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. ( , 7 King, Mariori, 141. 8

Coast and with the tribes that travelled south under the leadership of or - more commonly - associated with Ngati Toa. Ngati Toa had "long-standing alliances with the tribes of northern Taranaki"8 and these links continued to be maintained after Ngati Toa had settled around Cook Strait and after Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama had established settlements in the Chatham Islands.

1.4. According to E.C. Richards Wi Naera Pomare's father was an

( ! Englishman, a Captain Blenkinsopp, the commander of the whaler Caroline, notorious for trying to obtain possession of the Wairau valley by fraudulently altering a deed signed by Te Rauparaha. Wi Naera Pomare's mother was Ngati Toa: Orongo, also known as Te Rongo, related to Nohorua, Te Rauparaha's elder brother. After Blenkinsopp's death Te Rongo remarried Te Rangihaeata, the great Ngati Toa chief. She died at the battle of the Wairau in 1843 when a stray bullet hit her - while taking shelter in a swamp, according to some sources: others say while she was sitting by a fire.9 It was for this that Te Rangihaeata exacted utu on the New Zealand company captives, and afterwards placed Colonel Wakefield's watch on Te Rongo's heart. Wi Naera, her son by her first marriage to Blenkinsopp, was adopted by Wiremu Piti (Le. William Pitt - his baptismal name10) Pomare of Ngati Mutunga, presumably after the death of the boy's mother at the Wairau. Wiremu Piti Pomare was of course one of the leaders of the invasion of 1835 and was the successor to Patukawenga as leading chief of Ngati Mutungai Pomare died at the Chatham Islands in 1851. His adoptive son, Wi Naera Pomare, continued the Ngati Toa connection with his marriage to a daughter of Te Rau 0 te C) Rangii her father was one Waikanae Jock or Scotch Jock aock Nichol or Nichols).

1.5. Te Rau 0 te Rangi, Wi Naera's mother in law, was a formidable personality. Also known as Kohe or Kahe, Te Rau 0 te Rangi was a signatory of the Treaty of Waitangi in her own right, one of only five women signatories.11 Te Rau 0 te Rangi was of mixed Ngati Toa and Ngati Mutunga

8 Steven Oliver, liTe Rauparaha", Dictionary ofNew Zealand Biographym vol 1,505. 9 Angela Ballara, liTe Rangihaeata", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography"voll,4B7. I ) 10 Pomare was baptised as Wiremu Piti by Octavius Hadfield at Wellington in 1842: see Angela Ballara, "Pomare, Wiremu Piti", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 1, 348. (Other sources give the date of this baptism as 1844: see e.g. Man of two worlds, 15. 11 E.C. Richards is in error when he claims (op.cit. 158) that Te Rau 0 te Rangi is Kahe's daughter: in fact they are one and the same person. She signed the Treaty at Port Nicholson on 29 April 1840, and her name can be seen on the text brought to Port Nicholson by Henry 9

descent: her parents were Te Matoha of Ngati Toa and Te Hautonga of Ngati Mutunga,12 It was Te Rau 0 te Rangi who made the famous swim from Kapiti - when the island was threatened with attack -to the mainland, taking her daughter Rebecca (others say it was Margaret,later taken to the Cape Colony by Sir George Grey) along with her, "bound onto a raft of raupo stalks and bull kelp and fastened on to her mother's shoulders".13 Te Rau 0 te Rangi was a committed Anglican and a supporter of the CMS mission. Another () important member of the family was Hane te Rau crane Brown), Wi Naera's sister-in-law, named after her mother, Te Rau 0 te Rangi. Hane te Rau once worked as a secretary to Sir George Grey and is said to have been his mistressi she was later adopted by Apitea, one of the Ngati Mutunga rangatira who had stayed on in the Chathams when most of the Maori C) , I population went back to Taranaki in 1868: he left her his property at Owenga. Later Hane became friendly with Edward Chudleigh, the runholder at Wharekauri station, and she assisted him as an interpreter during his negotiations with Toenga and others to purchase land in the Chathams,14 Wi Naera was married to Te Rau 0 te Rangi's other daughter, Mere (Mary), whose first marriage was to Inia Tuhata,15 Wi Naera Pomare and his supposedly bossy wife lived on the Kekerione block at the Chathams and also

" "; Williams on board the Ariel. James Cowan describes Te Rauo te Rangi as follows: "a very , ) fine and handsome woman, for she was straight and tall and deep bosomed, beautifully and generously proportioned and muscular of limb, a woman well fitted to mother warriors. She excelled in swimming and diving. No one on Kapiti, man or woman, was a more strenuous diver for shellfish: no one could fill a basket more quickly or remain under water longer; and in every swimming race she distanced her rivals, just as in later years she defeated all white sailors who challenged her": Evening Post, W~llington, July 271912, dted in Cody, Man of , ) tewo worlds. Wellington, 1953,12. ( } 12 On Te Rau 0 te Rangi Eleanor Spragg, liTe Rau 0 te Rangi, Kahe", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 1,504; W.e. Carkeek, The Kapiti Coast, Reed, Wellington, 1966, 140. Te Rau 0 te Rangi was bom at either Kawhia or Urenui and took part in Te Rauparaha's journey to Kapiti in 1821. Jock Nicholl left his whaling ship in Cloudy Bay and he and Te Rau 0 te Rangi were married and living on Kapiti by 1832-33. The couple were much engaged in trade and were married by the Presbyterian minister at Wellington in 1841. Kahe was baptised by Hadfield in 1844 and became a supporter of the eMS. From 1845 Kahe and Jock ran a well­ : ) known inn at Paekakariki and Sir George Grey came to know the family well. Three children lived to adulthood, Heni or Hane crane} Te Rau, who married Henry Brown and owned land in the Chatham Islands, Hone, married to Amiria, and Mere Hautonga, who married (i) Inia Tuhata and (ii) Wi Naera Pomare. Kahe died about 1881 and Jock in 1886. 13 E.e. Richards, Chatham Jslands, 158. 14 E.e. Richards (ed.), Df.dry of E.R. Chudleigh, Simpson and Williams, Christchurch, 1950, 270-71. 15 There were two persons named Inia Tuhata, father and son. According to a whakapapa at (1907) 4 Chatham Islands MB 250, given by the younger Inia Tuhata, Te Maotoha married Te Hautonga. Their daughter Te Rauoterangi married John Nichol. Here dughters were Heni te Rau crane Brown) and Mere (Mary) Nichol, who married Inia Tuhata; they were the parents of Inia Tuhata jr. Mere then married - though this whakapapa does not say so - Wi Naera Pomare, making Inia Tuhata Wi naera Pomare's stepson. 10

at Urenui in North Taranaki. Wi Naera Pomare was recognised as a leading rangatira of all Ngati Mutunga and maintained an active involvement in Te Atiawa affairs, while also keeping up his Ngati Toa connections. He became a (, follower of Te Whiti 0 Rongomai, and was present when colonial forces sacked Parihaka and took Te Whiti into custody. Wi Naera's son, Maui Wiremu Piti Pomare, was born at Waitara in 1876. At the age of five he was present along with his father when Bryce and his volunteers rode into (I Parihaka, and was one of the few casualities of that inglorious episode: a 16 : I horse stepped on his foot. Maui Pomare was adopted by his formidable Ngati Toa aunt, Hane te Rau, who sent him to school at Te Aute, and he spent much of his youth in the Chatham Islands, returning there from Te Aute college in the school holidays.17 Later this Maui Pomare, of course, studied /~" . ; I medicine, obtained an M.D. at a Seventh-Day Adventist College at Battle Creek, Michigan, was a leader of the Young Maori Party, and eventually became a Member of Parliament and a Cabinet Minister, taking the portfolios of Health and Internal Affairs in Massey's Reform government.18

1.6. These details are interesting in themselves, and serve to place Wi N aera Pomare in the context of his life and times and connections. This is one of the reasons why I have chosen to introduce my evidence with this materiaL But I hope also to introduce a number of themes which will be developed fully in what follows. The Ngati Mutunga leaders were prominent Maori figures. There were connections not only between Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama but also with Ngati Toa and other iwi. Ngati Tama had their own links with Ngati Toa: a notable example is Waitaoro of Ngati Tama, who was born in the Chathams and who married Tahana Tikiroa Kawhe (Coffee), the son of the well-known sealer. Waitaoro's mother was Rongorongo of Ngati Toa and her father Raniera of Ngati Tama. She was regarded as an elder of Ngati Tama, Ngati Mutunga, Ngati Toa and Ngati Maniapoto: she returned to Taranaki, to Ngati Tama's traditional lands at Poutama, and is buried at Pukearuhe,19 Neither Ngati Tama nor Ngati Mutunga of the Chathams can

16 J.F. Cody, Man of two worlds: a biography of Sir Maui Po mare, A.H. and A.W. Reed, Wellington, 1953, 19. 17 Maui was eleven when his father Wi Naera died. His mother continued to live in the Chathams and Maw first went to school at Christchurch Boys' High School. His mother died in 1889 and his aunt, Hane, then living in Auckland, had Maw transferred to Te Aute. l I 18 Maw Pomare is one of many key individualsin New Zealand history who urgently needs the attention of a biographer. J.F. Cody's Man of two worlds was published in 1953 and is too lightweight and hagiographical to be regarded as definitive. 19 See Angela Ballara,"Waitaoro", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 2,561. 11

be marginalised as some kind of aberrant or isolated goup out of the mainstream of nineteenth-century Maori life. They lived in a world which was much wider than the Cha thams. Their horizons included not only the (', Chathams but also Te Ati Awa communities in the Marlborough Sounds,

;' ) Wellington, the Kapiti region and Taranaki. This involvement in the wider world is equally characteristic of Ngati Tama.20 Wi Naera Pomare was a leading rangatira of Te Ati Awa as a whole. And his life was intertwined with Te Ati Awa's experiences in Taranaki. Like virtually all of the Chatham Islands Ngati Mutunga he was a follower and admirer of Te Whiti. It is odd that Te Ati Awa of Taranaki at this time are regarded in modern historiography as admirable pioneers of passive resistance to the unjust confiscation policies of the government in Taranaki, whereas Ngati Mutunga

, ) in the Chathams are cast in the role of the oppressors of Moriori. Yet they are essentially one and the same people and their history has to be seen as a unity. This may indicate at the outset that the history of Ngati Mutunga in the Chathams is more complex than may be apparent at first sight - and that history, when looked at closely, rarely resolves itself into simple dichotomy of good and bad, black and white. Instead there are usually varying shades of grey. The Chatham Islands, I hope to show, is no exception.

I 1.7. Some of the other lines of analysis I wish to pursue can also be I identified at this stage. I must make it clear that I donot wish to cast aspersions on the Moriori case or indeed attempt to palliate their tragic history. There is no doubt about what happened in 1835-6. Indeed a principal and uncontradicted source for this history is the evidence given by Ngati Mutunga themselves in 1870. Cracknell and Solomon have argued that the events in the Chathams did not amount to a valid "conquest" in terms of Maori customary law. I do not claim expertise in Maori customary law, but it , ,I does seem plain enough that the Ngati Mutunga witnesses in 1870 believed that there had been a conquest and explicitly say as much in a very clear and unequivocal way - I see no reason to doubt that they believed there had been a conquest which was valid according to the customary practices of Ngati Mutunga. Rakataau of the Kekerewai section of Ngati Mutunga made the point unequivocally, if somewhat bleakly, in 1870:21

20 For a demonstration of this point see Angela Ballara's illuminating "Waitaoro", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 2, 561. 21 Rakataau, in Kekerione investigation of title, at (1870) 1 Chatham Islands MB 7. 12

We took possession of the lands in accordance with our customs, and we caught the people. We caught all the people. Not one escaped. Some ran away from us. These we killed and others were killed, but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom.

(I If it is to be seriously contended that what happened in the Chathams was not "customary" then there are two possible implications. One is that the Ngati Mutunga rangatira who gave evidence in 1870 were lying to the Court, of which there is no evidence and is not something that one would expect from a man such as Wi Naera Pomare. Alternatively it might be supposed that Ngati Mutunga custom in this regard is out of kilter with 'Maori' custom elsewhere, on which I am hardly in a position to comment, but which does seem rather ( 'j unlikely. And other witnesses in the Wai-64 case take a rather different approach from the Cracknell-Solomon evidence - Dr Gilling sees the issue, much more persuasively in my opinion, as one of competing customary laws and practices,22 and implicit in this interpretation is that Ngati Mutunga's actions were in accordance with their own norms and rules.

1.8. Furthermore the history of Ngati Mutunga-Moriori interaction has been interpreted in an overwhelmingly negative way. I would contend that there is more to the history of Maori-Moriori interaction in the Chatham , ) Islands than simply a history of oppressors and oppressed. Mter the shock of conquest and initial settlement Maori and Moriori began to live side by side in the islands. This long-sta~ding relationship had positive as well as negative c ) aspects. Recent historiography of colonisation and indigenous peoples, moving beyond the so-called "atonement history" of recent decades, has sought to escape from simple stereotypes of oppressed and oppressors, and it may be that such an approach may aid also in better understanding of events

() in the Chatham Islands.23

()

: ) 22 See B.D. Gilling, The Native Land Court and the Chatham Islands, 1993 (Doc#A10), 91-2. 23 ' Some of the most interesting examples of this trend come from Australia, where a number of historians have begun to move away from the standard depictions of Aboriginal­ White interaction, which has till lately presented this as a grim tale of genocidal conquest. Conquests and atrocities and oppressions there certainly were - but this, apparently, is not the whole story. Interesting examples of a fresh approach are Rosalind Fels, Good Men and True: the Aboriginal Police of the Port Philip District, Melbourne University Press, 1988; and Henry Reynolds, With the white people: the crucUll role of the aborigines in the exploration and \ ' development of Australia, Penguin Books, Melbourne, 1990. 13

2. The Ngati Mutunga world and the Chatham Islands

2.1. Ngati Mutunga of the Chatham Islands retained a close involvement in I ' the affairs of Taranaki. In this sense their involvement in the migrations to the

( I south was somewhat different from Ngati Toa's. Ngati Toa had no choice but to abandon their homeland at Kawhia for ever and established a new polity in the Cook Strait region, although an emotional connection with Kawhia was Ii perhaps never entirely absent. But Ngati Mutunga - and Ngati Tama - always retained a strong commitment to Taranaki. In 1867-68 many people from both tribes returned to Taranaki from the South Island, Wellington and the Chatham Islands.

2.2. Of this continued involvement in Te Atiawa and Taranaki affairs _ nothing is more striking than the commitment of the Ngati Mutunga of the Chathams to Tohu Kakahi and Te Whiti 0 Rongomai and their cause. This commitment worried Crown officials in the Chathams. Deighton, the Resident Magistrate, reported in 1885 that the Maori of the Chathams tlare more rabid Te Whiti-ites than formerly, so much so, that some of them are nearly almost mad on the subject".24 There are many links between Wharekauri and Parihaka. The most characteristic emblem of the Parihaka

/ ) movement, the white albatross feather, came from the Chatham Islands (the ') albatross was prominent in the iconography of the Parihaka movement). A number of Tohu and Te Whiti's people who built fences across the path of the armed constables in charge of seaward road from New Plymouth to 25 : ) Hawera came from the Chatham Islands. They were arrested by the police. i) As noted above, Wi Naera Pomare and his son Maui were present at Parihaka when the Native Minister, James Bryce, rode in at the head of the colonial forces and armed constabulary on 5 November 1881. The women of Parihaka had prepared 500 loaves of bread to feed their invaders,26 and in accordance with this spirit Wi Naera sent five-year old Maui to offer a gift of a loaf of bread to the soldiers in accordance with Te Whiti's direction to feed one's enemies.27 Support for Te Whiti's cause was, however, expressed in other ways than visiting Parihaka. Much of the food which sustained Parihaka was

24 S Deighton R.M. to Native Minister, June 13 1885, 1885 AJHR G-2, 21.

( i 25 Richard Hill, The Colonial Frontier Tamed, Historical Branch, Department of Internal Affairs and GP Books, Wellington, 1989,328. 26 Hazel Riseborough, Days of darkness: Taranaki 1878-1884, Allen & Unwin, 1989, 164 27 E.c. Richards, Chatham Islands, 1952, 158. 14

sent there from the Chatham Islands. These foodstuffs included vast amounts of eels, duck, mutton birds and albatross. According to E.C. Richards:28

Te Whiti was well supplied with eels by his Chatham adherents. "2,000 were caught in one small lake and hung up to dry; 5,000 from another required 14 bullocks to

lll 29 drag them to the surfboat to be shipped in Hood's vessel, the 'Omaha • Altogether the Maoris exported 20,000 in February alone, followed later by huge quantities of grey duck and swan, then mutton birds and young albatross.

This is supported by David Holmes,30 whose autobiography, My Seventy Years on the Chatham Islands, was published in 1993:31

The Maori, too [i.e. as well as the Moriori] , fished for eels in Te Whanga Lagoon and in the 1870s they caught them by the thousands, preserved them and sent them to Taranaki for Te Whit's feasts. Te Rua Herata told me they would camp at various· places around the lake's west side and catch eels at night and in the early morning. The method used to preserve eels was to clean, split in half along the backbone, then heavily salt them. After salting they were pulled through a large pot of boiling water and hung up to dry. When dry they were hung in a big smokehouse and left to dry until they were the desired colour. The smokehouse was made of bush timber with a· framework roof covered with ponga leaves. It usually had no sides. A smouldering fire of rotten wood, mostly kopi, was burned under the roof. When smoked, the eels were packed into boxes.

( .1 The regular shipments of supplies - and money - to Taranaki from the

( ) Chathams was noticed by Deighton:32

They [the Maori] are very restless and unsettled, and are constantly sending up small ( ) deputations with presents to Te Whiti - preserved eels, albatrosses, and money - and, I am given to understand, that during the last twelve months nearly £500 has been sent to him by the Natives of this district, a very large sum considering the small population.

28 Richards, op.cit., 29 Source of quoted passage not given in original. 30 31 David Holmes, My seventy years on the Chatha,m Islands. Shoal Bay Press, Christchurch, 1991. 32 S Deighton to Native Minister, June 13 1885, 1885 AJHR G-2, 21. 15

2.3. Shipping foodstuffs from the Chatham Islands to Parihaka on this massive scale was a major exercise and an impressive achievement. Quite how was the produce collected together, shipped, transported and I I distributed? There are no studies of this. Samuel Deighton, the Resident Magistrate, reported in 1885 that "deputations" regularly went from the Chathams to Parihaka taking gifts of money and food, but it is not clear whether these deputies were coordinated by a central organisation in either the Chathams or in Taranaki.33 The Parihaka movement's achievements as a t' ) centre of resistance and and as a religious centre have been much discussed by historians, but the organising ability that provided the food, accomodation and other resources which made it all possible has not received the attention it deserves. Parihaka was a sizeable community. Maori from all over the ( I country converged on it. One of the features of Parihaka was the superbly equipped dining hall, Te Niho 0 te Atiawa, which photogaphs reveal to have been elaborately set out with polished tables, starched tablecloths elaborate settings and so on which must have put many a contemporary hotel dining room to shame.34 At the time of Bryce's invasion in 1881 there were 2,000 people living at Parihaka.35 To sustain such a large community required organisational talents of no mean order. There was of course intensive cultivation around Parihaka itself36 but it is likely that the foodstuffs reaching Parihaka from the Chathams were an important resource for the community. The Chathams were not, however the only part of Te Ati Awa's extended domain which helped to supply Parihaka. Provisions were sent also from Nelson to Taranaki:37

33 S Deighton to Native Minister, June 13 1885, 1885 AJHR G-2, 21, 34 See the photograph in Scott, Ask that mountain, Heinemann/Southern Cross, 1975, 168. 35 Scott, op.cit., 124 36 See Dick Scott, Ask that mountain, 54. Scott writes: "Maori from allover New Zealand now thronged Parihaka, not only half-yearly but at every monthly meeting, and they left behind permanent work teams to grow food for their visits. The tribes did not lose their identity '- land was set aside for each to have its own marae, meeting house and cluster of whares and there were nine such self-mntained units in the village. The land was free for all who would till it. There had not been 'so much cultivation in one place, it was said, since before the Europeans came to New Zealand... By 1878 a New Plymouth newspaper could report that one convoy of Parihaka Maoris passing through the town had 44 beflagged carts drawn by 106 bullocks and ten horses." 37 W. Rennell, Native Officer, New Plymouth, to Under-Secretary, Native Department, April 13 1885,1885 AJHR G-2, 20. 16

They sent to Nelson a few Natives especially to gather mussels, and the latter brought back several cart-loads of them. .. and one Nelson Native sent twenty-five cases of apples and five cases of jam as a present and contribution.

( I 2.4. Te Whiti's teaching and the millenarian religious vision developed at Parihaka deeply permeated Ngati Mutunga life on the Chathams. E.C. Richards claims that the only Maori on the Chathams who was not a follower of Te Whiti was Raumoa Pamariki who succeeded to the position held by Wi Naera Pomare on the latter's death in 1886. It was no accident that it was Raumoa who agreed that the Pakeha lessees of the Maori-owned blocks could purchase the freehold: Te Whiti's followers were firmly opposed to land selling.38 This is shown by comments in the Land Court Minute Books for the ( I Chatham Islands. In a case in 1887 relating to the partition of Wharekauri No 1 Edward Chudleigh produced a conveyance in court drawn up in 1878. Chudleigh stated:39

- I It has every signature but Mokena's who is dead. He died since the conveyance was made. He refused to sign being a Te Witi [sic] follower. He has been asked several times to sign but he has not done so.

And other sources also note a connection between adherence to Te Whiti's " ) teachings and unwillingness to sell land in the Chatham Islands.40 Mikaere argues that one consequence of the spread of the influence of Te Whiti in the Chathams was "growing Maori assertiveness" and lithe refusal to sign documents or sellland".41 Conscientious followers of the Parihaka movement would not sign deeds or contracts of any kind and kept away from the Native Land Court. In the Motuhora (or 44s) case in 1885, where Hirawanu Tapu unsuccessfully sought title to the island in the Native Land Court, Wi Naera Pomare gave his reasons for opposing the claim:42

-.) 38 See Richards, op.cit., 125: "Early in 1886 Naera Po mare died. Raumoa Pamariki succeeded him as head of the hapu or clan of the Chatham Island Maoris. He agreed to the transfer of most of the Maori land held by those lessees who wished to buy it. Pamariki was the only Maori on the Chathams who was not a follower of Te Whiti." This is probably an exaggeration, but there can be little doubt that the Parihaka movement commanded the allegiance of many Ngati Mutunga in the Chatham Islands. 39 See (1887) 1 Chatham Islands MB 139. 40 Richards, Chatham Islands, 125. 41 Buddy Mikaere, "Ritchie, Thomas", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 2, 427. 42 See (1885) 1 Chatham Islands MB 92. 17

The reason I am opposing Tapu's claim is that Hamuera Koteriki is not here to support his claim on account of his being a "Te Whiti" follower and I oppose it on my own part that the land may not go back to the Morioris.

As late as 1900 there were some Chatham Islands Maori who refused to have anything to do with the Land Court because of their commitments to the Parihaka movement. In the 1900 Kekerione hearing, speaking of Te Retimona 43 ( I and others who had stayed aloof from the proceedings, Judge Edger stated:

( ) It might perhaps be urged, that inasmuch as they set up no claim, no interest ought to be awarded to them. But there are others, for instance Te Retimona, who set up no claim, mainly through the influence of Te Whitiism. The Court thinks it proper to I ) protect the interests of such persons, to some extent.

2.5. The impact of Te Whiti and Tohu and the "Parihaka movementl/44 on Maori life in the Chathams appears to have been profound. E.C. Richards judged that "the most ardent Te Whiti-ites were the Chatham Island Maoris who used to send their prophet much money and many tons of food each yearl/.45 Various comments in Edward Chudleigh's diary attest to the pervasiveness of adherence to Te Whiti in the Chatham Islands Maori community. In 1881 Chudleigh noted in his diary the momentous news of the ( ) fall of Parihaka:46

Clough brought the news thatTe Whiti was in durance and several of his followers

.. ) and that Parihaka was destroyed .

( ) But the fall of Parihaka did not end Maori allegiance to Te Whiti in the Chathams. On 12 February 1885 Chudleigh noted:47

. )

43 See (1900) 3 Chatham Islands MB 338. 44 This is Bronwyn Elsmore's term. See her Like them that dream: the Maori and the Old . Testament, Tauranga Moana Press, 1985, 117: "While Te Whiti is not claimed to have founded , any distinct religion, the response of the Parihaka Movement was very strong in its religious element - this forming the basis for its political policy. The spiritual message and influence ( I which emanated from the settlement of Parihaka was very great - not only in the Taranaki area, but even further afield, from the mid 1860s." 45 E.C. Richards, "Introduction" to E.C. Richards (ed), Diary of E.R. Chudleigh, Simpson and Williams, Christchurch, 1950, 14. 46 E.C. Richards (ed), Diary of E.R. Chudleigh, 303 (25 November 1881) 47 Ibid, 332, = 18

Mabel and I called on Wi Te Tahuhu and Miriama and saw some 2000 tuna [eels] drying. I saw 5000 yesterday in drays, 14 bullocks drawing them. I think there will be quite 20,000 eels in all for Te Whiti. Piripiri and Pene took a large contract from me fencing. They gave me their word as Te Whiti men but would not sign an agreement.

In his capacity as a magistrate Chudleigh thought it desirable to show Maori supporters of Te Whiti the folly of their ways:

( [24 March 1889]: I sat on the late fire as chairman. Verdict, no evidence to show how fire started. Had fun with Wharewhiti and Richmond [a Maori]. They put Te Whiti before the Queen and so got run in for a time till they put the Queen first. ,

But the most dramatic public display of loyalty to Te Whiti was the practice by which groups of Maori walked in procession around the island. E.C. Richards calls these processions "canoes" (waka) and describes them as follows: 48

Early in 1886 Naera Po mare died. Raumoa parnariki succeeded him as head of the hapu or.clan of the Chatham Island Maoris. He agreed to the transfer of most of the Maori land held by those lessees who wished to buy it, Pamariki was the only Maori

I on the Chathams who was not a follower of Te Whiti. The rest of the natives held a ) "canoe" or solemn, silent procession consisting of over forty people on forty horses and accompanied by more than that number of dogs. Te Whiti told them they must canoe seven times before the Europeans would leave the Chathams. This was the fifth expedition. Before the promise could be fuUilled Te Whiti became the guest of the government and no more canoes were carried out.

