IDUPLICATE] Wai903,#A56
Murimotu and Rangipo-Wain 1860-2000
. ~ A Report Commissioned
By the Waitangi Tribunal
Nicholas Bayley
June 2004 Contents Page
LIST OF TABLEs ...... •...... ••••...... •...... •...... 3 LIST OF MAPs ...... •...•...... •...... 3 REPORT FOR RANGIPG-WAIU AND MURIMOTU BLOCKS ....•..•....••....•...... •..•••...... ••.•.•.•. 15
INTRODUCTION ...... •....•...... •...... •..••...... ••..•.•...•...... ••.•...... 15 1. CHAPTER 1: INITIAL BACKGROUND AND PARTICIPANTS ...... 20
2. CHAPTER 2: MURIMOTU AND RANGIPG-WAIU FROM 1860 TO 1875 ...... 28
2.1. THE NATIVE LAND COURT INVESTIGATION OF MURIM:OTU TO 1873 ...... 33 2.2. COMPETING INTERESTS AND DEVELOPMENTS AROUND MURIM:OTU AND RANGIPO-WAID ...... •...... 39 2.3. DISCUSSION ...... •...... •....••••.•...... •...... •••...... •...... •...... •...... 61 3. CHAPTER 3: EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH LEASING BY THE CROWN FROM 1875 TO 1877 ...... 65
3.1. IDENTIFYING THE LESSORS ...... •...... ••.•...... •...... •...... •...... 65 3.2. DISCUSSION ...... ••...... ••.•...... •. 79 4. CHAPTER 4: MURIMOTU FROM 1877 TO 1882 ...... 82
4.1. DIVISIONS AND DECISIONS AT MURIM:OTU .....•.....•...... •...... •...... •.•...... •.•••...•. 82 4.2. DISCUSSION: ••...... : ...... •...... 99 5. CHAPTER 5: RANGIPG-WAIU FROM 1877 TO 1882 ...... 102
5.1. DISSENSION ATRANGIPO-WAIO...... •...... •.•••.•...... •.•...••.•...... •...... 102 5.2. KEMP'S TRUST AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSE .....•..•.•.•...••...... •...... •...... •...... 107 5.3. RANGIPO-WAiO GOES THROUGH THE NATIVE LAND COURT ...... •...... 114 5.4. THE RANGIPO-MURIM:OTU AGREEMENT VALIDATION ACT DEBATES ...... •.. 127 5.5. DISCUSSION: ...... •.....•...... •.••.....•..•...... •••...... •....•...•..•...... •. 134 6. CHAPTER 6: LEASING, ALIENATION AND THE MAIN TRUNK RAILWAY ...... 141
6.1. BACKGROUND TO THE COMING OF THE MAIN TRUNK RAILWAY •...... ••..•...... •...•...... •....•.•.....•• 141 6.2. LEASING AND SUBDIVISION IN THE MURIM:OTU TO 1900 ...... 146 6.~. RANGIPO-WAiO PROCEEDINGS FROM 1884 TO 1900 ...... 169 6.4. DISCUSSION .•...... •...... •••.•...... ••...... •...... 181 7. CHAPTER 7: TWENTIETH CENTURY ALIENATION ...... 195
7.1. MURIM:OTU •....•...... •...... •...... ••..••...... •...... •...... ••.•••••.•...... •...... • 195 7.2. RANGIPO-WAiO ...... •.....•...•...... •...... •...... 207 7.3. DISCUSSION ..••.••.••.•.•..•...... •...... •.....•...... •...... •...... ••••.•••...... •..•...... •...... • 223 8. CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION ...... 227
8.1. SUMMARY TO THE NATIVE LAND COURT DECISIONS ...... •...... •••.•.•...... ••..••...... 230 8.2. SUMMARY TO THE END OF THE LEASE PERIOD ..••...... •.•...... •....•....•...•...... •...... •...... •...... • 232 8.3. SUMMARY OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ...... ••...•...... •.....•...... •...... •...... 235 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 237
ApPENDIX 1 ...... 246
2 List o/Tables
Table 1: Crown Payments on Murimotu p.68 Table 2: Crown Payments on Murimotu p.78 Table 3: Crown Payments on Murimotu p.91 Table 4: Leasing and non-leasing arrangements from 1884 in Murimotu p.151 Table 5: Block Lease Details p.154 Table 6: Allocation of Rent by the Government from Murimotu p.166 Table 7: Crown Purchases on the Murimotu Blocks from 1892 to 1901 p.167 Table 8: Crown Expenditure, including incidentals, for land purchase in Murimotu p.168 Table 9: Leasing and Non-leasing arrangements from 1884 in Rangipo-Waifi p.175 Table 10: Allocation of Rent by the Government from Rangipo-Waifi p.177 Table 11: Crown Purchases on the Rangipo-Waifi Blocks from 1892 to 1901 p.179 Table 12: Crown Expenditure, including incidentals, for land purchase in Rangipo Waifi. p. 180 Table 13: The Progress of Land Alienation from 1881 to 2000 p.228
Listo/Maps
Map 1: Murimotu and Rangipo-Waifi p.4 Map 2: Rangipo-Waifi p.5 Map 3: Murimotu p.6 Map 4: Rangipo-Waifi blocks p.7 Map 5: Murimotu blocks p.8 Map 6: Rangipo-Waifi leases p.9 Map 7: Murimotu leases p.10 Map 8: Rangipo-Waifi partitions p.ll Map 9: Murimotu partitions p.12 Map 10: Section of Murimotu, approx 1926, block divisions P .13 Map 11: Section of Rangipo-Waifi B, approx 1930, block divisions p.14
3 '. \ \ . ~~ Tama Lakes ; ~ \ , \ , / .''1... ,\ // --<" -,...... \ ~~uapehU .r----';--" "'-. ------./-' /"\.:1> __ _ . j. --- / / :/ II. . . ' / ;y J " .,t'l} • ( ~<§$
O~~~~~~~1~O======~~~ o 12milu
,r"'""·' ...... -·,. t! Ruanui '( \"" ( '-.---.
Murimotu Rangip6- Wain boundary ~ Crown forest land block boundaries 184.2 sq km 393.3sqkm main trunk railway 18,420ha 39,330ha :& 45,520ac 97100 ae Fi 9 1 : Muri motu and Rangipo - WaiQ
4 Fig 2: Rangipo-WaiQ
5 Pou a Poto -1'"1-
TeWakahuhi o : 1 Fig 3: Murimotu 6 Rangipo.Waiii No.2 30,000 acres *Il':f;- -:.~ .t'!' .~'" 1;" :;~;. £ Ngamatea .>:~>Swamp t :.t i . !t... ~~ Fig 4: RangipO-WaiO blocks 7 •• Waitangl Stream ... r· .J ."ToTaupo ) ..:- ( ( Makiakia Stream ... -~ J ::::::...... \;:{.. -"To Waipuna Fig 5: Murimotu blocks 8 Rangipo·Waiii No.2 (30,000 acres) 27,143 ae.leased to Crown Fig 6: Rangipo-WajQ leases 9 o J Fig 7: Murimotu leases 10 Rangipo·Walii No.2A (27,143 acres) 22,546 ac. Crown land Fig 8: Rangipo-WaiU partitions 11 ~ Wai/angi Stream r : o 10kln, o SmUes Fig 9: Murimotu partitions 12 Wallang/ Tribunal. Nfl. May 21m c ~ ~ (. ... ~ ~ -.; ~ 1 ~ ?, ~ -~y 10: 1\("AT!N(}A.KA"k.ETrr'" Fig 10: Section of Murimotu approx 1926 - Block divisions 13 ~ :~r'-'; ' .I ctJ) o ·en :2: "C g m I g .....CJ) >< ec.. c.. ro m I::J ~ 1 10 Ec.. '0 g +=I ~ ..... u::0) MaplJ Section of Rangipo-Waiu B approx 1930 -Block divisions Report for Rangipo-Wain and Murimotu blocks The Author: My name is Nicholas Bayley. I am a researcher with the Waitangi Tribunal. I hold a BA (Hons.) from Victoria University and a PhD from Trinity College, Dublin, both in history. After returning from Europe, I was an historian of British and Irish Immigration in the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, before coming to the Tribunal. Introduction This report requires an investigation of the Rangipo-WaiU and Murimotu blocks (cf. Map 1), with a view to unpicking and making sense of a complex series of negotiations, conflicted developments, and a process of land alienation, which had a dramatic effect on Maori land ownership and their subsequent ability to use resources in these blocks. The Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii blocks now comprise a vast expanse of tussock and grassland country, broken by the Karioi Forest in the north-west ofMurimotu, Waiouru as the only town of any size, and Lake Moawhango, on the mid-eastern side of Rangipo Waiii. Waterways running through these blocks include the Waipahihi Stream and Moawhango River, which mark the eastern boundary of Rangipo-Waiii, and the Waitangi Stream, the Makahikatoa Stream and the Whangaehu River. In the 1860s, this was high country similar to that of central Otago, and was attractive to settlers of this period for similar reasons. Forests did not have to be cleared before farms could be established, and large areas might be leased for grazing runs. As the best land of the South Island was taken up, the few remaining lands of New Zealand that offered similar opportunities drew attention. From the early l870s, John Russell, John Studholme and Thomas Morrin - after whom Morrlnsville was later named - sought to lease land in the Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii area, and it was the attempt to lease by these private concerns that initiated the 15 negotiation, conflicts, and confrontations which were to characterise this region in the 1870s and 1880s. In the beginning, as explored in the report, the term Murimotu was often used as a general term to cover areas considerably wider than the Murimotu block itself. The Murimotu block emerged, therefore, through the creation and naming of blocks, as driven by the needs, interests and processes of the various parties. The boundaries of what became Rangipo-WaiU were somewhat clearer, but conflict eventuated in trying to establish who was entitled to what. The processes of continuing land alienation, in particular the land that was acquired for the Main Trunk Railway and what later became Karioi Forest, as well as ongoing twentieth century alienation, continue a story of engagement between Pakeha and Maori, with which this report attempts to grapple. In January 2002, Dr Grant Phillipson, the Chief Historian of the Waitangi Tribunal, reviewed all completed Whanganui research and identified a range of projects necessary to complete a casebook of evidence for the Whanganui Inquiry. One of these was a report on the Rangipo-Waiii and Murimotu blocks. Discussion of the proposed research programme continued with a series of questionnaires and hui in mid-2002 and agreement was reached among the claimant community that the Rangipo-Waiii Murimotu project should proceed as one of a series of big block histories as part of the Whanganui inquiry casebook. In December 2003, Dr Nicholas Bayley was commissioned to write a scoping report on the block, which he completed on 30 January 2004. 1 Dr Nicholas Bayley was then commissioned, on 2 February 2004, to complete a substantive report on the alienation of the Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii blocks by 28 June 2004. Issues that arise when investigating the alienation process concern the identification and nature of differing and competing tribal interests, the personalities involved and how they affected developments, and competing visions between Maori and Pakeha as to what productive engagement should mean. Crucially, how did these general factors 1 Nicholas Bayley, Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiu 1860-2000 Scoping Report. (Waitangi Tribunal, January 2004) 16 impact in practice in the Rangipo-Waiii and Murimotu blocks? Investigation is, therefore, driven by a series of general questions. What did Maori groups hope to achieve through negotiations? What did Pakeha interests hope to achieve? What was the nature of Pakeha interest, and what position did the Crown adopt in supporting various interests against others, if it did so? What initiated interest conflict and through what means were resolutions sought? What courses of action were open to the Crown, and why were some courses of action preferred and with what consequences? What chance did Maori have to bring about outcomes favourable to themselves? Did bad faith play any part in negotiation, and if bad faith can be shown to have influenced negotiations, who gained and who lost most from this? What were the outcomes for Maori over time? Addressing these questions requires a clearer understanding of the course of events in these blocks. To that end, the research report focuses on the following broad research themes: a. A brief introduction to the Murimotu area noting the different Maori groups that have interests in and around the lands to the South of Mt. Ruapehu; b. The history of the Rangipo-Waiii and Murimotu blocks from the time of the Governments' (both Provincial and Colonial) early interest in the Murimotu area from the 1860s and the arrival of European pastoralists in the 1870s; c. Negotiations for grazing and then leasing of the blocks and early attempts at the block's survey; d. The Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act of 1882 and the subsequent alienation of the blocks by sale; 17 e. The Crown's acquisition ofthe land within Rangipo-Waiii and Murimotu upon which Karioi forest now stands and the on the acquisition of the land for the Main Trunk Railway; f. The twentieth century history of the land (takings for military purposes will be treated in a separate report)? This research report seeks to flesh out these themes (a-f), bringing together existing research, and that specifically undertaken for this report, to help understand better what happened in Murimotu and Rangip6-Waiii, and how Maori and the Crown related to each other. In particular, this report has drawn extensively on Paula Berghan's Block Research Narratives ofthe Whanganui District 1865-2000 A Resource Document for Whanganui District Treaty Issues, (Oct, 2002), and acknowledgement is here given for the invaluable assistence they provided, especially with the document bank and the Native Land Court court hearings. R. Anderson, Whanganui Land Loss and Protest in the Nineteenth Century, Wai 167 C2, (April,1994), Whanganuilwi and the Crown, 1865-1880, Draft (October,1999) and Whanganui 1wi and the Crown, 1880-1900, Draft (March,1998), as well as Cross S. and Bargh B., The Whanganui District, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series District 9, (April,1996) and Marr C., Whanganui Land Claims Historical Overview, Report for the Office of Treaty Settlements (November, 1995) have also provided foundational research. Chapter 1 introduces some of the major individuals and parties, as well as providing a brief discussion of the Native Land Court and some factors of national consideration that came to bear on these blocks. Chapter 2 covers developments from the early 1870s, when the Native Land Court first became involved, to 1874, when the March 1874 agreement was signed. It concludes with a discussion of the issues raised, and this format of a concluding discussion is maintained in the following chapters. Chapter 3 looks at efforts to secure leases from Maori by the Government. Chapter 4 focuses on Murimotu from 1877 to 1882, when the Rangip6-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act 2 Direction Commissioning Research, cf Appendix 1 18 was signed. Chapter 5 investigates Rangipo-WaiU from 1877 to 1882, looking not only at the actions of the Native Land Court, but the conflicts that were generated concerning who owned and controlled what. It also looks at Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Bill debates. Chapter 6 looks at the background to the Crown's involvement in the blocks from 1882 to the end of the nineteenth century, and explores some of the factors that led to substantial land purchasing by the Crown in the blocks. Chapter 7 looks briefly at twentieth century alienation, followed by a conclusion, which summarises the major themes and fmdings of what has been investigated. 19 1. Chapter 1: Initial Background and Participants The broad terms 'Maori' and 'Pakeha' rarely do justice to the complexity of issues and relationships within a particular region, and Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii are no exception. Taking Maori first, the major groupings that participated in the history of these blocks are Ngati Rangi, Ngati Tamakopiri, Ngati Whitikaupeka and Ngati Waewae. Their vital connections with the land and each other are evidenced later in this report when evidence was presented in court during the 1880s. Battles had been fought, honour avenged, new allegiances established, people had been born and buried on these lands, such that, over time, the story of the land and Maori here had become deeply intertwined. These areas had been used for hunting birds and animals, for example weka, kiwi, mutton-birds and rats, as well as eeling. The land was a resource and a source of identity, a living map of peoples, events, and places. Connections, too, were intricate and complex among groups and individuals since, not only did Ngati Rangi break down into various hapii, such as Ngati Rangihaereroa, Ngati Rawhitiao, Ngati Rangipotaka and N gati Rangituhia, whose interests did not always coincide, but certain individuals could draw in other iwi or hapii connections. Indeed, the force of personality in the unfolding of issues within this block was striking. One such personality was Te Keepa Rangihiwinui (known also as Meiha Keepa or Major Kemp), of Rangituhia, who had affiliations with Ngati Ruaka, Ngati Tupoho of Te Ati Haunui-a-Paparangi, and Te Arawa. This major figure ofMuaupoko had been a very successful military leader in government service for six years, gaining the respect of both Pakeha and Maori. He also served as an assessor and land purchase officer. His energy, whakapapa and skill in both worlds gave considerable weight to the claims of Ngati Rangi, as a Whanganui iwi, against those of other iwi to the north and east of Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii. His strategies for engagement with the Crown, and criticism of Crown policies, came from an intimate knowledge of those policies. He did not act for or seek to cover the range of Ngati Rangi interests, however, as Aropeta Haeretuterangi of Rangipotaka and Winiata Te Puhaki ofRangituhia did not always agree with his actions. 