IOFFICIAL] NGATI MUTUNGA AND THE CHATHAM ISLANDS ( , A report to the Waitangi Tribunal ( , R.P.BOAST ( ) . ) March 1995 ( ) ( ) l ..' ~ •.. ' L 2 NGATI MUTUNGA AND THE CHATHAM ISLANDS: A Report to the Waitangi Tribunal R.P. BOAST Table of contents: Preface 4 1. Introduction 6 2. The Ngati Mutunga world and the Chathams 13 3. Migration and settlement 24 A. From Taranaki to the Chatham Islands 24 B. At the Chatham Islands 1835-67 30 C. Return to Taranaki 31 D. Ngati Mutunga in Taranaki 1868-1880 38 E. The Chatham Islands 1868-80. 43 F. Maori resettlement of the Chathams 1880-90 47 4. Maori and Moriori 49 5. The 1900 hearings 55 6. Conclusions 65 \ ) Note on sources and bibliography APPENDICES: 1. Extract from West Coast Royal Commission Report, 1884 AJHR A­ SA, Appendix IV: Report on the awards made by the government to absentee members of the Ngatitama, Ngatimutunga, Ngatiawa, and Taranaki tribes. 2. Reports from officers in Native Districts, 1885 AJHR G-2, No 16 [Deighton] 3. Order made by the Native Land Court, Wellington, in respect of land known as Kekerione, 1896 AJHR G-8. 4. Native Land Court Act 1894 s.14. 5. Kekerione case, (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 144 (Interim decision as to the existence of a trust) [transcription] 6. Final judgment of Judge Edger on Kekerione rehearing case, (1900) 3 Chatham Islands MB 320. 3 7. Documents from File MA 1,19111222, National Archives Wellington. ( ) ) ( I '. j ! j ( 4 Preface ( j My full name is Richard Peter Boast. My qualifications and experience have (i already been stated in my evidence given in the Wai-64 claim. In this report I attempt to deal with.the historical relationship between Ngati Mutunga and the Chatham Islands. To cover this subject fully would require t ) years of sustained research. In order to write this report I have had to rely on a number of secondary authorities. Fortunately the post-1835 Chatham Islands is the subject of a surprisingly substantial amount of published literature; some of it certainly impressiOnistic but some of it by recognised scholars, notably Rhys Richards, Sheila Natusch and Michael King.l The principal primary sources relied on are the Minute Books of the Native Land Court, reports printed in the Appendices to the Journals of the House of ) Representatives, E.R. Chudleigh's diaries, and material held at National Archives. Much remains to be learnt, but I feel I can state my principal conclusion at the outset, which is that Ngati Mutunga's history in the Chathams and their history in Taranaki must both be taken into account. Each illuminates the history of the other. l) In this paper I am probably guilty of using "Ngati Mutunga" and liTe Ati Awa" rather carelessly, sometimes implying that Te Ati Awa is a hapu or sub­ tribe of Te Ati Awa and other times implying Ngati Mutunga distinctiveness. One sees both usages in the written literature. Probably liTe Ati Awa" and "Ngati Mutunga" are best thought of as generic names for a number of closely related descent groups. Ngati Mutunga certainly had its own hapu (Kekerewai, Ngati Kura etc). I certainly gain the sense that Ngati Mutunga and Te Ati Awa were much closer than Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tarna, the latter having a very distinctive personality and reputation. Ngati Mutunga leaders like Wi Naera:Pomare seem to have commanded general stature in Te ( ) 1 Rhys Richards, American whaling on the Chathams Grounds, Historical Association, Nantucket, Massachusetts, 1971, and Whaling and sealing at the Chatham Islands, Roebuck, Canberra, 1982; Sheila Natusch, Hell and high water: a German occupation of the Chatham Islands 1843-1910. Pegasus, Christchurch, 1977; Michael King, Moriori: a people rediscovered, Viking, Auckland, 1989. 5 Ati Awa as well, to whom in any case they were closely related. Wi Naera's father, Pomare (Wiremu Piti Pomare) was closely related to Ngati Te Whiti and Ngati Tawhirikura, hapu of Te Ati Awa.2 And certainly Ngati Mutunga, both in the Chatham Islands and in Taranaki, were deeply committed to the "Te Ati Awa" movement led by Tohu and Taranaki. This latter phenomenon has also posed some problems of nomenclature. Most commentators do not regard the movement led by Te Whiti and Tohu as a "religious movement" in quite the same way as, say, Ratana or Ringatu, although whether that is right is something I am not in a position to have an opinion on. Contemporaries, especially unfriendly ones like Chudleigh, use the term "Te Whiti-ites", but modern commentators tend to insist on the equal importance of Tohu, and it is probably better to avoid terms like "followers of Te Whiti" and the like. I have followed Bronwyn Elsmore's usage of "the Parihaka movement" although that, too, is somewhat misleading. It was not confined to Parihaka: in fact the Chatham Islands were themselves an important centre of the movement and the influences did not radiate just one way. RP.BOAST ( ) 2 Angela Ballara, "Pomare, Wiremu Piti", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 1, 348. 