Chudleigh observed one of these strange processions, and found it rather unnerving. He recorded his impressions in his diary:49

A Te Whiti procession passed through here at 5.30 pm. 43 people on as many horses and as many dogs. They had come two and two at a walk all the way from Waitangi; their hair full of white feathers from the albatross. They camp at, Wi Te Tahuhu's tonight. Wi sent to me for 1 cwt. flour. Tomorrow the same party augmented by the Mairangi party marched past the station on their way to Materakau and thence back ( J

48 E.C. Richards, The Chatham Islands, 125. Te Whiti resumed active opposition to Pakeha settlement in July 1886 and was imprisoned and then released in early 1887. 49 E.C. Richards (ed), Diary of E.R Chudleigh, 340 (12 January 1886) 19

to Waitangi. As far as I know this is their first Canoe that has gone its rounds in the Chathams. Had these gentry the power they would soon show us the plank.

Other 'fcanoes" passed through Wharekauri station in April;50

[3rd April] A Maori procession passed to Mairangi, from 40 to 50 on horseback, each with white feathers in their hair or hats, albatross feathers. [9th April] Some 30 or 40

,( I Maoris went past on horseback two and two as usual. They have collected 300 Akoakoa [albatross].

2.6. The only discussion of the impact in the Chathams of the Te Ati Awa religious and political movement associated with Te Whiti is found in ch. 7 of 51 ! ) Michael King's Moriori: A people rediscovered .. King here notes that there was a scare in 1872 when it was feared that Maori devotees of Te Whiti and Tohu in the Chathams were supposedly planning a massacre of all the Europeans living in the island but that a court of inquiry in that year "concluded that there had in fact been no threat"52 (according to Buddy Mikaere the frightened Pakeha residents barricaded themselves into Ritchie's Lake House for an entire week, during which time "the only invader was a pig"53). Dr King judges that the commitment of Chathams Islands Maori to

Parihaka and its "pacifist ideology" was for Moriori II an outcome redolent of irony", which perhaps it is although we have no way of knowing whether either Moriori or Ngati Mutunga saw things in this light. In fact there is evidence to show that Moriori, far from finding the Parihaka movement

, , ! "ironical" became partisans of it themselves. 54 King also comments:

Subsequent campaigns to rid the Chathams of European settlers involved the followers of Te Whiti wearing their three albatross feathers (the raukura) and riding round the island on horseback in processions they called waka (canoes). Te Whiti was said to have told them that if they did this seven times the Pakeha would leave. The Pakeha did not.

This, coupled with his discussion of the 1872 "threat" gives the impression that in the Chatham Islands the movement had a belligerent edge that it

( I 50 Ibid 343. 51 Michael King, Moriori: A people rediscovered, Viking, Auckland, 1989, 134-5 .. 52 Ibid,134. 53 Mikaere, Buddy, "Ritchie, Thomas", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 2, 427. 54 S Deighton to Native Minister, 13 June 1885, 1885 AJHR G-2, 21. 20

lacked in Taranaki itself. Dr King gives no sources for this passage, so one can only assume that his interpretation of the purposes of the "canoes" - i.e. that they were to make the Pakeha leave - comes from E.C. Richards, who asserts ( . this in several places,55 but which I have not seen in any other original source. Richard's main informant however was Edward Chudleigh, whose hostility to the "Te Whiti-ites" and, indeed, his fairly jaundiced attitudes towards Maori generally, are only too apparent in his diary ("Confound Maoris say I. One might as well try to deal with the winds."56). It is quite likely, in fact,

C I given the strongly mystical and millenarian edge to Te Whiti and Tohu's teachings,57 that the pilgrimages around the island may have had a primarily spiritual and religious function, as indeed they may have done in Taranaki. It is also pertinent to note that Chatham Islands Maori were very reluctant to explain to Pakeha the purpose of their pilgrimages around the island. Samuel Deighton did his best to find out, but no success:58

I can never find out what transpires after the return of deputies, as they keep everything to themselves, and are very jealous of the interference of the Europeans in all matters concerning Te Whiti.

This reticence on the vital subject of the Parihaka movement aside, relationships between Maori and Pakeha on the island, in Deighton's view, were excellent:

I see no difference in their behaviour to the Europeans, being quite as civil and friendly as ever.

55 In his introduction to Chudleigh's Diary, 14-15; The Chatham Islands, 125. 56 E.C. Richards (00), Diary oj E.R. Chudleigh, 271. Chudliegh seems to have had fairly i ) jaundiced attitudes to everyone. Dr King cites a passage in Chudleigh's diary where he describes Deighton as "quite ignorant of all law" to demonstrate Deighton's incapacities, but the remark may reflect rather on Chudleigh than on Deighton. 57 . In her Days oj Darkness, the most comprehensive account of the events surrounding the invasion of Parihaka, Hazel Riseborough explicitly refrains from discussing the religiOUS and philosophical underpinnings of Tohu and Te Whiti's campaign of resistance: "this study does not seek to probe the philosophy behind Maori responses to injustices; that story remains to be told by those who have the right to tell it." (p vii). There is however some discussion of the religious and spiritual dimension in Bronwyn Elsmore's Like them that dream: the Maori and the Old Testament, Tauranga Moana Press, Tauranga, 1985 117-124 and ~, -. ) Mana from Heaven: A century oj Maori Prophets in New Zealand, Moana Press, Tauranga, 1989 239-252. Elsmore sees what she calls the "Parihaka movement" as driven strongly by Te ,_ I Whiti's deep immersion in the Maori texts of the Old and New Testaments, the movement being primarily Hebraic in inspiration with Christian overtones (see especially Mana from Heaven 251). 58 S. Deighton to Native Minister, 13 June 1885, 1885 AJHR G-2,21. 21

He adds, rather mysteriously:

They are all looking out very anxiously for the return of the Omaha from New Zealand, fully expecting news of great importance on her return.

2.7. The practice of silent marches or pilgrimages was .characteristic of the Parihaka movement not only in the Chathams but also in Taranaki itself. Once again the unity of Ngati Mutunga and the nature of their political response in Taranaki and the Chatham Islands is apparent. The pilgrimages in Taranaki have been described by Bronwyn Elsmore:59

1 '.l Large groups of people - some of them numbering up to 1500 and even 2000 - undertook long walks around the coastal boundary of the province - these being silent but eloquent protests against the alienation of the land. The area of the marches extended from Pukearuhe (White Cliffs) in the north to Patea on the south coast - these region enclosing the tribal lands of the Ati Awa, Taranaki and Ngati Ruanui peoples. They had become so frequent by 1886 that an official report stated that sometimes two or three of these journeys were undertaken in a month.

The similarities with the 'waka' in the Chathams are quite apparent - for , ) example the practice of walking or riding in silence, and of enclosing the coastal boundaries of the rohe. Contemporary descriptions of these pilgrimages in Taranaki appear from time to time in the Reports from officers in ..\ native districts sections of the Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives. In 1885 W. Rennell, the Reserves Trustee at New Plymouth, reported to the Native Department on the processions. The processions were organised by Te Whiti, Tohu and Titikowaru, and could comprise thousands of people:6o

The movement originates at Parihaka, when Te Whiti and Tohu give general instructions, and hand over to Titikowaru the carrying of them out. They leave L } Parihaka, where they have been mustered, on any given day, and proceed to the nearest Native village of any importance, where the hosts have prepared as much food as their means will allow, and have erected sufficient extra accomodation, say,

59 Elsmore, Mana from Heaven, i 239. 60 W Rennell, Reserves Trustee, New Plymouth, to Under-Secretary, Native Department, 13 April 1885, 1885 A]HR G-2, 20. 22

from two long temporary houses, as at Waitara, to simply a break of fern to keep off the wind from the tents the visitors have with them.

( The procession would halt and hold a meeting with the local people during which an "immense quantity" of food would be consumed, "five to ten bullocks being slaughtered at a stoppage" and much tea, bread and butter, mussels, shark and vegetables consumed. Costly presents were given and

( ) received. To officials like Rennell it was all very puzzling and exasperating: "these liberal presents must quite impoverish the Natives". Rennell was curious about the meaning of the processions:61

One of the reasons given for these visitings, as I heard from a very intelligent Native chief, is to finally put an end to all bad feelings which may have arisen among the Natives during their former wars, they saying that peace has been firmly established between Europeans and Natives, but it cannot be equally binding amongst the Natives themselves until these meetings have taken place, where old enemies meet together in a friendly manner, face to face, and old resentments are banished.

Clearly in some uncertainty as to what local officials should do about the situation, Rennell reported again to the Native Department on the Taranaki processions the following year:62

The only event of note that has taken place amongst the Natives in my district during the past year is the increased and still increasing number of Natives travelling about from pIa ce to place. Large bodies, from two hundred to over one thousand in

(I number, travel about between White Cliffs and Patea without any apparent object than that of amuusing themselves. In some cases they have marched in procession around some of the townships on the coasti but have hitherto behaved in every way as orderly as could be expected from such a number.

( ) Rennell was puzzled as to the meaning of the processions and received a number of explanations from the marchers:

I have endeavoured to find out whether there is any meaning in the processions. Some say it is to assert their right to the confiscated territory: others, that they are

61 Ibid. 62 W. Rennell, Resreves Trustee, New Plymouth, to Under-Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, AJHR G-1, 19. 23

wandering about like the Jews in the desert under Moses: but the most well-informed and intelligent hesitate to give'a decided opinion.

I ! Renell thought that the objectives of the processioners were peaceful and on the whole there was no risk to the general tranquillity of Taranaki (it is interesting that Rennell is under no apprehension that the objective was, to make the Pakeha leave Taranaki):

When these gatherings first commenced they naturally attracted a good deal of attention: but they have become so frequent of late that very little notice is taken of them. Sometimes two or three of these journeys are undertaken in a month. They originate at Parihaka, but the leadership is given to one or more influential chiefs to carry out details ... Alarmists among the Maoris themselves say that mischief is brewing; but I can see no sign of it, nor can any of the numerous chiefs I have spoken to on the subject. I have on previous occasions pointed out where possible trouble might arise from a body of Natives, some young and turbulent, riding about the country - namely, that if any dispute arises (especially about impounding horses) there is a danger of their taking the law into their own hands, and, if punished, . would go to prison as cheerfully as they did a few years ago when arrested for ploughing.

. ) 2.8. Most of the references relating to the impact of the 'Parihaka. movement' in the Chathams date from the 1880s, but it seems likely that it began to work its effects much earlier than that. Bronwyn Elsmore dates the emergence of Parihaka as an important Maori political and religious centre in the mid to late 1860s.63 In her biographical article on Tohu Kakahi Ailsa Smith in effect dates the Parihaka movement from December 1865, when Te Va Haumene, the founder of the Pai Marire faith, formally consecrated Tohu, Te Whiti and Taikomako - all Te Ati Awa - to carry on his religious work:64

In December 1865 Te Ua consecrated Tohu, Te Whiti and Taikomako (Te Whiti's half­ brother) to carry on his religious work. The battle at Waikoukou marked the end of the war in Taranaki, and Tohu and Te Whiti joined Taikomako at Parihaka. It is said that the biblical prince of peace, Melchisedec, came to Tohu in a vision, validating his position as leader within the Parihaka movement. Tohu's descendants tell how this I, I

63 Elsmore, Mana from Heaven, 239. 64 Ailsa Smith, "Tohu Kakahi", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 2, 541. See also her Ko Tohu te matua: the story of Tohu Kakahi, MA Thesis, Canterbury University, 1991, 24

movement was given divine sanction by the Holy Spirit, in the form of a great albatross (Toroanui - the name of Tohu's marae) .

. Given that the Parihaka movement was in existence by 1865, the questions

(I which arise are whether this is connected in any way with Ngati Mutunga's return to Taranaki from the Chathams in 1868 and with Ngati Mutunga's decision to assert title to the Chathams in 1870 in the Native Land Court. This is discussed more fully below. f' ; I 2.9. To revert to my main theme, I would argue that whatever else may be concluded about the teachings of Tohu and Te Whiti and their impact in the Chathams, there can be no doubt of the close involvement of the Ngati

~ ) Mutunga people of the Chathams in the affairs of Taranaki in this regard. In fact this is probably an imprecise way of putting it. Rather, Ngati Mutunga as a whole was deeply committed, wherever they lived, and there continued to be much coming and going at this time between the Chathams, Taranaki and Ngati Mutunga's other locations.

3. Migration and settlement

( I A. From Taranaki to the Chatham Islands , I

3.1. The migration of Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama to the Chatham Islands has already been traversed in evidence before this Tribunal. Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga occupied adjoining territories in north Taranaki, Ngati Tama to the north in the region still known as Poutama.65 Their move south is part of the great displacement of peoples of the Waikato and the North Taranaki coasts in the 1820s and 1830s. Along with the Ngati Tama chief Te Puoho's foray into Southland via the West Coast of the South Island, the Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga settlements in the Chathams and then the Auckland Islands are the furthest geographical extensions of this displacement which so profoundly affected Maori history in the nineteenth century. By the time it was over Ngati Toa were ensconced at Kapiti, Porirua and the Wairau valley, Ngati Raukawa at Otaki, Ngati Koata on D'Urville , Island (Rangitoto), Ngati Tama at the Chathams and various places in Nelson and Marlborough, Ngati Rarua in Marlborough, and Ngati Mutunga in the

65 See S.P. Smith, History and Legends of the West Coast of the North Island, Memoirs of the PolyneSian Society, 1910, vol 1, 2-3. 25

Chathams. Wellington and the Hutt valley seems to been a kind of spillover territory where there were a number of settlements of the different invading groups, the question of exactly who had overall control being very unclear. (I This expansion south and resettlement was achieved at the expense of the local populations, including Muaupoko, Rangitane, Ngati Ira and of course the Moriori people of the Chathams.

(i 3.2. The most sophisticated model explaining the migrations southward of Ngati Toa, Ngati Mutunga and other groups is that advanced by Angela Ballara.66 Ballara is guarded about the "musket wars" hypothesis, which explain the disruptions on the West Coast of the North Island as part of the disequilibrium caused by uneven tribal acquisition of the new firepower

( ) represented by the musket. Her argument is, rather, that there were changing practices of warfare in this period which were initially unconnected with the use of the musket, but which its subsequent arrival compounded. One was the "previously unusual practice of recruiting taua (war parties) of non-kin from great distances", an innovation that "negated the customary restraints which made war between kin more like ritual combat than total war".67 However new ways of waging war still coexisted with the role of utu, the imperative necessity to take vengeance, still necessary "even when chiefs

( J were killed by randomly-firing musket-wielding slaves".68 Her thesis is, in , ) essence, that Maori customary law failed to adapt quickly enough to changed circumstances of warfare. The result could all too easily be an unstoppable circle of retaliation and violence, especially where, as on the Waikato coast, there was pressure on resources. Thus in the Waikato the initial conflict () between Ngati Mahanga and Kawhia descent groups like Ngati Koata and Ngati Toa "resulted in the deaths of persons of such prominent and extensive kin linkages that the cycle of hostility gradually drew in ever widening circles of kinship until the conflict involved nearly every descent group from Manuka (Manukau) to Mokau."69 Taranaki was drawn into the maelstrom when the Kawhia groups went there in 1821:70

66 See Angela Ballarat liTe Whanganui-a-Tara: phases of Maori occupation of Wellington Harbour c.1800-1840", in David Hamer and Roberta Nicholls (eds), The making of Wellington 1800-1914, Victoria University Press, 1990 9-34. See also Penny Ehrhardt, Te Whanganui-a-Tara customary tenure 1750-1850, Waitangi Tribunal Division, Deparhnent of Justice, 1993. 67 Ballara, op.cit., 10. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid,11. 70 Ibid. 26

These wars were the catalyst that provoked the migration of the Kawhia tribes to Taranaki about 1821; they were followed there by Waikato people seeking utu and the Taranaki tribes were then drawn into the turmoil. These wars culminated in tha battle of Motunui about 1822; Waikato were defeated, but this only ensured their return to redress the balance. Before they could do so the Kawhia tribes migrated to the Kapiti coast, accompanied by some of their Taranaki hosts. Other Taranaki

people, especially those from the north, most exposed to retaliation from Waikatol were to follow. It was these people whp were to occupy Wellington harbour [and the Chatham Islands].

3.3. The journey south to Kapiti, Te Whanganui-a-Tara, the South Island

( ) and the Chatham Islands followed a number of stages:

(a) Following the defeat of Waikato at Motunui in 1821 Ngati Toa, led by Te Rauparaha, moved south to Kapiti. He was accompanied by contingents of Ngati Tama and- Ngati Mutunga.71 Relations with the tangata whenua seem at first to have been peaceful, but eventually the local peoples (referred to by the northerners as Ngati Kahungunu, but this is an oversimplication) attacked Ngati Toa on Kapiti but were (1 defeated at Waiorua.

(b) In 1824 a much larger detachment of Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama moved south. Te Rauparaha welcomed them. Ngati Tama first settled at Ohariu and Ngati Mutunga at Waikanae, but they later crossed the Wellington peninsula and re-established themselves at Te Whanganui-a-Tara, Ngati Mutunga along the western side of the harbour and Ngati Tama at Tiakiwai (linear the northern end of ( i present-day Tinakori Road"72.) Relationships with the tangata whenua, Ngati Ira, were friendly at first but later deteriorated. According to Ballara, Ngati Ira were in part driven out of the Wellington region and in part withdrew. One of the most well-known battles was at Island ; ) Bay, where Ngati Ira were besiged on Taputeranga Island.

(c) A further source of disequilibrium occurred in 1829, when ( ! another tribe migrated south. This was Ngati Raukawa who came from

71 Ibid,16-17. 72 Ibid, 18. 27

Maungatautari in the South Waikato. The arrival of Ngati Raukawa, a Tainui people, was unsettling to Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga.

(d) In 1831 the long-expected Tainui retaliation in north Taranaki finally took place. Waikato invaded in strength and the fortreSs of Pukerangiora fell to the invaders in December. The Te Ati Awa chief Te Wharepouri managed to beat off Waikato in another ferocious battle at Ngamotu (New Plymouth) but everyone knew that Waikato's

f 1 return would only be a matter of time. Te Ati Awa then journeyed south to the Cook Strait region. This migration is known as the Tama­ te-uaua, and it included Ngati Te Whiti and other Te Ati Awa groups. This grouping were known collectively as Te Ngamotu, after the battle.

, I They lived first at Waikanae. Then Te Mana of Ngati Mutunga invited some chiefs of the Ngamotu section to live with Ngati Mutunga at Pito-one (petone). The Ngamotu section of Te Ati Awa gained a further base in the Hutt Valley when Patukawenga, the leading chief of Ngati Mutunga, granted to them the Waiwhetu area, that is the land east of the Heretaunga river. However many of the Ngamotu crossed the mountains into the Wairarapa.

(e) The next phase is marked by growing tension between the two most recently-arrived descent groups, Raukawa and the Ngamotu section of Te Ati Awa. Ngati Mutunga were naturally drawn into this on the side of Ngamotu and fought with them at the iconclusive battle of Haowhenua in 1834. Also fighting on the Te Ati Awa side were

( .I members of yet another wave of immigrants from Taranaki, who included Te Rangitake (later known as Wiremu Kingi).

: ) (f) The next stage in this convoluted history is one of fighting between Ngati Tama and Ngati Toa. Ngati Tama, in the aftermath of Haowhenua, led by their chief Te Kaeaea (later given the name Taringa Kuri, Dog's Ear, by Te Rangihaeata, allegedly because Te Rangihaeata thought he was behaving like a disobedient dog), tried their luck in trying to base themselves at Paremata, but Ngati Toa drove them away. They moved to Ohariu and then tried to attack Mana, but Te Rangihaeata again drove them off. There they remained. Another section of Ngati Tama lived at Kaiwharawhara.

Ii 28

(g) Ngati Mutunga, based around Wellington harbour, were beginning to feel somewhat pressured. They had close links with Ngati Tama who looked likely to be involved in major conflict with Ngati ( I Toa. Ngati Toa were also allied with Ngati Raukawa, but Ngati Raukawa were related to the Taranaki tribes' Waikato enemies: a further source of uneasiness for Ngati Mutunga. Despite close linkages by marriage Ngati Mutunga also had quarrels of their own with Ngati Toa.73 It was at this point that they began to consider moving on to the Chathams. They had learned "that the islands were full of birds and other food, and that the people were numerous and new nothing of war".74 In November 1835 the Rodney was loaded with supplies for the Chathams. However, things were not very friendly between Ngati , I Tama and Ngati Mutunga. The trip to the Chathams was basically a Ngati Mutunga project: Ngati Tama "were not wanted on board".75 Their participation in the Chathams venture was only possible because at the last moment Patukawenga, the senior chief of Ngati Mutunga, decided to let some of Ngati Tama and Ngati Haumia76 , apparently a hapu of the Taranaki tribe, on board the ship.77

(h) The Rodney made two voyages to the Chathams. It first left on 14 November 1835 with about 500 Ngati Mutunga, Ngati Tama and . )

73 Here the issue arose as an outcome of the battle of Haowhenua. Pomare, senior chief of Ngati Mutunga, was married to Tawhiti of Ngati Toa (she was Te Rauparaha's niece). Pomare's brother Te Waka Tiwai was killed at Haowhenua. Tawhiti's brothers are said to have dug up the body to steal the tobacco buried with him, and Pomare then divorced l ! Tawhiti and sent her away in disgust. See Ballara, op. cit., 25; Patricia Bums, Te Rauparaha: a new perspective, Wellington, 1980, 179. According to Ballara Ngati Toa tried to remedy matters, but unaVailingly: "Rangi Topeora, sister of Te Rangihaeata of Ngati Toa, attempted to heal the breach between Po mare and Tawhiti, even offering her own daughter Rakapa Kahoki and another youg woman as additional wives, but Pomare rejected them all": see her "Po mare, Wiremu Piti", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 1, 348. 74 Ibid,26. 75 Ibid. 76 One sees frequent references in the Chatham Islands Minute Books to a group known as Ngati Haumia, who were associated with Ngati Tama. Ngati Haumia is, for example, mentioned by Hirawanu Tapu, the well-known Moriori kaumatua, at the Kekerione reinvestigation hearing in 1900: he says that Te Kuru was of Ngati Haumia and Ngati Tarna. And in the same case Nekehia Paina of Ngati Mutunga (her first husband was 'Toenga) speaks of a boundary in Kekerione between Ngati Haumia and "Toenga ma" (i.e. Toenga and { I his people: see (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 160, 167. I am not sure if this Ngati Haumia is a hapu of Ngati Tama. Some sources refer to a Ngati Haumia which is a hapu of Ngati Toa: see ( , W.e. Carkeek, The Kapiti Coast, Reed, Wellington, 1965, 18. Ballara is of the opinion that the Ngati Haumia which went to the Chathams are a section of the Taranaki iwi, which seems f:lausible. 7 Ibid,26. 29

Ngati Haumia. Before it had got back to Port Nicholson to pick up the second contingent, the Ngamotu section of Te Ati Awa turned up from .the Wairarapa to find that Wellington harbour was being abandoned (, by Ngati Mutunga. It was at this point that the famous transaction occurred by which Ngati Mutunga formally granted their lands around Wellington to basically two groups: the northern section (Ngauranga to Petone) to Te Ati Awa and the southern section (Te Aro CI to Ngauranga) to Ngati Haumia and Ngati Tupaia, hapus of the Taranaki tribe.78

One gets the impression that the departure of Ngati Mutunga from Wellington was much more complete than that of Ngati Tama, although of . l , ) course their dose relatives now had control over the harbour. In general Ngati Mutunga seem to have been a much more concentrated people than Ngati Tama. Ngati Tama seem to have become involved in many far-flung adventurous, not to say, reckless projects, perhaps the most astounding of which was Te Puoho's "epic march" in 1837 along the length of the West Coast of the South Island and across the Southern Alps into Southland to attack Ngai Tahu where they least expected it.79 With the departure of some Ngati Tama to the Chathams they became a dispersed people. There were

I already Ngati Tama living in the South Island, who later sold South Island ) lands to the Crown in the complex Te Waipounamu transactions negotiated by Donald McLean in 1855-56.80 Others of Ngati Tama stayed on at Kaiwharawhara. Taringa Kuri and his people lived for a while in the Wairarapa and then at Kaiwharawhara. He accepted some of the New

: ) Zealand Company's payments for Port Nicholson and signed the Treaty of Waitangi. But relations with Ngati Toa were still not good. Later Taringa Kuri became involved in a rather serious conflict .with the colonial state over land in the Hutt Valley, described in detail in Ian Wards' The shadow of the land. 81

78 Ibid, 28. This sentence summarises Ballara's interpretaion. But of course this famous agreement is the subject of much dispute as to quite who was given what. For a full discussion which gives Land Court references see Ehrhart op. cit., 28. 79 See Atholl Anderson, Te Puoho's last raid, Dunedin 1986; liTe Puoho-o-te-rangi", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 1,481-3; H.C. Evison, Te Wai Pounamu, Aoraki Press, Wellington, 1993, 90-92. 80 The relevant deeds are reprinted in A. Mackay, A compendium of documents relative to Native Affairs in the South Island, vol 1, 1873. 81 Ian Wards, The shadow of the land, Wellington, 1968, pp 214-265. For a useful summary of these events see Angela Ballara, liTe Kaeaea", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography vol 1, 455-7. 30

3.4. By 1840 it appeared that Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama had left their homeland for good. In 1840 Ernest Dieffenbach travelled from New Plymouth up the coast to the Mokau river. He found the land empty:82

The country near the sea-coast bears, in many places, the traces of former extensive native cultivation, and the ruins of several pas. Here formerly lived the Nga-te-toma and Nga-te-Motunga tribes, the present inhabitants of the Chatham Islands, who (0 1 migrated there many years ago. The whole district between Taranaki and Mokau has at present not a single inhabitant.

B. At the Chatham Islands 1835-67

: 1 3.5. It is notorious that Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga had their own quarrels in the Chatham Islands (or rather, that it did not take too long before the existing tensions between them led to conflict in the Chatham Islands). 83 There were early attempts to amicably settle the boundaries but these were 0 unsuccessful in preventing tensions from reaching a level of quite serious conflict and eventually Ngati Mutunga's conquest of the southern part of Kekerione, including the port at Waitangi. Most eyewitnesses say that this happened in 1840. A dissenter was Hirawanu Tapu who stated in 1900 that Ngati Mutunga only acquired the southern part of Kekerione in 1843, when many of Ngati Tama went to the Auckland Islands.84 However, when giving his evidence at the Kekerione case in 1870, Hirawanu Tapu dated the expulsion of Ngati Tama from Kekerione to 1839:85

( ) The Chief of the Wangaroa people was called Pomare and the chief of the Waitangi Ngatuna. In 1839 Pomare took Waitangi from Ngatuna's people. I was residing at Waitangi at that time. I went with Ngatuna's people [i.e. Ngati Tarna] to Kaingaroa, the ancient name of which was Waikeri.