20 Topia Peehi Turoa was a chief of Ngati Patu-tokotoko hapu ofTe Ati Haunui-a Paparangi of the upper-Wanganui River. After actively supporting the Kingite movement in the 1850s and 1860s, Topia agreed to bring two hundred of his men and join Te Keepa in pursuit ofTe Kooti in October 1869. However, opposing land interests in the Murimotu and Rangipo-WaiU blocks put Te Keepa and Turoa on a collision course, which was played out in the Native Land Court, with direct aggression only just avoided. Topia, in particular, represented the interests ofNgati Tama, although he claimed to represent Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngati Whiti, and Ngati Ika. He tenaciously ensured that the interests ofNgati Tama were argued in the Native Land Court, against the claims ofTe Keepa in particular, and was successful in obtaining official recognition ofNgati Tama's claims in the eastern Rangipo-Waiu lands. Te Heuheu Tukino Horonuku, of Tuwharetoa, represented the claims of Ngati Waewae to the lands in the north of Rangipo-Waiu, and was ultimately successful, in that Ngati Waewae claims were acknowledged by the Native Land Court. Renata Kawepo of Ngati Kahungunu also tried to lodge a claim over Murimotu lands, on the basis of sheep that he had begun to graze there in the 1860s. His claim was unsuccessful, and he grudgingly acknowledged the claims ofTe Keepa and Ngati Rangi to that region. These disputes, which are analysed in detail in the following chapters, indicate how disagreements among Maori were exacerbated by the need to establish title according to the demands of European law. This is not to claim that Maori did not want to engage with this process of title determination, for they believed, and had been promised, that benefits would follow. What investigation may show is the extent to which their necessary involvement with that process led them to a result, not of enhanced, but reduced opportunity. Where disadvantage was perceived as a real possibility, attempts to escape this led hitherto staunch supporters of the Government, such as Te Keepa, to take actions that almost resulted in war. A detailed account of the events surrounding Maori participation in the processes of adjudicating land title would go some way to 21 deciding to what extent the inability to use economic opportunities was the result of specific structural bias, as opposed to ignorance or disunity. Just as Maori involvement cannot be accUrately captured without some detailed distinctions, so too with Pakeha. Personalities contributed to evolving positions. Richard Woon, resident magistrate of Wanganui from 1870 to 1880, had generally been well respected by Maori, but his replacement, James Booth, was seen as more authoritarian and land-hungry. It did not help his popularity that he had been appointed by the Native Minister John Bryce. Bryce rigidly enforced the law against Maori who resisted the alienation of their land and greatly increased the power of the Native Land Court. Te Keepa was later to employ the services of the law firm of Basil Sievwright and Robert Stout, in his attempts to regain some control over land alienation processes. Stout, who later hecame Premier and Chief Justice of New Zealand, was also a political rival of John Bryce, a fact which perhaps prevented Bryce judging Te Keepa's land protection proposals with proper detachment. In the early 1880s, Te Keepa also drew support from John Ballance, editor of the Wanganui Herald, later an influential Native Affairs minister and Premier, who argued that Te Keepa was making a stand against land sharks, and was right to oppose the Government's policy, which Ballance himself also opposed. Bryce and Ballance held widely differing political views about the alienation of Maori land, with direct effects on the politics pursued in Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii. Private individuals and companies initiated the process that led to the need for the Native Land Court to operate in Murimotu and Rangipo-Wain, as indicated. The Crown had its own interests in terms of what it hoped to achieve by land acquisition. From a position of competition, the Crown came to an agreement with the private parties, and it was, from that moment, committed to bringing about a result favouring that agreement. As the Crown was both a contending party and adjudicator of disputes, the possibility of compromised decisions by the Crown, or pressures to reach compromised decisions, was greatly increased. Where the Government actively sought to obtain land, it was not just a question of taking land as such, but with a view to being able to do certain things with 22 it, for example to open it up for close settlement. Different visions of how land should be used were part of Pakeha political debate. The research report investigates how far Maori interests were compromised where their vision for their land clashed with Pakehii expectations about how land should be used. Politics favouring the small settler as opposed to the large land-holder, although part of Pakeha cultural and political struggle, affected Maori in so far as Maori land use may have approximated poles within that broader debate. It is also apparent, as a more detailed analysis of events shows, how sensitive many Pakeha were to the detrimental effects of certain policies on Maori, yet who were unable to promote workable options, criticising in turn the course of action Maori did adopt. . At different periods, certain opposing Pakeha interests would be supported by the Government, then others would fmd favour. Pakeha interests were not monolithic and the Government responded to various pressures. How far could Maori have expected the Government to respond sympathetically to their concerns, to put those concerns into the equation as part of the balance of interests to be weighed? Or were some institutions weighted in principle and in practice against Maori interests? What does the Murimotu and Rangipo-WaiU experience reveal on this score? Briefly then, something needs to be said about Pakeha institutions, in particular the Native Land Court, but also some of the key political debates about land use and vision for the country at the time. This has implications for the public works takings that the Government initiated in order to further its vision. The 1870s saw the promotion of policies to open up and develop the interior North Island for settlement. An important part of this was a massive programme of government-sponsored public works and immigration. By the early 1880s, one particular public works development had become vital, the North Island Main Trunk Railway, and this necessitated urgent engagement with Maori, including those in Murimotu. The effects of this engagement, in particular what it meant for leasing practice, will be investigated specifically as it affects the Murimotu. 23 The Native Land Court was established in the mid-1860s to provide a new, peaceful and less highly political means of determining customary title and transforming it into land title more easily used in the new economy. Many Maori were not opposed to this idea. They did want to be able to put some land into the new economy but they wanted to manage the process better than under the previous system, which had led to war in the early 1860s. For the purposes of this report, the Native Land Court requires some investigation in terms of its administrative practice on the ground, legislative provisions and amendments, and, most importantly in the Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiu region, the way the Land Court process and land purchasing had become so intertwined. Very briefly regarding the Court itself, after an initial attempt to set up in 1862, the Native Land Act w~s passed in 1865 by a Parliament in which Maori were not yet. represented and without any consultation with Maori. This inaugurated the system of investigation of customary title by the Native Land Court, usually followed by the issuing of certificates of title to successful claimants, which could then be used to obtain Crown grants, extinguishing customary title. Unless subject to restrictions by the Court, or limited to leases in the case of land which came before the Court after the 1867 Amendment Act, these were fully negotiable titles. Section 23 of the Native Land Act 1867 authorised the grant of title to only 10 persons, who could then individually alienate the tribal patrimony. Private direct purchase was also lawful. Crown or Government agents vied with one another to purchase the signatures of those awarded title, or paid them in advance and then supported their party in the contest in the Court.3 Later legislation attempted to curb the free trade in Maori land. Most notably the Maori Land Act 1873 required that the name of every person considered an owner, under custom, be included in the Memorial of Ownership approved by the Court. However, in one sense this only made it easier to acquire individual interests. It soon became the standard practice of Government and private agents alike to make advances to money to 3 See D.V. Williams, 'Te Kooti Tango Whenua' The Native Land Court 1864·1909, (Wellington 1999), especially chapters 6 and 7. 24 individuals, 'laying ground-bait' in preparation for the land being put through the Native Land Court and transferred to the prior purchaser of the interests. The Court had, therefore, become very closely involved with the process ofland alienation. The way the Native Land Court evolved (especially in association with land purchase efforts) did begin to cause Maori considerable concern. There was a wide range of responses on how to deal with this in Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiu, from Kemp's trust to willing engagement in an attempt to manage, or at least derive some benefit from, the process. The coming of the Main Trunk Railway further increased these tensions. Other considerations were the considerable burden that the Court imposed in tenns of time required to attend hearings, money needed for food and accommodation, skills needed to understand what was happening, and time lost from one's own work and community. The major problem arose through the inherent difficulty of translating communal right holding into an individual and absolute right of property ownership. The names of right holders were listed in a memorial of ownership attached to the title, but each of them could still deal with his or her interest individually and a transfer of land could be completed once the majority had consented and interests of the minority owners had been partitioned out. The listing of owners in this way did not reflect the old communal principles of customary ownership and, in fact, penalised Maori in their efforts to utilise their lands because it resulted in the fractionation of their interests. In these circumstances, Maori sometimes preferred to continue in the old practice of placing a few representative owners in the grant, and most especially if the block was being put through the Native Land Court in preparation for immediate sale. This system of title remained in place for the rest of the nineteenth century. Successive settler-dominated parliaments continued to pass land laws that vitally affected Maori land ownership and powers of self-management. These later changes, even when supposed to address problems which had been exposed in the operation of the Native Land Court system, failed to touch the basic individualising principle which underlay 25 the early legislation. Nor did they stop the destructive consequences of loss of community control over land. Instead, the land title system became so hopelessly tangled that, in the opinion of some Whanganui Maori in 1880, the laws 'were embarrassing, confusing, conflicting, impracticable, tending to delay, and in some parts unjust.,4 The condemnation was reiterated, ten years later, by the Native Land Laws Commission of 1891 : So complete [had] the confusion both in law and practice become that lawyers of high standing and extensive practice have testified that if the Legislature had desired to create a state of confusion and anarchy in Native-land titles it could not have been more successful than it has been.5 Given the extraordinary difficulties that arose when two completely different ideological conceptions of land and land use met, the question still remained as to how far this situation of complexity was used by parties who had to make sense of it. A distinction can be drawn between the interests of parties, for example Maori interests, private party interests and Crown interests, and the extent to which these sometimes competing interests would be advantaged or disadvantaged by the processes established to defmed or express these interests. This report asks how far did the Crown adapt its processes, or respond to Maori pressure to adapt, so as to allow Maori a proper opportunity to pursue their interests? Were the processes and outcomes compatible with whatever conception of Maori interest that the Crown may have had? Overall, a discussion of how the Native Land Court functioned in relation to Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii. is needed, since so much of what happened was driven by what this Court determined. Finally, the processes of alienation, and the context and debates around which this occurred in the twentieth century need investigation. Land taken for defence purposes will not be considered in this report, as it is covered in a report commissioned for Phillip Cleaver, but the question remains as to whether other land was taken, for what reasons and in what circumstances. This would include, of course, an investigation of the 4 Petition in MA-Wang 1/10 5 AJHR, 1891, G-l, p. xi 26 circumstances behind the acquisition of any more Maori land, if any more still needed to be acquired, on which Karioi Forest now stands. This chapter has sketched out some of the general issues when considering the Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii region. The next chapters deal in detail with the impact on the ground of these major personalities, forces and concerns. This should lead to greater understanding of the dramatic and complex series of events surrounding Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii. 27 2. Chapter 2: Murimotu and Rangipo-Waifi from 1860 to 1875 Although for the fIrst fIfteen years after the signing of the Treaty, large-scale land acquisitions had occurred in the South Island and in certain North Island areas such as the Wairarapa and Hawkes Bay, the land to the interior of the North Island was not initially under similar pressure. The lack of land purchase activity during this period was due to a number of factors, probably including the isolation of the region and the legacy of fear left from conflict in the 1840s. More importantly though, during the 1850s there was a growing reluctance among Maori throughout the North Island to sell land, prompted by an increasing number of disputes over land. This shift has been linked to the emergence of the Kingitanga movement, which has been described as 'an attempt to stem the tide of European colonisation by uniting the tribes into an anti landselling confederation,.6 By 1860, in the face of pressure to consider options to either relinquish land or to resist the possibility of land sales, Whanganui Maori felt obliged to call a meeting at Kokako to confmn their traditional boundaries: The boundaries of this land were fIxed in 1860. That was the year when the King and Topia seceded. A meeting was then called at Kokako. These were the boundaries dividing off the lands of Kingi and Topia, and preventing the sale of the land to Europeans (within said boundaries).7 At the 1881 hearing for Rangipo-Waiii, Winiata Te Puhaki ofNgati Rangi explained the several catalysts which led to the calling of the 1860 Kokako meeting: Hori Kingi convened the meeting at Kokako in 1860. Hemi, Pirika, Te Meihana, Te Oti Pohe, also took part ill calling the meeting. Tuwharetoa, Ngatiwhiti, Ngatikahungunu, Ngatiteupokoriri, Ngatiapa, with the Whanganui went to that meeting. The meeting was to lay down the boundary line of the land belonging to the Whanganui people. The line was laid down because the Ngatiapa were selling their lands, also the Ngatiraukaura, Ngatiteupokoriri and Ngatikahungunu, and because some of Ngatiwhiti and Ngatitama had 6 M.P.K. Sorrenson, 'Maori and Pakeha', in W.H. Oliver (ed.), The Oxford History ofNew Zealand, (Auckland, 1988), p. 180 725 Feb 1880, Te Keepa to Bryce, Le (Legislative Council) 1 1880/151 28 intermingled with the Ngatikahungunu and Ngatiteupokoriri in agreeing to sell land. And because the Tuwharetoa were joining the King. 8 What this evidence indicated was both a willingness by some Maori to alienate land for whatever reason, and an attempt to establish limits to what lands different Maori groupings believed they had claims to. These patterns continued through the 1860s. Government officials commented on the largely positive attitude of Whanganui Maori in the post-war era was commented on by Government officials. This was noted even among upriver iwi who were regarded as among the strongest supporters of the King movement. The correspondence of Richard Woon, the resident magistrate for upper Whanganui from 1870 to 1880, documented the emergence of the new mood. Woon noted that he had: been assured by all the principal chiefs, Pehi, Tahana, Topia, and Topine, that the up river Natives are desirous for peace, and that they have no intention of supporting the Waikato, and that they are anxious the Wanganui tribes should again become a united people under the Government.9 The early 1870s witnessed a series ofhui that attempted to resolve the divisions among Whanganui iwi and formulate a coherent policy on land selling. At one of these hui, held at Parikino in May 1871, and attended by most of the Whanganui and Ngatiapa chiefs and by representatives from Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Whiti, the aim, as reported by Woon, was to arrive at an understanding of the boundaries owned by these iwi, that is: of the territory lying between the Wanganui River on the one side, and the Rangitikei on the other, and stretching up country from a point on the Rangitikei River, inland to the base of Tongariro. lO The boundaries were' for the most part' agreed to, in order to prevent any future misunderstanding, and for the reason proposed by Te Keepa of securing a subdivision of 8 26 April 1881, evidence ofWiniata Te Puhaki, Rangipo-Waiu case, NLC Taupo MB2, pp. 119-120 9 6 January 1871, Richard Woon, letter book, MA Wanganui, 211 10 14 June 1871, Woon to Halse, MA Wanganui, 2/1 29 the land belonging to the Whanganui iwi among the various hapu and their members. In fact this meant: the carrying out of a scheme having for its object the individualisation of the Native title, and the occupation of the land by a Native Proprietory, the selling of any portion of the block being strictly prohibited. Major Kemp is the originator of this scheme, and the Meeting included Tahana, Topia, and other influential chiefs, who were entirely with him, and expressed themselves accordingly.ll Iwi clearly wanted to maintain some control over the impact of new developments. In particular, they wanted to maintain some form of control over the administration of their land and they wanted enough of it to secure their future prosperity. They saw the maintenance of some form of tribal authority as crucial to achieving this. Te Keepa's 'scheme' was an obvious precursor to the 'trust' he was to establish later. Iwi were also attracted to alternative methods of deriving income from remaining lands other than selling. Leasing was consistently a preferred alternative. The reasons seemed obvious, as leasing still enabled Maori to derive an income from the land but at the same time they retained control and ultimate ownership of it. As they gained experience, they could also perhaps begin ventures such as farming developments themselves. However, many of the apparent advantages of leasing proved illusory. This was largely due to the nature of the land legislation and the Crown's purchase tactics, as will be explored later in this report. A major problem was that to have a legally binding lease agreement, Maori had to prove they were the legal owners of the land they wanted to lease. To do this, which in principle they did not oppose, they were forced into the Land Court system, with its alien conceptions of land tenure and authority. Those familiar with its workings, such as Te Keepa, warned of its dangers: . 11 Ibid, 14 June 1871, Woon 30 We do not condemn the old Court, but we are anxious to have some alterations. Under the present system, men lose their lands; others get land that does not belong to them, because they are strong to talk. There is much confusion also about the Crown grants. 