on resource extraction.893 The committee also granted ‘temporary occupation‐leases to contractors and storekeepers who wished to live in their district.’894 In December 1885, the committee had resolved to grant permission to Europeans to erected stores and butcher shops on payment of an annual rent of £5.895 In addition, there were collective business ventures amongst Maori in some parts of the district. For example, in February 1886 a company was formed by
Maori at Kopua (near Pirongia) ‘for the disposal of stock in the King Country.’ They began to hold monthly sales of livestock with James Thompson a ‘well‐known half‐caste’
896
man acting as ‘salesman.’ 1893–1900
iwi,
and
892 ‘Native Lands and Native Land Tenure (interim report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the hapu question of)’, AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 3 893
Amongst the matters dealt with were the setting of a scale of prices ‘for different classes of timber, a for considerable quantity of which was then and is now being used by railway and other contractors’, and arrangements to control European gold prospectors in the district. 894 ‘Report of G T Wilkinson, District Officer, Alexandra for Waikato (including Kawhia, Waipa and Upper Mokau)’, 25 May 1886, AJHR 1886, G‐1, pp 4‐5 895 ‘Native Questions Discussed’, Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p 3 Outcomes 896
‘Alexandria’, Waikato Times, 16 February 1886, p 3 6. 307
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The committee seems to have played a role in resolving disputes between parties to such agreements and ensuring that Europeans paid the money owed for rent. On 12 May 1888, the chairman of the committee, John Ormsby responded to a letter from Te Peere, who seems from the letter to be a European storekeeper near Otorohanga. Te Peere had been asked to pay rent for the land on which his store was located but had refused and brought the matter to the attention of the committee. Ormsby informed him that ‘if their demand for payment for your store has been made in accordance with the regulations of my Committee, then they are right to ask for payment.’ The fact that there were regulations at all suggests that stores built on Maori land in the district were common enough to require a consistent and publicly‐notified policy. Visiting the district in 1891 and 1892, Native Minister Cadman also saw a number of stores and sawmills: tangible signs of Maori‐European business partnerships based on Maori land and resources.897 Ormsby assured Te Peere that payment applied to:
anyone, whether Maori or Pakeha, who wishes to establish a trading store on Maori land, for which the Court does not yet know who the rightful owners are. That person shall pay £5 to the committee per year. And the building so constructed should remain in place, and not moved to any other place.
Secondly, one can pay the committee £10 annually, or £2/10 every quarter, and under this payment you can shift your premises to wherever you need to conduct your business. 898
Once the court had determined ownership of the land the committee would pay the accumulated rents to the owners.899 The committee’s surviving records are fragmented so it is difficult to know how long it exercised this role. However, Ormsby’s reply
indicates that the committee took an organized approached to managing leases and economic ventures. This raises the possibility that the committee could have been a vehicle for managing leasing in the Rohe Potae had the restrictions been lifted. This was 1893–1900 certainly amongst the wishes that Whananui had expressed to Parliament in 1885– iwi, 1886. Had restrictions on private leasing and/or selling been lifted appropriate and
hapu 897 ‘The King Country – Mr Cadman and the Natives – An important proposal’, New Zealand Herald, 21
December 1891, p 5 for 898 John Ormsby, Chairman of the Kawhia District Maori Committee to Te Peere, Otorohanga, 12 May 1888, ‘Ormsby Letterbook’, Otorohanga Historical Society Courthouse Museum, p 93 (English translation by Jane Luiten) 899 John Ormsby, Chairman of the Kawhia District Maori Committee to Te Peere, Otorohanga, 12 May
1888, ‘Ormsby Letterbook’, Otorohanga Historical Society Courthouse Museum, p 93 (English translation Outcomes
by Jane Luiten) 6. 308
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 legislation to limit the power of speculators and to empower the committee would have been needed. This was not an insurmountable or unrealistic proposition. A number of politicians in the 1880s had suggested how such measures might work, as had Maori in the lead up to their negotiations with the Crown in 1891 and 1892.
6.3.2 LEASING IN THE 1890S (OUTSIDE THE INLAND MOKAU AREA)
There are scattered examples of partnerships and leases between Maori communities and individual Europeans to extract natural resources such as timber and limestone or to run sheep on Maori land during the 1890s in the Rohe Potae inquiry district (those in the inland Mokau area are dealt with later in this section). It is not always clear from the sources how much land was involved or what the terms and duration of the arrangement was.
6.3.2(a) For sheep farming
There are several mentions of joint‐ventures between Maori land owners and European individuals to develop sheep farming in the district. In June 1890, Wilkinson noted that most of the 6,000 sheep grazing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block at that time were owned by Maori. But there were also cases of co‐operative ventures between Maori and Europeans where the sheep were owned by the European but run on Maori land. In return for the use of the land, Maori were paid in lambs or wool, or in both, depending on the agreement reached.900 For example, by October 1889 some of the owners of the Kinohaku block (before it was subdivided into Kinohaku East and West) were
negotiating with a Captain Arthur ‘for the lease or occupation by him on some terms of partnership for the best part of the Kinohaku block in the Rohe Potae.’901 Wilkinson identified the man in question as Captain Rutherford who was ‘trying to arrange with 1893–1900
the principal owners of Kinohaku East block to run sheep over same on terms of iwi,
partnership the Natives to get a percentage of the number of the sheep for looking after
902
them.’ In 1891, a number of owners of the Turoto block had reportedly ‘signed a and
Maori document leasing their interest to Mr Arthur Ormsby for a temporary sheep hapu
for
900 Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 June 1890, AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, pp 4‐5 901 Telegram: Lewis, USND to Mitchelson, 14 October 1889, NLP 89/326 (with 89/327) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 902 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 16 October 1889, NLP 89/326 (with 89/327) in MA 13/78, Outcomes
ANZ Wgt 6. 309
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 run.’903 In the late 1890s the Taharoa A block was being leased by its Ngati Mahuta owners to a Mr Goodfellow for use as a sheep farm. The land had been sown in grass and was good pastoral land and Mr Coutts who was writing from Kawhia was sure that the main reason it had not been sold was because the owners were making good rents from it.904
From this limited evidence it is very difficult to gauge the extent of Maori pastoral farming or to trace its growth or decline across the nineteenth and early twentieth century. However, Stout and Ngata concluded that, in comparison with other districts, opportunities for Maori to acquire skills and knowledge of farming practices was limited as was access to capital for development. They pointed out that one of the consequences of the restrictions on private alienation had been that no thought seemed to have been given by the Government to the need ‘to have amongst the Maoris European farmers of their choice, whose example they might imitate and reproduce in some degree on their own lands.’905 The commissioners also lamented the ‘absence of any provision’ for the ‘investment and proper expenditure’ of purchase money throughout the 1890s. As a result of these two factors, they concluded that ‘any ambitions that the Maori owners might have had in the direction of farming their own lands were stayed.’906 By 1907, the commissioners observed that ‘the area under profitable occupation by the Ngati Maniapoto is very small’ and ‘little has been done by the owners to start farming on an efficient scale.’ There were some Maori‐owned dairying operations (15,000 of the 21,864 pounds of butter fat supplied to the Te Kuiti dairy factor in 1906 had come from Maori suppliers) but little in the way of sheep
farming.907 Stout and Ngata noted that Ngati Maniapoto had ‘not had the advantage as Maoris have in some parts of the colony of seeing efficient sheep‐farming carried on’ nor ‘had amongst them men prepared to lead the way in the sheep‐farming industry.’908 1893–1900
iwi,
and
903 Telgram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 22 September 1891, NLP 91/304 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 43, hapu NLP 97/66, ANZ Wgt 904
Coutts to Minister of Lands, 3 June 1898, MA‐MLP 1, box 49, NLP 98/101, ANZ Wgt for 905 ‘Native Lands and Native Land Tenure (interim report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the question of)’, AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 3 906 ‘Native Lands and Native Land Tenure (interim report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the question of)’, AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 4 907 AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 8 Outcomes 908
AJHR 1907, G‐1B, pp 8‐9 6. 310
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
6.3.2(b) For timber extraction
Throughout the 1890s, when the Crown’s purchasing programme was in full swing, hapu and iwi pursued opportunities for income from the sale of timber on some of the blocks which remained in their ownership. It was the main trunk railway’s ‘capacity to efficiently carry bulk quantities of sawn timber’ to markets beyond the district that made selling cutting rights to timber on their land a viable economic venture for the owners. Without this ‘the industry would largely have been limited to meeting local demand.’909 As with sheep farming, the full extent of arrangements between Maori owners and European timber merchants and sawmill owners to extract timber from blocks within the inquiry district before 1908 is unclear. Philip Cleaver’s report on Maori and Forestry, Mining, Fishing and Tourism sectors for this inquiry provides a detailed analysis of timber leases in the inquiry district and evaluates the extent to which Maori communities were able to benefit from them.910
However, it is known that sometime before March 1897, Maori owners of the Mangawhero block near Otorohanga had entered into an agreement with Ellis & Burnard for the sale of timber on the block. It is unclear when this agreement was first made, nor what return it gave the owners. In March 1897, Wilkinson reported an offer had been made by Tuawaerenga Hemara, one of the owners of the block, to sell his interests in the land. As a consequence of the offer Wilkinson obtained as much information as he could about the block from the Native Land Court and from the Survey Office in Auckland. He noted that the eight subdivisions of the Mangawhero block contained ‘a large portion of the kahikatea bush that is being cut by the owners of
the Otorohanga saw mill (Messrs Ellis & Burnard) who pay the owners a royalty for all the timber they cut.’911 In 1898, Ellis secured timber rights over the whole of the 30,163
acre Rangitoto Tuhua No. 36 (Te Tiroa) block and by 1901 Ellis and Burnard had a 1893–1900
912
portable sawmill operating there. iwi,
and Ellis and Burnard was a substantial and enduring timber merchant and sawmilling company in the King Country/Waikato region. As already mentioned J W Ellis was well hapu
for
909 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 194 910 Cleaver, 2011, Wai 898, #A25 911 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 10 March 1897, MA‐MLP 1, box 42, NLP 96/248, ANZ Wgt Outcomes 912
Cleaver, 2011, p 44 6. 311
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 known to hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae. He had opened a store in Kihikihi in 1863 and later had branches in Te Kuiti and Otorohanga.913 His second wife was a close relative of Rewi Maniapoto and he had three sons and a daughter from that marriage.914 Ellis and a Mr Lewis had established a timber mill at Kihikihi in 1886 and had secured cutting right to 1,100 acres of kahikatea on Maori land near Otorohanga (including the Mangawhero block). In 1890 this mill was moved to Otorohanga and in 1891, on Lewis’ retirement, Ellis entered a partnership with Burnard. Burnard had a background in railway engineering and was inspector of railway works at Poro‐o‐Tarao in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block from 1886 to 1891.915 The business expanded and was registered as a limited liability company with headquarters at Otorohanga in 1903 and moved to Hamilton in 1905.916 Cleaver has concluded that official reports from 1905 and 1907 show that ‘sawmilling operations in the Rohe Potae inquiry district were dominated by the operations of Ellis and Burnand – in terms of output, number of hands employed, and capital investment.’ Virtually all sawmills in the district at this time were owned by private European companies but the bulk of timber came from Maori‐owned land.917
Cleaver found evidence that a number of timber leases were being considered by the Maniapoto‐Tuwharetoa District Maori Land Council/Board between 1900 and 1908. A table showing these transactions is reproduced below (Table 15).
1893–1900
iwi,
and
913 He also leased Maori land in the inland Mokau area in the 1890s, and had also been involved in a stone hapu quarrying venture at Te Haroto on the southern tip of the Te Akau block in the late 1870s‐early 1880s
(‘Raglan Stone’, Waikato Times, 9 November 1882, p 2) for 914 J W Ellis, Obituary, Waikato Time, 6 August 1918. Unfortunately this source does not record his wife’s name 915 Stanley, R. D. 'Burnand, John Henry Davis 1850–1919'. Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007 URL:http/www.dnzb.govt.nz/ 916 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 197 Outcomes 917
Cleaver, 2011, pp 46‐47 6. 312
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 15: TIMBER LEASES IN THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1900– 1908
Date Block Details Reference 4 September 1903 Mangaroa A2 (410:0:00) Lease to Daniel Sullivan, including M‐TDMLB minute right to cut timber for fencing and book 1, p 30 other purposes, but if sold royalties to be paid to lessees at current rates. 3 May 1904 Rangitoto Tuhua 8 (300:0:00) Lease to Thomas Price to enable M‐TDMLB minute cutting of totara and all other timber. book 1, pp 129‐ Total rental of £5000 over ten years. 132 No provision for royalties. 18 November 1904 Mangaawakino 4 (3347:0:00) Lease to Daniel Berry, including right M‐TDMLB minute to cut rimu and matai for 4d per 100 book 1, pp 206‐ feet and kahikatea for 3d per 100 207, p 228 feet. Term 21 years, with right of renewal for 21 years at same rates. Owners representative stated that the land was some 12 miles up the Mokau River and that there were no large quantities of millable timber, Land Council considered timber royalties to be fair under the circumstances 3 October 1906 Motukawa 2B15A Lease to P L Arcuss. Land noted to M‐TDMLB minute be nearly all timber. Value of timber, book 1, p 328 £3 an acre. Case adjourned to make fresh valuation and declaration by competent person as to the extent and value of timber. 7 September 1907 Rangitoto Tuhua 68G Lease application. Proposal to waive M‐TDMLB minute timber royalties in return for an book 2, pp 166, increase in annual rental. 187 6 December 1907 Kinohaku West K2B Lease to Marakopa Sawmilling M‐TDMLB minute Company. Bush principally kahikatea, book 2, p 224 for which royalty to be paid. 10 July 1908 Rangitoto Tuhua 68P (516:1:16) Lease application. Annual rental, with M‐TDMLB minute royalties to be paid for any timber book 3, p 12‐13 cut and sold.
*M‐TDMLB = Maniapoto‐Tuwharetoa District Maori Land Board
Source: Cleaver, 2011, Table 5, p 57 1893–1900
It is likely that the leases on subdivisions of the Rangitoto Tuhua block in the table
918 above were those referred to by Wilkinson in August 1900. Cleaver concluded that iwi,
the Maniapoto‐Tuwharetoa District Maori Land Council/Board dealt with a small and number of timber leases, ‘involving a relatively modest area of land’ because ‘sawmillers hapu and Maori generally continued to enter timber cutting agreements without the for involvement of the Land Council or Land Board.’ However, the Maori Land Claims
918 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 197 citing Wilkinson to Sheridan, 18 August 1900, MA‐MLP 1, box 60, Outcomes
1900/150, ANZ Wgt 6. 313
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act 1907 required that all such agreements be inquired into and confirmed by the land boards.919 Sixteen applications for timber leases were subsequently made under this legislation in 1908. Nine of these involved subdivisions of the Rangitoto Tuhua block, and the others concerned land in the Te Kuiti and Otorohanga districts, all were boardly adjacent to the railway line.920
This data and that gathered by the Stout‐Ngata Commission about leases suggests that by 1908 the timber extraction business in the inquiry district had largely become focused in the south and in pockets around key townships further north. The only timber leases recorded by Stout and Ngata in 1908 were in the Rangitoto Tuhua blocks (and the Ohura South block just outside our inquiry district).921 In part this pattern was a consequence of timber milling moving south as the railway line opened up new tracts of land.922 This trend was reflected in the building of several timber mills by Ellis and Burnard at Mangapehi (near Bennydale) in 1903, Mananui in 1906 and Ongarue in 1913 (both near Taumarunui).923 The fact that by 1908 only small scattered block in the inquiry district, other than subdivisions of Rangitoto Tuhua, were untouched by Crown purchasing seriously limited opportunities for timber partnerships on any scale.
6.3.2(c) For limestone extraction
The underlying limestone geology of the King Country was well documented by the early 1890s. Cussen’s 1885 report into the nature and quality of land in the Rohe Potae noted the abundance of limestone country in the district and reported that this meant that potential pastoral land would be free draining and large outcrops of limestone
could be exploited for other purposes. By the 1880s and early 1890s there was a demand from settlers in the adjacent Waikato district for lime for fertilizing pastures. Settlers requested the Government purchase a block of land at Te Kumi or further south 1893–1900 in the Rangitoto Tuhua block specifically for limestone extraction and lime manufacture. iwi,
and
919 Cleaver, 2011, pp 58‐59 hapu 920 These blocks were subdivisions of the Te Akau, Hauturu East, Kinohaku East, Te Kumi, Pehitawa,
Pukeroa Hangatiki and Puketarata blocks as well as Rangitoto Tuhua No.s 1, 2, 2A, 36, 66, 67A, 68, 76 and for 79. For details see Cleaver, 2011, Table 6, pp 60‐61 921 The one exception to this pattern was timber leases on Tahaia B, a block adjacent to the Mangawhero Block near Otorohanga on which timber extraction was also taking place 922 Cleaver and Sarich, 2009, p 197 923 Cleaver and Sarich, p 197 citing Michael Roche, History of New Zealand Forestry, New Zealand Forestry Outcomes
Corporation Limited in association with GP Books, Wellington, 1990, p 116 6. 314
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
These requests were declined on the basis that surveys and ownership lists remained incomplete.924 However, at least one European established a small limestone quarry and kiln on Maori land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. In around 1895 the prophet Te Mahuki and others at Te Kumi had entered an agreement with Alex Ferguson of Te Kuiti for a ‘lease of the limestone bluff’ on the Te Kumi block.925 In return for use of the land and its minerals Ferugson agreed to pay Mahuki rent and a royalty of 2d per ton of lime sold.926 By 1898, Ferguson was both quarrying stone and burning lime on the property.927 A year later his operation was well developed; boasting a quarry, lime kiln and lime shed all serviced by a private tramway linking it to the main trunk line.928 The details of this lease are discussed further later in this chapter. No other mentions of lime burning and quarrying partnerships in the inquiry district have been found.
6.3.3 THE EXTENT OF PRIVATE PURCHASING (OUTSIDE THE INLAND MOKAU AREA) BEFORE 1909
Private purchasing in the Rohe Potae inquiry district was extremely limited in extent. Up until the end of 1908, private sales accounted for just 1.1 per cent of the ‘Rohe Potae area.’ There is a noticeable pattern in the geographical location of land that was sold by Maori owners directly to European individuals, with a disproportionately large percentage of the area alienated by private purchase in this period located in the inland Mokau area. In all it is calculated that 18,466.78 acres was lost to private purchasing in the inquiry district in that period.929 But of this only 3,167.28 acres of this was in blocks outside the inland Mokau area (Table 16).
In terms of the number of acres alienated, private selling was most significant in the
period from 1892 to 1899. During these years 14,324 acres was alienated in this way, accounting for 76.33 per cent of all the land alienated by private sale in the inquiry
district by the end of 1908. By contrast, the number of subdivisions effected by private 1893–1900
iwi,
924 See Berghan, 2009, pp 1293‐1294 and
925 Alex Ferguson, Te Kuiti to Cadman, 4 February 1898, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt hapu 926 Mr A[lex] Ferguson, Te Kuiti to the Premier, 27 March 1899, NLP 99/74 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62,
NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt for 927 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 6 April 1898 and James Brett, Auckland to Mr A Ferguson, n/d [1898], both NLP 99/51 filed with in MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 928 Mr A[lex] Ferguson, Te Kuiti to the Premier, 27 March 1899, NLP 99/74 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 929 This does not include Taurangi No. 4 which was gifted by some of the owners of the Taurangi block to J Outcomes
W Ellis on 28 September 1899 (Berghan, 2009, p 1109) 6. 315
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 sale between1900 and 1908 was much higher (18 versus seven in the earlier period) but these transactions made up just 23.67 per cent of the total land lost to private selling (Table 16).
TABLE 16: PRIVATE PURCHASES, 1889–1908 (ARRANGED BY DATE)
% of all private Block name Subdivision Area alienated (acres) purchases Mahoenui Mahoenui 6 4000.00 21.31% Mangapapa Mangapapa A 733.00 3.91% Mangapapa Mangapapa B1 860.00 4.58% Mangarapa Mangarapa B1 860.00 4.58% Puketiti Puketiti 1 7482.00 39.87% Tokanui Tokanui A [Part] 387.00 2.06% Orahiri Orahiri 11A 2.00 0.01% Pre1900 subtotal 14,324.00 76.33% Kopua (Te) ‐ Pirongia Kopua 1D 36.75 0.20% Mahoenui Mahoenui E2 247.00 1.32% Mangaawakino Mangaawakino 3 [Part] 1819.00 9.69% Mangaawakino Mangaawakino 5 130.00 0.69% Mangaawakino Mangaawakino 8B2B1 28.50 0.15% Maungarangi Maungarangi 2B2B 96.64 0.51% Pukenui Pukenui 2U3 128.00 0.68% Puketarata Puketarata 13A 99.91 0.53% Puketarata Puketarata 19E 55.46 0.30% Puketarata Puketarata 7 Reserve 74.47 0.40% Tokanui Tokanui A [Part] 194.00 1.03% Rangitoto Rangitoto A1B1 [Part] 377.31 2.01% Rangitoto Rangitoto A34B 379.30 2.02% Rangitoto Rangitoto A5 379.00 2.02% Rangitoto Tuhua 8 Rangitoto Tuhua 8 300.00 1.60% Kawhia Kawhia P3 Part 1.42 0.01% Kinohaku East Kinohaku East 2, Sec 8 92.88 0.49% Orahiri Orahiri Survey District 9 Blk VIII 3.14 0.02% Post1900 subtotal 4,442.78 23.67% Total area of private purchases 18,766.78
The blocks outside the inland Mokau area in which private purchases have been recorded by the end of 1908 are listed in Table 17 below. The median proportion of those blocks which was alienated by private sale was just 0.98 per cent.
1893–1900
iwi,
and
hapu
for
Outcomes
6. 316
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 17: PRIVATE PURCHASING IN THE REMAINDER OF THE ‘ROHE POTAE AREA’, BEFORE 1909
Original area (decimal Area of private Ares of Crown Area estimated as % private % Crown % remaining as Name of block acres) purchases (acres) purchases (acres) remaining Maori land purchasing purchasing Maori land Kawhia 6,900.00 1.42 1,359.61 5,538.98 0.02% 19.70% 80.28% Orahiri 12,115.00 5.14 3,666.00 8,443.86 0.04% 30.26% 69.70% Kinohaku East 52,453.71 92.88 21,037.26 31,323.58 0.18% 40.11% 59.72% Kopua (Te) ‐ Pirongia 9,385.00 36.75 6,571.75 2,776.50 0.39% 70.02% 29.58% Pukenui 13,417.55 128.00 3,808.24 9,481.31 0.95% 28.38% 70.66% Rangitoto 113,712.11 1,135.61 42,186.09 70,390.41 1.00% 37.10% 61.90% Puketarata 17,904.75 229.84 11,263.13 6,411.78 1.28% 62.91% 35.81% Tokanui 10,145.92 581.00 2,960.31 6,604.62 5.73% 29.18% 65.10% Maungarangi 701.88 96.64 443.83 161.40 13.77% 63.23% 23.00% Mangarapa 2,760.00 860.00 1,707.50 192.50 31.16% 61.87% 6.97% Total (median %) 239,495.92 3,167.28 95,003.71 141,324.93 0.98% 38.60% 60.81%
6.3.4 THE POLICING OF PRIVATE LEASING IN THE 1890S
The small number of examples on record and their heterogeneous nature makes it difficult to discern any consistency in the way that various Crown officials dealt with private leases and purchases within the railway loans restriction area during the 1890s. This makes drawing firm conclusions about the wider question of whether the policing of illegal leases by Crown officials in the district had any impact on the willingness of Maori and Europeans to enter such arrangements. However, we have already seen that where leases involved land that had been specifically restricted from private dealings by the publication of a notice under the Native Land Purchase Act 1892, leases were less likely to be tolerated. In the case of the partly completed lease of Charles Newsham for part of Kinohaku West G block, pleas by him and by Maori who had agreed to the lease for the Crown to lift restrictions on the block and allow the lease were rejected (this has been discussed in more detail in section 6.2 above).
On a number of occasions Crown officials warned Europeans that they were in danger of 1893–1900 breaching the prohibitions on private dealings. But beyond this it is unclear whether the iwi, Trust Commissioners appointed under Native land frauds prevention legislation to and police and resolve disputes over leases between Maori and Europeans, had any role in dealing with illegal leases within the railway restriction zone.930 The 1889 railway loan hapu
legislation deemed all land within the railway restriction zone to be Native land for the for
purposes of the Native Land Frauds Prevention Amendment Act 1888, and that Act was
Outcomes 930
The duties of the Trust Commissioners under this legislation are outlined later in this chapter 6. 317
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 to apply ‘notwithstanding that the same may be held under Crown grant or certificate of title.’931 Yet, as all private transactions between Maori and Europeans were prohibited within that area it is difficult to see how Trust Commissioners could have jurisdiction over illegal leases and sales. This may be why records of private leases and purchases being dealt with by the Trust Commissioners in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ in the 1890s has not been located. However, the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Acts Amendment Act 1892 excluded from the frauds prevention provisions any land within the 1889 and 1892 restriction boundaries which had been or would in future be ‘lawfully acquired’ by any private person or persons by lease, transfer or other agreement.932 A similar clause was enacted to cover ‘any estate or interests lawfully acquired, or to any persons in lawful occupation of land, before and at the time of the publication of any such notice.’933
It does seem that the desirability of the land and resources in the blocks in question, and the impact such transactions might have on the Crown’s ability to purchase, played a role in how land purchase officers responded when leases were discovered. Perhaps the most well documented response to a lease within the railway restriction area was in the case of the Te Kumi block. The arrangement between Te Mahuki, the prophet and his people at Te Kumi with Alex Ferguson to quarry and process limestone on the Te Kumi block began around 1895. This came to the Crown’s attention because of complaints by Ferguson following a dispute with Mahuki’s wife and sister (who was the wife of the land purchase officer George Wilkinson) about the rents and royalties. Ferguson had a verbal agreement with Mahuki, but by 1898 Mahuki was in prison. In October 1897 he
had set fire to a store in Te Kuiti and was sentenced to seven years hard labour; a severe sentence no doubted imposed because of his previous sentences for acts of resistance to plans to open the King Country to the railway and settlement.934 Had Mahuki been 1893–1900
around to intervene and, if necessary, renegotiate the agreement with Ferguson it is iwi,
probable that their lease would have escaped the notice of the Crown. and
hapu
for
931 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889, s. 5 932 The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Acts Amendment Act 1892, s.4 933 The Native Land Purchase Act 1892, s. 18 934 Chris Koroheke, 'Te Mahuki ?–1899', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007 Outcomes
URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/ 6. 318
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Ferguson wrote several letters to the Minister of Mines, Alfred Cadman, and to Premier Seddon setting out the dispute that had arisen between him and Mahuki’s people and pleading for the Government to intervene and protect his assets. He first wrote to Cadman in February 1898, explaining that ‘since they put Mahuki in prison, there are several claimants for this Limestone Bluff that I lease from Mahuki and party.’ He asked that the Government ‘secure this [limestone] deposit.’935 Wilkinson reported on the matter on 8 March 1898 indicating that as yet the Crown had not secured any part of the Te Kumi block by purchase. But once the boundary between the Pehitawa and Te Kumi blocks had been approved by the court he planned to begin purchasing, sooner if Sheridan thought ‘it safe to anticipate the judge’s approval’ (emphasis in original).936 With regard to the strength of Ferguson’s claim to the land, Wilkinson commented ‘that of course’ Ferguson’s lease was ‘not a legal one, but merely an arrangement that he has made with Te Mahuki, on behalf of himself and some of the owners of the Te Kumi Block.’937
This suggests that the Crown was planning to purchase the land to secure the limestone deposit, and probably then allow Ferguson to purchase from the Crown the part he was leasing, even though Mahuki and his people had not indicated any wish to permanently alienate the land. During April 1896 Wilkinson had sought permission to purchase the Te Kumi and Pehitawa blocks, proposing a price of eight shillings and seven shillings per acre respectively.938 This was approved two years later in May 1898. This delay is explained by the fact that Wilkinson had been unable to begin purchasing shares because the boundary between the two blocks had not been surveyed.939 These prices
were considerably higher than the Crown had offered earlier in the decade. This was possibly because they were surrounded by other blocks in which the Crown had already purchased land and they were close to the railway line. In deciding whether he should 1893–1900
begin purchasing the blocks Wilkinson explained that they adjoined the Te Kuiti, Te iwi,
and
935 Alex Ferguson, Te Kuiti to Cadman, 4 February 1898, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP hapu 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 936
Wilkinson to Sheridan, 8 March 1898, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt for 937 Wilkinson to Sheridan, 8 March 1898, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 938 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 18 April 1896, NLP 96/117 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 939 Note by Sheridan dated 10 May 1898 on Wilkinson to Sheridan, 18 April 1896, NLP 96/117 and
Wilkinson to Sheridan, 8 March 1898, NLP 99/51, both filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, Outcomes
ANZ Wgt 6. 319
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Pukenui No. 2 and Pukeroa Hangatiki blocks which were already under negotiation, as well as the important point that the main trunk line passed through the Te Kumi block.940 The higher price per acre may also have been considered necessary to persuade the owners to part with their interests, given that many of them were followers of Mahuki and of Tohu and Te Whiti of Parihaka, who shared a strong resistance to land selling.
Throughout April and May 1898 Ferguson continued to pursue his complaint with Cadman. 941 As a result Wilkinson was instructed to ‘arrange to have this land included in the award to the Crown.’942 In reply Wilkinson assured Sheridan that he was ready to begin purchasing the Te Kumi block as soon as Sheridan fixed a price per acre. In the meantime Wilkinson would use what influence he could in the court to ensure that the portion of the Te Kuiti block allocated to the Crown on partition would be that which was ‘located at the part that adjoins the Te Kumi Block.’ He assured Sheridan that ‘there will be plenty of limestone there’ and that this ‘will be the most I can do until we acquire shares in Te Kumi Block.’943
So the acquisition of the limestone was not limited to resolving the problems with Ferguson’s ‘lease’ but signaled a wider intention to acquire as much of the resource as possible. Cadman made this clear in a memorandum to Sheridan in July 1898. He saw a commercial opportunity for the Crown, noting that the Railway Department had ‘decided to carry lime free for two years’ so it was ‘important for the Government to acquire as much of the limestone country around Te Kuiti as possible.’ Private
businessmen like Ferguson were seen as competitors whose arrangements with Maori would hamper the Crown’s purchasing of limestone country. Cadman urged Sheridan to purchase ‘before private individuals came into the business, and naturally block the 1893–1900
iwi,
and
940 Telgram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 6 April 1898, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, hapu ANZ Wgt 941
Mr A[lex] Ferguson, Te Kuiti to Cadman, 18 April 1898 and Minute: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 9 May 1898 for on memorandum from Minister of Mines to the Minister for Lands, n/d, both NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐ MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 942 Minute: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 9 May 1898, on memorandum from Minister of Mines to the Minister for Lands, n/d, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 943 Minute: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 12 May 1898 on memorandum from Minister of Mines to the Minister Outcomes
for Lands, n/d, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 6. 320
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 purchase’, and he asked that Wilkinson be made aware of this.944 Yet, the Premier’s response to the dispute over royalties seems to have been that the Crown would purchase the disputed land in order to resolve the conflict. In writing to the Premier in April 1899 a representative of the owners recalled that the Premier had taken down ‘his [Ferguson’s] statement and said at once that the Government should take that lime kiln so that there should be no complications.’945
By mid‐August 1898, the Crown had purchased individual interests from Maori owners of the Te Kumi block. Wilkinson estimated these equated to 179 acres out of the block, which contained 2,655 acres.946 Almost a year later on 23 March 1899 the court partitioned out the Te Kumi block after an application from some of the owners.947 As a result three blocks were awarded to the Crown, Te Kumi No. 1 (19:0:02), Te Kumi No. 2 (357 acres) and Te Kumi No. 14 (1 acre).948 The Crown certainly secured a portion of the limestone bluffs through these awards. Wilkinson reported that he had ‘succeeded in acquiring 20 acres Te Kumi No.1 immediately adjoining where he [Ferguson] is and abutting on the railway line. There is a large limestone deposit on this 20 acres.’949 The owners of the land on which Ferguson’s quarry and kiln was located certainly considered that the Crown had acquired a considerable portion of the limestone in the Te Kumi block. In writing to Premier Seddon to put their side of the dispute the owners begged Seddon not to purchase the area on which Ferguson was working because ‘the
944 Memorandum: Cadman, Minister of Mines to Sheridan, 25 July 1898, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 945
Whitinui Hohepa as agent for Te Mahuki, Te Kama Totareura and Hariata Raurau the owners of the 20 1893–1900 acres upon which the lime kiln in situated, to Premier Seddon, 3 April 1899, J 99/367 filed with
MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt iwi,
946 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 6 August 1898, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62,
NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt and
947 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 13 August 1898, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt hapu 948 Berghan, 2009, p 403. The 1 acre piece was ‘given by certain Native owners of the Te Kumi Block … to
Government for the purpose of enlarging the Te Kumi railway station site.’ So the interests purchased by for the Crown by March 1899 equated to just over 376 acres, excluding the 1 acre gifted for railway station purposes (Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 30 March 1899, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt) 949 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 29 March 1899, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP
1901/66, ANZ Wgt. These subdivisions are shown on ‘Plan of subdivisions of Te Kumi Block, ML 6687‐9, Outcomes
South Auckland Land District, dated 23 February 1898[?] 6. 321
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Maoris have only a small piece of that lime stone part, the Government have the larger part of the limestone at that particular locality.’950
Despite this purchasing none of the Crown’s subdivisions included the site of Ferguson’s lime kiln and quarry. In August 1898, Wilkinson had given the opinion that it was unlikely that the Crown ‘could get it included in the small area that we are already entitled to.’951 Once the awards had been made by the court, Wilkinson explained that he had been unable to secure Ferguson’s portion where his lime kiln stood.952 In the meantime relations between Ferguson and Mahuki’s wife and sister had deteriorated and they were threatening to evict him.953 He agreed with Mahuki that he would pay rent and a royalty of 2d per ton of lime sold. Although he had no written agreement he argued that the fact that the royalty at that rate ‘has been accepted without demur until the Land Court came to Te Kuiti’ was proof that the arrangement was satisfactory to all parties. He could also produce the receipts for rent and royalty already paid; all signed by Mahuki himself or his wife (once he went to prison) as proof that the arrangement had been accepted. Just the previous month (February 1899) ‘Mahuki’s wife accepted rent up to July 27th next but then for the first time refused the royalty which I offered.’954
However, once the court had partitioned out the Crown’s portions and confirmed the owners of the remaining subdivisions the two women took steps to have ‘the original agreement’ between Mahuki and Ferguson over royalties ‘adhered to.’955 Their position was put forward in a letter to Premier Seddon on 3 April 1898. It was written by
Whitinui Hohepa as agent for the ‘three owners of the block: Te Mahuki, Te Kama Totareura and Hariata Raurau.’ They stated that the fault lay with the Pakeha: 1893–1900
iwi,
950 Whitinui Hohepa to Premier Seddon, 3 April 1899, J 99/367 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62,
NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt and
951 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 6 August 1898, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt hapu 952 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 29 March 1899, NLP 99/51 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62,
NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt for 953 Mr A[lex] Ferguson, Te Kuiti to Cadman, 27 March 1899, NLP 99/74 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 954 Mr A[lex] Ferguson, Te Kuiti to Cadman, 27 March 1899, NLP 99/74 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 955 Mr A[lex] Ferguson, Te Kuiti to Cadman, 27 March 1899, NLP 99/74 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, Outcomes
NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 6. 322
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
It was he himself who applied to the Maoris for the land, which was agreed to, and the price that he should pay for his occupation was agreed, and that he was to pay so much per ton for the lime and the stones, namely 1/‐ per ton, these were the Pakeha’s own prices all that the Maoris did was to agree to it.956
The owners did not acknowledge the revised royalty (2d per acre sold) which Ferguson believed had been agreed to Mahuki. Instead they blamed Ferguson for not honouring his original agreement.957 The writer admitted that:
we were aware that what was done was not according to the law that is the leasing but the Pakeha did not mind that and persisted and so it was agreed to and now that Pakeha causes real trouble, we wish to eject that Pakeha, and to endevaour to let another Pakeha [illeg] that lime kiln (to work it).958
They asked the Premier to ignore Ferguson’s protests.959 It is unclear if or how the dispute was resolved or whether Ferguson was able to continue his lease. No responses from either Seddon or Cadman to Ferguson or Whitinui Hohepa are recorded on the file.
Ferguson believed that the reason that his land had not been included in the blocks allocated to the Crown by the court (and hence not likely to be onsold to him) was that ‘Mr Wilkinson (the Gov. Land Agent) has secured the piece, on which the Limestone and kilns are, for his wife and her sister, who is the wife of Mahuki.’960 The details of Wilkinson’s reply to these accusations are set out in Berghan’s block narrative for the Te Kumi block.961 In the process of explaining what involvement he had in limestone rich land being allocated to his wife by the court Wilkinson assured his superiors that the matter had no impact on his failure to get the land Ferguson was leasing included in the Crown’s subdivisions. He stated that the area the Crown had been:
1893–1900
iwi,
956 Whitinui Hohepa to Premier Seddon, 3 April 1899, J 99/367 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, and
NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 957 Whitinui Hohepa to Premier Seddon, 3 April 1899, J 99/367 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, hapu NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 958
Whitinui Hohepa to Premier Seddon, 3 April 1899, J 99/367 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, for NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 959 Whitinui Hohepa to Premier Seddon, 3 April 1899, J 99/367 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 960 Mr A[lex] Ferguson, Te Kuiti to Cadman, 27 March 1899, NLP 99/74 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP
1901/66, ANZ Wgt Outcomes 961
Berghan, 2009, pp 1302‐1303 6. 323
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
entitled to was very small and I found it impossible to get the non‐sellers to agree to let him have the whole of the area leased by Te Manukura Muhuki [sic] to Ferguson because some of them had special rights there through occupation.962
He claimed that Ferguson ‘recognized the difficulty & said he was satisfied so long as the people who he had dealt with got the land.’963 With regard to the accusations that he had acted improperly Sheridan assured Wilkinson that he had ‘no doubts as to your integrity in the Kumi matter’ but conceded that Wilkinson had left himself ‘open to attack by not letting me know that your family was interested’ and he had been ‘quite wrong’ in appearing ‘as Crown Agent under the circumstances.’ Sheridan assured Wilkinson that ‘nothing of course will be done on ex parte evidence.’964
In another case where land purchasing officials became aware of a lease being negotiated those involved were warned that they were in danger of breaching or evading the law. But the Crown’s the greatest concern was the impact such a lease might have on its future ability to purchase the land. In October 1889, it came to the Government’s attention that some of the owners of the Kinohaku East block were negotiating with a Captain Arthur/Captain Rutherford for the lease of part of the Kinohaku block. Lewis instructed Wilkinson to meet with both parties and ‘inform them that such a course would be an evasion if not a breach of the law & cannot be allowed.’ Lewis feared that the partnership would ‘much hamper our land purchase operations and tend to increase price beyond what is reasonable.’965 But because there was no formal lease or occupation of the land by Europeans, Wilkinson was doubtful that the arrangement to run sheep technically breached the restrictions on private dealings. It is
unclear what if any further action was taken by the Crown to prevent the partnership or what if anything resulted in the way of a joint farming operation on Kinohaku East. 1893–1900
iwi,
and
hapu 962 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 6 April 1899, NLP 99/74 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62,
NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt for 963 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 6 April 1899, NLP 99/74 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 964 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 6 April 1899, NLP 99/74 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/66, ANZ Wgt 965 Telegram: Lewis, USND to Mitchelson, 14 October 1889, NLP 89/326 (with 89/327) in MA 13/78, Outcomes
ANZ Wgt 6. 324
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
There were other occasions on which the land purchasing officials were aware of leases between Maori and Europeans but seemed to turn a blind eye because such arrangements furthered the Crown’s goals of settlement and involved powerful settler interests. One such case was the arrangement between the owners of the Mangawhero block near Otorohanga and Ellis and Burnard Timber Company. The fact that this timber extraction partnership was firmly established was one of the reasons why seven years into the Crown’s purchasing programme in the district, Wilkinson had not purchased any interests in the block. This was not a matter of principle to protect a Maori economic venture (even such a short‐term one based on clearing the land of Native forests) but simply a response to certain realities. Even though the Native Department conceded that they ‘knew of no authority under which Ellis and Burnard were cutting timber’ the possibility of trying to shutdown the milling of timber on the block does not seem to have been discussed by Crown officials.966 In policing the restrictions on private dealings in the district officials walked a fine line between being seen to keep out undesirable speculators and protecting the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase and not antagonizing settlers, particularly prominent businessmen like Ellis on whose support they ultimately depended. To some extent such businesses were to be encouraged as they paid tax, employed people and advanced the overall goal of European settlement in the district.
However, the immediate reality was that the price the Crown could offer for the Mangawhero block was unattractive to the owners in comparison with the income they could make from selling timber rights. Wilkinson stated that the timber partnership
was:
one reason why I have not suggested the purchase of these blocks by
Government in the past as I considered that those blocks which have timber on 1893–1900 them and from which the owners are drawing a royalty would not be parted with iwi, by them unless Government gave a price equivalent, at least, to what they are now getting for the timber.967 and
hapu
for
966 Minute: Sheridan to Surveyor General, 25 March 1897, on cover page of MA‐MLP 1, box 43, NLP 97/55,
ANZ Wgt Outcomes 967
Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 10 March, 1897, MA‐MLP 1, box 43, NLP 97/55, ANZ Wgt 6. 325
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
With the block earning income for the owners it was unsurprising that until that point no shares in the subdivisions of the Mangawhero block had been offered for sale.968
There was some discussion between Wilkinson and Lewis about whether to purchase the interests that were being offered by one of the owners, but by April 1897 the Crown had decided that it was unlikely that other owners would be willing to sell their shares. The Surveyor General informed the Native Department that he ‘could not recommend the purchase unless at a low price, which the Maoris would not take for they place a high value on the white pine, which I do not.969 As Wilkinson pointed out, the shares of each owner in many of the subdivisions were so small that, individuals would receive very small sums if they sold their interests to the Crown. For example Mangawhero No. 2, a block of 150 acres, had 35 owners. Tuawaerenga Hemara’s share (the one being offered for sale) amounted to one rood and nine perches; worth about one shilling or one shilling and sixpence.970 The Crown abandoned the idea of purchasing land in the block and it remained in Maori ownership until at least the beginning of 1909.971
The northern area of the Rohe Potae inquiry district lay outside the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and for much of the 1890s the land purchasing officials showed little interest in acquiring the small blocks that had not already been purchased by the Crown prior to 1865.972 In April 1897, Thomas Goodfellow of Kawhia contacted the Native Department asking for consent to purchase 318 acres at Aotea South. His agent, James Phillips, had completed arrangements to purchase the land at £1 per acre.973 On further investigation, the Department found that the request related to the Aotea South No.1
block (380 acres) created by partition order issued by the Appellate Court on 25 June 1896.974 The land lay beyond the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and had never come under the railway loan restrictions on private alienation, which by that time had been repealed 1893–1900
iwi,
968 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 10 March, 1897, MA‐MLP 1, box 43, NLP 97/55, ANZ Wgt 969 Minute: Surveyor General to Sheridan, 7 April 1897, on cover page of MA‐MLP 1, box 43, NLP 97/55, and
ANZ Wgt 970 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 10 March 1897, MA‐MLP 1, box 43, NLP 97/55, ANZ Wgt hapu 971 Berghan, 2009, p 457 citing Minute: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 13 April 1897, on cover page of
MA‐MLP 1, box 43, NLP 97/55, ANZ Wgt for 972 The only substantial block of land in the northern area remaining in Maori ownership in the 1890s was the Moerangi block, which remained in customary ownership until it went through the Native Land Court in 1909 (Berghan, 2009, p 533) 973 Goodfellow to Sheridan, 23 April 1897, MA‐MLP 1, box 44, NLP 97/94, ANZ Wgt 974 Telegram: Sheridan to Registrar of the Native Land Court, 29 April 1897, MA‐MLP 1, box 44, Outcomes
NLP 97/94, ANZ Wgt 6. 326
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 in any case. But the main reason why the Crown was unconcerned by a private sale in this area was that they had no desire to acquire the land themselves. When Sheridan asked the Surveyor General if there was any particular reason why the land should not be dealt with privately he replied that ‘the Government are not interested in this land.’ In order for the Crown to forego its exclusive right to purchase Maori land under the Native Land Court Act 1894. The Minister of Lands informed Goddfellow that the ‘proper course to adopt’ was for the majority of owners to apply to the Governor for an Order in Council excepting the Aotea South block from the operation of Section 117 of the Native Land Court Act 1894. Goodfellow was also told to make application for the removal of restrictions imposed by the original instrument of title. These applications would then be dealt with on their merits in due course.975 It is unclear whether such an application was made or if it was, whether it was successful.
1893–1900
iwi,
and
hapu
for
Outcomes 975
Minster of Lands to Goodfellow, 14 June 1897, MA‐MLP 1, box 44, NLP 97/94, ANZ Wgt 6. 327
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 15: MAP SHOWING BLOCKS IN THE INLAND MOKAU AREA
328
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
6.3.5 LEASING AND PRIVATE PURCHASING IN THE INLAND MOKAU AREA IN THE 1890S
The very different nature of the pattern of private leasing and selling in the ‘inland Mokau area’ during the 1890s, in comparison with the rest of the ‘Rohe Potae area’, requires further exploration and explanation. The inland Mokau area included the Mokau Mohakatino and Mohakatino Parininihi blocks dealt with by the Native Land Court in 1882, before title to the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block was first investigated in 1886. The report into the Mokau area by Paul Thomas for this inquiry deals more fully with those hearings and with land alienation in those blocks. In particular, he examines Joshua Jones’ lease of the Mokau Mohakatino block and its long and complex history. That lease and the leasing and private purchasing in the other blocks in the inland Mokau area: Mangapapa, Mangaawakino, Mahoenui and Puketiti blocks were all part of a pattern of engagement with Europeans which seems distinctive to this part of the inquiry district. These blocks are adjacent to one another and bordered the inland edges of the Crown’s pre 1865 purchases in the Mokau and Awakino area (Figure 15).