Alexander Shand claimed that in 1840 the southern end of Kekerione belonged to Ngati Tama but that Ngati Mutunga conquered it "in that year". In 1900 Shand argued that this southern section of Kekerione belonged to Ngati Mutunga as a whole - on the basis of take raupatu - rather than to

! ) 82 E. Dieffenbach, Travels in New Zealand, John Murray, London, 1843 (repr. by Capper

( ! Press, Christchurch, 1974), vol 1, 168. 83 See Hirawanu Tapu's evidence at (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 160. 84 See (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 153. 85 At (1870) 1 Chatham Islands MB 15. 31

specific individuals of Ngati Mutunga asserting claims to the same area on the basis of settlement and cultivation.86 Others argued that after the conquest over Ngati Tama "the land was not cut up, but the people [of Ngati Mutunga] I I were allowed to cultivate where they liked... such cultivations would give them a special right."87 And there were those who saw the essential conflict at the Native Land Court hearings of 1870 not as between Maori and Moriori but as between Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama. One such was Rete Ngamate:88

The south end of the Kekerione block originally belonged to Ngati Tama. They were defeated by Ngati Mutunga, who took their land. This is the base of title. In 1870, Ngati Tama applied to the Court to give the land back to them. But the request was

: ) not acceded to. And Ngati Mutunga were made the owners...

3.6. The conflicts around 1840 were not, however, a clear-cut struggle between Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama. An important section of Ngati Mutunga, the Kekerewai hapu, was - so Alexander Shand says89 - allied with Ngati Tama. At some time before the Ngati Tama-Ngati Mutunga conflict the Kekerewai were driven out of Whangaroa by Toenga's people (mainly of the Ngati Kura hapu). Some of the Kekerewai settled at Waitangi "with their

) Ngati Tama friends"90 while another section lived in another part of the Wharekauri block. The Kekerewai at Waitangi fought on the same side as Ngati Tama. However all the hapus were so closely interconnected that such distinctions probably did not mean much. "!twas really a fight between relatives" said Shand.91

( ) C. Return to Taranaki 1867-8

( ) 3.7. Although the migrations south from Taranaki and the journey to the Chathams by Ngati Tarna, Ngati Mutunga and other groups is well understood, what is not so clear is why Maori settled in the Chathams decided to go back to Taranaki en masse in the late 1860s. Alexander Shand told the Native Land Court that "most of the Maoris" left in 1868,92 leaving

86 See (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 144, 153. 87 ( ) Remihana Tapae in the Kekerione rehearing case, (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 181. 88 (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 175. 89 (1900) 3 Chatham Islands MB 50. ( 90 Ibid (Shand). 91 Ibid, 53. 92 Kekerione rehearing ease, (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB, 151. 32

about 28 behind in the Chathams. Some, he said, came back again for the Court sittings in 1870 and then returned to Taranaki. This shows, says Shand, "that they had not abandoned their rights, when they went away in 1868".93 Those who departed in 1868 sailed to New Zealand on the Despatch and the Collingwood. Before they went the island had been surveyed by Ford and S.P. Smith94 and much of the land had been leased out: "those who stayed on the island occupied the portions that had not been leased".95 Other witnesses also spoke of a large-scale departure around 1868: Hare Piwari spoke of "the general return to New Zealand" of 1868,96 and Roimata Wiremu Tamihana used terms like ''before the main body set out in 1868", or the departure of "the general body".97 Some went back before this time, and others later, but of a substantial re-migration en masse in 1868 there is no doubt. The issue is, ( I why did the Maori population of the Chathams depart specifically at this time?

3.8. In the case of Ngati Tama it is said that the decision to return is connected with a specific invitation issued by Wiremu Nera Te Awa-i-taia of Ngati Mahanga (Ngati Mahanga being the former bitter enemy of Ngati Toa, Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga) which was later endorsed by Te Wherowhero. The chief Wiremu Nera Te Awa-it-taia sent a spear, significantly named Poutama, as a sign that Ngati Tama should now return to , ) their homeland in North Taranaki. This is particularly emphasised by Angela Ballara.98 This may be regarded as an explanation for the return which places primary weight on Maori tribal affairs. Dr King gives no weight to this, but has identified a number of other factors. Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga had,

f. ) he says, become "profoundly restless" for a number of reasons: declining prosperity in the Chathams, the riew spiritual and political movement at Parihaka, and a number of prophecies and omens.99 Also pulling the tribes . i back to Taranaki were, King argues, notifications of sittings of the Native Land Court - although since Te Ati Awa's land had all been confiscated it is ( J

93 Kekerione rehearing case, (1900) 3 Chatham Islands MB 55. 94 Shand explains the circumstances of the surveys at ibid: "Most of the island had been leased. And they had arranged to have surveys made, by Ford. The government also sent down Mr Halse, to arrange for the triangulation of the isl

! , 96 Kekerione rehearing, (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 156. '. i 97 Ibid, 173. 98 Angela Ballara, "Waitaoro", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 2, 561. 99 Michael King, Moriori, 109. 33

more likely that it was the Compensation Court rather than the Native Land Court which played a role in the decision to return. As it happened, the Compensation Court sittings in Taranaki were over with two years before the i , main body left the ChathamslOO , at which it was decided that absentees such as themselves could not claim land in the confiscated area.

3.9. Clearly the decision to return to Taranaki is an important question and

(I merits a very close consideration of such documentation as is available. To begin with, although there are many references to the departure for Taranaki (and indeed to the process of returning from there) there is nothing in the Minute Books which gives any indication as to why Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama went to Taranaki in 1868. Fortunately there is however the . 1 testimony given by Wi Naera Pomare and his wife, Mere (Te Rau 0 te Rangi's daughter) to the West Coast Commission in 1880 (attention to which has already been drawn by Dr Gilling101 ). This, read together with Parris' evidence on the same occasion, along with other contemporary documents and letters, shows conclusively that it was the aftermath of land confiscation in Taranaki which was decisive in inducing the tribes to return to Taranaki.

3.10. The sequence of events was as follows:

(a) Wi Naera Pomare later told the West Coast Commission in 1880 that while still in the Chatham Islands "we received notice to send in our claims, and we gave our names to Captain Thomas, then Resident Magistrate at the Chatham Islands, before we came back here"102.

(b) Wi Naera then says that he personally went to New Plymouth to attend the sittings of the Compensation Court ("I came to New Plymouth to attend the Compensation Court, and the Court excluded us altogether"), which would have been in 1866. The Compensation ( .1 Court held that absentees had no claim. This, says Wi Naera, made him

100 See Heather Bauchop, The aftermath of confiscation - Crown allocation of land to iwi: Taranaki 1865-80: A case study in confusion, June 1993, (Wai 143 Doc # 118) 72. Bauchop gives the chronology of these hearings as follows: (1) Oakura: 1 June-12 July, 1866; (2) Waitara South: 1 June-12 July 1866; (3) Ngatiawa Coast: 21 September-29 September 1866, 1-11 October 1866, 25 October 1866; (4) Ngatiruanui Coast: 15-18 October 1866, 15 October 1866, 12 December 1866, 14 January 1867, and 18 February 1874. The hearing in which Ngati Mutunga were most interested was the Ngatiawa coast hearing '- ) 101 Dr B.D. Gilling, The Native ulnd Court and the Chatham Islands: a report to the Te Iwi Moriori Trust Board, 1993 (Wai 64 Doc#AlO). 102 1880 AJHR G-2, 16. 34

wonder IIwhy the Government should have asked us to send in our claims, when they must have known that they would not be entertained by the Court".103

(c) I am not quite certain about Wi Naera Pomare's whereabouts between the Compensation Court hearings in 1866 and the departure of the main group from the Chathams in November 1868 (by which time he was back in the Chathams104). Presumably he remained in Taranaki for a while. Wi Naera says that he met Parris, and that Parris agreed to ensure that he got some land - in doing so in effect overruling the decision of the Compensation Court. In Wi Naera Pomare's words:

After the Court sat, Mr Parris divided the lands which were awarded by the Compensation Court amongst those Natives who were admitted, and Mokena and others asked Mr Parris to include him. Mr Parris, in reply, said ) that I was a child of his, and that he would show me consideration. The reason why he called me a child was because I had been taught by him when I was at the College.

. "I My guess is that this occurred before Wi Naera went back to the Chatham Islands. H this is correct then it would follow that Ngati Mutunga in the Chathams would have learned that, the decision of the Compensation Court notwithstanding, there would be at least some land available for them in their old homeland in Taranaki. Parris specifically states that Ngati Mutunga knew about the decision of the Compensation Court before they left the Chathams, and that in fact it­ was the Compensation Court's decision which prompted them to

. ) leave: "they heard about it, and determined to come up")05 What happened seems, then, to have been this. Wi Naera Pomare went to Taranaki on his own and attended the Court sittings. Disappointed with the outcome he spoke to Parris and then returned to the

103 Ibid. But perhaps the Compensation Court's decision caught the government by surprise. ; 104 S Deighton to Minister of Native Mfaies, 12 November 1868, Resident Magistrate's (I Recordbook, IC a 1/1/, National Archives, Wellington (transcription in Crown Document Bank for Wai 64, vol 4, at p 746): "This departure of the Natives comprises the portion left ( ) behind from the exodus in December last of the Kaingaroa natives ... Toenga te Poid with his people about 34 in number together with Wi Naera Pomare and the Morioris about 80 in number are remaining). 105 Parris, evidence, 1880 AJHR G2, 25. 35

Chathams to report on what had transpired. It was then that Ngati Mutunga as a whole decided to return, either to live on the reserve areas or perhaps simply because of the impression gained that it was ( , necessary to be physically present in Taranaki to protect interests in

( I land there.

(d) The first main embarkation for New Zealand was in December 1867, when the IIKaingaroa natives" (i.e. Ngati Tama) left first.

(e) By May of 1868, if not before, the Resident magistrate in the Chatham Islands (Deighton) was well aware of the desire of Ngati Mutunga also to make their way back to Taranaki. Deighton at least was in no doubt why they were going: they lIappear to me to have a settled purpose in their own minds of getting back their former lands in the Taranaki district" - although, he says, IIthey have not signified such intention to me" .106 There may have been a political dimension as well. Maori in the Chathams would not have been ignorant of political developments on the mainland. Wetini, who was Moriori, said to the Native Land Court in 1870 that the "New Zealanders" had left and "have gone with the [Maori] king"; as "all New Zealand is known as

, i the King and as they are there they are with the King".1 07 , )

(f) In November 1868 the rest of the "main body" embarked for Taranaki on board the Collingwood. Wi Naera Pomare and Toenga te 108 ( .i Poki stayed on in the Chathams. Deighton reported:

{ )

This departure of the Natives comprises the portion left behind from the exodus in December last of the Kaingaroa natives, with Pamariki

( I Rauware[sic] preventive officer and Ruiai Taupatu my single native assessor, the remainder of the Tupuangi natives and some of the Waitangi Natives Toenga te Poki with his people about thirty-four in number together with Wiremu Naira Pomare amd the Morioris about 80 in number are remaining -

( ) Toenga is at present uncertain whether he will leave at all - Naira will depart

106 S Deighton to Minister of Native Affairs, 1 October 1868, Resident Magistrate's C : Recordbook, IC CI 1/1, National Archives, Wellington (transcription in Crown Document Bank for Wai 64, vol 4, p. 744. 107 At (1870) 1 Chatham Islands MB 19. 108 Ibid, letter of 12 November 1868, p. 746. 36

probably after the land titles are settled, and the Morioris do not intend leaving the district at all.

( ) Presumably Wiremu Naera Pomare remained. in the islands between the departure of the Collingwood in November 1868 and the Land Court sittings in the winter of 1870. Then he too left for Taranaki. If so then Ngati Mutunga were without Wiremu Naera's leadership in the difficult months after they first returned to Taranaki. (Reluctantly I must take issue with Dr Gilling who states that "Pomare had actually been a resident of Taranaki since 1867 or 1868, and did not live back in the Chathams where he was the principal claimant in 1870"109: in fact he was in Taranaki for the Compensation Court sittings in 1866, went back to the Chathams, and stayed on after the departure of the main ( ) group in 1867, presumably remaining until the hearings of 1870 - although later he certainly did live at Urenui, as we know from Chudleigh lending him money there in 1878 and his presence - with the young Maui Pomare - at the invasion of Parihaka in 1881. However in the mid 1880s Wi Naera Pornare was definitely back in the Chathams, as it is known that he was sitting with Samuel Deighton as an assessor in the Native Land Court.)

\ ) (g) At some point there was a meeting with the government at Wellington on the way to Taranaki. This is mentioned by Parris in his evidence to the 1880 West Coast commission:110

(I On their way back they called in at Wellington, and had an interview with the Government, and promised to go back to the Ngati Mutunga District and settle on any land that Government would award to them.

A report by Fox on the claims of the Te Ati Awa, Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama absentee claimants mentions a meeting in Wellington in 1867, following a recommendation of Sir George Grey, where the claims of absentees were worked out on a basis of 16 acres per person. 111 Of course absentees of the three tribes were not confined to

109 B.D. Gilling, The Native lAnd Court in the Chatham Islands, Wai 64 DoC#AlO,55. 110 1880 AJHR G2, 24. 111 \ ' Report upon the Awards in favour of the Absentee Members of the Ngatitama, Ngatimutunga, Ngatiawa and Taranaki tribes, 1884 AJHR A-5A, Appendix IV. The text of Grey's minute can be found at 1880 AJHR G-2, Appendix C, 1-2, and is reprinted by Dr Gilling in DoC#Al0, 57. 37

former residents of the Chathams: many would have been living in Wellington and the South Island. Fox comments:112

In the case of the absentees whose claims were disallowed by the Compensation Court in 1866, which decision gave rise to great dissatisfaction, the Government, after considering the merits of the question, at the recommendation of Sir G. Grey, then Governor, by Order in Council, made an award in the proportion of sixteen acres to every absentee, a list of whom was made out, at a large meeting of about three hundred Natives assembled in Wellington for the purpose in 1867, from information supplied by members of each tribe.

, I The departure was intended to permanent. Speaking of Wharekauri block in 1870 Pamariki told the Native Land Court that "those claimants in New Zealand will never return here", so "we intend to sell it")13

3.11. It is certainly clear that by the late 1860s the land tenure situation in Taranaki was in a state of chaos: an impenetrable labyrinth which had its roots in a number of factors including confiscation, the 1866 decisions of the Compensation Court, and Parris' programme of purchasing blocks within the confiscated area. Nowhere was the confusion more complete than with the lands of Te Ati Awa and Ngati Mutunga. This report is hardly the place to unravel this tangle, which is in any event being enquired into thoroughly by a battery of historians involved in the Taranaki raupatu claim before the

; ) Waitangi Tribunal. Is it not plausible, however, that the risk of losing everything in Taranaki was influential in forming Ngati Mutunga's and Ngati Tama's decision to assert title to the Chatham Islands, or at least in inducing i ) them to not waver from their decision once they had seen the reality of the chaos in Taranaki for themselves? Most references to the impact of the Parihaka movement on the Chathams date from the 1880s, which seems to indicate that its dominance in the Maori community there is attributable to

: ) the gradual return of Ngati Mutunga settlers from Taranaki in the 1880s. But it may well be that. It may well be, however, that the Chathams was already playing a role as the foodbasket of Parihaka befor then, possibly before the I ) decision to depart had been made (Dr King believes that the Parihaka

112 Ibid. 113 (1870) 1 Chatham Islands MB 46. 38

movement was one factor in inducing Ngati Mutunga to return, although my own feeling is that this was probably a secondary factor at that time.) This could explain the otherwise baffling question put to Wetini, a Moriori, in the Kekerione case in the Chatham Islands in 1870:114

Assessor: Your are aware that you can take food out of a man's mouth? Wetini: Iamaware.

( 1 Te Ati Awa's disaster in Taranaki may have meant that Ngati Mutunga felt that they had no choice but to insist on their full rights by take raupati in the Native Land Court in the Chathams. The survival of their whole people was at stake. (I .• 1 D. Ngati Mutunga in Taranaki 1868-1880

3.12. N gati Mutunga seem to have had a miserable time in Taranaki in the 1870s and their hopes must have been sorely disappointed. By 1880, however,

they were still virtually all in Taranaki: Parris believed that N very few" had gone back to the Chatham Islands.IIS By 1884 their entitlement to confiscated land was still in a state of dire confusion despite the promises earlier made by

{ l the government. The returnees from the Chathams had originally been settled by Parris on a small area at Urenui, within their former domain, as a temporary expedient. However the temporary arrangement became rather permanent, as Parris describes:116 i ) When they left Wellington for New Plymouth, the government sent me instructions to arrange where they should settle. They were a few days in New Plymouth after landing, and on their leaving I told them it would take some time for them to see all

( ) their relatives, and in about a fortnight I would follow them and point out where they might settle. According to promise, I went down to Urenui, and they were all encamped on the north bank of the river. I explained to them that they should have a block of land abutting on the Urenui river, and another block about the Mimi River. They agreed to the arrangement, but asked to be allowed to remain where they were for a time, as the relations of the Government and the people in the North were very unsatisfactory, and they preferred living together in the meantime. Soon after this, ( )

114 Kekerione ease, (1870) 1 Chatham Islands MB I, at 20. 11S 1880 AJHR G2, 25. 116 1880 AJHR G2, 25. 39

this trouble [presumably Parris means Parihaka, resistance to the surveys and so on] arose, and it was impossible to do anything towards surveying.

Crammed onto small blocks, their legal entitlements hopelessly confused (and in any case the best that could be hoped for was 16 acres per person), and embroiled in a major political controversy over the Taranaki surveys, the returnees were in an awkward situation. The rights and wrongs of the Taranaki confiscation aside, the returnees had certainly never been in anything even remotely resembling a state of rebellion against the Crown and probably felt a sense of some injustice. Is it surprising in such circumstances that there was no wavering from the decision to assert title to the Chatham Islands? This would mean at least some income from rents and presumably () supplies of food as well: it seems reasonable to suppose that Ngati Mutunga judged that they were simply in no kind of position to let go of the Chathams.

3.13. During the 1870s, says James Belich, central Taranaki was in effect "an independent Maori state".117 The returnees from the Chathams were isolated from this Maori enclave centred on Parihaka, Urenui lying some distance north of Waitara, but they cannot fail to have been strongly influenced by the Parihaka movement from the day of their return (if it had not already begun to exert its influence before they left). , )

3.14. In 1878 Wi Parata, at this time a member of the Legislative Council (he was himself, of course, Ngati Toa and Te Ati Awa and was a firm supporter of Te Whiti: two of his sons were jailed with other followers of Te Whiti and Tohu in 1879118) intervened to assist the Ngati Mutunga returnees, still "squatting" on unallocated and unsurveyed land at Urenui. Wi Parata presided over a meeting at Waitara at which Ngati Mutunga representatives and Parris were present. The Native Minister, Sheehan, also wanted a settlement. It was agreed that the survey could proceed, but for some reason the surveyor was withdrawn and instead sent to survey the Waimate plains; the blocks apparently stayed unsurveyed and by 1884 the confusion was as great as ever.119 By this time Ngati Mutunga had apparently become totally

117 Belich, James, "Titokowaru, Riwha", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 1, 544. I I 118 Hohepa Solomon, "Parata, Wiremu Te Kakakura", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 2, 374-5.

( I 119 See Parris evidence to West Coast Commission 1880 AJHR G-2, 25. Parris states: /I At the meeting in June, 1878, Wi Parata asked to be allowed to call the Ngatimutunga together. I was sent for, and met them in this room. .. [In 1878] he [Sheehan] promised that all the arrangements which had been made previously should be carried out, if the Natives would 40

disillusioned and had lost interest in having areas surveyed off for them: livery little interest in the subject appears to exist either among any absentees that there may be, or among the resident members of the same tribes". This, thought Fox, was hardly surprising, considering "that the individual interest of the class is so small, only sixteen acres each, as to be scarcely worth claiming". 120

3.15. As well as their intractable land tenure problems, there were other difficulties. Health seems to have been poor. A total of about 200 people returned to Taranaki from the Chathams, but, said Parris (in 1880) "they have very seriously decreased from sickness since". A valuable picture of the community at Urenui comes from Edward Chudleigh's diary, who went to 'I ,. ) Urenui in 1878 in order to persuade Ngati Mutunga owners to sell him interests in the Wharekauri block. After spending some time in Wellington inspecting the Crown grants to Wharekauri and Kekerione he went on to Taranaki arriving at New Plymouth on 27 June. He recorded what transpired there as follows:121

28th June [Waitara]. Saw my own natives. Ha-re te Ouenuku is desirous to sell. I tell them all they will get no more money from me unless they sell or mortgage the land to me. There is said to be 1000 or 1500 Maories at Waitara. The noble Maori has sadly fallen from his once high physical state. Here or there is a grand man or woman but they are few. 1st July. Mr Caverhill and others gave the natives and Europeans a large dinner. They might as well have given a feed to so many swine. The food was rushed and no acknowledgment of the generosity was made by anyone. Caverhill, poor old gentleman, was much disgusted. No war dance could be got out of the natives. I go out to Naera and into the everlasting land purchase question.

:)

support us in doing it, and he gave them three months in which to talk the matter over. Wi Parata promised to go to Wellington and let Mr Sheehan kno:w what they decided upon. Afterwards Major Brown sent a surveyor to survey a particular block; but after he had dome some work he was withdrawn and sent to the Waimate plains." The situation in 1884 is described by Fox AJHR 1884 A-SA, 7: /lIt has been found to be now impossible to ascertain the names of of the Natives in whose favour Mr Richmond's promises [at the meeting in Wellington of 1869?] were made, or even discover where they are. The estimates of the number of absentees of each tribe appear to have been made by him at the time of the promise from some imperfect lists then given, whether accurate or not it is not now possible to decide. There are some imperfect lists in the possession of the Native Office at New (, Plymouth, but the Commissioner is assured that they are entirely unreliable." etc. 120 (1884) AJHR A-SA, 7. 121 E.C. Richards (ed), DiaryofE.R.. Chudleigh, 270-1. 41

5th. Went to Urenui...The natives come into New Plymouth and talk before W. Carrington. 20th. Saw Pamariki and Rewai and Hare. Found out old Toenga was the real cause of Parnariki not coming in the other day. We talked all day. 21st. Talked all day and at last settled I should have the land I wanted. All but Toenga signed their agreement. Mrs Brown a half cast [i.e. Hane te Rau, Wi Naera Pomare's sister-in-law] has been doing the talking for me.

(') 1st August. Mrs Brown and I tackled old Toenga and talked the whole day. 2nd. Talked and rowed the whole day with old Toenga. He got into a fury every five minutes. 3rd. Having foot every foot of the different boundaries and got old Toenga somewhere near the mark of a reasonable purchase I accepted his terms and left to see if Pamariki and Rewai would agree to certain boundaries. I do not expect they will. This Maori work is frightful. Sitting on the ground in a little dirty whare for six or eight hours a day, boots and leggings covered with mud, cold, damp all over, sleeping anywhere at night, no clean clothes, no bath, no anything. One pays for Maori land. 5th. Mrs Brown and I again visited Toenga with no better result. He would not alter. Then saw Pamariki who said Rewai would not agree to one of the boundaries. Rewai was away up the Mi Mi river getting material for Rewi's [Rewi Maniapoto's] whare. 7th. I started to the Mi Mi for him, found him and got him to return next morning. Found Roka Ihaka very ill. 8th. Mrs Brown and I had a heavy round with Rewai, he only half gave in. I started for New Plymouth, got medicine for Roka and a small tomite [child] and sent it back from Waitara. Confound Maoris say I. One might as well try to deal with the winds. 9th. St Govett [New Plymouth solicitor] at fresh deeds ... 10th. Rode to Urenui. Rain and mud all the day. u 13th. Up early. I got all the Maoris to Govett's office. Then I got Mr Parris interpreter and by 3 p.m. they had signed the two deeds one selling Hare te Ouenuku's land and the other conveying the land between the lines drawn from Kainga Pakeha and Waitaha to Tawirikoro. The natives also signed a document empowering Toenga Pamariki to give receipts for all Wharekauri matters. All in all I am satisfied with the present state of affairs.

3.16. This text is interesting and indicative in a number of ways. At the most obvious level, it shows that Chudleigh was forced to travel to Taranaki in order to complete land transactions relating to the Chathams. Nor was it plain sailing for him when he got there. He spent days arguing and "rowing" with 42

Toenga. Others only "half agreed": although finally Chudleigh was successful in getting what he wanted it was a difficult and demanding task. His dependence on Hane te Rau is obvious even if he is reluctant to admit this to himself. It seems that Chathams landowners living in Taranaki were not necessarily easily persuaded into selling - they were well aware of their property, its boundaries, and its value. Chudleigh got his way by means of a mixture of cajolement and threats - including, one must assume, the threat of simply refusing to pay any more rent for the land ("they will get no more money from me unless they will sell or mortgage the land to me"). Reading between the lines, it seems also that Ngati Mutunga living in Taranaki were far from affluent. Chudleigh went there in mid-winter. He found conditions at Urenui cold, muddy, uncomfortable and generally hateful to him. Chudleigh was a brusque and taciturn man not much given to elaborate descriptions in his diary and one could wish for more detail, but it does seem clear that the Taranaki Maori community he was dealing with was if anything rather poverty-stricken. As well as the poor housing there is also sickness (Roka was livery ill"), and probably hunger as well - this might explain why Mr Carrington's dinner was "rushed" by all present. All this rather goes to confirm Parris' remarks about the amount of sickness and mortality amongst the returned exiles. Wi Naera Pomare, Ngati Mutunga/s leading rangatira,

! was not personally well off and and during his visit to Taranaki Chudleigh ) agreed to lend him £50.122

3.17. Another transaction relating to the Chathams carried out in this period

( ) occurred in 1875, when the Ritchies bought some islands in Te Whanga lagoon. This was a joint Maori-Moriori sale, the principal vendor being Rakataau. The deed relating to the islands was partially drawn up in Taranaki, where it was certified by Parris, by this time the resident magistrate in Taranaki, and also in the Chathams, where four Moriori - Karaka (presumably Karaka Nga Munanga Paoa), Roretana, Heremaia Hapurona Pawa and Hoeta - signed the deed also. In the Chathams it was certified also by the resident magistrate, Samuel Deighton.123 The lagoon islands were not in any of the Moriori reserves. This transaction is discussed fully at para 4.5 - 4.6. below.