12 In addition, the Land Court process resulted in a list of names that could be individually targeted and pressured by land purchase agents for purchasing purposes. The Government certainly played a part in initiating considerations as to the leasing or selling of land by Maori. In fact the evidence suggests that it was precisely the Government, through its interest in acquiring land in this district, which changed the dynamics of relationships that Maori were attempting to enter into with private parties. That there were interested European parties who wished to have access to the land in Murimotu was clear, as will be explored. The Government was involved early as an interested, if cautious, party, but one whose authority was to give it power in determining the shape of negotiations. On 7 September 1871, the Native Minister Donald McLean wrote to Land Purchase Officer James Booth: You will have received from the Public Works Department a communication intimating that it is the intention of the Government to acquire from the Natives, if practicable, certain blocks of land between Whanganui and Taupo, for the purpose of colonisation and settlement. It is yet uncertain whether the Native owners are generally disposed to cede any large extent of territory in that direction; and you will, therefore, have the goodness, in conjunction with Lieut.-Colonel McDonnell, to place yourself in communication with the chiefs of the district lately explored by yourself for road works. You will ascertain if they are inclined to alienate any tract of land available for settlement, and if so, to what extent; and you will report the result of your observations. You will, however, understand that it is not the wish of the Government to press these transactions on the Natives, should they appear reluctant to enter upon them, and that they are to be carried out only if a disposition is evinced favourable to the introduction of European settlers in the district. 13 12 '- .! 29 July 1871, Te Keepa to Haultain, Appendix to Colonel Haultain's Report on the Working of the Native Land Court Acts, AJHR, 1871, A-2A, p. 39 13 AJHR, 1873, G. - 8, No. 34 31 In response to this interest from private parties and from the Government, Maori had an interest in proving who would be recognised as the legal owners of their land, so as to establish who had the right to enter into negotiations with Pakeha, and to receive payments. As noted, this had to be done through the Native Land Court, and in February 1868, some interested Maori from the Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii region initiated title investigation. The following chapter describes the history of the two blocks from the initial application to hear the Murimotu area in 1868, to the stalling of negotiations in 1875. The major parties and issues are investigated through their involvement with the processes of the Native Land Court. What will be explored are a range of competing interests for both Pakeha and Maori, as well as the Crown's emergence as a major interested party in the outcome of decisions taken concerning Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiu. 32 2.1. The Native Land Court investigation ofMurimotu to 1873. During an 1882 Court hearing concerning Murimotu, Dr Walter Buller (not to be confused with John Buller, a Government agent), outlined how the block had been brought before the Court: The Claim was originally brought by Aropeta Haeretuterangi about February 1868. First called 14 January 1869, and again 12 August of the same year, being on both occasions adjourned on the ground of there being 'No appearance and no survey'. The area of the block was at that time undetermined. On the 6th January in the following year (1870) the case was once more before the Court, the same Judge presiding on this occasion also; and the land still being unsurveyed, the application was dismissed: Judge Smith minuting on the papers, 'No survey; Claimant to send in fresh application' . In accordance with this decision, on the i h October 1870, Aropeta got Dr Buller to draw up a fresh claim, and signed and forwarded it. The boundaries set forth in this were nearly the same as those previously given, but a little more extended; including now certain land claimed by Winiata Te Puhaki. These are the boundaries of this block as now surveyed. 14 What this indicated was a persistent desire to have the land go through the Native Land Court, presumably with a view to establishing secure title, and a willingness to engage appropriately skilled Europeans to effect this more efficiently. What also was emerging was the presence of other parties in the block who also had interests, and this revelation of other parties was to continue: This claim came before the Court in June 1871, and this also was dismissed, - but the papers show no reason for such dismissal. Another application was then sent in, bearing date the 21 st of September 1871; and on this occasion Aropeta gave in not his own name solely, - as had been the case with the former applications lodged in respect of this Murimotu Block, - but the names of ten Chiefs as principal owners; the list including 1414 Apri11882, Whanganui MB 5, pp. 78-80, Paula Berghan, Supporting Papers, Volume 10, pp. 5307- 5308. These supporting papers, for Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiu, have been used extensively throughout this report as a very convenient collection of the major documents concerning these blocks. 33 Kemp, Mete Kingi and Poari Kuramate. This Claim was gazetted on 2nd October 1871. 15 On 6 December 1871, the Murimotu block was brought before the Native Land Court by Aropeta Haeretuterangi and others ofNgati Rangi. The surveyor DH Monro produced a sketch plan of Murimotu boundaries from a description given to him by the claimants. He stated that no portion of this block had been surveyed and that he had 'never been on the land'. Monro was aware that the block was situated south of Mount Ruapehu and imagined that it contained no less than 1,000,000 acres. He noted that the claimants proposed to survey the block if they obtained a decision from the Court in their favour. 16 When Aropeta Haeretuterangi appeared before the Court and gave evidence, he submitted a list often proposed grantees. ill addition, a total of 45 other persons were identified as being interested in Murimotu.17 At this stage, Te Ritimona Te Rango who belonged to Ngati Whiti and Ngati Tuwharetoa, stated that he had only found out about the block being brought before the Court when attending to other business. He noted that 'ifmy people had heard they would have come that is if they had considered it necessary'. Although Aropeta Haeretuterangi responded to this challenge, the Court declined to proceed with the case in the absence of a survey as it was apparent that the ownership was disputed. 18 Later evidence was given on the survey of Murimotu, which then took place following this Court case. This revealed that the boundaries of the Murimotu block were largely shaped by opposition being raised from various groups as the survey party progressed. As Henare Haeretu Te Rangi noted during the 1893 Rangiwaea hearing: ill 1872 Murimotu was surveyed. After the Turangarere meeting the people came to Te Aro. We commenced the survey at Pouotaimaringi. Winiati was 15 Ibid, 14 Apri11882, Supporting Papers, p. 5308; cf also New Zealand Government Gazette, 14 November 1871, No. 27, p. 152 16 6 December 187-1, MLC Wbanganui MB No 10, p.423, BerghanSupportingPapers Vol. 10, p.5281 17 Ibid, pp 423-428, Supporting Papers Vol. 10, pp 5281-5286 18 Ibid, p. 428, Supporting Papers Vol. 10, p.5286 34 with Te Aro then and Poma too, and all the N[gati] Rangi. We came to the Karioi part of the block - commencing at Tipae Hinekupa and we went on towards Ruapehu; at Makahikatoa, N[gati] Tama and N[gati] Whiti obstructed us. We had a fight there and the survey was stopped. When we 19 got to Waione, Winiata came to obstruct US. That the Ngati Rangi claimants were obstructed in their intentions to carry the Murimotu survey through to Ruapehu was also reflected by a statement made by Aropeta Haeretuterangi during the later Murimotu hearing when speaking of Tuwharetoa. 'We would have carried the survey further but were afraid of them as they outnumbered US.'20 A full account of the survey is given by DH Monro. This also reflects the existence of opposition, as the survey progressed: Employed to make survey by Aropeta Haeretuterangi and others. Meeting held previous to survey at Turangarere. I was present. It was on the 6th March 72 - the day the speeches commenced and the meeting broke up on the 8th. I went back to Okahutupako on the 9th and Colonel McDonnell left that day for Whanganui - he had been present at the meeting as an officer of Government - he was there the whole time of meeting - he told me that the boundary had been settled and that I could go on with the survey. I understood that Hataraka and Topia were appointed by the present counter claimants to be present at the survey of the East boundary. On the 15th went with claimants and Hetaraka and Topia to a hill marked Ngawerataketake and a line was pointed out in the direction of one of the minor peaks of the Tongariro range - when I had proceeded for some distance with the line a little beyond the crossing of the Waioure, Kingi and Piriniha Hiraka and Te Retimana objected to the line crossing the Waioure. I went on and Winiatajoined me at Ngamatua. He told me that land east of the [name left out] also belonged to him. I met Topia and Aropeta at 2nd crossing of Waioure. He gave me to understand that he objected to the crossing of Waioure. Te Aro said I shall take it to Moawhango. Te Hiraka said he should be satisfied if the lines went to Makahikatoa - next day we were met by a number of opposing natives we went on till 19 1 Feb 1893, Evidence of Henare Haeretu te Rangi, Rangiwaea hearing, Ward Vol. 16, p.460 Cited in Berghan, Block Narratives ofthe Whanganui District 1865-2000, p.355 20 3 July 1873, Evidence of Aropeta Haeretuterangi, Murimotu hearing, Ward.Voi. 16, p 622 ibid, p. 356 35 we were stopped at Te Koumu a Poto the opposition was then very determined. Te Aro then offered to give over the direction of the survey to Topia who would not accept it. Aropeta again tried to come to an arrangement with Topia unsuccessfully. I then ceased work for some time in that part of the block and began on the west boundary. A man named Peri and Pau and others offered some opposition - they afterwards ceased to oppose having arranged with Te Aro. Proceeded without opposition till after crossing Waihanoa stream and reached the hill beyond where we met Topia and Hataraka and their people there - they objected to my proceeding for some time but subsequently allowed us to carry on the line to the point shown in the plan. Makihikatoa on Saturday or Monday. On our attempting to go beyond that my Ranging rod was pulled up. The opposition was so decided that I left that part of the survey - and on 26th March I commenced the south boundary and cut the line from Waiari stream for some distance till the 30th when I was interrupted by Winiata - Hapi and others of N gatirangi tribe - the rest of the south boundary I trigged fixing the boundary points by crossbearings. 21 Richard W oon commented on the discussions Maori had had concerning Murimotu in April 1872, at a meeting at Putiki: The object of the meeting was the confirmation of peace and unity, more particularly amongst the Whanganui Natives, from the source of the river to its mouth, and was the third meeting of the kind held since January, 1871; the first being held at Aomarama, the second at Taumarunui, and the third and [mal meeting at Putiki.22 Woon noted serious potential problems with Murimotu, and indicated where he thought the source of future problems might lie, if certain courses of action were not adopted: The Murimotu dispute was afterwards gone into, but no decision come to in the absence of Topia, who was blamed by Mete for his opposition after the boundary had been agreed to by the assembled tribes with his concurrence. I strongly urged the Natives to refrain from quarrelling over their lands, and to have recourse to the law for a settlement of all disputes, and by no means to resort of force; that the law was the preserver of both life and property, and that by quiet discussion and an appeal to the duly 21 10 July 1873, Evidence ofD.H. Monro, Murimotu hearing, Ward Vol. 16, pp 651-3, ibid, p.356 22 AJHR,1872, F-3a, Further Reports From Officers in Native Districts, No.1 36 constituted Courts, all their grievances would be addressed, and life and property saved.[ ... ] I am very much afraid that this question of disputed boundaries, and prosecution of the surveys thereof by one or other of the disputants, may, some day or other, lead to serious results, and that the peace of the country will be disturbed thereby.23 The Murimotu block did not come before the Land Court again until 23 June 1873. On the opening day of the case several objectors appeared who claimed to represent interests held in the block by Patutokotoko, Ngati Tama, Ngati Waewae, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngati Te Ika and Ngati Turoa.24 Te Keepa opened the case by producing the certified plan (SO 395) of DH Monro which showed the block to contain 46,365 acres. When Te Keepa traced the boundaries on the plan it included more land than was shown. He stated that he would: speak of the land outside of this claim. It has a bearing on the claim to the surveyed block. Hautapu - Hinewaka - Te Roro-o 1 taiteariki and Tongariro. All that land belonged to Ngati Rangi J of Whanganui. No other tribes having claim - up to present time. 25 Topia Turoa refused to proceed with the case, as some of his people had not arrived. Heperi Pikirangi similarly stated that his people were at Rangitikei and some of the witnesses would have to be fetched. Te Retimana Te Rango requested the Court to adjourn to Rangitikei as some interested persons were there whilst others were at Taupo. Several further requests for adjournment were made and although the Court refused to move to Rangitikei, Judge Smith decided that the case should be adjourned until 30 June.26 When the case recommenced, the several parties involved gave evidence, which spanned a two-week period. The case of the counter-claimants was later summarised by Judge Smith: 23 Ibid, AJHR, 1872, F-3a . 24 23 July 1873, MLC Whanganui MB lD, pp 545-546 25 Ibid, P 547, Supporting Papers Vol. 10, p.5289 37 The claim is opposed by Topia Turoa, who asserts a counter claim to a certain portion of the block lying within its eastern boundary as shown on the plan. This claim is asserted on behalf of certain tribes or hapiis named Ngati Tama, Ngati Waewae, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngati Te Ika and Ngati Turoa and is stated to be founded on ownership by the ancestors of these tribes or hapiis, and upon occupation and exercise of rights of ownership by individual members of their tribes or hapiis. 27 The case for the claimants was similarly based on ownership through their ancestors but also on occupation and exercise of rights extending from these tipuna down to the present time. When giving evidence on land use, Aropeta Haeretuterangi argued that Ngati Rangi had continually occupied an area that extended past the northern boundaries ofMurimotu: 'My father Ngaki Weka from Wahianoa on to Makahikatoa and on to Rangipo'. He also added that this same area and the resources on it had been protected by Ngati Rangi: Tuwhakapuahi of Tuwharetoa came there to steal the kiwis and wekas of Rangipo and Makahikatoa. Rangimaunu saw them at [place not named] caught and killed them and ate them near Nga Rimutamoka. 28 On 11 July 1873, the judgment on the Murimotu case was given. Having heard the \ evidence the Court stated that all of the counter-claimants had 'failed to establish their claim to tribal ownership of any portion of the block surveyed by the claimants'. The Court decision was therefore in favour of the claimants. However, Judge Smith noted that the evidence provided in reference to hapii and individuals of the Whanganui tribes who possessed an interest in the land was 'imperfect and conflicting' so that further evidence was necessary before an order could be made. Despite this, a general fmding was reached: 26 Ibid, pp 547-548, Supporting Papers Vol. 10, pp. 5289-5290 27 Ibid, 11 July 1873, p655, Supporting Papers Vol. 10, p.5292 28 Ibid, 3 July 1873, p.619 38 Weare however of the opinion from the evidence now before us that the Ngati Rangi tribe under which name is included Ngati Rangi Tuhia and Ngati Rangi Poutaka are the owners according to native custom of the Murimotu block. 29 Therefore, Judge Smith advised the claimants to prepare a list of interested persons. 2.2. Competing Interests and Developments Around Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiu By the time the Murimotu block was going through the Court, private interests had already begun negotiations in the surrounding district to acquire the leasehold of large areas for pastoral purposes. Intuitively self-evident though it is, it needs to be remembered that Maori wished to enter into negotiations concerning land use because they saw these negotiations as offering opportunities. Presumably they also believed in certain sorts of favourable outcomes for themselves, and their enthusiasm for engagement would be tempered by this consideration. Given that some Maori may have pursued outcomes that coincided with non-Maori designs, this was not automatically a reason why those outcomes should be favoured, especially if the freedom to negotiate by Maori were to be restricted. In the following account of this development, other lands aside from the Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii blocks are included in the narrative to ensure the context of developments associated with these blocks is understood. This is crucial in distinguishing what pertained specifically to the blocks called Murimotu and Rangipo Wain, as opposed to developments which, while sometimes referring to Murimotu, did not in fact refer to the blocks to be covered by this report. Nevertheless, events in neighbouring blocks throw light on how the boundaries of the blocks evolved, and the concerns and practices of those who wished to promote particular economic activities within the blocks. 