1893–1900
iwi,
and
hapu
for
Outcomes
6. 329
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
6.3.5(a) The extent of leasing and private purchasing
A significant number of private leases and sales were entered into during a brief period between November 1891 and July 1894. The details of these transactions are set out in Table 18.976
TABLE 18: COMPARISON OF LEASES AND PRIVATE PURCHASES IN THE INLAND MOKAU AREA BEFORE 1909
Block Lessor(s) Leasee Subdivision Acres Date of lease Mahoenui Arapata Te Rangituataka & othersJ Readon et al Mahoenui [proper] 7,159 27 December 1893 Te Hau & othrs Mokau Coal Co. Mangapapa B [pt] 9 November 1891 Mangapapa Ngakoti & othrs Mokau Coal Co. Mangapapa B [pt] 12,493 8 April 1892 Arapata Te Rangituataka & othersD McNicol Puketiti No. 2 4,150 31 May 1893 Erana Wetere & others D McNicol Puketiti No. 3 3,199 2 June 1893 Huia Tawake & others J W Ellis Puketiti No. 4 2,673 30 May 1893 Pehira Keepa & othrs (trustees) J W Ellis Puketiti No. 5 [pt] 13 July 1894 Puketiti Hone Wetere & othrs J W Ellis Puketiti No. 5 [pt] 13 July 1894 J W Ellis Mangaroa B 33240:3:17 1 May 1894 Mangaroa Kiore Otimi & others J W Ellis Mangaroa 4,600 10 May 1894 Block Seller(s) Purchaser Subdivision Acres Date of purchase Arapata Te Rangituataka & othrs J Rattenbury Mahoenui 6 4,000 3 October 1894 Mahoenui L Purdie Mahoenui E2 247 30 March 1903 L G Purdie Mangaawakino 5 130 3 March 1906 L Purdie Mangaawakino 3 [Part] 1,819 24 June 1907 Mangaawakino L G Purdie Mangaawakino 8B2B1 28.5 17 December 1908 Te Huia te Ruia Newton King & Hugh Irvine Mangapapa A 733 20 October 1892 Mangapapa B M Chambers Mangapapa B1 860 3 March 1894 Pairama Keepa & othrs Hugh Irvine Puketiti No. 1 [pt] 8 September 1893 Pairama Keepa & othrs Newton King Puketiti No. 1 [pt] 8 September 1893 Te Ata Pehira & another Hugh Irvine Puketiti No. 1 [pt] 15 January 1894 Puketiti Te Ata Pehira & another Newton King Puketiti No. 1 [pt] 15 January 1894
Sources: Pre1900 transactions: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 8 May 1895, NLP 95/263, Berghan Supporting Documents Vol. 22, pp 217220, acreages from Tribunal’s Rohe Potae land alienation project. Post1900 data: Tribunal’s Rohe Potael land alienation project.
The proportion of each block alienated by private purchasing in the inland Mokau area was considerably higher than in blocks elsewhere in the inquiry district. In the four blocks involved the median proportion alienated by private sale in this period was 13.9 per cent compared with just 0.98 per cent elsewhere in the inquiry district. 1893–1900
The inland Mokau area is also the only location in the inquiry district where there were
blocks of land where all alienations prior to the end of 1908 private sales. Blocks in this iwi,
category include Mangapapa, Mangaawakino and Puketiti (Table 19). and
hapu
for
976 The leasing data set out in Table 18 below is taken from a schedule attached to a memorandum from Outcomes
Wilkinson to Sheridan, 8 May 1895, MA‐MLP 1, box 38, NLP 95/263, ANZ Wgt 6. 330
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 19: PRIVATE PURCHASING IN THE INLAND MOKAU AREA AND SOUTH OF THE INQUIRY DISTRICT, BEFORE 1909
Original area (decimal Area of private Ares of Crown Area estimated as % private % Crown % remaining as Name of block acres) purchases (acres) purchases (acres) remaining Maori land purchasing purchasing Maori land Mangapapa 14,143.27 1,593.00 0.00 12,550.27 11.26% 0.00% 88.74% Mangaawakino 15,608.00 1,977.50 0.00 13,630.50 12.67% 0.00% 87.33% Mahoenui 27,950.49 4,247.00 17,507.50 6,195.99 15.19% 62.64% 22.17% Puketiti 21,826.92 7,482.00 0.00 14,344.92 34.28% 0.00% 65.72% Total (median %) 79,528.67 15,299.50 17,507.50 46,721.67 13.93% 0.00% 76.53% Source: Data from Tribunal’s Rohe Potae land alienation project
6.3.5(b) Reasons for expansion of leasing and private purchasing
There were several unique factors at work in the inland Mokau area and these were largely responsible for the more extensive private leasing and selling that took place in these blocks. These factors fall into two categories. The first group was connected with the progress of European settlement in the district, and the second with the absence of blanket restrictions on private dealings for these blocks after 30 August 1891.
6.3.5(b)(i) The opening up of the Mokau/Awakino region, 1875–1890
These transactions did not take place in a vacuum but were a consequence of the opening of the Mokau River to trading vessels, coal extraction and European settlement which had begun in the mid‐1870s. Paul Thomas’ Mokau report for this inquiry examines those developments fully, but it is useful here to provide a brief overview of the timing and extent of European settlement and resource‐based industry in that area during the 1875 to 1895 period in order to understand how the private transactions in question fit into that general picture.
After almost three years of negotiations between hapu and iwi at Mokau, led by Wetere Te Rerenga, the son of Takerei Waitara, over the opening of the Mokau River to trading 1893–1900
vessels and to some small‐scale European settlement, it was arranged that Messrs
977 Shore, McMillan and Jones and their families would settle at Mokau. They arrived iwi,
978
there on 5 July 1877 and ‘leased a large quantity of land from the Maoris.’ Shore was and
already well known to Wetere Te Rerenga and his people. He had operated a hapu
for
977 For a sketch of these negotiations see Margaret de Jardin, The Little Ports of Taranaki, Awakino, Mokau, Tongaporutu, Urenui, Waitara, Opunake and Patea together with some historical background to each,
printed by TNL Print, New Plymouth, 1992, pp 8‐10 Outcomes 978
de Jardin,1992, pp 9‐10 6. 331
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 brickworks on Maori land at Mokau between 1859 and 1862. His bricks were transported to New Plymouth on an 18 ton schooner, the Parininihi, owned and captained by Takarei Waitara.979 It was through Shore’s contacts with hapu and iwi leaders in the Mokau area that Joshua Jones first entered the district.980 He would become infamous for his lease of land in the Mokau Mohakatino block. The lease was confirmed by the Native Land Court at Waitara in 1882 during title investigations of the Mokau Mohakatino and Mohakatino Parininihi blocks, and was later the subject of extensive inquiries until at least 1911.981
Although the aukati was still in force around the boundaries of the Rohe Potae at this time, there are indications that both King Tawhiao and Rewi Maniapoto approved of the district being opened up to trade and the presence of small numbers of European settlers in direct control of Maori communities in the Mokau area. A letter from Tawhiao in July 1877, ‘fully approved’ of Shore and others ‘going to Mokau’ and assured them ‘that they would not be interrupted.’982 In March 1878, Rewi Maniapoto visited Mokau, met the Europeans there and dined with the Shores. ‘He expressed pleasure at seeing them there on friendly terms and said that he would advise the Government do whatever the landowners and settlers required to open up trade in the district.’983 Both Shore and MacMillian left the Mokau district before 1880. As MacMillan’s testimony at the 1888 inquiry into Jones’ lease indicated, McMillan left after a falling out with Jones. Shore and his family left Mokau in July 1879 but it is unclear why.984 However, Thomas Poole quickly replaced Shore and established a store on the south bank of the river at Mokau in 1880. He then opened a new store on the north bank slightly upriver from the
settlement of Te Kauri in 1882.985
1893–1900
979 de Jardin, 1992, pp 7‐8
980 iwi, Jones and Robert McMillan met onboard ship from Victoria in 1876, then made their way to Taranaki where they stayed at the Lepperton Hotel, ‘whose proprietor was John Shore.’ Shore had been invited by and
Wetere Te Rerenga to return to Mokau and establish a store there. As a result the three men visit Mokau in July 1876, and took up residence there the following year (Evelyn Stokes, Mokau: Maori Cultural and Historical Perspectives, Department of Geography, University of Waikato, 1982, p 142) hapu 981 Stokes, 1982, pp 140‐148 gives a condensed history of Joshua Jones’ lease. Paul Thomas provides a an for
extensive examination of this lease in his report on Mokau for this inquiry (Thomas, 20011, pp 287‐387) 982 de Jardin, 1992, p 10, no reference for this letter is provided. 983 de Jardin, 1992, p 10 no source for this information is provided. 984 de Jardin stated that ‘Rumour had it that Te Wetere had ordered the family to leave, but as no reason was made public it can only be assumed that they had offended in some way.’ (p 10)
985 Outcomes
de Jardin, 1992, p 11 6. 332
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Following the 1882 Native Land Court hearings and the reopening of the Mokau River to coastal shipping, the Crown began to take a renewed interest in the four blocks (Mokau, Awakino, Taumatamarie and Rauroa) it had ‘purchased’ in the 1850s. The Taranaki surveyor, W H Skinner led a team of government surveyors in a survey of those blocks in 1883.986 At that point there were still hopes that the North Island Main Trunk line might run along the Mokau coast and exploratory surveys took place in 1883 and 1884, and this increased settler interest in the district.987 By June 1886, the Crown had begun laying out sections for the township of Mokau and these were put up for public auction in February 1888. Crown land between the Mokau and Awakino Rivers was being leased by European settlers from 1888 and the area (including the Mokau Township) was particularly attractive to Taranaki settlers because ‘being north of the Mokau River (which was the boundary of Taranaki) it lay beyond the reach of both County and New Plymouth Harbour Board ratings areas.’988 Hugh Irvine, who later purchased land in the Puketiti No. 1 and Mangapapa A blocks, was active in an association formed in the late 1880s in Taranaki to resist the Harbour Board rates.989
In the Mokau and Awakino area there was several small‐scale flax‐cutting and processing operations. At least some of these were being run by Europeans in partnership with Maori land owners. By February 1889, John Elliot had established a flax mill, wharf and sheds on the Awakino River and flax was carried to New Plymouth and Waitara.990 Flax was sourced from Maori land well beyond the immediate vicinity. In early 1890, Elliot travelled to Te Kuiti ‘keen to buy a particularly fine stand of flax on the Marokopa‐Kopia block.’ However, there was some competition amongst Europeans
for the resource and Elliot discovered that ‘a Mr Owen had already made an offer, which had been accepted.’991 Hearing that the agreement between Maori and Owen ‘had been about to break down’ because Owen had not be able to pay by the due date, the resident 1893–1900
iwi,
986 Stokes, 1982, pp 166 & 169 and
987 de Jardin, 1992, p 12 988 de Jardin, 1992, pp 1 & 15 hapu 989 He was prosecuted by the Harbour Board for non‐payment of the rates in September 1887 and after an
appeal was order to pay £8.11.0 in rates and £1.19.0 in costs (‘Resident Magistrate’s Court’, Taranaki for Herald, 29 September 1887, p 3 and ‘Resident Magistrate’s Court’, Taranaki Herald,30 September 1887, p 2 and ‘Supreme Court T. Bayly v. New Plymouth Harbour Board, Taranaki Herald, 4 November 1887, p 2) 990 de Jardin, 1992, p 1 991 It seems that Owen applied to the Lands Department for a lease or licence to cut flax. This was granted on the condition that Owen ‘did not make use of the land for any other purpose.’ (Seymour to O’Hara Outcomes
Smith, 9 August 1893, NLP 94/189 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/69, ANZ Wgt) 6. 333
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 magistrate at Te Kuiti, C W Hursthouse, a friend of Elliot’s (they had met when Hursthouse had been surveying in the Mokau area) arranged and acted as interpreter at a meeting between Elliot and Te Moerua and Te Aroa, the owners of the flax. The flax was secured for Elliot.992 In 1893, two men, Rattenbury and Purdie, were in occupation of part of the Mohakatino Parininihi block. At least initially Rattenbury had been engaged in cutting and shipping flax. The extent of these joint‐ventures into the flax trade in the 1890s in this inquiry district is unclear.
Mokau again became a fledging settlement and a second store and boarding house was opened there in 1889 by Captain and Mrs Readon who ran it until October 1897.993 Reardon seems to have owned houses at Waitara and Mokau and plied the route between the two towns.994 But by 1895 he had expanded his interests in the Mokau/Awakino area, leasing land in the Mahoenui block in December 1893 and taking over the Joll Brothers establishment at Awakino in March 1895.995
Meanwhile, Jones, his Native interpreter George Stockman, and various syndicates and companies based in Taranaki and Auckland began working coal deposits in the Mokau Mohakatino and Mangapapa blocks from 1884. These mining operations continued until just before World War I, but were in their heyday during the 1880s and 1890s. So by 1891 these mines were being serviced by three steamers running between Mokau, Waitara and New Plymouth.996 Amongst these companies was the Mokau Coal Company that took up the lease of parts of the Mangapapa B block in 1891 and 1892. Coal mining on the Mangaawakino and Mahoenui blocks took place much later between 1930 and
1893–1900 992 Owen then alleged that Hursthouse (also district engineer) had bribed the two owners into accepting
Elliot’s arrangement by giving them work on the Waitomo caves road. Hursthouse rebutted the iwi,
allegations saying that the two men were amongst 14 employed and all who wanted work had a fair
chance of being appointed. He also believed that it was appropriate that the two owners of the flax be and
employed on the road as they were ‘grantees in the block containing the Waitomo Caves’ and were amongst the men who asked for the road to be made. It is unclear whether the government took further hapu action over the matter. (Chaplow, 2003, pp 278‐279 citing undated letter from C W Hursthouse to the
Under Secretary, Native Department) for 993 de Jardin, 1992, pp 15 & 18 994 Taranaki Herald, 2 January 1890, p 2 mentions mass being conducted at ‘Capt Reardon’s place at Waitara’ and ‘Pre‐sessional Address’, Taranaki Herald, 12 June 1893, p 2 noted that there would be an electoral meeting at ‘Capt Reardon’s House at Mokau.’ 995 ‘Awakino’, Taranaki Herald, 6 March 1895, p 2 Outcomes 996
de Jardin, 1992, p 15 6. 334
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1970. Phillips Cleaver’s report on timber, mining and other resources for this inquiry discusses these leases in greater detail.997
This flurry of activity was mirrored to the north and south of Mokau. In 1892, ‘John Skinner surveyed a proposed road from Awakino to Te Kuiti’ and one commentator stated that ‘there cannot be less than 60,000 acres now in occupation under one or other of our land systems on both banks of the Awakino river and along the sea coast north.’ Many of these men were ‘sons of settlers from Tikorangi, Waitara and Huirangi’ in North Taranaki. 998 ‘By the end of October 1894 land from the mouth of the Awakino following its valley had been taken up by settlers to within 18 or 20 miles of Te Kuiti.’999 In the south the survey of the Mokau Mohakatino block was completed on 1 February 1892 and the whole block divided into sections which were offered for sale by public auction on 17 July 1895.1000 By the late 1890s ‘settlers were beginning to penetrate the Mahoenui Valley and push down the Mokau’ River.1001
6.3.5(b)(ii) Gaps in the railway loan restrictions
The second significant factor that encouraged European‐Maori partnerships in the inland Mokau area from the end of August 1891 was the exclusion of this area from the blanket restrictions in place under the railway loans legislation. As already set out in detail in the discussion of the legislation covering Crown purchasing in the inquiry district, at various times between August 1888 and October 1894 portions of the inland Mokau area were excluded from the railway loans area in which Crown pre‐emption and restrictions on private dealings applied. The Mokau Mohakatino and Mokau
Parininihi blocks sat outside these restrictions between 20 August 1888 and 11 October 1892 but were briefly placed under railway loan restrictions in the two years from 12 October 1892 till 22 October 1894. 1893–1900
iwi,
and
hapu
for 997 Cleaver, 2011, pp 195‐223. Also see table showing coal production figures from these mines, Stokes, 1982, p 197 998 de Jardin, 1992, p 2 citing Wellington Express, November 1892 999 de Jardin, 1992, p 2 1000 de Jardin, 1992, p 18 Outcomes 1001
Stokes, p 170 6. 335
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The other inland Mokau blocks (Mangapapa, Mangaawakino, Maohoenui and Puketiti) were covered by the railway loans restrictions from 30 August 1888 until 29 August 1891. However, these blocks were excluded from the railway restriction zone between 30 August 1891 and 22 October 1894. After this date, blanket restrictions on new private alienations applied to all these blocks under the Native Land Court Act 1894 (see Figures 6 and 7 in Chapter 2). The dates of the leases and private sales in the inland Mokau blocks, excluding the two 1882 court blocks, correspond almost exactly to this gap in restrictions on private dealings. This suggests that both Maori owners and European settlers took advantage of this lifting of restrictions to develop and formalize partnership and arrangements for the transfer of land, some of which may have been in place well before this period.
This freedom from blanket restrictions on private dealings enabled hapu and iwi to engage directly with individual Europeans, with the potential to benefit both parties. However, it also held dangers for the Maori owners, particularly that land speculators would move in and purchase large areas of land. As we have seen, hapu and iwi leaders in the north of the inquiry district were very aware of this risk. The Liberal Government was also deeply concerned about the threat posed by speculators. Whenever the issue of Crown pre‐emption and restrictions on alienation were debated in Parliament during the 1880s and 1890s there was strong disagreement between those who favoured, to one degree or other, ‘free trade’ in Maori land with Maori permitted to lease or selling to private individuals and those who feared the impact of land speculators on Maori and on the progress of settlement in the country.
Although the records relating to leases and private purchases in the inland Mokau area are far from complete, those Europeans immediately involved in the leases and 1893–1900 purchases were not land speculators in the sense that they aimed to buy large areas of iwi, land and then subdivide and sell it to others at a profit. Most were ambitious settlers or and small‐scale entrepreneurs seeking to expand their farming or flax milling businesses. Almost all of these men were settlers in the area north of Waitara, Hugh Irvine, Newton hapu
King and Rattenbury, for example, were all active in local government and community for affairs in the area from New Plymouth to Urenui and certainly knew one another. For example Irvine and Rattenbury were both elected to the Licensing Committee for the Outcomes
Waitara District and were provisional directors of the Farmers Co‐operative Society 6. 336
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Limited in Taranaki in 1882.1002 Newton King, an auctioneer, exporter and farm financer and Irvine almost certainly knew each other before they purchase the Puketiti No. 1 block together. 1003 In August and October 1890, Newton King auctioned two farms owned by Irvine at Waihi on the North Taranaki coast.1004 Shortly afterwards the two men seem to have entered business together. They jointly advertised for tenders for bush felling at Mimi in September 1891.1005
In several instances there is evidence that the Europeans negotiated leases with a view to then securing the purchase of the land at a later date. Joseph Houston secured a lease over what became part of Mahoenui D, and was collecting signatures of owners for the purchase of that land prior to the imposition of universal Crown pre‐emption under the Native Land Court Act in 1894 (this case is discussed further below). Hugh Irvine, one of two men who purchased part of Puketiti No. 1 in late 1893‐early 1894, began by negotiating a lease for his portion of the land. In this case, it appears that Irvine had wanted to purchase immediately but had initially only been able to secure a lease. In August 1892, Wilkinson reported Irvine was negotiating with owners of the Puketiti block in the upper Mokau district offering three shillings per acre. But by September 1892, Irvine had left the district ‘after getting a lease with an agreement to sell signed by the Natives and (so I hear) paying them a half years rent in advance.’1006
There are some signs that Auckland land speculators and land companies did become involved in some of these leases, particularly the commercial coal companies on the Mokau River and their leases and purchases of land in the Mangiora and Mangapapa
1002 ‘Licensing Committee’, Taranaki Herald, 9 February 1882, p 2 and ‘Public Meeting – Farmers’ Co‐
operative Society’, Taranaki Herald, 24 July 1882, p 2 1893–1900 1003 Newton King became one of Taranaki’s most prominent businessmen. In 1879 he went into business
as an auctioneer and commission agent. ‘He established saleyards at Waiwakaiho … where he conducted iwi,
livestock sales; he established agencies in the commodities settlers needed, sold the goods on long‐term
credit, and advanced money to many farmers.’ As the flow of farm produce increased Newton King and
expanded and diversified his business opening branches and conducting regular auctions at Stony Rover, Rahotu, Waitara, Urenui, Awakino, Mokau, Douglas, Ohura and Whangamomona’ (Tullet, The Industrious hapu Heart: A history of New Plymouth, New Plymouth City Council, New Plymouth, 1981, p 45). See also
‘Newton King Ltd centennial, 1879‐1979: special feature, October 1979’, New Plymouth, N.Z. : Taranaki for Newspapers, 1979 and Adrienne Tatham, Footprints of a King : Newton King’s life story, 18551927, A Tatham, New Plymouth, c.2006 1004 ‘Mr Newton King’s Weekly Auction and Produce Report’, Taranaki Herald, 9 August 1890, p 4 and the same in Taranaki Herald, 17 October 1891, p 4 1005 ‘Bush felling’ [advertisement], Taranaki Herald, 26 September 1891, p 3 Outcomes 1006
Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 30 August 1892, MA‐MLP 1, box 31, NLP 92/125, ANZ Wgt 6. 337
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 blocks.1007 Paul Thomas discusses Joshua Jones’ connections to speculators in his Mokau report for this inquiry and Philip Cleaver deals more fully with the coal companies and their land dealings in his report on the exploitation of natural resources in the inquiry district.
6.3.5(b)(iii) Limited investigations by Trust Commissioners into private dealings
Alongside and intertwined with responses from land purchasing officials to leases in the inland Mokau area were the investigations into private alienations carried out by the Trust Commissioners under the Native lands frauds prevention legislation. This section examines several cases investigated and ratified by the Trust Commissioners. This discussion is limited because the Trust Commissioners records for this inquiry district have not been located and minutes of only three cases have been discovered in the Native Land Court Minute Books. These cases dealt with the sale of part of Puketiti No. 1 to Hugh Irvine and Newton King, the lease of Puketiti No. 5 to J W Ellis and the sale of Mangapapa A to the Mokau Coal Co.1008
Private transactions relating to land outside the boundaries of the railway loan restriction area were subject to the Native land fraud prevention legislation. This was first put in place by the Native Land Fraud Prevention Act 1870, which was repealed by the Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881. The 1881 Act as amended by the Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881 Amendment Act 1888, established Trust Commissioners to ‘as far as possible, inquire into the circumstances attending every alienation’ and to make a judgment as to their validity according to the conditions set out in section 5 of the 1881 Act (and section 3 of the 1888 Act). These conditions were made more stringent under the Native Lands Frauds Prevention Acts Amendment Act 1889. The Commissioner was also to satisfy himself that the consideration agreed on 1893–1900
had been paid and that Maori owners had ‘sufficient land left for their occupation and iwi,
and
hapu
for 1007 See for example Native Affairs Committee report on the petition of Arthur Owen together with minutes of evidence and appendix, AJHR 1888, I‐3A. Full set of papers relating to this petition (including the material from AJHR) in Jamie Mitchell, Petitions Document Bank, Wai 898, #A59(b), Petition 253/1887, pp 192‐273 1008 Otorohanga Minute Book, No. 20, pp 58‐60, Otorohanga Minute Book, No. 25, pp 80‐81 and Outcomes
Otorohanga Minute Book, No. 13, pp 107‐108 respectively 6. 338
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 support.’1009 How the Trust Commissioner was to determine this was not spelt out in this Act or in any subsequent amendment.1010
Until a Trust Commissioner had ratified a private lease or purchase it could not be registered ‘in any registry of deeds or land, or lodged with a Native Land Court Registrar.’1011 The preamble to the Act stated that this process was designed to protect Maori from ‘improvident dealings and frauds upon the alienation’ of their land.1012 All private dealings in land held by Maori ‘under custom and usage’ (title not yet determined by the court) were prohibited.1013 In 1894, the Trust Commissioners were disestablished and the duty to ensure that dealings in land were fair and that Maori were left with sufficient land was vested directly in the Native Land Court.1014
In several cases Wilkinson warned Europeans that they were in danger of prosecution under the Native land frauds prevention legislation. When Wilkinson became aware that Hugh Irvine had negotiated a lease over part of Puketiti No. 1, he wrote asking his superiors what action should be taken. He was instructed by the Native Minister to ‘inform Irvine verbally of the position he will drift into and make a note of the fact so that when the time comes for Irvine to have a grievance there will be some reply on record’.1015 Wilkinson noted that he had spoken to Irvine’s interpreter Mr Mainwaring and pointed out the illegality of Mr Irvine’s proceedings and the risk he was running ‘as Sec 5 of Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881 Amendment Act 1888 not only made his action illegal but Sec 7 of that Act made him liable to a penalty of £500.’ Irvine had informed Wilkinson that he was acting on advice of lawyers Heskith and Richmond of
Auckland who had advised him that the 1889 Act ‘does away with the prohibition and 1893–1900
iwi,
1009 The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881,s. 6 1010 But for example, the test for sufficiency of land under section 15 of the Native Land Purchase and and
Aquisition Act 1893 was at least 25 acres of first‐class land, 50 acres of second‐class land, or 100 acres of third‐class land for every Native man, woman and child (William, 1999, pp 270‐271). hapu 1011 The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881 Amendment Act 1888, s. 4 1012
The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881, preamble for 1013 The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881 Amendment Act 1888, s. 2 (definitions) and s. 5 1014 James S Mitchell, ‘Land Alienations in the Wairarapa, 1880–1900’, 2002, Wai 863, #A30, p 111 citing David V Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua’: The Native Land Court 18641909, Huia Publishers,Wellington, 1999, p 214 1015 Minute: Sheridan to Native Minister, 30 August 1892, and Minute: Native Minister to Sheridan 2 Outcomes
September 1892, respectively, both on cover page of MA‐MLP 1, box 31, NLP 92/125, ANZ Wgt 6. 339
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 penalty of the Act of 1888.’1016 This was incorrect as the 1889 Act simply amended other sections of the 1888 Act but did not repeal it. Sheridan had concerns about Irvine’s transaction and asked Wilkinson to communicate with the Trust Commissioner, but it is unclear what these concerns were.1017 Wilkinson also noted his impression that the deed for the land was signed before a survey was completed.1018 It is unclear whether these concerns were raised again.
The minutes of the Trust Commission hearings located are brief. They record the basic terms of the lease or purchase, what payment in rent or purchase money was received and by whom, and affirm that none of it was paid in alcohol or ammunition. The names of Maori witnesses appearing are recorded with a brief statement as to what interests they held in the land and whether they had approved the lease/sale. The minutes do not indicate what decision the Trust Commissioner reached on the validity of these transactions.
6.3.5(c) Crown responses to private leasing and purchasing in the inland Mokau area
It is difficult to know just how well‐informed government land purchase officers and other officials were about private purchasing and leasing in the inland Mokau area. In May 1895, the Registrar of the Native Land Court at Auckland replied to Wilkinsons’ request for information about private dealings in the area. He admitted that records held by the court were incomplete. His office held no copies of deeds relating to the transactions ‘and the greatest part of the information was obtained from the Trust Commissioners’ records.’ He enclosed a list of blocks with details of leases and purchases (these are summarized in Table 18).1019 Wilkinson did seem to have made further inquiries into some of these transactions. For example he noted that Ellis’ lease in the Mangaroa block did not cover the whole block because two pieces, 1,000 acres at 1893–1900 the southern end of the block and 350 acres on the eastern side at the bend of the Ohura iwi,
and
hapu 1016 Minute: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 13 September 1892, on cover page of MA‐MLP 1, box 31, NLP 92/125,
ANZ Wgt for 1017 Minute: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 13 October 1893, on back of cover page of MA‐MLP 1, box 31, NLP 92/125, ANZ Wgt 1018 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 13 October 1893 and Minute: Wilkinson to Registrar of Native Land Court, 16 October 1893 on the back of cover page, both MA‐MLP 1, box 31, NLP 92/125, ANZ Wgt 1019 Jas W Browne, Registrar, Native Land Court, Auckland to Wilkinson, 2 May 1895, MA‐MLP 1, box 38, Outcomes
NLP 95/263, ANZ Wgt 6. 340
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
River, had been excluded from the lease on the recommendation of the Trust Commissioner.1020
Aside from the transactions the Registrar of the court was able to give information about, leases often came to light as the Crown began purchasing and the European lessee became concerned that his arrangements with hapu and iwi were about to be undermined. In October 1892, Wilkinson sought permission from Sheridan to begin purchasing Mahoenui No. 1 (Mangaorongo) as several owners had offered to sell their interests to the Crown.1021 A purchase price of three shillings and sixpence an acre was approved. 1022 However, purchasing could not begin immediately because surveys of the Mahoenui block were not sufficiently advanced to enable the Chief Surveyor in Auckland to provide a plan of the subdivision for the purchase deed.1023
The following month Wilkinson became aware that Rattenbury and several other Europeans were ‘negotiating with owners of the Mahoenui & Mangaawakino Blocks.’1024 Wilkinson rapidly identified these European lessees and purchasers as competitors in its attempt to purchase the Mahoenui block for the Crown. He feared that they were securing agreements to purchase and making advanced payments, allowing them to ‘lease’ the land until they could get the title officially transferred to them. He suggested to Sheridan that the Government pursue two avenues, either getting in ahead of the private purchasers and obtaining as many shares as possible in the block or prosecuting such Europeans under the Native Land Frauds Prevention Act 1888 and its amendment of 1889. Wilkinson hoped that legal action would act ‘as a warning to others’ and stem
the tide of private dealings.1025 Sheridan seemed to be contemplating court proceedings, 1893–1900
iwi,
1020 Wilkinson to Sheridan, 8 May 1895, MA‐MLP 1, box 38, NLP 95/263, ANZ Wgt and
1021 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 18 October 1892, NLP 92/171 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt hapu 1022 Minute: Sheridan to Native Minister, 28 November 1892 and Minute: Native Minister to Sheridan,
same date, both on the cover page of NLP 92/171 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt; for 1023 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Chief Surveyor, Auckland, 30 November 1892 and Wilkinson to Sheridan, 8 December 1892, both NLP 92/177 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1024 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 14 December 1892, NLP 92/171 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1025 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 14 December 1892, NLP 92/171 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, Outcomes
NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 6. 341
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 asking Wilkinson whether he ‘could undertake to secure a conviction under the acts mentioned above’, but nothing seems to have come of the idea.1026
Some explanation for why the prosecution was not pursued lies in the misgivings expressed by Crown officials in a similar case involving Rattenbury’s licence to cut flax on Native land in the Mohakatino Parininihi block. In 1893 and 1894 O’Hara Smith, the Auditor of Land Revenue repeatedly notified the Under Secretary for Crown Lands and the Minister for Lands that Rattenbury, Purdie and other Europeans were in breach of the conditions of their flax cutting licence by occupying and cultivating the land.1027 The matter was placed in the hands of the legal adviser to the Lands Department at New Plymouth in preparation for a prosecution.1028 But the Auditor of Land Revenue admitted that there were several circumstances standing in the way of a conviction. Firstly, he noted that ‘Rattenbury, Purdie & ors are not well to do men [so] no money penalty could be collected.’1029 This assessment certainly fits with other evidence suggesting that these men were ambitious settlers rather than land speculators. Secondly, O’Hara Smith acknowledged that although Rattenbury had contravened the Native land frauds prevention legislation and was liable to a fine or imprisonment it was unlikely either of these sanctions would be imposed. In O’Hara Smith’s assessment the legislation was ineffectual, he had:
never yet heard of a case where either penalty was enforced, and it is a well known fact that there are ways and means of acquiring native lands that will not bear investigation, & this is a fair sample of the method employed ... The penalties imposed by law for illegal dealings in Native lands is practically a dead letter.1030
1893–1900
iwi,
1026 Minute: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 16 December 1892, on bottom of Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, and
14 December 1892, NLP 92/171 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1027 Memorandum: C O’Hara Smith, Auditor of Land Revenue to the Under Secretary, Crown Lands, hapu 19 September 1893 and Memorandum: C O’Hara Smith, Auditor of Land Revenue to the Minister for
Lands, 1 May 1894, both NLP 94/189 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/69, ANZ Wgt for 1028 O’Hara Smith to the Under Secretary, Land Purchase, Wellington, 23 August 1893, NLP 94/189 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/69, ANZ Wgt 1029 Memorandum: C O’Hara Smith, Auditor of Land Revenue to the Under Secretary, Crown Lands, 19 September 1893, NLP 94/189 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/69, ANZ Wgt 1030 Memorandum: C O’Hara Smith, Auditor of Land Revenue to the Minister for Lands, 23 April 1894, Outcomes
NLP 94/189 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/69, ANZ Wgt 6. 342
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In any case, O’Hara Smith was not sure that it was fair to make an example of Rattenbury when ‘there may be more glaring cases of which I know nothing.’1031 Attempts to prosecute Rattenbury were dropped and the land Rattenbury was occupying (Mohakatino Parininhi 1B) was excluded from a proclamation prohibiting private dealings on the block while the Crown was purchasing. By 1898 Rattenbury had purchased the whole of Mohakatino Parininihi 1B, an area of over 3,187 acres.1032
The other means of dealing with competition from Europeans for land in the inland Mokau area was for the Crown to purchase the interests of Maori owners as rapidly as possible. The need to secure land rapidly in the face of such competition resulted in the Crown raising the price per acre it was willing to offer Maori owners in the Mahoenui block. The price set of Mahoenui No. 1 in November 1892, prior to Wilkinson hearing about Rattenbury & Co.’s attempts to purchase land in the block, was three shillings and six pence, the base rate for Crown purchasing in the district in the early 1890s. However, a year later when the price to be offered for Mahoenui No. 2 was decided, Wilkinson informed Sheridan that No. 2 ‘is said to be the best of the Mahoenui subdivisions’ and he considered that he would have no success in buying shares if he were to offer three shillings and six pence per acre.1033 On Wilkinson’s recommendation a price of five shillings per acre was authorised.1034 In Wilkinson’s view these prices were justified, not just by the quality of the subdivision, but because ‘if the price is increased [I] think I can purchase two shares which will enable us to proclaim [the] block.’1035 This is clearly a reference to the power given to the Crown under the Native Land Purchase Act 1892 to place a proclamation over any block of land it was already
negotiating or intended to negotiate for.1036 So obtaining those first few shares was vital because such proclamations expressly prohibited any private individuals dealing with such land. This would effectively reassert the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase 1893–1900
iwi,
1031 Memorandum: C O’Hara Smith, Auditor of Land Revenue to the Minister for Lands, 23 April 1894, and
NLP 94/189 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/69, ANZ Wgt 1032 Thomas, 2011, pp 407‐408 hapu 1033 Telegram: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 8 March 1894 and Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 10 March
1894, both in NLP 99/18 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt for 1034 Minute: Sheridan to the Native Minister, 12 March 1894 on bottom of Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 10 March 1894 and Telegram: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 12 March 1894, both in NLP 99/18 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1035 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 28 February 1894, NLP 99/18 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP
1900/37, ANZ Wgt Outcomes 1036
The Native Land Purchases Act 1892, ss. 16‐17 6. 343
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 and shut out competitors such as Rattenbury. The price per acre being offered by the Crown to owners of Mahoenui No. 1 was subsequently raised to match that offered for shares in Mahoenui No. 2, probably because owners of No. 1 objected to being paid the lower rate when owners of the adjacent portion were being paid so much more.1037
But Rattenbury was not the only European attempting to secure title to parts of the Mahoenui block. By 1895, when Wilkinson was actively engaged in purchasing shares from Maori owners of the block, Joseph Houston, a Taranaki settler, had secured agreement from a number of owners to purchase land in what would become Mahoenui D. Wilkinson’s attempts to purchase land in Mahoenui No.1 prompted Houston to write to the Government explaining that some considerable time before the Native Land Act 1894 was passed, re‐establishing Crown pre‐emption over the whole North Island, he ‘had been in treaty with Native owners thereof for the purchase of shares and interest in a block of land called Mahoenui, in the Awakino East Survey District, containing 8,036 acres on behalf of myself and others.’ A lease for 21 years had been executed and he had agreement from a number of owners to purchase the land covered by the lease but the 1894 Act had prevented him from completing the purchase.1038
Copies of two agreements made between Houston and a number of Maori owners during 1894, and an incomplete agreement from 1895, have been located. The first, dated 15 October 1894, was between Joseph Houston and Taniora Wharau, Rangiamohia Taniora and Rangioiroa Taniora for their interests in the 8,036 acre Mahoenui (proper) which the court had awarded to them and others on 14 November
1890. The second, with identical wording, was signed on 13 December 1894 between Houston and Pahiri Wiari (as Trustee for two minors Hemaima Pahiri & Tia Pahiri who each held 1 share in Mahoenui proper). In both cases, Houston agreed to purchase their 1893–1900 shares for five shillings per acre, and had already paid deposits of five pounds and four iwi, pounds respectively. Once the balance was paid the Maori owners would ‘sign and and
execute in favour of the purchaser a memorandum of transfer ... and will do or cause to be done all other acts and things and execute all other deeds and documents necessary hapu
for
1037 Telegram: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 22 April 1895, NLP 95/321 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1038 J Houston to unknown recipient, 1 August 1895, NLP 95/321 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP Outcomes
1900/37, ANZ Wgt 6. 344
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 for vesting the fee simple thereof in the Purchaser.’ In the meantime Houston was ‘entitled to the possession profits and income of the said shares estates and interests.’1039 In other words, Houston would ‘lease’ until a transfer of the freehold could be arranged. This was exactly the kind of arrangement Wilkinson feared was taking place. As Houston had indicated in his letter in August 1895, he was unable to complete the purchase of the land he had been in possession of. An agreement between him and Arapata Te Rangituataka and 18 others simply headed 1895, but not otherwise dated, was signed by all of the Maori owners. The lack of a date and other details not filled in on the copy located suggest that this is the unfinished agreement Houston was referring to. It was clearly drawn up after Mahoenui proper was partitioned by the Native Land Court on 19 April 1895 creating Mahoenui A, B, C, D and E as the agreement mentions the partition order and names Houston’s portion as Mahoenui D, the plan attached to the back of the agreement also shows these subdivisions.1040
In explain his situation to the Government in August 1895, Houston emphasised that ‘altho the area appears large it was not taken up for speculative purposes – but for bona fide settlement by myself and family connections,’ and that he had spent his ‘all in securing the land – and improvements which I have made upon it.’ He also assured the Government that the total acreage held complied with the requirements of the Land Act with regard to how much first, second and third class land any one settler could acquire.1041 Therefore, Houston proposed that he ‘be allowed to complete the purchase of the land in question’ on his own account, but also that he be appointed by the Government to purchase the rest of the block for the Crown ‘with the understanding
that I be allowed to retain for myself and family at cost price – two thousand acres – including the portion upon which I have made improvements.’1042 1893–1900
iwi,
1039 Agreement (in English with Maori translation) between Taniora Wharau & ors and Joseph Houston, and
dated 15 October 1894 and Agreement (in English with Maori translation) between Pahiri Wiari and Joseph Houston, dated 13 December 1894, both in NLP 96/122 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP hapu 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1040
Agreement (in English with Maori translation) between Arapata te Rangituataka & others and Joseph for Houston, dated 1895 [no day or month given], NLP 96/122 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1041 J Houston to unknown recipient, 1 August 1895, NLP 95/321 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1042 J Houston to unknown recipient, 1 August 1895, NLP 95/321 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP Outcomes
1900/37, ANZ Wgt 6. 345
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
These arguments and the fact that agreements had been duly signed and registered seem to have resulted in the Government looking favourably on Houston’s claim. Sheridan considered Houston’s proposals ‘to be reasonable enough,’ although the law at that time meant that they could not be completely complied with.1043 The Surveyor General agreed that if Houston had indeed ‘spent his all in acquiring & improving this land – then ... the Govt has no justification in ousting him out of the land.’ He suggested to Sheridan that if he could ‘devise any method of carrying out the arrangement’ it ‘should be done leaving Mr H[ouston] in possession of his 2,000 acres.’1044 Therefore, the Crown was willing to purchase the whole of the subdivision and then sell back to Houston, at cost, the area he claimed.1045
However, this task became complicated because when Houston negotiated his transaction the initial subdivisions of the Mahoenui block (Mahoenui proper, Mahoenui No. 1, 2 3 and 4) had not been surveyed or partitioned.1046 Wilkinson pointed out to Sheridan that this would make purchasing Houston’s piece much more time consuming as each of the 44 owners of the original Mahoenui proper block now had interests in more than one of the A–E subdivisions. At this point it became apparent that Houston had only secured agreement to purchase the interests of the 24 adult owners of Mahoenui proper but not the interests of the 20 minors who also had shares in the block. Part of the block was not for sale in any case because the owners had decided to retain 500 acres fronting the Te Kuiti‐Awakino road, which they planned to live on.1047 As a result Wilkinson was able to rule out the transfer of Mahoenui A and E to Houston
1043
Minute: Sheridan to the Surveyor General, 12 September 1895, on cover page of NLP 95/321 filed 1893–1900 with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1044 Minute: S Percy Smith [Surveyor General] to Sheridan, 13 September 1895, on cover page of NLP iwi,
95/321 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1045 Minute: Sheridan to Minister of Lands, 1 November 1895, on the back of the cover page of NLP and
95/321 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1046 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 18 October 1892, NLP 92/171 and Memorandum: Wilkinson to hapu Sheridan, 25 November 1895, NLP 95/321 both filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1047
The agreement between Taniora Wharau and others and Houston specifically excluded this portion, for describing it as ‘containing five hundred acres on the Awakaino River’ and shown on the plan attached to the deed as ‘Ngatohu. The plan attached the incomplete agreement in 1895 shows this area as Mahoenui E. (Agreement (in English with Maori translation) between Taniora Wharau & ors and Joseph Houston, dated 15 October 1894 and Agreement (in English with Maori translation) between Arapata te
Rangituataka & others and Joseph Houston, dated 1895, both in NLP 96/122 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, Outcomes
NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt) 6. 346
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 on the basis that the owners of A were all minors and that E was the 500 acres Maori wished to retain.1048
Houston was extremely frustrated by the Crown’s decision not to convey the 200 acres he claimed until Mahoenui A–E had been purchased.1049 In large part this delay was caused by the Crown’s slow progress in acquiring shares from individual owners and it having the court partition out subdivisions to represent the interests they purchased. As Sheridan explained to McKenzie, the Minister of Lands the Crown’s purchase deeds dealt with the whole of the Mahoenui block and there could be no certainty about what the Crown had acquired until the Crown’s interests were defined by the court.1050 After repeated letters to Mckenzie throughout 1896, and replies from McKenzie telling him that matters would have to wait until the Crown had purchased the block, 1051 Houston was reassured that his cases would ‘be fairly considered when the Government is in a position to deal with this matter; that is after the Crown has acquired a complete title on the Land Transfer Register.’ McKenzie hinted that the outcome would be favourable:
Be assured that a sense of public responsibility alone will guide me in deciding your case and that I will not put any narrow or small minded interpretation upon your actions when the time arrives for taking them into consideration. The Native Land Court will sit shortly at Otorohanga to deal with the title and until then I must request you to consider the correspondence closed. Meanwhile I would advise you not to think of abandoning your holding.1052
The court sat at Otorohanga in early July 1897 and on 7 August it awarded Mahoenui A, C and D to the Crown to represent the interests it had purchased in these subdivisions during the 1895/1896 financial year.1053 The Minister of Lands then formally notified
1048 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 28 November 1895, NLP 95/451 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57,
NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1893–1900 1049 Houston to McKenzie, Minister of Lands, 20 April 1896, NLP 96/122 and Houston to McKenzie, 25
July 1896, NLP 96/222; Crown decision: McKenzie to J Houston, 7 July 1896, NLP 96/222 all filed with iwi,
MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1050 Sheridan to Minister of Lands, 8 August 1896, on cover page of NLP 96/222 filed with MA‐MLP 1, and box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1051 Houston to McKenzie, 20 April 1896 (NLP 96/122); 25 July 1896, (NLP 96/222); 15 September 1896, hapu (NLP 96/249); 29 October 1896, (NLP 97/34); 7 November 1896, (NLP 97/34); and 15 December 1896
(NLP 97/34) all filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt for 1052 McKenzie to Houston, 22 December 1896, NLP 97/34 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1053 Houston to Sheridan, 8 July 1897, NLP 97/34 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt; ‘Return of Lands purchases and leased from natives in North Island’, AJHR 1896, G‐3, and Wilkinson to
Sheridan, 7 August 1897, on back of Bank of Australasia, New Plymouth to Sheridan, 16 July 1897, Outcomes
NLP 97/34 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 6. 347
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Houston that the Crown was in a position to provide title to the 2,000 acres Houston claimed in Mahoenui D, at cost price.1054 This required him to surrender the lease of subdivisions B, C & D in return for a freehold title of 2,000 acres at the eastern end of subdivision D ‘on which my Homestead is located.’1055 A private Act, the Joseph Houston Land‐Grant Act 1897, was duly passed to give effect to this arrangement.1056
In other cases Europeans in similar circumstances to those of Houston, and those pushing to expand the area held under lease, were not accorded the same level of assistance as Houston received. In November 1895, Fred Bluck of Waitara notified the Government that prior to the Native Land Court Act 1894 he had been in negotiation for Mahoenui 4 and 5 but delays in the Native Land Court had prevented him completing his transactions before that Act was passed. He had subsequently made an applicaton to allow him to complete his purchase under the Native Lands Act Amendment Act 1895.1057 Sheridan made inquiries with the Native Land Court in Auckland about Bluck’s transaction(s) and no record of them was found.1058 Therefore, the Minister of Lands was advised that Bluck ‘does not appear to have any valid footing’ and it ‘would be unwise to give him one.’1059 This was duly approved by the Minister of Lands and Bluck was informed accordingly.1060
But once again, the prospect of competition from European buyers prompted land purchasing officials to raise the price being offered to Maori owners in order to secure the land quickly for the Crown. On the same day Bluck was informed that nothing
1054 John McKenzie, Minister of Lands to Houston, 26 August 1897, NLP 97/34 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1055 Houston to McKenzie, 31 August 1897, NLP 97/34 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ
Wgt. Houston’s land is shown in a Plan of Portion of Mahoenui D, 2000 acres, attached to Sheridan to Mr 1893–1900 Kensington, 23 October 1897, NLP 97/34 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1056 No parliamentary debate on this Act has been located so it is unclear why a special Act was necessary iwi,
to authorise this sale 1057 Fred Bluck to B Harris MHR, Auckland, 20 November 1895 and Fred Bluck, Waitara to the Minister of and
Lands, 22 November 1895, both NLP 95/476 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt. Section 4 of the Native Lands Act Amendment Act 1895 allowed the Governor to make exceptions to the hapu general prohibition on private dealings put in place by section 117 of the Native Land Court Act 1894
where leases or purchases were already under way prior to the passage of the 1894 Act for 1058 Telegram: Jas Brown, Registrar, Native Land Court, Auckland to Sheridan, 10 January 1896, NLP 95/476 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1059 Minute: Sheridan to the Native Minister, 25 January 1896, on the cover page of NLP 95/476 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 1060 Minute by McKenzie, 25 January 1896 on the cover page of NLP 95/476 and Sheridan to Bluck, Outcomes
27 January 1896, NLP 95/476 both filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt 6. 348
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 further could be done to assist him, Sheridan wrote to Wilkinson to tell him that ‘the sooner these lands are got under negotiation the better.’1061 Wilkinson assured Sheridan that he was having blank deeds prepared as they spoke, and asked what price he should offer.1062 Sheridan approved five shillings an acre, matching that being offered for Mahoenui No. 1 & 2.1063
In another case, J W Ellis had signed a 21 years lease on 10 May 1894 with Kiore Otimi and others for 3,240 acres within the Mangaroa Block.1064 Ellis then attempted to extend the area covered by his lease by using the provisions of the Native Land Court Act 1894, which included a mechanism from existing lessees who held at least half of the interests in a block to apply to the court for a certificate validating their lease and allowing them to then gain a lease over the remaining interests within the next 12 months.1065 He pointed out that the land was ‘not occupied by the Natives as they are desirous of completing the lease and receiving the rent. The lease is acquired for bona fide settlement and improvement and I intend to commence clearing this season.’1066 Ellis’ application was rejected by Sheridan on the basis that Ellis was ‘taking advantage of the expiry of a restricting Act which every one knew would be renewed first opportunity’ and the ‘intention of Parliament was to shut out all private land speculators from the King Country.’ Sheridan had little sympathy for Ellis stating that Ellis had entered competition with the Government at his own risk.’1067
1893–1900 1061 Minute: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 27 January 1896 on the cover page of NLP 95/476 filed with
MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt iwi,
1062 Minute: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 6 February 1896 on the cover page of NLP 95/476 filed with
MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt and
1063 Minute: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 20 February 1896 on the cover page of NLP 95/476 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 57, NLP 1900/37, ANZ Wgt hapu 1064 J W Ellis to Native Minister, 3 April 1896, J 96/454 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 78, NLP 1906/86,
ANZ Wgt. Title search details with accompanying map and plans of Mangaroa are found in NLP 98/98 for filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 78, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 1065 The Native Land Court Act 1894, s.118 1066 J W Ellis to Native Minister, 3 April 1896, J 96/454 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 78, NLP 1906/86, ANZ Wgt 1067 Minute: Sheridan to Waldegrave, 15 April 1896, J 96/454 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 78, NLP 1906/86, Outcomes
ANZ Wgt 6. 349
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
6.3.6 LEASING BY 1907/1908
Data from the Stout‐Ngata Commission’s reports gives a snapshot of the extent of leasing in the Stout‐Ngata Rohe Potae area by 1907/1908. In 1907 they reported that:
The facilities provided by “The Maori Lands Administration Act, 1900, of leasing Native lands with the consent of the Council resulted in the leasing of 41,077 acres, of which 7,751 acres were covered by timber leases, and 4,830 acres by coal‐prospecting rights. This was prior to the passing of “The Maori Land Settlement Act, 1905.” Since that measure reintroduced the system of leasing by direct negotiation, subject to the approval of the Board, a large area has been leased or is under negotiation for lease amounting to about 84,000 acres.1068
By 1908, 12.5 per cent of the Stout‐Ngata Rohe Potae area was leased or under negotiations for lease. The Commissioners’ 1908 report provided figures for how much land in each block was leased or under negotiation. The overall figure given was 231, 523.98 acres (Table 20).