122 Ibid. 123 See copy deed on MA 1, 19/1/222, NA Wellington. 43

E. The Chatham Islands 1868-1880

3.18. The most important event which took place in the Chatham Islands itself was the sequence of cases heard by the Native Land Court in its first Chathams Islands sittings in June 1870. Much has been said about these hearings already, although it is my view that there is much about them which still remains puzzling. By the time of the hearings the islands had already been surveyed and split into six main blocks. These surveys were done in 1868. Maori had arranged with a Mr Ford to survey the blocks and his team joined forces with the government's triangulation team (Halse, Rolleston and Percy Smith) to survey the whole island.124 Perhaps some or all of the Moriori reserves were marked out at this point.125 Judge Rogan's hearings took less (I than a fortnight - from 14 June to 27 June. Curiously all the judgments relating to the main blocks are dated 23 June even though evidence is still being heard up to and including June 27 (probably this is of no significance). Some of Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga had returned temporarily to the Chathams from Taranaki for the hearings. Pamariki, giving his evidence in the Wharekauri case, said that "15 of us came from New Zealand in order to represent all the others")26 The outcome of the hearings has been represented as a shattering and demoralising defeat for Moriori. Before considering whether this was really so it should be emphasised that some of the hearings were uncontested by Moriori. Te Matarae was contested, but between two rival sections of Ngati Mutunga - the Kekerewai descent group led by Rakataau (who was supported by Moriori and part-Moriori witnesses) and a

/.1 counterclaim, also Ngati Mutunga, but different hapus, represented by Hamuera Koteriki and Apitia Punga. There was no separate Moriori counter­ claim to this block. Otonga and Wharekauri were wholly uncontested, and if the Minute Book is any guide it seems that the titles were sorted out by agreement. The contested blocks were Kekerione, Te Awapatiki and Rangiaura (Pitt Island). ( }

124 See Shand's evidence at (1900) 3 Chatham Islands MB 55: "Most of the island had been leased. And they had arranged to have surveys made, by Ford. The government also sent down Mr Halse, to arrange for the triangulation of the island. Mr Rolleston and Mr Percy Smith came down On 24 January 1868. Mr Ford amalgamated his party with Mr Percy Smith's party and the whole island was surveyed as a government survey." 125 I do not know of any re-survey that was done after the Court orders of 1870 or the Crown grants in 1873. At some point the blocks were formally numbered into Te Matarae 1 and 2 etc but these are not partitions but simply reflect the reserve allocations made in court in 1870. 126 At (1870) 1 Chatham Islands MB 46. 44

3.19. It may be helpful if the main details are set out as a table:

Table 1: Chatham Islands Investigations of Title 1870

Name of Block. Dates Comments

Mangatu Karewa or 14-18 June 1870 Principal claimant Wi Kekerione Naera Pomare. Moriori counterclaim. Court finds Moriori have a "permissive right" and a 600 acre reserve is I I awarded, rest to claimants. Te Matarae 18-20 June, 25 June Claimant is Rakatau Katihe of the Kekerewai supported by Karaka 127 - counter-claimant in Kekerione. Counter­ claim by Hamuera Koteriki and Apitia. The ; ) Kekerewai are successful; 200-acre res. to Moriori. : , ) Te Awapatiki 20 - 22 June, 25 June Claimant Hamuera ( ) Koteriki (N'Mutunga). Counter-claim by Heta Namu (part Moriori). Moriori obtain a 2000- acre reserve. , I Otonga 24,25, 27 June. Claimant Ihakara Ngapuki (N' Mutunga). Uncontested. Moriori reserve of 600 acres

, I agreed to on 25 June.

127 i.e. Karaka Nga Munanga Paroa. \.

45

Wharekauri 24, 27 June Claimant is Ropatata Uriotu (N' Tama).

( I Pamarild (N' Mutunga) says there is no dispute. The grantees are Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga Rangatira Island 24 June Claimant is Mani u te Teira (Moriori). Cross claim by Toenga. Case not proceeded with (no

() survey). I Rangiaura (Pitt Is) 25 June Claimant is Te Teira (Moriori)i c-c by Wiremu Wharepa. Moriori case dismissed by Court.

3.20. From the above table a number of points emerge. One is that the hearings as a whole did not simply pit Maori on one side and Moriori on the other. Two of the cases certainly were Maori-Moriori conflicts - Kekerione and Rangiaura. But the other cases do not fit quite so easily into this pattern. With Te Matarae the opposing claimant groups were both Maori. One group, the Kekerewai hapu of Ngati Mutunga, was represented by Rakataau Katihe; the opposing claimants were led by Apitia Punga, supported by Hamuera Koteriki, Toenga te Pold and Ngahiwi. Karaka, the Moriori cross-claimant to Kekerione, supported Rakataau and the Kekerewai claim to Te Matarae. Karaka said:128

Karaka (a Moriori) being sworn stated: I am a Moriori. I know the block of land as shown on the plan before the Court. Rakatau and I are the owners of it. Rakatau has admitted that I have some claim to this land he will mention my name as a claimant. : ) I have heard the evidence given by Rakatau. The names as given by him are the principal owners of this land.

128 (1870) 1 Chatham Islands MB 26. 46

Rogan asked Karaka whether he knew of the claim to Te Matarae by Apitia Punga and others, to which he replied that he knew of Ilno grounds upon which he [Le. Apitia] can claim this land". Karaka then said:

When Rakatau left this place in 1867 he told Mr A. Shand to give me a portion of this Block.

( ) Rogan then questioned Rakataau, one of those who had come back to the

: ) Chathams from Taranaki for the hearings:

Q: Rakatau, do you admit Karaka Nga Munanga Paoa as a claimant in this Block? (' , , )

: ) A: Yes, I do admit him a claimant with us in this block. There were 40 or more Moriori living on this Block. They were the ancient owners of this land and this is why I thought of giving them some of [the] lands.

3.21. Dr Gilling has cited a letter from Chief Judge Fenton to McLean where Fenton advises the Native Minister that the Chathams cases had gone off livery satisfactorily":129

The Taranaki people told me they were well pleased and so were the Morlori.

Dr Gilling finds the remark that Moriori were IIwell pleased" with the 1870 decisions difficult to credit. Rogan's remark in the circumstances is lIextraordinary" and IIreally makes little sense".130 But is this so self-evident? One must be careful about discounting contemporary evidence because it fails to fit with our perceptions as to what was happening. It is just as tenable to point to the evident Maori-Moriori co-operation in some of the 1870

" I hearings. Perhaps Moriori actuallywere reasonably satisfied with the outcome. There is some evidence of an agreement that the rental incomes were to be shared equally, although Wi Naera Pomare admittedly later denied it.131 (Other Maori such as Rakatau, however, thought it right to share the proceeds , ) for land sales to areas outside the reserves with Moriori.) Perhaps this, coupled with the security of tenure offered by the reserves, left Moriori feeling reasonably positive about the hearings. There is also the issue as to

129 Fenton to McLean, undated, MS 32/267 ATL Wellington, cited Gilling, Native Land Court in the Chatham Islands, (Doc #AlO) 94. 130 Ibid, 95. 131 In the Motuhara case, (1885) 1 Chatham Islands MB 94-95; see Gilling op.cit., 101-2. 47

what extent the decisions actually impacted on Moriori daily life. There is not much evidence of this. One fragment is a remark of Thomas Ritchie's made in his statement of evidence taken in 1930, when he said that after the blocks had been surveyed Moriori continued to take eels at Waikawa Island in the Te 132 ( Whanga lagoon. This may indicate that the surveys and the subsequent hearings did not disrupt Moriori lifeways very much.

F. Maori resettlement of the Chatham Islands 1880-1890

3.22. By 1880 virtually none of those who had left in 1867-8 had gone back to the Chatham Islands: as noted above, Parris was of the view that "very few" of the group of Ngati Mutunga living at Urenui had returned.133 But in the

(I 1880s there was a significant change. There was no general mass return from Taranaki, but there was a pronounced slow trickle of individuals and families back to the islands. It is not going too far to consider the 1880s as a period of resettlement of the Chatham Islands by Ngati Mutunga. People returned to land which they or their parents had earlier cultivated. One was Hare Piwari . who told the Native Land Court:134

While a small child I was taken to Taranaki. I came back as a young man and have lived on the island ever since.

Hare Piwari told Inia Tuhata in cross-examination that his parents and grandparents had all died before the return journey to Taranaki, and that it was Apitia who was responsible for bringing him back to the Chathams.t35 ( ) Another example: Toenga was an important rangatira of Ngati Mutunga. He and his wife Nekehia left for Taranaki in 1870. Toenga died in Taranaki and their daughter was Tipuaania, who must have born in the Chatham Islands. In Taranaki Nekehia married Paina, Toenga's brother, and Paina, Nekehia and Tipuaania moved back to the Chatham Islands in 1885. Paina had himself formed y lived in the Chatham Islands and after an absence of 15 years or so

, ) 132 See MA 1, 19/1/222, NA Wellington. Ritchie says: "Until Rakatau left the Maoris used to grow potatoes on the Waikawa Island but after he left in 1868 there was never any cultivation on Waikawa and there was never any cultivation at any time on the other two Islands. After 1868 I occasionally saw the Morioris from Owenga going to Waikawa for eeling. There were no fences between Owenga and Shand's place on the west. We relied on the natural boundaries. l I 133 1880 AJHR G2, 25. 134 Kekerione rehearing case, (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 156. 135 Ibid. 48

he resettled at his old cultivations at Paparautini in Kekerione and once again took up farming there.136 Another who was born in the Chathams and was taken to Taranaki as a young child, returning to the islands as an adult was Roimata Wiremu Tamihana. She said:137

(1 After Tionga went to New Zealand my father [Wiremu Tamihana?] lived on [the block]. He went to New Zealand with the general body and stayed and died there. I was a small child when my parents went to New Zealand. I came back here in 1882 and settled at Waitangi. The next year I married and lived with my husband at Matarakau, on Wharekauri block.

To a significant extent Ngati Mutunga's second, peaceful, invasion of the ( ) Chathams in the 1880s was made up of young people who had been born in the islands and taken back to Taranaki in the late 1860s by their parents. Thomas Ritchie said in 1930:138

After the Maoris left the island they began to drift back again - mostly the younger men.

Their parents may have been exiles from Taranaki, but they were exiles from Wharekauri. Perhaps they saw the Chathams as their homeland. Perhaps as , ) young adults they wanted land to settle on and farm and bring up their families. Perhaps they had had enough of Urenui and the intractable problems associated with it. Perhaps, too, they were fleeing from Taranaki,

: ) after Parihaka had been sacked in 1881, Te Whiti and Tohu taken into custody ( ) and Pakeha settlement had begun to take over the Waimate plains. But there is also the possibility that the recolonisation was planned and deliberate, directed from Parihaka. Certainly it is in the 1880s that the influence of Te l ) Whiti and Tohu becomes most noticeable in the islands, although whether this is because the resettlement was actively directed and planned, or because those returning from Taranaki were naturally steeped in the Parihaka movement and its teachings and practices is admittedly uncertain.

3.23. This process of resettlement at the old cultivation sites created much argument and dispute as to who was entitled to settle and farm at particular places. Arguments of this kind dominated the Kekerione reinvestigation

136 See Kekerione rehearing case, (1900) 2 O1atham Islands ME 165, 169. 137 Ibid, 173. 138 Thomas Ritchie, statement of evidence, on MA I, 19/1/222, NA Wellington. I "";;;:::;-

49

hearings in 1900. A history of conquest, internecine fighting between Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga (and within Ngati Mutunga), return to New Zealand and then resettlement in the Chathams created much confusion and led to claims and counterclaims concerning rights to settle and cultivate - and, ultimately, to Land Court claims for individual titles.139 The interests of those who had stayed had to be balanced against those who had returned. One who had stayed for example was Remihana Tapae, born in the Auckland Islands, ( ,I who was brought back to the Chathams as a young child and who had lived there ever since.140 Inia Tuhata went so far as to argue that those of the main body which had sailed for Taranaki in 1868 must be taken to have abandoned their rights to land in the Chatham Islands. This was the confused situation which confonted the Native Land Court in 1900.

4. Maori and Moriori.

4.1. Much has already been said on the status and circumstances of the Moriori in the years between the invasion of 1835 and the Native Land Court hearings of 1870. Mer 1868 it is certainly the case that Moriori outnumbered Maori, and in view of this the concerns that have been expressed about the 1870 hearings seem justifiable enough, especially in view of'the fact that by all signs those of Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga who had left in 1867-68 seem to have left the islands together. On the other hand, it can also be argued that from their point of view Ngati Mutunga's decision to assert title to the islands is also understandable. To expect Ngati Mutunga (who found themselves . :.! enmeshed in a very difficult situation in Taranaki) to abandon their claims to the Chathams - where as far as they could tell they had a valid title to the islands by take raupatu - is simply to expect too much. Not many will abandon a legal title to land which they need out of sheer altruism, whatever the circumstances. That Moriori would want to seek titles to their ancient homeland is of course something that needs no explanation.

139 A typical example is Alexander Shand's questioning of Hare Piwari, ibid 159: Q: Have all those who cultivate there a right to the land? A: Those who had a real right were Karaka, Tangatake. Te Retimana, Ngakahu, Kaipuke. Q: Had Toenga a right there? A: I do not know. Some of those who cultivated there there in recent times had no right, Le. Te Riata, Rete Ngamate, Karere, Nekehia Paina. 140 See 1900 2 Chatham Islands ME 179: "My father and grandfather occupied the land. ( I They had a house there. They went to the Auckland Islands in 1843, where my grandfather died. My father and I came back. I was bom there [i.e. on the Auckland Islands]. My father was there about four years. We came back to the Chatham Islands and lived on this piece. I have lived there ever since. My father died at Pitt Island." 50

4.2. The strict dichotomy drawn between "Maori" and "Moriori" can overlook the reality that there were already a number of people who belonged to both cultures. To what extent this "intermarriage" was consensual is not easy to say, but consensual or not there were undoubtedly a significant number Maori-Moriori individuals. For example one of the claimants in the 1900 Kekerione rehearing case was Rakete Tipene. He was part-Moriori. Alexander Shand objected to him claiming rights in Kekerione: 141

Mr Shand states that Rakete Tipene is a half-caste Maori and Moriori. And Judge Rogan in 1870 decided that the half-caste Moriori must take their lands in the Moriori

! ) reserve, and could not claim in the Maori lands.

Rakete Tipene replied:142

My father Tipene was a Maori. I claim through him, and not through my mother, who was Moriori.

He was not hindered from advancing his claim. In fact Makarini Dix readily admitted that Rakete had equal rights with her in the part of Kekerione in issue: "Rakete Tipene says he is satisfied with this".143

4.3. Even in the earliest days after the conquest in 1835 children were born who the products of liaisons between Maori and Moriori. Some grew up to be well-known Chathams Islands personalities. One such was Wiremu Tamihana (Thompson). According to B.C. Richards:l44 .

The Maori version of Thomson is Tamihana. Wi was known by either name. His father was a chief who came to the Chathams in 1835 and had Moriori slaves to whom he gave seed potatoes to plant. Instead, the slaves ate the potatoes and were immediately tomahawked. Although such a thing was strictly forbidden, the chief took the Moriori women. Wi was the son of one of them. He lived on the Moriori reserve near Kaingaroa in a comfortable hut, which, however, got burned down. He was a regular shearer at Wharekauri and other stations.

141 (1900) 2 Olatham Islands MB 188. 142 Ibid. 143 Kekerione rehearing case at (1900) 3 Chatham Islands MB I, 144 E.C. Richards, The Chatham Islands, 166. ~-'~ 51

4.4. Another prominent individual belonging to both groups was Heta Namu, who was prominent in the 1870 hearings. Heta Namu - whose evidence seems to fa illy clearly show his parents as a married couple who had responsibilities as caretakers - said:145

I belong to the Ngati Mutunga and am half caste Moriori and Ngati Mutunga. I was born in Wharekauri. I know the land as shown on the planl it belongs to mel Hamuera and Rakataau. We (our Parents) took possession of this place in the first instance. My parents and the parents of Ngahiwi were left in charge of this land and lived at Te TIml the others returned to Whangaroa.

Along with Moriori kaumatua Nga Munanga Paoa Karaka, Heta Namu supported the Ngati Mutunga (Kekerewai) rangatira Rakataaul s claim to Te Matarae in 1870.146 In a subsequent succession case he explained his reasons for so doing:147

When Rakataau was getting the affair passed through the court I assisted him in so dOingl he saying that he wanted me to assist him in his evidence as to the ownership of the land inasmuch we were both relations by the fathees side.

4.5. The 1875 Te Whanga lagoon islands land transaction involving the Ritchies, Rakataau and his four Moriori co-vendors has already been mentioned. Information about this transaction has survived largely by c) accident. Civil proceedings against the Crown were initiated in 1930 by J.M. Barker, who claimed to be the successor in title to the Ritchies in that he had acquired the islands in 1894 from the Ritchie brothers' mortgagee. The initial transaction turned out to be technically void in that it was not endorsed with a Trust Commissionerls certificate, but Barker contended he was entitled to the islands by means of an adverse occupation which defeated the Crown's presumptive title. Barker wanted to test this rather convoluted point148 by

145 At (1870) 1 Chatham Islands MB 35. 146 See ibid. 147 See the Te Matarae succession case at (1881) 1 Chatham Islands MB 75. ' 148 The islands were said to be Maori customary land and for that reason only the Crown could bring proceedings to test title to them. Gause 8 of Barkees statement of claim (on MA 11 19/1/22) states: liThe title to the said three islands never having been investigated is i j customary land and the sole right to bring any action or other proceeding for the purpose of recovering possession of the said three islands is vested in the Crown by virtue of Section 88 of the Native Land Act 1909.11 Barkerls proceedings seem to me to be legally hopelessly misconceived. In in effect he is treating Maori customary land as a variety of Crown land and 52

means of the interesting device of inviting the Crown to bring an action of ejectment. This would allow the legal issues to be tried. The government of the day had however declined to do so, unwilling to incur the costs of complex litigation over - as far as the Crown was concerned - worthless islands in a lagoon in the Chathams Islands. For present purposes, the main thing is that to advance his case it was necessary to obtain evidence from the Ritchies, and on 18 September 1930 Thomas Ritchie's evidence was formally recorded at a hearing before the Registrar of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth. In his statement of evidence Ritchie says:

I left Ireland in 1863 when 20 years of age and arrived at Christchurch New Zealand in the same year. On February 16th 1864 I went to the Chatham Islands and resided there continuously until the year 1923, except for short business visits to New Zealand. On my arrival at the Chathams in 1864 I took up 150 acres at Okawa Point from the Natives. My brother (Robert Hutton Ritchie) then jOined me in February 1865 and in 1866 we took a lease of 23,000 acres of land on the Eastern and South Eastern side of the Main Island known as Owenga run, being the greater part of the Te Awapatiki Block. Whanga lagoon occupies the large part of the Main Island and in the lagoon are three islands of an aggregate area of approximately 500 acres of which the largest is Waikawa ...'The run extended for some distance to the North of the three islands up to Kangarau lake ... They [the islands] adjoined the holding of my brother and me. The spaces between the mainland and each island could be forded or were dry at low tide. When I first saw Waikawa in 1864, Rakatau, a Maori Chief, had a pah at Matarae which is on the western side of the lagoon opposite Waikawa and the nearest point thereto on that side. Rakatau had Moriori slaves who occupied reserves at Matarae. I believe their title to the reserve was completed in 1870. In 1864 there was a whare and several huts and some cultivation in the bush at Waikawa belonging to Rakatau and his Morioris.

And in cross-examination Ritchie said: 149

I believe Rakatau came down to the Islands in 1835 in a raid from New Zealand and remained there till 1868 after which he left and and did not return. In 1870 the Native Land Court decided that the land belonged to the Maoris, but set aside certain reserves for the Morioris. Until Rakatau left the Maories used to growpotatoes on the

\. ! is arguing that private individuals can acquire title to such land by adverse possession. This is contrary to the basic rule that only the Crown can acquire dominium over customary land by means of formal extinguishment of the Native title. 149 Thomas Ritchie, staement of evidence, MA 1, 1911/22, P 4. 53

Waikawa Island but after he left in 1868 there was never any cultivation on Waikawa and there was never any cultivation at any time on the other two islands. After 1868 I occasionally saw the Morioris from Owenga going to Waikawa for eeling. There were f i no fences between Owenga and Shand's place on the west...The Morioris never asserted any claim to leave stock on the islands. Rakatau, when I bought the islands, thought some of the Morioris, whom he named, should share in the purchase money. That is why their names came to be on the Deed. As far as I am concerned I only { I dealt with Rakatau. I had nothing to do with the Morioris. I paid the Morioris the share mentioned by Rakatau.

4.6. Quite how should this piece of evidence be interpreted and how significant is it? The islands were not in any of the Moriori reserves, and may (I technically have been uninvestigated (although certainly on the present-day cadastral maps the islands are given lot numbers and appear to be part of Owenga). On the one hand Rakatau thought himself quite within his rights to sell the islands to the Ritchies. On the other hand he also thought it right that "his" Moriori should share in the sale proceeds. Living in Taranaki he could quite easily have pocketed the whole sum, but he did not do so, and it is clear from Ritchie's evidence that the money was paid out to Karaka and the others at Rakatau's insistence. (The total price was £30: we do not, however, know who got what). Rakatau appears to have had a relationship with Moriori which in a number of respects seems quite positive. In the Matarae case of 1870 Karaka - Wi Naera Pomare's opponent in the Kekerione case - supported· Rakatau. This, combined with the payments to Karaka and the others in 1875, does point to a personal link or bond of some kind. Rakatau either saw Karaka and the others as co-vendors, which meant as far as he was concerned they certainly did have property rights in the islands, or perhaps he saw them rather as quasi-feudal dependants or vassals towards whom he ought to behave with appropriate generosity:

4.7. Another aspect of the relationship which needs consideration is the scope for Moriori involvement in Maori religious and political movements. In his discussion of the impact of the Parihaka movement in the Chathams Dr King assumes that Moriori participation was limited to looking on as passive spectators, perhaps reflecting on the "irony" of the situation:150

150 King, Marion, 135. C\ 54

The Moriori, however, were confronted by the spectacle of the people who had conquered and killed them forty years before now adopting a pacifist ideology; and choosing as their emblem the albatross followers originally worn by the Moriori followers of Nunuku. It was an outcome redolent of irony.

(, This relegates Moriori to the role of victims and even implies that Ngati Mutunga's commitment was insincere. A number of comments can be made. One is that the individuals (by 'people' does King mean persons, or Ngati Mutunga as an entity, or Maori in general?) who had conquered and killed in 1835 were by 1885 mostly dead. Those leading the Parihaka movement in the Chathams were a younger generation. Many had been born in the Chathams, spent their youth in Taranaki and had returned to the islands after the fall of Parihaka. King does not discuss Moriori involvement in the Parihaka movement, perhaps assuming that it would have no place for them or that there could be no conceivable reason why Moriori would want to participate in a Te Ati Awa political and religious movement. If so, such assumptions are false. In 1885 Deighton noted:

The Morioris, who for a long time held out [from joining the "Te Whiti-ites"], have now joined the Maoris, with the exception of two or three.

In other words by the mid-1880s the overwhelming majority of Maori and Moriori were involved in the Parihaka movement. There is nothing to suggest that this involvement was coerced, although it would appear that Maori had been trying to persuade Moriori to become involved for some time before the latter finally agreed. But joining was a Moriori decision. Moriori participation in the Parihaka movement prompts some further reflections. Why should Moriori want to become involved in a politico-religious movement which was in large part a protest against British colonialism? Te Whiti's message must have had its own appeal for Moriori. And possibly the influences may not have been altogether one-way. The iconography of the Parihaka movement (the symbolism of the albatross and the albatross feather) and its political programme (pacificism) may, consciously or unconsciously, owe something to Moriori beliefs and practices.

4.8. Understanding the dynamics of Maori-Moriori social interaction in the years after 1870 is difficult. There is not a great deal of evidence. What can be said is that there was certainly some intermarriage, that Moriori participated fully in the Parihaka movement, and that at least one instance is known 55

where Maori shared the sale proceeds of land outside the 1870 reserves with Moriori. This is not to say that all was necessarily harmonious or that either . side had forgotten the past, but on the other hand there were positive aspects to the relationship as well.

5. The 1900 hearings

5.1. Between 1870-1900 the Chatham Islands blocks were before the Native Land Court on a number of occasions, although it is possible that not all of the Chatham Islands cases are in the Chatham Islands Minute Books. Assuming that the Chatham Islands Minute Books contain most or all of the cases relating to the islands, there were no cases at all, not even successions, between 1870 and 1881. Thereafter the tempo of picks up, as shown by the followig table which lists the cases from 1881 to 1885.

1. Succession claim to Wharekauri No 3, 5 September 1881 Heard at: Opotanga, Chatham Islands Judge: S Deighton, Wi Naera Pomare assessor. citation: (1881) 1 Chatham Islands MB 73-74 Comments: It appears that Wharekauri 3 is a Moriori-owned block. Deighton names as successors Te Nopiha and Hirawanu Tapu.

2. Succession claim to Te Matarae No 1, 5 Sept 1881 ( ) Place: Opotonga Judge: S. Deighton, Wi Naera Pomare assessor. citation: (1881) 1 Chatham Islands MB 75. Comments: Heta Namu, half-caste Moriori/Maori asked for his name to be entered into the title as a successor jointly with Rakataau's heir, Rawiri Rakataau, but Deighton declines to do so even though there is no evidence of any objection to Heta Namu's name going into the title. ( ) The Court asked Heta Namu when it was that his name was put into the list of grantees to the Te Awapatiki Mdriori reserve: Heta said he did not know.

3. Succession claim to Wharekauri No.1, 5 September 1881. Place: Opotonga (~I

56

Judge: S. Deighton, Wi Naera Pomare assessor. Citation: (1881) 1 Chatham Islands MB 78.

4. Succession claim to Otonga No.3, 10 March 1883 Place: Waitangi Judge: S Deighton, Wi Naera Pomare assessor Citation: (1883) 1 Chatham Islands MB 79. Comments: Otonga No 3 (50 acres) is one of the two Moriori reserves in Otonga, and is close to Waitangi. A succession order is made in favour of Timoti Wetini to succeed to the interest of his elder brother Moko Wetini.

~. I 5. Succession claim to Te Matarae 2, 10 March 1883. Place: Waitangi. Judge: S. Deighton citation: (1883) 1 Chatham Islands MB 80. Comment: A succession claim in Te Matarae 2 (Moriori reserve), Hapurona Pawa succeeding to the interest of Routana Rikipouri[?].

6. Succession claim to Awapatiki 2,10 March 1883 Place: Waitangi Judge: S Deighton citation: (1883) 1 Chatham Islands MB 81. Comment: A succession claim in the 2000-acre Moriori reserve, Te Awapatiki 2 (also known as Manukau).