29 Ibid, pp 654-656, Supporting Papers Vol. 10, pp. 5291-5293 39 The first evidence of negotiations and competition for the land between different purchase groups relates to the Ruanui block, which lay to the south of Murirnotu,30 and had at this time neither been surveyed nor taken through the Land Court. Evidence given by Colonel Thomas McDonnell, in a case concerning a Government agent who was accused of buying and leasing land for private parties while under instructions to acquire it for the Government, revealed in passing Government and Provincial Government interest in the Murimotu: In the interim [April 1872], I received instructions from the General Government to act under the instructions of the Provincial Government to negotiate a lease of land at Murimotu, and a good deal of correspondence took place about the Murimotu Block, and I had to go to Wellington. On my arrival in Wellington, I saw Mr Bunny, the Provincial Secretary, and we commenced a conversation about the leasing ofMurirnotu.31 On 29 January 1873, the Wellington Superintendent expressed further interest in the region, on being informed of developments and possibilities by McLean. Indeed the Government directly inquired as to whether the Provincial Government would wish to be involved as a purchaser: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter with respect to offers of sale of land, and requesting to be informed, in accordance with the 34th clause of the Public Works and Immigration Act, whether I would desire to acquire the lands referred to for the Province. In reply, I desire to state that I consider the acquisition of the lands referred to by Mr Booth would be most desirable for the interest of the Province.32 The Government query and Provincial Government response were prompted by the Immigration and Public Works Act 1870, which was the recent legislative vehicle for the Government's new programme of colonisation through public works. The Act authorised the undertaking of public works throughout the colony, and native land purchase in the North Island, providing funds and powers for that purpose. Parts one to three of the Act empowered the Government to undertake the construction of roads 30 Cf. Map 1 31 AJHR, 1873, H-29, Charges Made Against Mr G.B. Worgan, p.9 32 AJHR, 1873, G.- 8, No. 40 40 (including bridges), railways, and works necessary to supply the goldfields. Part four gave the Governor, upon request by a provincial superintendent, the power to acquire native land in the respective area. To that end, £200,000 was set aside for such purchases with the costs to be charged against the province in which they took place. The Government could direct the Provincial Government to areas which it considered worth purchasing, and the Provincial Government could proceed to so purchase if it were persuaded of the benefits. Government agent John Buller wrote to Land Purchase Officer James Booth, on 2 November 1873, infonning him of the offers he had made but noting that he was in competition with an agent called Moorhouse, acting for private purchasers Morrin & Studholme.33 Buller wrote to Booth again stating that private agents Walker and McDonald had advanced £ 10 on his last offer. He wished to know his limit, as he did not 'feel justified in advancing without positive instructions'. Buller also stated that the present offer 'is really more than the country is worth for ordinary purposes' .34 On 24 November 1873, Buller wrote further to Booth announcing the arrival from Auckland of another private interest in the fonn of James Russell 'so that the bidding will doubtless be high but the stakes are larger' .35 Buller infonned Booth later in the day of a comment made by his competitors: 'McDonald says he will go on advancing if it go to £1000 - That he will make me pay dearly for my lease'. 36 Booth quickly replied that it was a question of whether 'they or the Government are to have whole of interior'. He advised Buller' do not give in yet' .37 Booth then wrote to the Wellington Superintendent, on 24 November 1873, regarding the importance of Buller's negotiations for the block,.which he estimated to contain 25,000 acres: r 'f, 3322 November 1873, Buller to Booth, MAlMLP 73/207 found in MA 13 50a, National Archives, Supporting Papers Vol. 10, p.5418 34 Ibid, 23 November 1873, Buller to Booth, Supporting Papers Vol. 10, p.5419 3S Ibid, 24 Nov 1873, Buller to Booth, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5421 36 Ibid, 24 Nov 1873, Buller to Booth, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5422 37 Ibid, 24 Nov 1873, Booth to Buller, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5423 41 I think Mr Buller is quite right in stating that the full value has been offered by Morrin and Studholme but on the other hand it is of the utmost importance that this block which is the key to the whole of the interior from Wanganui side and which is also tapped by a road now in course of construction - should be acquired by the Government and whoever acquires this block will have little difficulty in acquiring the rest of the country. I am moreover at the present time negotiating the purchase of a large block of land adjoining the one in question. The survey also of another large block is just now commencing, the road to which lies through the block in question. 38 Superintendent William Fitzherbert immediately replied and concurred with Booth regarding the importance of this negotiation 'as the key to others for the interior'. He advised Booth to authorise Buller to obtain the land at the best price and not permit it to pass to Morrin & Studholme?9 Buller was informed ofthis.4o Although John Bryce, as Native Affairs Minister, was to claim in parliament in 1882, that the Provincial Government had been the major institutional instigator of rfl negotiations, evidence indicated that the Government was also directly involved. The -~j Wellington Superintendent agreed with the Government position about the need to acquire the land, and furthermore sought advantage in negotiation. Bryce himself in his explanatory introduction to the Rangip6-Murimotu Agreement Valdation Bill in 1882 virtually conceded the Government's direct interest when he noted: The position in which we now find ourselves grew out of the determination of the Government which was in power in 1874 to establish a system ofleasing Native lands for the purpose ofsettlement.41 The presence of private agents, Government agents and Provincial Government agents made understanding of the situation difficult for Maori, which Bryce acknowledged, while omitting to mention Government involvement: 38 Ibid, 24 Nov 1873, Booth to Superintendent, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, pp.5425-5426 39 Ibid, 24 Nov 1873, Fitzherbert to Booth, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5424 40 Ibid, 24 Nov 1873, Booth to Buller, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5420 41 NZPD, 8 September 1882, Rangip5-Murimotu Agreement Validation Bill, Vol. 43, p. 885 42 Consequently the Provincial Government - as I think very foolishly, and I might almost say, very improperly - sent up parties to negotiate as against the private individuals who were in treaty with the Maoris, and complications of a highly disagreeable character arose, and it became pretty evident that what with the contending offers to the Maoris, and the suspicions instilled in their minds by both sides, there was little chance of getting anything done.42 Maori had to confront competing parties, who promised different opportunities, parties who in turn were competing with each other, but it was the Government who had the power to control the process, both in terms of deciding who could lease, and how legally Maori were to prepare their land for leasing. Divisions among Maori might be seen as inconvenient impediments to Government objectives. Competition between Provincial agents and private agents was claimed by Bryce as the major reason for Government intervention, but Provincial and Government interests were aware of each other, and precisely because the Government had signalled that this region was valuable, it gave impetus to the Provincial Government to become involved. The major concern of both Government and Provincial Government was to prevent private interests from gaining control. Booth also wrote to Colonel St John, on 24 November 1873, regarding Buller's actions concerning the lease and requesting that this correspondence be laid before Native Minister Donald McLean. Booth noted the importance of securing a lease over the block: I am of opinion that our operations will be very much impeded in the interior, if Morrin & Studholme succeed in getting hold of the block and stocking it with cattle, which it appears to be their intention to do. The land is of the fIrst quality, the road, explored by me and now in course of construction, runs through it and if we get it I can almost join it with the Wanganui district by lands for which I am now negotiating directly with Natives. 43 42 NZPD, 8 September 1882, Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Bill, Vol. 43, p. 885 43 Ibid, 24 Nov 1873, Booth to St John, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, pp.5857-5858 43 On 25 November 1873, Buller wrote to the Superintendent and to Booth: Have had a meeting of the chief owners of the Ruanui and have made the following arrangement. McDonald is to let them know what his highest bid will be after which I am to have the option of advance which will be fmal. Will you instruct me to advance on the offer? I have promised to pay £200 - can you arrange this by telegraph so that there shall be no delay. 44 On 3 January 1874, St John wrote to McLean stating that some time back, on 12 July 1872, Booth had reported that Te Keepa and himself were negotiating for 'a very extensive block of land at Murimotu'. St John noted that this was the only record he possessed of these negotiations until he received the recent correspondence from Buller which had been sent to him by the Superintendent: 'As far as I know, therefore, the Government have not acquired any land about Murimotu' .45 On 18 January 1874, Buller sent in an account to Booth of a meeting held at Karatia five days previously regarding Murimotu lands. As noted, the generic term Murimotu was often used to denote the whole district of which the actual Murimotu block was only a part. Therefore it is often unclear which specific block is being discussed at any given time. In the following account, however, it is revealed that the focus was still on the Ruanui block. Buller noted that upwards of 600 people were present. The first question considered: was the payment for the road from Ranana to Murimotu which was made by the Natives with a promise from the Government to pay them £400 on its completion; the question was whether they should receive the £400 offered by the Government, or whether they should subscribe the amount amongst themselves. They adopted the latter, and subscribed £121.5.0 on the ground leaving the balance to be collected afterwards. 46 44 Ibid, 25 Nov 1873, Buller to Superintendent, Supporting Papers Vo1.10, p.5427 . 45 3 Jan 1874, St John to McLean MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vo1.10, pp.5859-5860 46 18 Jan 1874, Buller report, MAlMLP 74/63 found in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, pp.5850-5856 44 The question of the lease of the Ruanui block was discussed. Winiata, representing McDonald and Company, offered £435. Tekahu acting on behalf of Buller offered £500. When those interested were asked to choose between the two offers, a great deal of confusion arose. It was not until the next morning that things settled down enough for a hui to be held. It lasted all day but no firm conclusion was reached. Buller noted: Kemp spoke very strongly against the Government - He said that the Government had had a conversation with him on the subject of leasing native land, and that he had declined to enter into any arrangement with them, and further, that he did not intend doing so. In speaking of me he said that I was a friend of his and that he would willingly lease his land to me, provided he thought I was dealing for myself in the matter, but he had every reason to believe that I was acting for the Government; therefore he would oppose me.47 Te Keepa then spoke of an arrangement he had negotiated with Russell where the European would act as his lawyer in all land questions and would make a good dray road from Ranana to Murimotu. This was on the condition that Te Keepa would agree to lease him all the available territory. Full value would be paid. Te Keepa wished to deal directly with private parties in order to obtain a favourable outcome, employing legal advice and thus demonstrating his familiarity with European procedures. This familiarity did not entail that his interests would always coincide with European, or specifically Crown, concerns. It also did not entail that his interests would necessarily coincide with other Maori. The response of the hui to this proposal split along the lines of existing support to either McDonald and Company or the Government. Of Russell's offer, Buller noted: The Company are most reckless in their offers and promises; they will give anything and will promise any thing. They appeared to have the one object in mind and that is to get possession of the land at any cost. 48 47 Ibid, 18 Jan 1874, Buller report, p. 5852 48 Ibid, 18 Jan 1874, Buller report, p. 5852 45 Buller then recorded that he was put in an awkward position by being called upon to answer a 'string of questions': "Are you dealing for the Government", my answer was, "I am not a Government Commissioner". I was then asked "Are you dealing in this matter for the Superintendent of the Province" I said "I was dealing for it in my own name." I was also compelled to assure my supporters that I would not dispose of my interest in the Block without their consent. I had to do this: if I had not, some of them would have gone over to the other side and amongst them old Wiki who is their "Kuia" and the principal owner - Kemp and others did all in their power to entice them over to their side. To have declared my connection with the Government then would have proved fatal to the whole thing. In consequence of my assurance to these natives, I feel bound, before making any [mal agreement with them, to get their consent to lease this country to the Government (which may be done when the party influence is disposed of) but this may not be necessary for sometime to come. The present position gives me the advantage of being able to prevent the Company from concluding any arrangement with the natives, as. I have got some of the principal owners of the Murimotu on my side.49 Buller had once been a private agent, but had since become a Government agent. On the third day of the hui, those supporting McDonald's proposal suggested a division of the land, which was initially accepted by Buller's supporters. However, Buller objected to this proposal but at length he was forced to agree. In doing so, he believed that there was 'no chance of agreement about the division line': Te Kahu's party claim the greater portion of the block in question; they have consented to have it surveyed, in the event of this not coming to a settlement amongst themselves, and let the N.L. Court settle the difference between them. So far as I can see the only thing to be done at present is to keep everything in abeyance, and to prevent the Company from concluding anything as the Natives minds are so thoroughly poisoned against the Government. 50 49 Ibid, 18 Jan 1874, Buller report, p. 5853-54 46 The meeting broke up on 17 January without any arrangements having been defmitely settled. Buller noted he had arranged to go to Murimotu in about a fortnight's time with Woo and others for the purpose of seeing the proposed division boundary. On 24 January 1874, Te Keepa wrote to Russell infonning him he was proceeding to the Murimotu district to make arrangements with the tribes: Your letter has arrived it is true that those two blocks of land are yet unsurveyed. In March next I will be able to make arrangement with my tribes however, do not be anxious, I will manage the affairs so far as my own tribes are concerned. Mr William McDonnell will inform you of what takes place here, I will continue the negotiations about our lands. 51 On 28 January 1874, St John wrote a long letter to McLean, summarising his understanding of dealings on the block, with the area itself introduced in the following· fashion: 'Murimotu is the name given to a large interest of country lying inland of the Whanganui districts towards Taupo'. The lack of determination of the blocks in this area allowed the name Murimotu to be applied broadly. St John continued: Only one portion of it has passed through the Native Land Court, and that passed under the 1i h section of the Act of 1867 and cannot therefore be dealt with until it is subdivided. 52 The fmal subdivision was not to occur until 1882, but this did not prevent dealings on the land, as will be explored. St John then set out his understanding of the role of John Buller in land dealings: Mr John Buller has, it seems, for some time past been endeavouring to obtain as much of the Block as possible. He was employed for that purpose by the Hon. J. Hall, and, when that gentleman relinquished his projects [the sentence is underlined to this point and the comment 'This is 50 Ibid, 18 Jan 1874, Buller report, p. 5855 51 24 Jan 1874, Rangihiwinui to Russell, MAlMLP 74/325 in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5448 52 28 Jan 1874, St John to McLean MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.586 1. Section 17 of the Native Land Act 1867 stated: After certificate of title has been ordered, the majority of owners may apply to the Court for a subdivision. 47 not true. J Hall 7 March /81' has been added in the left margin] on going horne, he continued on his own account. For some years he has been after the Block. 