TABLE 20: AMOUNT AND PROPORTION OF LAND UNDER LEASE OR NEGOTIATION FOR LEASE IN STOUTNGATA ROHE POTAE AREA BY TYPE OF LEASE, 1908
County Timber leases Coal leases Name Area leased (acres) Acres % of total area leased Acres % of total area leased Waitomo 140,291.29 47,476.25 20.51% Awakino 48,094.69 Kawhia 13,226.13 5,108.50 2.21% West Taupo 29,811.87 937.00 0.40% Total area leased 231,423.98 48,413.25 20.92% 5,108.50 2.21%
Source: Data from AJHR 1908, G1o
The Stout‐Ngata Commission estimated that around 20 per cent of the area leased or under negotiation for lease was being leased for timber, and another two per cent was being leased for coal (Table 20). The coal leases were all on subdivisions of the Awaroa 1893–1900 block on the shores of Kawhia Harbour. These leases were held by the Te Awaroa Coal‐ iwi, mining Syndicate. The Commissioners noted that this land could still be leased, and occupied or sold as ‘there is nothing in the agreements to prevent the disposal of hapu
for
Outcomes 1068
‘Native Lands in the Rohe‐Potae (King Country) District: An interim report’, AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 8 6. 350
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 surface rights, subject to the prospecting and mining rights of the syndicate.’1069 The rest of the leases were for agricultural and pastoral purposes.
The commissioners noted that the figures given in the schedules for leased sections were likely to be estimates only. They found it ‘impossible to analyse the figures supplied to us so as to arrive at a true estimate of the area covered by completed leases, and of the area under negotiation.’ In their 1907 report, the commissioners had entered leases into the schedule but recorded the full area of the block or subdivision as leased. They noted that until the leases were completed ‘the area held by non‐lessors in the various blocks cannot be ascertained.’1070 This was also the case with the updated 1908 schedule (which has been used here as the definitive Stout‐Ngata data set). They noted that these figures were not particularly accurate and the total area under lease/negotiations was ‘liable to further reduction when the leases are finally completed and the interests of non‐lessors partitioned.’1071 In that case the amount of land under leases or negotiation for lease and the proportion of the Stout‐Ngata Rohe Potae area under lease were probably over‐estimated.
6.4 LAND VALUATION AND PRICE PER ACRE
During 1891 and 1892 amid growing concerns about the low price per acre being offered by the Crown for their land, hapu and iwi leaders had called on the Crown to work in partnership with them to negotiate prices that would be acceptable to both parties, or to appoint independent advisors who could provide a fair valuation. This
remained a point of grievance for hapu and iwi throughout the 1890s. The 1897 petition by Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Hikairo, Ngati Tuwharetoa and Whanganui, including prominent leaders such as Taonui Hikaka, Hone Pumipi (John Ormsby) and 1893–1900 Pepene Eketone, emphasised that the people had been ‘given no voice (are not iwi, permitted) to arrange and agree together with the Government officer upon the price to
1072 and be paid per acre for our lands when purchased.’ There was some support for a valuation process from Wilkinson who, by 1894, considered that the Crown’s success in hapu
for
1069 AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 11 1070 AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 12 1071 ‘Native Lands and Native Land Tenure: interim report of the Native land Commission on Native Land
in the Rohe‐Potae or King Country District’, AJHR 1908, G‐1o, p 2 Outcomes 1072
Petition of Pepene Eketone & others, Petition 217/1897 in LE 1, 1897/9, ANZ Wgt 6. 351
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 future land purchasing in the district would be greatly increased ‘if Govt would adopt some plan of having the price of the land it purposes to buy either fixed by valuation’ or increase the price per acre being offered.1073
It seems that the Government, and more particularly the Native Department, was prepared to value Maori land when it was to the Crown’s advantage but independent valuations for purposes of sale, which was not to the Crown's advantage, were delayed until 1905. In his Rangahaua Wahanui report on Maori and rating law, Tom Bennion cited evidence that illustrates that independent valuation was not impossible for Maori land in the 1880s and 1890s. The Native Department took responsibility for providing an independent valuation of Maori land for rating purposes as early as 1883, because local bodies were deliberately overvaluing Maori land to raise the revenue from rates in their districts.1074 Land valuation was introduced in New Zealand by the Government Valuation of Land Act 1896, which applied to all ‘land properties in the Colony.’ Presumably this included Maori land: the Act does not define ‘landed property’ further nor does it explicitly exclude Maori land.1075 It made provision for valuation districts to be declared, a Valuer General to be appointed and for valuation rolls to be created. These valuations were to be used for the purpose of assessing land tax and stamp duty and to allow owners to obtain advances and mortgages.1076
6.4.1 ATTEMPTS BY MAORI OWNERS TO UTILIZE VALUATION PROCEDURES IN THE NATIVE LAND PURCHASE AND ACQUISITION ACT 1893
The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893 offered a means by which all Maori
land being sold in a specified district would be valued and the price set by an independent panel of experts, one of whom was to be appointed by the owners of the land.1077 However, before independent valuations could begin a district had to be 1893–1900
defined and gazetted and a Native Land Purchase Board elected to enable Maori owners iwi,
in that district to sell or vest their land in the Crown to be leased on behalf of the and
hapu
1073
Memorandum: Wilkinson to the Premier and Native Minister, 13 April 1894, MA‐MLP 1, box 34, for NLP 94/126, ANZ Wgt 1074 Tom Bennion, Maori and Rating Law, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series: National Theme I, July 1997, p 20 citing Ward, A Show of Justice..., 1974, p 284 1075 The Government Valuation of Land Act 1890, long title 1076 The Government Valuation of Land Act 1890 s. 2 & s.11 respectively Outcomes 1077
The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893, s. 6(1(c)) 6. 352
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 beneficial owners.1078 It appears that no districts were ever proclaimed under this Act and so even if Boards had been formed they could not have functioned as the Act intended.1079
As already discussed, there was a large meeting of hapu and iwi with Premier Seddon and James Carroll at Te Kuiti in March 1894. At this meeting Maori raised the possibility of using the 1893 Act. Carroll recalled that it was the view of that meeting that if the Government would not allow ‘free‐trade or the right to individually deal with their land’ the community was ‘quite prepared to be allowed to work under the Act passed last session entitled the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act.’1080 Carroll’s remark that the principle of that Act was that there should be a ‘fair valuation of Native lands when purchased by the Government’ underlined the reason why Ngati Maniapoto and other hapu and iwi were seriously considering using the Act if, as it seemed likely, the Government would not lift its pre‐emptive right of purchase and restrictions on private dealings.1081 It was Carroll’s view, one he considered was shared by Seddon, that the 1893 Act ought to be brought into operation ‘where the land has not been under negotiation, where the land has not been under contract to the Government’ and Maori showed a desire for the legislation to be used. He concluded that the Government could not ‘honestly withhold’ the provisions from Maori under those circumstances.1082
No evidence has yet been found of a district‐wide attempt by hapu and iwi to have the 1893 Act put into operation. But the one attempt by a group of owners to take up the opportunity the Act seemed to provide for a fairer process for determining the price of
the land was rejected by Crown officials. In December 1893, Rawiri Te Rangikaurua and eight others wrote to Wilkinson offering to sell their interests in the Kinohaku West K block.1083 In July 1895, a further letter by owners of the Kinohaku West block was 1893–1900 addressed to the Native Minister. They had heard that three shillings and sixpence per iwi, acre was being offered for the block. They did not agree to the price and proposed that and
the price should be 10 shillings per acre based on the quality of the land and its timber
hapu
1078
The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893, ss. 3 & 4 for 1079 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 170 1080 NZPD, Vol. 86, p 381 1081 NZPD, Vol. 86, p 381 1082 NZPD, Vol. 86, pp 381‐382 1083 Letter in Maori: Rawiri Te Rangikaurua and 8 others to Hori Wirikihana [Wilkinson], Tihema 20th Outcomes
1893, NLP 94/21, filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 6. 353
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 and coal resources. Most significantly they considered their request for a higher price to be ‘in accordance with a certain section of the law which sets out that the price for land is to be settled by mutual agreement (or arbitration).’1084 This is a clear reference to the 1893 Act, but also an indication that the owners of the block did not understand the steps needed to bring the Act into operation in the district. This case is discussed in detail in the next section of this chapter.
The Kinohaku West K block, according to Wilkinson, contained over 25,000 acres and had 137 owners so the letter had come from just a small group of owners. There is no translation of the letter on file but Wilkinson noted on the back of the letter that these owners wished to sell ‘but they wish to have the price per acre fixed by valuation. That is, they are willing to take advantage of the part of the Native L.P. & Acquisition Act of last session.’1085 In Wilkinson’s opinion two things stood in the way of immediate action, the survey was still being completed and the wishes of the remaining owners were unknown. But Wilkinson certainly had not ruled out seeing the 1893 Act in operation in the district, in fact he thought that ‘a large portion not only of this but many other blocks within Rohepotae can be acquired under the Act if put in force in this district.’1086 The Native Department took the matter to the Surveyor General in January 1894 asking him to ‘consider whether we should attempt to deal with this land under the Act of 1893.’1087
The Surveyor General would not agree to the block being dealt with under the Act because he was ‘sure that Govt would have to pay a much larger price if the land is dealt with under the Act quoted.’1088 This suggests that the Crown was willing to veto or at
least heavily discourage owners from bringing the 1893 Act into operation in their districts to enable the Crown to continue buying land at a lower cost. It is telling that the Surveyor General admitted that such a valuation process would inevitable raise the 1893–1900
iwi,
1084 Letter in Maori with English Translation: Tamihana te Huirau and 47 others to the Minister for Native
Affairs, 14 July 1895, NLP 95/322 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt and
1085 Minute: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 1 January 1894, on back of letter in Maori from Rawiri Te Rangitaurua and others to Wilkinson, 20 Tihema 1893, NLP 94/21 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt hapu 1086 Minute: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 1 January 1894, on back of letter in Maori from Rawiri Te Rangitaurua
and others to Wilkinson, 20 Tihema 1893, NLP 94/21 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt for 1087 Minute: Sheridan to Surveyor General, 19 January 1894, on p 2 of letter in Maori from Rawiri Te Rangitaurua and others to Wilkinson, 20 Tihema 1893, NLP 94/21 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 1088 Minute: Percy Smith [Surveyor General] to Sheridan, 6 February 1894, on p 2 of letter in Maori from
Rawiri Te Rangitaurua and others to Wilkinson, 20 Tihema 1893, NLP 94/21 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box Outcomes
70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 6. 354
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 price of land, suggesting that the Crown knew that the prices it was paying were significantly lower than an independent expert would deem reasonable. This seems to have been the end of the matter, effectively closing an avenue that had the potential to address one of the primary grievances about the Crown’s purchasing in the inquiry district: the lack of negotiation over price and the low prices being offered to owners.
6.4.2 ATTEMPTS BY MAORI OWNERS TO NEGOTIATE OVER PRICE PER ACRE
In a number of cases owners of particular blocks made it known to officials what price per acre they would accept for their land, or objected to the price being offered by the Crown. A careful reading of this correspondence suggests that at least some Maori owners continued to expect that they would be able to bargain with the Crown over the price of their land. In part this reflected the desire and need to get the best return for their land in a situation where they knew that they were in possession of a commodity that was in demand but could only sell to the Crown. The expectation that they could engage in a negotiation over the price of particular pieces of land can also be seen as an expression of their mana over ancestral land and an assertion of their right to exercise rangatiratanga in their rohe. The examples uncovered indicate that Maori owners had decidedly mixed results in their attempts to have the price per acre raised. Crown officials were sometimes willing to raise their offer but only within a narrowly defined range of values.
For example, in July 1895 Tamihana Te Huirau and 38 others wrote to the Native Minister about their land in the Kinohaku West block. The survey of the block had been
completed and now they desired ‘that the price per acre for that Block may be arranged.’ They had heard ‘that the price per acre is to be three shillings and sixpence.’
This they consider too low and instead proposed a rate of 10 shillings per acre. They 1893–1900
based their proposed rate on a number of factors. First they argued that the Kinohaku iwi,
West block was similar in quality to the eastern portion, implying but not stating and
outright that 10 shillings per acre had been received for parts of Kinohaku East. hapu Secondly, they pointed out that the block was rich in valuable timber and coal resources, for which were marketable commodities that ought to be considered in determining the value of the land. Finally, they argued that three shillings and sixpence per acre was particularly low when owners of surrounding blocks such as Pirongia West and Hauturu Outcomes
6. 355
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
West had received five shillings and four shillings respectively, and they considered that the Kinohaku West block was of higher quality than either of these blocks. Interestingly, the owners considered that their submission of a price per acre for the Kinohaku West block was ‘in accordance with a certain section of the law which sets out that the price for land is to be settled by mutual agreement (or arbitration).’ The word used in the original letter in te reo Maori was ‘whakariterite, meaning arrange or fix. This suggests that they considered the 10 shillings per acre price they named to be a ‘counter‐offer’ in a serious bargaining process not simply a request whose fate depended on the goodwill of the Government. It is likely that this was their understanding of the provisions of the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893.1089 No response to this letter has been located.
Almost a year later in March 1896, Wilkinson submitted a list of Kinohaku West subdivisions to Sheridan and asked for instructions as to the price per acre he should offer for them. However, he had already purchased a single share in one of the blocks, (No. 11) for three shillings per acre.1090 The Surveyor General considered that it was impossible for him to offer any advice because ‘the blocks are now being cut up into such small fragments, that it is difficult without a minute knowledge to give respective
values.’1091 Wilkinson’s subsequent recommended that three shillings and sixpence should be offered for most of the block. He considered that he should offer four shillings per acre for blocks that have ‘either a frontage to Kawhia Harbour, or have some old settlements on them that make them more valuable.’1092 These prices were less than half that proposed by the owners.
In February 1899, Wilkinson reported that he was ready to begin purchasing subdivisions of the Maraetaua block having had indications that some of the owners 1893–1900 were willing to sell their interests. In preparation he had plans of each subdivision iwi, placed on purchase deeds and was ‘ready to start the purchase if you instruct me to do and
hapu 1089 Letter in Maori with English Translation: Tamihana te Huirau and 47 others to the Minister for Native
Affairs, 14 July 1895, NLP 95/322 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt for 1090 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 14 March 1896, NLP 96/81 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 1091 Minute: S Percy Smith to Sheridan, 30 March 1896, on cover page of NLP 96/81 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 1092 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 10 April 1896, NLP 96/188 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP Outcomes
1904/8, ANZ Wgt 6. 356
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 so, and will fix the prices per acre.’1093 As a guide to Sheridan, Wilkinson listed the purchase price of various adjoining blocks.1094
Only a few days later Hari Wahanui Whangonga and others wrote to Native Minister Seddon. The tone and content of the letter strongly suggests that the owners of the block saw the letter as an opening gambit in a negotiation with the Crown over the price of the block. The letter begins by summing up the current situation: the Crown had initiated the purchase of Maraetaua and the owners had earmarked Maraetaua No. 6 to pay for the cost of survey. Therefore it was the owners’ wish ‘that a price for the purchase of the said land be arranged.’ They had decided that they would accept 15 shillings per acre for the block because ‘the land lies well, there is no broken country on it. It is really rich land.’ They invited the Crown to ‘send a person to inspect’ the land to test their assessment of its value. Having placed their offer on the table they asked Seddon: ‘What is your price for it?’ The owners expected Seddon to ‘inform Mr George Wilkinson quickly, and also reply to mine, that is, to our offer.’1095
Getting a good price for the subdivision they were selling to pay survey cost was critical to the owners of the block, so they asked that in the event that the Government could not give them the price they desired that the ‘land be put into the public market, so that the surveys may be paid for and defrayed.’ The prices they put forward for the remaining subdivisions ranged from two shillings and sixpence for the Maraetaua No. 3 block which they considered was poor land up to seven shillings and sixpence for Maraetaua No. 5, which was the best of the land.1096 This nuanced offer suggests that
the owners had reasons for the price they put on their land based on the quality of the land and resources and they acknowledged the reality that poorer quality land was worth less than better subdivisions. 1893–1900
iwi,
1093 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 22 February 1899, NLP 99/27 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 60,
NLP 1900/158, ANZ Wgt and
1094 Wilkinson noted that ‘these Maraetaua sub‐divisions abut upon Karuotewhenua No 3 [six shillings], Karuotewhenua No. 1 [six shillings], Tiutiu [six shillings] and Kahuwera Blocks already under purchase hapu by the Crown’ (Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 22 February 1899, NLP 99/27 filed with MA‐MLP 1,
box 60, NLP 1900/158, ANZ Wgt) for 1095 Letter in Maori with English translation: Hari Wahanui Whanonga, Huia Ringi, Patupatu Keepa and others to the Native Minister, the Right Hon R. J. Seddon Esq, Otorohanga, 24 February 1899, NLP 99/27 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 60, NLP 1900/158, ANZ Wgt 1096 Letter in Maori with English translation: Hari Wahanui Whanonga, Huia Ringi, Patupatu Keepa and
others to the Native Minister, the Right Hon R. J. Seddon Esq, Otorohanga, 24 February 1899, NLP 99/27 Outcomes
filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 60, NLP 1900/158, ANZ Wgt 6. 357
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
There is no sign of further engagement with the owners after they put forward this initial bargaining position. The price per acre for each subdivision was settled after discussion between Wilkinson, Sheridan and the Surveyor General. The outcome was that the Crown offered less than the owners had asked for in the case of Maraetaua No. 2 and No. 5 and more than they had asked for the poorer land in No. 3 and No. 4 (Table 21). Wilkinson later told the owners that these prices were higher than what might normally have been offered because they were setting aside No. 6 to pay for survey costs. The owners were unconvinced by this argument and continued to ‘assume that, what they call, the low prices at present fixed by the Government would have been just the same if the survey lien had not been paid by the Natives.’1097 The difference between what Maori owners had asked for and what the Crown was willing to offer for these five subdivisions was £573 and three shillings (Table 21).
TABLE 21: COMPARISON OF PRICE PER ACRE REQUESTED BY MAORI AND THAT OFFERED BY THE CROWN FOR MARAETAUA SUBDIVISONS, 1899
Amount at Maori rate Amount at Crown rate Subdivision Acreage* Maori offer Crown offer (decimal Pounds) (decimal Pounds) Maraetaua No. 2 1,320 6/‐ 5/‐ 396.00 330 Maraetaua No. 3 628 2/‐ 6d 4/‐ 6d 78.50 141.3 Maraetaua No. 4 462 3/‐ 5/‐ 69.30 115.5 Maraetaua No. 5 2,710 7/‐ 6d 6/‐ 1,016.25 813 Maraetaua No. 6 826 15/‐ 5/‐ 619.50 206.5 Total at Crown rate 2,179.55 1,606.30
*Acreages taken from Berghan, Block Narrative, p 513. Price data from Wilkinson memorandum cited above
Although there were both gains and losses for the owners in this negotiation the biggest loss was the Crown’s refusal to pay more than five shillings per acre for the ‘sale block’, Maraetaua No. 6, when the owners had asked for three times that price.1098 Even Crown 1893–1900 officials acknowledged that this would leave the owners without the money they iwi, needed to pay their survey debts. Sheridan had told the Surveyor General that the price and would need to be nearly eight shillings and sixpence per acre if the owners were to hapu
for
1097 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 19 September 1899, NLP 99/27 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 60, NLP 1900/158, ANZ Wgt 1098 Prices were set out in Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 26 July 1899, NLP 99/27 filed with MA‐ Outcomes
MLP 1, box 60, NLP 1900/158, ANZ Wgt 6. 358
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 receive the £330 needed to pay the survey lien.1099 At five shillings per acre the owners would only receive £206 10s, leaving them to find just over £24.1100
The owners of the Maraetaua block continued to voice their dissatisfaction with the low price being offered for Maraetaua No. 6. By September 1899, Wilkinson had only been able to purchase the interests of three owners in No. 6 and even those had signed reluctantly. Wilkinson reported that the owners had complained that:
compared with the prices given for adjoining land, and the fact that they are giving up a Block of 826 acres to Government for nothing in order to pay survey costs over other land that they are selling to Government, they do not consider the price per acre that Government is paying for the land it is buying is sufficient.1101
In the end owners had little choice but to accept the price being offered for Maraetaua No. 6. Wilkinson insisted that those who were owners of No. 6 but also had interests in other subdivisions sign the deed of conveyance of No. 6 before he would pay them for their interests in any of the other subdivisions.1102
Where the price asked for by Maori was not much greater than that usually offered by the Crown, a request from the owners for higher prices sometimes succeeded, especially if those asking were well regarded by Crown officials and indicated that they will willing to assist in getting owners to sign over their interests. In November 1894, Lawrence Grace forwarded a letter to Sheridan from Hone Kaora (John Cowell) and Taui Wetere, which asked that the price of the Pirongia West Block be raised from three shillings and sixpence to five shillings an acre. Grace recommended that the request be viewed favourably because ‘Hone Kaora says that if price was raised to the figure they ask and that if I went over to Kawhia afterwards he would guarantee that over half of the owners would sign [a] deed straight away, and that he would assemble them together.’ 1893–1900 He added that he had heard that ‘John Cowell & Taui Wetere are leading men and have a iwi,
and
1099 Minute: Sheridan to Surveyor General, 22 April 1899, on English translation of Hari Wahanui hapu Whaonga & othrs to Seddon, 24 February 1899, NLP 99/27 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 60, NLP 1900/158,
ANZ Wgt for 1100 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 26 July 1899, NLP 99/27 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 60, NLP 1900/158, ANZ Wgt 1101 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 19 September 1899, NLP 99/27 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 60, NLP 1900/158, ANZ Wgt 1102 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 19 September 1899, NLP 99/27 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 60, Outcomes
NLP 1900/158, ANZ Wgt 6. 359
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 large influence over the owners in Pirongia: ‘I am told also Cowell is a very reliable man.’1103 Sheridan then recommended that the price be raised to five shillings as requested. Although this was a gain for the owners, five shillings per acre was still only the maximum price Wilkinson was authorized to offer. Sheridan’s willingness to sanction a modest increase in the price per acre seems to have been influenced by the pressing need to fulfill a promise made to ‘throw some lands at Kawhia open for auction as soon as possible.’ The western portion of the Pirongia West block included land on the shores of the Kawhia Harbour.1104 The increase in price was approved by the Native Minister on 28 November 1894.1105
6.5 CROWN CONTROL OF THE PRICING OF MAORI LAND
Attempts by Maori owners to utilise valuation provisions, and to engage the Crown in negotiations to obtain higher prices largely failed or at best provided limited gains in terms of price per acre obtained. The Crown remained firmly in control of the process of determining the price it would pay for Maori land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. In practice this meant that land purchase officers (sometimes with the aid of a government surveyor) were responsible for determining what price they would offer owners. An examination of how this process worked in practice is important for a number of reasons. The lack of a process for the independent valuation of Maori land, the Crown’s virtual monopoly position as buyer–which prevented competition from private parties– the greatly restricted opportunities for leasing to generate income, and the high level of control officials retained over the setting of price per acre placed the Crown in an
inordinately powerful position. As a result there was a particular obligation on the Crown to set fair and consistent prices for Maori land and otherwise exercise a high degree of protection in ensuring sufficient land was retained, and in assisting Maori to 1893–1900
achieve their social and economic objectives. An examination of how prices were set iwi, and varied in this inquiry district until the advent of District Maori Land Council (later and
hapu
for 1103 Memorandum: L M Grace to Sheridan, 24 November 1894, NLP 94/336 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 60, NLP 1900/125, ANZ Wgt 1104 Minute: Sheridan to Minister of Lands, 28 November 1894, on the back of memo from Grace to Sheridan, 24 November 1895, NLP 94/336 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 60, NLP 1900/125, ANZ Wgt 1105 Minute: Cadman, Native Minister, 28 November 1894, on the back of memo from Grace to Sheridan, Outcomes
24 November 1895, NLP 94/336 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 60, NLP 1900/125, ANZ Wgt 6. 360
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Boards) in 1900 assists in assessing the extent to which land purchasing officials discharged these responsibilities.
Typically Wilkinson identified blocks or subdivisions where there were indications that at least some of the owners were willing to sell their interests and where the title and survey were sufficiently advanced to risk purchasing. He would then seek authority to commence purchasing and ask that the price per acre be set. He often enclosed information and suggested a price. Discussion between Wilkinson, his superiors and the Survey Office, who sometimes provided an assessment of the land in question, ensued and resulted in a price being set. This process was governed by pragmatic concerns, particularly what impact an offer at that price would have on Maori willingness to sell, now and in the future. In suggesting a price per acre figure Wilkinson considered a number of factors: the quality of the land (from his own knowledge or that of a government surveyor), what had been paid for similar and/or adjacent land, whether offering more would antagonise owners in other blocks who had been paid less but still had interests that the Crown aimed to buy, and whether the price would be enough to entice a good portion of the owners to sell. Within this approach, price remained largely static throughout the 1890s and early‐1900s, with the exception of the late 1890s where the price was lifted in an attempt to secure hard‐to‐purchase blocks and subdivisions (this is discussed below in section 6.6).
6.5.1 USE OF SURVEYORS TO ASSESS THE VALUE OF THE LAND
In some, but by no means all, cases a government surveyor was employed to assess the
quality and location of the land and to make recommendations as to the price per acre that should be offered. It was reasonably common for the price estimated by the
surveyor to been adjusted downward by Crown officials. Various reasons for offering 1893–1900
even less than the surveyor considered a fair value were given. In some cases this was iwi,
to take account of the perceived costs involved in buying Maori land (Wilkinson’s and
consideration of such costs is discussed in the next section of this chapter) or to hapu compensate for the possibility that on partition of the Crown’s interests, the land for allocated to the Crown might be the poorest in the block or subdivision.
Outcomes
6. 361
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
On a number of occasions, the resulting price proved to be so low that few or none of the Maori owners would sell and Wilkinson appealed to his superiors for the price to be raised. He had mixed success in this regard, and where the Native Land Purchase Department or the Native Minister did approve an increase in the price per acre it was generally only up to the maximum he had been instructed to pay (five shillings per acre) in 1889. There were a few cases where the price exceeded this level, but this was only the case in the last few years of the 1890s. There were also instances where the Surveyor General was asked to make recommendations as to the price and he admitted that he was doing so without having seen the land or having received a report from a surveyor on the ground. This section examines cases where a survey report or advice from the Surveyor General was available to land purchasing officials and considers what impact such recommendations had on the price offered to Maori for their land.
The Crown first purchased land in the Wharepuhunga block less than a year into its purchasing programme.1106 In April 1890, the Assistant Land Purchase Officer, W H Grace alerted Wilkinson to the possibility that some of the owners of the block would be willing to sell.1107 Wilkinson had not seen the land and so was unwilling to say whether the Crown should offer three shillings and sixpence per acre, the base rate he had been instructed to earlier in 1889. Instead he suggested that a surveyor be engaged to report on the quality and value of the block. C W Hursthouse had already been instructed by the Native Minister to provide reports for the Kinohaku East and Hauturu blocks and Wilkinson proposed that the Wharepuhunga block be added to his list of blocks to inspect.1108 Hursthouse duly presented his report and recommended that given the
variable quality of the block the highest average price which the Government should give for the Wharepuhunga block, should not exceed three shillings and sixpence an acre.1109 However, Lewis considered that purchase at three shillings and sixpence an 1893–1900
acre ‘would according to Mr Hursthouse’s figures show a loss instead of a profit’ to the iwi,
Crown and recommended that from two shillings to three shillings and sixpence be the and
hapu 1106 A more detailed examination of the purchase of the Wharepuhunga block can be found in Marr, Rohe
Potae ..., 1996, pp 112‐122 for 1107 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 11 April 1890, NLP 90/84 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 1108 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 11 April 1890, NLP 90/84 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 1109 C W Hursthouse, Report on Wharepuhunga Block, 12 August 1890, NLP 90/259 filed with Outcomes
MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 6. 362
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
‘outside limit at which this purchase should be started.’1110 As a result Wilkinson began purchasing in September 1890 offering two shillings and sixpence per acre for land in the Wharepuhunga block.1111
In other cases the surveyor recommended a price range and Wilkinson began by offering a price per acre that sat somewhere in the middle of that range. For example the surveyor recommended prices between five shillings and seven shillings and sixpence per acre for the Kakepuku block and in 1892 Wilkinson began purchasing individual interests in Kakepuku 1A and 5A for six shillings per acre.1112 However, this was still considerably short of the 10 shillings per acre that Maori had hoped to receive for the block.1113
Profit equations were also prominent in decisions about how much money owners of the Kinohaku East block would be offered for their interests. By September 1893, the survey of the Kinohaku East subdivisions had been completed and Wilkinson considered that purchasing could commence.1114 He enclosed a schedule of the subdivisions with his own assessment of the quality of the land in each. He considered that they were all first class land and represented ‘some of the best land in the King Country.’1115 Sheridan then asked the Surveyor General to fix a price for each subdivision.1116 Mueller, the Chief Surveyor of the Auckland district was instructed to give a value for each subdivision stating the ‘price at which Govt could offer land if it were Crown land.’1117 As evident from the Chief Surveyor’s reply, which gave the price to buy and then a considerably higher price at which the land would be sold, the key
1110 Minute: Lewis, USND to Native Minister, 20 August 1890, on cover page of NLP 90/260 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 1111
Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 9 September 1890, NLP 90/294 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, 1893–1900 NLP 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 1112 Kawa Block Subdivisions [Surveyor’s Report], 11 March 1892, NLP 92/25 and Memorandum: iwi,
Wilkinson to Sheridan, 22 December 1892, NLP 92/213, both filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 63,
NLP 1901/78, ANZ Wgt and
1113 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 25 February 1892, NLP 92/25 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 63, NLP 1901/78, ANZ Wgt hapu 1114 Wilkinson to Sheridan, 20 September 1893, on back of memo from Sheridan to Wilkinson, 20 July
1893, NLP 93/172 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt for 1115 Wilkinson to Sheridan, 20 September 1893, on back of memo from Sheridan to Wilkinson, 20 July 1893, NLP 93/172 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 1116 Sheridan to the Surveyor General, 25 September 1893, on back of memo from Sheridan to Wilkinson, 20 July 1893, NLP 93/172 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 1117 Telegram: Surveyor General to Chief Surveyor, Auckland, 27 September 1893, NLP 93/172 filed with Outcomes
MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 6. 363
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 consideration was the maintenance of the Crown’s profit margin. These prices were fixed without an inspection of the land itself, Mueller stating that he would have liked ‘to have gone over blocks upon ground if there had been time.’ As a result he considered that the values he had decided ‘must be taken as give and take [i.e. were estimates only].’1118 The Surveyor General then adjusted the price to be offered downward by around two shillings or two shillings and sixpence per acre for almost all the subdivisions, his price is shown in the column labeled ‘Price in red’ in Table 22. Wilkinson was then instructed to begin purchasing, offering these lowered prices.1119
TABLE 22: SURVEYOR GENERAL’S PRICES OF KINOHAKU EAST SUBDIVISIONS, 1893
No. Name Value to buy by C.S To sell Acres [Price in red] 1 Te Uira 10/‐ 20/‐ 607 7/‐ 1 Ototoika 10/‐ 25/‐ 1,347 8/‐ 1B Hapenui 7/‐ 6d 30/‐ 5,812 10/‐ 2 Pokirangi 7/‐ 6d 20/‐ 2,110 7/‐ 2 Pakeho 7/‐ 6d 15/‐ 29,250 5/‐ 3 Arapae 7/‐ 6d 20/‐ 5,411 7/‐ 2B Rototapu 10/‐ 20/‐ 90 7/‐ 3A Tokitoki 5/‐ 12/‐ 644 3/‐ 3B Te Ureure 10/‐ 20/‐ 252 7/‐ 4 Mairoa 7/‐ 6d 20/‐ 6,300 7/‐ 5 Te Ngarara 7/‐ 6d 15/‐ 562 5/‐ 10 Patiki 7/‐ 6d 15/‐ 425 5/‐ Kaingapipi 7/‐ 6d 15/‐ 2,720 5/‐
Source: Schedule attached to Surveyor General to Sheridan, 2 October 1893, NLP 93/188 filed with
MAMLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt (original of this schedule is included as Appendix 3 in this report)
It appears that the Surveyor General tried to ensure that surveyors provide estimates of 1893–1900 the price the land would be acquired for if it had been Crown land. In 1895, the iwi, government surveyor Lawrence Cussen supplied an assessment of the subdivisions of and the Ohariri block and recommended that Wilkinson offer seven shillings and sixpence hapu
for
1118 Telegram: J [or F] Mueller (Chief Surveyor Auckland) to Surveyor General, 29 September 1893, NLP 93/188, filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 1119 Minutes: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 2 October 1893, on cover page of NLP 93/170 filed with MA‐MLP 1, Outcomes
box 62, NLP 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 6. 364
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 per acre for Orahiri 2B and for Ohariri 2C.1120 The Surveyor General was unhappy with this advice and emphasised to the Chief Surveyor that what he wanted was the price Government would sell the land for if they were Crown land and not Cussen’s ‘idea of what Government can afford to give.’1121 The Chief Surveyor duly estimated that the
Government could rely upon obtaining 20 shillings an acre throughout. As a result Sheridan authorised Wilkinson to offer seven shillings per acre for the Orahiri blocks (six pence per acre lower than Cussen originally recommended).1122
Wilkinson frequently complained that he was unable to make much progress in purchasing the land because Maori owners considered the price too low. Refusing to sell was the only leverage Maori owners could really exercise in the absence of an alternative buyer for their land. Although this put pressure on land purchasing officials to raise the price offered to get a sale this pressure was often strongly resisted by the Surveyor General. In May 1895, Wilkinson informed Sheridan that he would be able to purchase interests in Kinohaku East No. 10 if the price was raised from five shillings to seven shillings per acre. He noted that there was a precedent for this: the price for Kinohaku East No. 3A had already been increased from the recommended three shillings to five shillings per acre.1123 However, on this occasion the Surveyor General indicated that he was unwilling to alter the price.1124
A similar situation occurred with Kinohaku East No. 2 (Pakeho). Wilkinson had begun by offering to buy shares at five shillings per acre (the authorized maximum price) but found that only one owner was willing to sell at that price and the owners complained
that the price was too small. Wilkinson, comparing the price paid for other subdivisions in the block (seven shillings per acre for 2A, 2B, 3 and 3B), considered that the price for Kinohaku East No. 2 should be increased.1125 It is unclear whether his request was 1893–1900
iwi,
1120 L Cussen to Chief Surveyor, Auckland, 6 November 1895, MA‐MLP 1, 1896/140, Berghan Block and
Narratives Document Bank, Wai 898, #A60(a), Vol. 22, pp 276‐277 1121 Surveyor General to Chief Surveyor, Auckland, 18 November 1895, MA‐MLP 1, 1896/140, Berghan hapu Block Narratives Document Bank, Wai 898, #A60(a), Vol. 22, p 275 1122
Chief Surveyor, Auckland to Surveyor General, 3 December 1895, MA‐MLP 1, 1896/140, Berghan for Block Narratives Document Bank, Wai 898, #A60(a), Vol. 22, p 274 1123 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 13 May 1895, NLP 95/248 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 1124 Minute by Sheridan dated 5 June 1895 on cover page of NLP 95/248 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70,
NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt Outcomes 1125
Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 10 August 1895, NLP 95/277 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, 6. 365
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 approved. But in November 1898 the Crown attempted to buy the residue of Kinohaku East No. 2 and Wilkinson again suggested seven shillings per acre be offered.1126 This suggestion for a price increase was rejected by the Surveyor General despite the government surveyor later reporting to Wilkinson that at least some of the land was, in his assessment worth seven shillings per acre.1127
The time constraints of this commission did not permit a further investigation of how much Rohe Potae land finally fetched when it was sold, how much of that revenue was used by the Crown to cover the costs of placing that land on the market and what proportion of the profit was used on railway, road and other public works projects in the district. However, as has been discussed in chapters 1 and 2 of this report, railway loan application legislation throughout the 1880s and the first half of the1890s specified that all proceeds from the sale of land purchased with railway loan funding be tied to railway construction. As Table 9 in Chapter 2 showed all money received by the Crown under the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1899 between 1899 and 1913 (a sum of £269,423) was expended on public works. These are national figures and do not indicate what proportion of this revenue came from and was expended in the Rohe Potae inquiry district.
6.5.2 DETERMINING PRICE PER ACRE WITHOUT A SURVEYOR’S REPORT
On many occasions Wilkinson suggested a price per acre without the benefit of a surveyor’s report. The way that Wilkinson weighed up various factors in coming to a suggested price per acre can be seen in a number of cases. For example, purchasing
began in the Turoto block in early 1891. Wilkinson considered that it ought to be purchased because it was ‘nearly all open fern land and suitable for occupation’ and
surrounded by other blocks that were also being purchased. He asked Lewis what price 1893–1900
he should offer.1128 In recommending three shillings and sixpence as ‘a fair relative iwi,
and
hapu NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 1126
Wilkinson to Sheridan, 30 November 1898, NLP 98/198 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, for ANZ Wgt 1127 Minute: S Percy Smith to Sheridan, 28 December 1898 and Minute: L Cussen to Wilkinson, 1 February 1899, both on the back of the cover page of NLP 98/198 filed with in MA‐MLP 1, box 70, NLP 1904/8, ANZ Wgt 1128 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 15 January 1891, NLP 91/10 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 29, Outcomes
NLP 97/66, ANZ Wgt 6. 366
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 price’ Lewis worked on the understanding that the neighbouring Waiwhakaata block was the most valuable land but also wanted to know how many interests Wilkinson was likely to acquire at once. If a small increase in the price per acre would result in ‘substantial progress in purchases’ then the Native Minister was willing to give his consent to a modest price rise.1129
Wilkinson replied that six owners had offered to sell in the preceding months and another 10 could probably be persuaded to offer their interests.1130 But there were a number of obstacles to be overcome if the Crown was to acquire any sizable portion of the block. There were 130 owners, a few of whom resided on the land and would not sell, and others had signed a lease. In light of these circumstances Wilkinson recommended that they begin purchasing at four shillings per acre. This was duly authorized by the Native Minister.1131 In 1897, Wilkinson proposed that the Crown purchase further subdivisions in the Turoto block and asked whether he should offer four shillings per acre as he did in 1891.1132 A small increase was authorized and Wilkinson was instructed to offer five shillings per acre.1133
A similar decision‐making process can be seen in Wilkinson’s purchase of the Mangarapa No. 1 block in 1895. It was adjacent to the Mangarapa No. 4 block which had been purchased at three shillings and sixpence per acre.1134 Wilkinson was informed that he could offer four shillings per acre for the No. 1 block.1135 However, Wilkinson noted that the price being offered for Mangarapa No. 4 had just been increased to six shillings per acre and wished to increase the price for No. 1 to match on the basis that
they adjoined each other and were, in his opinion, of equal value.1136 In this case
1129
Telegram: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 27 February 1891, NLP 91/304 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 43, 1893–1900 NLP 97/66, ANZ Wgt 1130 Telegram: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 27 February 1891, NLP 91/304 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 43, iwi,
NLP 97/66, ANZ Wgt 1131 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 22 September 1891 and Telegram: Lewis to Wilkinson, 28 and
September 1891, both NLP 91/304 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 43, NLP 97/66, ANZ Wgt 1132 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 24 March 1897, MA‐MLP 1, box 43, NLP 97/66, ANZ Wgt hapu 1133 Minute: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 3 May 1897, on cover page of MA‐MLP 1, box 43, NLP 97/66,
ANZ Wgt for 1134 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 3 June 1895, NLP 95/252 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/80, ANZ Wgt 1135 Telegram: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 13 June 1895, NLP 95/252 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/80, ANZ Wgt 1136 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 27 June 1895, NLP 95/252 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP Outcomes
1901/80, ANZ Wgt 6. 367
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Wilkinson then paid six shillings per acre for a share he had been offered in Mangarapa No. 1 and Sheridan agreed that he could proceed on that basis since the block was small and a payment at that rate had now been made.1137 In June 1895 Sheridan instructed Wilkinson to offer five shillings per acre for Orahiri No. 7 (he was awaiting advice from the Survey Office for the other subdivisions).1138 Wilkinson considered this too low in comparison with blocks of similar quality, such as Pukeroa Hangatiki for which seven shillings per acre had been authorized. In any case, Wilkinson informed Sheridan bluntly, the reality was that none of the owners would sell at five shillings per acre.1139 These cases suggest that the land purchase officer’s objective was to offer as low a price as would result in substantial sales rather than being driven by ‘valuation.’ The fact that this lowest possible price was set in an environment of sustained monopoly was unfair.
It is true that there was some recognition amongst Crown officials of the need for greater consistency in the price offered for subdivisions within the same block, especially where interests were being purchased across an extended timeframe, and for consistency of price between blocks of similar quality. For Wilkinson, who raised these issues, it was in the interests of the Crown to form a more consistent policy with regard to the comparative price of land in the district in order to avoid aggravating Maori land owners and to ensure that they continued to offer their interests to the Crown. In August 1894, Wilkinson voiced concerns that there was a ‘considerable incongruity’ between the prices being paid for various blocks in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. He suggested that prices be rationalised by increasing or decreasing them as seemed necessary. Wilkinson considered that it was a mistake to pay higher prices in order to secure a sale because it resulted in protests from the owners of other blocks who had been paid less for land which was equally good. He argued that it was better to offer higher prices for short periods of time as an incentive for those who were reluctant to 1893–1900 sell to part with their interests.1140 iwi,
and
hapu 1137 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 4 July 1895 and two telegrams from Sheridan to Wilkinson on 4 July
1895, all NLP 95/252 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/80, ANZ Wgt for 1138 Telegram: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 19 June 1895, MA‐MLP 1, box 41, letters filed with NLP 96/140, ANZ Wgt 1139 Minute on Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 26 June 1895, MA‐MLP 1, box 41, letters filed with NLP 96/140, ANZ Wgt 1140 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 96 citing Wilkinson to Sheridan, 4 August 1894, MA‐MLP 1, box 44, Outcomes
NLP 94/241 attached to NLP 97/145 6. 368
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Wilkinson did indeed attempt to smooth out inconsistencies in price across blocks, but this was motivated as much by his analysis of the costs and benefits to the Crown as it was by concerns about fairness amongst different groups of Maori owners. In September 1894, Wilkinson presented an audit of the Crown’s purchasing to date in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. His schedule showed that 34 blocks were under purchase, with authority having been granted to begin purchasing in a further 29. He suggested that the price per acre be altered for 10 of the blocks in which purchasing had already commenced and 13 of the blocks where negotiations were about to get underway. He admitted that it was ‘no easy matter to attempt to fix a fair acreage value’ given that the blocks had ‘different areas situated in different localities and representing soil of different kinds and qualities, to say nothing of the question of the nature of the title where some others have a very large number of owners.’1141
It seems that there was a view amongst Crown officials that the difference in price offered for European land and Maori land was both inevitable and justifiable. Wilkinson certainly considered that both Sheridan and the Surveyor General were aware that ‘the value of blocks of Native land to buy has to be arrived at in a different way from that in which land owned by Europeans is arrived at.’ Wilkinson argued that Europeans could be paid the full market value for their land because little expense was incurred by the Crown in gathering signatures (usually only one) for a deed. Maori on the other hand would receive a lower price because of the expense (and other complications) caused by the large number of owners in each block. This seemed to Wilkinson to be an immutable fact, at least until such time as the law was changed to allow sales of Maori land to the
Crown to ‘take place without every owner being required to sign the deed.’1142 In essence, Maori were to be penalized for the form of title made available to them by the Crown through the Native Land Court. Marr concluded that although Maori title was 1893–1900
legally recognized it ‘was used as a basis for lowering values for purchasing. Supposed iwi,
and
hapu
for
1141 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 7 September 1894, NLP 94/241 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 44, NLP 97/145, ANZ Wgt 1142 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 7 September 1894, NLP 94/241 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 44, Outcomes
NLP 97/145, ANZ Wgt 6. 369
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 legal protections such as the requirement to obtain signatures to a purchase deed, were also used to lower values.’1143
Wilkinson also argued that whether or not the owners had paid off the survey lien on the block ought to be considered in making these adjustments to the price per acre. So in the case of Hauturu East B and Hauturu East No. 1E Wilkinson noted that their respective survey liens had ‘been completely [or] . . . nearly all paid by the Natives’ but each subdivision had a large number of owners which increased the cost of the purchase and the time it would take to secure the land. Wilkinson considered this ‘practically does away with the advantage of the fact of the survey lien over them having already been paid by the owners.’ Reasoning along these lines, Wilkinson decided to reduce the price of Hauturu East C to six shillings and sixpence per acre ‘because it not only has a considerable number of owners but its survey lien is unpaid.’ So not only did the owners bear the costs of survey, they were further penalized by having the price per acre offered to them reduced in cases where they could not afford to pay the survey lien. Yet at the same time, the long‐running prohibition on private leasing considerably reduced the benefit to be had from having titles investigated and the land surveyed and subdivided. Particularly since part of the cost of partition was regularly borne by ‘non‐ sellers’ in proportion to the size of their remaining interests.
On occasion, later in the 1890s, the Crown was willing to raise the price it offered for certain blocks. But once again this was primarily driven by the desire to overcome resistance to selling rather than any discernible concern for protecting Maori interests.