7. Succession claim to Awapatiki No 1, September 61884 Place: New Plymouth Judge: O'Brien, Tunuiarangi assessor. citation: (1884) 1 Chatham Islands MB 83 Comment: A succession application in Whangamarino (Le. Te Awapatiki No 1). Hane te Rau, Jane Brown, speaks in support of the applicants.

8. Rangitutahi Investigation of Title, 2 Feb 1885 Place: Waitangi, Chatham Islands

( ; Judge: S Deighton, Hamuera Mahuki assessor. Citation: (1885) 1 Chatham Islands MB 87-8. 57

Comment: This was a claim to to the islands known as Rangitutahi, or the "'Sisters", covering about 14 acres. The applicant for investigation of title was Wi Naera Pomare. The application was uncontested and an order was made in his favour.

9. Otonga No.1 Succession claim,S Feb 1885 Place: Waitangi Judge: Deighton Citation: (1885) 1 Chatham Islands MB 88-90. Application by Hariata Komene to succeed to the share of Ihakara Ngapuki.

10. Investigation of title to Motuhara Island, 6 Feb 1885. Place: Waitangi Judge: Deighton Citation: (1885) 1 Chatham Islands MB 91-98. This was an application by Hirawanu Tapu to this island (also known as the 44s). Wiremu Naera Pomare opposed the application and Judge Deighton threw the claim out"as the Chatham Islands were adjudged to the Maoris in 1870, and the Court is of opinion that the adjacent islands were included in that Judgment".

5.2. The background to the 1900 hearings was summarised by the Maori Appellate Court in 1907 as follows:151

The Kekerione No. 1 Block came before the Native Land Court sitting at the Chathams on the 30th January 1900 and following days under the authority of an Order in Council issued at Wellington on the 6th day of June 1898 authorising the Native Land Court under [s 14 (10)] of the Native Land Court Act 1894 to determine ( ) whether or not the aforesaid Block known as Kekerione No 1 was held in trust by the persons named in the Title, and if so to ascertain and determine who are the Natives (if any) entitled beneficially to such land and to order the inclusion of such Natives in the Title.

( ) 5.3. The first issue which Judge Edger had to deal with was whether the four original grantees to Kekerione were trustees or legal owners. This was

151 See (1907) 5 Chatham Islands MB 189. 58

easy enough to resolve, although Inia Tuhata and Ngamoni Ngawharewhiti, descendants of the initial grantees, argued the case for absolute ownership. Inia argued that when the grantees had sold parts of the block there had been no distribution of the proceeds to Ngati Mutunga as a whole. He claimed that i ! the Court in 1870 meant to issue legal titles and the Crown Grant was issued in accordance with that to the four individuals by name. He argued that no one had objected when the block was partitioned in 1887. The opposite case was presented by Alexander Shand, arguing the case for the representatives

( 1 of the iwi as a whole. He said it was untrue that there had been no objection to the partitions: in fact a number of people turned up to oppose them but when told they had no standing unless they were grantees of grantees' descendants they "went out of Court disgusted". But his principal point was that Wi Naera Pomare, himself a grantee, had always been willing to see himself as only a trustee.152 Shand's argument was supported by Rakete Tipene, who was half-Moriori.153 Judge Edger was himself in no doubt. It was obvious from the minutes of the 1870 hearings that many persons had interests other than the four grantees. Moreover, "on more than one occasion since, the Court has acted upon the admission of Wi Naera Pomare, that the grantees were trustees only".154 That much was clear; the question now was who should be admitted into the title.

\ I 5.4. The complex situation which now faced the Court has already been explained above. The outcome of the 1900 hearings was that a new grant in favour of 62 individuals be issued to that part of the block before the Court. In

, I addition provisional partition orders splitting the area into 77 parcels were ( I also made, which were ultimately made final at a sitting of the Land Court at Thames on 10 August 1900.155 Trying to make sense of the many hundreds of pages of often tedious evidence which fills the pages of the Chatham Islands

: ) Minute books has been far from easy. But there are a number of recurrent issues which give a kind of structure to the case which only someone who has ( ) an intimate understanding of the traditional history and family linkages within Ngati Mutunga and between Ngati Tama and Ngati Mututnga could ever hope to truly understand. One was whether those who had left in 1868 but had now returned in fact had any rights. More common, however, was

152 Shand's submissions are at (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 150-153. 153 Ibid 153. 154 Ibid. 155 These details are given by the Native Appellate Court in 1907: see (1907) 4 Chatham Islands MB 190-91. 59

the issue as to where such rights should be exercised. There was a great deal of argument about particular places: about whether one's parents had cultivated at a particular place, whether anyone else had rights of cultivation there, about whether the place was still cultivated or abandoned at the time the claimant returned from Taranaki and so on. The complexity of the case can be explained by the fact that it was simu1tane~:)Usly an investigation of title and an application for partition. Many people claimed to have exclusive interests in particular parts of Kekerione and sought individual titles to them. Some claimed particular interests due to descent or other factors which differentiated them from the general Ngati Mutunga iwi claim. This all took a great deal of sorting out, and appeals were still going on in 1907.156 Buried in the mass of all this (frankly often tedious) detail are a number of questions of substance about which there was much disagreement, including the original boundary lines between Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga, the circumstances of the conquest by Ngati Mutunga of Ngati Tama, and whether part-Moriori half-castes were entitled to shares in this block.

5.5. It is important to take into account the extent of Judge Edger'S freedom of manoeuvre. To what extent was the case in effect a full reinvestigation of the title to Kekerione? The case was heard under s. 14(10) of the Native Land Court Act 1894. Section 14(10) consolidated into the parent act a procedure first enacted in the Native Equitable Owners Act 1886. The legislation was a belated attempt to correct the mischief of the "ten-owner rule", in operation from 1865-1873, by empowering the Court to declare, if it thought fit, that the "nominal owners" were in fact trustees "for Natives not named in the title". If ! J so, the court was empowered:

... to determine who are the Natives, if any, entitled beneficially to any land so held in trust.

At this point the Court seems to have had a wide freedom of manoeuvre. It is my impression that the Court's practice was to in effect throw the block open once it had found in favour of a trust and to treat the case as ade facto investigation of title, although there must have been limitations on this in practice. I am not certain how a descent group totally unconnected with any of the original grantees would fare in a case of this kind. Certainly contested

156 See the Native Appellate Court decision (Rikiao Wharepa's and Tipunauia Toenga's ! I appeals relating to Kekerione 1/65 and 1/66) at (1907) 4 Otatham Islands MB 189. 60

and elaborate hearings following a finding of the existence of a trust were not at all unusuaL157 The procedure had its drawbacks, the most obvious one being that there was nothing the Land Court could do if land had been sold off by the grantees in the interim (not an unusual state of affairs).158 In the case of Kekerione itself, the bock had been partitioned and a large slice of vested in Wiremu Naera Pomare. After his death the executors of his will were Louis Hood, Hane te Rau, his sister-in-law, and Thomas Ritchie. Wiremu Naera Pomare always maintained that he was a trustee, and in 1896 at Wellington the Pomare section of Kekerione was separately investigated under s 14(10) and orders were made there by Judge Mackay vesting parts of the Po mare section in two individuals, Ngatau and Teoti KereL Whether this served to give effect to what Wiremu Naera Pomare himself would have wished is unclear. The part of Kekerione under investigation in the 1900 hearings amounted to about half of the block.159 In his final decision Judge Edger explained the jurisdictional situation as follows:160

;" ) The present Order in Council authorises the Court to deal with those parts only of the block that are not comprised in any of the partition orders hereto made: Such orders comprise almost exactly one half of the block, equal to some 17,000 acres. Of this area, the Naera family have obtained some 9768 acres, while Ngatau, who may be said to represent the other branch of the Pomare family, has obtained 6296 acres .... It would thus appear, on the face of it, that the Pomare family has possibly obtained more than its fair share of the block. However this may be, the lands thus acquired by the Pomare family are outside the jurisdiction of the present Court. l) . )

157 An example - from a different region - is the Rotokawa rehearing case, beginning at (1897) 12 Taupo MB 84. This related to the Rotokawa block north of Taupo, vested in two :) persons, Hare Reweti te Kume and Hare Matenga Taua in 1869. Judge Scammell declared them to be trustees and then asked various claimants to hand in lists of names. Since there were competing lists, and various claimants challenged names on the lists of other claimants, an extensive hearing took place. The evidence fills hundreds of pages of the Taupo Minute books. 158 As was the case in the Rotokawa case discussed in the preceding footnote. After most of the evidence had been called it transpired that 6714 acres of this 1O,605-acre block had already been sold to the Crown, and thus that the Land Court had no jurisdiction over it. The case had to come to a halt until a fresh order-in-council relating to the smaller area had been obtained. 159 See Order Made by the Native Land Court, Wellington, in respect of land known as Kekerione, 1896 AJHR G-8, and Judge Edger's final judgemt on Kekerione at (1900) 3 Chatham Islands MB at pp 320-21. There is a great deal about this which still needs unravelling. The Pomare section of the block partly stayed in the family and partly went to Ngatau and Teoti Kerei, but they were apparently members of a branch of the family in any case. 160 At (1900) 3 Chatham Islands MB 321.

( 61

If this is indeed the case, then it is clear that Ngati Mutunga have been penalised by the operation of the ten-owner rule, or more exactly by the inadequacies in the processes set up by the Crown after 1886 to correct those injustices which could follow from the application of the rule. The odd thing is that despite there having been an investigation to the Pomare section of Kekerione under s 14(10) in 1896, nevertheless the block remained in the control of the family.

( .. ) 5.6. Judge Edger's second interim decision was made necessary because of Inia Tuhata's argument that those who had left in 1868 had abandoned all rights to land in the Chathams, and thus neither they nor their descendants could rightfully set up a claim in 1900. But this was rejected by the Court, as ( ) 1 e. was the distinction Inia drew between those who had left in 1868 and those

who left afterwards (the latter might retain their rights, Inia conceded). ''The e Court", said Judge Edger, "cannot admit any such distinction." Judge Edger decided to follow a middle course between two extremes. At one extreme stood Inia Tuhata. At the other extreme the Court could simply pretend that it was sitting in 1870. If it did that then no Court "could have denied the rights of persons who had been absent from the land for only two years." Judge . Edger's middle course was achieved by drawing a distinction at the level of the children or grandchildren of those who left in 1868. He ruled:161

Any person who lived on the land prior to 1868, but who left at that time, will himself be admitted, though he may never have returned to the island. e The children or grand-children of those who left in 1868 will be admitted. e Ie ) provided they have returned and have lived on the land for some years, not simply on visits. The extent of the rights of all these persons will depend upon the length of time they have lived on the land whether prior to 1868, or since. But the echildren or grandchildren (of those who left in 1868) born in New Zealand, and who have never returned to the island, will not be admitted.

5.7. An important issue was the status of part-Moriori claimants (there being no Moriori claim per se in 1900). Alexander Shand objected to Rakete Tipene claiming rights in Kekerione on the basis that he was half-Moriori and ( I that "Judge Rogan in 1870 decided that the half-caste Moriori must take their i '

161 Interim judgment of Judge Edger, (1900) 3 Chatham Islands MB 64 62

lands in the Moriori reserve",162 (Maori claimants themselves seemed to have raised no objection to Rakete however). Rakete was included as an owner and Judge Edger went out of his way in his final judgment to reject Shand's I I argument: 163

It has been argued that a half-caste Maori and Moriori have no right to Maori lands, and that decisions to this effect have been given in former Courts. The minute books, however, do not clearly record any such decisionsj and the present Court cannot see any reason for excluding such a half-caste from lands which belonged to his or her Maori parent. Of course, such a half caste would have no right to Moriori lands through his Maori parent, nor to Maori lands through his Moriori parent. But there is no reason why he should be debarred through inheriting through either parent such . lands as that parent had a right to. The Court will therefore admit into the list of beneficial owners such half-caste Moriods as can show a right through the Maori parent.

5.8. Moriori involvement in the case was not confined to the issue of the rights of the uhalf-castes", Hirawanu Tapu appeared and gave evidence in support of a partition claim made by one Hare Piwari to a piece of Kekerione known as Paparautini. As in 1870 Moriori were willing to support some

\ Maori claiamants and oppose others. Hirawanu Tapu is obviously being . I called because he is a respected member of the community who is regarded as having a thorough understanding of the tenurial history. Hirawanu Tapu's evidence was to the following effect: 164

The Maoris took our land from us. In 1836, November. They landed at Whangaroa and planted there. Then they came towards Waitangi, taking our lands. They were Ngati Tarna, and one person, Te Kuru, of Ngati Haumia and Ngati Tarna. They divided the land amongst themselves. Ngati Tarna took the land South of Te One. Te Kuru took the part from Te One to Puta[harnarna?], south of Paparautini. [160.] ( I Others followed them. Tangatake was one and Te Rutu and Kaipuke were others. I do not know that Karaka came in this direction, He went I believe in the direction of Waipapa.

I heard that the land taken by~ Tangatake, Te Rutu and Kaipuke, was Paparautini. I heard that the northern boundary of this piece was Patoka. Those were

162 (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 188. 163 (1900) 3 Chatham Islands MB 322. 164 (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 159-60.

I I 63

the persons who originally took this piece. I myself have seen other persons cultivate there. I have heard Ngati Tama speak of land titles. They said that Ngati Tama ( 1 arranged a division with Te Kuru. Te Kuru got the piece from Te One to Hawaruwaru. Tangatake did not approve of this boundary. And it was moved to Paparautini. It was fixed at Patoka. The land south of that place was to be for Tangatake, Te Rutu, Ngakahu, Kaipuke, these were all. North of Patoka, the land was for Kawau (father of Ngawharewhiti).

Hirawanu Tapu was then questioned by Inia Tuhata, the opposing claimant, and by Shand:

, ) xx by Inia Tuhata: A. I speak. of my own knowledge, and from information I got in my childhood. Q. Did no other persons take this land Paparautini? A. Those were the persons who took it. Q. Did not Toenga, Karaka and Hemi join in? A. Karak.a went to Waipapa. Toenga went to Otonga. Q. Did not Toenga take Paparautini? A. No. I do not know which land Hemi took. Otonga was taken by Wharepa, brother of Toenga. [161.] Q. Where did Tangatake come from? A. From Whangaroa, where they first landed. They followed [] []. Q. Was not Tangatake related to Toenga? A. Possibly so. Tangateke was called [ ]. Toenga was of Ngati Kura. The two hapus may have been one people.

Re-examined by Shand: Q. Did Toenga [ ] [ ) [ ] at Paparautini? A. Not so far as I know. Q. Did Toenga remain in the island? A. He went to [the] Auckland Islands in 1843. And in 1856 they came back to this island. But I do not know where they settled. Before 1843, Toenga [ ] [lived?] at Otonga and Ohuru (at Whangaroa). I know of no other kaingas of his, prior to [date illegible]. ( !

64

By Inia: After Ngati Tama left in 1843, Ngati Mutunga took possession of the Waitangi lands. Petere, Pomare, Ngamate, Pupu, were the Ngati Mutunga chiefs I saw here at Waitangi.

! I 5.9. Another issue with which Judge Edger had to deal was the so-called .IImana" claim pressed by Shand on behalf of Ngamoni, daughter of

, ) Ngawharewhiti. Ngawharewhiti was a leading rangatira of Ngati Mutunga

() and one of the four grantees of Kekerione. Shand argued that for this reason Ngamoni ought to receive an interest equivalent to that of the Pomare family - who had obtained ownership of roughly half of the block, one way and another. Shand argued that of the other grantees, Toenga had no rights in ; ) , ) Kekerione at all and that Retirnona Ngamate 'was entitled only to a small interest. Judge' Edger could see the force of the argument:

As has been pointed out, nearly one half of the block. has been partitioned off for representatives of Wi Naera Pomare; and it is but natural that Ngamoni, the sole descendant of Ngawharewhiti, should expect to obtain a somewhat similar area in the block.

However this could not be itself determinative: there was Iianother way of looking at this":

Because Wi Naera Pomare may have got more thari his share is no reason why Ngamoni also should get more than her proper share. The argument is rather the other way, viz., on seeing that so large of the triabl lands have gone to Wi Naera, there is the more reason that what remains should be conserved for the tribe.

Judge Edger went on to explain that umana" (which seems to mean personal leadership and authority) claims were not any longer in much favour in the Court:

Because a man is the leader of his tribe does not imply that he owns any larger share of the tribal land than any other member of the tribe. Some judges of the Court hold strictly to the view, that a chief is entitled to no more than his equal share of the tribal estate. It is certainly true, however, that at the present day, in the Native Land Court,

( I the only way of marking the distinction between a chief and anyone of the members of his tribe, is by awarding him more than an equal share of the tribal land. So that it 65

is a common occurence to award a double or treble share to the chiefs and leading people.

1 ' Although the Court was willing to give Ngamoni a double or trouble share,

(I that was the extent of it. The "mana" claim was rejected. Implicit in all of this is Judge Edger's evident doubts regarding the very large share of the block in the hands of the Pomare family. He had no intention of creating another injustice simply because one had been created already.

( ) 5.10. In his final judgement Judge Edger went ahead and applied his various interim rulings, admitting Moriori half-castes, and excluding children and grandchildren of those who left in 1868 if those children or grandchildren had never come back to the Chathams. Those of Ngati Mutunga who were descended from the returned exiles but who had not gone back to the islands were deemed to have committed themselves to their entitlements in Taranaki and elsewhere in New Zealand. There were (by my count) 111 rightful claimants, many belonging to the Ngamate and Dix families, and including also some part-Moriori people: Rakete Tipene and his son, and Heta Namu.

6. General Conclusions

, ) 6.1. As emphasised in the preface, the subject is a complex one which needs much more research than I have been able to devote to the matter, constrained as the author is by the shortness of time available and the need to comply with the deadlines imposed by the Waitangi Tribunal Division of the Department of Justice.

6.2. Nevertheless I feel confident in making a number of general points. The first is the interconnection between Ngati Mutunga's history in the Chatham Islands and their history in New Zealand, Taranaki especially. This may seem like a trite and obvious point but actually it is not; and a failure to appreciate this context can lead to a distorted picture of Chatham Islands history. I would argue that only through an appreciation of the Taranaki backgrQund is it possible to comprehend Ngati Mutunga's decision to seek formal title to the islands in the Native Land Court in 1870. This decision had ( 1 nothing to do with any behind-the-scenes arrangement with the government by which the Crown aided and abetted the claim to the Chathams in order to secure some kind of compensating advantage in Taranaki. Ngati Mutunga went back to Taranaki because in the aftermath of the Compensation Court 66

sittings there they felt they had to. And in Taranaki they stayed, until the 1880s when there was a slow counter-exodusback to the islands. In a risky and stressful situation in Taranaki Ngati Mutunga were simply in no position to abandon a claim to the Chathams which as far as they could judge was legally sustainable.

6.3. I would argue also that it is a distortion to see Ngati Mutunga's legal

I I entitlements as founded solely on the 1870 Land Court decisions. The argument might be made that Ngati Mutunga participated in conquering the Chathams, that the Land Court upheld this in 1870, and therefore that their claim is founded on nothing but an injustice or a misapprehension on the part of the Native Land Court. The reality, I would argue, is less straightforward. I would argue that the 1870 Land Court hearings were perhaps not as adversarial as is sometimes made out, but even if that were not the case the practical reality is that the islands were settled not once, but twice; and that the second colonisation in the 1880s was a piecemeal and peaceful one resulting in a confused tenurial situation which necessitated further intervention by the Native Land Court in 1900. This is not to say that the 1870 hearings were by 1900 of historical interest only. The overall distribution of "Maori" and "Moriori" land was not changed by the 1900 hearings, except

\ that some part-Moriori individuals were admitted into thel/Maori" titles. But . ) by 1900 the Moriori population had fallen to precisely twelve people who were probably more than adequately catered for by the existing reserves.

( ) 6.4. Without wanting to overstate the point, it does seem that the Maori­ :: ) Moriori relationship is more than a stereotypical one of enslavement and oppression. There is some evidence of a certain amount of Maori-Moriori co­ operation at the Land Court hearings in 1870. There is the episode of the Te Whanga Islands lagoon sale in 1875 and Rakataau sharing the sale proceeds with Moriori co-vendors. There is the so far unnoticed fact that Moriori, too, were supporters of the Parihaka movement of which the Chathams was a critically important bastion. In the 1900 hearings Hirawanu Tapu appeared to give evidence supporting the case of a particular Maori applicant. And there were a number of people who belonged to both groups such as Heta Namu and Rakete Tipene, who far from being marginalised or peripheral people ( I seem to have been well-known personalities who made frequent appearances in the Native Land Court. 6.5. Not much has been said in this report about the role of the Crown. This is not accidental. Evidence of direct government interest in the affairs of the Chathams is hard to find (although of course the legal structures devised by the Crown for the ascertainment of Maori and Moriori title certainly did have

( , I an impact on the Chathams). It bought no land there. The Chathams were a remote and neglected place, beyond the gaze of officials. Institutions of the state such as the Native Land Court came there seldom. The islands were so , : remote and valueless that they seemed the perfect site for a penal colony for Maori rebels from the East Coast. The government's absorption in events in Taranaki and its general indifference to anything that might occur in the Chathams could not be more striking. This could sometimes be useful- the Parihaka movement in Taranaki called forth a coercive response from the (1 colonial state, but in the Chathams the liTe Whiti-ites", some minor harassment from Chudleigh aside, were left alone. The impression one gains from secondary studies such as Sheila Natusch/s account of the Chatham Islands German missionary families were that the islands were an isolated and somewhat lackadaisical place where many eccentric personalities from all around the world ended up - from New Caledonia, China, Germany, the Australian penal settlements - and where they lived somewhat hard outdoor lives more or less as they liked. Farms were often unfenced, people relying iilstead on natural boundaries. Maori and Moriori and Pakeha (and the odd Melanesian, American Black and Chinese) farmed and fished, cleared the land, caught eels in the lagoons and the lakes and generally struggled to make a living quite outside the purview of officialdom. The pattern of indifference and neglect established last century has carried on to the present ( ) day.

()

<- J

l ' 68

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Primary sources

( 1 (i) Archival material

MA 1, 19/1/222, Te Whanga lagoon, NA Wellington.

; I (ii) AJHR material ( I Reports of the West Coast Commission, 1880 A]I-ffi. G-2.

West Coast Royal Commission: report of the commissioner appointed under liThe (\ West Coast Settlement (North Island) Act, 18801/ [Fox report]. 1884 AJHR A-SA. ... I Reports from officers in Native Districts, 1885 AJHR G-2, No 16.

Order made by the Native Land Court, Wellington, in respect of land known as Kekerione, 1896 A]I-ffi. G-8.

(iii) Other

Chatham Islands Minute Books Nos 1-5, Maori Land Court, Christchurch.

2. Secondary Sources

Atholl Anderson, Te Puoho's last raid, Dunedin, 1986.

liTe Puoho-o-te-rangi/, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 1,481- 3', l J Angela Ballara, "Pomare, Wiremu Piti", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 1, 348.

fl liTe Kaeaea , Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 1, 455. c) liTe Rangihaeata", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, , vol 1, 487. Te Whanganui-a-Tara: phases of Maori occupation of Wellington Harbour c. 1800-1840", in David Hamer and Roberta Nicholls (eds), The making of Wellington 1800-1914, Victoria University Press, 19909- 34.

"Waitaoro", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 2, 561.

Heather Bauchop, The aftermath of confiscation - Crown allocation of land to iwi: Taranaki 1865-80: A case study in confusion, June 1993, (Wai 143 Doc # I18). 69

Patricia Burns, Te Rauparaha: a new perspective, Wellington, 1980.

W.e. Carkeek, The Kapiti Coast, Reed, Wellington, 1966,

J.F. Cody, Man of two worlds: a biography of Sir Maui Pomare, A.H. and A.W. Reed, Wellington, 1953

E. Dieffenbach, Travels in New Zealand, 2 vols, John Murray, London, 1843 (repr. by Capper Press, Christchurch, 1974).

Penny Ehrhardt, Te Whanganui-a-Tara customary tenure 1750-1850, Waitangi Tribunal Division, Department of Justice, 1993.

Bronwyn Elsmore, Like them that dream: the Maori and the Old Testament, Tauranga Moana Press, Tauranga, 1989.

Mana from Heaven: a century of Maori prophets in New Zealand, Moana Press, Tauranga, 1989.

H.C. Evison, Te Wai Pounamu, Aoraki Press, Wellington, 1993,90-92.

Rosalind Fels, Good Men and True: the Aboriginal Police of the Port Philip District, Melbourne University Press, 1988.

Dr RD. Gilling, The Native Land Court and the Chatham Islands: a report to the Te Iwi Moriori Trust Board, 1993 (Wai 64 Doc#A10).

Richard Hill, The Colonial Frontier Tamed, Historical Branch, Department of Internal Affairs and GP Books, Wellington, 1989.

( ) David Holmes, My seventy years on the Chatham Islands. Shoal Bay Press, ( ) Christchurch, 1991.

Buddy Mikaere, "Ritchie, Thomas", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 2,427.

Michael King, Moriori:a people rediscovered, Viking, Auckland, 1989.

Alexander Mackay, A Compendium of documents relative to Native affairs in the South Island, l) . Sheila Natusch, Hell and high water: a German occupation of the Chatham Islands , 1843-1910. Pegasus, Christchurch, 1977.

Steven Oliver, "Te Rauparaha", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. vol 1,

( , 505. 70

Heruy Reynolds, With the white people; the crucial role of the aborigines in the exploration and development of Australia, Penguin Books, Melbourne, 1990.

( ) E.C. Richards (ed.), Diary of E.R. Chudleigh, Simpson and Williams, Christchurch, 1950, 270-71.

The Chatham Islands: the plants, birds and people, Simpson and Williams, Christchurch, 1952, 158.

Rhys Richards, American whaling on the Chathams Grounds, Historical Association, Nantucket, Massachusetts, 1971,

Whaling and sealing at the Chatham Islands, Roebuck, Canberra, 1982.

1 ) Hazel Riseborough, Days of darkness: Taranaki 1878-1884, Allen & Unwin, 1989.

Dick Scott, Ask that mountain: the story of Parihaka Heinemann/Southern Cross, Auckland, 1975.

Ailsa Smith, Ko Tohu te matua: the story ofTohu Kakahi, MA thesis, University of Canterbury, 1991.

"Tohu Kakahi", Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 2, 541.

I 1 S.P. Smith, History and legends of the West Coast of the North Island, Polynesian Society Memoir, 1910.

Eleanor Spragg, UTe Rau 0 te Rangi, Kahe", Dictionary ofNew Zealand Biography, vol 1, 504.

() Evelyn Stokes, Mokau: Maori cultural and historical perspectives, University of Waikato, 1988.