53 The correction added almost eight years later suggests that this correspondence was revisited during the Rangipo-Waiii disputes, with this being the only correction added. St John continued: About two years ago, a few gentlemen, Messrs Morrin, Studholme and others, set to work with the intention of acquiring the whole interior Murirnotu country, estimated at about a million and a half acres, with the view of forming a Land Company in England; and they made overtures to Mr Buller to assist them. It seems however that they tried to get the better of him in one portion of it on which he had advanced money, and so he decided to counteract them by helping the Government to make the purchase. During the last session [1873] he carne to Wellington with Mr Booth, and made an arrangement with His Hon. the Superintendent that he was to do his best for the acquisition of the block as if for himself, but really for the Government; and that his pay was to be £500 per an. with a certain rate (which I do not know) for every acre he obtained for the Government. Mr Booth states that he mentioned to the Hon. Mr McLean that the Superintendent had engaged Mr Buller to acquire the land; but that he did not mention the terms of employment as he imagined these were provided out of Provincial Funds.54 The envisaged leases by the private companies were substantial, and in areas that the Government considered to be a valuable part of the country in terms of its own projects. Buller's involvement, and intimate knowledge of the private parties, led the Provincial Government, with the knowledge and consent of the Central Government, to employ Buller to work surreptitiously in furthering their interests against Maori, who otherwise preferred direct dealing with private parties, as well as the private companies. St John continued: In order to get a footing in the Block, the Company set about the acquisition of a block of 25,000 acres, not passed through the Court, but represented as being the key to the interior; and they also entered into 53 Ibid 28 Jan, St John, pp. 5861-5862 54 Ibid, 28 Jan, St John, pp. 5862-5864 48 treaty with Topia to whom they advanced money on account of other portions of the main block.55 The Government was being infonned of leasing arrangements by private parties on land that had not had title detennined, and that a particular party was being paid money, presumably grass money (money received for land use which was occurring before proper determination had been made or a fonnallease entered into). St John then outlined developments as they unfolded when Buller and the private parties entered into competition to secure leases, with offer and counter-offer, and the confrrmation from the Superintendent that the land was to be secured. The close involvement of the Government was further evidenced: Mr Buller then telegraphed that he had arranged with the natives for £500 a year for the fIrst seven years; and this amount was sent to be deposited in Mr R. Woon's hands, and not to be paid until the surveys were completed. The money is still in Mr W oon' s hands now - but the arrangement does not appear to be thoroughly complete. There is no proof of it. Meanwhile Mr Booth infonned the Hon.Mr McLean by telegraph of what was going on.56 The Government knew of Buller's dealings and the problems that the absence of a survey was creating. St John quoted a letter that was sent to Booth, in answer to his telegram to McLean, by G S Cooper, Under Secretary at the Native Department: Mr McLean telegraphs to me about Murimotu. I do not understand his message. Please give me the key to its meaning. He tells me to confer with you on subject and direct you to be cautious about taking for granted the pretended offers of persons for land with no title. He would much prefer the open course of seeing the parties who are negotiating with the Natives and coming to an understanding with them. At present they have nothing to offer worth accepting. Mr McLean is in communication with the Hawkes Bay Natives who have the greatest influence and received a letter yesterday on the subject. He also says that no one has or can have any title to land there at present as there has been no sitting of Court and title is disputed between Patea and Whanganui natives.'57 5S Ibid, 28Jan, St John, pp. 5864-5865 S6 Ibid, 28 Jan, St John, pp. 5868-5869 57 Quoted in ibid, 28 Jan, St John, pp. 5869-5870 49 The Government knew, therefore, about the central problem of entering into leases before title had been established, and that there was potential for dispute, but indicated that its strategy in dealing with this was to approach the private parties to reach an understanding that would address the competition between them. There was no discussion concerning the implications for Maori as to decisions taken to date, or how Maori might be affected by, or involved in, decisions to be taken about this region. Another perspective on these lands was offered by 'A Visitor', in a story written from Tokano (sic) on February 2, published in the Evening Herald of 19 February. The land itself was described in very positive terms: The land for miles around Murimotu appears to be good, and is level enough to be called "The Plains", in contrast to the broken country we have passed through. Here is a country, containing clear land fit in every way for settlement with presenting every single prospect of satisfactory results. The Patea country joins the Murimotu but is absorbed by one squatter, a Mr Birch, who is said to hold no less a quantity that (sic) 150,000 acres, most of it grassed land of good quality. As we approach Ruapehu, the land grows poorer in quality, but is capable of carrying sheep, and will one day be turned to account. 58 Not only was it signaled as good country for settlement, but at least one European was involved in some form of activity using the land, presumably with the knowledge of the local Maori. Mr Birch played no further part in the story, as far as the sources are concerned, but his very existence suggested that European involvement might be accommodated in a manner satisfactory to both Maori and for those others wishing to use the land. The comment about settlement, which would not have been a major concern for private parties wishing to use the land pastorally, was further reiterated, along with criticisms of the 'land monopolist'. This was a further indication as to why the Government would wish to be more directly involved in this region: 58 19 February 1874, Evening Herald, 'Taupo and the Hot Springs' (by a Visitor), dated 2 February 1874 50 A well watered country, with but few places where vegetation is not to be found, cannot be called a desert, and, though the land in places is "sour", and the soil thin, there are men who could make it productive, without a large expenditure; and the day may not be far distant, if the avaricious land monopolist do not appropriate it in a lump, when homesteads may be found dotted around the base of Ruapehu and Tongariro.59 The writer had also become a little knowledgeable about the local politics concerning the land: We met a party of natives who imparted some information respecting recent negotiations for the leasing of the fertile plains of Murimotu. It appeared that two agents, opposed to each other, had been coming and going for some time between Wanganui and the native kaingas, or settlements, in that part of the country. One of these agents represented the Government (whether General, or Provincial, or both, I could not make out) [presumably because this point was not clear to Maori either], and each went zealously to work to obtain the land for their respective clients. 60 As further evidence that a deal had been concluded, and that the Government was held in deep suspicion, the writer further noted: The former offered £435 a year for 25 years, which was exceeded by the Government agent offering £500. Numerous meetings were held, but it was skill before gold, for the Maoris, with almost complete unanimity, accepted the lesser amount, and it is understood they have [mally determined to lease to the private parties in preference to the Government. 61 Maori did not wish to lease to the Government: From all I could gather from the natives, the Government have got into bad odour with them respecting land; a prejudice already existing against having any traffic with officials. This applies to the natives on this side of Taupo.62 59 Ibid, Evening Herald 60 Ibid, Evening Herald 61 Ibid, Evening Herald 51 If the Government wished to secure the right to lease, another approach was required, as Maori were not willing to lease to the Government, yet the Government was determined that they should. The Government began direct negotiation with their private competitors to arrange a mutually acceptable deal. On 25 March 1874 a memorandum was forwarded from Moorhouse to the Native Minister regarding an agreement which had been negotiated between the Government and his clients Messrs Morrin & Studholme.63 The agreement was as follows: Mr Moorhouse to the Hon. the Native Minister Sir, Wellington, 25th March, 1874 Referring to the several conferences between yourself, His Honor the Superintendent of Wellington and myself, as agents for Messrs. Morrin, John Studholme, and others, I have the honor to forward for your approval the underwritten memorandum of the agreement arrived at between us: 1.I have undertaken, on the part of my clients, forthwith to surrender to the General Government most completely all claim whatsoever, in law or equity, to certain Native lands mentioned in the schedule hereto and shown on the plan annexed. 2.From and after this date none of the parties (my clients) interested in the Native lands, the subject of this memorandum, shall (except upon the request of the General or Provincial Governments), directly or indirectly, attempt the purchasing or leasing of lands from the Natives in any portion of the Northern Island. 3.That the best efforts of my clients shall be at all times at the service of the General and Provincial Governments in aid of the acquisition for public uses of the lands, the subject of this memorandum. 4.That for and in exchange for the considerations mentioned in the three previous paragraphs, the General and Provincial 62 Ibid, Evening Herald 63 25 Mar 1874, Moorhouse to Nat Min, MAlMLP 74/206 in MA13 50a, Supporting Papers VoLlO, pp.5873-5878 52 Governments, as now represented by the Hon. the Native Minister, and his Honor the Superintendent, have promised and agreed. 5.That whenever the Native title to the said lands shall have been extinguished, immediately thereafter the Superintendent of Wellington shall select about twenty-five (25) per cent of the lands, the subject of this memorandum, for settlement. Blocks selected not to exceed four. 6.That the remaining seventy-five (75) per cent of such lands shall remain in the occupation of my clients, as practical tenants for the term of fourteen years from the extinction of the Native title, subject to the rental now reserved by the Wellington Land Regulations. 7.That in the event of the General Government only acquiring from the Natives a leasehold tenure of the said lands, then my clients shall hold the said lands as pastoral tenants, at the rate of rental and under conditions reserved by the now existing Provincial Land Regulations. Provided always that the rental paid by my clients shall not involve a loss (annual) to Government on account of rents possibly payable to Natives. 8.That whenever the Provincial Government may require for purposes of settlement the whole or any portion of the said lands, the same shall be vacated by my clients on reasonable notice, compensation being paid for the surrender on an equitable scale. 9.That as doubts exist as to the power of effectuating this agreement under the existing Land Regulations, it is agreed that the General and Provincial Governments shall take action to secure such measures of legislation as may be necessary for giving effect to this agreement. 10 That the actual money payments by my clients (acknowledged by the Natives concerned as being payment to them on account of lands to be acquired from them) shall, upon proof to the satisfaction of the Hon. the Native Minister and the Superintendent, be refunded to my clients by Government. The above memorandum I believe fairly embodies the exact arrangement I had the honor of verbally concluding with yourself and His Honor the Superintendent of Wellington. May I request that, if correct, you will favour me by, conjointly with His Honor the Superintendent, endorsing your approvaL I have, &c., 53 W.S. Moorhouse The Hon. the Native Minister, Wellington Approved. For the Hon. the Native Minister, Daniel Pollen, 25th March, 1874 Concurred in by me. William Fitzherbert, Superintendent, 26th March, 187464 Although not specifically stated, later evidence reveals that this agreement included the Murimotu block itself, as well as land which would later be known, however, as the Rangipo-Waiii block. Under the Native Land Purchase Ordinance of 1846, all private transactions had been declared illegal, but the Native Land Act of 1865 took a far less severe view of transactions undertaken before ownership had been decided. Such transactions were merely 'void' and, in any case, exceptions could be made to the requirements of the law, at the discretion of the Government. Here, prior dealings were being sanctioned, in support of an outcome in the interests of the Government and of private parties. Article 9 of this agreement meant that any doubt regarding the status of the agreement would be corrected legislatively. By 27 March 1874, Buller reported to Native Minister McLean that he had settled with Moorhouse on the basis of the agreement having made several minor alterations to the terms. 65 On 9 April 1874, McLean sent a memorandUlli to Colonial Secretary Daniel Pollen notifying him that whilst in Auckland, he had had conversations with Messrs Morrin, Pothell and Russell and had explained the arrangement which had been entered into with Moorhouse. McLean stated that the gentlemen with whom he spoke were perfectly satisfied with these arrangements: 64 AJHR, 1875, C6, No.3 54 It will however be necessary in the event of their displaying undue haste in putting cattle or sheep on Murimotu, to refrain them from doing so until all the Native owners are agreed on the subject. 66 This sound piece of advice had already been overtaken by events on the ground, where sheep and cattle had been introduced, before 'all the Native owners were agreed on the subject', with the potential for conflict very soon apparent. On 13 May 1874, Moorhouse wrote to the Native Minister on behalf of another set of his clients (Messrs Neville Walker and William McDonnell), noting that they also were willing to hand over their interests in leases of land between the Tongariro and Ruapehu (in the Rangipo District) on similar terms to those secured for Morrin and Studholme. By this time it appears that in addition to a lease over the Ruanui block, Russell and Howard had also concluded a leasing agreement over land, which later would be 67 \;. identified as being the Rangiwaea block: My clients have entered into arrangements for stocking this country - and I am to state that no manner of difficulty existed about the lease as at present [illegible] by the Natives. My clients will cordially undertake all the duties and conditions stipulated to be performed by Messrs Morrin and others. I am further to offer the active services of Mr McDonnell whenever they may be needed in respect of the purchase of lands other than those he now occupies - Mr McDonnell has had great experience of Native usages and is a thorough Maori linguist. 68 Also on 13 May 1874, Moorhouse wrote to the Native Minister this time representing clients Messrs Russell and Howard and seeking a similar arrangement.69 Evidence exists of an undated draft letter from McLean informing Moorhouse in the case of 65 27 Mar 1874, Buller to Nat Min, MAlMLP 74/206 in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers VoLlO, pf"5875-5878 6 9 April 1874, McLean to Pollen, MAlMLP 741178 in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.IO, pp.5428-5431 67 Cf Map 1 68 13 May 1874, Moorhouse to Nat Min, MAlMLP 74/205 in MA13 50a, Supporting Papers VoLlO, pp.544 1-5442 69 13 May 1874, Moorhouse to Nat Min, MAlMLP 741204 in MAl3 50a, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, pp.5436-5438 55 Russell and Howard, that the Government was prepared to offer a similar arrangement as that concluded with Morrin and Studholme?O Following this, Purchase Officer James Booth sent a telegram to Native Department Under-Secretary Clarke, on 21 May 1874, regarding the actual Murimotu block over which he understood terms had been made with the Government by Studholme and Company: I have to report that an agreement to lease said block by certain of claimants to Mr Buller before he accepted Govt services is in existence. Walker & McDonnell have advanced £100 to one of same claimants on a mortgage. McDonnell acknowledged yesterday in my presence that there is no agreement to lease to the Company. If Buller's lease is worth anything the Govt of course are entitled to the advantage but as it was drawn before the block passed through the N.L.Court it is not a legal document. 71 Here, despite the acknowledgement that the document was not legal, the Crown still expected to extract any advantage that might be gained from it. The confusion about who Buller represented was one which he used to advantage the Government's position as noted. A major concern seemed to be to gain advantage in negotiations, not to establish proper conditions through which negotiation could take place. Booth also reported on a meeting held by Maori regarding the Ruanui block: I declined to go until they had made up their minds as to whether or not they would accept the years rent after yesterday's explanation. As however Kemp insisted on my being there, I went. There was a repetition by one or two natives of Kemp's argument declining to allow power to sublet lest the mana should pass out of hands of original owners. As one man spoke loudly against admitting Govt at all into the interior I thought it expedient to leave after which the meeting broke up nothing having 70 n.d. Native Minister to Moorhouse, MAlMLP 74/325 found in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers VoLlO, p.5454 71 13 May 1874, Moorhouse to Nat Min, MAlMLP 74/205 in MA13 50a, Supporting Papers VoLlO, pp.5441-5442 56 been arranged. Majority of claimants are willing to accept proposed tenns but they are afraid of Kemp. 72 Another telegram sent on the same day from Booth to Clarke reported a meeting held with Maori interested in the Murimotu Block: the two McDonnells present explained that Morrin and Co had made tenns with Govt and that in all dealings with said Co rent must be paid to Natives by Govt. W McDonnell confirmed this. I then stated that Govt was prepared to pay £500 as ftrst year's rent provided all claimants to block fIrst signed an agreement to lease. This to be done in presence of Company's agents. Kemp strongly opposed leasing to Govt as with Govt he says he would not make such terms as with private individuals. The principal objection as to subletting, Govt by subletting would have a certain "mana" over the land which if right belongs only to the owner. He would deprive lessors of the power of subletting. I reminded Kemp of what Govt had recently done for him in paying a heavy lawyer's bill, making a road exclusively for Maoris from Ranana to Murimotu and of the fact that he is a Govt officer. He said I was quite right but that he must look to the interests of his tribe. 73 Also on 21 May 1874, Te Keepa then telegraphed Clarke: The Maoris do not agree to lease Murimotu to Government. We wish to lease it to private individuals. Reply immediately. 74 In a major modiftcation of his position, but with conditions attached, Te Keepa indicated that he was prepared to enter into leasing arrangements with the Government. However, he still seemed under the impression that direct dealings with private parties was still a possibility. On 4 June 1874, Te Keepa and 33 others forwarded a 'Notice' to the public regarding leasing and running stock on the Murimotu block: 72 21 May 1874, Telegram from Booth to Clarke, MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.IO, pp.5459-5460 73 21 May 1874, Telegram from Booth to Clarke, MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.IO, pp.5461-5462 7421 May 1874, Telegram from Meiha Keepa to Clarke, MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol. 10, p.5463 57 My tribe consents to lease land to the Government on condition that the provisions of the lease are to be supplied by us only, and that the laws in force are not to have effect over our land. My tribe consents also to lease to private Europeans if the lessee agrees to all the provisions approved by us in the lease. The cattle and sheep at Murimotu are not to be removed by either European or Maori until payment has been made for their having been depastured there. We will allow fifteen days for the European owners of those cattle and sheep to come and they must see me so that I may know their desires in respect of the land and the cattle. And if those Europeans do not come to me, then legal proceedings will be taken in the matter of that property because I have already firm notice cautioning people against putting cattle and sheep· on the land as all matters concerning it have not been settled. 