In 1896, Wilkinson reported that the he had had little success in purchasing land in the Kaingapipi block. Three years before the Crown had offered the owners five shillings per acre but no one had been willing to sell at that price. Wilkinson considered the block 1893–1900 was ‘a very good one’ and worth more than five shillings per acre. He suggested that if iwi, the price were to be raised some shares could be purchased.1144 Sheridan then
1145 and
authorized him to offer seven shillings per acre. Yet, Wilkinson also acknowledged that Maori resistance to selling remained strong and this tactic was not always hapu
successful. In 1897, he argued that ‘if the Surveyor General is under the impression that for
1143 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 97 1144 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 3 September 1896, MA‐MLP 1, box 42, NLP 96/248, ANZ Wgt Outcomes 1145
Memorandum: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 30 September 1896, MA‐MLP 1, box 42, NLP 96/248, ANZ Wgt 6. 370
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 a small increase in price will make those owners sell who have so far refused to do so, he is mistaken.’ In his view, Maori continued to resist selling land until they needed money and then they ‘will sell, regardless of price.’ Wilkinson feared that the only effect that increasing the price had was to show how keen the Crown was to purchase land, and this he felt was ‘detrimental to land purchase.’1146
6.5.3 RAISING PRICE PER ACRE BY NOT PROVIDING 10 PER CENT ‘SELLER’ RESERVES
There are indications in some cases the Crown offered a slightly higher price per acre to sellers in exchange for waiving the offer of having 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserves created, and in other instances Maori volunteered to forego such reserves in order to secure a better return for their interests, particularly in subdivisions being sold to provide money to pay off survey liens. In part this may account for how few 10 per cent reserves were created in the blocks and subdivisions in which the Crown purchased land. In February 1891, while preparing to purchase land in the Turoto block, Wilkinson floated the idea of the Crown compensating itself for increasing the price per acre by sixpence by not setting aside 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserves.1147 Wilkinson argued that this would be acceptable because ‘it is only those who are now living on the block who are likely to want reserves & as in all probability they will not sell[,] their shares could be cut out.’ This suggests that a high proportion, if not all, those selling interests in the block at that time were absentee owners, who would have little use for a reserve within the block.1148
It is possible that news of the Crown’s willingness to pay more if ‘seller’ reserves were dispensed with spread amongst hapu and iwi in the district and was seen by some
owners as a way of increasing their return (albeit with the permanent loss of a reserve). In December 1892, two owners of Mangarapa No. 3 block approached Wilkinson asking
that they be paid four shillings per acre for their interests, which was sixpence above 1893–1900
the standard base rate of three shillings and sixpence. They knew that they could gain iwi,
sixpence per acre by saying that they did not want reserves.1149 In this case the and
hapu
1146
Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 17 July 1897, MA‐MLP 1, box 44, NLP 97/145, ANZ Wgt for 1147 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 27 February 1891, NLP 91/304 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 43, NLP 97/66, ANZ Wgt 1148 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 22 September 1891, NLP 91/304 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 43, NLP 97/66, ANZ Wgt 1149 Telegram: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 5 December 1892, NLP 92/205 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, Outcomes
NLP 1901/80, ANZ Wgt 6. 371
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Surveyor General insisted that the land be purchased at three shillings and sixpence but also took the owners at their word and no ‘seller’ reserves were made.1150 So not only did the owners miss out on the 6d per acre increase they were also deprived of seller reserves that might normally have been made when this base price was being offered.
6.6 THE PERSISTENCE OF LOW PRICES
Increases to the price per acre after the intervention of Maori owners, surveyors or the land purchase officer himself did little to change the overall pattern of low prices for land in the Rohe Potae inquiry district. The range of prices per acre consistently paid by the Crown for land within the inquiry district remained relatively static until around 1897 when the maximum price paid rose from five or six shillings per acre to eight or ten shillings as the Crown attempted to purchase blocks where there had been particularly strong Maori resistance to selling, or where they desired to finish off the acquisition of blocks in which the Crown already owned a significant area of land. The minimum price being offered by the Crown for land in the district fluctuated between one shilling and sixpence to four shillings and do not show a clear pattern of increase in the late 1890s and early 1900s (Table 23).
TABLE 23: PRICE PER ACRE (RANGE), 1892–1901
Mean Price paid per Period Area acquired Price per acre Cost (£) acre (decimal Pounds) To December, 1892 17,213 2/6 to 6/‐ 2,238 0.13 To August, 1894 146,512 2/6 to 5/‐ 34,664 0.24
To May, 1895 50,722 3/6 to 6/‐ 13,117 0.26 To July, 1896 4,419 3/‐ to 5/‐ 616 0.14 To September, 1897 11,218 3/9 to 7/6 3,068 0.27 To June, 1898 278,250 3/‐ to 10/‐ 55,600 0.20 To June, 1899 67,139 2/6 to 8/‐ 11,358 0.17 1893–1900 To July, 1900 6,110 4/‐ to 8/‐ 1,483 0.24
To April, 1901 77,430 1/6 to 8/‐ 17,014 0.22 iwi,
Total 659,013 139,158 and
Source: AJHR 1907, G1B, p 4 hapu
for
1150 Telegram: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 5 December 1892 and Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, Outcomes
10 December 1892, both NLP 92/205 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/80, ANZ Wgt 6. 372
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
However, across this whole period the Stout‐Ngata Commission calculated that the average price paid to the owners in the Rohe Potae district they were working within was four shillings per acre.1151 This was low even by the standards of the period when the average price paid for Maori land in the North Island has been calculated at six shillings and four pence an acre.1152 In 1907, Stout and Ngata concluded that the price had been below value and the purchases had been ‘the best possible bargain for the State.’ They acknowledge that the Government had been acting to further ‘the interests of general settlement’ but in doing so had ‘rated too low the rights of the Maori owners and its responsibility in safeguarding their interests.’1153 These rates are in great contrast to the average price of 84 shillings per acre the Liberals paid in the breakup of large European‐held estates, under the lands for settlement scheme during the 1890s. This was a sizable difference in price even taking into account the Crown was buying land that had already been surveyed, sown in pasture and fenced.1154
The system of setting price per acre that had prevailed throughout the 1890s was in place until 1905. Under the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905 the minimum price for lands purchased from Maori was to be the capital value assessed under the Government Valuation of Land Act 1896.1155 As a result of this legislation prices paid for Maori land rose substantially between 1906 and 1910. Loveridge has calculated that the price per acre paid by the Crown in this period increase by 50 per cent over pre‐1900 averages and concluded that the pegging of minimum price to valuations was largely responsible for these rises.1156 In Stout‐Ngata’s Rohe Potae area the Crown purchased 65,446 acres between 1906 and 20 May 1907 for a total payment of £32,301, which equates to an
average of 9.9 shillings per acre. This was more than double the average price (four shillings per acre) paid prior to 1905.1157 This increase serves to underline that prior to 1905 the Crown had been purchasing Maori land at substantially less than the capital 1893–1900 valuation, to say nothing of its market value. iwi,
and
1151 ‘Native Lands in the Rohe‐Potae (King Country) District: An interim report’, AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 4 hapu 1152 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 97 citing Brooking, ‘“Busting Up” The Greatest Estate of All...’, NZJH,
Vol. 26, No. 1, April 1992, p 78 for 1153 AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 4 1154 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1987, pp 97‐98 citing Brooking, ‘“Busting Up” The Greatest Estate of All...’, NZJH, Vol. 26, No. 1, April 1992, p 78 1155 Hearn, 2008, p 321 citing the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905, s. 25 1156 Loveridge, ‘The Development of Crown Policy ...’, 2004, p 192 Outcomes 1157
Hearn, 2008, p 321 citing AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 4 6. 373
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The price per acre being paid to Maori owners for their land in the Rohe Potae inquiry district before 1909 was also considerably less than that being offered by European buyers, and this was a cause of considerable resentment amongst hapu and iwi. During debate on the pre‐emptive clauses of the Native Land Court Bill in 1894 the Member of the House for Northern Maori, Hone Heke, quoted the 1891 Land Laws Commission report with regard to the disparity between the prices offered by the Crown and those offered by Europeans hoping to purchase Maori land. The report (as quoted by Heke) found ‘that where the Government interposed with its pre‐emptive right, as was the case in the King‐country, the Natives could not obtain a fair price for their lands.’ The Crown offered three shillings per acre, but ‘at the same time, private purchasers were in constant communication with the owners, and willing to pay then £1 an acre.’1158 Later in the same debate Heke calculated the amount owners would receive from a block of 500 acres were it to be purchased by the Crown at six shillings per acre and compared this with the same land being purchased by a private buyer at thirty shillings per acre. Taking into account all the expenses involved in each case he concluded that the Crown purchase would yield three hundred and forty four pounds and fifteen shillings less for the owners.1159
6.7 CONCLUSION
Throughout the remainder of the 1890s hapu and iwi leaders in the Rohe Potae continually asked the Crown to remove the prohibition on leasing. In particular, an 1897 petition to Parliament signed by Pepene Eketone and 163 others demonstrated
the degree of hardship and bitterness felt by hapu and iwi throughout the Rohe Potae as a result of these restrictions and the Crown’s intensive purchasing of their land under pre‐emption. This was a united and widespread protest; the petition was submitted on 1893–1900
behalf of the tribes and hapu of Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Hikairo, Raukawa, Ngati iwi,
Tuwharetoa and Whanganui. They asked that the restrictions on private leasing and and
selling be removed from all land that had been dealt with by the court. The petitioners hapu also reminded the House that Maori had often been told that there was one law for both for races, yet Europeans were not subject to these same restrictions. Although the Native
1158 NZPD, Vol. 86, 1894, p 383 Outcomes 1159
NZPD, Vol. 86, 1894, pp 593‐594 6. 374
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Affairs Committee considered this request ‘fair and reasonable’ and referred the petition to the Government for its consideration the restrictions were not lifted. This degree of opposition to the ban on private leases and sale suggests that these restrictions were very real for Maori owners in the inquiry district and were felt as strong constraints on their ability to enter such arrangements with Europeans.
Between 1892 and 1897, the year of this petition, the rate of land purchasing had rapidly accelerated and hapu and iwi leaders from across the district had no doubt that the continuation of the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase and prohibition on private dealing had been the decisive factor in this land loss. Throughout the 1880s hapu and iwi had feared the impact of European speculators and had sought the Crown’s protection from them. However, by the end of the 1890s there was a growing sense of bitterness that the Crown had kept these restrictions in place, as the petition stated, not to preserve and prevent their land from being purchased by speculators but instead to enable the Crown to do what they wished with their land. They stated in this petition that in their experience government land purchases had been as destructive as those of private companies, if not worse. It was ironic that the Crown who they had enlisted and trusted to act as a protector had, in the process of putting those protections in place, become the sole purchaser; one over whom Maori had little control.
For some limited periods of time Maori and Europeans in some parts of the inquiry district could legally enter leases and private sales. In particular, the railway restriction area did not cover the whole of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block between 30 August 1891
and 22 October 1894. As a result a number of leases and private purchases took place during this four year period in the inland Mokau area. These transactions were subject to investigation by the Trust Commissioner under the Native land fraud prevention 1893–1900 legislation. Aside from this gap in the restrictions leasing and private selling remained iwi, illegal until the introduction on District Maori Councils after 1900. and In regard to the other parts of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, evidence suggests that hapu there was a degree of illegal leasing going on during the 1880s and 1890s. There is not for enough evidence to draw firm conclusions about the extent to which Crown officials policed the ban on leasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and whether this deterred Maori or Europeans from entering agreements with one another. However, such leases Outcomes
6. 375
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 and partnership arrangements with individual Europeans could be seen as a continuation and evolution of the practice of incorporating strangers with useful skills into Maori communities, which had been underway since at least the 1820s. In the second half of the 1880s the Kawhia Native Committee, established under the Native Committees Act 1883, played a role in mediating disputes between hapu and Europeans with businesses on Maori land. In particular, they issued and enforced regulations, including the payment of rents. It is unclear whether this role continued after Crown purchasing began in 1889.
Because of the blanket legal ban on private leasing, and the exclusion of the railway restriction zone from the jurisdiction of the Trust Commissioners, there are no systematic records of the extent, location or duration of leases in the inquiry district during the 1890s. Leases and less formal partnerships between Maori land owners and Europeans are recorded in Government correspondence where they came to the attention of officials because of disputes between the parties or where the lease was hindering Crown purchasing. From what can be known from these sources it appears that leasing was limited in scale, scattered and based principally on extracting natural resources such and timber, flax, coal and limestone or on running sheep over more extensive areas of Maori land. Although this did provide some income for owners in particular locations it could not provide enough revenue in many cases to pay debts, such as survey costs, or allow Maori to develop their other land.
Some Maori in the district benefitted from partnerships with Europeans in sheep
farming in the 1890s and took up farming in their own right. However, the Stout‐Ngata commission of 1907‐1909 concluded that the restriction on leasing had largely prevented Maori in the Rohe Potae from contact with European pastoral farming 1893–1900 methods. Therefore, there had not been a significant skills transfer to Maori land iwi, owners, and as a consequence the amount of land Maori were using for sheep farming and was comparatively small by the early twentieth century. Likewise the owners of some blocks were able to reach agreements with European sawmiller for cutting of timber on hapu their land and this may have prevented or slowed the sale of some blocks within the for district during the 1890s. But by the early 1900s the timber industry was contracting in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and moving south as virgin bush was cut over and the Outcomes
railway’s construction advanced towards Taumarunui. By the time the Stout‐Ngata 6. 376
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Commission investigated land use in the Rohe Potae in 1907/1908 timber leasing was confined to the Rangitoto Tuhua block and to pockets of land in the Otorohanga and Te Kuiti districts. In addition, it is likely that the opportunity for large‐scale pastoral farming or timber leases were reduced as the total amount of land in Maori ownership decreased and blocks were interspersed with Crown‐owned subdivisions.
Private purchasing after 1865 was extremely limited, with just 1.1 per cent of the original area of the inquiry district alienated in this way by the end of 1908. The majority of this was from blocks in the inland Mokau area. The extent of leasing and private purchases in this area marks it out from the remainder of the inquiry district. In blocks where there were some private sales, the median proportion of the block alienated in this way was significantly higher for blocks in the inland Mokau area, 13.9 per cent compared with just 0.98 per cent elsewhere in the inquiry district. In the Mangapapa, Mangaawakino and Puketiti blocks all the alienation which occurred by the end of 1908 was the result of private sales, making these blocks unique in the inquiry district. Leases were sometimes used by European settlers in the inland Mokau area as a stepping‐stone to purchasing. This tactic may be perceived as purchasing by stealth, but it may also have given Maori owners and Europeans an opportunity to trial a working relationship between them which could be terminated if it proved unsatisfactory.
Three factors contributed to this increase in the extent of leasing and private selling in the inland Mokau region. First, as mentioned already, the inland Mokau blocks lay outside the railway restriction area, with its prohibition on private leasing and selling,
for about three years from the end of August 1891 until mid October 1894. The dates on which leases and private sales in the inland Mokau blocks were entered into correspond almost exactly to this four year window. This indicates that Maori and Europeans took 1893–1900 advantage of the absence of those restrictions to develop and formalize leases, some of iwi, which may pre‐date this period. The second factor contributing to this expansion of and leasing and private sales in this area was the progressive opening up of the Mokau area to trade, coal mining and European settlement from the mid‐1870s onwards, while hapu areas to the north remained more firmly under the aukati until the mid‐1880s. At least for some of the key hapu and iwi leaders in the Mokau area, such as Hone Wetere Te Rerenga, were willing to allow a controlled opening of the district to trade and new Outcomes
economic ventures and this probably made at least some land owners receptive to 6. 377
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 entering leases and sales with Europeans. Paul Thomas’ report on the Mokau area for this inquiry provides a more detailed analysis of land transactions in this region from the 1850s onwards. Leases for coal mining in these blocks are discussed by Philip Cleaver in his report on the exploitation and extraction of natural resources in the inquiry district. Finally, from the limited information available it seems to have been relatively easy for European lessees to have their transactions approved by the Trust Commissioners under fraud prevention legislation. The minutes of only a few of these cases have been located, but those that have been found suggest that the commissioner’s investigation was not particularly thorough. Europeans entering these transactions were sometimes warned by land purchasing officials that they were in danger of breaching fraud prevention legislation but no further action seems to have resulted. Prosecutions under the fraud prevention legislation seem to have been rare, so much so that in 1894 the Government’s Auditor of Land Revenue described the legislation as ‘practically a dead letter.’ All of these factors seem to have contributed to a favourable climate for leasing and private selling in the Mokau area in the first half of the 1890s.
The other significant issue that hapu and iwi leaders in the Rohe Potae had asked the Crown to address was the way that the price they would be offered for their land was fixed. There was widespread dissatisfaction amongst Maori owners about the three shillings and sixpence to five shilling per acre price range decided on by land purchasing officials. During the December 1891 meeting with Native Minister Cadman Ngati Maniapoto had asked that prices be fixed by mutual arrangement and Cadman himself, in talking about the proposal in an interview at that time, referred to the possibility of prices being set through arbitration. Despite this request the Crown remained firmly in control of how the value of land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block was assessed and price 1893–1900 per acre was fixed, and no provision was made for Maori owners to have input into iwi, pricing. In the 1897 petition from Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Hikairo, Raukawa, Ngati and
Tuwharetoa and Whanganui, the people complained that they were not permitted to hapu come to an agreement with land purchasing officials over the price they would be paid for for their land.
Outcomes
6. 378
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
This is not to say that owners gave up trying to obtain a better price when selling to the Crown. Some owners tried to invoke the provisions of the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893 which contained a mechanism for independent valuation of Maori land prior to a sale to the Crown. As described in Chapter 5, hapu and iwi in the district were almost immediately aware of this legislation and eager to utilise it to obtain higher prices for their land. However, before that mechanism could operate a district had to be declared and a Native Land Purchase Board elected through which Maori would sell their land to the Crown or vest it in the Crown to be leased on their behalf.
The process to be followed under the 1893 Act was not clearly understood by Maori owners in the district, who in negotiations with the Crown over the sale of certain interests simply requested that an independent valuation be done under the Act. On other occasions owners understood the Act to be a means by which they could negotiate the price with the Crown until they came to a mutual agreement. In one instance, that of the Kinohaku West K block, there was a formal approach by owners to Wilkinson for the sale to be dealt with under the 1893 Act. He was not opposed to that but the idea was ruled out by the Surveyor General on the grounds that an independent valuation would almost certainly lead to the Crown having to offer a higher price. This indicates that he knew that the price being paid by the Crown for land in the district was lower than an independent expert would deem acceptable. The Surveyor General’s decision effectively blocked any chance that owners had to utilise the valuation provisions in the 1893 Act.
The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893 seems never to have been used, and
was rapidly overtaken by the Native Land Court Act 1894 which re‐established Crown pre‐emption across the North Island. The mechanism for independent valuation of Maori land was not inherently unworkable. The Native Department did have the 1893–1900 capacity to order such valuations. As early as 1883 they were commissioning iwi, independent valuations of Maori land for rating purposes in order to stop local bodies and overvaluing Maori land to increase the rates they charged. hapu
It was not uncommon for owners to put forward the price that they would accept for for their land, often accompanied by reasons why they considered their price to be fair including their assessment of it quality, particularly in comparison with neighbouring blocks. These were often regarded as ‘opening bids’ and owners expected the Crown to Outcomes
6. 379
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 then make an offer in return until, by negotiation, a price was agreed. This reflects both a desire to get the best price for their asset, especially where a portion was being sold to pay for survey costs, and the inherent position of the owners who, as tangata whenua, expected to exercise their rangatiratanga in dealing with their ancestral land. The success of this kind of bargaining was mixed. In general the Crown was not willing to move beyond five shillings per acre, but in the late 1890s seven or eight shillings per acre was sometimes offered to complete a purchase or tempt owners who were particularly resistant to selling.
The Crown remained firmly in control how much it was willing to pay for Maori land in the inquiry district in the 1890s. The Crown had established and held the position of sole purchaser in much of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, from before the beginning of its purchasing programme in 1889, and had prevented competition from private buyers, significantly restricted the opportunity for Maori lease their land and generate income, and had vetoed any attempts by Maori to utilize the independent valuation provisions of the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893. This placed the Crown in a peculiarly powerful position, which particularly required it to protect Maori interests in the Rohe Potae inquiry district and to set fair and consistent prices for Maori land.
On the Crown’s side it was most often Wilkinson who would propose a price for land that was being offered to the Crown by owners. In naming a figure he did take into account the quality of the land and whether the price would be fair in relation to what had been paid for blocks of similar quality. However, his decisions about price were also
political. In particular, he took account of what effect the price would have on the willingness of Maori to sell in the future and whether offering more would anger owners in other blocks who had been paid less. On some, but not all, occasions a 1893–1900 negotiation between Wilkinson, his superiors and the Survey Office would follow iwi, sometimes involving a surveyor’s report and assessment of the price the Crown should and offer Maori. However, this did not generally result in a higher price being offered. If higher prices were recommended by surveyors these were often adjusted down to hapu within the narrow range which had been decided in 1889 and 1890, and seldom for exceeded the three shillings and sixpence/five shillings per acre range which Wilkinson had been instructed to abide by. Outcomes
6. 380
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In some cases the Crown was willing to raise the price offered by sixpence per acre for a block if the sellers agreed to forego the ten per cent ‘seller’ reserves. Wilkinson first proposed this idea as early as February 1891 when he began buying interests in the Turoto block. His reasoning was that those who would sell were absentee owners who lived elsewhere and had no use for the reserves but would find the extra money attractive. Soon those offering their interests in other blocks began to voluntarily give up the right to reserves in order to receive a higher price.
Crown officials, including the Surveyor General, considered that the wide difference between what would be paid for European land and Maori land was both inevitable and justified. They cited the cost of buying interests from individual owners. Wilkinson considered that this cost would remain until such time as a transfer would be affected without the signature of all the owners. This was not something Maori had any control over when they brought their land through the Native Land Court, yet it resulted in them being penalized for holding land under that title system when they did sell their interests to the Crown. In setting the price he would offer to owners Wilkinson also took into account whether the survey liens on the block had been paid, if they had not then he would lower the price he was willing to offer. So some owners suffered a double penalty – the costs of survey and reduced returns when they did sell.
The price per acre paid to Maori for their land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block remained relatively static until 1897 when the maximum paid rose above five shillings per acre. However, the average price received between 1889 and 1907 in the district was just
four shillings per acres. This was considerably lower than the average elsewhere in the North Island for the same period, which Brooking calculated as six shillings and four pence. So even by the standards of the time hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) 1893–1900 block received a poor return for their land. Stout and Ngata acknowledge that the iwi, Crown had the right to purchase land in order to advance European settlement in the and district but considered that in doing so they had not given sufficient weight to the rights of Maori owners and its own duty to protect their interests in the process. They hapu described the purchase of land in the Rohe Potae as ‘the best possible bargain for the for
State.’ The Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase and the accompanying prohibition of private dealings between Maori and Europeans should have been removed in line with Outcomes
6. 381
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the wishes of hapu and iwi, or at least a balance struck between the interests of the colony and those of the owners of the land.
Because these measures remained in place over much of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block more or less continually from 1884 until 1900 the Crown had a duty to ensure that it paid individual owners a fair price for their interests. The evidence suggests that the Crown failed to live up to this responsibility.
1893–1900
iwi,
and
hapu
for
Outcomes
6. 382
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
7. PATTERNS OF LAND ALIENATION IN THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1893–1908
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The period from 1893 until 1900, and to a lesser extend on until 1908, was the most significant period for land alienation in the inquiry district. During that period, the Crown purchasing programme became increasingly widespread and intensive. It was this which gave impetus to the ongoing attempts by hapu and iwi to win concessions from the Crown regarding the right to lease and to sell their land directly to Europeans and to have input into the setting of the price for land they did sell to the Crown. This chapter explores the rate, extent and location of that purchasing and considers the reasons why specific blocks of land were heavily alienated while other remained largely in Maori hands by the beginning of 1909. This has been done by using land alienation
statistics, because, unlike the first few years of the Crown’s purchasing operation, the official correspondence after 1893 contains little discussion about policy and practice and engagement with hapu and iwi over land purchasing, but a great deal of detail about 1893–1908
the mechanics of particular purchases. It seems that once purchasing was running smoothly, such conversations ceased and the focus was on the day‐to‐day work of district,
purchasing interests from individual owners. inquiry Tutahanga Douglas, Craig Innes and James Mitchell have produced a comprehensive report which presents land alienation statistics for the Rohe Potae inquiry district from Potae
1840 to 2010 and offers some discussion of the trends in that data. This chapter works Rohe with the raw data from that project, and from the annual returns of land purchased and the leased published in AJHR for the period from 1889 to 1908. Rather than duplicate the in
work of Douglas, Innes and Mitchell the data and discussion presented here offers a more detailed exploration of geographical patterns of land loss in the inquiry district
and places those patterns in the context of the Crown’s evolving land purchasing alienation
legislation and practice as it emerged in this inquiry district. land
of The first part of this chapter begins by charting the way that the Crown’s purchasing spread across the blocks of the inquiry district as the decade progressed and evaluates Patterns
how much this deviated from the Crown’s initial emphasis on purchasing high quality 7. 383
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 land close to the Main Trunk Railway line. This is followed by an examination of the rate of land alienation in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ and Rangitoto Tuhua blocks, measured by the proportion of each block alienated year by year. In particular, this section identifies areas of the inquiry district where the proportion of land alienated from Maori ownership by 1908 was notably higher or lower than elsewhere in the district and explores reasons for these patterns. Finally, this section considers what can be said about the amount of land that was alienated to pay for survey liens and the extent to which reserves set aside for ‘sellers’ were subsequently alienated.
The chapter ends with a discussion which attempts to answer a critical question: Why did the Crown have considerably more success in purchasing Maori land in the inquiry district after 1892 and 1893, when it had had such limited success in the first three years of its purchasing programme? This will involve examining changes in a number of factors, particularly Crown land purchasing policy after 1892, the level of Maori resistance to selling, Maori income and need for money, leadership of hapu and iwi, and the Crown’s progress in having relative interests defined by the court, appeals heard and surveys completed. 1893–1908
7.2 THE SEQUENCE AND PROGRESSION OF CROWN PURCHASING district,
We have already seen that by December 1889, on Wilkinson’s advice, a list of nine blocks was initially chosen as a starting point for the Crown’s purchasing (a tenth, inquiry
Otorohanga, was soon added to this list). These all met a number of important criteria: Potae
land quality, proximity to the railway line, freedom from appeals to the court and reasonably complete title determination and survey. They were all located in the Rohe
Otorohanga/Kakepuku area, or contained the Waitomo caves, which the Crown had the
in
become aware of during that year and became determined to acquire. We know that these blocks were the focus of the Crown’s purchasing activity before 1893 but how did the Crown’s purchasing proceed from that point on and does any of the statistical data alienation tell us how this spread across the inquiry district between 1889 and 1908? land
The Stout‐Ngata commission gave a general description of the pattern of land of
purchasing which had emerged by 1907and 1908 in the Rohe Potae. They noted that there were marked differences between the western and eastern sides of the district. Patterns
7. 384
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
They found that ‘the blocks to the west of the railway‐line have been minutely subdivided according to the Native ownership, and in consequence of Crown purchases.’ In fact the commissioners remarked on the unusually thorough and rapid subdivision of that area. They stated that they were:
not aware of any Native district, which until 1888 was closed to the law‐courts, where the Native Land Court has been so active and where subdivision has proceeded so far as in this portion of the Rohe‐Potae.1160
In contrast, they noted that the subdivision (and alienation) of the land to the east of the railway line ‘consisting chiefly of the huge Rangitoto and Rangitoto Tuhua Blocks, has been more tardy, owing, we are informed, to delays in surveys.’ Stout and Ngata concluded that these delays had been largely responsible for the relative lack of land purchasing in the eastern area, preventing ‘the Crown purchasing prior to 1900, after which date the Crown was practically debarred from undertaking any new purchases until “The Maori Land Settlement Act, 1905” was passed.’1161
7.2.1 PHASES IN THE SEQUENCE OF CROWN PURCHASING
A more detailed picture of the way that the Crown’s land purchasing operation spread 1893–1908
across the inquiry district has been gained by using the partial and complete transactions data from the AJHR returns of land purchased and leased.1162 This has district,
enabled us to reconstruct the sequence of Crown engagement, showing year by year which blocks the Crown made payments in for the first time (Figures 16 to 20). inquiry
However, it should be remembered that at the same time as land purchase officers were Potae breaking into new blocks they continued to purchase interests in blocks where payments had been made previously. Rohe
the The AJHR data suggests that there were six phases in the spread of Crown purchasing in in
the inquiry district between 1889 and 1908. The first phase was a brief period of initial frustration between late‐1889 and the end of 1890 where the Crown purchasing a very
limited number of interests in the nine blocks it had earmarked for purchasing. The alienation
exception to this pattern was the early purchasing of interests in the Wharepuhunga land
of
1160 ‘Native Lands in the Rohe‐Potae (King Country) District: An interim report, AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 2 1161 AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 3 1162 AJHR returns do not contain land alienation data for the inquiry district for 1889. This has been Patterns
drawn for the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae Land Alienation data. 7. 385
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 block on the eastern boundary of the inquiry district. The second phase from early 1891 to mid‐1893 took the land purchasing in a previously unplanned direction. Purchasing continued and expanded in the Kakepuku/Otorohanga area but the Crown also moved into a number of blocks in the far south western part of the inquiry district, in response to offers of land for sale by Wahanui and others (Figure 16).
This was followed by a third phase from late‐1893 until mid‐1895 characterised by a rapid expansion in the number of new blocks being entered into. Crown engagement across the northern part of the ‘Rohe Potae area’ continued to expand, particularly westward into the Pirongia West and Kawhia blocks. At the same time there was a push into the large Kinohaku East and Hauturu West blocks and down into blocks located on the western side of the railway line along the centre of the district. During this period the Crown also began to purchase interests in other blocks along the eastern boundary, such as the Maraeroa block (Figure 17). The fourth phase from mid‐1895 to late‐1896 consolidated and completed the expansion of Crown purchasing into portions of western blocks such as Kinohaku East and West, Hauturu East and Mokau Mohakatino. A few blocks through the centre of the district were also under negotiation for the first 1893–1908 time (Pukeuha, Kahuwera and Pukeroa Hangatiki). The Crown continued to consolidate its hold on the eastern boundary by entering into negotiations for the Ketemaringi and district, Hurakia blocks (Figure 18).
By phase 5, between late‐1896 and mid‐1899, the number of new blocks being entered inquiry into had slowed dramatically because negotiations for land in almost all the blocks on Potae the western side of the district was already underway. First payments were made on only a handful of blocks in the centre, west, north and south of the ‘Rohe Potae area’ in Rohe this period (Figure 19). the
in
The sixth and final phase of the spread of the Crown’s purchasing in the inquiry district before 1909 happened between late 1899 and the end of 1908. This involved an expansion into the eastern side of the district. During this later period the Crown made alienation payments for interests in many of the subdivisions of the Rangitoto Tuhua block and land
further north into the Rangitoto A, Tokonui and Korakonui blocks. It also made first of payments for land in the Taumatatotara block on the western side of the district (Figure 20). Patterns
7. 386
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 16: MAPS SHOWING THE BLOCKS ENTERED INTO FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE CROWN DURING PHASE 1: 1889/1890 AND PHASE 2: EARLY/MID1892 TO MID1893
387
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 17: MAPS SHOWING THE BLOCKS ENTERED INTO FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE CROWN DURING PHASE 3: LATE 1893 TO MID1895
388
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 18: MAP SHOWING THE BLOCKS ENTERED INTO FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE CROWN DURING PHASE 4: LATE 1895 TO MID1896
389
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 19: MAPS SHOWING THE BLOCKS ENTERED INTO FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE CROWN DURING PHASE 5: LATE 1896 TO MID1899
390
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 20: MAP SHOWING THE BLOCKS ENTERED INTO FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE CROWN DURING PHASE 6: LATE 1899 TO MID1908
391
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
7.2.2 CHANGES TO THE PLANNED DIRECTION OF PURCHASING
The most surprising aspect of this pattern of engagement by the Crown is the early and extensive purchasing in a number of blocks of land in the south‐west and southern area of the inquiry district between 1890 and 1892. As we have seen in previous chapters, all the strategic planning and early focus of the Crown had been on acquiring land in the north of the district, particularly good agricultural land close to the railway which was progressively being built through the Pokuru, Kakepuku, Ouruwhero and Puketarata blocks down to what are now the towns of Otorohanga and Te Kuiti. Negotiations for land in these southern blocks was taking place at the same time as negotiations between hapu and iwi leaders and the Native Minister Alfred Cadman over purchasing, which have been dealt with in Chapter 5. In those negotiations with Cadman Ngati Maniapoto had expressed a willingness to sell selected blocks to the Crown in a planned and coordinated way in exchange for the freedom to lease the remainder of their territory to
Europeans. This context raises two questions. Firstly, to what extent can offers by Wahanui, Taonui and other to sell land in the south be considered as a practical, good faith demonstration that those more far‐reaching terms of agreement being negotiated 1893–1908 with Cadman would be honoured? Secondly, why was the Crown willing to accept these offers when it had not previously shown much interest in land in the south of the district, district?
From the beginning of the Crown’s purchasing programme in 1889 officials reported inquiry that Wahanui had been contemplating setting aside some blocks of land for the Crown Potae to purchase. In August 1889, W G Mair, the judge presiding over the Native Land Court’s hearings in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, privately stated that he thought Maori would Rohe sell land to the Crown and that ‘Wahanui talks of even giving alternate Blocks’ but at the
in that time the court had not yet dealt with ‘his country (Upper Mokau).’1163 In the same year, J W Ellis provided comment to the Native Minister about what land within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block should or could be purchased. He reported that ‘Wahanui has alienation
land
of
1163 W G Mair to Gilbert [Mair], Otorohanga, 9 August 1889, Mair Family Papers, Series 2: Outwards Correspondence of William Gilbert Mair, MS‐Papers‐0093‐10, 11, & 18, ATL, Wgt
Patterns
7. 392
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 always of late expressed his intention to sell parts of his [land].’1164 However, these statements must be set side by side with Wahanui’s consistent and overriding concern that hapu and iwi retain control of the use and disposal of their land. The proposal reportedly developed by Wahanui and the people of Ngati Maniapoto prior to their meeting with Cadman in December 1891 also suggests that Wahanui’s vision was for a sharing of the territory with European settlers who would acquire land from the Crown or directly from Maori owners under a mixed tenure of leasehold and freehold, while hapu and iwi retained a significant portion of their land and control of this settlement process.
In December 1890, shortly after the Taorua block had been subdivided into the Pukeuha, Taorua (proper), Waikaukau, Mangakahikatea, Mangaroa and Waiaraia blocks by the court, Wahanui began negotiations with the Crown to sell the whole of the Waiaraia block (12,360 acres). With the Taurangi, Umukaimata and Ratatomokia blocks
they formed a contiguous area of land between the Mokau Mohakatino and Mohakatino Parininihi blocks to the west dealt with by the court in 1882 and the Rangitoto Tuhua block to the east (Figure 21). Problems with inaccurate surveys of the boundary with 1893–1908 Mohakatino Parininihi and the boundaries between the Waiaraia, Taurangi and Umukaimata blocks have been a source of ongoing grievance for owners of these blocks district, and their decendants.1165 This is a complex issue that requires further research.
Before the block went through the court, the Whanganui leader Paiaka Te Paponga Te inquiry
Pikikotuku informed the Government that after Umukaimata and Ohura (the Taorua Potae parent block) had been put through the Native Land Court they would offer them for sale ‘so as to obtain support for ourselves.’1166 With others he wrote again to Lewis, (the Rohe
the
in
alienation
land
of
1164 J W Ellis to Native Minister Mitchelson, 26 September 1889, NLP 89/326 (with 89/327) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 1165 See Statement of Claim for Wai 483 & Wai 556
1166 Patterns
Letter in Maori with English translation: Paiaka Te Paponga Te Pikikotuku to the Government,
14 August 1890, NLP 90/263 (with 90/286) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 7. 393
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 21: MAP SHOWING THE TAORUA PARENT BLOCKS AND THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES OF THE BLOCKS WITHIN IT
394
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Under Secretary of the Native Land Purchase Department), to emphasise that the decision to sell was based on consensus by all those who had rights to the land: ‘the direct descendants of the ancestors who were the original owners of these blocks.’ This included Whanganui as well as Ngati Maniapoto. As Te Paiaka explained, Taonui and others had been consulted as well as ‘the entire tribe of Ngati Maniapoto touching Umukaimata and Ohura.’1167
The decision to sell some land in the Taorua parent block was made, in large part, because the owners needed money to support themselves. The cover page to Te Paiaka’s letter to Lewis in the file states that the letter was ‘asking [for] support during delay at N.L. Court.’ Te Paiaka stated that their offer was made so ‘that support in their favour should be obtained.’ He also asked Lewis for ‘some support, as we are in difficulty on account of this land, and no one knows when these cases will end.’1168 That letter was written from Otorohanga where the court was sitting and the subject description given to the letter in the file makes it clear that they were asking for support during delay at the Native Land Court.1169 It is unclear what the Crown’s response to this offer and request for assistance was. 1893–1908
A few months later, after the court had subdivided the Taorua parent block and determined ownership of each block, Wahanui began negotiation to sell the Waiaraia district,
block to the Crown. On 12 December 1890, Wilkinson contacted Lewis to advise him that negotiations for the purchase of Waiaraia had been opened with Wahanui. A week inquiry
later Wilkinson wrote to Lewis again, with news that Wahanui was willing to sell: Potae
I am now desirous of getting [Wahanui] to carry out his promise. He seems
inclined to do so in fact the seven owners of Waiaraia already offered for sale Rohe
were specially selected to facilitate transfer … The owners & numbers of minors the in each block are limited so that there will not be much difficulty in completing in purchase if natives will sell some of them which I believe they will do.1170
alienation
1167 Letter in Maori with English translation: Te Paponga and five others to T W Lewis, 15 September land 1890, NLP 90/336 (with 90/358) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt of 1168 Letter in Maori with English translation: Te Paponga and five others to T W Lewis, 15 September 1890, NLP 90/336 (with 90/358) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 1169 Cover page of letter in Maori with English translation: Te Paponga and five others to T W Lewis, 15 September 1890, NLP 90/336 (with 90/358) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt
1170 Patterns
Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 19 December 1890, NLP 91/30 (with 91/31) in MA 13/78,
ANZ Wgt 7. 395
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
This is a tactic of placing few owners’ names on blocks to be rapidly sold has been noted by other researchers and is explored in greater detail in the discussion at the end of this chapter on land loss due to survey costs.1171 Wilkinson took some credit for this idea, later stating that Wahanui and others were ‘acting under my suggestion’ in arranging the ownership list in this way. He was also of the opinion that they were selling the Waiaraia block ‘as an example to others who it is said are holding aloof from selling because Wahanui himself has not sold any land.’ It appears that Wilkinson saw Wahanui’s offer of Waiaraia as a fulfillment of the promise made by Paiaka Te Paponga Te Pikikotuku of Whanganui in August 1890 to sell land in the Taorua and Ohura area.1172
From the Crown’s perspective Wahanui’s offer of the 12,360 acre Waiaraia block had the potential to be a significant breakthrough in its purchasing programme. Up until that date they had managed to complete the purchase of just three subdivisions of the
Hauturu East 1A block and of Kahakaharoa A (total of 310.5 acres). A small number of interests had also been purchased in Hauturu East No. 3, Te Kopua (Pirongia), Mangauika, Maungarangi, Ouruwhero, Puketarata, Takotokoraha, Turoto, Waiwhakaata 1893–1908 and Wharepuhunga blocks, all in the north and east of the district.1173
One of the arguments in favour of taking up Wahanui’s offer, and similar offers by other district,
leading men in the south and west of the inquiry district was that it would set a precedent and encourage many other owners to sell, breaking the strong resistance to inquiry
selling faced by the Crown in the first two years of the land purchasing programme. This Potae is what had been argued by the assistant land purchase officer W H Grace earlier in 1890 when he proposed that the Crown should begin purchasing the Mohakatino Rohe
Parininihi block in the extreme south western corner of the inquiry district. the
in
alienation
land
of
1171 See Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, pp 102‐103 1172 Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 31 December 1890, NLP 91/30 (with 91/21) and Letter in Maori with English translation: Paiaka Te Paponga Te Pikikotuku, Whanganui to Native Minister Patterns
Mitchelson, 14 August 1890, NLP 90/263 (with 90/286), both in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt
1173 ‘Return of Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island’, AJHR 1892, G‐4 7. 396
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Yet the difficulty Wilkinson had in persuading his superiors that the Crown ought to take advantage of Wahanui’s offer to sell Waiaraia demonstrates how firmly focused officials had been on purchasing land in the north of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. His biggest stumbling block was where the money for the purchase would come from. At this point the Crown had asserted its pre‐emptive right of purchase over the whole of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block under the Native Land Court Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888 but the use of the railway loan money for land purchasing was confined to the Hauturu block, the northern blocks and to Tokanui and Wharepuhunga; all areas Wilkinson had already purchased some interests in. When it was discovered that the Waiaraia block lay outside the1888 target area for funding Lewis suggested that Parliament amend the schedule of the 1888 Act to allow the purchase of Waiaraia with railway loan money because Wilkinson was not making any progress elsewhere in the district:
Altho there is a very large area that has passed the Court within the boundaries of the schedule and Mr. Wilkinson has been supplied with the necessary deeds & money he has been unable to make any progress worth speaking of in acquiring land for settlement.1174 1893–1908
The Native Minister refused to take that step and advised that ‘no land should be purchased outside the railway restriction zone unless it is fit for immediate district, settlement.’1175
Wilkinson considered that this was a mistake and expressed his regret that the inquiry
opportunity to purchase could not be taken advantage of and remarked that not going Potae ahead with the purchase would send mixed messages to hapu and iwi about the
Government’s desire to purchase land and would have a negative effect on Government‐ Rohe
the
Maori relations. Wilkinson then asked if there was any other source from which money in could be obtained to make purchases. 1176 Lewis replied that there was no likelihood of alienation
land
of 1174 Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 26 January 1891, NLP 91/31 (with 91/61) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 1175 E Mitchelson [Native Minister] to Lewis, USND, 29 December 1890, NLP 91/30 (with 91/31) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt
1176 Patterns
Telegram: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 31 December 1890, NLP 91/30 (with 91/31) in MA 13/78,
ANZ Wgt 7. 397
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 money being provided to purchase land outside the railway restriction zone but that he would put Wilkinson’s telegram before the Native Minister.1177
Just a few months before, Grace had proposed that the Crown begin purchasing in the Mohakatino Parininihi block, adjacent to the Waiaraia block.1178 Grace, like Wilkinson in the Wairaia case, was of the opinion that purchasing the block would be a foot in the door for the Crown and induce others to sell land in the district. It seems Grace was happy to stir up or at least capitalize on competition and jealousy between rangatira and their people. He noted that the owners of the block were ‘only the leading men.’ If they were to sell their land, he was of the opinion that this:
will be the very thing that will cause the people to become dissatisfied and make them sell other blocks. For they will say “why should these principal men sell land and we sit still?”’1179
He was convinced that this was just the start as he considered that ‘nearly all those
interested and resident’ inland from Te Kuiti northwards and the majority of the people at Mokau would sell. If they did so, he felt that this would ‘break the ice and I am sure lead to the selling of those blocks which the Govt are more desirous of acquiring.’1180 1893–1908
However, the Mohakatino Parininihi block lay not just outside the 1888 area which defined where railway loan money could be used for purchasing. It also lay outside the district,
boundaries of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. Rather than attempt to secure the funds to purchase it Lewis decided, rather cynically, that withholding the opportunity to sell that inquiry
land would put pressure on the owners to sell their land within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) Potae block, which was a far more desirable outcome for the Crown. Lewis knew that some of the owners were ‘anxious to sell it because they want money to buy sheep and for other Rohe
purposes and they would like to get it without breaking into, or selling land within [the] the
in Rohepotae if possible.’1181 But he considered it:
alienation
1177 Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 31 December 1890, NLP 91/30 (with 91/31) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 1178 Copy of Memo from W H Grace to Wilkinson , n/d, attached to Wilkinson to Lewis, 10 March 1890, land NLP 90/51 (with 90/60) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt of 1179 Copy of Memo from W H Grace to Wilkinson , n/d, attached to Wilkinson to Lewis, 10 March 1890, NLP 90/51 (with 90/60) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 1180 Copy of Memo from W H Grace to Wilkinson , n/d, attached to Wilkinson to Lewis, 10 March 1890, NLP 90/51 (with 90/60) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt
1181 Patterns
Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 10 March 1890, NLP 90/51 (with 90/60) in MA 13/78,
ANZ Wgt 7. 398
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
a mistake to supply their wants by purchasing their interests in a valueless block outside [the] Rohepotae, when by not doing so, but by waiting patiently they will most likely, before long be willing to dispose of their interests in the blocks we are purchasing, more especially if they find that they cannot get their desire for money satisfied by other means, which they will not be able to do unless they sell their interest in Mohakatino‐Parininihi No. 1 to private purchasers.1182
In February 1891, there was still uncertainty about whether the Waiaraia purchase would go ahead. Cadman informed Wahanui that they could not buy the land offered because it was outside the railway restriction zone, but he was still committed to seeing if there were any other funds available and hoped to be able to talk about the offer again.1183 But at the same time, Lewis hoped that the land would be deemed ‘fit for immediate settlement’, which, as the Native Minister had stated, would qualify it for purchase. Lewis asked the Surveyor General, S Percy Smith, to give an indication of the value of the block and whether it was desirable to purchase for immediate settlement. Smith was only vaguely aware of its location, but realising that it was ‘near Mokau’ he was of the opinion that it was worth three shillings and sixpence and more and he considered that the land could be settled in a short time. In addition, he believed that the whole block would be worth acquiring because of the ‘coal through the greater part 1893–1908 of it and much of it is suitable for settlement.’1184 On 11 February 1891, the Native Minister approved the purchase by ‘exhausting the vote under Part I.’ 1185 This seems to district, mean that the money for the Waiaraia purchase was taken from the £20,285 allocated to land purchasing under s.3(1) of the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan inquiry Application Act Amendment Act 1889. However, because the block lay outside the railway restriction zone land purchasing officials were required to repay the sum Potae
expended on purchasing the Waiaraia block back to the Public Works Fund. In April Rohe 1891, after ensuring that no applications for rehearing had been received, Wilkinson the was instructed to proceed with purchasing in the Waiaraia and Taorua parent block at in
two shillings and sixpence per acre. This was a full shilling per acre lower that the Crown’s base rate at this time.