Ian Wards, The Shadow of the Land: A study of British policy and racial conflict in New Zealand 1832-1852, Historical Publications Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 1968. ( )

! I 71

APPENDICES:

1. Extract from West Coast Royal Commission Report, 1884 AJHR A- 5A, Appendix IV: Report on the award;s 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.

7. Documents from File MA 1,19111222, National Archives Wellington.

I ) REPonT on the Grant recoUlmended in favour of the Ngatirama Tribe. a.llc~str:J.l. northern bouudt'Lry of the Ngatitama tl;ibe was the Mokau River, whlch was Ulany adO shirted to jIohakatlno by the peace arrangements, after long hostilities. Subsequently No;them tribes drove the Ngt1.tit!1,m::Ls from the district, and they migro,ted to the South, where remo,ined until the arrivnl .of European settlers, when they began to return, and settled in places 50 far as 'l'ougl1,porutu. During some of the meetings held iu Waikato under the of the }faori King movement the N gatitamas were invited to attend, which they did, and formally promised the restoration of their ancient rights to the land, and recommended to live which they \',ere doing \so far as TOl1ga.porutu), when the Native Land Court sat and by its (, t1P,(a:,"U~ completely upset the understanding 'which had been arrived at. So iar as I have been able to !ihe facts. the N gn,titamt1. ftLilec1 to establish their case in consequence of a mistake in the -l1l!vlllJ.Q~ in .,,·h!ch it was brought before the Court, aud if they had been allowed a rehearing, for they applieCi. ::hey would most probl1bly have succeeded in establishing their right to the laud l1etiwe:en Tongapormu and the Confiscated Block; but the Chief Judge or :he Land Court positively reilearing. The N gatitama, being thus stripped of all the land they had, were thrown on and appealed to the Government. The Hon. the Nati-;-a Minister, Mr. Bryce, the Commissionr to locate them inside the confiscated boundary; and, there being a or abom 576 acres near Pukearuhe available for this pllll'ose, "hich they "ere willing to it "as sun-eyed for them, and they have been put in possession of it;. of them had previously been occupying a portion of the town·belt on the somh side of Town ot Pukearuhe, which is never likely to be more than a town on paper, and which had, by former arrangement \vith the Crown Agent, been made available for settling Native claims. It been thought desirable to add 71 acres of this belt to their award. WILLIA:lJ: Fox, West Coast Commissioner. West Coast Commission Office, New Plymouth, 26th April, 1884.

APPENDIX IV.

The HOll. Su: W. Fox to the Hon. the NATIVE ~Il3"I5TEn. West Coast Commission Office, New Plymouth, 26th April, 1884. I r.Hlve the honour to enclose a report on the awards made by the Go,er11lllent to absentee members or rhe Xgatitama., ~gatimutunga, Ngatiawo., and Taranaki tribes, and to request you to lay the salCe beiore His Excellency the Governor for his information. I have, &c., WILLIAM Fox, The Ron. the );"ative :liinister, Wellington. Wes;: Coast Commissioner.

REPORT UPOIl. ~he _-i wards in fayour of the Absentee ::\Iembers of the X gatitaml1, N gatimutunga, Ngatiawa, and T<1ranaki Tribes (referred to in Second Report, 1880, pp. :s:x::nii.. and :S:XXyID.; Evide!lce, q. 363, 806-S08; and Appendix C, No.1). IN the case of the absentees whose claims were disallo,yed b,- nhe Compensation Court in 1866, which decision gave rise to great dissatisfaction, the Governillent, after ~onsidenng the merits of the question, at the recommendatipl;lof Sil' G. Grey, then Governor, by Order in Council, made an award in rhe proportion of si:s.teen acres to every absentee, 11 list of whom was made out, at a large :neeting or abou;: -chree hnndred Natiyes assembled in Wellington for :he purpose in 1867, from informaticll 3upplied by members of each tribe. It has oeen-round "to be now impossible to ascertain the names of the X atires in whose favour Mr Richmond's promises were made, or e,en to discover where the v are. The estimates of the number ?f absentees ·of each tribe appear to have been made by him at the time of the promise from some ~formatio!l then giYen, wherher accurate or not it is not now possible :0 decide. There are some Imperfect usts in the possession of the Native Office at New Plymouth, but the Commissioner is assured that they are entirely unrelil1ble. It is certain also that many --;;-ho were absentees when the promises were made ha,'6 retlll'ned to the district, ancl have bee!l" mcluued in tribal reserves mn.de by :he Commissioner or at other times. Among these are andoubtedly the Chatham Isln.ndel's Sgadawu'" the bulk of WhOUl have been allocated on speciui olocks between the Urenui and :Jlimi 3.iver5. The Commissioner has macle every effort to clea.r up :he diiliculty, bUt; without SUccess. _-llnong others he has consulted :lIajor Parris, jlr. Rennell.

the meantime the e"'ecut" f' 't"h'" -, ," ya' will have made it possible, if the necessity eVer 'h .c.. lana esurve '"1' d d eaI mt the land in th ' ' contemplated at the tUlle u 1e promIses were mu. e. " ' e mallller , WILLIAM Fox. , , West Coast Commissione .. West Coast Co~ssion Office, New Plymouth, 26th Apnl, 1884. t;,

( I APPENDIX V. The Han. Sir W. Fox to the Han. the NATIVE Ur::-iISTER. SIR,- West COu.st Commission Office, New Plymouth, 17th January 1884 I have the honoUl' to forwu.rd a report on two gnmts of sections oi which I have . mended the issue by His Excellency the Governor, l1nd hu.ve to request thu.n you will lay it . His Excellency. I have, &c., WILLll~ Fox. The Han. the Native Minister, Wellington. West Coast Commissioner.'

REpORT on the Exclusion of Tapa te Waero and Mihaka Rererangi from the Issue of Crown Grants. MAY IT PLEASE YOuR EXCELLENCY,- I have forwarded through the Native !:Ilinister recommendations for the issue of grants for of Sections 389 and 390, Block VIII., \,-airoa, ane =:L~:on 388 and part of Section 394, Block Wairoa, from which it will be observed that I have purposely erased the names of two Natives, ) but for the reasons given below, would have been entitled to have their names included. ) L The first of these is the grant of Section 388 and par~ of Section 394, Block VITI., Wairoa, which I have excluded the' name of Tapa. te Waero, The. reasons for my having done so found in my report of the 10th May, 1882, laid before your Excellency's predecessor, giving a account of Tapa's clainls. Since the date of that report I have made two separate attempts, by sonal interviews with Tapa and large gatherings of the tribe to which he belongs, to induce to remove himself and his people from the sections illegn,lly occupied by them. and to accept of a of other lands, which I consider fully equivalent in value to those they woulcl have to abandon, a full and liberal satisfaction of all pledges and promises given a.t flny time to "Tapa and people" by the Government. He has persistently, and, on the last occasion with more dete . obstinacy, refused to accept the terms offered to him; and I have di.,;tincdy told him that he be e~cluded from the grant now recomlllended for issue. 2. TIle other case is th",t of Mihaka Reremngi, ,.hose name I hn.ye in like manner eX(llmied from the grant oi pn.rt of Sections 389 and 390. Block VIlL, Wairon., it having, after a exhaustive inquiry, been made perfectly clear thn.t this Native has wrongfully appropriated, several tim<:'s positively refused to account for, a Slllll of £1,500 paid into his hn.nds by n.n officer,of the Government for subdiyision among a portion of the Ngamuru tribe. I hn.ve intimated to hit;t that, until he refunds the money, I would ma.ke no recommendation of :lny grn.nt to him, His exclusion ",-ill make some small reparation to the gmntees for his dishonesty. The whole of the particulars have been forwarded in letters from myseli to "he Hon. )ir. Rolleston, dated 10th J 1881, and 19th _~pril, ISS:!.. WILLL1.ll New Plymouth, 17th January, 1884. West Coast Commissioner.

" )

A.PPENDIX VI. lYIE~ORA:,rD~M in re _~pplication of Messrs. Ross and A..rundell for Confirmation of a Lease of ~art ?£ the Otautu Reserye, :lated the 3rd December, 1880 (on the ground that it was entered Into III pursuance of a written agreemem dated June, 1879; which agreement is alleged to have been lost). ' L" order to get over the difficulty of the non-production of the n.bove agreement, stn.tutory d~cir" tions ;vere.made by l[essrs, Ross, Taurua, 90}vern (who acted as an agarit in ,he mane.r), ",nd Wa :~d (who 1S sald to have conducted the negotlatlOn for an extended lease, and to have Illterpreted , witnessed the agreement said to· have been entered into in June, 1879). . of These statutory declarations exhibit the most remarkable lapses of memory and confuSIon e dates on l'h8 part of four se'-eral persons \\;th which I hn.ve ever met, and which seem to III entirely to iilYE1.lidate cheir testimony. of . L'They all con~ur in asserting "that the .missing illFeemem '.\"as E!lrere~!n to in the pres:kce no the ,yho1e of them. III j1r. Cowern's office, m Patea, III or abom .Ju!le, 15,9, and they m· e <;il n.ll~sion to l"Lily other n.greement bet"een that date n.nd the 3rd D:c~tnber, 1SS0. ~hell the lel~a which .h~d been agreed to be entered into was e~ecuted. ~~t there IS 111 my posses.slon n. COIIlbeeo. and ongmal agreement, dated 3rd September, 18S0, conta1l1111g the exact terms srud to have urs in the agreement of 1S79, duly stamped and executed by Tn.urua and :1[r. Ross. It naturally oChsil i : to ask why, if. a fO~1:Dal writt~~ agre:emem between the same parties! containing identical terIIl( s~ the been entered. mto III June, IS j 9. thIS other agreement was entered lUtO the year afterwards 0 bieb 3rd September, 1880) instead of the lease said to have been agreed ,upon in th~ for.rp.er, ana raSO? lease was actually executed three months aner the dn.te of the latter-namely, III December, And why, in all the statutory declarations, which are minutely specific in many matters, is no whatever made to the fact of there being two agreements previous to the lease? Not none, but Mr. Wallace emphatically declares that he had never been employed by APPENOIX J.

21 G.-2.

Chest diseases are a.'1 usual Tery rife amongst them, and this, with the paucity of births, must neces­ ,;:tlily be reducing t~e race rap,idly in numbers. Having lately had occasion to go, through the lists.of IHIWes inserted by Su' 'V. Fox In some of the grants he recommended for lands on thIs coast, I was qmte ~utrtled to find the number who had died since the lists were prepared (the earliest I dealt with being cUm piled not more than three years ago), and as comparatively no children take their place, only one "ulldusion' can be arrived at, viz., that the race is dying out; in fact, the Na.tives realise it fully, as they often say, "We wish to sell our land to enjoy the proceeds ourselves, haYing no children to leave it to." This inclination was, no doubt, in Sir W. Fox's mind, when he recommended restrictions should be placed in nearly aU the gI'ants issued under his commission, as, on occasions such as the meeting before (lcscribed, the Nativ8l:l would, if they could, sell all their tand to procure means of making a great show before their visitors. 'With regard to industrial pursuits (with the exception of the Waihi Natives, who cultivate wheat), I way say they have none, as the crops required for their sustenance being in, they do nothing more, unless some urgent motive, such as before mentioned, strikes them with sudden energy, and they ,viiI $wc grass seed, work for Europeans, catch fish for sale, or do any seasonable work to gather a. lit'tle money for some temporary purpose, which being achieved, they return to their former apathy, or, rather, iudifferent mode of living. I do not wonder ttt this apathy, as they see a powerful, industrious race l't~J .idly taking their place, and with whom they are quite powerless to cope;' and even if they were able it is not worth their while, as they have not the incentive Europeans have, i.e., to leave a hedtage to their children, as it might almost be said that, as a race, they have none. They pay no re",crard to the education of the comparatively few children they have, as, with one or two exceptions, they do not take advantage of the free schooling now supplied by the State, probably from the reason that they see no reasonable hope of their offspring, where there are any, attaining an llvcrage long life; nor, ou the other hand, do I think it very desirable that the Native children should cl'Owd into the common schools, 6S, fl'Om the small regard the Natives have for cleanliness, and their liaLility to contagious skin and other diseases, they would speedily depopulate au ordinary Europeau school, unless the Native pareuts exercised greater care ,vith their childreu than they are usually in the habit of doing. 'With regard to the N atiYes politically, a large proportion on this coast are, as might naturally be , cxpected, passively opposed to what they consider European encroachments, but they feel they are quite puwerless against that powerful organisation which they but dimly understand, aud which they are in the habit of vagt\ely terming Ka,1lJa,n[~tanga (Goverll1uent), but to which they tUl'n in trouble for help anti protection. They acknowledge, however, the ,iustuess of some of our laWB, especially that of succes­ sion, though they frequeutly find them costly a.nd cumbersome. I call1lot close this report without stating that 1 believe Te Whiti's inftuence to be as great over the Native mind as ever; but at present it is directed into a new channel, he being possibly compelled to find litem some means to fill up their spare time to prevent idleness leading them into something worse. Nath'es in other districts may make light of Tc Whiti and his doings, but none of them ever come ,vithin • reach of his influence, but are soon, more or less, his admirers and supporters. His eloquent (to a Native mind) figurative speech and earnest manner doubtless have a great deal to do with it, but be the reason what it may, his in1luence is not diminished along this coast. W. RENNELL.

No. 16. S. DEIGHTON, ESQ., R.M" Chatham Islands, to the Hon. The NATIVE MINISTER. ~m,- Chatham Islands, June 13, 1885. In answer to your communication of the 25th March, I have the honor to forward my report of the state of the Native population of this district. I am sorry I was not able to send it by the time named by you in your letter, but this is the first opportunity of doing so, since receipt thereof. There is not much change in the Natives since my last report, the only difference being, that they are more rabid Te Whiti-ites than formerly, so much so, that some of them are really almost mad ou the subject. They are very restless and unsettled, and are constantly sending up small deputations with "resents to Te 'Whiti-preserved eels, albatrosses, and money-and, I am given to understand, that during the last twelve months nearly £500 has been sent to him by the Natives of this district,' a very large sum considering the small population. I can never find out what transpires after the return of deputies, as they keep everything to themselves, and are very jealous of the interference of the Europeans in all matters concerning Te Whiti. The Morioris,'who for a long time held out, have now joined the Maoris, with tho exception of two or three. .All the Maoris on the island excepting Naera Pomare, a half-caste C¥ef, and about foul' others are Te Whiti·ites. They are all looking out very anxiously for the return of' ,the Omaha fl'Om New Zealand, fully expecting news of great importance on her return. :: " ,,:.:;, I see no difference in their behaviour to the EUl'Opeans, being quite as civil and friendly as e"ef, 'and quietly waiting for the fulfilment of Te Whiti's prophecy. I am pleased to have to report that they are very industrious and sober, and, being in receipt of good rents for then- lands and having good houses and plenty of sheep and cattle, are very well off and comfortable. , They appear to enjoy very good health, but I see very little increase, the children are few, and out of tl~ose few a very small portion reaching maturity, which cannot be attributed to the unhealthiness of tho cll!~ate, as, during the period of my residence Oll the island extending over eleven years,. there has not been a smgle death among the European children. 'With the Morions there is no increase, 'only four being born during the period alluded to, out of which two only are now alive. " ,,.. I mentioned in my letter by last mail that the Natives herlil have a strong,-';;bjection to the enforce­ ment of the laws regarding working on Sunday, as they do not recognise that day in the light of a Sabbath, and I have been endeavouring to persuade them not to work on Sundays, before taking extreme ·~. r.' J l, , p- It G.-2. I 22 I measures on the subject. On the whole, I may say in conclusion, that a very friendly feeling exists between the Europeans and Maoris, although, as I said before, the latter are only waiting for the" grand event" to take place, which they have waited for for so many years. I have, tiro., S. DEIGHTON, I The Under.Secrdary, Native Department, Wellington. Resident Ma.gistrate. tl i,.

By Authority: GEORGE DmSBUBY. Government Frinter. Wellington.-1SSS.

: )

) : G.-8.. APPENDIX 3

1896. NEW ZEALAND.

LAND KNOWN AS KEKERIONE (ORDER MADE BY THE NATIVE LAND COURT, WELLINGTON, IN RESPECT OF).

Presented to both Houses 0/ the General Assembly in pztrsuanoe 0/ Seoti01~ 14 0/ U The Native: Land Court Act, 1894."

.. THE NATIVE LAND COURT ACT, 1B94," SECTION 14, SUBSEOTION (10). IN THE NATIVE LAND COURT, NEW ZEALAND, WELLINGTON DISTRICT. In the matter of the land known as the Kekerione Block, situate at Wharekauri, the Chat­ hams, and in the matter of the Orders in Council, dated respectively the 14th day of December, 1895, declaring that it shall be within the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court, to determine certain matters referred to it thereunder, and on an application to have the aforesaid matters dealt with in manner provided. . AT a sitting of the Court held at Wellington on the 9th and 19th day of June, 1896, before Alexander :'htckay, Esq., Judge, and Wiremu Kauika., Assessor,- It having been ascertained and decided that, on the investigation of the title to the Kekerione­ Block by the Native Land Court, at a sitting held at the Chatham Islands on the 16th day of June, U:I70, and following days, it was intended that the persons in whose favour the certificate of tide was ordered by the aforesaid Court on the 24th day of June, 1870, should hold the land com­ prised therein in trust for the benefit of themselves and other members of the Ngtimutunga Tribe :.' And whereas the aforesaid block has since been partitioned by the' Court, and certificate of title, Vol. lxxvi., folio 59, under the Land Transfer Act has been issued in favour of Lonis Walter Hood,. Thomas Ritchie, and Jane Brown, trustees under the will of Wiremu Naera Pomare, deceased,. including the parcels of laud set forth in the scheaule to this Order, which at the hearing of the, ILpplication for partition, at a sitting of the Native Land Court held at the Chatham Islands on the ~nd day of February, 1885, and following days, the said Wi Naera Pomare admitted in evidence, tlmt he held in trust and supported the claims made by Ngatau and others to portions of the said block: It is hereby declared that the Natives whose names appear in the first colnmn of the Schedule-. n.ttached hereto, and marked A, are the owners of the parcels of land set out in the second column of the said schedule; and it is hereby ordered that the names of the aforesaid persons shall bIT included as sole owners in the titles already issued in favour of Wi Naera Pomare, or hissuc­ cessors, for the parcels aforesaid, and that the existing instruments of title shaH be amended to thai;' effect. Witness the hand of Alexander Mackay, Esq., Judge, and the seal of the Court. [SeaL] A. MAoKAY, Judge.

SOHEDULE A.

Na.me of Person entitled. N p,me of Ln.nd. Distriot. Area..

A. R. P_ Ngatau and Kereti Kekerione 1M ...... Chatham Islands ... 645 0 0 Ngatau ...... Kekerione IN ...... 605 2 0 Ngatau Kekerione, Section 18 1A C " 1,323 ...... " ... 0 0 Ngatau , 1 ... .. Kekerione lL ...... "~ ... 0,276 0 0 (). Ngatau ...... Kekerione 1K ...... 1/ ... 359 0 Teoti Kerei ... Kekerione 10, Section 14, Putahumama ... 1/ ... 423 3 0 Teoti lierei ... Kekerione lP, Waewaeraipa 13...... , .. 603 0 ().. Teoti lierei " () .. . Section 1, 2 Otawhao, Section 2 ...... If , ... 27 2

A. MAOKAY, Judge .

..tpproo:imat~ GOBe of Paper.-Prepa.ra.tion, not given; printing (1.225 copies I, IS••

By Authority: JOlIN MACKAY, Government Printer Welliugton.-lB96.

Price 3d.) • _ ' '. "~' ' f _ '. 'r.>· • ','" ,," .•..• '$" , ..... ~~_:_".,.,_;,.. 6: The CoUrt ~ shaJl pODSiet: 'of such, Judge.,' ilf'whom, be the Cbi~f Judg~, together. ~th ,'such' ~Bessors,~'~" ~~ (+n'w...... ma.y from tUDe to timedet~me. ' . :,... ~ •. ~". " : .. -:' :, , Appointmllni of 6. The Governor ma.y from' tjme tQ time appoint It Chief J ' J wiSes a.nd offiCBIl!' who shall be,a' barrister.'.orsolici1ior,of 'the, S~preme "Oourt of" Zealand of not lesstha.ri Beven Years' st8.nelingSJudges, a.n:a Assessors, , . and also such Registrars, bepu~ Registrars, Clerks, Interpreters, and, _", other officers as may b~ reqmred for the- conduct of tne business" of the Court throughout,the colon:r. ' ,: - , . Persons skilled.,in the Native language or Native customs shall , be deemed experts within the meaning of section foui-' of "The Civil ' Sern,ce Reform Act, 1886.", ""',,' - . , .,- A~""~ Oommillllionen; , 7. The Governor may appo'int any Stipendiary Magistrate taibe 'Ij/I)r~ a Commissiop.er for the purposes of this Act, who shall possess the , '."" jurisdict!on, powers, and authorities of.a Judge., , :~';' ,Every person holding the office of a Recorder, under U The ',' Native Land Court' Act, 1886," ·shall, by virtue' of suoh office, be deemed to be a Commissioner duly appointed under this Act. Governor may S. The Governor may from' time to time appoint a person to appoint Deputy Ohief Judge. act as Deputy for the Chief Judge for such penod as 't~e appoint- ment may direct. . _, During the continuance of such appointment a Deputy shall have, exercise, and perfpnn all the po wets and dut~s of the Chief J -qdge. Tenure of offioe. ,9· El veffiry pedrsqn aphPoiGon~ed or ,holleling offic~ under this Act It" :,: sodhall h 0 c.e nnng t e, vernor s p eaSUle. IV' The Chief Judge; Judges, and Assessors, Registrars, Clerks, and other officers of the Court, holding, office at the time of the coming into operation of this Act, shall hold office and be aeemed to have been appointed hereunder; _but the existing order of prece­ dence of the several Judges shall be retained. Sa.1aries. , 10. Such salaries shall be paid to the several persons appointed under this Act as shall from timE? to time ,be appropriated for the purpose by the General Assembly, and ont of 'moneys so appropriated . there shall be paid such travelling-allowances as the Governor shall from time to time determine. . . Records. 11. The records, plans, 'and documents relating' to' the bnsiness of the Court shall be deposited,- a::nd _the official or administrative ' '\ work carried on, at such place or places as the Governor. spall at . 'f' ' any time after the passing of ,this Act and from time to time appoint. Registen. 12. Registers shall be kept by the Court, .in which shall be recorded minutes of all applications made to the Court and orders and proceedings made and·had thereon. Seal. 13. The Court shall have in the custody of each Judge a s~al, . which shall be a se8J of the Court; a.:il'd' shall be used for sealing documents which require to be sealed. PART III. romBDIO'DON. Investigation. 14. Subject as hereinafter, mentioned jurisdiction,-'. . I , •

\ (1.) To investigate the title to .and ascertain, and d ermine the owners according to Native custom of any No. 've land:

(~ ] ltfPEN 0 iX: 4 2 /J...

(2.) To det rmine the relative interests in any land ofthe per~ons Relative intere~ta . . . ent' led thereto, ·and to .partit,ion any land among Buch and partition. pe sons:' ..., (3.) To e eot an exoharige, between ~atives of any land owned Exchange.. b them, also, on application of the Gov~rnor, to eff~ct an ex hange' of lands between Natives and the Crown: . (4.) Tod termine any successor: . . .. ' . '.. Succesidon.. - (5.) To grklt probate of the will and lett~~s of.administration of Pro~a~e ~ . . the estate and effects of any Native now dead, or who administration. shall hereafter die : (6.) To render any land inalienable,. or to impose such limited Restrictions on restrictions on the alienation of .any land as the. Court alienation. may think fit, and 'subject as hereinafter prmnded to vary or remove ap.y. restrictions: ' , (7.) To determine all claims to land .based· on any alienation OllumBuilder heretofore or hereafter to· be made by a Native, and all I!liena.tion. questions arising betWeen' con:tlicting claimants: (8.) To confirm any aiienation of land made by a. Native; Oon1itmB.tion of (9.) To restrain any pers~>nfrom injuring or damaging or dea.ling a.liena.~o~•.•. . '. with any property the subject-m,~~te~ of any application ~=~ In)l1l'les to the Court: , ... (10.) To determine whether or not any land' heretofore dealt Na.tive tmata. with by the Court, of which. there has been no alienation other. than a lease, mortgage, or contract for ~ale, upon which the purchaae-moneyhas not been paid, was, on the· investigation -of title thereto; or partition thereof, intended by the ~a.tive Land Court,' or by the n9minal owner or owners of such lana (whether such. nominal owner or owners' be a tribe~ hapu, or ,section thereof respectively, or a definite· individual or' individtrals), td be held. by the 'noIninal owner or' owners in trust for ~ atives not named in the title to such land; and to determine who are the Natives, if any, entitled beneficially to any land so held in trust, and to order the inclusion of' such Natives in the.title, either together with or iIi Ueu of the nominal'owners, and. for.,the purpose a(ores8Jid to order the canQellation or' amendment of any existing instru- ment of title and the issue: of such new CroW9- grants, or other instruments of title· as may be necessary: . ~rovided that ,the 'Court shall' not proceed to exercise this jUri$diction .unless the" Governor in Council shall by order authorise the' same to be d~ne : ' , ,No order' of the' Court hereu~der shall take effeot until foUrteen 4ays after the same,lias been laid before both HouSes of the GeneraL A$semb)y, . if the G~neral Assembly.be, then ' ~ and· if not then sitting, then ( . .'.'JJ..:~;.+not .until ,fourteen, . . the. oommenoement. of' the ,. 'If':io., ,then next . ," .... ' . :·.s';'· ,: . - ' not:ife7' ~~: :~:~, " .' Act; 1882/'.:'.or, . ~stlB.l1d and Nelson Na.tive . Re~ery"es Act, .1887, tI respectively;, nor to confisca.ted lands· whIch ha.ve been granted or agreed to be granted by'the , ; CroWn under any 'special statutory provision; nor to limds where a:KJlhEire' or interest in such lands has heretofore been 10, , Y sold, conveyed, ,or ,transferred: . ~..t • ' , (11.) To apport~on anlongthe oWners, or .Bome of thein,the rents payable under anY.' tease .of 'any land, and. for the pur­ poses of any partItion to. negative, modify, drapportion any ,of the express or implied provisions of 'any suoh lease as aforesaid as to any parcel or paroels, or as to the " whole of suoh land: " . ' , Coati!. (12.) To award suoh sum as may, seem just for oosts, including oosts of professional assistanoe,to or against any person appearing or represented before it in any proceeding,; and " to order any party to a prooeeding, at any stage thereof, to deposit any sum of money as, seourity for oosts, and to dispose of any sum so depoEl'.i.ted !Ls to the Court may seem just: and ;,1 , .' 1 Trustees' a.cccunts. (13.) To order-any person, other than the Publio Trustee, hereto- fore or hereafter to be appointed a trustee of any land belonging to any Native, to furnish an acoount of histrns­ teeship, and, on examination and investigation thereof by the Court, with or, without the assistance of an aocount. , ant, to order the payment by such trustee of such sum or s'ums of money to such person or persons, and on such teI'IJls, as may seem .Jus. t : ... . ' Power to vest la.nd. (14.) By order to vest land in any person whom, in the exeroise of the powers, aforesaid, it determines~o be entitled thereto, and generally to do all aots and things necessary to the effectual exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Com1i by this Act.