75 Despite McLean's warning, sheep and cattle had already been introduced. Te Keepa assumed a strong Maori negotiating position, believing that agreements needed to be clarified and that the question as to whom he could negotiate with was one which he could decide for himself. The curtailment of his freedom of manoeuvre in negotiating, which the Crown had imposed in March 1874, without consulting Maori, did not appear 1 ~ to have fully grasped by him and others until a formal meeting between parties held in -J September 1874. Also at some time in June 1874, Te Keepa wrote to Russell regarding what he termed as the 'block ofland at Murimotu' but which, because of Russell's involvement as noted, either specifically referred to the landblocks at Rangiwaea or Ruanui: I beg to inform you that I will hold to my arrangements with you about this block of land at Murimotu, I will consent to no other than you. Even if matters of your own are raised as obstacles in our way, I and my tribes will consent to no other person than you. Do not give up the arrangements that you and I have made about this block of land that we have leased to you, however, we are endeavouring to ascertain what restrictions we are liable to according to Law, it is probable we will proceed to Wellington and attend the Session of Parliament in July next.76 7S 4 Jun 1874, Rangihiwinui et aI, MAlMLP 74/321 found in MA13 SOa, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers VoLIO, p.5443 76 Jun 1874, Meiha Keepa Rangihiwinui et aI, MAlMLP 74/325 found in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vo1.l0368 58 Te Keepa's sensitivity to law meant that his erstwhile opposition to Government leasing would oblige him to reconsider his position. As a significant party to negotiations, his apparent unawareness of the full implications of the changed circumstances around leasing and his assumptions about flexibility, demonstrated the difference between some Maori expectations and conceptions of their negotiating power, and the Goverillnent's ability to determine the context of negotiation. On 22 July 1874, Howard and Russell recorded a statement of their claim to land at Murimotu. After detailing their case they concluded with the following proposition: We would like Mr Russell to get the Government at once to complete an agreement similar to Morrin & Studholme respecting the two blocks for which we have applied and the description of which W. Moorhouse is familiar with - one block contains 40,000 acres and the other about 16,000 acres - both of which blocks have cattle on them and have leases, from Natives to ourselves and rent paid. lfthe Government would extend our lease from a 14 year lease to twenty-one it would be a great advantage to us and there is no reason why this should not be done and if done it would be inserted in Agreement. 77 The 40,000-acre block being referred to is Ruanui whilst the 16,000 acres refers to land later included in the Rangiwaea block. On I September 1874, Russell wrote privately to Dr Pollen regarding a conversation he had with his brother over the Government agreement to lease land at Murimotu. His brother stated that there was "some misapprehension on the subject of the Natives agreeing to our lease and in fact that they (the Natives) say that they had not leased to us'. Russell could not understand how this situation could arise. He enclosed Te Keepa's June letter to show that he at least recognised their right to the land. Russell also noted the lease held to the 40,000-acre Ruanui block, which he himself had seen, was signed by at least 30 owners whom he believed to be the proprietors of the land. Russell additionally noted that rental had been paid on this block which now had been in their 7722 July 1874, Statement of claim, MAlMLP 741204 in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vo1.10, pp.5439-5440 59 possession for 12 months and on which they had placed a great deal of stock. Russell could not see any reason for an agreement not being reached with Government: We have more claim to recognition on the part of the Government than Mr Studholme and the Government could not do anything with the land other than lease it in large blocks such as we have. If Government intend leasing these blocks from the Natives, I hope our rights will be recognised and leases granted to us. Can you not push the matter on and get the agreement signed by Mr McLean. 78 With an agreement in place, the private parties naturally wanted extensions of these agreements if possible, and more to the point, for the Government to sort out who it could lease from, and complete the leases. At this point, a summary of general developments may be useful. Investigation of Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii record the early negotiations which were taking place between local Maori and private lessors as well as the involvement of the Crown. The history is one of competition between private and Crown agents to secure leasehold land, as well as attempts by Maori to both engage with the process, and to establish limits to their own involvement. By the beginning of March 1874, however, the Government had been in direct negotiation with their private competitors to arrange a mutually acceptable deal. On 25 March 1874 a memorandum was forwarded from Moorhouse to the Native Minister regarding an agreement which had been negotiated between the Government and his clients Messrs Morrin & Studholme.79 In return for giving up all claims to the land in contention, for promising not to attempt to lease or purchase them again, and by promising to do all in their power to assist the Government . in acquiring the land in question, Morrin and Studholme received the right to lease the land for 14 years once it had been secured by the Government. As a term of this agreement, this right of lease for Morrin and Studholme would not essentially be disturbed whether the Crown acquired either the lease or the freehold of the land. If any 78 1 Sept 1874, Russell to Pollen MAlMLP 74/325 found in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, pp.5449-5451 79 25 Mar 1874, Memo from Moorhouse to Native Minister, MAlMLP 74/206 found in MAl3 50a, NA 60 unforeseen development occurred whereby the land was required for settlement, then the Company would be entitled to compensation. Although not specifically stated, later evidence reveals that this agreement included the Murimotu block itself, as well as land which would later be, however, known as the Rangipo-WaiU block. The only outstanding issue from the Government's point of view was obtaining Maori signatures for the leases. The difficulties in doing this, and the problems that were in turn generated, showed how little understanding there was of Maori concerns, only that these concerns precluded a quick application of the agreement of 1874. 2.3. Discussion At this stage of the engagement between interested and involved Maori parties and their Pakeha counterparts, it is apparent that there was close collaboration and growing familiarity between the parties. This is not to claim that they had compatible interests necessarily, but the detailed examination of Court involvement shows how the process forced the parties together. Maori were generally quite willing to be a part of a process, which they saw as potentially providing benefits. However, they were approached by the Crown as groups with assets, some of which the Crown wanted. This put the Crown into conflict initially with private purchasers, but later once agreement had been reached with them, led the Crown into a position of a powerfully interested party in the outcome of Maori decisions on land. Some Maori believed that their interests were not always best served by selling or leasing to the Crown. The pressures the Crown brought to bear, and the subterfuge, or shrewd business acumen depending on one's point of view, demonstrated particularly by Buller, led the Crown to approach Maori in a particular way. Maori had to be persuaded to accept certain outcomes, which were of benefit to the Crown, and which were assumed to be attractive to Maori. A willingness to cooperate with the Crown, not just as the arbiter of disputes, but as a party with interests, was seen as a prerequisite. Where the Crown set up processes like the Native Land Court and sought to resolve differences, Maori in this region were generally cooperative and participated, despite the tensions 61 generated within their society. Where the Crown operated with its own particular interests in mind, some Maori options were more favourable than others to the Crown. This active pursuit of particular ends meant an inevitable collision with alternative Maori interests. The agreement of 1874 set the scene in this region for conflict between what the Crown now felt obligated to achieve, and the interests of Maori where these interests may not have coincided with Crown aims. The arguments and debates revealed a certain ambiguity in the description of Murimotu. Much of the debate, while sometimes intending to include what became Murimotu proper as it were, concerned blocks to the south, such as Ruanui and blocks to the west such as Rangiwaea. One has to be careful in deciding what was happening in Murimotu itself as opposed to these neighbouring blocks. References to a road, for example, would seem to refer to Ruanui block, not to Murimotu as it fmally emerged. The final boundaries of Murimotu, and Rangipo-Waiii, have much to do with arrangements arrived at concerning neighbouring blocks, as well as more vigorous dispute among Maori about who had the authority to permit what. The debate about authority was connected directly to a debate about interests. What precisely their best interests actually were in the new system was itself part of the debate among Maori, as well as what steps would best protect one's iwi or hapu against competing Maori interests. The general division of tribal mana had been laid down at the peace-making ceremony at Kokako in 1860. But the decision as to whomever had the authority for the traditional exercise of hunting rights, setting of eel traps, and gathering of fern root now had greater implications. This was because the Native Land Court could confer absolute, permanent and exclusive powers on the party or parties who could persuade the Court of their claim, thus heightening the stakes and divisions among Maori. The 1874 agreement brought the contending Pakeha parties together into a Crown sponsored and guaranteed arrangement, with the Government obtaining the lease with the obligation to sublease to the private parties, and the Provincial Government 62 receiving the right to a 25 percent share of the blocks for settlement purposes. The private parties, while not being able to lease directly with Maori, had a Government guarantee that their interests would be protected. The 1874 agreement is discussed further in considering the Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act 1882. However, to note briefly here, article 2 of the 1874 agreement ruled out further leasing by Morrin and Studholme of land from Maori. Article 9 created an obligation to effect this agreement by the Government, acknowledging that existing Land Regulation difficulties might need to be overcome. In other words, Maori choices within their blocks were circumscribed, without any consultation with them. It might have been assumed that their interests would coincide with, and at the same time be best protected by, the Government. Finally, article 5 became redundant with the abolition of Provincial Government, but its possible implications were to be discussed by the private parties during the 1880s, as they sought to limit Government purchasing within the blocks. While accommodating the interests of the private parties, essentially the agreement ensured the Crown a controlling interest in the land, with a view, despite what Maori might imagine about leasing, to purchase. In one sense the non-involvement of Maori in the March 1874 agreement might be considered entirely appropriate, since it was not designed to consider their interests, but rather to place the Crown flrmly in the driving seat. It would seem that Maori interests were taken as read, as simply being a question of leasing or alienating in accordance with the law, and a happy coincidence of mutually beneflcial ends. The known reality of competing Maori interests, as evidenced by the disputed and complicated proceedings of the Native Land Court in Murimotu in 1873, and in St John's letter to McLean, meant that this assumption as regards Maori was at the very least naIve. That it was difflcult to establish who the legitimate owners were was certainly an issue. Even with the Murimotu Native Land Court decision, there was no agreement about who the owners should be within Ngati Rangi. For the rest of the area there was general disagreement about who had authority over what land. However, this did not seem to seem to have prevented the Crown acting in its own best interests, 63 with an implicit assumption that problems that might arise among Maori for the implementation of the agreement could be resolved without great delay or difficulty. \ ,/ 64 3. Chapter 3: Efforts to Establish Leasing By the Crown From 1875 to 1877 In order to give effect to the 1874 agreement, the Crown needed to establish whom among Maori it was able to lease from. As meetings were held, Maori were to discover more about who had entered into leasing arrangements, and who were seeking to, within their own communities. This was to generate divisions in the region, confusion about what arrangements had been entered into, the obligations set up, and lead to 1l?-e stalling of negotiations. 3.1. Identifying the Lessors A meeting was called in Wellington to try to establish leasing arrangements with the proper parties concerned, as well as to clarify what had happened and who was leasing from whom. Notes of a Meeting held at the Government Buildings on the 2nd September, 1874, re Murimotu Present: The Hon. Sir D. McLean, Major Kemp (as representing the Wanganui claimants to the Murimotu Country), Winiata Te Puhaki, Nehanera Te Kahu, Aropeta Haeretuterangi, &c., &c., Mr. Moorhouse, representing Messrs. Morrin and Co., Messrs. Howard and Russell, and the Native Claimants to Murimotu. Maps showing the position and estimated acreage of the land in question having been laid on the table. Major Kemp said: The land known as Murimotu, as shown on the maps lying on the table, belongs to us, the Wanganui Natives. One block of 46,000 acres has been surveyed and passed through the Native Land Court. There is a block at Ruanui, containing by estimation 40,000 acres; also a block adjoining the Patea country, estimated to contain 100,000 acres, in which Topia Turoa has an interest; there is also another block . containing 15,000 acres. This land belongs to us, the Wanganui Natives. \. .:/ For many years it was left undisturbed. At length Europeans went and saw the land. They desired to purchase or lease it. After many discussions we agreed to lease the blocks shewn on the map to Mr Russell and others. We had merely a verbal agreement. We did not sign any deed of lease. After this, and before any deed had been signed, Mr Booth came 65 to Wanganui; he came from the Government. He told us that our leases must be made in accordance with the law. To this, after some discussion we agreed. In the meantime, Mr Russell and the other gentlemen, on the strength of our agreement to lease, had stocked the land in question with cattle and sheep. I said let the stock remain on the land until a lease can be made through the Government. We now ask you to allow us to lease these blocks of land to Mr Russell and the other gentlemen. Hon. Sir Donald McLean: You can lease the land to the Government, who will again lease a portion of it to the gentlemen you mention. Major Kemp: Has this arrangement got the sanction of Mr Russell and others? Mr Moorhouse: Yes Major Kemp: The rent we ask is sixpence per acre yearly rental, the term 21 years, and the rent to be raised at the end of e~ch period of five years. Sir Donald McLean: I will give as a yearly rental the sum of £10 for every 1000 acres for the whole term of 21 years. Major Kemp: We want an increase of rent at the end of each period of five years. Sir Donald McLean: I will agree to this then: I will give £10 for every 1000 acres for 14 years, and £ 11 per 1000 acres for the remaining seven years of the term. Major Kemp: We agree to your terms; but we wish to make reserves for our own use out of the block, for a township or for other purposes. Sir Donald McLean: I agree to your making reserves. Winiata Te Puhaki: A distinct arrangement was made by myself and others with reference to the block marked on the map to contain 40,000 acres. The price offered by Mr E. Moorhouse and others and agreed to by us was £435 a year. Mr Moorhouse: stated on behalf of his clients that, as a special arrangement had been made with reference to the 40,000 acre block, if Government would agree to confirm the arrangement entered into and pay the £435 a year, without respect to the acreage, his clients would be responsible to Government for the difference of the rate. Nehanera Te Kahu: said that he wished to have the whole of the land surveyed, and the titles individualised; he did not wish to have anyone interfere with his property. It was agreed that surveyors should be sent without delay to survey the several blocks as shown on the map. Te Aropeta said he was not prepared to accept the £10 per 1000 acres rent over the block of 46,000 acres. No additional offer was made. Mr Moorhouse suggested that the first year's rent, now overdue from his clients to the Natives, should now be paid by the Government; or, at any rate, that a sum of £500 be now paid to them on account of rent for past year, on receipt of which he would suggest that the Natives should sign an agreement to lease the land on the terms now agreed to. 66 James Booth Wellington, 2nd September, 1874 We, the undersigned, hereby agree to the correctness of the statements herein made, Nehanera Te Kahu, Winiata Te Puhald, Meiha Keep, and others. Witness - W.S. Moorhouse8o This discussion indicated the degree of familiarity with the procedures of leasing and selling by some Maori and their willingness to engage in the process. Te Keepa's understanding, not disputed by the others present, makes it clear that private parties began the negotiations with Maori, and arrangements were entered into. While Te Keepa was employed as a Government assistant purchase officer, he turned his skills and knowledge, acquired in that profession, to furthering his own interests and those of his grouping. However, the intervention of the Government changed the nature of the arrangement, in that the Government expected to be directly involved with proceedings as an interested party. This change was appeared to be accepted by Maori negotiating here, as it seemed to enable them to complete their dealings satisfactorily. Interestingly, the term ofthe lease was extended here from the 14 years of the March 1874 agreement to 21 years, with general agreement. The authoritative nature of the March 1874 agreement was shown, however, by the need in 1879 to have the extension of 7 years fonnally conferred by the Government. The agreement to make reserves was to feature in later attempts to secure leases by the Government, but by the 1880s, seemed to have disappeared in deliberations, despite Government agreement to them here. Also, Te Keepa, despite his authority, did not simply express the wishes of all Maori in the Murimotu block, as the reservations ofTe Aropeta made clear. The divisions among Maori are not taken up in this report of the meeting, but the existence of different perceptions was noted, and its implications were evident in the discussions concerning Murimotu. 