alienation
1182 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 10 March 1890, NLP 90/51 (with 90/60 in MA 13/78, land ANZ Wgt of 1183 Draft of Letter from Native Minister Cadman to Wahanui, 4 February 1891, NLP 91/30 (with 91/31) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 1184 Minute: S Percy Smith to the Under Secretary Land Purchase, 9 February 1891, on cover page of NLP 91/30 in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt
1185 Patterns
Minutes: Lewis, USND to the Native Minister, 4 February and 11 February 1891, on front and back of
cover page of NLP 91/30 (with 91/31) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 7. 399
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Once an agreement was reached, the Crown began to put pressure on Wahanui and his people to sell other land in the southern blocks. The absence of boundary surveys for the seven blocks in the southern area resulted in confusion about the location and extent of the land Wahanui was offering to sell. There was disappointment amongst Crown officials when it was found that the Waiaraia block was smaller than first thought, and this led to pressure on the people to sell further land. From the start, Lewis warned Wilkinson about purchasing Waiaraia before conducting a survey, as he had talked to Mr Kensington who believed that 10,000 acres was an overestimate of the Waiaraia block, which might only turn out to be less than 5,000 acres on survey:
The Mokau Paranihihnihi [sic] boundary is much closer than Mr Keast’s tracing [surveyor] would make it appear. Mr Kensington considers it would not be safe to purchase an estimated area of this block without sending out a surveyor to ascertain distances between Parininihi boundary & Taorua.1186
Therefore, quite early on, the Government was aware of the likelihood that the Waiaraia
block constituted less than 10,000 acres. Wahanui’s telegram of 31 January stated: ‘I have myself cut off portions of Taorua and Waiaraia Blocks for sale to the Government.’1187 Wilkinson seems to have understood the land offered to contain 1893–1908
10,000 acres in total, which included Waiaraia and another section of the Taorua parent block. In April 1891, Wilkinson met with Wahanui and Whaaro and explained to them district, that the Government wanted to purchase all the subdivisions of Taorua on the tracing, as well as Waiaraia, at two shillings and sixpence per acre. Wilkinson told them that the inquiry Government wanted to purchase the whole area to save the expense of surveying the
1188
dividing lines. Potae
This was definitely not what Wahanui had intended when he made the offer. Wilkinson Rohe
the
reported that Wahanui and Whaaro ‘seemed rather astonished at the proposal and in stated that they could not guarantee the sale of all the subdivisions, because if they were all sold some of the owners would not have any land to live upon.’1189 Wahanui offered alienation
land 1186 Telegram: Lewis, USND to Wilkinson, 10 April 1891, NLP 91/61 (with 91/65) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt of 1187 Telegram in Maori (with English translation): Wahanui Huatare to the Native Minister, 31 January 1891, NLP 91/30 (with 91/31) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 1188 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, ‘Re proposed purchase of Taorua sub divisions and Waiaria block’, 10 April 1891, NLP 91/61 (with 91/65) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt
1189 Patterns
Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, ‘Re proposed purchase of Taorua sub divisions and Waiaria
block’, 10 April 1891, NLP 91/61 (with 91/65) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 7. 400
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Taurangi (15,000 acres) for sale but except Wairaia and Taurangi they did not wish to sell any more land from the Whanganui side.1190 After a long discussion with the chiefs Wilkinson concluded that ‘it will not be possible to get them to part with all the land at the present time.1191
Wilkinson’s account of his meeting with Wahanui and Whaaro makes it clear that he put considerable pressure on the chiefs to sell more land. He pointed out to Wahanui and Whaaro the peculiar shape of Taurangi and Waiaraia and the cost of surveying. Wilkinson threatened that if the Government found out that these were the only two blocks they could purchase, it might change its mind because of the ‘unsatisfactory shape and cost of survey.’1192 Wahanui and Whaaro decided to take the tracing home and discuss the matter between themselves and others. Wilkinson also pressed the chiefs:
to sell the whole of the Ratatomokia block, which, if they will agree to do, and if
the whole Mangaroa block can be purchased, will then make one large compact block (including Taurangi) down to the Ohura river. They seem, however, at present, very much disinclined to part with the whole of the Ratatomokia block.1193 1893–1908
It appears that the threat of having their offer rejected by the Crown and the subsequent lack of money to pay for survey and other costs meant that the chiefs and their district, communities reluctantly decided to add a portion of the Ratatomokia block to the blocks offered.1194 inquiry
In a separate, almost parallel negotiation from August 1891 onwards, the Crown made Potae considerable progress in purchasing the Umukaimata block. The sale was once again Rohe
initiated by Paiaka Te Paponga Te Pikikotuku who applied to the registrar of the Native the Land Court, Auckland, for partition of the Matai section of Umukaimata, which he in
1190 It seems as though the Taorua parent block encompassed land from both sides of the
Whanganui/Mokau iwi boundary. Whanganui side was Taurangi, Mangakahikatea, Ratatomokia, alienation
Mangaroa and Waiaraia, and the Mokau side was Taorua, Waikaukau and Pukeuha – northern blocks 1191 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, ‘Re proposed purchase of Taorua sub divisions and Waiaria land block’, 10 April 1891, NLP 91/61 (with 91/65) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt of 1192 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, ‘Re proposed purchase of Taorua sub divisions and Waiaria block’, 10 April 1891, NLP 91/61 (with 91/65) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 1193 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, ‘Re proposed purchase of Taorua sub divisions and Waiaria block’, 10 April 1891, NLP 91/61 (with 91/65) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt
1194 Patterns
Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, ‘Re proposed purchase of Taorua sub divisions and Waiaria
block’, 10 April 1891, NLP 91/61 (with 91/65) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 7. 401
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 wanted to sell, and provided a list of names.1195 It appears that this land was largely owned by Whanganui people, as he informed Lewis that ‘he had the agreement from Topia and others to sell the Umukaimata, Tokaroa as far as Matai.’1196 ‘Topia’ was Topia Peehi Turoa, a chief of Ngati Patu‐tokotoko hapu of Te Ati Haunui‐a‐Paparangi of the upper Wanganui River.1197 However, the Crown could not purchase the land until the title had been ascertained by the Native Land Court.1198
A year later, after Umukaimata was partitioned in the court, Taonui Hikaka of Ngati Maniapoto stepped in and wrote to the Native Minister on 15 August 1892 offering to sell Umukaimata Nos. 4 and 4A (totaling 16,000 acres) at the rate of five shillings per acre.1199 As had been the case with Waiaraia, hapu and iwi deliberately placed only a few people on the owners’ list for these subdivisions, just six owners for the 11,000 acre Umukaimata No. 4 block and four owners for Umukaimata No. 4A (5,000 acres).1200 On 20 August 1892, Sheridan asked Wilkinson to report on the land and then in October
instructed him to begin purchasing at half a crown (two shillings and sixpence) per acre.1201 This was half of what Taonui had proposed but was also the price offered by the Crown for Wahanui’s land. 1893–1908
Again Taonui was heavily involved in negotiations with Cadman over land purchasing and the possibility of selling certain blocks in exchange for control over the rest of their district,
territory (see Chapter 5). Yet the sale of these portions of the Umukaimata block was not fundamentally a political gesture, but a pragmatic approach to raising funds to pay inquiry
off survey debts. The owners of the Umukaimata block were willing to accept this low Potae figure in order to pay off the survey liens over the block. For the 16,000 acres sold they Rohe
the
in
1195 Letter in Maori with English translation: Paponga Te Pikikotuku [Te Paiaka], Whanganui, to J[?] W Edger, Registrar, Native Land Court Auckland, 19 August 1891, NLP 91/268 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 63 Sep 907, NLP 1901/104, ANZ Wgt 1196 Letter in Maori with English translation: Pikikotuku to Lewis, USND, 27 August 1891, NLP 91/268
filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 63 Sep 907, NLP 1901/104, ANZ Wgt alienation
1197 See Ian Church, 'Turoa, Topia Peehi? ‐ 1903', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007 URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/ land 1198 Minute: Lewis, USND to Davies, 7 September 1891, on the cover page of NLP 91/268 filed with of MA‐MLP 1, box 63 Sep 907, NLP 1901/104, ANZ Wgt 1199 Letter in Maori with English translation: Taonui Hikaka, Te Kuiti, to Native Minister, 15 August 1892, NLP 92/126 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 63 Sep 907, NLP 1901/104, ANZ Wgt 1200 Berghan, 2009, p 1158
1201 Patterns
Telegram: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 22 October 1892, NLP 91/196 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 63
Sep 907, NLP 1901/104, ANZ Wgt 7. 402
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 received £2,000 or two shillings and sixpence per acre. Wilkinson reported that before signing the purchase deeds:
the Native owners made it a condition that Government pays the portion of survey lien on Umukaimata block that is represented by the 16,000 acres acquired by it. This I agreed to as being in accordance with the rule in purchases of this class.1202
It appears that this was rapidly attended to. Shortly after the deeds were signed the Chief Surveyor advised Wilkinson that the total cost of survey for the Umukaimata block was £176 11s 9d, and that the proportion of that sum to be borne by Umukaimata Nos. 4 & 4A was £60 10s 9d. An application by the surveyor Mr Keast for a lien of £176 11s 9d was then withdrawn ‘on the late Chief Taonui promising to pay as soon as they had completed their arrangements with Government.’1203
Wahanui’s and Taonui’s offers to sell Waiaraia (and other land) and land in the
Umukaimata block were certainly pragmatic decisions in response to the burden of costs facing hapu and iwi in having their land dealt with by the court. There is limited evidence about Wahanui’s other motivations for selling the whole of the Waiaraia block. 1893–1908
But it is possible that he had a range of political motives for offering this land at this time. It may be that he considered the offer of Waiaraia to be a gesture of goodwill
towards to Crown, one designed to signal Ngati Maniapoto’s willingness to allow a district, controlled opening of the district to European settlement. He was certainly anxious for
the Native Minister to know that he was not utterly opposed to selling land. On 31 inquiry
January 1891 he telegraphed the Native Minister saying that he had heard the Potae Government say that he was opposed to selling land within the Rohe Potae (Aotea)
block, but this was untrue because he proposed to sell 10,000 acres or more at three Rohe
1204 the
shillings and sixpence per acre – being parts of the Taorua and Waiaraia blocks. On 4 in February 1891, Native Minister Cadman replied to Wahanui, saying that as far as he was aware, the Government had not complained about Wahanui opposing land purchasing alienation
land 1202 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 1 December 1892, NLP 91/196 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 63 of Sep 907, NLP 1901/104, ANZ Wgt 1203 Wilkinson to Sheridan, 14 December 1892, on the bottom of J W Ellis to Wilkinson, 13 December 1892, MA‐MLP 1, 1901/104, ANZ Wgt, Berghan Block Narratives Document Bank, Wai 898, #A60(a), Vol. 23, pp 1155‐1157
1204 Patterns
Telegram in Maori (with English translation): Wahanui Huatare to Native Minister, 31 January 1891,
NLP 91/30 (with 91/31) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 7. 403
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and was pleased that he was willing to sell ‘surplus lands.’1205 Waiaraia’s position adjoining the Mohakatino Parininihi and Mokau Mohakatino blocks meant that it was probably part of the land known as ‘Poutama’; an area long contested by Ngati Maniapoto and their southern neighbour, Ngati Tama. In offering the land to the Crown Wahanui may well have been asserting the mana over Maniapoto over this border area.
The early start to land purchasing in the Waiaraia and parts of the Umukaimata blocks opened the door to more extensive Crown purchasing in the seven southern blocks from 1893/94 onwards (Table 24). By 1908, three‐quarters or more of each of these blocks had been lost from Maori ownership. The exceptions were the Pukeuha and Mangaroa blocks with less than 25 per cent alienated (Figure 26). This helps to explain why this southern area was so intensively alienated and why land alienation was not confined to the northern blocks which the Crown had initially identified as desirable for settlement.
TABLE 24: LAND ALIENATION STATISTICS FOR THE SEVEN SOUTHERN BLOCKS UP TO THE END OF 1908
Year Day Month Block Subdivision Acres alienated Purchaser Source of alienation data 1893–1908 1891 21 11 Waiaria Waiaria 12,360.00 GOVT TN 24/72; TAR 222 1893 17 3 Taurangi Taurangi 2 2,500.00 GOVT TAR 231 1893 18 3 Taurangi Taurangi 5 10,000.00 GOVT TAR 231 1893 15 8 Taurangi Taurangi (pt) 10,000.00 GOVT TAR 223 district, 1893 4 2 Waikaukau Waikaukau 4,579.00 GOVT TN 26/166 1894 13 3 Ratatomokia Ratatomokia No. 2A 5,626.14 GOVT TAR 237 1894 16 3 Taurangi Taurangi 1A 5,292.00 GOVT TAR 229 1894 18 10 Umukaimata Umukaimata 4 11,000.00 GOVT TN 29/55 inquiry 1894 20 3 Umukaimata Umukaimata 5A 9,727.14 GOVT TAR 234 1895 1 2 Umukaimata Umukaimata 4A 5,000.00 GOVT TAR 233; CT 29/56
1897 26 3 Mangakahikatea Mangakahikatea 1 9,150.00 GOVT TAR 236 Potae
1898 7 6 Umukaimata Umukaimata 1D 7,374.00 GOVT TAR 251 1898 29 3 Umukaimata Umukaimata 5B1 5,867.50 GOVT TAR 252 Rohe
1899 8 2 Taurangi Taurangi 1B 378.00 GOVT TAR 267 1899 28 9 Taurangi Taurangi 4 1,000.00 PRVT Berghan, p1109 the 1899 29 6 Umukaimata Umukaimata 3A 1,892.00 GOVT TAR 276 in 1900 7 11 Pukeuha Pukeuha A 642.00 GOVT TAR 303 1900 7 11 Ratatomokia Ratatomokia No. 2B 1,381.86 GOVT TAR 305 1901 25 1 Mangakahikatea Mangakahikatea 2B 1,752.00 GOVT TAR 299 1901 9 2 Ratatomokia Ratatomokia No. 1B 2,653.00 GOVT TAR 304 1901 1 2 Taurangi Taurangi 3B 5,064.00 GOVT TAR 302 alienation 1901 7 2 Umukaimata Umukaimata 1A1 283.00 GOVT TAR 301 1901 7 2 Umukaimata Umukaimata 2A 99.00 GOVT TAR 306 land
of
1205 Patterns
Draft of Letter from Native Minister Cadman to Wahanui, 4 February 1891, NLP 91/30 (with 91/31) in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt 7. 404
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
GRAPH 11: CHANGE IN PERCENTAGE ALIENATED, ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1889–1892
Prior to 1889 1889 3.26% 3.24%
96.76% 96.74%
% purchased % remaining % purchased % remaining
1891 1892 3.95% 4.03%
96.05% 95.97%
% purchased % remaining % purchased % remaining
(Source: Tribunal’s Rohe Potae land alienation project)
405
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
GRAPH 12: CHANGE IN PERCENTAGE ALIENATED, ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1893–1899
1893 1894 1895
5.54% 13.09% 16.00%
86.91% 84.00% 94.46%
% purchased % remaining % purchased % remaining % purchased % remaining
1896 1897 1898
16.00% 18.67% 29.51%
84.00% 81.33% 70.49%
% purchased % remaining % purchased % remaining % purchased % remaining
1899
33.37%
66.63%
% purchased % remaining
(Source: Tribunal’s Rohe Potae land alienation project)
406
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
GRAPH 13: CHANGE IN PERCENTAGE ALIENATED, ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1900–1908
1900 1901 1902
34.22% 37.83% 37.85%
62.17% 65.78% 62.15%
% purchased % remaining % purchased % remaining % purchased % remaining
1903 1904 1905
39.26% 38.15% 39.02%
60.98% 60.74% 61.85%
% purchased % remaining % purchased % remaining % purchased % remaining
1906 1907 1908
39.43% 41.97% 51.50% 48.50% 58.03% 60.57%
% purchased % remaining % purchased % remaining % purchased % remaining
(Source: Tribunal’s Rohe Potae land alienation project)
407
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
7.3 THE RATE OF LAND ALIENATION IN THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT
This section examines the rate of land alienation in the inquiry district by tracking the percentage of each block alienated by the end of each calendar year. The annual change in the proportion of the inquiry district that had been alienated from Maori ownership has been calculated using data for completed purchases. This can only really give an approximation of the rate of purchasing because it does not record the purchase of individual interests as they happened, but only at the point a whole subdivision legally passed into Crown or private ownership. Maps at two year intervals from 1890 until 1908 show the change in the proportion of the land alienated in the Rohe Potae inquiry district. These give an overall impression of the dips and leaps in the rate at which Maori land was being alienated.
In an effort to show broad geographical patterns in the rate of land alienation quartile shading has been used on the maps which follow, rather than numerous gradations of 10 or 20 per cent. This enables discussion in terms of commonly conceived terms of
half, quarter or three quarters of a blocks original area alienated or remaining in Maori 1893–1908 ownership at a given date. However several modifications to this form of analysis have
been made. In order to identify blocks where no alienation occurred before the end of district,
1908 and blocks which were completely alienated from Maori ownership by that time, a
less than one per cent alienated (effectively zero) and a more than 99 per cent inquiry
(effectively 100 per cent) category have been created. It has also been useful to provide Potae a secondary level of data by subdividing the bottom quartile into two: 1 to 5 per cent
alienated and 6 to 25 per cent alienated. This allows us to identify and discuss blocks Rohe
where there was very limited but not zero alienation. Likewise, the second quartile was the
in also further subdivided into a 26 to 33 per cent and 34 to 50 per cent brackets in order to be able to discuss blocks in terms of whether more or less than one third of their area had been alienated by the end of 1908. alienation
The text offers a summary of the key geographical trends in land alienation in the ‘Rohe land
of Potae area’ and in the Rangitoto Tuhua blocks. This is followed by a more detailed discussion of particular locations within these two areas where the proportion of the land alienated was particularly high or low, including those blocks within that area that Patterns
7. 408
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 were split off from the remainder of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in 1886. There is also a brief discussion about the alienation of land for survey costs and of the 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserves.
7.3.1 THE OVERALL PATTERN IN RATE OF ALIENATION
As already noted in the introduction and overview, the rate at which land was purchased in the Rohe Potae inquiry district shows considerable similarity to the peaks and troughs of land purchasing activity elsewhere in the North Island throughout the 1890s and early 1900s. Given the limitations of the data available to this report, the total proportion of the inquiry district alienated (privately and to the Crown) by the end of each calendar year has been calculated using the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae land alienation data. These percentages are shown in a series of pie charts in Graphs 11, 12 and 13 above. This indicates how the pace of land alienation quickened and slackened
over time. As can be seen from these figures, the rate of purchasing in ‘Rohe Potae area’ was not constant. The 1893 to 1899 period was characterized by a rapid acceleration in the rate of land alienation, with particularly large jumps in the proportion of the inquiry 1893–1908 district alienated between 1893 and 1895 and again between 1897 and 1898 (Graph 12). district, The final period from 1900 to the end of 1908 was characterised by a stalling in the proportion of the district alienated. After an initial period of activity during 1900 and inquiry 1901 the proportion alienated increased just two per cent until the end of 1906. This
reflects the fact a nationwide halt in purchasing occurred in 1899. The small amount of Potae
alienation recorded up to 1906 was the result of land purchase officers being Rohe encouraged to finish purchases they had already begun. Wilkinson apparently the
continued to complete purchases in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block right through to 1905 in
when land purchasing officially resumed. In the year up to 31 March 1904, for example, Wilkinson ‘partially acquired’ some 8,000 acres in the Rohe Potae.’1206 The rate of alienation purchasing then accelerated again during 1907 and 1908 (Graph 14). These patterns
are consistent with those recorded elsewhere in the North Island during this period. land
of
1206 Patterns
Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 127 citing as an example, ‘Return of Lands Purchased and Leased from
Natives in North Island’, AJHR, G‐3, 1900–1905; for 1904 year see, AJHR, 1905, G‐3, p 3 7. 409
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
7.3.2 GEOGRAPHICAL PATTERNS IN THE RATE OF ALIENATION
The rate at which particular blocks within the inquiry district were alienated varied considerably. The percentage alienated was calculated for each block in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ at two yearly intervals beginning in 1890. The results were used to create a time sequence of maps showing how the percentage alienated change in each block over time. These maps are included here as Figures 22 to 26. As noted in the introduction and overview, these demonstrate the markedly different patterns of land alienation in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ and the Rangitoto Tuhua blocks. The pattern in the proportion of each block alienated over time in each of these areas in discussed below.
1893–1908
district,
inquiry
Potae
Rohe
the
in
alienation
land
of
Patterns
7. 410
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 22: MAP SHOWING THE CHANGE IN THE PERCENTAGE ALIENATED FOR EACH BLOCK IN THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1890 & 1892
411
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 23: MAP SHOWING THE CHANGE IN THE PERCENTAGE ALIENATED FOR EACH BLOCK IN THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1894 & 1896
412
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 24: MAP SHOWING THE CHANGE IN THE PERCENTAGE ALIENATED FOR EACH BLOCK IN THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1898 & 1900
413
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 25: MAP SHOWING THE CHANGE IN THE PERCENTAGE ALIENATED FOR EACH BLOCK IN THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1902 & 1904
414
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 26: MAP SHOWING THE CHANGE IN THE PERCENTAGE ALIENATED FOR EACH BLOCK IN THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1906 & 1908
415
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
7.3.2(a) The overall patterns
In the ‘Rohe Potae area’ over half (55.8 per cent) of blocks by number (48 out of 86) had lost one third or more of their area to land alienation by the end of 1908. In 17.4 per cent of the blocks by number (15 out of 86) more than three‐quarters of the land had been alienated from Maori ownership by the end of the period. In the Rangitoto Tuhua block just over a third of blocks by number (21 out of 61) had lost a third or more of their area to land alienation by the end of this period, lower than in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ but still significant. However, far fewer blocks in the Rangitoto Tuhua (10 out of 61), just 1.6 per cent by number, were more than 75 per cent alienated by the end of 1908 (Tables 25 & 26).
Looking at the proportion of each Rangitoto Tuhua subdivision alienated in relation to their location two features are apparent. Firstly, the blocks immediately north of the Taumarunui Township (Rangitoto Tuhua Nos. 58 & 62) were heavily alienated, with more than 75 per cent of the land in those two blocks having passed from Maori ownership before the end of 1908. This may have been connected to increased demand for farm land in the vicinity of the township, which was established under Native 1893–1908
Township legislation in December 1903.1207 There were also two subdivisions adjoining the Ketemaringi and Hurakia blocks on the eastern boundary of the inquiry district district, (Rangitoto Tuhua Nos. 10 and 48). In both of these subdivisions more than 75 per cent of the block was alienated by 1908. It is possible that they were purchased as an inquiry extension of these two blocks on the eastern boundary, possibly to cover survey liens. Potae
Rohe
the
in
alienation
land
of
1207 Patterns
Leanne Boulton, ‘Native Townships in the Whanganui Inquiry District’, Wai 903, #A39, p 48 citing NZ
Gazette No. 92, 3 December 1903, p 2506 7. 416
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 25: QUARTILE ANALYSIS OF BLOCKS IN THE ‘ROHE POTAE AREA’ AND RANGITOTO TUHUA BLOCKS, END OF 1908 (NO. OF BLOCKS)
Ist quartile 2nd quartile 3rd quartile 4th quartile Total Area/zones <1% 1‐5% 6‐25% Q1 Total 26‐33% 34‐50% Q2 Total 51‐75% Q3 Total 76‐99% >99% Q4 Total (N)C & N 20 9 29 3811 4 4 21 347 All other zones 2 1 6 9 21113 5 5 75 12 39 Rohe Potae area 22 1 15 38 51924 9 9 96 15 86 Rangitoto‐Tuhua Blocks 29 5 4 38 25 7 6 6 28 10 61 Total 51 6 19 76 7 24 31 15 15 11 14 25 147
N(C) & N = Northern‐central and northern zones (see Figure 27)
TABLE 26: QUARTILE ANALYSIS OF BLOCKS IN THE ‘ROHE POTAE AREA’ AND RANGITOTO TUHUA BLOCKS, END OF 1908 (PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND IN EACH AREA)
Ist quartile 2nd quartile3rd quartile 4th quartile Total Area <1% 1‐5% 6‐25% 26‐33% 34‐50% 51‐75% 76‐99% >99% Rohe Potae area 6.14% 0.68% 7.26% 4.44% 35.53% 19.93% 22.95% 3.08% 100.00% Rangitoto‐Tuhua Blocks 42.64% 6.82% 9.40% 7.25% 4.93% 18.99% 0.98% 8.99% 100.00% Total 48.78% 7.50% 16.66% 11.69% 40.46% 38.92% 23.93% 12.07%
Source: data from the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae Land alienation project
When we add up the original area of all the blocks in each alienation range and then
express that as a percentage of the total land in each of these two areas some interesting 1893–1908 patterns emerge. In the ‘Rohe Potae area’ alienation was in fact heavily skewed towards
blocks with a high percentage alienated. That is, by the end of 1908, 81.48 per cent of district, the total land in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ lay in blocks where more than a third of the area
of each block was alienated from Maori ownership. Conversely, blocks where less than a inquiry third of the land was alienated by the end of this period represent just 18.52 per cent of Potae the ‘Rohe Potae area.’ So although the 22 blocks where there was no alienation prior to
the start of 1909 account for a quarter of all the blocks in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ by Rohe
number, the land in those blocks accounts for just 6.14 per cent of the total land in the the
in ‘Rohe Potae area’ (Tables 25 and 26).
In the Rangitoto Tuhua Block the pattern was completely reversed. Here 66.11 per cent alienation
of the total land in this area lay in blocks where less than one third of each block had been alienated from Maori ownership by the end of 1908. Nearly half of this land lay in land
of blocks where 5 per cent or less of each block had passed from Maori ownership. This difference in pattern is largely the result in the delay in beginning land purchasing in the Rangitoto Tuhua block and the limited opportunity the Crown had to purchase here Patterns
7. 417
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 between 1900, when a halt had been called to Crown purchasing across the country, and 1908. These patterns can be seen in Graph 14.
GRAPH 14: PROPORTION OF ALL LAND IN THE ‘ROHE POTAE AREA’ AND THE RANGITOTO TUHUA BLOCKS ACCOUNTED FOR BY BLOCKS IN EACH PERCENTAGEALIENATED RANGE, 1908
45% 40% 35% 30% 25% RP Area 20% R‐T area 15% Blocks 10% 5% 0%
Percentage of total land (acres) of <1% 1‐5% 6‐25% 26‐33% 34‐50% 51‐75% 76‐99% >99%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Percentage of block alienated by end of 1908 (range)
1893–1908
district,
inquiry
Potae
Rohe
the
in
alienation
land
of
Patterns
7. 418
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
FIGURE 27: MAP OF THE ‘ROHE POTAE AREA’ SHOWING SIX GEOGRAPHICAL ZONES
419
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
7.3.2(b) Differences in proportions of land purchased in various parts of the ‘Rohe Potae area’ by the end of 1908
A closer look at the geographical patterns in the proportion of each block alienated by the end of 1908 within the ‘Rohe Potae area’ indicates that the proportion of land alienated from Maori ownership was considerably higher in some locations than in others. For the purposes of this analysis the ‘Rohe Potae area’ was divided into six geographical zones (Figure 27). The blocks in each of these zones were identified and the proportion alienated from each block by the end of 1908 was calculated. The original areas of each of the blocks in the zone was added together and divided by the total area alienated from all the blocks. This gave an overall percentage alienated figure for each zone. These figures are shown in Table 27.
What these results suggest is that the western part of the inquiry district was the most heavily alienated. When the three western zones are combined 70.58 per cent of the
territory in the west lay in blocks where three‐quarters or more of the area of each block had left Maori ownership by 1908. This is in significant contrast to the situation in the combined remaining zones where just 1.85 per cent of that territory lay in blocks 1893–1908 where three‐quarters or more of each block had been alienated. Even if we consider the area covered by blocks where 50 per cent or more was alienated by the end of this district, period this figure rises to an average of only 17.91 per cent and the disparity remains (Table 27). What this seems to suggest is that Maori owners were relatively more inquiry successful in retaining land in northern, eastern and central locations than in the west and south of the ‘Rohe Potae area.’ Potae
Rohe
the
in
alienation
land
of
Patterns
7. 420
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 27: AMOUNT OF LAND IN EACH ZONE LOCATED IN BLOCKS WHERE MORE THAN 75 PER CENT OR MORE THAN 50 PER CENT OF THE BLOCK WAS ALIENATED BY THE END OF 1908
Total original Total original area of blocks area of blocks % of total zone in Original area of 75% or more alienated % of total zone in blocks 50% or more blocks 50% or more Name of Zone zone (Acres) (Acres) 75% or more alienated alienated (Acres) alienated South Western 318,379.26 221,641.42 69.62% 221,641.42 69.62% Inland Western 111,777.05 56,606.87 50.64% 56,606.87 50.64% Western Coastal 253,916.61 204,548.88 80.56% 204,548.88 80.56% All Western zones 684,072.92 482,797.17 70.58% 482,797.17 70.58% Northern 168,584.72 1,301.88 0.77% 70,254.10 41.67% Central 84,002.32 3,196.00 3.80% 19,726.00 23.48% Eastern 312,152.30 5,970.96 1.91% 11,155.08 3.57% All other zones 564,739.34 10,468.84 1.85% 101,135.18 17.91% Source: data from the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae land alienation project
This was most pronounced in the northern part of the central zone and in the northern zone itself. There were 47 blocks in the northern‐central and northern zones, and 20 of these remained in sole Maori ownership until the end of 1908. This is a marked contrast
to other parts of the ‘Rohe Potae area’ where only two blocks was untouched by Crown purchasing by 1908 (Table 28).
The retention of so many blocks of land in Maori ownership indicates a level of success 1893–1908 at retaining land in the face of a coordinated programme of purchasing by the Crown. But a closer look at those 20 blocks shows that the blocks retained completely by Maori district, before 1909 were scattered, small in size and account for only a small proportion of the land in these two zones. The median size of these 20 blocks was just 363.89 acres. In inquiry total these 20 blocks accounted for only 9.26 per cent of the total original area of these
two zones. By comparison, the 27 blocks in these zones where there was a degree of Potae land alienation by 1908 had a median area of 5,265 acres; more than 14 times larger. Rohe These blocks accounted for an overwhelming majority of the land in these zones (97.4 the
per cent). This suggests that the Maori were only able retain ownership of smaller in scattered blocks while almost all of their land and all of their larger blocks, which were most viable for large‐scale pastoral farming, were broken up by Crown‐owned alienation subdivisions. land Amongst the 27 blocks in the northern‐central and northern zones in which there was a of
degree of Crown and private purchasing few suffered very high levels of alienation before 1909. There were only three blocks where the percentage of the land alienated Patterns by this date was 75 per cent or greater, and these accounted for just 2.05 per cent of all 7. 421
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the land in the northern and central north zones. However, there was still considerable land loss in these locations, with seven blocks being more than 50 per cent alienated by the end of 1908, accounting for more than a third (36.78 per cent) of the total area of these zones (Table 29).
TABLE 28: QUARTILE ANALYSIS OF BLOCKS IN THE NORTHERN CENTRAL AND NORTHERN ZONES, END OF 1908 (NO. OF BLOCKS)
Ist quartile 2nd quartile3rd quartile 4th quartile Total Zones <1% 1‐5% 6‐25% 26‐33% 34‐50% 51‐75% 76‐99% >99% (N)C & N zones 20 9 3 8 4 2 1 47 All other zones 2 1 6 2 11 5 7 5 39 Total 22 1 15 5 19 9 9 6 86
Source: data from the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae land alienation project
TABLE 29: QUARTILE ANALYSIS OF BLOCKS IN THE NORTHERNCENTRAL AND NORTHERN ZONES, END OF 1908 (PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND IN EACH AREA)
Ist quartile 2nd quartile3rd quartile 4th quartile Total Zones <1% 1‐5% 6‐25% 26‐33% 34‐50% 51‐75% 76‐99% >99% (N)C & N zones 9.26% 0.00% 20.93% 9.48% 23.54% 34.73% 1.74% 0.30% 100.00% All other zones 5.56% 0.81% 4.72% 3.51% 37.75% 17.19% 26.88% 3.59% 100.00% Total 14.82% 0.81% 25.66% 12.99% 61.29% 51.92% 28.62% 3.89% 1893–1908
Source: data from the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae land alienation project district, This is a striking contrast to the pattern elsewhere in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ where a much higher proportion of blocks were very heavily alienated. Here in 12 out of 39 inquiry blocks, 75 per cent or more of the original areas of the block was alienated by the end of
this period, together accounting for 30.47 per cent of all the land in the remaining zones. Potae
Blocks in all other parts of the ‘Rohe Potae area’ with this level of alienation were far Rohe larger than those with equivalent proportions alienated in the northern and central the
north zones with a median size of 11,670 acres (compared with 5,265 acres). in
Conversely, there were far fewer blocks where the proportion alienated was between one per cent and 33 per cent: just nine out of 39 blocks, accounting for only 9.04 per alienation cent of the total area of all other zones. These patterns are shown on Graph 15. land
of
Patterns
7. 422
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
GRAPH 15: PROPORTION OF ALL LAND IN THE NORTHERNCENTRAL AND NORTHERN ZONES ACCOUNTED FOR BY BLOCKS IN EACH PERCENTAGE ALIENATED RANGE, 1908
40% 35% 30% (N)C & N 25% zones 20% All other 15% zones
zones 10% 5% 0% <1% 1‐5% 6‐25% 26‐33% 34‐50% 51‐75% 76‐99% >99%
Percentage of total area (acres) of Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Percentage of block alienated by end of 1908 (range)
So what explains this greater prevalence of blocks where Maori retained all or a higher percentage of their land in this northern central and northern area? At the time 1893–1908 purchasing began, and most likely for a significant period beforehand, these areas were the most intensively cultivated and grazed in the inquiry district. The Crown’s 1891 district, map of occupation and tenure shows that the northern and northern‐central areas of the district were dominated by land used by Maori for pasture and agriculture. inquiry Elsewhere in the district, according to the Crown’s sources, such land was confined to coastal pockets and river valleys.1208 This suggests that a relatively high proportion of Potae
the Maori population in the district were living in this area. Cussen’s 1885 survey of the Rohe district also indicated that northern and central areas were amongst the best land in the the district: he categorized the whole of the northern and much of the central area as first in
class land. With the construction of the North Island Main Trunk Railway line and stations through the district, and the development of settler towns such as Kihikhi, Te
Awamutu, Alexandra (later Pirongia) and Cambridge on the Waikato side of the Puniu alienation
River and the prospect of increased trade and commercial opportunities such as hotels land
of
1208 ‘Map of the Native Lands of New Zealand shewing their occupation tenure and use, compiled at an
th Patterns
order of the House of Representatives, 30 January 1891 on the motion of T Kennedy Macdonald, MHR’,
AJHR 1891, G‐5 (reproduced as Figure 13 in this report) 7. 423
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 and stores this land became even more desirable. In other blocks there were specific reasons why no purchasing took place. For example, we have already seen how the Mangawhero (Otorohanga) block was leased for timber rights and the Crown therefore considered that there was no hope of purchasing any land in that block. But in general, the inquiry district was subdivided into an increasing number of small blocks, with Maori‐owned parcels interspersed with those which had passed into Crown ownership. The Stout‐Ngata Commission were particularly struck by how heavily subdivided land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block was by 1907/1908.1209 They gave as an example, the Kinohaku Block (Table 30). This raises an important question about the quality and usability of the blocks and subdivisions which remained in Maori ownership until 1909.
TABLE 30: DEGREE OF SUBDIVISION OF THE KINOHAKU BLOCK, 1907
Kinohaku West Awarded to No. of subdivisions
Crown 40 Maori (leased) 15 Maori (held) 49 Subtotal 104 Kinohaku East 1893–1908 Awarded to No. of subdivisions Crown 31 Private sale 1 district, Survey liens 13 Maori (leased) 36 Maori (held) 88 inquiry
Subtotal 169 Total 273 Potae
Source: AJHR 1907, G1B, p 3 Rohe
the
The purchasing of individual interests required the Crown to partition out its interests in and this accelerated land fragmentation. As a result larger blocks that might have been suitable for large‐scale pastoral farming were rapidly broken up by areas of Crown land. This became more problematic as the number of owners multiplied over time through alienation
succession and it became more difficult for the land to support all the owners. Even as land late as 1907, there was a degree of uncertainty about title, delays in survey and backlogs of
in court business which is likely to have made using remaining Maori land more
Patterns
1209 ‘Native Lands in the Rohe‐Potae (King Country) District: An interim report’, AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 2 7. 424
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 difficult. Stout and Ngata reported that there was ‘an enormous amount of work awaiting surveyors in the King country under existing partition orders of the Native Land Court.’ They estimated that 1,104 blocks still required surveying, the vast majority of those surveys related to subdivisions.1210
There were also still blocks where the Crown had purchased a number of interests but no partition had been made. Stout and Ngata found this was the case in at least 60 blocks in 1907.1211 In these case Maori probably continued to occupy many technically alienated areas, uncertain of what the Crown had purchased, or where partitions might be made. Under those circumstances it was difficult for the Maori owners to plan long‐ term economic activities on their remaining land.
7.3.2(c) The blocks split off from the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in 1886
When the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block came before the Native Land Court in July 1886
those bringing the application for title investigation (the claimants) were from Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Hikairo, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngati Rangitahi (a section of Whanganui) and Ngati Whakatere and Ngati Takihiku (both hapu of Raukawa). The court awarded 1893–1908
them title to the great majority of the block. There were eight ‘counter‐claimant’ groups who claimed customary rights to various parts of the land included in the application. In district,
order to deal with their claims to land in the district the court then created five small blocks which were immediately subdivided off from the larger area, the interests of inquiry
these ‘counter‐claimants’ were located in those blocks, sometimes alongside Ngati Maniapoto owners. These were the Awaroa, Taharoa, Kawhia, Kaipiha and Korakonui Potae blocks and they have a distinctively different pattern of alienation from the remainder
1212 Rohe
of the area. In particular, four of these five had alienation rates below 20 per cent the
before the beginning of 1909 (Table 31). in
alienation
land
of
1210 AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 9
1211 Patterns
AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 9
1212 Berghan, 2009, pp 82‐86 7. 425
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 31: BLOCKS SPLIT OFF FROM ROHE POTAE (AOTEA) BLOCK IN 1886: PROPORTION ALIENATED BY THE END OF 1908
Estimated % Name of block Original area (acres) Private (%) Crown (%) Other (%) Total (%) Maori Land Taharoa 24,197.73 0.0% 30.9% 0.0% 30.9% 69.1% Kawhia 6,900.00 0.02% 19.7% 0.0% 19.7% 80.3% Korakonui 2,000.00 0.0% 18.3% 0.0% 18.3% 81.8% Awaroa 8,690.00 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 98.9% Kaipiha 2,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Total 43,787.73
It is possible that this low rate of alienation is connected to the mix of Waikato and Ngati Maniapoto hapu awarded title to these blocks in 1886. The Native Land Court awarded the ownership of these five blocks as follows (number of owners in brackets):
Awaroa: Waikato from the hapu Ngati Kiriwai (49) and Ngati Te Kanawa‐Tamainu (92); and Ngati Maniapoto hapu Ngati Hounuku (140) and Ngati Korokino and Ngati Te Kanawa (183).
Taharoa: 166 persons of Waikato from the hapu Ngati Kaiawhi, Ngati Kahu, Ngati Karere and Ngati Amaru; and 206 of Ngati Maniapoto.1213 In 1893 the block was
partitioned into two, Taharoa A being awarded to 234 Ngati Mahuta owners and 1893–1908
Taharoa B to 201 Ngati Maniapoto owners.1214 district, Kawhia: 66 persons of Waikato from the hapu Ngati Ngahia (42), Ngati Mahuta (22) and Ngati Tepatupo (2); and Ngati Hikairo (230) and Ngati Apakura (2). inquiry
Kaipiha: Mihi Pepene Tana and 9 others from the hapu of Ngati Mahuta, Ngati Po and Potae other hapu.1215 Rohe Korakonui: Te Tumuhuia and 20 others.1216 the
in In the Awaroa, Taharoa and Kawhia blocks there were often tensions between Ngati Maniapoto and Ngati Mahuta/other Waikato‐Tainui owners. This led to decisions to further partition these blocks along tribal lines. In 1891, Wilkinson summed up the alienation situation with regard to the Awaroa and Taharoa blocks stating that ‘they are owned land
of
1213 Berghan, 2009, p 85 1214 Berghan, 2009, p 1052
1215 Patterns
Berghan, 2009, p 78 & p 84
1216 Berghan 2009, p 84 7. 426
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 conjointly by the Ngatimaniapoto and Waikato tribes who have nothing in common with each other and who are at variance in matters social, as well as political.’ It was his impression that ‘the Waikatos are more or less, supporters of Tawhiao and are therefore opposed to land selling, whereas Ngatimaniapoto are opposed to Tawhiao and his policy.’ At that time the relative interests of each owner had not been defined nor had the blocks been subdivided to separate the two groups of owners. Wilkinson considered that it would be dangerous to begin purchasing before that was done because it was unclear how much land belonged to each group as ‘both claim a larger portion than either is willing to allow the other.’ Wilkinson hoped that the court would sit in Kawhia and ‘subdivide them and to award to Ngatimaniapoto and Waikato the portions that they are respectively entitled to and at the same time to define the extent of the share of each owner.’1217
The partition of Taharoa into A (in favour of Ngati Mahuta) and B (in favour of Ngati
Maniapoto) in 1893 made dealing with these two groups of owners much simpler for the Crown. In the case of the Taharoa block the largest area purchased by the Crown was within the Ngati Maniapoto‐owned Taharoa B2 block (6,358 acres).1218 It was not 1893–1908 until 1908 that any land in Waikato‐owned Taharoa A was purchased by the Crown.
The Kawhia block was similarly jointly owned by Ngati Hikairo and Waikato groups. In district,
1889, perhaps because of similar antagonism between the parties, unsuccessful attempts were made by both groups to agree to a subdivision of the block. The court inquiry
finally ruled that the Waikato interest had been confined to Pakarikari and Maketu and Potae awarded them these subdivisions. In 1891, Wilkinson noted that ‘these blocks being owned solely by Waikato who object to land selling, could not, I think be purchased at Rohe
1219
present.’ It appears that neither of these subdivisions was alienated before the end the
in of 1908. The remainder of the block was awarded to Ngati Hikairo and Ngati Apakura and subdivided into Kawhia A to W blocks. However, little of it was alienated to the Crown. In 1891, Wilkinson noted that large areas of the Kawhia block were sand hills alienation and ‘land suitable for cultivation is more or less occupied by the Ngatihikairo tribe land
of
1217 Wilkinson to Under Secretary, Native Department, 7 November 1891, MA‐MLP 1, 1901/52, ANZ Wgt, Berghan Block Narratives Document Bank, Wai 898, #A60(a), Vol. 23, pp 653‐657 1218 Deed AUC 3064, 18 March 1898
1219 Patterns
Wilkinson to Under Secretary, Native Department, 7 November 1891, MA‐MLP 1, 1901/52, ANZ Wgt,
Bergahn Block Narratives Document Bank, Vol. 23, pp 653‐657 7. 427
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 whose home it has been for years.’ He did not think they would sell, ‘certainly not in such numbers as to represent an area sufficient to warrant Government commencing the purchase.’1220 Alienation of parts of these Kawhia subdivisions from 1901 to 1908 accounted for 19.73 per cent of the blocks original area.
7.4 THE PROPORTION OF LAND ALIENATION TO PAY FOR SURVEY LIENS
The matter of survey costs, how payment and repayment of these by Maori owners in the Rohe Potae inquiry district were made, and connections between land alienation (though selling or taking by the Crown) requires further research. As already discussed, it was not uncommon for owners of blocks to decide to sell particular subdivisions in order to generate money to pay for survey costs. Indeed this seems to have been one of the key drivers of land alienation in the district. In general, Maori were held responsible for paying the costs of surveying their land throughout the nineteenth century. But the
mechanisms used by the Crown to recoup these costs, and the interest charged on outstanding survey debts, varied considerably over time.
From 1886, when the Native Land Court began hearing the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block 1893–1908
case, legislation permitted surveyors to take out a charging order for the work completed. Maori owners could then request that the Crown pay these costs. If the district, owners were then unable to repay the Crown the debt could be passed onto the owners via a mortgage registering on the title. The mortgage incurred a five per cent interest inquiry rate.1221 After 1888 charging orders could also be made in favour of the Surveyor Potae General as well as surveyors and resulting mortgages had to be repaid after 12 months.1222 In addition to securing a mortgage over the land, the Native Land Court Act Rohe
1894 allowed the Crown to recover survey costs by taking a portion of land or to deduct the
in survey costs from the purchase money before distributing it to the owners.1223 Land taken for survey costs was vested in the Surveyor General and became Crown land.1224 Interest of 5 per cent per annum continued to be paid on survey debt but after 1895 this alienation
land 1220 Wilkinson to Under Secretary, Native Department, 7 November 1891, MA‐MLP 1, 1901/52, ANZ Wgt, of Bergahn Block Narratives Document Bank, Vol. 23, pp 653‐657 1221 David V Williams, “Te Kooti Tango Whenua”: The Native Land Court 18641909, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 1999, p 308, 311‐312 citing the Native Land Court Act 1886, ss. 81, 83‐86 1222 Williams, 1999, p 312 citing the Native Land Court Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888, ss. 25 & 26
1223 Patterns
Williams, 1999, p 313 citing the Native Land Court Act 1894, ss. 65‐68 & 132‐133
1224 Williams, 1999, p 314 citing the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895, s. 65 7. 428
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 interest could only be charged for a maximum of five years.1225 By 1899 the onselling of land taken by the Crown to recover survey liens or mortgages had to be approved by an Order in Council. If no approval was given, the Crown could take over the lien.1226 The Native Lands Administration Act 1900 and subsequent legislation dealt with survey costs within the District Maori Land Councils/Boards system.
It is difficult to get an accurate picture of what proportion of the original area of the ‘Rohe Potae area’ and Rangitoto Tuhua blocks was alienated as a result of Maori selling land to generate cash to pay survey liens or through orders made by the Surveyor General for land to be taken to cover survey costs. In 1907, the Stout‐Ngata Commission, whose Rohe Potae area was somewhat different to the Tribunal’s Rohe Potae inquiry district, calculated that:
it has already cost the Ngati‐Maniapoto in land for surveys on original blocks and for partitions nearly 40,000 acres. No reliable figures are available to show what
it has cost them in money, for in some cases the survey costs have been paid directly by the owners or indirectly by lessees or purchasers, and deducted from rent or purchase‐money.1227
However, a systematic search of the Maori Land Court Minute Books for the inquiry 1893–1908
district from 1889 to the end of 1908 uncovered three categories of land alienation linked to survey costs. Two of these appear to have involved the taking of land by the district,
Crown to recover these costs. These cases are recorded as ‘“non‐sellers” interests given in land’ and ‘applications of the Chief Surveyor’. There were also cases where the inquiry
owners sold land to pay for survey costs. When these three categories are added Potae
together it was found that by the end of 1908 Maori owners lost 80,625.28 acres of the inquiry district to survey costs (over twice the area calculated by Stout and Ngata). Over Rohe three‐quarters (77 per cent) of this total area was alienated through Maori selling land the
in to pay for survey costs, with the remaining 23 per cent of the land taken directly by the Crown.
alienation
land
of
1225 Williams, 1999, p 314 citing the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895, s.67
1226 Patterns
Williams, 1999, p 315 citing the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1899, s.4
1227 ‘Native Lands in the Rohe‐Potae (King Country) District: An interim report’, AJHR 1907, G‐1B, p 10 7. 429
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Losses in the Rangitoto Tuhua blocks amounted to 37,197.98 acres of the original Rangitoto Tuhua block. The proportion of individual blocks lost to survey costs ranged from 34.36 per cent of the Rapaura block to 0.03 per cent in the Pukenui block. In nine blocks the area known to have been lost to survey costs accounted for 10 per cent or more of the block’s original area. Overall, the 80,625.28 acres equates to 6.35 per cent of the original acreage of the inquiry district. Even this figure is likely to be an underestimate as details of land lost through survey liens were only found for 41 of the 87 blocks in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ (Table 32).