Extension of Jurisdict~on. Governor in Council 15. The Governor in Council may, bi Order, from time to J:ra:i!t::. 'time confer upon the Court, as effectually as if the same were confe~ed by this Act, jurisdiqtion in any matter' or question . \ referred tO,in such Oider, exclusively affeC?ting the, rights of Natives in any real or'personal property, and thereupon the Court and eaoh Judge thereof shall, have full jurisdiction and power in such matter to deci~e ,and l;llake order as itl:D;ay deem fit;1 and such decision or order, subjeot to the right of appeal, as hereinafter provided, shaH be Valid and bin,ding in law, and may be dealt with as nearly. as may be in the same manner as an order, of a similar nature made by , the Court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by this Act.

PART IV. PRACTIOE AND PBOOEDUBE. (1.), General. Appointment, of 16. The Court shall sit at'such 'times and places s 4ne llittings. Minister by notice, given in s'lloh manner ,as may be pr cnDed, APPENOJX S

Kekerione Case, 1900. (1900) 2 Chatham Islands MB 144.

Court opened at 2 p.m. on 30 January 1900. Waitangi. Chatham Islands. Present: H. F. Edger Judge Hemi Erueti Assessor A.F. Puckey Clerk and Interpreter

[' l Court opened formally and adjourned till tommorrow.

Wednesday 31 January 1900. Place: the same Present: the same

, ) Mr Puckey 'sworn [ J and [ ] to interpret. Panui read.

Hare Piwari: I have placed my case in the hands of Mr Shand. As to Kekerione No 1 (Paparautini). I wish to state my ancestral claims and claim to be included in the title.

Mr Shand: Wharepi and others claim to be included in Kekerione (and also in Wharekauri). I am specially [?] for Wharepi.

Court: We,should like a list of all those who claim inclusion.

Inia Tuhata: That plan will also suit us. I am not an applicant. I appear for

( ) Tipuuania [?J my wife one of the [145] grantees (a successor). I oppose the application.

Roimata Wiremu Tamihana:

, I I claim inclusion in part of Kekerione. I claim for myself only. I also claim inclusion in Te Rorekaahu, part of Kekerione.

Remihana Tapae I claim in Te Rorekaahu, Maruturuhia, Matarangi, Kaipotaka, Te

:" } Ahipopotai, Rongoma ... [illegible]. I claim for myself Remihana Tapae. Unaiki Tapae (no children). Kauri Remihana. Hireke Remihana. Tareura Remihana. Ngawha Remihana. Ngaitikura Remihana.

: I Wi Tamihana Hapua (child of Ngaki). I wish all these persons put into the blocks I have mentioned. Makarini Dix: I claim Te Hiti, Taipiro, Te Roto. I ask that my family be put in:

: 1 Wirmemu Dix (has children); Makarini Dix (no children); Peti Dix (has children); Manuera Dix (has children); lhipera Dix (has children); Hana Dix (has children); Manaere Dix (has children); Manaina Dix (has children); Ema Dix (no children).

[146]

\ I Rihania Wharepa: I claim Mangoutu, Otawhao, Piharoa [?], (all together) Taupo, Okiiki. I claim for myself alone.

Nekehia Paina: I claim Kaipoutaka, Taepiro, Hawhao, Taupo. I claim for myself Nekehia Paina and my daughter Tipunauia Toenga.

Haeana te Pohe: I claim Tea [?], Mangoutu, Otawhao, Taupo, Township, Paremata. I claim for myself alone.

Mr Shand: I appear for Haeana. She is a full sister of Toenga te Poki and Paena te Poki. I will explain her right later on. She has a large claim.

, ) Ngamoni Ngawharewhiti [?] , 1 I oppose all the claims for inclusion. I deny that they have any right. Nor had their parents before them. The land belonged to my parents and ancestors. It was awarded to 4 persons and they are the sole owners. I deny they were trustees for others.

:: J Tare te Ura I claim Rapunui, Pakarikari, Waewaeanga [?], Otawhao. I claim for: Poua te Ura, Tare te Ura, Te Wera te Ura (one child), Titiro te Ura.

( ,I [147.]

Inia Tuhata I object on behalf of Tipuuania [?], on the same grounds as Ngamoni. I say that the 4 grantees were not trustees. They were the sole owners. I will explain later.

Court announces that all who intend to claim inclusion must appear by the [] f , morning [?] Mr Shand: All the claimants, except Manuera Dix, are living on the island. And Ema Dix is at Napier.

[ 1 Court:

( ! There are two questions: 1. Were the four grantees trustees? 2. If no, who are entitled to be put in? We hold, from examination of the notes of evidence of former Courts, \ I that there is p. f. evidence that they were trustees. Wi Naera Porn are admitted that it was so, as regards himself. And the Court has clearly l ) made orders on that assumption. But we will hear what reasons Inia Tuhata and Ngamoni have to advance.

Inia Tuhata: We still intend to maintain that the four grantees were sole owners, and not trustees.

Rakete Ti pene: I claim Te Ohe, Te Roto, for myself, Rakete Tipene, (Raukura Hetaraka, Pua Hetaraka (children of Hetaraka)).

[148]

INIA TUHATA I ) Ngamoni and I have have joined cases. I will address the Court. On 17 December 1873 the four persons were made the grantees. That is the day the Crown Grant was issued. The Grant says that the land belongs to the four persons and their descendants after them. There is no mention of any trust. Later, parts of the block were sold by them. If they were acting for the tribe, they showed the tribe no consideration. They did not distribute the money to the tribe, though they may have made presents ( ) to their children or near relations. Nor did the tribe object to these actions, or to these sales. Certain persons applied under section 13 of 1889. Te Oti Kerei, Huriama Apuroma, Roera Meihana, [ ] Dix made that application. This application was dismissed by the Chief Judge, on 12 September 1894. On 15 March 1897 partition order was made to Ngawharewhiti and two others. Application was made under sub. sec. 10 of sec 14 by Te Oti Kerei,

( ) Ngatau, Hamuera Koteriki, and Rereti. Provision for these persons was made out of Naera/s portions, not out of the balance of the land. This was given effect to by Judge Mackay. This was done by consent of the trustees (Executors) under the will of Pomare. At that time.

[149].

In 1870, no claim was set up by the present claimants or their elders. But the people all admitted that the four persons were the absolute owners. The Court then perfectly understood that the four

\ ' grantees were the sole owners. And the Crown Grant issued accordingly. This is the ground of my objection to the present claim for inclusion. The partitions in favour of Naera were made by after 1873, and none of the present claimants appeared to object. These partition orders were made by Judge Mackay in Wellington, I think. : I The present claimants made no objection to the survey of the partitions. I ask the Court to refer to the notes and minutes of former proceedings. Inasmuch as the tribe made no objection to the sales etc they practically admitted they had no right. Nor did they interfere in the appointment of successors. The fact that the four grantees did not consider the people in sales etc., shows that they were sole owners, and not trustees. Naera's interest has been cut off. The Court has therefore to deal with the interests of two only. As to the fourth, Retimona Ngamate, he has sold his interest to Meikle, Le. of 87 acres. That is all he is entitled to in the Block. He also joined in the sale of 336 acres (I.S.) to Meikle. (Not so). Welt we say his interest is the 87 acres . . ) 12 Noon. Court adjd. til11.30 pm.

[150.]

( ) Inia Tuhata: I omitted to say one thing. Mr Shand has done something regarding the providing of interests for Ngatau and others out of Pomare's interests. On 10 Feb [ ] Mr Shand said that the interests of Pomare having been cut out, the rest of the block belonged to the other three grantees. He said this in the Court at Wellington. This is all I have to say, on the question of the trust.

{ ; i 1

NGAMONI in reply to Court, says he relies upon what Inia has said, and does not wish to add anything.

MR SHAND, IN REPL Y:

Prior to 1870, when the Court sat: In 1867 the land was surveyed by Mr Percy Smith and others. Before that, the lands were admitted to be the property of a number of persons, with varying interests. To facilitate the survey, and as they had ,.. ) little money, they had it surveyed in large blocks. . Wharekauri was the first block. Then Kekerione, by the Ngati Mutunga tribe. The 4 grantees are all Ngati Mutunga. The survey of the other blocks all followed, in succession. In 1870, Judge Rogan came here. The natives wanted to put in a lot of names. But Judge Rogan said there must be 10 owners only in , ) each block. In Kekerione a number of small pieces were claimed. Mangatukarewa was one of [151.] these pieces. The Morioris also claimed the island. The questionwas settled upon the hearing of this Mangatukarewa block. Kekerione was awarded upon that decision. Naera was the spokesman for all Ngati Mutunga. The Court asked him whether there were other owners. He said yes, and named about 150 persons who had rights to the land. See M.B. I, P 3,4. In 1868 most of the Maoris left the island. Only about 28 were left. And some came from New Zealand with the Court, and went to . I New Zealand with it. Judge Rogan told them to put in persons as separate owners, whom they could trust. At first they proposed to put in Naera only. But afterwards they put three others with him. It had been agreed that Mangatukarewa should be sold to [ ] [100. , ( ) After the title was settled, it was so sold, and all the four grantees i ) signed the deed (131 acres). The natives took the less trouble over the matter because they had decided to sell out and return to New Zealand. The whole block was then leased to Chudleigh and Pattison, Le. the N. end. Ngawharewhiti to sell a [sic] lease the S. end also, and return to New Zealand. But as the sale did not take place, he stayed here at Chathams, and formed the nucleus of the settlement still existing.

[152.]

As to the assertion that the present claimants took no interest in the partition etc., made at the Court of February 1884, several natives did appear but were told they could not say anything, unless they were grantees, or successors to the grantees. They were told the same in 1887. And went out of Court disgusted. I make a mistake. It was in 1887 that this happened. In 1884, Mr Deighton did make orders in favour of persons not owners. (Those orders were amended by the C. Judge, in the Office, as t 1 being invalid.) In 1884, Naera admitted that the grantees were trustees. That was why Mr Deighton made those orders. The other three also admitted themselves to be trustees. f' . , \ Only about a year ago, Retimona was asked by a European to pay

(j half cost of a fence. He declined, because he was a trustee only. The Waitangi end of the block belonged to Ngati Tama in 1840, and was conquered from them by Ngati Mutunga in that year. Being raupatu land, therefore, it must belong to the tribe, and not to one or two persons. Naera agreed that he was but a trustee, and that Ngatau and Te Oti Kerei should have those divisions that have now been awarded to them. I need say no more on the subject of trust or no trust.

[153.]

Rakete Tipene: I support what Mr Shand has said.

Inia Tuhata: I I Does Mr Shand say that persons not grantees appeared before Mr Deighton in 1884 and claimed orders?

Mr Shand: I am clear that Ngatau and Te Oti Kerei were present at that time. I am ( ) not sure who else. ( ) Inia Tuhata: Mr Shand supports my contention. For he says that Naera received all the money for the sale of Mangatukarewa. He says also that all left the island except some 25. I do not think they ever came back. The 4 persons and their children stayed on the island.

DECISION AS TO THE TRUST

The Court has no hesitation in deciding this question. It is quite evident from the notes of the proceedings of 1870, that other persons were admitted to have an interest in the land, besides the four persons who were made grantees. And on more than one occasion since, the Court has acted upon the admission of Wi Naera Pomare, that the grantees were trustees only. When Judge Deighton in 1885 partitioned the block, he acted upon that admission, and awarded parts of the Block to persons who were only grantees. The Court had at that time, however, no power to admit such persons into the title, and [154.] those orders were therefore amended, and made in favour of the devisees under the Will, instead of the persons found to be the rightful owners by Judge Deighton. Upon the enquiry made under sec 13, referred to by lnia TuhataT (\ Judge Mackay reported strongly to the the Chief Judge that the grantees were trustees. But an application under sec. 13 was not the proper method of admitting such persons into the title. On a later occasion, Ngatau and other persons were admitted into the title to certain of the divisions of the block, upon an application under subsection 10 of sec. 19. ( ) And now the Court has been authorised to enquire whether , ) other persons are entitled to be made owners of the remaining part of the block not included in the partition orders hitherto made. We therefore decide that the four grantees were trustees for themselves and others. And will proceed to hear the claims of those persons who now claim to be owners of that part of the Block.

31-1-1900 Case of HARE PIWARI Paparautini

Inia Tuhata: I object to Mr Shand appearing, as not being a licensed agent.

Mr Shand: I apply for a special Licence.

20 s. paid. Granted.

( ) Hare Piwari claims a piece of [ ] 700 acres extending from the North boundary of No 10 to a place called Rongomaipango [?], now cultivated by Remihana Tapae and [looks like 'and Nga Urupa']. And extending from the sea to the lagoon.

HARE PIWARI SWORN: , I This piece of land was taken possession of by my ancestors Ngakahu, Tangatake. And Te Rutu.

Ngakahu

Koroku f = Piwari

Hare Piwari all deceased i I (1900) 3 Chatham Islands MB 319 App.6 Monday 19 March 1900

9.30 am

KEKERIONE NO 1 BLOCK ( ) DECISION [Judge Edgerl

Delivered at 1.30 pm on 19-3-1900

The proceedings in this case are of a dual nature.

, } The Court is empowered under Order in Council to enquire whether the Grantees were trustees for persons other than themselves; and, if so, who those other persons are.

There are also several applications asking the Court to partition the , land and settle the relative interests. Such orders of partition cannot be finally made at this Court, because the order determining what persons are the beneficial owners of the land does not take effect till fourteen days after it has been laid before Parliament. These partition orders will therefore be provisional only, to be made final when the order admitting persons to the I ) title has matured. But, in order that the whole of the matters needing to be settled might be settled at this Court, and especially because a Court can so seldom sit here, we have gone into the questions of partition and relative interests, as well as into that of the admission of the beneficial owners.

( ) As a matter of convenience, the Court has taken evidence upon all ( ) these questions at one and the same time. And indeed it was necessary to [320] do SO; because, of the persons to be admitted, some have a much smaller right than others. And, in the partitioning of the land, certain pieces are claimed by some only of such beneficial owners.

Dealing first with the question of the admission of the beneficial owners:-

At the opening of the proceedings, the existence of a trust was denied; but the evidence that the four grantees were only some of the owners was so clear that the Court had no difficulty in deciding that the grantees were trustees for themselves and others. An interim decision to this effect has ( ) already been given.

! I The grantees were four in number, their names being Wi Naera Pomare, Ngawharewhiti Kawau, Toenga te Poki, and Retimona Ngamate. In 1885 a number of partition orders were made, some of them in favour of persons other than the grantees. Such orders were found to be invalid, were in 1887 cancelled, and the whole of the partitions then made were awarded to the devisees under the will of Wi Naera Pomare, except one awarded to Retimona Ngamate.

Since that time, some of the partitions so awarded have been sold by the devisees under Wi Naera's will (which will be hereafter referred to as the Naera family), and some have been awarded by the Court to the same persons to whom they had been allotted in the invalid orders of 1885. These later orders were made under the authority of Orders in Council similar to that under which the present Court is acting. In this way, all the persons to whom land were [sic] awarded by the invalid orders of 1885 have obtained the lands [321] then allotted to them, except Mitai Pupu.

() Five separate pieces of land were allotted to him in 1885. These five : I pieces were not dealt with in any way in 1887, and now form part of the general balance of the block, to be awarded by this court.

The present Order in Council authorises the Court to deal with those parts only of the block that are not comprised in any of the partition orders hereto made. Such orders comprise almost exactly one half of the block, equal to some 17,000 acres. Of this area, the Naera family have obtained some 9768 acres, while Ngatau, who may be said to represent the other branch of the Pomare family, has obtained 6206 acres. Ngatau is one of the persons who was awarded land by the invalid orders of 1885, and has since obtained such I land by subsequent orders under the authority of Orders in Council. : ) It would thus appear, on the face of it, that the Pomare family has possibly obtained more than its fair share of the block. However this may be, the lands thus acquired by the Pomare family are outside the jurisdiction of the present Court.

: I No claim has been set up to any part of those lands, except by Tare te Ura, who claims an interest in Rapunui (No lG) containing 1,200 acres. It appears to be generally admitted that Rapunui lies within that part of the Kekerione block that belonged to Ngati Haumia. The Ngati Haumia lands are alleged to have extended from No lR on the South, to the northern boundary of Pakarikari (No 10). Within these limits, three divisions have been sold by the Naera family, and two divisions have been awarded to Te Oti Kerei, viz, Pakarikari (No 10) [322] and Waewaeraupa (No lP). It appears that the only persons of Ngati Haumia now living who might have a claim to the land, are Tare te Ura, Tuta Tutere, and his children, and the children of Te Oti Kerei. As Te Oti Kerei is dead, the Court can deal with Pakarikari and Waewaeraupa on succession. As to No lG, the Court will advise that it be brought within the jurisdiction of the Court by Order in Council.

i f No claim having been set up to any other part of the lands awarded to the Pomare family, the Court will not further refer to such lands. The Pomare family do not claim any part of the balance of the block.

In determining what persons are entitled to be admitted as beneficial

(") owners, on or two special points have been raised. It has been argued that a half-caste Maori and Moriori have no right to Maori lands, and that decisions to this effect have been given in former (I Courts. The minute books, however, do not clearly record any such decisions; and the present Court cannot see any reason for excluding such a half-caste from lands which belonged to his or her Maori parent. Of course, such a half caste would have no right to Moriori lands through his Maori parent, nor to Maori lands through his Moriori parent. But there is no reason why he should be debarred through inheriting through either parent such lands as that () parent had a right to. The Court will therefore admit into the list of beneficial ) owners such half-caste Morioris as can show a right through the Maori parent.

Another point raised concerned the personal rights of Riakiao Wharepa. It is admitted that whatever [323] right she has is through her father, not her mother. It is alleged that she is not the daughter of Wharepa; but the Court is of opinion that such assertion has not been, and cannot be, proved; and that she cannot be denied rights that are allowed to her sister Rihania. Moreover, in other blocks, Riakiao has been admitted as an owner on equal terms with Rihania.

These are all the special points to be decided.

Upon the general question, of what principles will guide the Court in deciding what persons shall be admitted, an interim judgment has already been given, to the following effect:-

Any person who lived on the land prior to the general heke of 1868, but who left at that time, will himself be admitted, though he may never have returned to the island.

( ) The children or grandchildren of those who left in 1868 will be admitted, provided they have lived on the land for years, not simply on visits.

But the children or grandchildren (of those who left in 1868), born in New Zealand, and who have never returned to the island, will not be admitted.

{ i Lists, comprising some 150 names, have been submitted, of persons who it is claimed are entitled to be made beneficial owners.

( I This list includes the grantees or their successors, excepting the successors to Wi Naera Pomare, who make no claim. The Court has enquired into the rights of each of these persons and, applying the rules above set out, decides that the following persons have rights.

It will be seen that this list includes children.

[324] It can be a matter of arrangement, whether the children as well as the parents shall be admitted into the title, or whether the parents only shall be admitted. So the list of individuals to be declared beneficial owners will not be finally deteremined until the names for each partition order have been settled.

List of beneficial owners

1. Roimata Wi Tamehana and her son. 2. Retimona Ngamate and her son Ropata. 3. Te Wari Ngamate and 4 children. 4. TaiaId Ngamate. 5. Reta N gamate. 6. Taiwhanga and Rangiata, two daughters of Maikara Ngamate.. 1. Te Oka Meihana. 8. N gatere Dix. 9. MitaiPupu. 10. Ngaurupa. 11. Ngamoni Ngawharewhiti. 12. Thakara [] 13. Te Tahi te Onemihi and Hare te Paea. 14. Raniera Piripii Eruera Piripi and children. 15. Remihana Tapae and 5 children. 16. Unaiki Tapae. 17. Wi Tamihana Hapua and 4 children. 18. Rihania and Riakiao Wharepa. 19. Tipunauia Toenga and 2 children. 20. Nekehia Paina. 21. Huriana Hapurona.

{ ) 22. Haeana te PaId. 23. Hare Piwari and 6 children. , ) 24. William Dix and 10 children. [325.] 25. Makarini Dix. 26. Peti Dix (wife of Remihana). 27. Pera Dix and 5 children. 28. Manuel Dix and 3 children. 29. Hana Dix and 5 children. 30. Pohe Dix and 3 children. 31. Mariana Dix and 3 children. I ' 32. Ema Dix. 33. Rakete Tipene and his son. ( )

34. Raukura Hetaraka.

35. Roera Rakatau1 Rawiri Roera; and Pohe Rawiri. 36. Hauriota Paina. 37. Heta Namu. 38. Tiwai Pomare. 39. Tiopira te Mohi. 40. Mihi and Maki Rutera. 41. Harota te Herehere. 42. Rahui Taumou. 43. Paranihia Waipuke.

Some of the persons claimed for are rejectedl for the following reasons:-

The four children of Te aka must get their interest from their grandmother Ngatau who has already obtained a large area in the block. c) 1

Hamuera Koteriki and Horiana Koteriki have already obtained NolW1 which is valuable land.

Kahutaiki te Meihana has never lived at the Chathams.

Nor have the four children of Taiki Ngamate.

Nor have Tare Perel or Ngapaki Tamati.

For the same reasonl Wenerau Maikara is not admitted.

The three children of Rahui Taumou also never [326] lived here.

Nor did Pua Hetaraka.

Tuta Tetere and his children: as also the children of Te Oti Kerei; will get their rights as successors to Te Oti Kerei.

Nekehia claimed for some 24 persons. The Court does not consider that any

:) of them have a rightl except Nekehia herself.

The claim set up for Himiona Tahuhu is also rejected.

Coming now to the question of partition and the definition of relative interests:-

There are two what may be called general claims I and a number of special claims to individual parts of the block.

Of the two general claims the first is led by Roimata, for the Ngati I i l Mutunga tribe as a wholel i.e. for such members of it as are entitled by occupation. The land thus claimed for the tribe are such parts of the block as

" I

, ( remain after the special claims have been dealt with. The Court has already intimated that such persons in the list of ascertained beneficial owners as obtain, upon their special claims, as much as, or more than, they would get in the general list were there no special claims, will be excluded from any share in the balance that may be left for the tribal claim. So that the persons who will be made owners of such balance cannot be definitely specified until the special claims have been gone into.

The other general claim is what we may call a "Mana" claim, set up on behalf of Ngamoni Ngawharewhiti. This claim comprises some 5525 acres at Maipito; and about 5,000 acres in the North part of the block.

It is alleged by Mr Shand, who appears to represent her rights to the Court, she being too unwell to come"to the Court, or to give evidence, that the two leading chiefs of Ngati Mutunga [327] upon this block, have always been ! ) Wi Naera Pomare, and Ngawharewhiti, the father of Ngamoni. And that, of ; ! the other two grantees, one of them, Toenga, had no right in the Kekerione block, his rights aU being in the adjoining block, Otonga. While the rights of the other grantee, Retimona Ngamate, were not large.

As has been pointed out, nearly one half of the block has been partitioned off for representatives of Wi Naera Pomare; and it is but natural that Ngamoni, the sole descendant of N gawharewhiti, should expect to obtain a somewhat similar area in the block.

But there is another way of looking at this. Because Wi Naera Pomare may have got more than his share is no reason why Ngamoni also should get \. I more than her proper share. The argument is rather the other way, viz., on seeing that so large of the triabllands have gone to Wi Naera, there is the more reason that what remains should be conserved for the tribe.

As to "mana" claims in general, they are not now looked on with much

( ) favour by the Court. Because a man is the leader of his tribe does not imply that he owns any larger share of the tribal land than any other member of the tribe. Some judges of the Court hold strictly to the view, that a chief is entitled to no more than his equal share of the tribal estate. It is certainly true, however, that at the present day, in the Native Land Court, the only way of marking the distinction between a chief and anyone of the members of his (I tribe, is by awarding him more than an equal share of the tribal land. So that it is a common occurence to award a double or treble share to the chiefs and leading people.

Mr Shand alleges it was always Ngawharewhiti [328] who managed the affairs of the tribe, and exercised control over a large part of the Kekerione block, especially at Maipito, and in the Northern parts. But this can be conceded without thereby allowing that Ngamoni is entitled to the large area she claims. No doubt it was the privilege of the chief to conduct the affairs of ( l the tribe. But we cannot see that Ngamoni, the sole issue of Ngawharewhiti, is entitled to more than such double or treble share. It seems plain, from the

l !

i ( ( ,

way in which her rights have been referred to by the other parties who are claiming the land, that had she confined her claim to such double or treble share, it would not have been opposed. More than one of the contesting parties has estimated her rights at 1,000 acres or more, and that too in one of the very best parts of the block.

(: The Court, therefore, rejects this umana" claim, except to the extent of awarding Ngamoni such double or treble share.

( I Dealing with Ngamoni's special claims to parts of the block:-

She claims the whole of Maipito block, containing by estimation 5525 acres. Within this area are there are more than 1,000 acres of some of the best land in the block; on this, her house and cultivations are situated.

) The Southern end of Maipito, say 4,000 acres, is exceedingly poor land. :. ) Ngamoni admits the rights of other persons, in Maipito, to a certain extent. In fact, Mr Shand on her behalf takes up the position of being entitled to allot to other members of the tribe such portions as Ngamoni thinks fit. The extent of the rights in Maipito that she thus allows to other persons has increased since the first opening of the case; ultimately, [329] they are as follows.

Ngaurupa 800 acres Thakara te Rerengahuia 1200 acres MitaiPupu 1500 acres Remihana Tapae 200 acres Paranihia Waipuke (not stated)

Other claimants to Maipito were:

Roimata Wi Tamehana, for the tribe. Inia Tuhata, for his wife Tipunauia. Reta Ngamate, for the descendants of Ngarnate and others. : J Remihana Tapae, for his family. MitaiPupu. Rihania Wharepa. This last claim was afterwards withdrawn.

And Mitai Pupu did not proceed with his separate case, as Ngamoni

: I admitted his right.

Practically, all the claims opposed to Ngamoni were on behalf of the tribe as of right.