80 AJHR, 1875, C.-6, No.6 67 A memorandum, dated 3 September 1874, was sent by Booth to Clarke regarding rent due to Whanganui Maori over Murimotu. He stated he had received word from Moorhouse who had notified him that his clients were indebted to the owners of Murirnotu block to the sum of £ 1000 for rent. Moorhouse noted that in view of the transferral arrangements about to be entered into with Government, Te Keepa wished to draw £3,500 from the Government, £1,000 of which would be refunded immediately by Moorhouse and the rest would be rent paid in advance.81 Clarke minuted the letter that this should be referred to the Native Minister for consideration and approval but stated 'that this should be settled'. Native Minister McLean also minuted on the same day that 'if proper leases and security is taken the advance can be made' . On 16 September 1874, a telegram was sent to McLean from Renata Kawepo requesting to know if what he had heard was true that: 'Kemp had handed Murimotu over to you'. If this was true, Renata Kawepo stated that it was a very wrong proceeding as he and Te 82 Keepa had come to a decision between themselves about this land. III J It was around this time that the first Crown payments on Murimotu were recorded. 83 Table 1: Crown Payments on Murimotu Date of Particulars of payment Payment Voucher Payment 7.8.1874 R.S. Ledger Passages 16.10.0 144 6.0.0 145 20.8.1874 I.Booth T .R. Cash, law charges Kemp - to be charged as rent 130.10.0 358 7.9.1874 1.Booth. Kemp and another o/a rent 500.0.0 204 14.9.1874 E. McDonnell- Services 36.0.0 146 15.9.1874 R.S.Ledger passages McDonnell & Natives 6.0.0 191 28.9.1874 I.Booth. Aropeta Haeretuterangi o/a rent 11.0.0 210 30.9.1874 H.W. Bishop - Board Natives 6.16.10 178 30.9.1874 W. 1. Turnball passages 47'.0.0 235 11.10.1874 1. Booth. Wiari Turoa o/a rent 10.0.0 348 81 3 Sept 1874, Booth to Clarke, MAlMLP 77/366 found in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers VoLlO, p.5470 82 16 Sept 1874, Kawepo to McLean, MAlMLP 74/366 found in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers VoLlO, p.5471 83 See MAlMLP 7/2, p326 [Not Copied] 68 Booth telegraphed Clarke, on 14 January 1875, reporting that an important meeting on Murimotu was to be held but Topia and his people had declined to attend until after harvest. Booth also noted that Moorhouse had paid him £200 for Te Keepa and others. This was 'grass money' rent in accordance with an agreement, which had been made. Moorhouse's clients had arranged a lease, with Morrin and Studholme agreeing to pay £20 a month for pasture of sheep and this was the 10 months rent which was due. 84 As a result of having several preliminary arrangements with the private competitors to either take over negotiations or any agreements which had been made, Government agents then sought to undertake an arrangement with the various owners concerned. The aim was to acquire a super-block of 300,000 acres thought to be made up of the land included in the private arrangements but also of additional land including Rangipo Wain. On 24 March 1875, Booth sent word to Native Department Under-Secretary RaIse reporting on his visit of three weeks up the Wanganui River where meetings had been held relative to the leasing of the whole of the Murimotu country to the Government. He recorded that there was: a good deal of opposition at flrst. Final result may be considered satisfactory. Deed of Agreement to lease about 300,000 acres inclusive of Reserves signed by 106 claimants[.] Rest of claimants do not go absolutely against Government but wish in first place to have survey made. Have promised that survey shall be proceeded with as soon as possible. 85 On 1 April 1875, Booth submitted his report of the meetings, as mentioned to Halse, which had been held at Aomarama on 17 March, and Ranana on 18 through to 22 March, relative to the lease of the Murimotu and other blocks.86 Here Te Keepa gave his 84 14 Jan 1875, Booth to Clarke, MAlMLP 74/502 found in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO 8S 24 Mar 1875, Booth to Raise, MAlMLP 74/502 found in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5475 86 1 Apr 1875, Booth to Under Sec, MAlMLP 75/87 in MAI3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, pp.5480-5497 69 reasons for approving the Government lease. Most importantly, in his eyes, was that such a lease secured both Maori and Piikehii against loss. He maintained that ifPiikeha were allowed to lease directly from Maori, there would be no guarantee that Maori would regularly receive their rent or that Pakehii would be permitted to remain in peaceable possession of the land they leased. Te Keepa was also concerned that if a Pakehii did not hold a legal lease, he would be at the mercy of anyone who might outbid him, and therefore he would not be inclined to spend money on the improvements of the property, which would be contrary to the interests of the lessors. The major advantage of the present arrangement, Te Keepa believed, was that the whole property, with improvements, would revert to the original owners at the end of 21 years, and the lease would thus be more secure and the improvements greater in consequence. It would seem that this was what one major participant believed would be the advantage of leasing, and why leasing should be pursued. As an expectation, from one familiar with leasing and its implications, and who assumed the good faith of the other party at this point, it was not unrealistic. It needs to be compared with the reality at the end of the 21-year lease. At these hui, the leasing of four blocks of land was discussed: the Ruanui block (40,000 acres); the block inland of Pate a (100,000 acres); the Murimotu block (46,000 acres); and the Rangiwaea block (15,000). Again and again, Maori insisted that they knew nothing of lease arrangements, with Paora Patapu, Hunia Mei, Poma Haunui, and Te Oti Pohe, among others, stating that they knew nothing about the lease of the Rangiwaea block. Mei, however, admitted that he did agree to the depasturing of sheep on the Murimotu and Rangiwaea blocks for' grass money', but not rent. The question of the surveying of the leased areas was to the forefront of the discussion. It was suggested by Patapu that no leases should be signed until the surveys were complete and the land had passed through the Native Land Court. Topia Turoa expressed an opinion indicative of the disputes to come: 70 1 represent the Ngatitama tribe. 1 do not say that 1 am opposed to the terms of the lease to the Government, but 1 do not agree to anything until a survey has been made. This land, the 100,000 block, is in dispute and will be so, until it has been put through the Court. Only a portion of the land proposed to be leased to Government belongs to my tribe - 1 have the full control over this portion. 1 also have an interest in the portion of the Block claimed by Ngatirangi. 1 ask you to hold the money until the land is surveyed and the disputes are settled. 1 will not sign the lease at present, but 1 do not say that I will not accept the terms. 1 require time to think over it, this is the fIrst time 1 have heard the conditions of the lease.87 The Government was had evidence of the dispute Topia alluded to, since St John, in his January 1874 letter, had noted McLean's acknowledgement of it. When Te Keepa drew a line on the marae and called on those in favour of leasing to take one side and those opposed to take the other, the numbers were about equal. But many of those opposed to leasing said that they were not opposed to leasing to the Government, only that they wished to have surveys made fIrst 'in order to settle the question of ownership'. Booth's reply was that: You ought to have thought of the question of surveys before you allowed any members of your tribes to agree to lease to private speculators. The majority of you seem to be in the dark as to what was going on hence the present dissatisfaction.88 The validity of this criticism by Booth was compromised, as Booth well knew, because of the Government's commitment to giving effect to those leases, as a result of the March 1874 agreement. By the close of the hui, the agreement drawn up in Wellington had 106 signatures put to it, but there was still much disagreement over the issue of leasing. Hohepa Tamanuitu ofNgati Tuwharetoa, who considered that his tribe had a claim to the land in question, stated that they preferred to wait until the Native Land Court decided title: '1 am of Topia's opinion, let the land be fIrst surveyed, we shall then know what we are doing. Let the Surveyors be sent as soon as possible.' Topia Turoa also declared his opposition. He asked that his sister's and his children's signatures be struck off the agreement because they signed without his permission. When Booth 87 Ibid, 1 Apri11875, Booth 88 Ibid, 1 Apri11875, Booth 71 replied that this was a matter that would have to go to the Government, Turoa again asked for the names to be removed: I am the chief of their land, it is under my control, it has not passed through the Native Land Court. They had no right to sign it without my permission.89 Topia Turoa's objections highlighted the problems when decisions were made without having ascertained who precisely had the authority to enter into agreements. Neither the Government nor the private parties, in their urgency to reach settlement, had established who the proper parties were. Now that some ofthese Maori parties were raising objections, they became a problem for the Government, because actions had been taken, for example the depasturing of sheep, which assumed that the leases would be signed. A willingriess to pay rent, to distribute money, could only exacerbate the situation by drawing Maori parties into unofficial lease-like obligations, generating tension between those who accepted these payments and those who refused. For those who refused, the implication might be that they did not have authority to enter into leases, so a dilemma was created as to whether money should be accepted to express authority, or refused so as to express disagreement with the lease as it stood. Topia's question to Booth: 'You say the whole country is in the hands of the Government. Do you intend turning the European's stock off?', and Booth's response: 'No, we do not intend doing anything of the kind, but if rent is received it must come to you through the hands of the Government', demonstrated how far events on the ground presumed the agreement the Government was actively seeking to have confirmed. Notes of meetings, held on 19 July 1875, were also forwarded to the Under-Secretary by Booth. This meeting was with the Native Minister, Clarke, Booth, Buller, Moorhouse, Hon W Parata, Meiha Keepa, Topia Turoa, Heperi, Mete Kingi and others. The subject for discussion was the dispute between Renata Kawepo and Topia Turoa regarding the block of 100,000 acres at Murimotu-Patea lying to the east of the actual Murimotu 89 Ibid, 1 April 1875, Booth 72 block.90 Serious disputes were taking place about sheep access and interference with improvements. Topia implored that action be taken: 'let the land be surveyed and taken through the court', but owing to the complexity of issues, the Native Minister was not able to reply. Confusion about block boundaries, the rights of chiefs to directly run sheep or lease to other parties, and the interested involvement of the Crown were leading increasingly to conflict. Given this state of affairs, the report of James Booth to the Native Department Under Secretary needs to be viewed critically, especially in the light of these remarkable observations: I have to report that a considerable amount of trouble was caused a few months ago by private speculators, who offered prices very much in advance of those offered by Government; but after considerable discussion the Native owners were convinced that the advantages derivable from dealing directly with Government in the shape of roads, bridges, and available resources would even more than compensate for the difference in price. They therefore determined to sell to Government only, and up to the present time, for some months past, there has been no further attempt 9 at interference. ! From the Government's point of view, the point about the inconvenience of the private speculators was accurate, but the claim about native owner agreement needed qualification, as Booth well knew. This was quite apart from the fact that the question of precisely who the owners were was part of the point at issue. Again, the advantages that were expected to accrue from dealing with the Government, stated here as being a major reason for Maori agreement, need to be compared with the reality of what happened subsequently. lfthe Native owners were convinced, then presumably that was based on assurances given by Booth, speaking on behalf of the Government. Maori would have expected that these benefits would have been theirs to enjoy as owners of the land, owners prepared to lease or sell, in order to best obtain these benefits. All other processes such as surveying and awarding title, and Maori willingness to 90 19 Ju11875, Booth report, MAfMLP 75/315 found in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vo1.10, pp.5498-5502 91 18 July 1875, Booth to Under Secretary Native Affairs, AJHR, 1875, C-4A, pp. 1-2 73 participate in these processes, were predicated on the benefits that would result. There was not disagreement about this point as Booth accurately noted, but the Government took on obligations as a result of assurances made, and had actively limited the choices Maori could make about their land in this region, adding further expectation to effect what had been promised. There was a certain disingenuousness about the claim that Maori determined to sell, since of course they had no choice, if they wished to sell, since the Government had removed, without consultation, their freedom to alienate or lease privately. In the same report, Booth did note that there had been problems: 'Considerable delay has been caused by dissensions among the claimants themselves as to the extent of their claims', while leaving out a proper consideration as to why dissensions about the extent of their claims was causing delay. Booth presented the solution as straightforward:. 'I suggested both personally and through other officers of the Department that the most direct way out of the difficulties was to have the land surveyed, and passed through the Native Land Court'. Some Maori themselves had argued for this course of action, not just because: 'this advice has been adopted by a large proportion of the claimants', but because it simply was proper procedure within the system. What has been left out in Booth's report was the extent to which a resolution of difficulties was being compromised by existing lease-like arrangements, and their implications. Clarke wrote to Te Paki and others of Patea, on 26 August 1875, to inform them of McLean's advice to act judiciously with regard to the Murimotu district and the land disputed with Topia and others: Shearing season is near at hand, so do not interfere with the Europeans during that work. Let what you have to say respecting that land stand over, do not let it be a pretext for interfering with the property of the Pakehas. 92 92 26 Aug 1875, Clarke to Te Paki et al MAlMLP 75/4266 found in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers VoLlO, p.5506 74 On 27 September 1875, Te Paki and others wrote to McLean acknowledging the above letter. In response, Te Paki pointed out that their dispute with Topia was over Rangipo lands and that Murimotu should not be lumped in with this: we fmd fault with what you say in telling us to act judiciously with regard to our lands; this is in consequence of your having given money to Topia and others. You did not look at the difficulty that there was about that land. Therefore we think that this is the way you administrate affairs for this Island, and our troubles about the lands will continue. We thought that by informing you of the difficulties about this land that you would give the matter your consideration. Now you have caused trouble to light upon the land. Who is there can afford us relief, inasmuch as Topia who has just returned from you, commenced breaking down our sheep yards. Nothing was done to him respecting that evil action of his. Probably ere long he will fmd some more mischief to do and who is going to live here while this practice is being carried on. You tell us to act judiciously, how can we. However we are inclined to think that you are deeply interested in Topia and others, we understand this to be the case owing to this word of yours. viz Do not cause trouble in connection with the property of the Europeans. You have already heard that there are two flocks of sheep on that land, one flock belongs to the Maoris and the other to the Europeans. If European or Maoris interfere with our sheep we will interfere with theirs. 