1893–1908
district,
inquiry
Potae
Rohe
the
in
alienation
land
of
Patterns
7. 430
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 32: LAND KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN LOST TO PAY FOR SURVEY COSTS IN THE ‘ROHE POTAE AREA’ AND RANGITOTO TUHUA BLOCKS BY THE END OF 1908
Blocks Original area Acres paid in lieu of lien % of original area Rapaura 456.00 156.66 34.36% Marakopa 5,000.00 1,458.00 29.16% Taurangi 34,671.36 10,000.00 28.84% Mangamahoe 949.00 164.25 17.31% Hauturu West 42,070.80 6,506.93 15.47% Mangarapa 2,760.00 400.00 14.49% Maraetaua 8,716.70 1,097.68 12.59% Kopua (Pirongia) 9,385.00 1,038.00 11.06% Hauturu East 56,606.87 6,126.37 10.82% Mangaoira 3,039.13 260.00 8.56% Tapuwaeohounuku 4,768.00 406.50 8.53% Rangitoto Tuhua 463,056.57 37,197.78 8.03% Te Tiutiu 340.00 17.00 5.00% Mangauika 5,376.10 245.03 4.56% Kinohaku West 162,478.08 6,222.03 3.83% Kawhia 6,900.00 223.94 3.25%
Otorohanga 10,337.40 329.04 3.18% Hurakia 5,184.12 162.00 3.12% Te Kauri 5,763.00 141.00 2.45% Kahuwera 3,909.25 85.50 2.19% Ketemaringi 5,970.96 126.00 2.11% 1893–1908 Maraeroa 41,689.75 865.00 2.07% Maungarangi 701.88 14.50 2.07% Kakepuku 12,367.29 249.68 2.02% district,
Orahiri 12,115.00 221.13 1.83% Te Kumi 2,631.00 41.00 1.56% Aorangi 11,053.50 159.25 1.44%
Puketarata 17,904.75 244.00 1.36% inquiry
Awaroa 8,690.00 115.50 1.33% Kinohaku East 52,453.71 597.73 1.14% Potae Tokanui 10,145.92 97.75 0.96% Taharoa 24,197.73 162.57 0.67% Rohe
Pukeroa Hangatiki 6,179.00 37.75 0.61% Umukaimata 46,485.71 250.13 0.54% the Turoto 2,664.00 9.25 0.35% in Karuotewhenua 16,530.00 56.33 0.34% Mahoenui 27,950.49 65.28 0.23% Te Kuiti 7,080.00 15.00 0.21% Pirongia West 36,286.38 40.00 0.11% alienation
Mangakahikatea 10,980.00 8.72 0.08% Waiwhakaata 11,083.31 7.00 0.06% land
Pukenui 13,417.55 4.00 0.03% of
Unknown 5,000.00 Total 80,625.28 Calc area of Rohe Potae area 1,270,639.18 6.35% Patterns
7. 431
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
7.5 THE ALIENATION OF 10 PER CENT ‘SELLER’ RESERVES
Twenty three 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserves have been identified in the inquiry district, covering a total of 8,008.94 acres (Table 33). These were reserves set aside for individuals who had sold their interests in a block to the Crown. Each seller was to receive, at the discretion of the land purchase officer, land equal to 10 per cent of that which they had sold. In practice these reserves were aggregated into subdivisions reserved for ‘sellers’. These reserves should not be confused with subdivisions which the owners had asked the Native Land Court to place restrictions on so that they could not be sold. No specific discussion about the blocks over which the court placed such restrictions, and their alienation, has been attempted in this report. This would require a further quantative exercise which was beyond the scope of this report.
Just six of the 23 ten per cent ‘seller’ reserves remain as Maori freehold land today:
Puketarata Reserves Nos. 3, 14 & 15, [Te] Kopua 1B reserve, Mangauika No. 1 reserve and Maungarangi reserve. Another 13 reserves were sold to European individuals by 1960, many of these passed from Maori ownership during World War I (1914‐1918). It
is hoped that the twentieth century land reports will be able to shed some light on why 1893–1908
this might have been. Only three reserves were alienated to the Crown: [Te] Kopua 1Q
reserve, Puketarata 2D reserve and the Wharepuhunga reserve, but the Wharepuhunga district,
reserve was a very substantial blocks of land (3,776.3 acres). inquiry
Potae
Rohe
the
in
alienation
land
of
Patterns
7. 432
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TABLE 33: 10 PER CENT SELLER RESERVES AND THEIR ALIENATION
Subdivision reserved Acres (decimal) Fate Date of alienation Kopua No. 1B reserve 1.44 Maori Freehold Land N/A Kopua No. 1J reserve 20.00 Private Purchase 1953 Kopua 1Q reserve 118.00 Crown Land 1929 Mangauika reserve 190.11 Private Purchase 1912 Mangauika No. 1 reserve 68.57 Maori Freehold Land N/A Maungarangi reserve 16.66 Maori Freehold Land N/A Ouruwhero reserve 176.14 Private Purchase 1920 Puketarata No. 2D reserve 30.35 Crown Land 1889 Puketarata No. 3 reserve 5.09 Maori Freehold Land N/A Puketarata No. 4 reserve 97.94 Private Purchase 1915 Puketarata No. 5 reserve 28.65 Private Purchase 1940 Puketarata No. 6 reserve 32.69 Private Purchase 1959 Puketarata No. 7 reserve 74.41 Private Purchase 1901 Puketarata No. 8 reserve 18.18 Private Purchase 1912 Puketarata No. 9 reserve 115.72 Private Purchase 1917 Puketarata No. 11 reserve 5.14 Private Purchase 1915 Puketarata No. 14 reserve 0.50 Maori Freehold Land N/A Puketarata No. 15 reserve 4.50 Maori Freehold Land N/A Puketarata No. 18 reserve 3.58 Private Purchase 1917 Puketarata No. 19 reserve 47.52 Private Purchase 1915 Takotakoraha reserve 54.91 Private Purchase 1915 Waiwhakaata reserve 122.11 Not found. unknown
Wharepuhunga reserve 3,776.75 Crown Land 1917 5,008.94
In the 1890s land purchase officers and other Crown officials involved in the land 1893–1908 purchasing programme were generally in favour of buying any of the 10 per cent reserves that owners were willing to part with. The issue first arose in 1893 when some district, of the owners of the Wharepuhunga block offered their reserve to the Crown. They stated that they had ‘other land at Waikato, and at Hastings’ so they desired the Crown inquiry to purchase the land so that they ‘may cease to think about his block in time to come.’1228 Wilkinson was of the view that the 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserves were a failed Potae experiment because in a large number of cases owners ‘expressed a wish to get cash Rohe represented by the area of reserves they were entitled to’ rather than a reserve of land. the He concluded that so many owners favoured a cash payment rather than a reserve in because ‘they never intend to live on the block.’1229 But, as we have seen in Chapter 6, many owners who were selling their interests sought cash instead of a reserve to top up alienation the low price per acre they were offered by the Crown. land
of
1228 Letter in Maori with English Translation: Hapi Ngakao, Oriwia Ngatikoa, Tameihana Oriwia, and five others to the Government, 4 September 1893, NLP 93/170 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/95, ANZ Wgt
1229 Patterns
Minute: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 2 October 1893, on cover page of NLP 93/170 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/95, ANZ Wgt 7. 433
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Similarly, in 1897 the Crown had purchased Puketarata No. 2B and created a 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserve of 30 acres 1 rood and 16 perches.1230 A year later two of the owners of the reserve indicated that they were willing to sell their interests in it and Wilkinson asked whether he should purchase them. He seemed fairly sure that the answer would be yes as he had already prepared purchase deeds for the reserve.1231 Sheridan too seemed to favour purchasing the reserve, simply asking the Chief Surveyor whether there was any ‘special reason these reserves should not be alienated.’1232 The Chief Surveyor’s replied by way of a policy statement saying that this type of reserve was ‘no practical use whatever to the natives themselves and should be acquired whenever the natives are inclined to dispose of them.’ His reasons for this policy were that once the reserves were surrounded by Crown land they became inaccessible ‘invariably require special road access and interfere with the subdivisions of our lands for settlement purposes.’1233 The Puketarata 2D reserve was offered for sale in 1899, the owners stating that they had plenty of land elsewhere on which to live. It is likely
that the need for capital to develop their other land made this an attractive option.1234 Wilkinson confirmed that they did indeed have land elsewhere and Sheridan approved
1235 the purchase. It is unclear what the legal status the 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserves was, 1893–1908
nor what measures, if any, the Crown take to protect them from subsequent alienation.
The statements of the Chief Surveyor certainly suggest that any protection in the 1890s district, was minimal. inquiry
Potae
Rohe
the
in
1230 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 11 August 1897, NLP 98/187 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/94, ANZ Wgt 1231 Memorandum: Wilkinson to Sheridan, 17 November 1898, NLP 98/187 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/94, ANZ Wgt 1232 Minute: Sheridan to Chief Surveyor, 22 November 1898, on the cover page of NLP 98/187 filed with alienation
MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/94, ANZ Wgt 1233 Minute: Chief Surveyor to Sheridan, 3 December 1898, on the cover page of NLP 98/187 filed with land MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/94, ANZ Wgt of 1234 Letter in Maori with English Translation: Ngahiraka Rangianini and Rangianini Ngahiraka to Hoani Wirikihana (George Wilkinson), 19 July 1899, NLP 99/129 filed with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/94, ANZ Wgt 1235 Wilkinson to Sheridan, 25 July 1899, on bottom of translation of Ngahiraka Rangianini and others to Patterns
Wilkinson, 19 July 1899, and Telegram: Sheridan to Wilkinson, 7 December 1898, both NLP 99/129 filed
with MA‐MLP 1, box 62, NLP 1901/94, ANZ Wgt 7. 434
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
7.6 REASONS FOR THE ACCELERATION OF CROWN PURCHASING AFTER 1893
One of the principal questions that these patterns in Maori land alienation in the Rohe Potae inquiry district raises is why, after such a period of frustration and very limited success, was the Crown increasingly able to purchase land in the district after 1893? There is no single answer to this question but there was certainly a range of factors, both national and specific to the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, which contributed to the acceleration in Crown purchasing from 1893 onwards.
The first and most obvious point to make is that the Rohe Potae inquiry district was typical of the North Island as a whole in that there was a strong increase in the amount of land being purchased by the Crown between 1893 and 1900. This suggests that these fundamental patterns were being produced by policies, legislation and Crown practices
which were common to the North Island as a whole. These have been discussed at length in the preceeding chapters but they include a renewed emphasis on purchasing Maori land after the Liberals came to power in 1891. There were key changes to the way
that land purchasing was organized. In 1893 the Land Purchase Department was 1893–1908 removed from the Native Department and placed under the control of the Department
of Lands. John McKenzie, the Minister of Lands, took a close interest in the purchasing of district,
Maori land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block: in June 1893 he instructed that all papers 1236
and questions regarding Native land purchases were to be brought before him. This inquiry
went hand in hand with a package of measures that included increased funding for land Potae purchasing and added powers to declare blocks subject to Crown pre‐emption under
the Native Land Purchase Act 1892. This shift in policy was completed in 1894 by the Rohe
re‐establishment of Crown pre‐emption and restrictions on alienation over the North the
in Island, and the liberalization of laws regarding the purchase of minors’ shares.
These changes gave a new impetus to land purchasing operations in the Rohe Potae alienation
(Aotea) block. By 1894 the practice of purchasing individual interests and having them aggregated into blocks by partition had left the Crown with scattered pockets of land, land
of which was not ideal for European settlement. As a result little could be done to open the
1236 Patterns
Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 124 citing McKenzie to Sheridan, 30 June 1893, MA‐MLP 1, box 33,
NLP 93/117, ANZ Wgt 7. 435
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 district to settlers. The Surveyor General reported that settlement in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block would need to be put on hold ‘until some further progress has been made in the purchase of the intermediate and adjoining blocks.’1237 It is likely that this was a significant factor in a decision by Native Minister Richard Seddon in late 1894 to re‐ energise and rationalise land purchasing in the district. He asked the Minister of Lands to increase the number of land purchase officers and for them to be instructed to purchase land as near roads and settlements as possible. The Government generally refused to make roads on Maori land for Maori use, unless the road also furthered European settlement. So in some cases the Survey Department recommended swift action. In 1897, the survey office compiled a list of blocks for immediate purchase. Against some of the Pukeiti subdivisions it was noted that the purchase of these was urgent as ‘the main road is approaching these blocks; they ought to be secured before it reaches them.’1238 Seddon also requested that McKenzie review the price per acre being offered to see if increases might prompt more sales. Seddon was confident that, with the
recent increases to funding and changes to legislation, more land might be purchased in the district in the coming year than in any previous year: ‘this year we ought to break
1239 the record.’ 1893–1908
But what of the circumstances that Wilkinson had repeatedly cited as the main district, constraints on the Crown’s ability to purchase land in the first few years of its purchasing programme in the district? In his reports and correspondence he inquiry complained that delays in having relative interests of owners defined by the court, delays in survey of block boundaries and internal subdivisions and Maori resistance to Potae selling, which Wilkinson consistently argued was due to Maori communities not feeling Rohe a need for money, hindered his work. Were any of these constraining factors removed the or significantly improved after 1893 and what impact did that have on the amount of in land the Crown was able to purchase?
alienation
land
of
1237 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 124 citing note accompanying report re lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island, 15 June 1894, AJHR, 1894, G‐3 1238 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 92 citing MA‐MLP 1, box 44, NLP 97/145 and attachments, ANZ Wgt
1239 Patterns
Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 124 citing Seddon to McKenzie, 29 October 1894, MA‐MLP 1, box 35,
NLP 94/290, ANZ Wgt 7. 436
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
As discussed in Chapter 4, Wilkinson could and did continue purchasing interests in blocks where the relative interests of owners had not yet been defined by the court. He and his superiors were aware of the risks to the Crown, and this did act as a constraint to some extent. This problem was largely removed by the end of 1892 but dragged on through 1894 and 1895.1240 Blocks in which the court had previously determined ownership were dealt with again by the court and relative interests defined. From that point on the court was instructed to define interests during title investigation hearings. This almost certainly contributed to the increase in Crown purchasing from 1893/1894. It is evident from Wilkinson’s correspondence about purchasing in various blocks that delays in surveying, particularly in surveying internal subdivisions of blocks, continued to slow and frustrate Crown purchasing throughout the 1890s, but it is difficult to quantify just how significant this constraint was in terms of the amount of land alienated. But, as this chapter shows, by 1896/97 very few blocks of any size, outside of the Rangitoto Tuhua area, were untouched by the Crown’s land purchasing, which
suggests that survey delays were a relatively weak constraint on the reach of Crown purchasing. 1893–1908 There is no indication that there was a sudden or dramatic collapse in Maori resistance to land selling in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block after 1893, rather the steadily mounting district, number of individual interests sold suggests that resistance was eroded bit by bit, increasing the flow of land into the hands of the Crown. It is possible that in some cases inquiry the first partitioning out of Crown interest created a ‘tipping point effect’ with some of the remaining owners then opting to sell to cover the costs of survey or because the Potae
land left was insufficient for their support. Almost continuous restrictions on private Rohe leasing also restricted opportunities to retain land and generate regular income from it. the It is also unclear what impact the death of key Waikato and Ngati Maniapoto hapu and in
iwi leaders during the 1890s had on community cohesion, organization and resistance to selling. The 1890s were a decade of huge loss in this respect with, amongst others, alienation
Taonui Hikaka dying suddenly in 1892, Rewi Maniapoto and King Tawhiao in 1894 and Wahanui in 1897. land
of
Patterns
1240 NZ Gazette, No. 51, June 1892, p 898 and No. 97, 14 December 1893, p 1849 7. 437
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
There are insufficient sources to assess whether Maori income in the district decreased across the 1890s, but it is clear from cases discussed in previous chapters that costs associated with the court and surveying accumulated and were an important factor in decisions to sell certain subdivisions. As the 1891 Land Laws commission reported, land owners incurred substantial and unavoidable costs during court hearings, in surveys, litigation and even in preparing petitions to Parliament.1241 The beginning of accelerated land purchasing after 1893 coincided with a move by the Crown to begin collecting survey costs from hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. At a meeting at Otorohanga in January 1889, the Government and Ngati Maniapoto reached an agreement that the Government would make accurate, cheap surveys. Critically these costs were to be suspended for two years. When purchases were made the Crown and owners would bear the costs of the surveys in proportion to the land each either retained or purchased. The costs of surveying joint boundaries would be shared.1242 In June 1891, Wilkinson noted that more than two years had elapsed and asked whether it
would be ‘advisable to take the steps provided by law.’ In January 1889 the Crown decided ‘to obtain re‐payment by the Native owners, either in land or money, of the
amounts due for such surveys.’ Wilkinson pointed out this would almost certainly lead 1893–1908
to an acceleration in land purchasing because it would cause ‘the owners to either give
up portions of those blocks and possibly sell the remainder, or else to sell other blocks district,
in order to enable them to pay their liabilities for survey charges.’1243 inquiry In summary, strengthened Crown resolve, improved funding, legislation and organization at a national and district level coupled with the persistence of Wilkinson Potae
and other officials in purchasing individual interests advanced Crown purchasing Rohe considerably after 1893. At the same time the impact of the social and financial costs of the continual court hearings, petitions, negotiations with Crown officials, subdividing of in
land, and surveys in a legal system that gave primacy to the rights of individuals over hapu and iwi made holding onto land increasingly difficult for Maori during the 1890s. alienation
land
of 1241 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 86 1242 Marr, Rohe Potae ..., 1996, p 51 citing Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, 27 March 1890, NLP 90/60 (with 90/75); references to January meeting in memorandum from Wilkinson to Lewis, 23 June 1891, NLP 91/163, both in MA 13/78, ANZ Wgt
1243 Patterns
Memorandum: Wilkinson to Lewis, USND, 23 June 1891, NLP 91/163 (with 91/193) in MA 13/78,
ANZ Wgt 7. 438
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
7.7 CONCLUSION
From about 1893 the Crown began to have considerably more success in buying land in the district after several years of frustrated attempts to purchase Maori land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and a failed attempt to reach an agreement with hapu and iwi that would have allowed the Crown to rapidly buy whole blocks of land. As already discussed the Crown was responsible for all but a tiny fraction of the land alienation in the inquiry district before 1909. The trajectory of the Crown’s land purchasing can be seen in the overall alienation figures. Just 4.03 per cent of the land in the inquiry district had been alienated by the end of 1892, by 1900 this had increased to 34.22 per cent, slowing somewhat after this but creeping up steadily to 48.5 per cent of the inquiry district by the end of 1908. On the face of it this was a remarkable turnaround, however it is difficult to pinpoint a single turning point or causal factor in this acceleration. Instead there were a number of national and local changes which facilitated land alienation.
The fact that this upswing in purchasing across the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block was also
typical of the pattern of Maori land alienation in the North Island throughout the 1890s 1893–1908 and early 1900s suggests that changes to Crown policies, legislation and practice with
regard to Maori land purchasing at a national level were a significant driver in this district, acceleration. Although there was already a long‐standing preparation for, planning and
focus on land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block prior to 1890, the Liberals inquiry created a political and legislative climate that favoured and prioritized Maori land Potae purchasing and settlement, and this gave further support to Crown officials purchasing
land in the district. In 1893 Native land purchasing was placed under the control of the Rohe
Minister of Lands, making it easier for the Government to co‐ordinate its programme for the
in the settlement of European and Maori land, funding for land purchasing was increased, and the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase incrementally extended until it covered the whole country by 1894. In the same year Premier and Native Minister Richard alienation
Seddon instructed the Minister of Lands to increase the number of land purchase land officers, to review prices to see if they could be adjusted to encourage Maori to sell more of land, and asked that land be purchased as close as possible to roads and existing settlements to facilitate rapid European settlement. Patterns
7. 439
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
At a local level, some of the constraints which faced the Crown in purchasing land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block between 1889 and 1892 progressively eased throughout the 1890s. The risks associated with not knowing how much land each owner held decreased significantly as the court determined the relative interests of the owners in a series of hearings between 1892 and 1895. At the same time, Maori resistance to handing in ownership and share list to the court, which had contributed to these delays, was overcome as they had little choice but to comply if they were to complete the court process and get the titles they sought. It is less clear to what extent or how quickly delays in surveying blocks and internal subdivisions were resolved. Given that the Stout‐Ngata Commission noted that even by 1907/1908 there was a backlog in the Native Land Court and in surveying it is likely that this was perennial problem. However, the fact that by 1896/1897 there were very few blocks of any size, outside of the Rangitoto Tuhua area, that were untouched by Crown purchasing suggests that delays in determining relative interests and in survey were a weak constraint on the
Crown’s land purchasing operations.
One of the major constraints on the amount of land the Crown was able to purchase 1893–1908 during the initial two years of its operations in the inquiry district was significant and widespread Maori resistance to selling their land. In the period after 1892, there is no district, evidence to suggest that there was a wholesale or sudden collapse in this resistance. In some locations, it took the Crown up to five years before it gathered enough interests to inquiry gain title to any one subdivision. This suggests that there were particular places where resistance to selling remained very strong. But obviously, the amount of land passing Potae into Crown hands was the result of a steady increase in the number of individual Rohe owners selling their interests, indicating that resistance was eroded bit by bit by the the sheer persistence of the land purchase officer. in
It is possible that as more of the land in a block was partitioned out and awarded to the Crown for the interests it had purchased a ‘tipping‐point’ was reached and some of the alienation remaining owners opted to sell to cover the costs of survey or because the land left was land insufficient for their support. The Native Land Court minute books for the district show of that from 1892, and particularly after 1895 there were an increasing number of succession cases heard. It is possible that as succession began to increase the number of Patterns owners of each block or subdivision, but decrease the size of the share each held, and 7. 440
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 blocks were subdivided into smaller pieces, partly as a result of Crown purchasing, the land could sustain fewer people. The number of absentee owners therefore increased as time went on. For these owners selling their small interest to obtain money to live on or develop land elsewhere became more attractive. These processes seem plausible but require further research. As the failure of the 1891/1892 negotiations around land purchasing demonstrated, the fact that the land was now clothed in a title that ultimately gave each individual owner the right to sell or retain a portion of the land as they saw fit, made it more difficult for collective decisions to be made and enforced at hapu or iwi level. In this regard, the death of principle Ngati Maniapoto and Waikato chiefs, such as Taonui (1892), Rewi Maniapoto and King Tawhiao (1894) and Wahanui (1897) probably had an impact on community cohesion, organization and resistance to selling.
Throughout the 1890s, Wilkinson was convinced that once sources of income for Maori dried up or they developed a need for more money to buy western goods far more owners would sell their interests in land within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. There is a lack of evidence relating to levels of income for Maori in this district during the 1890s. 1893–1908 However, it is clear that many owners became increasingly desperate for cash to pay off survey and court costs. This contributed to the rate of land alienation in the district. A district, search of the Native Land Court Minute Books for the district up to the end of 1908 showed that when the area of all land designated as having been alienated as a result of inquiry ‘survey liens paid in land’ and ‘lands cut out to pay survey liens’ was added together Maori owners lost 80,625.28 acres of the inquiry district to survey costs. A considerable Potae portion of this was in the Rangitoto Tuhua block (37,197.98 acres). The proportion of Rohe individual blocks alienated to pay for survey liens varied considerably, with the median the percentage lost being 2.09 per cent. The total amount of land lost to survey liens was in more than double that calculated by the Stout‐Ngata Commission in 1907.
The way that Crown purchasing spread across the district reveals that the first blocks to alienation be affected by purchasing were in the northern area between Pirongia and Kakepuku, in land close proximity to the railway. This was not surprising given that this was the area of prioritized by Wilkinson and others in 1888 and 1889. However, interests in the Wharepuhunga block to the east were also acquired between late‐1889 and the end of Patterns
1890. In the next stage of this sequence of engagement purchasing expanded further 7. 441
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 into other blocks in the Kakepuku and Otorohanga area but the Crown also acquired land in a number of blocks in the far south and southwest of the inquiry district. This was a notable deviation from its focus on the high quality land in the north.
Between 1890 and 1892 Wahanui, Taonui and other hapu and iwi leaders offered to sell the Waiaraia block and part of the Umukaimata block to the Crown. It is not entirely clear why these leaders were willing to part with this land. In part the sales resulted in the owners need money to support themselves during court hearings which had been prolonged by delays. But it is likely that there were other, political motivations involved. These blocks were close to the Poutama area, a contested boundary area between Ngati Maniapoto and Ngati Tama of Taranaki. It is possible that these offers to sell to the Crown were an assertion of mana over this land by Ngati Maniapoto leaders in the face of ongoing inter‐tribal politics. It is also important that these negotiations were taking place during the negotiations over land purchasing with Native Minister Cadman in
1891 and 1892. So it is possible that Wahanui, Taonui and others, who were closely involved in those negotiations, made these offers as a demonstration of good faith towards the Crown and to show how blocks could be earmarked for sale and sold 1893–1908 quickly. However, there is no direct evidence of this in the correspondence that survived. district,
The southern blocks lay outside the railway restrictions area which took in only a portion of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block from September 1890 to October 1892. inquiry
Therefore, Wilkinson had considerable difficulty persuading his superiors to accept the Potae offers and use railway loan money to pay for the land. Eventually this was agreed to and the Waiaraia block was purchased in April 1891. Because of a lack of accurate surveys of Rohe
the boundaries of the blocks adjoining Waiaraia and Umukaimata the Crown soon found the
in that the Waiaraia block contained less land than it thought and put pressure on Wahanui and Taonui to sell further land. This resulted in Wahanui reluctantly offering the Taurangi block and parts of the Ratatomokia block. In a separate negotiation in alienation August 1892 Taonui offered Umukaimata No. 4 and Umukaimata 4A (totaling 16,000 land acres) to the Crown for five shillings per acre. The owners needed the money to pay of survey costs on the block. However Wilkinson would only offer half a crown (two shillings and sixpence) per acre. This was half of what Taonui had proposed but was Patterns also the price offered by the Crown for the Waiaraia block. However, the owners 7. 442
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 accepted the offer because the need for cash was so pressing. As they had done with Waiaraia, hapu and iwi deliberately placed only a few people on the owners’ list for these subdivisions in order to make the sale quick and easy. These sales paved the way for extensive Crown purchasing in seven southern blocks (Waiaraia, Taurangi, Ratatomokia, Umukaimata, Mangakahikatea, Pukeuha and Mangaroa) from 1893/1894 onwards. By the end of 1908 more than 75 per cent of all but two of these blocks had been lost from Maori ownership.
From late 1893 until mid‐1895 the number of blocks in which the Crown was purchasing rapidly expanded. They pushed westward into the Pirongia West and Kawhia blocks and southwest into the large Kinohaku East and Hauturu West blocks and down through the centre of the district on the western side of the railway line. Negotiations also began on blocks along the eastern boundary of the inquiry district. This general direction was maintained from mid‐1895 until late‐1896, with the entering new blocks in these locations. By late 1896 there were very few blocks on the western side of the inquiry district where the Crown was not actively engaged in land purchasing, but a handful of blocks previously untouched were entered into. The sixth 1893–1908 and final phase of land purchasing in the district was the opening up of the Rangitoto Tuhua, Rangitoto A, Tokanui and Korakonui blocks from late in 1899. district,
One measure of the extent of land alienation is to look at how much of the original area of the inquiry district was contained in blocks where more than one third of the block inquiry had been alienated from Maori ownership by the end of 1908. At that date the vast Potae majority, 81.48 per cent, of the total land in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ lay in blocks where more than a third of the area of each block had been alienated from Maori ownership. Rohe
There were however 22 blocks in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ where there was no recorded the
in alienation prior to 1909, but these contained only a very small proportion of the land in the ‘Rohe Potae area’ (just 6.14 per cent of the original area). The pattern of alienation was the complete reverse of the Rangitoto Tuhua Block where 66.11 per cent of the alienation original area was located in blocks where less than one third of each block had been land alienated from Maori ownership by the end of 1908. These figures indicate how of extensive land alienation was in this inquiry district by 1909. Patterns
7. 443
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Within this overall picture some further geographical patterns emerge within the ‘Rohe Potae area.’ For the purposes of examining these patterns the ‘Rohe Potae area’ was divided into smaller zones. The three ‘western’ zones were the most heavily alienated part of the inquiry district. But in the northern‐central and northern zones, the very area that the Crown had been so determined to purchase, the proportion alienated was markedly lower. On the face of it this suggests that hapu and iwi in these areas had some degree of success, at least up until 1909, in retaining their most desirable land. Of the 47 blocks in these two zones, only seven suffered more than 50 per cent alienation by the end of 1908 and the majority (32 out of 47) were less than one third alienated by that date.
Sustained resistance to parting with this land would not be that surprising. The Crown land tenure and occupation map from 1891 shows that it was heavily settled and cultivated by Maori. In particular, the Waipa valley and Te Kawa swamp had long been the food bowl of the people. Evidence from oral and traditional hui in this inquiry district highlights the fact that even today the mountains of Pirongia and Kakepuku and the land that surrounded them are rich in cultural and spiritual associations for people. 1893–1908 Hapu and iwi were also alive to some of the same advantages the Crown saw in this land – located next to the railway for transport and trade and growing settler town of district, Kihikihi, Cambridge and Alexandra.
Yet a closer inspection of the proportion of each block in the northern‐central and inquiry northern zones alienated by the end of 1908 suggests that much of the land Maori were Potae able to hold onto in this area was in small, scattered blocks. The Crown had not purchased any interests in 20 of the 47 blocks in these zones, leaving them solely in Rohe
Maori ownership. Yet the median size of these 20 blocks was just 363.89 acres and the
in together they accounted for just 9.26 per cent of the whole area of those zones. In fact they lost portions of 27 blocks to land purchasing in this area, these were the larger more economically viable blocks with a median area of 5,265 acres, more than 14 times alienation as large as the wholly Maori‐owned blocks. The 27 blocks where there was some degree land of Crown purchasing accounted for almost the entire land area of these two zones, 97.4 of per cent. This demonstrates that Crown purchasing had penetrated all but the smallest of blocks in this highly contested location. Patterns
7. 444
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Hapu and iwi within the Rohe Potae inquiry district experienced a period of extraordinarily rapid change in the ownership and control of their land and resources. At the beginning of 1886, the year the Native Land Court began hearing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, Maori communities in much of the inquiry district were more or less autonomous and held their land and resources, as they had done for generations, in customary title. Only in the north between Aotea and Whaingaroa Harbours were Europeans in possession of any significant areas of land; the result of Crown purchasing there in the 1850s. Though the Crown nominally held title to blocks of land in the Awakino and Mokau vicinity these had yet to be fully surveyed and resold to European settlers. In 1889, when the Crown’s purchasing operation resumed the Rohe Potae was one of the few extensive areas of Maori land remaining largely in control of hapu and iwi; in this respect in bears comparison with Te Urewera. This reflected the fact that much of the inquiry district lay behind the aukati from 1866 until around 1883.
But when change came it was extraordinarily rapid: in just 15 years from 1886 until 1900, when purchasing began to slow, customary title was converted into Western titles awarded to individuals, who were defined as holding a share in the land, rather than hapu or iwi collectively. Therefore, each individual owner could sell or retain their share of the block as they saw fit with no legal requirement to seek the consent of other owners. The land was heavily subdivided and Crown purchasing had resulted in a patchwork of Crown and Maori‐owned subdivisions. By the end of 1900 just over a third of the original area of the inquiry district (excluding the extension area) had been alienated. Almost all of this had been purchased by the Crown, which also held many more undefined interests in a multitude of blocks and subdivisions. By the end of 1908 this figure had reached 48.5 per cent. Although around half of the district was retained Conclusions prior to the beginning of 1909, the tenure of this land had been transformed from and customary tenure to individualised title. The sheer number of serious issues and decisions facing hapu and iwi, and their leaders, from 1883 onwards: the railway, how to deal with land speculators, the boundary survey of the Rohe Potae, how to manage Summary
and minimise the impact of the Native Land Court, and Crown purchasing, illustrate just 8. 445
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 how intense these changes were. By comparison, equivalent change beginning in the early 1870s took almost 30 years to occur in other parts of the central North Island giving hapu and iwi leaders and their communities more time to deal with those challenges.
8.2 HAPU AND IWI ASPIRATIONS FOR THE ROHE POTAE, 1884–1886
By 1883/1884 hapu and iwi leaders were facing many critical issues and decisions, all of which had potentially serious long‐term consequences for the prosperity of the people and their ability to use, retain and dispose of their land. The petition of Ngati Maniapoto, Raukawa, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Whanganui, and later Ngati Hikairo, to Parliament in 1883 set out a package of measures they considered was critical to the future wellbeing of their land and communities. In terms of the retention, use and control of their land, the petition reveals how deeply concerned hapu and iwi were about the negative impact the Native Land Court and the activities of European speculators would have on their territory should they gain access to the area south of the Puniu River. In 1883, these tribes asked that the Native Land Court be excluded from their district and that they themselves be permitted to define the boundaries of each tribe, hapu and individual within their collective territory, the Rohe Potae. In response to this petition, a survey of the external boundary of the Rohe Potae was agreed to.
At this time, the Crown also passed the Native Committees Act 1883 in response to persistent calls from hapu and iwi around the country for their runanga and committees to be recognised. This Act allowed for the establishment of Native committees, but gave hapu and iwi very limited power to deal with matters of title. The committees became
advisory bodies to the court, who could accept or reject their advice as they saw fit. Meanwhile, the court remained the sole authority charged with issuing title to Maori land. This left hapu and iwi dealing with the threat posed by the court and speculators, a Conclusions
need to control the Crown’s survey, and the task of lobbying of the Crown to fully
empower the Kawhia Native Committee to carry out title determinations. Into this and
already complex mix of issues were negotiations over the route and construction of the North Island Main Trunk Railway through the King Country. Summary
8. 446
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In the period between 1884 and 1889, Wahanui, Taonui and John Ormsby, as well as other hapu and iwi leaders continued to engage with the Crown and to pursue the requests they had made in the 1883 petition. There was a considerable level of engagement between hapu and iwi leaders and the Crown, principally presented by the Native Minister, John Ballance, between 1884 and 1887. Throughout the drafting of, and debate in Parliament on the Native Land Settlement Bill/Native Land Alienation Act 1884, Ballance was meeting with Wahanui, John Ormsby (the newly elected chair of the Kawhia Native Committee) and others who accompanied them. Their party arrived in Wellington on 9 June 1884 to talk with Ballance about the requests they had made in the 1883 petition and only departed for the King Country once the parliamentary session was over and the legislation had been passed on 10 November 1884. During this time, Wahanui gave evidence before the railway select committee and spoke to the House on the Native Land Settlement Bill and to the Legislative Council on the Native Land Alienation Restriction Bill.
The vision of these tribal leaders for the future of the Rohe Potae was underpining by a central premise: that hapu and iwi retain sole authority over their land. To this end, they opposed the entry of the Native Land Court into the district and asked that the Kawhia Native Committee be empowered to determine title to the land and to manage all subsequent matters relating to land and resources. There is evidence which suggests that a large proportion of hapu and iwi in the district wished to have title awarded to hapu and for hapu and block committees to make decisions about their land, which would then be brought to the main committee for further investigation and confirmation. They asked for the opportunity to work together with the Government to frame land legislation which was just and protected their interests. Only when that had been done were hapu and iwi leaders willing to engage with questions of whether, and to what extent, the people would be willing to sell or lease land to Europeans and to the Crown.
In his speech to the House in 1884, Wahanui stated plainly that hapu and iwi wished to Conclusions
have the sole administration of their ancestral land. He enlarged that statement further and by taking his watch from his waistcoat pocket and using it to symbolise the land. He gave an analogy to explain their rangatiratanga over the land and what role tangata Summary whenua and the Crown ought to play in its management and disposal. Wahanui likened 8. 447
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 his watch to the land, and the Crown to a watchmaker. The watchmaker could repair the watch under instruction of the owner but must return it his possession and control.
Wahanui’s position was supported in the House in 1884 by Wi Pere, the Member for Eastern Maori, who also spoke in metaphors asking that the land be protected (a fence placed around it) but that the owners of the land be the only ones able to open the gate to allow Europeans onto the land. More specifically Pere advocated, as Wahanui had, that it be the Native Committee under the Native Committees Act 1883 that ‘say what shall be done in the way of settling the land by putting Europeans on it.’ Pere proposed that the Native Land Settlement Bill be amended accordingly. But the House rejected any moves to empower the committees in this way on the basis that the committees had not yet proven themselves to the extent that they could act as arbiters between Maori land owners and the Crown. This is certainly spurious; the committees had hardly been given a chance to show what they could do, with the districts in which they were to operate only gazetted in January that year. Evidence certainly suggests that only a year or so later the Kawhia Native Committee was very active and taking a significant role in co‐ordinating economic activity (this is discussed further below).
During Ballance’s visit to Kihikihi in February 1885, Ngati Maniapoto continued to push for the Kawhia Native Committee to be the only body empowered to determine who owned the land and to arrange its sale or lease. John Ormsby, the chair of the committee asked that the committee ‘be placed in the position of’ or replace the Native Land Court. He explained that hapu and iwi saw this as the only way to avoid the pitfalls they had identified from observing the land court and land purchasing in neighbouring districts. In particular they considered that if everything a hapu wished to do with their land was done through the committee there would be no avenue for individual owners to go to
Crown officials for an advance or loan, thus beginning the selling of the land piece by piece. Ormsby was adamant that any committee or board appointed to deal with land had to be completely independent of the Government and the companies formed by
European speculators. There is evidence which suggests that a large proportion of hapu Conclusions
and iwi in the district wished to have title awarded to hapu and for hapu and block and committees to make decisions about their land, which would then be brought to the main committee for further investigation and confirmation. Summary
8. 448
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The Crown rejected calls by hapu and iwi to empower the Native Committee to take the place of the Native Land Court. Parliament was unwilling to increase the statutory power of the committees on the basis that they were only just established, so were unproven. There were also fears that committee members would act in favour of their own kin in determining title and this would lead to disputes. In 1885, Native Minister John Ballance had tentatively proposed that the committees could act as a lower court of title with the Native Land Court remaining as an appeal court, but he was unable to take the idea further. The Native Committees were generally seen by politicians as having no real power but as a relatively harmless, and possibly helpful to the court’s processes. The chairman of the Kawhia Native Committee, John Ormsby, consistently lobbied Ballance for greater power for the committee at pubic meeting between Ngati Maniapoto and the Crown, aware that what they had received from the Government was the ‘shadow’ rather than the ‘substance’ of what they had requested. The Crown did make some relatively minor reforms to the Native Land Court and its operation in response to specific concerns by hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae but these did not bring Maori closer to their aspirations from control over their land.
By 1885, the Kawhia Native Committee was well established and actively involved in co‐ ordinating and regulating economic activities in the district, including gold prospecting, timber and gravel rights, leases for stores and other European businesses established on Maori land. But by the end of that year, the committee admitted that they had been unable to do much towards investigating and determining title to land in the district. They resolved to call on the people to submit their claims to land to them to be dealt with, if they failed to, the committee saw little alternative but to take the land to the court. Insufficient claims were forthcoming and at a subsequent hui in April 1886 hapu reluctantly resolved to take the land to the court. By May 1886, the tribes of Ngati
Maniapoto, Raukawa, Whanganui, and Ngati Hikairo had made an application to the court and the court began sitting at Otorohanga in July 1886. The decision by Ngati Tuwharetoa a few months before this to take the eastern side of the Rohe Potae (the Conclusions Taupo‐nui‐a‐tia block) to the court may have convinced those iwi that they needed to and have their land defined by the court as well. In addition, several factors appear to have undermined hapu and iwi confidence in the committee, these included the Crown’s failure to give it the power it needed to deal with title and possibly, concerns by other Summary
8. 449
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 hapu and iwi that the committee was dominated by Ngati Maniapoto. By mid‐1886, the Crown had failed to respond in any substantial way to Maori calls to obtain authority over their own land and collective control by hapu was in danger of being undermined by the actities of the Native Land Court and the planning that was already underway to begin large‐scale land purchasing once titles had been determined.
8.3 THE CROWN’S VISION FOR THE ROHE POTAE, 1884–1886
In the period between 1884 and 1889 the Crown were also laying out its vision for the future of the Rohe Potae and putting in place legislation to bring that to fruition. During these years, the Crown developed a package of policies and legislation which greatly facilitated its land purchasing programme in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block during the 1890s and early 1900s. These included the re‐establishment and maintenance of the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase and a prohibition on Maori and Europeans dealing directly with one another over the sale and lease of Maori land. The establishment of the Native Land Court in the district, its investigation of and granting of titles to individual owners, and subdivision of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block into smaller blocks was critical to the Crown’s subsequent land purchasing programme. Railway loans legislation provided funding for Crown purchasing within the territory surrounding the Main Trunk Railway line and reports by surveyors in the district during the 1880s provided intelligence about the quality and agricultural potential of land in various locations.
The Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884 (formerly the Native Land Settlement Bill) reasserted the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase and prohibited all private leases and sale between Maori and Europeans in a very wide area, some 4.6 million
acres, of the central North Island, including almost the entire Rohe Potae inquiry district. By this time, it was clear that the central route would be adopted, as recommended by the railway select committee on 22 October 1884. The area north of Conclusions
the Moerangi block was excluded from these restrictions, as almost all of it had been
purchased by the Crown prior to 1865. Although the shape and size of this railway and restriction zone waxed and waned over time, these restrictions would apply over much of the inquiry district more or less continually from 1884 until 1900, when a system of Summary
District Maori Land Councils (later Boards) was established. The operation of these land 8. 450
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 councils and boards will be dealt with in the twentieth century land report for this inquiry. The Native Land Settlement Bill 1884 had also proposed that a commissioner and boards be established to enable Maori to lease and sell their land to the Crown or to the highest bidder under the Land Act 1877. These provisions were quickly dropped, but later redrafted and passed into law as the Native Land Administration Act 1886. The scheme was a voluntary one, and Maori around the North Island refused to bring their land under the Act. It was repealed in 1888.
From 1884 onwards, the Crown’s policies and legislation governing the construction and funding of the railway, the purchasing of Maori land and the advancement of European settlement in the Rohe Potae were closely intertwined and this would remain the case until the railway loan funding for land purchasing was exhausted and the distinctive stream of legislation relating to the Rohe Potae merged with broader currents in Native land policy in 1894. By 1884, the Crown had decided that future large‐scale purchasing of Maori land within the restriction zone was vital. The goal was to develop a large agriculturally productive hinterland so that farm produce and European settlements could feed the railway and ensure that the Government’s significant financial investment was not in vain. At the beginning of 1884, the Governor had explicitly stated that legislation would be put in place to enable the State to acquire extensive blocks of Maori land along the line of this railway, and that this land would soon be populated by European families. One of the reasons the railway select committee recommended the central route was because it had the potential to open up large areas of land suitable for agricultural purposes. Just a year later, John Ormond, Member of the House for Napier, stated that his recollection of the reason that the 1884 Act was passed was ‘in the hope that we should get some of the land [in the restriction zone] from the Natives.’
There can be no question that the Crown’s immediate intention in imposing these restrictions in 1884 was to prevent European speculators from purchasing the land
surrounding the railway. The long title of the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act Conclusions
1884 makes this explicit: it is subtitled: ‘An Act temporarily to prevent Dealings in and
Native Land by Private Persons within a defined District of the North Island.’ In introducing the Native Land Settlement Bill for its second reading in the House, John Summary
Ballance, Native Minister and Minister of Lands, described the prohibition on private 8. 451
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 dealings within the restriction area as one of the cardinal features of the legislation. His introductory remarks made it clear that its principle purpose was to prevent undue speculation by private parties in the country to which the railway will be the feeder, and which the railway would allegedly benefit. However, it was initially intended, as Ballance himself admitted, to be an interim measure. He hoped to introduce a more comprehensive piece of legislation the coming year to cover the administrative scheme he had designed. In the meantime, he was introducing provision to meet the Government's needs. The Colonial Secretary, Patrick Buckley, noted that the legislation had been drafted hastily with the view of preventing any interference in the carrying into operation of this scheme of railway construction.
Despite the understanding that the restrictions were a temporary measure there was some disquiet amongst politicians about the huge area covered by them. Both Ballance and the Colonial Secretary found it necessary to defend the wide geographical extent of the restriction zone. Buckley’s defence seems to have been based on a ‘better to be sure than sorry’ approach. He admitted that the zone contained ‘a much greater area than may be necessary’ but he considered that it was desirable to ‘get as large an area as possibly can be got’ to ostensibly protect Maori and the colony from the adverse effects of speculators. Ballance defended the boundaries of the area on the basis that Wahanui, one of the most prominent Ngati Maniapoto rangatira, had, according to Ballance, given his assent to the restrictions and had asked that ‘the whole Waikato, including his lands’ be included in the restriction zone.
The fact that the restrictions under the 1884 Act were promoted as temporary ones meant that few politicians made explicit statements about the role these restrictions might play in any future Crown purchasing programme. The Colonial Secretary made a
vague comment that they would give the Crown ‘a certain advantage’, and Daniel Pollen, a Legislative Council Member who supported ‘free‐trade’ in Maori land and naturally were opposed to Crown pre‐emption, recognized that the Bill gave the Crown the power
to deal with or purchase all the land within the restriction zone. In his view, the Conclusions
experience of the 1870s had shown that government purchasing agents could do just as and much if not more harm than speculators. Summary
8. 452
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
In January 1885, Ballance toured Native Districts in the North Island to explain and hear Maori opinion on his scheme of boards and commissioners to administer, lease and sell Maori land. He met with hapu and iwi at Kihikihi in early February. Ballance then introduced these mechanisms in a redrafted form as the Native Land Disposition Bill in 1885 and this was passed into law as the Native Land Administration Act 1886. During debate on the Bill in 1885 Wahanui and his fellow Ngati Maniapoto rangatira, Taonui Hikaka, appeared before the Native Affairs Select Committee and were extensively questioned about their views on the scheme, but also on the intention of their tribe with regard to selling and leasing land for settlement. Wahanui stated that the arrangement acceptable to him was that the whole administration of the land be vested in ‘his Committee’, that is in the Kawhia Native Committee.
As we have seen the House was not supportive of giving the Native Committees more extensive powers. In any case, the select committee indicated to Wahanui that before land could be dealt with by any committee it would have to pass through the Native Land Court. Wahanui told the panel flatly that he would ‘not consent to hand over my land to the Native Land Court at present.’ So between the Government’s dismissal of calls to give the Native Committees wider powers and Wahanui’s opposition to the court, there was little common ground between the parties.
The scheme of boards and committees provided for in the Native Land Administration Act 1886 were essentially a dead letter because it failed to give Maori the level of control they sought over the administration of their land and they were critical of the power it gave the Crown to purchase land. This was unfortunate as the concept had the potential to provide some control of land alienation by hapu and iwi, slow the rate at which land was alienated from Maori ownership, and possibly provide an avenue to
lease and sell on the open market, allowing a greater financial return to communities. The idea was final brought to life in the district Maori Land Councils (later Boards) introduced in 1900. Conclusions
and
Summary
8. 453
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
8.4 HAPU AND IWI RESPONSE TO CROWN’S INTENTIONS AND LEGISLATION, 1884–1886
From records of these encounters it is possible to tease out what hapu and iwi leaders knew about the Crown’s intentions for the Rohe Potae, and what Maori responses to these plans were. Two questions arise in particular, firstly, what understandings were reached between Ballance and Wahanui about the nature and extent of restrictions on Maori leasing and selling to Europeans? Secondly, prior to 1889, what, if anything did hapu and iwi know about the Crown’s intention to undertake large‐scale land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block?
8.4.1 HAPU AND IWI UNDERSTANDINGS OF RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION, 1884–1885
As we have already seen, Ballance assured the House that Wahanui had given his assent to the prohibition on private dealings over the land in the schedule of the 1884 Act, and approved of the boundaries of the restriction zone. This statement should not be taken at face value. Given the considerable level of concerns about speculators expressed in the 1883 petition it is more than likely that Wahanui was in support of any measure that would keep speculators out of the Rohe Potae, and that he expressed this to Ballance. From the content of his speech to the House on 1 November 1884 it is clear that Wahanui had seen a copy of the Native Land Settlement Bill, yet he was silent on the matter of Crown pre‐emption and restrictions of private dealings. This silence may lend support to Ballance’s contention that Wahanui agreed to the restrictions.