There is a general consensus of opinion that Maipito was part of the land conquered from Ngati Tama in 1840. Remihana is the only person who \ ) denies this; he asserts that it never formed part of the Ngati Tama land; but that it should be claimed under the "takahi" of Tangari and others. In the face of the general admission by the other claimants, the Court cannot accept Remihana's version. Maipito, being then land conquered from Ngati Tarna,

( , by Ngati Mutunga as a whole, must now be held to be tribal land, unless it can be shewn that certain persons have an exclusive right, through occupation. It seems to be clear that Ngawharewhiti, and after him his daughter [330] Ngamoni, have been the chief occupiers of this part of the block. But the Court considers it proved, that it was, in the early days, occupied and cultivated to some extent by the tribe generally, especially by Pupu, Petere, Tepania, Ngaurupa and others.

The Court awards to Ngamoni and the persons she admits to have a joint right at Maipito, including also Raniera Piripi and Eruera Piripi, an area of 2,000 acres. They can settle amongst themselves their respective shares in , I this 2000 acres.

The rest of Maipito is awarded to the tribe.

{ ) As to Rakautahi, containing an estimated area of 790 acres. :) This is claimed by Nekehia, for herself, the Dix family, and for Rakete Tipene and family.

The claim was at first opposed by Mr Shand on behalf of Ngamoni, but the objection was afterwards withdrawn. This piece will therefore be awarded to the persons for whom Nekehia claims it, in the proportions following:

Nekehia Paina 300 acres The Di?c family 300 acres Rakete Tipene family 190 acres 790 A piece of about ten acres it has agreed shall be awarded to Te Retimona Ngamate, William Dix and Ngamoni Ngawharewhiti.

Te Rotoparaoa, a piece containing about 250 acres, has been agreed to be the property of the Ngamate family, and will be so awarded.

Te Roto, containing about 1240 acres:

(-- ) [331] This piece was claimed by the Dix family, by Rakete Tipene, by Nekehia, and by Ngamoni.

Mr Shand at first claimed an exclusive interest for Ngamoni, but afterwards withdrew it so far as the Western end of the block is concerned, but persisted in his claim for an exclusive right in the eastern end. This is practically part of Ngamoni's "mana" claim and is rejected by the Court.

The claims by Rakete and Nekehia are admitted by Makarini Dix.

The land is awarded as follows:- ) ( j

The Dix family 940 acres

I ,

( ., Rakete Tipene 150 acres Nekehia Paina 150 1240 acres

Te Torotoro, containing about 3740 acres.

This is claimed for Ngamoni, through "mana" and through occupation. She admits the rights of certain other persons, as follows:-

Ngatere Dix and Ropata Retimona, 300 acres at Torotoro.

( ) Harota te Herehere. 200 acres at Marakapia.

The only other claim to this piece is on behalf of the tribe/

It seems clear from the evidence that Ngawharewhiti was the chief occupier here. But we do not think that Ngamoni is entitled to the whole block. We estimate her rights here at 750 acres.

The remainder of the block will be awarded to the tribe.

Te Taro, containing about 237 acres:

This was awarded to Mitai Pupu, by the invalid orders of 1885. His right here is not disputed, and it will again be awarded to him.

Paparautini-Rongomaipango, a piece of about 1085 acres:

The southern half of this piece is claimed by Hare Piwari. Ngamoni claims the Northern half, and admits the right therein of Ngaurupa, and Remihana. Nekehia also claims an interest, which she hands over to her daughter Tipunauia.

It is also claimed for the tribe.

Ngamoni's claim is really part of the "mana" claim. We do not think

'I that the occupation here by Ngawharewhiti was sufficient to entitle Ngamoni to any special award.

: I '-,., The Court awards to Hare Piwari 400 acres, i.e. the southern half. The northern half is awarded to Ngaurupa, Remihana, Tipunauia, and the Ngamate family, in equal shares.

Kaipoutaka-Taepiro, containing about 196 acres.

The southern half of this is claimed by Remihana, and by Roimata. The northern half by Makarini Dix, by Rakete Tipene, and by Nekehia.

( .1 The Court awards the southern half containing aout 96 acres, to Remihana and Roimata, in the proportion of one-third to Remihana, and two­ thirds to Roimata.

The northern half, containing about 100 acres, is awarded to the Dix family, including also Rakete Tipene. The claim of Nekehia is rejected.

The boundary between Kaipoutaka and Taepiro is to the fence on the Northern side of Remihana's house, continued on to the beach.

( ) [333]The ownership of the land lying between the land sold to Rayner, and the Waitangi river, has been settled by mutual arrangement.

The ownership of Otawhao, etc., lying between the Waitangi river, and No 1J (Tikitiki) has also been agreed on, except as to Orea, and Mangoutu. Orea contains the house occupied by Paina te Poki, also the wool shed. Mangoutu is the strip along the beach, on which are built Odman's hotel; also the Magistrate's Court-house. The ownership of these two pieces is contested by Nekehia and Tipnauia, on the one side, and Haeana te Poki, on the other.

Remihana, Hapua and Te Teira are stated to have found money towards the building of the woolshed, and it is claimed that their interests therein ought to be protected. Inia contends that, before the Court entertains the claim based on the finding of money for the woolshed, receipts ought to be produced showing the expenditure of the money. But it is well-known that Maories do not as a rule keep accounts or vouchers, and we do not see why the claim should be rejected simply because receipts have not been produced.

The Court is of opinion that both sides have shown some right to the two pieces in dispute: and that substantial justice will be done, by awarding Mangoutu exclusively to Haeana te Poki, and Orea exclusively to Nekehia, subject to a payment of £20 each to Remihana and Hapua, and £10 to the

( ) daughter of Te Teira. Or, if Nekehia prefers, the part containing the woolshed will be cut off and awarded separately. In that case the Court will fix the relative interests [334] as follows: Nekehia 10 shares, Remihana 2 shares, Hapua 2 shares, and the daughter of Te Teira 1 share.

The Court will admit Riakiao to an equal share with Rihania in the 26 acres at Otawhao agreed upon for Rihania; but not into the piece where Rihania's house stands.

This disposes of all of the special claims to parts of thr block, leaving the following pieces to be awarded to the tribe, viz -

Maipito 3525 acres Napper Point, Whangatete and Koputotara 3117 acres Te Torotoro and Marakapia 2990 acres 9632 I ,

(_I

A few words will be necessary to explain the principles upon which the relative interests have been settled, in this.area.

It is always a matter of some difficulty to define relative interests. Some Courts consider every living member of the tribe to have an equal interest, including the children. Other Courts take the heads of families as (I existing two or three generations back, to be equally entitled, irrespective of how many descendants there may be of each such head. The present Court has adopted neither of these two methods, but has endeavoured to preserve a just medium between the two.

[The remaining four pages of the judgment, discussing the allocation of relative interests in the Iltribal" area is omitted.]

( )

, )

\ )

( :

( I i , /lfPEND /X -; (0,) '\( .. ~.:': ~

.-.. ": Certificate of Assess:.ent lio. 94 dated the 30th. December 1875 . - (" '. .. .1...:-.:-- .. ", r. w. Malse .Tudge N.S.C. ftv>:.> F" THIS DEED made the Ninth day of February One thousand eight hundred p'(,' I,' Taranaki f~-=-./ ...... , . and seventyfi ve BETYl.Ii:EN RAKATAU of Ta.ranaki in the Colony of Uew (.,,> ',", '5/- t .. ·.... ., . Zealand and KARAKA, RORETAaA, HEREMAIA HAPURONA PAWA and HOETA ,.' ." ;:~tl:'.~- -: : .. : , ')) of the Chatham Islands Aboriginal Natives, of New Zealand of the' one part and THOJl,IfAS'RITCHIE and ROBfl:RT HUTTON RITCHIE of Kaingaroa 1 in the Chatham Islands aforesaid Sheepfarmers of the other part I WITNESS that in consideration of Thirty pounds paid to the Natives I ;' I 'parties hereto·of the first part by the said Thomas Ritchie and ,the: Robert' Hutton Ritchie (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged) , 1 said Rakatau Karaka Roretana Heremaia Hapurona Pawa and Hoeta DO I i J 1 and each of them ~ hereby convey and assure upto the said Thomas I ! ,.;. Ritchie and Ro~ert Hutton Ritchie their. heirs and aasigns ~ those parcels of land in the Chatham Islands aforesaid Being the Three Islands in the Whanga Lagoon opposite the AwaPatiki as the :' ) ) same are delineated on the plan in the margin hereo( With the' 'r, appurtenances And all the estate and interest of the said Rakatau

~.L.,~""'" Ro:et~a Herema.ia Hapurona Pawa and Hoeta l\~spectiv~ly in *'. • ;~::'. ~'-~' .'. :':...... ••.• premises TO HOLD unto the said Thomas Ritchie and Robert Hutton,' ',./Ritchie,: ' their. heirs and assigns as tenants in connnon in equal shares,1 , IN WITNESS whereof the said parties have hereunto subscribed t1,leir J ;:\ n~ea.

:SIGNED by the above named ~\TAU the same i ) l having been previously interpreted and , Rakatau explained to him by and in the presence of

Kawotene j Maero I Tanga..tan maori j 1 I ) SIGNED on the day above named by the waid Rakatau after the contents •..1 l 1 had been explained to him by an 'Interpreter of the Court and he 'I I ) I appearing clearly to understa.nd the meaning of the same in the 'presence of. .:, .....,a "" R.Parris - Resident Magistrate .Taranaki .Tohn Eliss ' ; Clerk to ~"":':~+"~ , W. Halse" ' I SalT. -,' 2 • .,

SIGNED by the said KARAKA, RORETANA, HERE1~L\' Na te Kara..ka HA?URONA,fAWA, and HOETA the same having Tana,te Roretana

( 1 been previously ihterpreted and explained to Haremaia Tana them by and in the presence of - Hapurona Pawa Hoeta ( 1 A.Shand ( ) ~icensed Interpreter S.Deighton Resitient Magistrate .chatham Islands

SIGNED on the Fifteenth day of April 1875 by the said KarakaRoretana, -- Heremaia, Hapurona Pawa and Hoeta after contents. had been explained' to them by an Interpreter of I the Court and they appearing clearly to understa.nd the .~ meani~g of the same in the presence of Samuel Deighton Resident Magistrate Ohatham Islands

." (

• fNA~nC;;-~:f~f::.~i~-::·-·;-:':;-·';·:~;:.~~~ Arr'nc/l'X 7 0t)

" .. ~ .. \. " ;' IN THE SUPRE1IE COURT OF ImW ZEALAND WELLINGTON DISTRICT No. 1580 (WELLINGTON REGISTRY)

( I BmTWEEN .TOHN AfATHIAS :BARIGJ;R of \Vailii in the Provincial District of Canterbury, Sheepfarmer Plaintiff :Y:ill HIS llfAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL Defendant "

S TATE1lENT OF CLAIM

Dated at Wellington the lOth 'day of February 1930 ...... The Plaintiff by his Solicitor Ernest Frederio Hadfield says:-

i 1. . THAT by Deed dated the 9t~. day of February 1875 whicp however was not endorsed with the Trust Commissioner's

Certifioate was registered in the Deeds Registry Office at "~I " ;I ~hristohuroh under. Number 2,,3207 and'lflade between the VendorsJ ',1 .. ' .' . \ therein named of the one part and Thomas Ritchie and Robert Hutton Ritohie therein ,described of the other part, the Vendors purported to convey to the said Thomas Ritchie and Robert Hutton Ritchie the lands therein desoribed namely:­

, ALL THOSE parce'ls of land in the Chatham Islands aforesaid . \...... ~ing the three islands in the Whanga Lagoon opposite the the same are delineated on the plan in the margin and is also drawn hereon.

;)

,.' r

" ,

\ I

:'. ! ( ; ( ,

2.

2. A copy of the said Conveyance is filed herewith omitting

{ 1 the Maori Tr~lation and Licensed Interpreter Certificates. 3. B Y a further Deed of Conveyance dated the loth. day of May 1894 and made between The National Mortgage and Agency

Company of New Zealand Limited of the one part and the Plaintiff , of the other part the said Company in pursuance of its po.rers I i () as mortgagee purported to convey to the Plaintiff ,inter alia ,J the lands described in the first above mentioned Deed of J, Conveyance • .~ :,." 4. THE Title 'to the said lands has never been granted by the Cro\m and the Title of the native oWners has never been in- ves tiga ted.

: ' I :j ~5~. ___ F~O~R~ some time prior to the year 1868 the three islands '; ,,I which comprised the land described in the first above mentioned 'i Deed of c~~ve~ance dated the 9th. day of February 1875 were ' 1 occupied by a Maori named Rakatau·one of the Vendors named in ,'j i the said Deed of Conveyance dated the 9th. day of February 1875 , :) 1 together with ~ome of his Moriori slaves some of whom signed i !, "the said Deed of Conveyance~ 6. IN the year 1868 the said Rakatau left the Chatham Islands for the Mainland of New Zealand and immediately thereafter and

, \ ,during the year 1868 the said Thomas Ritchie and Robert Hutton

Ritchie took possession of and occupied the three islands , , J exclusively, apparently and continuously and adversely to the " , title of the owners thereof, such occupation oontinuing uhtil the loth day of May 1894 the date of execution of the second 'Deed of Conveyance above referred to when the Plaintiff took , :j possession of the said three islands and occupied them !

exclusively, apparently,and contin~ously and adver,sely to the title of the owners thereof and has continuously so occupied ( ) the said three islands until the present time. 71 THE Plaintiff is still in possession of the said three

islands without disturbance by me Crown upon which any action " by the Plaintiff can be founded. 4

8. THE Title to the said three islands never having been in­ vestigated is customary land and the sole right to bring any action or other proceedins for the purpose of recovering possession of the said three islands is vested in the Crovffi by virtue of Sec- tion 88 of the Native Land Act 1909. 9. THAT unless and until the Crown should take action to eject the plaintiff the facta to which the evidence proposed to be (J taken relate can not be judicially investigated. 10. THAT in the event of action being taken to eject the Plaintiff from the said lands it would be necessary for him to establish suffic·ient exclusive apparen.t and adverse occupation

for over sixty years to establish his right against the Cro~

under the Hullum Tempus Act (9 Geo. III Cap. 16) to the said three islands. 11. PRIOR to the completion of the said sixty years adverse . \ occupation th,e said lands were vested in the Crown and would remain so vested if the Plaintiffts Title by virtue of such

-~ adverse occupation should not be established •. 12. . TEE Plaintiff proposed to the De·fendant that the Defendant

should bring an ac~ion to eject the Plaintiff from the said lands so that the Plaintiff·s claim to the said land might be, tried, but the Defendant declined to bring any such action. 13. TEE Plaintiff desires to perpetuate the testimony of the said Thomas Bitchie·as to the nature and duration of such oocupation by the said Thomas Ritchie and Robert Hutton Ritchie () and the testimony of the Plaintiff himself as to such occupation . by himself of the said three islands in the event of any action or proceeding being brought to recover possession of the said three islands and to eject the Plaintiff therefrom.

~ Plaintiff prays that this Honourable Court will order that the evidence of the Plaintiff and of the said Thomas Ritchie touohing the matters stated herein be taken before the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Wellington, in order that their testimony may be preserved and perpetuated and that the depositions I I •

4.

when taken shall remain to perpetuate the memory thereof and to be used in case of the death of the witnesses as there shall be occasion.

i'

)

) )

( )

,~ , '- ,f.' ~he/~~~ ff/l.~~~UL-Cdt.~. ~~ t:/JV' ~ ~ Affe~lx 7 CC , \.' "'"-" . . ~~~\ . JOHN MATTHIAS BARKER on his oath saith as follows,- ,~·,"'~t:';;;.' ~;~:!~. MY name is John Matthia.s Barker of Waihi, South Canterbury,

() Sheepfarmer - I am the plaintiff in this aotion - I know the t;:~::;J;{...... qwhanga Lagoon in the Chatham Islands - I own it - I purchased : '. •: those Island'! from the National ltortgage and Agency !,;ompany of Hew Zealand Limited - I bought It in 1894 - The Deed of Conveyanoe " produoed. is the ccinveyanae made to me by the Rational lio,rtgage and Agenoy Company (Exhibit nO"J - I paid all the purchase money

~ong ago - The Islands marked in red ,on the map produoed as

,II ) . Exhibit "An are the islands I have referred to - Immediately after the oonveyance was signed and after I had pa.id the purohas'e

'moeny I took possession of t~e islands - I have remained in . ..; '<~J ·~.:I.. ,. : •. :: '.' . . .'. . ' (~ undisturbed possession of them.,-ever::since;';;' 1- am still in posseS'aiq; ,";'ot:them r:',,'de.rstand - When I took posBQssion of the islands I r~;;! '. , stoak' on them for some time - I made some arran;sementa for Messrs.' ., .Macdonald and Rhodes to use tl1,e three islands - Messrs ltacdonald ,,~. ' .. . ) and Rhodes we~e the owhers of portion of the 'mainland known as Xaingarahau - The oonsideration for my permitting them to' use . these islands was that I might use JOO aores of the mainland - I never allowed anyone to use the islands exoept Maodonald'and Rhodes - I never asked for or reoeived permission from any other person to use these islands - At low tide it was possible to drfve stocle

from these islands to the mainland - that was at ~e lowest' water ,f I do not think there was much fenoing oh the is~ands to keep. the " ,:~' stock there - not muoh was needed - there ·may have bee~ an odd bit Since I bought these iSlands in 1894 stoak has been running on theI either by me or by Macdonald and Rhodes by my permission - As far . ~" as I know the title to these islands has never been investigated by the Native Land Court - I have been advised to take this action '.for the purpose of perfecting my title •

. X ..1ly;.:·'lfr.· Donnelly

,,'.. At the same' time as I bought these 1 sland I bought land on the

. '. " ... 4i::A:::::tw 2.

I mainland of the Chatham Islands from the National Mortgage and , ,, Agenoy Company. I have never lived at the Chatham Islands - I I ( 1 have been there lots of times· I had not visited the Ielands before I made this purohase in 1894 - I don't think so Ai'ter I bought the Ialande I used to go over to the Chathams onoe a

'.IiI.' ~ year - but I have no personal knowledge of the, islands in ~I • f " 'question in this aotion prior to 1894 - I have no knowledge of '\ t~e ownership or, ~ocupationof these islands p~ior to 1,.894:>'- Sinoe 1894 I have owned and oocupied them oontinuously either m.ys:elf or by Messrs. Macdonald and .rthodes - .tJlB.odonald. and Rhodes c 1 :) hs;ve oocupied these lalandB since about 1897 and I baae my ti tlEl'. :' ',' {on my am:l their oooupation with my oonsent and authority. {:: .; . R,eiWmine~ ;,'; "/ ,/'~ ola:f,m lias ever been made to these islands adversely to me. ,: : '.;::: !' l,lI'y name i:x~~tthiaen ie eometimes Bpelt with one "t". I am1i~e .,.,d: I' ! A':'j; n ,.J iperson mentioned in the deed of conveyanoe marlp~d It C where my / I l name is spelt~ith one ntn.

) .. t .r..

,,

.... I , r

.'. 't

. . ',- ' .. ..\ .. ,; ';1." <;:rz~~~~ ih<./ /~' .. ~-;~;i"" .. .. Arrro/i)( 7Cd)

/ .... ···.. ·· .. ;:~S;;:::: ::~: ;::.::.:::~~:h~:.::~l:::' :lymDuth. 1. am the (") ":~. ': I~,~ .. ..,_ , ',,;r.;;;',I.';,.;·-:r':'·· : )lerson ot that name reterred to in tho order for taking evidenoe.

. . '" /'" that· llr. 'John.' Mathias Barker ot Canterbury is taking pro- " .:1': ,')8:~eed:1ni's. tor'p,erpetuating testimony. concerning some land in the ,I I ) .~~_,"_'" Islandse' I' was born at Riohie's (!ova, Downpa.triok. County' I "'on 5th. Jlily 1843. I'lett Ireland in 1863 'when 20 ~f' aS~ 'andarriveci at Chr1~tchuro~ Rew Zeal'~ in the'same , . ~ ~ ' On" February' 1864 I went' t.o ~~~~~~~;:~~~;~~:~!';~;~:, 16th~ Cliat~ )slan.d~ ,~d ... :: , :".,: ..... , ~. ided the;e" oont1nuo~s11 till the year 1923, exoept tor', short ol'u,,: .. 'i:~":W.';', .,I'~.:. ", ..,. \.;' . : ..:,.:'.'. ' ...... •... :.~:, " . ',:-~tI. ~: :.~~ .•i::.;.:._ , viei'ts to New Zealand. On my arrival at the Chathame in, 'i ",.' ... ~,,,,.,.,, ...... ~6.4. ,I'toO:k:up:'l,o aoree at oka~a"point tro~ th~ ~a~'i~e~.'~/~;1 2,~rl!:b:;\::: t:nl:::~;) ~~;: J:::: :;;~:~:~~~~;f~J South Eastern side of, the 1ra1n Is~and known s.a Oweziga'.Run 'be1lig,l. "', . " .J 1 Whanga. .Lagoon: occupies' ~~ )

part' the kin Island and in the are 0' "larg~ at ~gO~~" "thr'~e: '\~J.. ,I . ,J ..,

". la.rgest is Waikawa. Area may be oonsiderably more or less. ( i . run extended tor some d1st.ance to the Horth ot the three islands" ( ) , . , :i·to ~garau' Lake. 'the islands a.re shown in red on the plan" . I , ; ',. ";. >:arid ma:rk~d 'Xxh! b1 t 'J.:.' ~ n..i .acIJ 01n.< tJ,~ )1~~~~~· ./;1I7';~ The spaces between th~ mainland and each island,'.·~ :; .' ...... :oould be"forded or were dry at low tide. Whanga Lagoon had an . :" '-iitlet to the eea. on the J~astern Bide ot these three Isla.nde and was 1 'j . ':',~onsequently atfect.ad to Bome extent by the tide. When Itirat ;.J ',IWaik~~a~in:"i864, Rakatau, a .ua.or1 Ch1et, had a pah at .. ·:~tara.e .:j .. ' ~h1oli:1s-:C:;n' the Western side of the Lagoon oPp~~lie Waikawa.·· and the·J, { I , '. . " .J "'<>...I,-CDt p'o'int thereto on that side. Rakatau had Mor1or1 slaves.·:;j j ,i I bolieve their title to the .~

" In 186& there' was· a wl1a.re and I , " . " huts'and Bome' Qultivation in. the bush a.t Ylaikawa bel~nging t

'. oompleted and registered. .The persons who signed the conveyanoe were - o~nBidered the owners. I never heard afterwards that tnere was any question about Rakatau's title, or about the titlo or any of those i i who .. signed the deed.. My tl tle afterwards was never qu.estioned. I

knew the natives intimutoly. I had a lot or dealings with tne~. .l)u.ring the time 1 was on the Island no ole-1m waD made' adversely to me 0.1 ( i , ' .'~'~~ ',! ," : ...... ~.~:

I .. '~J~·brother. Att~r my brother and I vaoated To Awapa~ik:l and the '.three \j: { I '. " I\,. :'.:o::··:X;.:';~,i~~B I oont.inued t.o reside at Waitangi till 1923. lAtter' Mr. '.Barke~:; ~ ." ...... ',' '; ", Ka.lngaroa I removed my s took to Wai tangi. After . .

( ) the ,shepherds told me that Messrs. MoDonald and Rhodes ~ere

). tha tb:ree lagoon j,slands b~ arrangement with l!r. :Barker.,

I am aware Mr. Barker'e titles were never qU~8~lo~ed whioh .:1 on the. Chathnms that i8 to say the title to the .~ro,·e· islands,. ,]

ad by .t.!!r.: ,.~~s~_on. etatloJ's, Owenga and .Ka.lngaroa, and the no'rthern' bo~dar.y.~ • • ~!' " '. _,: .-,'.' .. -I; .:, ;.9wenga w~ Kangarahu, IUld Ks.ingaroa was north otKangarahu.·,t····.lt

) my ) ::~~ Kainga;o~.harbDur. borther lived at Oweng<:J. •. ~·-b~~~he/::i .' '<., , . ... ~ ;\~~'\ .;~;;::'~;r.I~!I'~''';;~'::L..easeq~ . 6we~ga .from 1870 to 1891. Seven years before the le'&1 . . .. " '. .'" . l'~~'::~{~ .•d:.~man· named Hood oame over tos:::r:a::. ~:f:::e:9:~:' ...... ~ (I people sent a man down 'as .r.w.nnger •. When the lease ~}I<~:VlIrUDg/i..ran out in 1891 this m&J1 sold the" took on Owenga. 'to· 'Rood. ,:; ~: ot Owenga. . My. brother did n'ot;,:re~in a.t , I ~, . . . <~ . li:/:; :~.7.~~,,,:·~. " ',' 'l'~~'r over. I understand that.. H~o::~:r.:mo:~~a.ged;:O~~~

( ) KoDo~~ld.and Rhode.s. •. I oan I t remember how long H~Q~::·lla:d<:~~~~i~~: ," ,'" l' .' • • , ,:. ,:.~:"": ',,', ': :,~"',~ :,. <.. :': ;" .;- :~:-I"~.:,~. ·;,,·~~~!t.'l~!.,:.~~~;a;· 1891 but.1 t. may l1ave been three or tour ye:ars ,"·I·:am:.1.lo.t.certain . " '. :...... :.. ~<.: .. '.: .. '.::.:.;': .~ ..... ,:;:~;.;.:::i·. 1j.u.'lu"v.~e:VE?r: had:·.WlVthing to co wi th·thethi'ee iBlandsi'.'in tllie: J.8.i£oon~ Idft. '.. . , ': . ',>.~';:~~::\:¥~'.: .. :~~~':;;'\." '.':"., "~': . ,·rr4 of Hi tohia lbt"oe. t'ree~Dld' anf1'::'~~'~f~~~;~t~~.:~~' ( j our Jlortgm.gees~ I unde.r~.~,9:~~.~.;~:~llat ¥aDon~.fff .;:. "..... /" :. ' '. ,:: ~~~i,·'t UBC ot ·5'00 acres at Ka.r~gi'~afUl.U "part or: (;;

.'·:~<~enga. in:return for the use o:f the .three l1nalan19d2s3T.··~~~I:"I. rbe:.le·aitC,V.. ethatht·at)t;I:.I.""I.;' ..,:J,a,DifOI:LIlt:ut msted·untill; lett ·Wa,1.~angi ~ - .. '," ", .. ' " ·.·':t\~!'''Ji!''''-,,+,L;e ..··.Br:09 •. ha.d.. 'posse8oion ot 'the Islands until Barker took over. / .. . ;•. ,!.,;".' : .. .. ' ". '. \' . " .. ' ... '., ·t.e;, population in those days was about 200, and: a:fter 1868 the. ,":'. ,.