6 1. Introduction 1.1. On June 16 1870 Wi Naera Pomare, the principal rangatira of Ngati Mutunga, opened the case relating to the Mangatukarewa or Kekerione block before the Native Land Court sitting at the little port of Waitangi in the Chatham Islands. His words are to the point, clear and unequivocal. "I am," he said, "of the tribe of Ngati Mutunga" - although as it happens he was actually Ngati Mutunga primarily by adoption. He named those who joined with him in asserting Ngati Mutunga's claim to the block as claimants jointly with himself: Hamuera Koteriki, Ngaiuri[?], Rakataau, Wiremu Tamihana, Nga Mate and Arapora Puta, and then separately gave the names of all the Ngati Mutunga claimants, the list headed by Ngawharewhiti, Toenga, Enoka te Poki, Pangapanga, and Tepania. The evidence proceeds: Court: Are there any Morioris included in the names above given? Wi Naera Pomare. Not any. Then there are some routine questions about the survey (the Court could not investigate title to an unsurveyed block). There was, said Wi Naera Pomare, "no opposition" to the survey. That matter covered, the evidence proceeds:3 Court: Where do the Ngatimutunga Tribe belong to originally? Wi Naera: The Ngatirnutunga Tribe came from Taranaki. Court: Do you know whether there will be any opposition to this claim? Wi N aera: I believe not. I claim this land on account of my long residence on it, and having taken possession of the Island. Court: How was it you took possession of the Island? Wi N aera: By the power of my arm we took possession. I believe it was in the year 1836 we took possession of the island. Court: Did you find any inhabitants on the Island? Wi Naera: We found inhabitants in 1836. We came and found this place inhabited and took possession, when we took it we took their mana from them and from that time to this I have occupied the land. This is the basis of mjrclaim. Court: Who was it who laid down the boundaries of this claim? ( I Wi N aera: We the claimants agreed that the boundaries as shewn on the plan should be the boundaries of this block. 3 (1870) 1 Chatham Islands MB 5-6. 7 Assessor: Did you come direct from Taranaki? Wi Naera: No, we came from Port Nicholson. Assessor: Who informed you about the Chatham Islands? Wi Naera: Some of our party who had been on board whalers. Court: Did you on your arrival take possession of this Block? Wi Naera: Yes. We settled on the land as shown in the plan. Court: Did you find any resident Claimants on this land? : I Wi Naera: We did. ( ! Court: Did you attack them or make war on them on your arrival? Wi Naera: We caught them and made them subservient to our will. 1.2. Wi Naera Pomare's words have the capacity to bridge the years, and : \ startle by their clarity, simplicty and immediacy. What he says also may strike us today as harsh and unfeeling. But it is important to gain some understanding of people involved in the drama and what they were like. Without placing him firmly in space and time he becomes a faceless ) caricature. Wi Naera Pomare, who was only a young child growing up with his Ngati Toa mo~er at Porirua when the Chathams were invaded, was not known as a harsh man. According to one writer uhe was a much loved, quiet kindly man and very much under his wife's thumb".4 When the issue came up as to the nature of his legal interest in Kekerione - he was one of the four original grantees - it was typical of him that he readily admitted he was only a trustee,S although some of the descendants of the other grantees argued that they were legal owners.6 Wi Naera was a religious man and an adherent of the teachings of Te Whiti 0 Rongomai. Dr King, nevertheless, claims that the news of Wi Naera Pomare's death from tuberculosis in 1886 was a cause of "some satisfaction in Moriori ranks"7 although what evidence there is for this "satisfaction" is not clear. 1.3. Wi Naera's family connections and his own life are virtually a microcosm of nineteenth century Maori history. These connections are all with the turbulent world of the early nineteenth century North Island West , J 4 E.C. Richards, The Chatham ~Islands: the plants, birds and people, Simpson and Williams, Christchurch, 1952, 158. 5 See evidence of Alexander Shand in Kekerione rehearing case, (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 152, and Judge Edger's interim decision in the same case at ibid, 153" the "Court has acted upon the admission of Wi Naera Pomare, that the grantees were trustees only." 6 The grantees to Kekerione were (i) Wi Naera Pomare; (ii) Ngawharewhiti Kawau; (iii) Toenga te POkii (iv) Retimona Ngarnata.