But it is important to remember that Wahanui’s understanding of the nature and effect of the provisions for Crown pre‐emption and restrictions on alienation took shape at a time when those provisions sat side by side with those intended to establish a system of commissioners and boards through which Maori could sell or lease their land. While we do not have a record of meetings between Wahanui and his party and Ballance in Wellington between June and November 1884, if Ballance’s speech at a public banquet Conclusions in Whanganui after the 1884 Act was passed is any indication, the way that these two and sets of provisions would operate was made to sound attractive to Maori. At this banquet, Ballance emphasised that Maori would be able to sell or lease their land to the
Crown or on the open market. This would certainly had made the restrictions far less Summary
8. 454
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 threatening to Wahanui than they would appear when they were passed into law in the 1884 Act shorn of the mechanism that offered this possibility.
The prospect of being able to engage with European buyers via the controls and safeguards of a commissioner and boards/committees did not totally convince Wahanui of the merits of the scheme. In fact he strongly objected to the scheme as set out in 1884, stating in his speech to the House that he had seen the Native Land Settlement Bill and found it to be highly objectionable: with sharp teeth covering its whole body ‘to swallow the people’ and a sting in its tail that ‘will destroy the land.’ When he appeared before the Legislative Council after the Bill had been redrafted to exclude the administrative measures he noted that the legislation was improved and all but one ‘tooth’ or matter of concern remained (the prospect that it would give the Native Land Court access to the district). The following year Wahanui was questioned on the redrafted Bill by the Native Affairs Select Committee. Wahanui’s replies to these questions indicate that he was willing to entertain the concept of committees and boards to control the sale and lease of land but they had to be solely and completely controlled by Maori in the district. Rather than establish a new committee he favoured the Crown empowering the existing Kawhia Native Committee with smaller local block or hapu committees reporting to it.
In his speech to the Legislative Council on 6 November 1884, Wahanui made no strong objections to the provision for the re‐establishment of Crown pre‐emption and the restrictions on private dealings as embodied in the Native Land Alienation Bill. At face value this could be cited as evidence that, as Ballance maintained, Wahanui approved of the restrictions. But if the speech is examined more closely in the context of the situation Wahanui and other hapu and iwi leaders faced by 1884, it seems very likely that even a leader of considerable intelligence and ability, such as Wahanui, did not see at that time how those provisions could be used by the Crown to facilitate large‐scale purchasing of their land. Instead, they were focused on those issues which posed an Conclusions immediate threat to their communities, their land and resources. As already mentioned, and by 1884 there were very real fears about the impact that the Native Land Court would have if it were allowed to operate in the district, and there were great concerns about how European speculators would use that court process. That was why Wahanui used Summary
his opportunity to appear before the Legislative Council to ask that any decision to be 8. 455
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 made by hapu and iwi about the entry of the court into the district be delayed until after they had reached an agreement with the Government over suitable land laws. Even then he asked that the Kawhia Native Committee be empowered to deal with all matters of title and land alienation in the district. This, in his mind, was the most pressing matter of the day. With so many critical issues facing hapu and iwi leaders in the Rohe Potae: the railway, survey, Native Land Court, land speculators, there was little time and energy left for probing the possible long‐term implications of these measures, especially when they were presented, at least in the House, as a temporary measure to protect the land from speculators.
8.4.2 HAPU AND IWI UNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT CROWN INTENTIONS TO PURCHASE, 1884–1885
One can reasonable conclude from the evidence that Wahanui and other hapu and iwi leaders were not immediately told that the Crown intended, at some point in the future, to conduct a large‐scale land purchasing operation in the Rohe Potae under the terms of the 1884 Act. In November 1884, at least one Member of the Legislative Council, James Richmond, the Member for Nelson, was sure that the Government had not yet made these intentions clear to Maori, and he urged that this should be done. The official account of Ballance’s meeting with hapu and iwi at Kihikihi in January 1885 suggests that Maori in the Rohe Potae were explicitly told that the Government had no intention of undertaking large‐scale purchasing in the district, and they were left with the impression that they would instead be able to lease their land through the proposed board/committee mechanism. A member of the Native Affairs Select Committee asked Wahanui whether he was aware that the entire purpose of the railway was to get the country settled by Europeans and that the Government believed that Maori would ‘treat with them for the cession of the land along‐side’ the railway. Wahanui was very clear that he did not know that this was the Government’s intention, nor had they agreed to European settlement on that scale.
At this time, hapu and iwi were reluctant to make decisions about whether, how, and to Conclusions what extent they would sell or lease land to the Crown for European settlement. It is not and
surprising that hapu and iwi were not ready in 1885 to make such decisions. As already noted, there were other more urgent matters to address. As Wahanui indicated under
intense questioning from the select committee in 1885 he was seeking a clear and Summary
8. 456
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 satisfactory legal framework before he and his people made those decisions. He cautiously conceded that they might be willing to lease and sell land but only if Maori were guaranteed full authority over their land. Wahanui’s hesitation in answering was partly because he was aware that even a man of standing such as himself had limited authority to speak on behalf of others and to make statements that could later be taken by officials as binding promises. When pressed for his personal opinion he made it clear that only if the railway was constructed and they could reach a unanimous understanding could the issue of selling or leasing of land be addressed. He was supported in the House by Wi Pere, the Member for Eastern Maori who asked that all pressure to survey, sell and lease be removed from Maori in the Rohe Potae to enable hapu and iwi and the Crown to jointly design legislation for the administration and disposal of Maori land, and for the resulting Bill to be brought to the House for confirmation.
On the other hand, Wahanui was aware of the likelihood that in future some land would be sold in the Rohe Potae to the Crown. Wahanui, and probably other leaders, were well aware of the way that Crown purchasing had been conducted during the 1870s in neighbouring districts and were keen to find ways to ensure hapu and iwi retained control of that process. They were particularly concerned to avoid secret dealings with individuals that would undermine the authority of communities and collective decision‐ making. In a letter to the Member for Western Maori, Wi Tako Ngatata, in November 1884, Wahanui repeated his request that negotiations for land purchasing be delayed until after a clear and mutually acceptable process was agreed between Rohe Potae Maori and the Crown. Again he emphasised that the bottom line for hapu and iwi was that ‘the dealing with the land’ was ‘to be left in his own hands.’ Wahanui was completely opposed to advances being paid to individuals. Instead he proposed that when the Government wished to purchase land they were to make a public announcement to all those with interests in the land and negotiate openly with them, making the negotiations known to the district Native Committee. This determination Conclusions not to be rushed into decisions about what land they were willing to part with was and noted by Judge Mair, who was presiding over the title investigation for the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block from July 1886 onwards. Mair understood that once they had got ‘their Summary
8. 457
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 land question all settled’ it was likely that the people would set aside some land for sale, some for leasing and some a permanent reserves for their own use.
By 1887, a year after the court began sitting, hapu and iwi within the inquiry district were expressing increasing unease about the possibility of the Crown sending land purchase agents into the district. At a meeting with Ballance at Otorohanga in January 1887, John Ormsby, the chair of the Kawhia Native Committee, speaking on behalf of Ngati Maniapoto, expressed a fear that the Government would send agents in to buy land before the court was able to complete the subdivision of the Aotea block along hapu lines. Ballance promised that the Government would not purchase any land until the subdivisions had been made. But he also reassured the people that under the Native Land Administration Act passed the previous year their interests were protected and they would have the choice of selling to the Crown or to private buyers via the committees set up under that Act. However, Ballance also openly admitting to Maori in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block that the Crown intended purchasing land and advising them that it was to their advantage to set aside blocks of land for European settlement.
All of this points to a set of consistent messages from Wahanui and other leaders during the 1880s: they wished to retain sole authority over the their land and resources, in particularly they wanted the Native Land Court excluded from the district and the Kawhia Native Committee to be empowered to determine title to land and then to manage all subsequent dealings with their land. Hapu and iwi leaders were not utterly opposed to European settlement and railways and roads being built in the district but they wanted to remain in control of that process. To that end they desired to work in partnership with the Government to develop satisfactory Native land legislation. Only then would they be able to consider whether, and to what extent, communities would be
willing to lease or sell land to the Crown and to Europeans. When pressed on these matters during the 1880s and early 1890s by Government officials, hapu and iwi leaders emphasized that these agreement needed to be put in place and then communities be
given time to reach a consensus about how they would use and dispose of their land. Conclusions
The Crown commenced large scale land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in and late 1889 with no such protocols in place, and from 1886 the Native Land Court was active in the district. Only after a year or more of largely unsuccessful attempts to Summary purchase from individual owners, was the Crown willing to engage with hapu and iwi 8. 458
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 during 1891 and 1892 to try to reach some kind of agreement over land purchasing. These negotiations failed but the Crown continued and intensified its land purchasing throughout the 1890s without securing a broad agreement with the hapu and iwi of the Rohe Potae. This is discussed in detail below.
8.5 THE CONTINUATION OF CROWN PRE‐EMPTION AND RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION, 1886–1888
Crown pre‐emption and restrictions on private dealings over the 1884 railway restriction zone were briefly repealed by the Native Land Administration Act 1886, presumably because the provision for boards and committees to manage the alienation of Maori land made them unnecessary. As already discussed, the administrative mechanism put in place by the 1886 Act failed to attract Maori support and was repealed after two years by the Native Land Court Act 1888. In any case, even if hapu and iwi in the inquiry district had wanted to have boards and committees established they could not do so because, as the Stout‐Ngata Commission observed in 1907, they were still in the midst of court hearings and so had no clear title to alienate.
On the same day that the 1886 Act was repealed the Native Land Court Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888 restored the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase and prohibited private transactions in all land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block for three years from the passing of the Act. Thus, the restrictions were rolled over until 30 August 1891. The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889 extended this to 30 August 1892. It is clear that these measures were re‐imposed in order to assist the Crown to purchase Maori land in the block. By the middle of 1888, the prospects for a large‐scale land purchasing operation in the Rohe Potae (Aotea)
block, and European settlement were looking far more certain than they had done in 1884. Railway construction was proceeding, pushing the line south from Te Awamutu towards Otorohanga. The Native Land Court was two years into its investigation of title Conclusions
and subdivision of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and the District Native Officer, George
Wilkinson, who would later be appointed land purchase officer, was monitoring the and
progress of the court and assisting the Crown in planning for the commencement of purchasing. This was the beginning of the entrenchment of the Crown’s monopoly on Summary
land purchasing in the inquiry district which lasted effectively until 1900. 8. 459
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
8.6 FUNDING FOR CROWN PURCHASING IN THE RAILWAY RESTRICTION ZONE, 1882–1889
As already discussed, one of the reasons for these measures was to facilitate the large‐ scale purchasing of Maori land in the territory surrounding or ‘feeding’ the North Island Main Trunk Railway to sustain and pay for railway construction. The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Act 1882 authorized the Government to raise a one million pound loan to pay for the construction of the railway. In line with this policy, railway loan money was also set aside for the purchase of Maori land within the railway restriction zone defined by the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884 and subsequent Acts. After 1889/1890, railway loan legislation had the duel function of defining the area over which restrictions applied and how much funding was to be made available for land purchasing. The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act 1886 allocated up to £100,000 of the initial one million pound loan to purchasing land from within the boundaries of the railway restriction zone defined in the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884. The money raised from onselling this land to settlers was then to be used to pay for the construction of the main line, branch lines and supporting tramways and roads. The colony was to further benefit from the purchase and resale of Maori land because 2.5 per cent of the land acquired was to be reserved for hospitals, education boards and charitable aid boards to establish public amenities. It is beyond the scope of this project to trace how much of this money was used to provide such institutions and to evaluate what benefit, if any, Maori communities derived from them. This requires further research.
By the final months of 1889, plans for land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block were in place. Therefore, Parliament considered it necessary to amend the railway loans
legislation to earmark funds to enable purchasing to commence and be completed in the blocks that Wilkinson, the land purchase officer, had identified as desirable and ready for purchase. So the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Conclusions
Act 1889 increased the amount of money which could be taken from the loan for land
purchasing purposes from £100,000 to £220,285. Of the total sum £100,000 was to be and
targeted to part of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and to part of the lower reaches of the original 1884 railway restriction zone. The boundaries of this ‘target area’ within the Summary
inquiry district corresponded almost exactly with those blocks prioritized by Wilkinson. 8. 460
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
This area was also explicitly made subject to Crown pre‐emption and restrictions on alienation even though it lay within the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block which was already subject to restriction under the Native Land Court Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888. After 30 August 1891, when the restrictions under the 1888 Act lapsed, this ‘targeted funding’ area was the geographical limits of those restrictions until a greatly expanded restriction zone was established by the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Acts Amendment Act 1892 on 12 October 1892.
It appears that the area of the inquiry district excluded from the 1889 targeted funding area and its restrictions lay within the Taranaki Land District. This area was dropped from the area covered by the 1889 Act because the Government feared that the New Plymouth Harbour Board would use the legislation under which it operated to claim 25 per cent of all the revenue from the sale of Crown land in the Taranaki Land District. There was widespread opposition amongst politicians to this on the grounds that it would divert money from the railway. Much of the debate on the 1889 Act focused on this contentious issue and almost nothing was said about the restrictive provisions or their effect on Maori landowners. But it is significant that the lone voice of protest came from Hoani Taipua, the Member for Western Maori, in whose district the restrictions applied. He reminded the House that he had originally been elected to bring forward the people’s objections to the 1884 restrictions and he was strongly opposed to the Liberals re‐imposing those restrictions and the monopoly they created in favour of the Crown.
This stream of funding made it possible for the Crown to commence and sustain a pattern of purchasing in the inquiry district which involved multiple payments across an increasing number of blocks. By 1894, this funding was exhausted but by then the Liberal Government had expanded the purchasing of Maori land throughout the North
Island and had allocated a significant sum to the task. Land purchasing in the inquiry district was sustained by this general pool of funding into the early 1900s.
8.7 DETERMINING LAND QUALITY AND RESOURCES, 1884–1885 Conclusions
and In addition to these legislative measures, knowledge of the location and quality of the land the Crown would purchase for European settlement was also important to the Crown’s preparations for resuming land purchasing in the King Country. During the Summary
8. 461
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 survey of the external boundaries of the Rohe Potae (1883) block in 1884 and 1885, the surveyor Lawrence Cussen mapped and classified much of the land within the inquiry district into first, second or third class land, and gave a detailed description of the natural resources and agricultural potential of each category.
This knowledge was available to Crown officials between 1886 and 1889 when they were identifying which blocks should be targeted for purchasing. Wilkinson’s correspondence and reports during that time indicate that one of the criteria block needed to meet to be included in this shortlist was land quality. A comparison of the blocks shortlisted by Wilkinson in June 1889 with Cussen’s 1885 topographical map reveals that the blocks the Crown were most eager to purchase were located in areas considered by Cussen to be first class agricultural land.
8.8 CROWN PRE‐EMPTION/RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION, AND FUNDING FOR CROWN PURCHASING UNDER THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT, 1890–1900
The Liberal Government’s rise to power co‐incided almost exactly with the beginning of the Crown’s land purchasing programme in the inquiry district in late 1889 and early 1890. The Liberals extended the duration of Crown pre‐emption and the restrictions on alienation which had been put in place in 1889 in order to support and fund this embryonic purchasing programme. So the North Island Main Trunk Loan Application Amendment Act 1891 extended these restrictions for a further year until 1 January 1893. This was clearly in response to the needs of the land purchasing operation in the railway restriction zone. Native Minister Cadman noted that it was considered necessary to extend the timeframe of the restrictions because, by his estimation, around 50,000 acres of land in the restricted areas had been purchased in the previous few
months. He hoped that by keeping the restrictions in place for a further year a very large portion of the restricted area could be purchased.
The following year the restriction zone was greatly enlarged, covering almost the same Conclusions area as the original 1884 railway restriction zone. The 1892 boundaries excluded a and wedge of the Taupo‐nui‐a‐tia block on the eastern side and followed the western boundary of the 1889 area, in a straight line from the northern corner of the Mokau Mohakatino block to Pirongia. The land within the Taranaki Provincial District Summary
8. 462
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 previously excluded from the restriction area in 1889 was once placed under restriction. The Act also extended the duration of the restrictions over this area for a further year until 1 January 1894. The Native Minister admitted that the boundaries were extended again because there was currently ‘hardly sufficient scope for the purchase of Native land within the area set aside [under the 1889 Act] if this money was to be used quickly.’ This was a tacit admission that not enough land was being offered quickly enough by Maori owners to satisfy the Crown and so it looked to other areas of the ‘railway zone’ to meet this need.
Debate on these pieces of legislation and on the Native Land Act 1894 reveals that by the early 1890s there was a growing feeling amongst a broad spectrum of politicians that both the area covered by these restrictions, and their duration was excessive and had disadvantaged hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae. Some went as far as to say that that the measures had ‘practically confiscated the whole of this Native territory.’ Amongst these objections were accusations that Rohe Potae Maori were disadvantaged compared to Maori elsewhere who were able to lease their land and derive benefit from it. The Member for Western Maori, Hoani Taipua considered that this was particularly unfair considering the steps King Country Maori had taken to ‘come out of their isolation and embrace the laws of the colony.’ Some proposed that the Government should limit the restrictions to a much smaller area on either side of the railway line itself. Yet Premier Seddon mounted a vigorous defence of the policy, stating that it was important that the area be as large as possible to prevent speculators from operating who he various described as ‘land grabbers’, ‘land‐sharks ‘and ‘Pakeha‐Maori.’
There are several examples of Maori and European politicians throughout the first part of the 1890s putting forward alternatives to the blanket approach to restrictions on
private dealings which had been in place more or less constantly since 1884. These would allow Maori to lease to bona fide settlers while making it difficult or impossible for speculators to purchase and aggregate large areas of land. The fact that these ideas
were put forward suggests that at least some politicians considered that compromise Conclusions
regarding restrictions was both warranted and achievable. Ideas proposed included and allowing Maori to lease smaller blocks of land of up to two or five thousand acres, leaving larger blocks under restriction or giving Maori the freedom to lease but limiting Summary speculation by restricting how much land any single European could be acquired. 8. 463
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
By 1894, this distinctive stream of policy and legislation for the Rohe Potae and the wider railway restriction zone, which had begun in 1884, was subsumed by the Liberals overarching focus on acquiring as much Maori land as possible across the North Island. The first signs that the Crown was moving in this direction was the passing of the Native Land Purchase Act 1892. This allowed the Crown to remove restrictions on alienation placed on blocks by the Native Land Court, but only in its own favour. The Act also gave the Crown the power to issue proclamations which imposed its pre‐emptive right of purchase and prohibit private dealings over blocks it was currently negotiating for or intended to purchase. These provisions were not new but simply extended powers which had existed since the 1870s.
The following year the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893 was passed. Its preamble made it clear that it was designed to accelerate the purchasing of land to meet demand from settlers. It provided for a five‐member board to be appointed, with some Maori representatives, through which Maori could sell or lease their land to the Crown or vest it in the Crown to be leased to Europeans on their behalf. However, the Act made leasing by far the least attractive option because, unlike those who sold land, those leasing would be required to give a certain portion of land to pay for surveys and the construction of roads. The Act was not used and was rapidly overtaken by the passing of the Native Land Act 1894 which restored full pre‐emption and prohibitions on private dealings over the whole North Island. In any case, by 1894 Seddon was reporting that Maori had begun to offer more land to the Crown and so it was not necessary for these measures to be used.
Further impetus was given to Crown purchasing by changes in the way that land purchasing was organized in the colony and by making more funds available for the
acquisition of land. These measures included increases in the number of land purchase officers, moves to ensure that the land purchased was as close as possible to existing roads and European towns to facilitate rapid settlement, as well as increases in the
prices offered to Maori to tempt owners to sell. But overall, the Liberals did not do Conclusions
anything radically different to facilitate land purchasing in the inquiry district from and what had been set down in the 1880s. They continued restrictions and further increased the stream of funding. However, the restrictions which had begun as a ‘temporary’ Summary holding measure in 1884 came to be regarded by most in government in the 1890s as 8. 464
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the most appropriate and practical means of dealing with the Rohe Potae. As had been the case in the 1880s, the main reason cited for continuing these measures was the fear that speculators would acquire large areas of land. This was particularly the case once the Crown was actually engaged in land purchasing. These actions certainly fit within Liberal Government economic and ideological opposition to land monopolies by private individuals, Maori or European. The renewed vigor with which the Liberals pursued their goals of land purchasing and closer European settlement undoubtedly also played some part in the acceleration in land purchasing in the inquiry district from 1893/1894.
8.9 THE PLANNING OF THE PURCHASING PROGRAMME AND EARLY POLICY DECISIONS, 1886–1889
The Crown made its decision to engage in purchasing Maori land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and other parts of the railway restriction zone as early as 1884. Throughout the 1880s and early 1890s it created and maintained restrictions and a pool of funding that would effectively enable the Crown to enter the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block in late in 1889 as the sole buyer of land: land which was untouched by previous purchases made by Europeans. Yet, as Ballance had recognised in 1884, the Crown’s intention to purchase large areas of the district for European settlement and to financially support the railway could not be realised until the Native Land Court had granted Maori title of the land. Therefore, it was only after July 1886 when the court began to hear evidence about the title of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block that officials began to make firm and specific plans about what land they would purchase and how.
George Wilkinson, Native Agent/District Native officer from 1883, and land purchase officer in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block from 1889, was charged with the responsibility
for planning and carrying out the Crown’s land purchasing operation in the inquiry district. By 1889, when purchasing commenced, he had been in the district for six or seven years. His annual reports reveal that he had developed a solid understanding of Conclusions
the various hapu and their leaders, and their land and resources. For a short period he
was assisted by William Henry (W H) Grace during 1890. The Under Secretary of the and
Native Land Purchase Department, T W Lewis, and the Native Minister also played important roles in decisions about which blocks should be prioritised for purchase and Summary
how that purchasing would take place. Almost from the start, Judge G W Mair, who was 8. 465
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 presiding over the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block case, provided ownership lists for blocks where title had been determined to Wilkinson. He was also well placed to understand and report on the progress of the court and on Ngati Maniapoto concerns because he attended the court in a private capacity, with his Ngati Maniapoto wife and her kin, and was intimately involved with their case.
Planning for purchasing began in earnest from the end of 1888 and flowed on into 1889. By this time Wilkinson was compiling a short list of blocks that he considered should be the starting point for the purchasing operation. He set minimum standards which had to be met before a block could be placed on this list. The owners’ list had to be confirmed, the survey of the external boundaries of the block had to be complete, the period in which owners could appeal the court’s decision had to have lapsed or appeals had been dealt with already, and the block had to be high quality agricultural land close to the railway line, or contain significant resources.
By June 1889, Wilkinson had listed 13 blocks that met the title and appeal criteria but only eight of these met all four conditions. These were all in the north of the inquiry district. He estimated their total area as 46,017 acres. Eight other blocks also met the criteria but were further from the railway line. Wilkinson gave their total area as 34,214 acres. He also recommended that Hauturu East No. 1 & No. 3 be purchased in order to secure the newly discovered Waitomo caves for the Crown. Wilkinson also took a pragmatic approach to prioritizing land for purchase. He acknowledged that the Crown was unlikely to meet with success if they tried to purchase blocks that were heavily occupied by Maori or contained important wahi tapu. By targeting so much land in the north of the district, which the surveyor Lawrence Cussen had identified as first class agricultural land, and which were most likely to benefit from proximity to the railway
line, the Crown placed itself in direct competition with Maori communities for some of the most valuable land and resources in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. An 1891 map of the North Island showing land tenure and use also indicates that many of these areas
were heavily occupied and cultivated by hapu and iwi. Statements from claimants at Conclusions
oral and traditional hui for this inquiry in 2010 emphasised that this area is heavily and imbued with cultural and spiritual associations. Summary
8. 466
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Crown officials were aware during 1888 and 1889 that the blocks they had shortlisted for purchase constituted some of the best land in the district and that amongst many owners and communities there was strong opposition to land selling on principle. Under these circumstances, there was a particular obligation on the Crown to ensure that they consulted Maori communities about their immediate plans to begin purchasing that land. There is little evidence that such consultation took place, certainly in any large‐scale public way. We do known about one meeting between the Under Secretary of the Native Land Purchase Department and Wahanui and others at Otorohanga in early June 1889. However, no record of what was said at this meeting has been located. In any case, it seems to have been limited to key leaders and took place the same month as the Crown formally notified certain senior rangatira that the Crown was about to commence purchasing on 24 June 1889.
These letters were sent to Wahanui, and two other leaders, Taonui and Hauauru, but they contained no details about which blocks the Crown intended to focus on initially. Instead the letters urged Maori to part with their ‘surplus’ land on the promise that land would be reserved for their use. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that any thought was given to actually sitting down with the owners of the Rohe Potae and reaching a consensus about what land, if any, Maori were collectively willing to part with and what they wished to permanently retain.
Wilkinson was instructed to make reserves in blocks where he purchased but these were only provided to ‘sellers’ and were to amount to 10 per cent of the land each person sold. These reserves were aggregated and a subdivision of the block was designated as a reserve. There are indications that Crown officials considered these to be means of inducing people to sell rather than primarily as a way of ensuring Maori
retained an economic base. In any case, the practice was short lived and altogether a relatively small amount of land was ultimately set aside.
Prior to purchasing, several decisions were made by Wilkinson and Lewis. Wilkinson Conclusions advised the Under Secretary Lewis that the level of opposition to land selling was such and that he very much doubted whether Maori would willingly sell whole blocks or subdivisions of land to the Crown. This was an important realization that gave rise to the Crown’s decision to purchase the interests of individual owners over a period of Summary
8. 467
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 time in the hope that eventually the Crown would purchase enough interests to apply to the Court to partition out and give title to particular pieces of land. Lewis advocated purchasing interests in as many blocks as possible simultaneously in the hope that this would break down resistance to selling, because, he reasoned, owners with interests in multiple blocks might be more willing to sell in one block if they could hold onto their interests in another. It was also hoped that this would increase the amount of money circulating in the Maori community, tempting those resisting sales to part with their interests in order to obtain cash for themselves.
Wilkinson and Lewis also made the decision to begin buying from individual owners despite the failure of the court to define what proportion of the block each individual owner was entitled to, i.e. their relative share or interest. In lieu of relative interests being defined, it was decided that Wilkinson would make payment to owners on the assumption that each held an equal individual share. He was well aware that this was not actually the case. Wilkinson was also conscious that there were risks in pressing on with purchasing before relative interests had been defined. In particular, owners could be under or over paid for their interests and the Crown had no idea how much land the interests it was purchasing actually represented. Nevertheless, it was decided to proceed with purchasing in late 1889 as it was expected that the Native Land Court would soon catch up and define relative interests in all the blocks it had already dealt with.
Decisions were also made late in 1889 about how much the Crown would pay Maori per acre. In November 1889, Wilkinson’s shortlist of blocks was finalized and sent to the Surveyor General who then entered a price per acre figures against each block. This list was later revised to show the maximum price per acre Maori were to be offered, the
recommended upset price (price land would be sold for on the open market) and the difference between these two figure, which on the list was clearly labeled as ‘profit’ – necessary to some extent to defray the costs of preparing land for resale and
constructing roads and other public amenities. Yet these were not the prices Wilkinson Conclusions
was to offer. In instructions to him from Lewis on 21 December 1889, he was told to pay and no more than five shillings per acre. Early in the following year he was told that this should be the maximum price offered and to begin by offering three shillings and Summary sixpence per acre. In many cases, five shillings per acre was less than the Surveyor 8. 468
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
General had recommended. So in essence, this greatly increased the Crown’s profit beyond what it had initially calculated was necessary for the good of the colony. This raises concerns about whether Maori in the inquiry district received fair prices for their land prior to independent valuations being introduced in 1905, especially when the Crown was the sole buyer and owners could not legally obtain a better price from someone else.
8.10 INITIAL PURCHASES AND THE CAUSES OF CROWN FRUSTRATION, 1890–1892
The initial 12 to 18 months of Crown purchasing were extremely frustrating and disappointing to the Crown. The resistance they had expected from Maori owners proved to be far more widespread and effective than had originally been anticipated. Although the Crown engaged in purchasing in many of the blocks Wilkinson had shortlisted, too few interests were acquired and the Crown was unable to gain title to very much land. In fact, prior to purchasing commencing in 1889, 3.24 per cent of the original area of the inquiry district had been alienated from Maori ownership; by the end of 1892 this had barely changed (4.03 per cent).
Wilkinson identified three factors that he felt were responsible for this lack of success: strong resistance by Maori to selling, delays in defining relative interests and delays in completion of surveys. There were a multitude of reasons why many owners in the district were unwilling to sell their land and these spanned the economic, political, cultural and spiritual. Their ancestral land and the places within it provided a map of connections that were integral to whakapapa and identity. It provided a place for the dead to rest, sustained the living and offered hope of a new economic prosperity for the
generations to come. Many communities within the Rohe Potae held strongly to the teachings of the Kingitanga and to Te Whiti and Tohu of Parihaka and other prophets, whose political philosophy encouraged resistance the sale of land. In particular, Marr Conclusions
noted that Te Mahuki and some of his people at Te Kumi had moved to Parihaka in the
late 1870s. During non‐violent protests by Maori there about the confiscation of the and
Waimate Plains in south Taranaki Te Mahuki had been arrested, along with other men who fenced and ploughed the disputed land, and imprisoned in Dunedin during 1879 Summary
and 1880s. He was among those released from gaol, who had returned to Parihaka in 8. 469
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
June 1881.1244 In addition, Tawhaio himself had a relationship with both the prophets of Parihaka.1245
Alongside these intrinsic reasons for this resistance, the simple reality was that the price per acre being offered was low when compared to sums fetched by everyday trading commodities. Most tellingly, owners of the Puketarata and Ouruwhero blocks told assistant land purchase officer W H Grace that the three shillings and sixpence per acre being offered for their land would provide them with less income than they could earn from selling a single pig. Wilkinson recognized this reality, and that the land in the north was amongst the best in the district. In February 1890, he was granted permission to offer five shillings an acre. But even this was considered too low by many owners and sales did not pick up.
It was not unreasonable for Maori in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block to expect to receive a greater return for land than that offered by the Crown. Many letters sent by owners attempting to negotiate over prices for land in some of these northern blocks in the 1890s demonstrate a highly developed knowledge that this land was of the highest quality, flat and fertile and in advantageous locations close to the railway and Upper Waikato towns such as Kihikihi, Alexandra and Cambridge. So despite the Crown’s monopoly and the lack of a free market in land in the district, hapu and iwi were well aware that their land could command a higher price. Newspapers informed them that there was a strong demand for land from settlers, and they were often offered £1 per acre by Europeans. Throughout the 1880s they had been told by politicians, such as Ballance, that their land would be worth a great deal once the railway had been constructed through it. Yet in this early period, Lewis remained very firm on five shillings per acre as a maximum price and considered that Maori had inflated and
unrealistic expectations of the value of their land.
Conclusions
and
1244 Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864–1886, Part I: 1864–1882’, draft for comment, June 2011, p 806 citing Chris Koroheke, ‘Te Mahuki’, from Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, www.TeAra.govt.nz and Chaplow, Who Planted the Tree? pp 127‐128 & 149
1245 Summary
Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864–1886, Part I: 1864–1882’, draft for comment, June
2011, p 585 8. 470
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
More than anything Wilkinson was convinced that Maori resistance to selling land was not only a response to the poor prices being offered to them by the Crown but also simply a sign that they felt little need for cash in the early 1890s. There was probably some truth to this observation. The costs of the court and survey were only just beginning to bite in the first two years of purchasing, but there were already sales in the Te Kopua block and in the Waiaraia and Umukaimata blocks in 1891 and 1892 which were the result of a need for cash to pay such debts. Others were engaging with Europeans or working alone in sheep farming, and Wilkinson reported in this period that some of those owners hoped to use the income from these ventures to pay off debt, as an alternative to land sales. Money was acquired by selling flax, timber and rabbit skins, or by undertaking seasonal wage labour, such as road work, gun digging in Northland or gold mining in the Thames region. Wilkinson was convinced that if an appetite for western goods and lifestyles could be fostered amongst Maori communities in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, their desire, or need, to part with their land would soon follow. Wilkinson advised his superiors that the Crown should be prepared to wait until Maori began to suffer financial stress. Wilkinson was consistently optimistic that one way or another Maori resistance would crumble. He envisaged that once a few owners sold their shares the collective will of the remainder would gradually be broken down as ‘jealousy and discontent’ was stirred up, resulting in a rush to sell land.
As Wilkinson had expected prior to purchasing, delays in the court determining relative interests and in the survey of the boundaries and internal subdivisions of blocks also had an impact on the amount of land the Crown was able to purchase in the first two years of its purchasing operations. Because of the risks he had already identified Wilkinson was still reluctant to proceed without relative interests being defined. But the advice he received from his superiors was conflicting. All agreed that it was desirable to wait until he knew what proportion of the land was held by each owner, and the Native Minister instructed him not to continue until this was done. The Under Secretary, however, told him to continue purchasing. Wilkinson continued to purchase, calculating Conclusions payment on an assumption that interests were equal. This resulted in several cases and where owners, who were later determined to hold larger than equal shares, were underpaid. Initially, delays in the court determing relative interests were caused by the failure of the court to determine relative interests of each owner at the time the title of Summary
8. 471
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 blocks was first awarded. Maori were often resistant to handing in lists of owners and their relative shares because they knew they were being circulated to and used by land purchase officers, and this contributed to delays in having all relative interests defined. Despite Maori resistance, the court dealt with the backlog of relative interests cases between 1892 and 1895.
There was also uncertainty about how Wilkinson should proceed where surveys had been delayed. In 1888 and 1889, he had been quite firm that blocks could only be shortlisted for purchase if the external boundary survey was complete. But when faced with delays in survey between 1890 and 1892, he sought further instruction. Once again the advice was conflicting. In 1890, the Native Minister approved purchasing in the desirable Otorohanga block even though Wilkinson had made it clear the survey was incomplete. Yet only a day later, the Minister sent out a general instruction that no attempts were to be made to purchase unsurveyed land. It is not entirely clear which practice Wilkinson followed, but there are some signs that purchasing was going ahead regardless of the state of survey, sometimes with a sketch plan deemed to be sufficient for the purpose.
The policy of making ten per cent ‘seller’ reserves, and the initial decision not to purchase the interests of minors, two mechanisms that offered Maori some protection for their interests, were also eroded in the first two years of Crown purchasing. In the first few months of purchasing, Wilkinson reminded his superiors about his instructions to make reserves and asked whether he should still follow that practice. He was told that the provision of reserves was at his discretion. A list of 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserves demonstrates that only a limited number of reserves were made and these were confined to those northern blocks where the Crown most wanted to purchase land.
Wilkinson was generally reluctant to purchase minors’ shares prior to relative interests being defined because he knew that their shares were likely to be small and he risked overpaying owners for them when he was working on the assumption that all owners
held equal shares. This risk was recognized by his superiors and he was told to Conclusions
generally avoid buying minors’ shares. Yet some exceptions were made, where those and shares would complete the purchase of a whole block or subdivision.
Summary
8. 472
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
8.11 ATTEMPTS TO NEGOTIATE A LAND PURCHASING AGREEMENT, 1891– 1892
By 1891, the realities of the land purchasing operation were becoming apparent to both the Crown and hapu and iwi. After more than a year of purchasing, hapu and iwi were beginning to understand the full meaning, effect and interconnection between the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase, the prohibition of private transactions, and the low price per ace being offered to Maori by the Crown. In 1891, several hapu and iwi met with the Crown in an attempt to have restriction on leasing removed from their land. This rapidly developed into a broader initiative by Ngati Maniapoto, to reach an overarching agreement with the Crown about the future extent and method of land purchasing. In many ways, these negotiations were in the tradition of agreements about critical issues reached with Native Ministers from the 1870s onwards.
By 1891, the hope of making relatively rapid purchases of whole blocks had long faded amongst Crown officials and it appeared that they would face a long, costly and frustrating process of purchasing individual interests in blocks of land over many years; with the probable result that blocks of Crown land would be interspersed with areas of Maori land, which was not regarded as conducive to large‐scale European settlement. As already discussed, the initial year or so of purchasing had proved particularly frustrating and the Crown had been unable to secure title to any significant areas of land, largely because of the strength of Maori resistance to selling.
In April 1891, Ngati Maniapoto, Raukawa, Tuwharetoa and other hapu and iwi within the wider Rohe Potae, defined in 1883, gathered at Otorohanga to talk with Native Minister Alfred Cadman. At first, hapu and iwi leaders simply wanted the restrictions on private leasing lifted from the entire district. Cadman made it clear that he had some deep concerns about removing the restrictions particularly that European speculators would benefit financially from the colony’s investment in the railway. Wilkinson, who attended as land purchase officer and interpreter, later expressed his view of the Conclusions request, objecting to the lifting of the restrictions on the grounds that Maori would reap and the rewards of this expenditure through increased prices for their land. The meeting closed with Cadman admitting that he could give no guarantees on the matter but left the door open for further discussions. Summary
8. 473
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The evidence given by Ngati Maniapoto speakers before the Native Land Laws Commission in Otorohanga later that same month also gives an insight into the position of the two parties. Both Taonui Hikaka and Henry Edwards plainly told the commissioners that they wanted the prohibition on private dealings to be lifted. The commissioners insisted that before the Crown could consider lifting any of the restrictions they needed to know whether hapu and iwi planned to lease or sell, and how much freedom individual owners would have to make those decisions in situations where other owners were opposed to the transaction. Edwards, delegated to speak on behalf of Ngati Maniapoto, asked that the restrictions be lifted and the people be given time to debate the issue and come to an agreement amongst themselves. This appeal for breathing space was not unreasonable considering the pace of change facing hapu and iwi leaders in the five years since the court began operating in the district in 1886. To avoid a stalemate developing, and to enlist the commissioners’ assistance in dealing with their request, the chief Whitinui finally intervened and told the commissioners that they would lease if the restrictions were lifted. This seemed to satisfy the commissioners’ need for an answer. But, as a panel appointed to inquire into and report on Maori views regarding Native land laws, they were not in a position promises the restrictions would be lifted.
A second meeting was held with the Native Minister at Otorohanga in December 1891. Hapu and iwi were actively engaged with the matter of the restrictions and had developed a fresh proposal to put forward; one which they hoped would deliver benefits to both parties. It had probably become apparent to hapu and iwi leaders that the Crown was not going to lift the restrictions on private dealings without some kind of incentive. Hence they developed a proposal which would enable the Crown to purchase land at a reasonable price in exchange for removing the restrictions from the land which remained. Speculators, a concern to both parties, were to be controlled by setting limits on how much first and second class land any one European could own. The fact that hapu and iwi leaders were willing to permanently sacrifice a portion of their rohe in this Conclusions way illustrates how much importance they placed on regaining full control of their land. and
In fact, a great deal was at stake here: it probably seemed possible to hapu and iwi leaders at this time that the total area that the Crown would buy, at a mutually Summary acceptable price, could be defined and agreed on through political negotiations. This 8. 474
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 would leave a sufficient area over which restrictions on direct dealings with Europeans would be lifted. Hapu and iwi leaders most likely saw this as land which could be leased to generate revenue or sold in a controlled way, through the Kawhia Native Committee or a system of hapu or block committees as envisaged by Wahanui in 1885. The income generated would defray the court and survey costs and enable Maori to buy stock and agricultural equipment, taking advantage of new economic opportunities and entering partnerships with particular Europeans. However, even if this had been possible it is likely the individualised title to that land would make it more difficult to retain collective control and decision‐making at hapu and rangatira level. So utilizing land which had been freed from restrictions may have proved more difficult that was imagined in 1891 and 1892. But the alternatives to seeking this agreement were unappealing: either the piecemeal, uncontrolled alienation by the Crown at a price set by the Crown, or equally uncontrollable selling to speculators.
Although this proposal was in large part driven by stark choices, it does indicate that as long as Maori were firmly in control of how their land would be used there was a willingness on the part of hapu and iwi to share their territory with Europeans in a way ensure that no one groups monopolized the best land. Yet we should not lose sight of the fact that this sacrifice would not have been necessary at all had Maori been granted the kind of collective control they sought over their land, without the interference of the Native Land Court and had the restrictions on private leasing and selling not been so complete and imposed for such a long period. As already noted in this summary, Maori and European politicians had put forward a number of alternatives to this regime throughout the 1880s and early 1890s, which at least had the potential to allow Maori to engage with bona fide settlers while controlling the worst excesses of land speculators.
The December 1891 meeting took an unexpected turn before this proposal could be put on the table. Cadman told hapu and iwi that if they were willing to sell sufficient blocks
of land for settlement the Crown would agree to lift the restrictions on private Conclusions
transactions from the remainder of their land. Accounts of this meeting suggest that and there was a will on both sides to work out how this might be achieved in practice. Nevertheless, the Crown’s proposal did not answer some important questions. In Summary particular, there was no indication during the meeting (as recorded) of how much land 8. 475
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the Crown would require for settlement purposes or whether it had a preference as to the location of that land. As discussed, the Crown had already planned to purchase the high quality land in the north and land in close proximity to the railway line. An interview with Premier John Ballance at this time confirms these preferences.
Cadman put Ngati Maniapoto under considerable pressure to accept his proposal. They were told that if they refused to come to an agreement, legislation would be introduced to compel them to sell their land. In addition, he would take action to have Europeans illegally leasing or informally occupying Maori land evicted from the district. It is not clear why Cadman felt it necessary to threaten to use such coercive measures. It is possible that he was aware of Ngati Maniapoto’s proposal and found the level of control they sought unpalletable or he felt under extreme pressure from settlers and his fellow politicians to come to an arrangement to buy large blocks of land at a time when land purchasing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block had virtually stalled. Cadman’s behavior was certainly in marked contrast to the willingness of Ngati Maniapoto leaders put forward a compromise which would provide benefits for all parties.
Faced with these threats Ngati Maniapoto withdrew from the hui for two days in order to discuss their options. They returned with a softer line on the matter of restrictions; proposing that they be able to freely lease their remaining land but only have the power to privately sell small blocks that the Crown had no interest in purchasing. They were still willing to provide certain blocks of land for settlement but asked that they have some voice in fixing the price they would receive for their land (the low prices offered by the Crown already having become a sources of grievance). Cadman’s response was positive on all but the matter of pricing. But, even on this issue, he indicated cautiously that some solution could be found, perhaps limiting a bi‐partisan pricing model to any
new blocks being purchased. So the parties came to agreement in principle with a mutual will to work through the details at a later date, although there was certainly a degree of coersion at work with Cadman’s threats fresh in the minds of hapu and iwi as
they signaled their agreement and put forward their conditions. The Native Minister Conclusions
indicated that he would put the agreement before Parliament if Ngati Maniapoto put it and in writing. A document was drawn up and duly signed by Wahanui and Taonui and given to the Minister’s Private Secretary; unfortunately this has not been located. Summary
8. 476
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
At the same time as these negotiations were taking, place Wahanui and Taonui were offering to sell the Waiaraia and parts of the Umukaimata block in the south‐west of the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block to the Crown. The correspondence relating to these transactions reveals that the immediate reason for the owners wishing to sell the blocks was to obtain money to support themselves during Native Land Court hearings which had been delayed. However, these leaders were also heavily involved in the negotiations with Cadman over the removal of restrictions in exchange for selling certain agreed‐ upon blocks to the Crown in the future. It is possible then that Wahanui, Taonui and others also made these offers as a demonstration of good faith towards the Crown and to show how blocks could be earmarked for sale and sold quickly.
The agreement between Cadman and Ngati Maniapoto certainly had the potential to meet the needs of Maori and of the Crown, but much rested on the ability to design and agree on the finer details of the scheme. There are signs that, had the agreement got that far, the power of the Crown to ultimately enforce its will may have led to some difficult choices for Ngati Maniapoto. For example, just after the December 1891 meeting Cadman was quoted in the newspaper as saying that he would not allow Rohe Potae Maori to lease large blocks of land, on the basis that this would create a monopoly. If this was a position that the Crown retained this would have made it difficult for Maori to enter leases or engage in partnerships for large‐scale pastoral farming and reduced the income they could generate to pay survey and court costs. In turn this would place individuals under greater pressure to sell land to meet those debts.
A further meeting was held at Otorohanga in May 1892 to begin working out the details of the agreement. Cadman restated the Government’s agreement to the proposal in principle and asked Ngati Maniapoto to form a committee and agree on the blocks of
land they would sell to the Crown. This approach of defining what would be the Crown’s portion first, and leaving, by default, the remainder to be reserved for Maori use held some dangers for hapu and iwi. The need to have at least some of their land free from
restrictions on leasing in order to create a viable future for their people was such a Conclusions
critical one it was quite possible that if the land Maori decided to offer did not meet the and
Crown expectations in terms of quantity and location they would be under pressure to offer more land, and their best quality land, in order to secure this dispensation from Summary the Crown. Hapu and iwi interests would probably have been better protected had the 8. 477
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 focus of the discussion been on Ngati Maniapoto identifying the land they wished to reserve for themselves first, once agreement was reached on that with the Crown, then negotiating could have proceeded over what remained.
Cadman indicated that the agreement depended upon the ability for Ngati Maniapoto leaders to guarantee that all the owners of those blocks would come forward in a reasonable time to sign the deeds of sale. It was at this point the agreement, which had seemed promising, collapsed. After retiring from the hui, Ngati Maniapoto returned. Henry Edwards spoke on their behalf, informing Cadman that such a guarantee was impossible because there were large numbers of owner with diverse (unequal) interests. All they could offer the Crown was the promise that they would use whatever influence they could to persuade their relatives to sell. It was a terrible irony that even the difficult choice that Ngati Maniapoto had made in order to secure freedom from restrictions was denied them by the fundamental nature of the Native Land Court’s process, which provided legal title to individuals rather than collectives. This made decision‐making and enforcement of the will of the majority far more difficult, hence the leaders could not guarantee that their people would agree to sell certain blocks to the Crown.
With the prospect of blocks of land for rapid purchasing suddenly removed the Crown felt it could no longer offer any concession with regard to the restrictions on leasing. However, Ngati Maniapoto continued to press Cadman for the right to lease and for some input into the price they were being offered by the Crown for their land. They would continue to do so until at least 1897. The failure of these negotiations had very serious consequences for Maori in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. With no way of limiting the Crown’s purchasing to specific blocks they remained vulnerable to the picking off of
individual owners’ interests and the increasing fragmentation of their land. Without any way to legally lease or sell to Europeans and only able to sell to the Crown at the price the Crown determined the ability to raise revenue to pay survey costs and other debts
was limited, and the pressure to sell land increased. The Crown had less at stake. Had Conclusions
these negotiations succeeded, the purchasing of Maori land in the district would have and become quicker and less expensive, but it always had the option of falling back on the mode of purchasing they had already established. Summary
8. 478
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
8.12 THE PERSISTENCE AND IMPACT OF RESTRICTION ON PRIVATE LEASING AND SELLING, 1892–1900
Despite repeated requests from hapu and iwi for the restrictions on private dealings to be lifted they remained over the parts of the inquiry district included in the railway restriction zone from 1888 until 1894. After 1894, the inquiry district was subject to the blanket restrictions on alienation under the Native Land Court Act 1894. These were only lifted when District Native Land Councils were established in 1900. There were only limited legal provisions in the 1894 Act for private leasing and selling. For example, Maori were able to establish incorporations that could lease land with the permission of the District Commissioner of Crown Lands. Section 4 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895 also provided a mechanism for restrictions on private dealings to be lifted off specific blocks in order to accommodate leasing. It is unclear whether this provision was used by owners in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, and if so how widely.
The sheer persistence of hapu and iwi protests in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block throughout the remainder of the 1890s about the restrictions on their ability to negotiate leases with Europeans directly is evidence that the constraining effects of these restrictions were very real and strongly felt. At meetings with Premier Richard Seddon and James Carroll at Te Kuiti and at Otorohanga in March 1894, Ngati Maniapoto again asked that the restrictions be removed from their land. At Te Kuiti, there was also a request that the land be dealt with using the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893. Hapu and iwi were keen to use this Act because it enabled Maori to lease their land to Europeans under the Land Act 1871, via a board established to administer it. It also contained provisions for an independent valuation of land before it was sold to Europeans or the Crown. Thus they hoped that the 1893 Act would provide
a way to obtain freedom from the restrictions on alienation and address their request for input into the way that the price offered for their land was determined. As will be discussed in the next section of this conclusion, these hopes were not realised. Conclusions The issue of restrictions on leasing continued to be uppermost in the minds of hapu and and iwi in the inquiry district as the 1890s progressed and the Crown’s land purchasing operation accelerated. In 1897, Pepene Eketone and 163 other representatives of Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Hikairo, Raukawa, Ngati Tuwharetoa and Whanganui, the tribes who Summary
8. 479
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 had signed the 1883 Rohe Potae petition, again united in a call of the Government to remove the restrictions on private leasing and selling from all land that had been dealt with by the court. In particular, they argued that the Crown had set great store in the idea that the Maori and European races were to be equal before the law, and yet these restrictions only applied to Maori land. The Native Affairs Select Committee considered that the request was fair and reasonable and referred the petition to Parliament for consideration, but nothing was done and the restrictions remained.
These hapu and iwi also set down in this petition their strong objections to the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase. They stated that they were now entirely certain that it was the intense desire of the Government that they should speedily sell their land at whatever price the Government chose to give them. Furthermore, they alleged that the restrictions on leasing and selling had been put in place to give the Government free rein to deal with their land, not, as they had once been told, to prevent ‘land grabbers’ or speculators purchasing all the land. After seven years of Crown purchasing, they concluded that ‘the Government land purchases are quite as bad or worse than purchases by private Companies of which we were at first afraid.’ These comments capture the sense of betrayal of trust and bitterness hapu and iwi felt about the impact of Crown purchasing in their rohe.
Their assessment of the Crown’s pre‐emptive right of purchase and the restrictions on private transactions also reveals the irony that during the latter half of the 1880s hapu and iwi had been focused on keeping speculators out of the district, and in dealing with the challenges of the railway negotiations, boundary survey and the Native Land Court. It is possible that under these circumstances that hapu and iwi leaders were so busy attempting to neutralize immediate threats to the wellbeing of their land and people
that they did not immediately perceive Crown purchasing to be a serious threat; perhaps until it was already upon them. The petition of 1883 had placed hapu and iwi concerns about the impact of speculators before the Government and asked the land
laws be reformed, presumably to deal with this threat. The restrictions on private Conclusions
dealings first introduced in 1884 did indeed control speculators but in the process the and
Crown took for itself the right to be the sole purchaser of Maori land. Facilitated by the operation of the Native Land Court in the district, which had been strongly opposed by Summary hapu and iwi in the 1880s, the Crown then instituted an intensive programme of land 8. 480
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 purchasing. From the perspective of many Maori land owners in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, the Government, who they had appealed to for protection, had progressively became a predator; equally damaging as the speculators they had feared.
Records of leases also enable us to draw a conclusion about the effect of restrictions on private transactions, and their policing, had on the number, duration and scope of leases, sales and other partnerships between Maori and Europeans throughout the 1880s and 1890s. It would certainly be wrong to suggest that the restrictions were strong enough to prevent all leasing. This clearly was not the case. By the second half of the 1880s, the Kawhia Native Committee was taking a mediating role in disputes over payment of rent and other issues between Europeans operating businesses on Maori land and the customary owners. The fact that the committee felt the need to issue regulations for this purpose suggests that such arrangements were relatively commonplace. It is unclear how long the committee was active in this role, but the fact that the leases were both illegal, and therefore, informal would have made it difficult to sustain this role in the long‐term particularly once land had been dealt with by the court.
The leases and joint‐ventures which have come to light from the 1890s seem to have been based on localized, small‐scale extraction of primary resources such as coal, flax, timber and limestone, or on running mobs of sheep over larger areas of Maori land. By 1890, Wilkinson estimated that most of the 6,000 sheep grazing in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block were owned by Maori. However, it is doubtful whether there were enduring benefits to hapu and iwi. In examining land use and tenure in 1907, the Stout‐ Ngata Commission concluded that the restriction on leasing had largely prevented Maori in the Rohe Potae from contact with European pastoral farming methods. They
were concerned that as a result little in the way of modern farming skills had been learnt by Maori in the Rohe Potae. They believed that the relative limited amount of Maori land being used for sheep farming was a reflection of this history. The
commissioners also commented on the high degree of subdivision of land in the district, Conclusions
which was at least partly caused by Crown purchasing. So as the land was cut into and smaller and smaller subdivisions large pastoral farming operations became more difficult for Maori owners to organise, finance and run. Summary
8. 481
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Some timber leases or agreements were entered into with European sawmillers to cut timber on particular blocks. In one block (Mangawhero near Otorohanga) these timber cutting rights significantly delayed the alienation of the block, because owners were reluctant to sell the land while it produced a steady income. However, by the early 1900s the timber industry was contracting and generally moving south as the railway construction approached Taumarunui and virgin bush was cleared. So by 1907/1908, the Stout‐Ngata Commission noted that timber leases were confined to the Rangitoto Tuhua block north of Taumarunui. There were some coal leases in blocks along the Mokau River and some early flax cutting operations there. There was one well documented case of a European‐owned lime kiln and quarry.
An inference that can be drawn from this pattern is that if the Crown’s pre‐emption had not applied elsewhere and and for extended periods of time leasing might have been much more extensive. Overall, the evidence suggests that in general leasing was small‐ scale and scattered, therefore it is doubtful whether leasing on this scale could have provided a long‐term pathway to hapu and iwi economic development.
The amount of land alienated through private sale in the inquiry district between 1889 and end of 1908 was negligible, amounting to just 1.1 per cent of the original area of the inquiry district. The majority of land sold privately was from blocks in the inland Mokau area. The inland Mokau area had a distinctive pattern of private leasing and selling, with all of the known transactions there taking place in the three years from 30 August 1891 and 22 October 1894. The fact that this pattern mirrors the period when these blocks lay outside the railway restriction zone suggests that the gap in the restrictions provided an opportunity for Maori and Europeans to negotiate transactions and possibly to formalize those that were already in place.
8.13 THE PERSISTENCE AND IMPACT OF LOW PRICE OFFERED FOR MAORI LAND, 1892–1900 Conclusions Maori dissatisfaction with the prices being offered to them by the Crown for their land and surfaced within the first year of the Crown’s land purchasing operation in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block, and officials were aware that this was having a significant impact on the number of people willing to sell their interests in particular blocks. Wilkinson Summary
8. 482
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 had been instructed to begin by offering three shillings and sixpence per acre and not to exceed five shillings per acre. By February 1890, he had persuaded his superiors to allow him to offer this maximum rate as a matter of course. However, this did little to allay the concerns of hapu and iwi. As we have seen, by December 1891, Ngati Maniapoto had asked the Crown to give them greater input into the way that prices for land were determined. In an interview to a newspaper during this time, Native Minister Alfred Cadman clarified this further saying that there was a possibility that prices could be set by arbitration.
At the meeting with Premier Seddon in Otorohanga in March 1894, John Ormsby, speaking on behalf of Ngati Maniapoto, argued that they were being treated unjustly by the Crown. He reminded Seddon that they had been told that if they agreed to the railway being constructed through their land the value of their land would be enhanced, yet the Crown was only offering six shillings per acre at the most. 1246 This compared most unfavourably with a previous offer from a European buyer who had wished to purchase half a million acres for £1 per acre. Yet the owners were unable to accept that offer because they were only able to sell to the Crown. Ormsby also strongly objected to the Crown’s statements that it was unfair to Europeans if Maori were not required to pay tax on their land. He pointed out to Seddon that in fact Maori ‘pay the worst of taxation, that is, the difference between what the Government pays us of our land, from 2s 6d to 6s per acre, and the market value which is from 10s to 20s per acre.’ Even as late as 1897, the issue of price and whether Maori could have input into how it was determined remained a pressing concern. Representatives from Ngati Maniapoto, Raukawa, Ngati Hikairo, Ngati Tuwharetoa and Whanganui who signed the 1897 petition repeated their complaint that they were not permitted come to an agreement with land purchasing officials over the price they would be paid for their land.
The Crown remained firmly and completely in control of the setting of prices for land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block until the Native Land Settlement Act 1905 made it
mandatory for the minimum price offered for land to be the capital value assessed Conclusions
under the Government Valuation of Land Act 1896. The fact that the Native Department and
1246 Summary
There is a discrepancy here between what Wilkinson could offer officially (five shillings per acre) and
the maximum amount Ormsby said the Crown was offering them (six shillings per acre). 8. 483
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 had capacity for valuation of Maori land from at least 1883 when it was commissioning such valuations for rating purposes suggests that what hapu and iwi in this inquiry district requested could have been granted.
There were attempts by some owners to invoke the valuation provisions of the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893 which allowed the owners to nominate one of the three independent people to value the land. However, it appears that Maori in the district did not understand that the valuation mechanism could only operate once a district had to be declared and a Native Land Purchase Board elected to administer the land. In any case, the Surveyor General quickly put a stop of any notion that the Act could be invoked, on the basis that an independent valuation would almost certainly lead to the Crown having to offer a higher price. Clearly he knew that the prices being paid by the Crown for land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block were lower than an independent expert would consider acceptable.
It was not uncommon for owners to make an opening offer and they often included their assessment of the quality and location of the land in relation to surrounding block as a reason for the price they named. In these cases, there was an expectation by hapu and iwi that they were entering a negotiation, and they expected the Crown to make a counter‐offer, and then for a mutually agreed price to be arrived at. The success of this approach was mixed, sometimes the Crown was willing to pay slightly more for some subdivisions than the owners requested but this was usually accompanied by lower than asked for prices for other subdivisions. For much of the 1890s, the Crown remained reluctant to move much beyond the five shilling per acre maximum set early in 1890. However, in the late 1890s prices increased somewhat, into the seven or eight shilling per acre range, as the Crown tried to complete purchases or tempt owners who
had long held out against selling to part with their interests. The price offered by the Crown could sometimes be increased by sixpence per acre if those selling their interests were willing to forego their 10 per cent ‘seller’ reserve. This was first proposed by
Wilkinson in February 1891 while he was purchasing in the Turoto block. It seems that Conclusions
word soon got around and several other groups of owners asked if they could collect the and extra sixpence per acre if they too dispensed with the reserves. There is no evidence of direct pressure on owners from Crown officials to do so, but many Maori were already Summary
8. 484
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 under pressure from rising survey costs and other debts so this option was attractive while the price per acre remained low.
There was some concern on the part of Wilkinson, the district land purchase officer, to try to ensure that there was consistency in what the Crown offered owners of different blocks whose land was essentially of the same quality and desirability. However, this was motivated as much by a need to mimimise anger and resentment within the Maori community towards the Crown and ensuring that the flow of land into the Crown’s hands continued as it was by any concern about protecting Maori interests. To his credit, Wilkinson recognized that the land in the north of the district was some of the best in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block and tried to persuade his superiors to offer higher prices. However, any gains for Maori in terms of the money they received were modest. On some, but by no means all, occasions a surveyor was employed to assess the quality of the land and recommend how much the Crown should offer per acre. There is no evidence to suggest that this noticeably improved the price the Crown would offer. In several cases, the prices recommended by the surveyor were adjusted downwards by the Surveyor General to within the bounds of the range of values Wilkinson was already working in. In general, practices around pricing seemed aim to offer only the minimum amount that would get particular groups of owners to sell and not much more.
There are also comments in the official record which suggest that at least some Crown officials, including the Surveyor General, considered the disparity between what would be paid for Crown land and Maori land to be both inevitable and justified. The high costs associated with buying from individual owners over extended periods of time were cited as one of the reasons why lower prices were paid for Maori land. Wilkinson was of the opinion that this could not be avoided while the law required the signatures of all
owners to be collected. Wilkinson also considered that a lower price should be paid for blocks encumbered by survey liens. Obviously both of these factors were a direct consequence of the way that the Native Land Court functioned; something over which
Maori had little control. Yet they suffered the consequences of poorer returns for the Conclusions
land they did sell. and
The Crown was in a particularly powerful position in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block. It had been the sole buyer of Maori land almost continuously between 1884 and 1900 in Summary
8. 485
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 the majority of the inquiry district. The opportunity for Maori to lease their land or sell it on the open market were severely constrained by legislation prohibiting all private dealings between Maori and Europeans. This reduced the capacity of land owners to generate income from their land to cover survey and court costs incurred in taking their land through the Native Land Court. Under these circumstances, and having refused hapu and iwi requests for prices to be fixed by valuation or arbitration, the Crown had a particular obligation to ensure that it set fair and consistent prices for Maori land.
However, the Stout‐Ngata Commission found that the average price per acre paid by the Crown for Maori land in the Rohe Potae between 1889 and 1907 was just four shillings per acre. It is important to note that this was considerably lower than the average elsewhere in the North Island, which the historian Tom Brooking calculated at six shillings and four pence for the same period. So even by the standards of the day ,hapu and iwi in the Rohe Potae received a poor return for their land. The fact that the price paid by the Crown for land in the Rohe Potae rose substantially after the minimum price was linked to capital value after 1905 strongly suggests that prior to 1905, the Crown had been purchasing land in the district at considerably less than the capital, not to mention, market value. In the Rohe Potae the Crown purchased 65,446 acres between 1906 and 20 May 1907 for a total payment of £32,301, which equates to an average of 9.9 shillings per acre. This was more than double the average price (four shillings per acre) paid prior to 1905. Loveridge considered that in general such increases were almost certainly caused by the introduction of the 1905 Act. Stout and Ngata rightly concluded that in balancing the needs of the colony to purchase land for settlement the Crown had not given sufficient weight to the rights of Maori owners and its own duty to protect their interests in the process. They described the purchase of land in the Rohe Potae as ‘the best possible bargain for the State.’
Conclusions
and
Summary
8. 486
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
8.14 PATTERNS OF LAND ALIENATION IN THE ROHE POTAE INQUIRY DISTRICT, 1889–1908
Prior to the Crown’s purchasing operation in the Rohe Potae inquiry district in 1889 only a small proportion (3.24 per cent) of the total area of the inquiry district had been alienated from Maori ownership by sale. The majority of this was purchased by the Crown during the 1850s, with a smaller amount lost through the old land claims process that validated land transactions between Maori and individual Europeans which had occurred prior to February 1840. But by the end of 1908, approximately 47 per cent of the original area of the inquiry district had been alienated. This represents a rapid and significant permanent reduction in the land and natural resources of hapu and iwi in this inquiry district. The overwhelming majority of this was through purchase by the Crown. As already mentioned, just 1.1 per cent of the land in the inquiry district had been purchased by private parties by the end of 1908.
Once we focus our attention on the rate of land alienation in the 1890s, it is clear that the Rohe Potae inquiry district experienced the same surge in the Crown purchasing from around 1893 as occurred elsewhere in the North Island, and the same levelling off of land alienation between 1900 and 1905. In trying to understanding why, after several years of relatively unsuccessful land purchasing in the inquiry district, the rate of Crown purchasing suddenly increased after 1893 it is difficult to separate the influence of national and local factors. The similarity between the pattern of land purchasing in the inquiry district and in the North Island from 1890 until 1908 suggests that changes to legislation, funding and organisation that led to an intensification of land purchasing under the Liberals also gave impetus and support to the Crown’s purchasing operation in the Rohe Potae (Aotea) block.
At the same time some of the constraints facing land purchasing officials in the inquiry district were beginning to ease. For example, by the end of 1895 the court seems to have dealt with the backlog in defining relative interests of owners in blocks that had passed Conclusions through the court earlier. This meant that the Crown could purchase with more and confidence knowing whether the interests of any individual represented a small or large area of land. It is less clear whether the delays in surveying persisted and for how long. This seems to have been a perpetual problem, as the Stout Ngata Commission noted in Summary
8. 487
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
1907, that there was still a backlog of survey and court work to be done. However, these were weak constraints; by 1896/1897, the Crown had obtained title to at least one subdivision in each of the vast majority of blocks of any size (outside the Rangitoto Tuhua block).
The strong resistance from Maori to selling their land which the Crown had encountered in the first few years of the purchasing did not suddenly collapse. But in much of the district, there seems to have been a slow steady erosion of this resistance. The prolonged nature of the court process and the associated court and survey costs (and the mounting interest charged on that debt) was a key source of pressure on owners to sell. A considerable area of land was lost in the process. Data generated from a search of Native Land Court Minute Books for the district up to the end of 1908 indicates that 80,625.28 acres of the inquiry district was alienated as a result of survey costs. A considerable portion of this was in the Rangitoto Tuhua block (37,197.98 acres). Several other circumstances may have contributed to the growing number of individuals selling their interest. In particular, once a certain portion of the block was purchased by the Crown and partitioned out in its favour it is possible that the pieces that remained were too small to sustain families and communities and so were sold to provide cash which was used to live on other land held by the owners in a different location. It is also important to note that by the mid‐1890s there were an increasing number of succession cases heard by the court. The original owner’s share was then split between a number of successors, this lead to more owners on increasingly smaller subdivisions. As a result, some owners moved off the land and became absentee owners, resistance to selling became more difficult as people scattered around the district, as did using the land profitably. Under these circumstances, selling interests became more tempting. The death of principle Ngati Maniapoto and Waikato chiefs, such as Taonui
(1892), Rewi Maniapoto and King Tawhiao (1894) and Wahanui (1897) also probably had an impact on community cohesion, organization and resistance to selling.
It is important to note that the overall pattern of land alienation up to the end of 1908 Conclusions
varied markedly in different parts of the inquiry district. In the northern area, between and the Aotea and Whaingaroa Harbours, around 42 per cent of the land was alienated from Maori ownership by the end of this period. But virtually all of this took place during the Summary
1850s, with just one small piece of land alienated during the 1889‐1909 period. In 8. 488
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 contrast, land purchasing did not begin until 1899/1900 in the Rangitoto Tuhua block, so only around a quarter of the area was alienated by the end of 1908. In the remainder of the inquiry district (the ‘Rohe Potae area’), almost half – 48.57 per cent – of the land was alienated by the end of this period.
Unsurprisingly, the way that the Crown’s land purchasing spread across blocks in the inquiry district reflects its initial focus on acquiring high quality agricultural land in the north in close proximity to the railway, in reality this expanded to include the Wharepuhunga block by the end of 1890. This pattern persisted during 1891 and on through to early 1893, with purchasing beginning in further blocks in the Kakepuku and Otorohanga area. In a deviation from this plan the Crown also purchased a number of blocks in the south of the district (these have already been discussed in relation to the 1891/1892 negotiations between Native Minister Cadman and Ngati Maniapoto).
The accelerating pace of land purchasing in the district from late 1893 until mid‐1895 is reflected in the number of new blocks in which the Crown purchased interests. The direction of that growth was westward, through the centre of the district on the western side of the railway line and along the eastern boundary of the inquiry district. This pattern was maintained and consolidated from mid‐1895 until late‐1896, until few blocks on the western side of the inquiry district were untouched by purchasing. The final phase in the spread of the Crown’s purchasing activity took place from late 1899 with the first purchases being made in subdivisions of the Rangitoto Tuhua, Rangitoto A, Tokanui and Korakonui blocks.
The western areas were the most heavily alienated part of the inquiry district (see Figure 26). By comparison, the proportion of land in blocks in the northern‐central and northern parts of the inquiry district are generally lower. This is unexpected given that these areas were particularly desirable for European settlement and were the early focus of the Crown’s land purchasing operation. By the end of 1908 there were 20 blocks in the northern‐central and northern zones still wholly owned by Maori. At first Conclusions sight this suggests a considerable level of success in retaining unbroken areas of land and for Maori use. Yet, the median size of these 20 blocks was just 363.89 acres. Because of their small size, the total area of these twenty blocks accounted for very small proportion (9.26 per cent) of the land in these two zones. By comparison, the 27 blocks Summary
8. 489
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011 in which the Crown was able to gain title to some land were on generally much larger with a median size of 5,265 acres, more than 14 times as large as the wholly Maori‐ owned blocks. Even more significantly, almost all of the land in the two zones (97.4 per cent of the original area) was situated in blocks where there had been a degree of Crown purchasing. What this suggests is that even in the locations where Maori had been most successful in retaining land the largest blocks, which were most suited to pastoral farming and other economic ventures, were fragmented by Crown purchasing. Hapu and iwi were able to retain only the smaller, scattered blocks which the Crown found less desirable for European settlement.
It is calculated that between 1840 and 1908 hapu and iwi within the Rohe Potae inquiry district (excluding the Extension area) lost ownership and control of almost half (47 per cent) of their land and resource base. Almost all of this alienation was due to Crown purchasing. The most rapid land loss occurred during the Crown’s purchasing programme of the 1890s and early 1900s. In 1889, the year the Crown officially recommenced purchasing in the district, just 3.24 per cent of the original area of the inquiry district had been alienated. The remainder of the alienation took place in just 18 years from 1890 and 1908. Hapu and iwi in this inquiry district entered the twentieth century with virtually every large tract of land they once possessed heavily subdivided and broken up by Crown‐owned subdivisions and with their economic base considerably reduced.
Conclusions
and
Summary
8. 490
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 18661908: An overview August 2011
APPENDIX 1: COMMISSION
Commission
1:
Appendix 491
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 18661908: An overview August 2011
Commission
1:
Appendix 492
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 –1908: An overview August 2011
APPENDIX 2: SCHEDULE OF BLOCKS WITH PRICE TO BE PAID, UPSET PRICE AND PROFIT, SURVEYOR GENERAL, NOVEMBER 1889
1889
November
General,
Surveyor
profit,
and
price
upset
paid,
be
to
price
with
blocks
of
Schedule
2:
Appendix 493
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866 – 1908: An overview August 2011
APPENDIX 3: SURVEYOR GENERAL’S PRICES OF KINOHAKU EAST SUBDIVISIONS, 1893
1893
subdivisions,
East
Kinohaku
of
prices
General’s
Surveyor
3:
Appendix
494
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR)
District Officer’s reports
AJHR 1883, G‐1, No. 2, pp 1‐8: Wilkinson, Government Native Agent, Thames, Auckland and Waikato, Alexandra to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 11 June 1883
AJHR 1886, G‐1, No. 5, pp 3‐10: Wilkinson, District Officer, Alexandra for Waikato (including Kawhia, Waipa and Upper Mokau), 25 May 1886
AJHR 1887, Sess II, G‐1, No. 5, pp 4‐8: Wilkinson, Native Agent, Alexandra to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 May 1887
AJHR 1888, G‐5, No. 4, pp 3‐5: Wilkinson, Native Agent, Alexandra to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 2 June 1888
AJHR 1889, G‐3, No. 4, pp 2‐5: Wilkinson, Native Agent, Alexandra to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 20 June 1889
AJHR 1890, G‐2, No. 4, pp 2‐6: Wilkinson to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 June 1890
AJHR 1891, G‐5, No. 3, p 4, pp 2‐6: Wilkinson, Native Agent, Otorohanga to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 10 June 1891
AJHR 1892, G‐3, No. 3, pp 2‐ 6: Wilkinson, Native Agent, Otorohanga to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 28 June 1892
Bibliography 495
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Commissions of Inquiry
AJHR 1891, G‐1, Minutes of Evidence, pp 27‐30: Evidence of Oliver Mason Creagh before the Native Land Laws Commission, Auckland, 12 March 1891
AJHR 1891, G‐1, Minutes of Meetings with Natives and Others, pp 29‐36: Evidence before the Native Land Laws Commission, Otorohanga, 15 April 1891
AJHR 1907, G‐1, ‘Native Lands and Native‐Land Tenure (interim report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the question of)
AJHR 1907, G‐1B, ‘Native Lands in the Rohe‐Potae (King‐Country) District: An interim report
AJHR 1908, G‐1o, Native Lands and Native Land Tenure: Interim report of the Native Land Commission on Native land in the Rohe‐Potae or King Country District
Other Reports
AJHR 1885, C‐1A, Appendix 3 Geographical Surveys: The Triangulation of the King Country Auckland, Report by District Surveyor Lawrence Cussen
AJHR 1885, G‐1, pp 12‐24: Notes of a meeting between the Hon. Mr Ballance and the Natives at the Public Hall at Kihikihi, on the 4th February, 1885
AJHR 1885, I‐2B, pp 4‐14: Evidence of Wahanui before the Native Affairs Committee on the Native Land Disposition Bill, 19 August 1885
AJHR 1888, I‐3A: Native Affairs Committee report on the petition of Arthur Owen together with minutes of evidence and appendix
AJHR 1889, H‐18, pp 1‐3: Report on the Waitomo caves, King Country, by Thomas Humphries, the Chief Surveyor, Auckland
AJHR 1891, G‐1A, pp 1‐23: Unfinished Report by the late Mr Thomas Mckay relating to Native‐land Laws
AJHR 1895, G‐1: Pakeha and Maori: A narrative of the Premier’s trip through the Native Districts of the North Island
Bibliography 496
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Returns
AJHR 1890, G‐4: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1891 Sess. II, G‐10: Native Lands in the Colony, (particular respecting the)
AJHR 1892, G‐4: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1893, G‐4: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1894, G‐3: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1895, G‐2: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1896, G‐3: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1897, Sess II, G‐3: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1898, G‐3: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1899, G‐3: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1900, G‐3: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1901, G‐3: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1902, G‐3: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1903, G‐3: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1904, G‐3: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1905, G‐5: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1906, Sess II, G‐3: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island
AJHR 1907, G‐3A: Maori Land Purchase Operations (Report under “The Maori Land Settlement Act, 1905” for the year ended 31st March, 1907)
AJHR 1908, G‐3A: Maori Land Purchase Operations (Report under “The Maori Land
Settlement Act, 1905” for the year ended 31st March, 1908)
Bibliography 497
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
New Zealand Parliamentary Debates (NZPD)
As cited; also:
NZPD, Vol. 50, 1884, p 427: Speech of Wahanui to the Legislative Council, 6 November 1884
NZPD, Vol. 50, pp 555‐556: Appendix to debate on the Native Land Settlement Bill: Petition of Meiha Keepa Rangihiwinui, Atanatiu Te Kairangi & 18 others and Speech of Wahanui delivered at the bar of the House on the 1st November 1884
Statutes
The Government Land Purchase Act 1877
The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881
The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Act 1882
The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act 1886
The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1883
The Native Committees Act 1883
The Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884
The Native Land Administration Act 1886
The Native Land Court Act 1886 Amendment Act 1888
The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881 Amendment Act 1888
The Maori Real Estate Management Act 1888
The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment Act 1889
The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1890
The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Amendment Act 1891
The North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Acts Amendment Act 1892
The Native Land Purchases Act 1892 Bibliography 498
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
The Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893
The Maori Real Estate Management Act 1888 Amendment Act 1893
The Native Land Court Act 1894
The Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquisition Act 1894
The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1896
The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1899
The Maori Land Settlement Act 1905
Petitions
AJHR 1883, J‐1: Petition of the Maniapoto, Raukawa, Tuwharetoa and Whanganui Tribes, signed by Wahanui, Taonui, Rewi Maniapoto and 412 others, 1883
Pepene Eketone and 163 others, Petition No. 217 in J 1, 1897/1516, ANZ Wgt
Tukino Te Heuheu, Petition 321/1897 in LE 1, 1897/9, ANZ Wgt
Reports on petitions
AJHR 1891, Sess II, I‐3, p 12: Report on Petition No. 227/1890 of Hikaka Taonui and 50 others, reported on by the Native Affairs Committee on 21 July 1891
AJHR 1893, I‐3, p 18: Report on Petitions No. 411, 422 etc protesting against the passing of the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Bill and other Bills relating to Native Affairs
AJHR 1894, I‐3, p 9: Report on Petitions No. 622, 680 etc praying that the pre‐emptive right clauses may be struck out of the Native Land Court Bill
NEWSPAPERS
Evening Post
‘Telegrams’, Evening Post, 6 June 1882, p 2
‘Opening of the King Country to European Prospectors’, Evening Post, 5 December 1885, p 3 Bibliography 499
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
New Zealand Herald
‘Alexandra, Thursday’, New Zealand Herald, 14 June 1889, p 6
‘Kihikihi, Thursday’, New Zealand Herald, 18 October 1889, p 6
‘Native Minister at Otorohanga’, New Zealand Herald, 2 April 1891, p 5
‘The Native Minister at Otorohanga – Interview with Te Kooti – Meeting of Natives’, New Zealand Herald, 3 April 1891, p 6
‘Native Minister at Otorohanga’, New Zealand Herald, 4 April 1891, p 5
‘Native Affairs – Land in the King Country’, New Zealand Herald, 4 December 1891, p 5
‘Editorial’, New Zealand Herald, 21 December 1891, p 4
‘The King Country – Mr Cadman and the Natives – An important proposal’, New Zealand Herald, 21 December 1891, p 5
‘Native Land Proposals – Interview with the Premier’, New Zealand Herald, 21 December 1891, p 5
‘Native Lands – Mr Cadman’s proposal – Reply of the Natives’, New Zealand Herald, 22 December 1891, p 5
‘The Opening of the King Country’, New Zealand Herald, 23 December 1891, p 5
‘Interview with the Hon A J Cadman’, New Zealand Herald, 23 December 1891, p 5
‘Native Meeting at Otorohanga’, New Zealand Herald, 4 May 1892, p 5
‘The Native Meeting at Otorohanga – The reply of the Maoris’, New Zealand Herald, 5 May 1892, p 5
[Account of Taonui’s tangi] ‘Te Kuiti, Thursday’, New Zealand Herald, 9 December 1892, p 6
‘Arrival of the Premier in Waikato – Tawhiao asks an interview – Mr Seddon consents – Kingites will meet him at Hamilton’, New Zealand Herald, 10 March 1894, p 5
‘Otorohanga, Tuesday’, New Zealand Herald, 18 April 1894, p 6 Bibliography 500
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
‘The Native Land Question’, New Zealand Herald, 19 April 1894, p 6
Poverty Bay Herald
‘Native Matters’, Poverty Bay Herald, 8 December 1885, p 2
‘Kaiti and Makauri’, Poverty Bay Herald, 12 December 1885, p 3
‘The King Country’, Poverty Bay Herald, 12 January 1886, p 2
Star
‘Parliamentary Notes ‐ Wahanui at the bar of the House’, Star, 3 November 1884, p 3
Taranaki Herald
‘Licensing Committee’, Taranaki Herald, 9 February 1882, p 2
‘Public Meeting – Farmers’ Co‐operative Society’, Taranaki Herald, 24 July 1882, p 2
Resident Magistrate’s Court’, Taranaki Herald, 29 September 1887, p 3
‘Resident Magistrate’s Court’, Taranaki Herald, 30 September 1887, p 2
‘Supreme Court T. Bayly v. New Plymouth Harbour Board, Taranaki Herald, 4 November 1887, p 2
Taranaki Herald, 2 January 1890, p 2
‘Mr Newton King’s Weekly Auction and Produce Report’, Taranaki Herald, 9 August 1890, p 4
‘Bush felling’ [advertisement], Taranaki Herald, 26 September 1891, p 3
‘Mr Newton King’s Weekly Auction and Produce Report’, Taranaki Herald, 17 October 1891, p 4
‘Large Native Meeting at Te Kumi’, Taranaki Herald, 22 December 1891
‘Pre‐sessional Address’, Taranaki Herald, 12 June 1893, p 2
‘Awakino’, Taranaki Herald, 6 March 1895, p 2
Bibliography 501
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Timaru Herald
‘Native Lands’, Timaru Herald, 22 April 1886, p 2
Waikato Argus
Editoral, Waikato Argus, 21 March 1899, p 2
Waikato Times
‘Raglan Stone’, Waikato Times, 9 November 1882, p 2
Advertisement for the Star Hotel, Waikato Times, 18 March 1884, Advertisements Column 2
‘Alexandria’, Waikato Times, 16 February 1886, p 3
Mr Ballance and the Natives – Important meeting with the Ngatimaniapoto and the “King”’, Waikato Times, 20 April 1886, p 4
‘The Ngatimaniapoto Meeting at Kopua. The King Country to be put through the Court’, Waikato Times, 27 April 1886, p 2
‘Native Questions Discussed’, Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p 3
‘The Native Minister at Otorohanga’, Waikato Times, 27 January 1887, CFRT Newspaper document bank, p 1021
‘Ballance at Otorohanga’, Waikato Times, 29 January 1887, CFRT Newspaper document bank, p 1025
Mr Mitchelson’s Visit – meeting with Wahanui and the Ngatimaniapoto Chiefs’, Waikato Times, 12 April 1888, p 2, CFRT newspaper doc bank, p 1079
‘Meeting between Maori and Native Minister’, Waikato Times, 10 May 1892, CFRT newspaper document bank, pp 1175‐1176
‘Native Lands’, Waikato Times, 7 May 1892
Obituary of J W Ellis, Waikato Times, 6 August 1918
Bibliography 502
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Wanganui Herald
‘Banquet to the Hon. John Ballance’, Wanganui Herald, 28 November 1884, p 2
‘Post‐sessional Speech. The Hon. J. Ballance before his Constituents’, Wanganui Herald, 14 January 1886, p 2
MAPS AND PLANS
AJHR 1884, I‐6, Sess. II, ‘Native land Settlement Bill: Plan of the Land included in the Schedule
AJHR 1885, C‐1A, Appendix 3, between p 24 and 25: Topographical map of a portion of the interior of Auckland & Taranaki (including the King Country), from trigonometrical surveys, Lawrence Cussen and H M Skeet, NZ Survey Department, Auckland August 1885
AJHR 1890, C‐5, Appendix 1, between p 8 and 9: [Map showing] Native Land Surveys Rohe Potae attached to Extract of Report of Thos. Humphries, Chief Surveyor, Auckland District
AJHR 1891, G‐5: Map of the Native Land of New Zealand shewing their occupation tenure and use. Compiled to an order of the House of Representatives 30th January, 1891 on the motion of T. Kennedy Macdonald, M.H.R
ML 6687‐9, SA [South Auckland Land District]
DEEDS AND CERTIFICATES OF TITLE
Deed AUC 3064, dated 18 March 1898
Deed AUC 2069
SA 89/240
Bibliography 503
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
ARCHIVES AND MANUSCRIPTS
Archives New Zealand, Wellington
Native Land – Native Land Purchase Department registry file (MA‐MLP 1 series)
MA‐MLP 1, box 27, 1890/84
MA‐MLP 1, box 28, 1890/259
MA‐MLP 1, box 28, 1890/260
MA‐MLP 1, box 28, 1890/294
MA‐MLP 1, box 29, 1891/10
MA‐MLP 1, box 29, 1891/94
MA‐MLP 1, box 29, 1891/126
MA‐MLP 1, box 29, 1891/209
MA‐MLP 1, box 30, 1891/304
MA‐MLP 1, box 32, 1893/94
MA‐MLP 1, box 32, 1893/98
MA‐MLP 1, box 32, 1893/102
MA‐MLP 1, box 33, 1893/125
MA‐MLP 1, box 33, 1893/170
MA‐MLP 1, box 33, 1893/234
MA‐MLP 1, box 31, 1892/125
MA‐MLP 1, box 34, 1894/21
MA‐MLP 1, box 34, 1894/126
MA‐MLP 1, box 34, 1894/133
MA‐MLP 1, box 35, 1894/241
MA‐MLP 1, box 35, 1894/262
MA‐MLP 1, box 35, 1894/336
MA‐MLP 1, box 36, 1894/414
MA‐MLP 1, box 38, 1895/248
MA‐MLP 1, box 38, 1895/263 Bibliography 504
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
MA‐MLP 1, box 38, 1895/277
MA‐MLP 1, box 38, 1895/321
MA‐MLP 1, box 39, 1895/476
MA‐MLP 1, box 40, 1896/81
MA‐MLP 1, box 41, 1896/140
MA‐MLP 1, box 41, 1896/172
MA‐MLP 1, box 42, 1896/222
MA‐MLP 1, box 42, 1896/248
MA‐MLP 1, box 43, 1897/55
MA‐MLP 1, box 43, 1897/66
MA‐MLP 1, box 44, 1897/94
MA‐MLP 1, box 44, 1897/145
MA‐MLP 1, box 49, 1898/101
MA‐MLP 1, box 51, 1898/187
MA‐MLP 1, box 51, 1898/198
MA‐MLP 1, box 52, 1899/27
MA‐MLP 1, box 53, 1899/51
MA‐MLP 1, box 53, 1899/57
MA‐MLP 1, box 54, 1899/129
MA‐MLP 1, box 67, 1900/13
MA‐MLP 1, box 60, 1900/150
MA‐MLP 1, box 62, 1901/52
MA‐MLP 1, box 62, 1901/66
MA‐MLP 1, box 62, 1901/69
MA‐MLP 1, box 62, 1901/78
MA‐MLP 1, box 62, 1901/80
MA‐MLP 1, box 63, 1901/104
MA‐MLP 1, box 78, 1906/86
Bibliography 505
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Maori Affairs – annual single number files (MA 1 series)
MA 1, 1892/1180: Received: 11th July 1892 – From: G T Wilkinson, Otorohanga – Subject: Ngatimanaipoto had a meeting to discuss advisability of sending Delegates to Wellington regarding Rohe Potae matters
Maori Affairs – Special Files (Rohe Potae)
MA 13/78, box 122: Rohe Potae Block, Special File No. 89 ‐ tracing on paper of Otorohanga Block, 4428 Acres ‐ Sep 323
MA 13/93, box 133: Wahanui King Country, Special File No. 134, 1883‐1886
Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington
ATL msy ‐4506: William Henry Grace Letterbook , 1880‐1892
MS‐Papers‐0093‐10, 11, & 18: Mair Family Papers, Series 2: Outwards Correspondence of William Gilbert Mair
Other institutions
John Ormsby, Letterbook, Otorohanga Historical Society Courthouse Museum, Otorohanga [English translation by Jane Luiten]
Richard J Duncan, Auckland to Sir George Grey, 15 March 1887, GLNZ D20.1, Grey New Zealand Letters, Auckland Memorial War Museum
ROHE POTAE INQUIRY ORAL AND TRADITIONAL HUI TRANSCRIPTS
Transcript of Rohe Potae Inquiry Oral and Traditional Hui, No. 1, Te Kotahitanga marae, Otorohanga, 1‐2 March 2010
Transcript of Rohe Potae Inquiry Oral and Traditional Hui, No. 2, Waipapa marae, Kawhia, 29‐30 March 2010
Transcript of the Rohe Potae Inquiry Oral and Traditiona Hui No. 5, Maniaroa marae, Mokau 17‐18 May 2020
Bibliography 506
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
SECONDARY SOURCES
BOOKS
Butterworth, G V and Young, H R, Maori Affair: A department and the people who made it, iwi Transition Agency/GP Books, Wellington, 1990 de Jardin, Margaret The Little Ports of Taranaki, Awakino, Mokau, Tongaporutu, Urenui, Waitara, Opunake and Patea together with some historical background to each, printed by TNL Print, New Plymouth, 1992
Birchan, Deric N, Waitomo Tourist Caves, AH & AW Reed Ltd, Wellington, 1975
Chaplow, Christine, Who Planted the Tree?: A story of Waikato, Taranaki and the King Country, Christine Chaplow, Te Kuiti, 2003, p 268 (Wai 898 #G31)
O’Malley, Vincent, Agents of Autonomy: Maori Committees in the Nineteenth Century, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 1998
Stokes, Evelyn, Mokau: Maori cultural and historical perspectives, Department of Geography, University of Waikato, 1982
Tatham, Adrienne, Footprints of a King: Newton King’s life story, 1855–1927, A Tatham, New Plymouth, c.2006
Tullet, J S, The Industrious Heart: A history of New Plymouth, New Plymouth City Council, New Plymouth, 1981
Vernon, R T and Buckeridge, C R, Te Mata – Aotea, A O Rice Ltd, Hamilton, 1973
Ward, Alan, A Show of Justice: Racial ‘Amalgamation’ in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, Auckland University Press/Oxford University Press, reprinted 1983
Williams, David V, “Te Kooti Tango Whenua”: The Native Land Court 1864–1909, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 1999
‘Newton King Ltd Centennial, 1879–1979: special feature, October 1979’, New Plymouth, N.Z: Taranaki Newspapers, 1979
Bibliography 507
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
DICTIONARIES OF BIOGRAPHY
G H Scholefield, A Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 1940, 2vols
Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (online)
Ballara, Angela. 'Eketone, Pepene 1855/1856?–1933', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007 URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/
Church, Ian. 'Turoa, Topia Peehi ?–1903', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007 URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/
Henare, Manuka. 'Wahanui Huatare ?–1897', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007. URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/
Koroheke, Chris. 'Te Mahuki ? ‐ 1899', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007. URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/
Ormsby, M. J. 'Ormsby, John 1854 ‐ 1927', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007 URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/
Scott, Gary, 'Taonui Hikaka ? ‐ 1892', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007 URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/
Stanley, R. D. 'Burnand, John Henry Davis 1850 ‐ 1919', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007 URL:http/www.dnzb.govt.nz/
ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS
Tom Brooking, ‘Busting Up’ the Greatest Estate of All: Liberal Maori Land Policy, 1891‐ 1911’, New Zealand Journal of History, Vol. 26, No. 1, April 1992, pp 78‐98
______, 'Use it or Lose it: Unravelling the Land Debate in late Nineteenth‐ Century New Zealand, The New Zealand Journal of History, Vol.30, No. 2, October 1996, pp 141‐162
Stone, R C J, ‘The Maori Lands Question and the fall of the Grey Government, 1879’, New Zealand Journal of History, Vol. 1, No. 1, April 1967, pp 51‐74 Bibliography 508
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
THESES
Allen, Michael, Maori Political Thought in the Late Nineteenth Century: A microhistorical study of the document of speeches from John Ballance’s tour of seven Maori districts, 1885, MA thesis (History), University of Canterbury, 2004
Walkinton, Rachael C, ‘The Greatest Mechanism ever for solving the Maori Land “Problem”’?: A study of the StoutNgata Native Lands and land Tenure Commission, 1907 1908, MA thesis (History), University of Canterbury, 1998
RESEARCH REPORTS ON WAITANGI TRIBUNAL RECORDS OF INQUIRY (AND DRAFTS NOT YET FILED)
Anderson, Robyn, ‘Whanganui Maori and the Crown, 1880‐1900’, research report commissioned by the CFRT, 2004, Wai 903, #A71
Alexander, David, ‘Public Works and other Takings in the Rohe Potae District’, research report commissioned by the CFRT, Wai 898, #A63
Berghan, Paula, ‘Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District Research Assistance Project: Block Research Narratives’, Wai 898, #A60
Boulton, Leanne, ‘Native Townships in the Whanganui Inquiry District’, research report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2003, Wai 903, #A39
Cleaver, Phillip & Sarich, Jonathan ‘Turongo: The North Island Main Trunk Railway and the Rohe Potae, 1870‐2008, research report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, November 2009, Wai 898, #A20
Cleaver, Philip, ‘Maori and the Forestry, Mining, Fishing, and Tourism Industries of the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1880–2000’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, February 2011, Wai 898, #A25
Douglas, Tutahanga; Innes Craig and Mitchell, James ‘Alienation of Maori Land within Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District 1840‐2010: A quantitative study’, Waitangi Tribunal,
September 2010, Wai 898, #A21
Edwards, Cecilia, ‘Crown Purchasing in the Whanganui Inquiry District, 1865‐1900’, research report commissioned by the Crown Law Office, 2006, Wai 903, #A102 Bibliography 509
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
Francis, Andrew, ‘The Rohe Potae Commercial Economy in the Mid‐Nineteenth Century, c.1830–1886’, February 2011, Wai 898, #A26
Hearn, Terry, ‘Raukawa Land, and the Crown: A review and assessment of land purchasing in the Raukawa Rohe, 1865 to 1971’, research report commissioned by the CFRT, 2008, Wai 898, #A12
Innes, Craig, ‘Alienation of Maori granted lands within Te Rohe Pōtae Parish extension 1863 – 2011’, Wai 898, #A30
Loveridge, Donald, ‘The Development of Crown Policy on the Purchase of Maori Lands, 1865‐1910: A preliminary survey’, research report commissioned by the Crown Law Office, 2004, Wai 1200, #A77
Loveridge, Donald, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country, 1882–1885’, research report commissioned by the Crown Law Office, 2006, Wai 1130, #A72
Luiten, Jane, ‘Local Government in Te Rohe Potae’ research report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, January 2011, Wai 898, #A24
Marr, Cathy, The Urewera District Reserve Act 1896 and Amendments, 1896 ‐1922, report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, June 2002, Wai 894, #A21
Marr, Cathy, ‘The Waimarino Purchase Report: The investigation, purchase and creation of reserves in the Waimarino block, and associated issues’, research report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2004, Wai 903, #A60 (now also Wai 898, #A50)
Marr, Cathy, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864–1886, Part 1: 1864–1882’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, draft for comment, June 2011 (not yet on the ROI)
Mitchell, James S, ‘Land Alienation in the Wairarapa, 1880‐1900’, research report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2002, Wai 863, #A30
O’Malley, Vincent, ‘Te Rohe Potae War and Raupatu’, research report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, December 2010, Wai 898, #A22 Bibliography 510
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
______, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement, 1840‐1863’, research report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, December 2010, Wai 898, #A23
Robinson, Helen and Christoffel, Paul, ‘An Overview of Rohe Potae Political Engagement, 1886 to 1913’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, draft for comment, July 2011
Stirling Bruce, ‘Taupo‐Kaingaroa Nineteenth Century Overview Project, Vol. 2’, research report commissioned by the CFRT, 2004, Wai 1200, #A71
Thomas, Paul, ‘The Crown and Maori in Mokau, 1840–1911’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, February 2001, Wai 898, #A28
Ward, Alan, ‘Whanganui ki Maniapoto: Preliminary Historical Report, Wai 48 and related claims’, March 1992, Wai 903, #A11
DOCUMENT BANKS ON WAITANGI TRIBUNAL RECORDS OF INQUIRY
Mitchell, Jamie ‘King Country Petitions Document Bank’, Report for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, January 2008, Wai 898, #A59(b)
Berghan, Paula, Supporting Documents to accompany ‘Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District Research Assistance Project: Block Research Narratives’, 6 July 2009, Wai 898, #A60(a)
RANGAHAUA WHANUI REPORTS
Tom Bennion, Maori and Rating Law, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, National Theme I, July 1997
Marr, Cathy, The Alienation of Maori Land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea Block), 18401920, Rangahaua Whanui Series, District 8, December 1996 (now Wai 898, #A55)
Marr, Cathy, The Alienation of Maori Land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea block), Part 2: 1900 1960’, Rangahaua Whanui Series, District 8, August 1999
Bibliography 511
Boulton: Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1866–1908: An overview August 2011
TRIBUNAL REPORTS
Waitangi Tribunal, The Pouakani Report 1993, Legislation Direct, Wellington, 1993
Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims, Stage One, Legislation Direct, Wellington, 2008
Bibliography 512