9 In the meantime, on 22 September 1875, Hataraka Te Whetu and 21 others wrote to McLean from Waiii telling him not to be concerned regarding the difficulty about the Government lease agreement that Buller had brought there: do not think that all the difficulty is about the rent, no, it is about the lease, and the fact of the Wanganui people including their lands with those leased by us. Friends, do you send up a new Deed of Lease, we will fill it in, write the boundaries and sign our names. Let the names of Topia and Heperi which were in that lease at Whanganui be struck out, as they have been objected to by us the whole tribe. 94 On 21 October 1875, Buller commented on this letter, stating that its contents were in accordance with a resolution passed by Maori assembled at Waiii on 7 August. He noted 93 27 Sept 1875, Te Paki et al to McLean, MAlMLP 7515073 found in MAI3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vo1.10, pp.5512-5514 75 that there was a willingness to sign the Government lease, but that objections centered on the fact that land claimed by Ngati Tama had been included and that the boundaries of the lease had been given by Whanganui Maori.95 Mete Kingi Te Rangipaetahi wrote to RaIse, on 29 October 1875, reminding him that Murimotu had been surveyed, it had passed through the Court and was vested in him and his people. A problem had, however, arisen: The sheep, cattle and horses of Mr Moorhouse are now running on that land. We are asking him for the rent - £500.0.0 for the grass. The sheep and cattle, being not yet paid for - they are running there for nothing. 96 Mete Kingi noted that he had complained to Booth who had made inquiries. Moorhouse had said he had paid £200 but Mete Kingi stated that had not received this money. Also Booth denied Moorhouse's statement. Mete Kingi closed his letter stating that if rent was not paid, then they would confiscate young stock in lieu of payment and eject n Moorhouse.97 1 On 17 November, Booth telegraphed RaIse with an explanation about Mete Kingi Te Rangipaetahi's complaint: Mete Kingi is only one of about 146 claimants to the block referred to by you. Moorhouse says he has paid £200, acct grass money. Advise Mete Kingi that it will be better for him to allow matter to stand over until myself or some other officer can arrange matters on spot. 98 Therefore, on 18 November 1875, RaIse wrote to Mete Kingi acknowledging receipt of his letter: 94 22 Sept 1875, Rataraka te Whetu to McLean, MAlMLP 7515069 found in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol. 10, p.5508 95 21 Oct 1875, Buller to Booth, MAlMLP 7515069 found in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vo1.10, p.5510 96 Nov 1875, Rangipaetahi to Clarke, MAlMLP 7515719 found in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5518 97 Ibid, Nov 1875, Rangipaetahi to Clarke, p. 5518 98 17 Nov 1875, Booth to RaIse, MAlMLP 7515719 found in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5519 76 The matter had been referred to Mr Booth, and he advises that it should stand over until he or some other person arrives there to arrange the difficulty, then perhaps it will be settled satisfactorily. 99 At this stage, however, negotiations for the Government leasehold of the block stalled and nothing further occurred for almost two years. These developments largely cover Rangipo-Waiii as well, with the following exceptions. The Rangipo-Waiii was a block that was to be strongly contested over between Ngiiti Tama and Whanganui hapii. At a later hearing before the Native Land Court in 1881, Winiata Te Puhaki claimed that traditionally Ngiiti Tama had not occupied the block and that they had maintained the Moawhango as their western boundary. He noted that Ngiiti Tama had fIrst crossed from the east side of the Moawhango in 1872. This migration was claimed to be connected with Ngiiti Tama's movement of sheep into Rangipo WaiiL 100 At the same hearing, Ngiiti Rangi witness Paora Tutawhaa also discussed the bringing of sheep onto the block by Ngiiti Tama and Ngiiti Whiti in 1872, and dated their occupation of Rangipo-Waiii from this time. WI As a result of Ngiiti Tama's attempt to depasture sheep on the block, a meeting was held at Waiii in 1874. Paurini Karamu gave further evidence about the Waiii meeting: I was present at the Wain meeting I objected then to sheep being placed above the Waitangi river. The chief subject of debate was whether sheep should be placed on Waiii. Ngiititama made no reply when I objected. 102 Ngiiti Tama began to also negotiate 1eases.with European pastoralists Morrin and Studholme. The Crown became anxious about Miiori conducting leases directly with private persons. Therefore, as noted above, during 1874 Government negotiators 99 18 Nov 1875, Halse to Kingi, MAlMLP 7515719 found in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5525 100 21 April 1881, the evidence ofWiniata Te Puhaki, Rangipo-Waiii case, NLC Taupo MB2 pp119-120 101 28 April 1881 evidence ofPaora Tutawhaa, Rangipo-Waiii case, NLC Taupo MB2 p133, 77 brokered a lease, which was signed"in September 1874 between the Crown and Ngati Rangipoutaka, Ngati Rangituhia and a 'portion' ofNgati Tama. This agreement encapsulated the leases which Ngati Tama had previously organised with Morrin and Studholme and extended the leased area. From October 1874" the following payments and charges had been made against Murimotu by the Crown.103 T a ble 2 : C rown p ayment son M urlmotu Date of Particulars of Payment Payment Voucher Payment 22.3.1875 D. Maunson - food to Natives 15.15.0 1378 24.3.1875 Wages of canoemen 10.15.0 950 14.4.1875 J. Seldon - passages Booth & Buller 7.10.0 1410 24.4.1875 Winiata Puhoki 4.5.0 1411 25.4.1875 -EruetiTurangapito - wages 5.5.0 1235 28.4.1875 Cartage 0.10.0 1231 1.6.1875 Topia Turoa o/a 100,000 acres 30.0.0 1366 Less rent paid by StudhoIme 220.0.0 16.6.1875 Tumball- passage of Natives 6.0.0 65 24.7.1875 J.W. Buller - compensation 500.0.0 29.4.1875 F. Jackson - 2 pack horses for survey party 26.0.0 72 8.3.1875 S. Mason - food for natives 6.17.3 74 6.5.1875 A. Beauchamp - food for natives 21.10.10 75 15.7.1875 W.J. Morpeth. Heperi Pikirangi - travelling 5.0.0 92 15.7.1875 W.J. Morpeth. Topia Turia - travelling 5.0.0 93 27.7.1875 W.S. Moorhouse - professional services 29.8.0 97 28.7.1875 W.1. Morpeth. Topia Turia - gratuity 10.0.0 135 28.7.1875 T. Whitehouse - food supplies Topia 11.5.4 143 30.7.1875 E.W. Mills - deed for J. Booth 1.8.0 145 2.8.1875 1.W. Buller - expenses in Wellington 18.10.0 146 25.4.75 1. Booth. C.Gordon - horse hire 24.15.0 175 6.8.1875 1.Clarke - packsaddle for 'Ruanui' survey 6.2.6 178 10.7.1875 J. Booth. Topia Turoa o/a lease 5.0.0 188 22.7.1875 J. Booth. Henare Haeretuterangi et al- o/a lease 15.0.0 189 10.7.1875 J. Booth. Heperi Pikirangi - travelling - as rent 20.0.0 194 28.4.1875 W.L. Buscke - travelling 7.7.0 195 12.7.1875 J. Booth. D.H. Momo - refund packing etc 8.5.6 198 12.7.1875 Ryan and another - wages survey 49.7.0 202 9.8.1875 C. Gordon - stabling 4.10.0 293 30.8.75 1. Jones - repairing Kemp's canoe 0.15.0 295 17.7.1875 1. Leydon - food to natives 20.0.0 391 102 1881 hearing evidence ofWineti Paranihi, Rangipo Waiu case, NLC Taupo MB2 pl06, 103 See MAlMLP 7/2, p326 [Not Copied] 78 30.6.1875 Buscke's salary- Survey 'Ruanui' block 75.0.0 434 13.10.75 Passages of Natives 3.0.0 517 7.7.1875 J.W.A. Marchant. Oti te Rangitaea et al- wages 59.10.0 528/9 23.7.1875 PassaRes of Natives 8.0.0 622 3 1.12. 1875 G. H. Davies. Renata Kawepo - present 50.0.0 742 6.9.1875 J. Booth. Topia Turia & 2 others - o/a rent 500.0.0 1364 yr end 30.6.76 9.9.1875 W. McDonnell- interpreting 8.8.0 1469 6.10.1875 J. Booth. Aropeta Haeretuterangi - o/a rent 6.0.0 1535 As these tables demonstrate, the majority of the major negotiating parties were drawn into a web of payments and obligations with the Crown, which further added to the· confusion of separating and identifying one's own interests from the compromising expectations that arose in this situation. Furthermore, familiarity with parties, persons, processes and payment did not automatically create the conditions for agreement between parties, as this chapter has demonstrated. 3.2. Discussion Maori in this region were certainly attracted to leasing as an option. A strong preference for leasing arrangements with private parties was seen by the Crown as a threat, and the Crown worked vigorously to prevent Maori taking this option. This was achieved from the Crown's point of view with the March 1874 agreement. Having established itself as the 'middleman' in future leasing arrangements, with the agreement of private Pakeha parties wishing to lease, the next task was to persuade Maori to sign. All Maori interested parties were very soon drawn into the receipt of payments, court hearings and negotiations to bring about acceptable outcomes for the various parties. The whole process, including payments made in advance, made it difficult for the Crown to approach some of the Maori parties as other than competing obstacles, as it sought to give expression to its aim of controlling land alienation in the area. Understanding seemed to have been reached about who could lease land to the Government in the September 1874 meeting, but subsequent hui revealed that this was not the case, that significant numbers of Maori with interests in the blocks were unaware of, and were reluctant to confirm, the existing arrangements. This was despite pressure 79 both from Maori, such as Te Keepa, who was persuaded of the value of leasing from the Government, and from the Government itself who forcefully reminded the parties that future leasing had to occur through the Government. Maori generally did not indicate opposition to leasing per se, although some did as noted, but wanted a clearer definition of particular interests held by different Maori groups. The possibility of responding to this reasonable request, to apply the normal official procedures to ascertain who had authority to lease, was compromised by events on the ground where stock had already been depastured, where payments had already been received, and assumptions made about who actually had authority to lease. The Crown, as an interested party, working as well for the interests of the Pakeha private companies according to the 1874 agreement, wished to bring about an outcome that had, as an unintended consequence, tremendous and divisive effect on Maori parties. Maori willingness to lease and legitimate concerns about entering the arrangements properly, given the implications for authority and for future benefit, were impediments to the closing of a deal, which to all intents and purposes from the Crown's point of view, was really operative from March 1874. The tensions, frustration and mistrust that characterised relations in this region to 1882 essentially flowed from this situation. It needs to be noted too that the reasons advanced by Te Keepa for leasing from the Government, that is the perceived benefits that would flow to the Maori owners, had some force in moving Maori to accept this option. The Government did nothing to suggest that the outcomes Te Keepa believed would result were unrealistic or that Maori would effectively lose control of most of their land in Murimotu and Rangipo-WaiU. This brings out the dilemma for Maori when facing the Crown, since as regards these blocks, the Crown was both organiser of the legal processes concerning land, and an interested party with an ongoing and changing set of designs on the land. By defmition, in its role as an interested party, the Crown could only see alternative Maori interests as secondary, or problematic in terms of its own agenda. 80 Events during the eight year gap between the 1874 March agreement and the Rangipo Murimotu Agreement Validation Act 1882 indicated how agreement between the Crown and private parties, and the obligations set up between them, militated against the recognition of Maori interests where those interests made the fulfilment of the 1874 obligations difficult to implement. The fact of differing Maori interests became an obstacle to be overcome in order to effect the agreement, with the agreement acting as the template determining the direction of 'progress'. 81 4. Chapter 4: Murimotu from 1877 to 1882 Negotiations to both detennine whose names should be placed on the certificate of title in MOOmotu, and to establish whether leasing arrangements already entered into would be upheld, began again in 1877. These negotiations continued, as will be outlined in this chapter, until the Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act was passed in 1882. 4.1. Divisions and Decisions at Murimotu On 8 February 1877, matters opened again when Booth telegraphed Gill requesting the Murimotu lease be sent to him. On 12 February, he further communicated that he thought a certified copy of the deed would do. Then, on 14 February, Booth infonned Gill that 'many more Natives now want to sign' .104 The lease was sent accordingly. On 17 March 1877, Booth wrote a report of a meeting held at Turangarere in the Murimotu in order to draw up a permanent agreement for leasing 'of a block ofland known in official documents as the 100,000 acre (now known as the Rangipo) block'. Booth noted that the whole of 28 February was devoted to debating the tenns of agreement to lease and covenants to be inserted, by Moorhouse and others, before the draft deed was submitted to him, Booth, on 1 March. Booth immediately objected that there were only two parties to the deed, the Natives and Studholme, Morrin and Co. Booth: insisted that in accordance with an agreement between Studholme, Morrin and Co, and the General Government the latter must necessarily be a party to all deeds of lease over lands embraced within areas specified in original agreement and more particularly shown on sketch map on margin of Deed of Agreement to lease, parties to said Deed being over one hundred Native Claimants on the one side and Government on the other side. This Deed I produced - Mr Moorhouse had been under the impression that Natives were not willing to deal with Government. lOS 104 8,12 & 14 February 1877, Booth to Gill, MAJMLP 77/602a in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol. 10, pp.5533-5536 lOS 17 March, 1877, Booth to Clarke, MAlMLP 7711194, in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol. 10, pp. 5540-5543 82 This indicates a considerable degree of confusion on behalf of the Pakeha private parties as to the extent of land covered by the 1874 agreement. Moorhouse seemed to have imagined that he was still in a position to deal with Maori directly in blocks which Booth understood were covered by the 1874 agreement. The request by Topia that the land be surveyed before agreements were entered into was shown here, by the confusion on the Pakeha side, to have been an entirely reasonable request for all parties concerned, indeed one which Maori might have thought the Government would have been promoting. Instead, the obligations to settle the 1874 agreement put urgency on Maori signatures before interests had been properly established. On 2 March 1877, Booth noted that Topia Turoa and 'other Natives claiming an interest in the Rangipo block were invited to meet the Solicitors and myself'. When asked their opinions: they said they were perfectly willing that Government should be a party to the Deed. Topia said he would much prefer that plan as he and his tribe could depend on Government to protect their interests. 106 Moorhouse was noted as being perfectly amenable to suggested amendments, such that there were now three parties to the deed, the Natives, the Government, and Studholme, Morrin and Company, as Booth required. The lease was to be for '21 years to commence from the date of issue of the memorial of ownership by the NLC, terms of £13 for every thousand acres'. There was discussion among Maori present about the terms, but it was supported by Topia and eventually signed by 'over seventy natives'. After some potential misunderstandings were cleared up, from Booth's point of view, Booth was able to predict that he did 'not anticipate much opposition' regarding a survey. 107 From Booth's perspective, things appeared to be advancing, but there were assumptions and .confusions that need sorting. The 106 signatures that Booth already had were assumed to be in agreement with this new lease. Given that Moorhouse was under the 106 Ibid, Booth to Clarke, p. 5541 107 Ibid Booth to Clarke p. 5543 83 initial impression that he was dealing with a new situation, which still involved the possibility of private leasing, it was hardly likely that Maori would have simply assumed that one lease covered all of the region or their interests at stake. Yet this was what Booth did assume. Furthermore, the agreement was to start from the issue of the memorial of ownership by the Native Land Court, but Rangipo-Waiii had not been through the Native Land Court, so the agreement was inoperative anyway, until that was carried out. In other words, the Government was trying to implement an agreement that in fact, according to its own processes, was stillborn until the land referred to in the agreement had passed through the Native Land Court. Maori wanted this process to take place, that proper title be determined but were naturally concerned that these leasing arrangements seemed to pre empt the outcome of the Native Land Court process. If Topia already had a lease agreement with the Government, then any attempt by him to survey land, in order to ascertain the extent of land to be leased, would be opposed by other Maori who would suspect that their interests would be compromised. In order for there to have been confidence in the outcome, title should have been established fIrst before confusing and divisive agreements were entered into. The failure to act in a proper manner here did not work to favour Maori in that leasing, instead of providing an opportunity, become an occasion of conflict, division, and suspicion. In passing, it might be said to have prejudiced the private parties as well in that their willingness to lease was also compromised. Sensitivity to this point was to be a factor·in the passing of the Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act of 1882. The reality was that, despite Booth's sanguine expectations, the confusions about what land was being referred to, demonstrated initially by Pakeha here as well as all along by Maori, and the lack of clarity about what parties, that is those comprising the 106 signatures and Topia's groups' signatures, had agreed to in terms both ofland to be leased and the conditions, would certainly lead to conflict when surveying commenced. 84 On 8 August 1877, the Murimotu block case was again before the Court for the submission of a list of proposed grantees. A request was made to the Court to have the 1873 judgement read again as well as the list of names presented at that time. This was done, but dissent arose relative to several of the names read out. The Court explained that its duty was to receive the names for the certificate of title so as to make an order. The Court minutes then record: 'This was found to be impossible' . Hence an adjournment was ordered with the Court minutes simply recording: 'Confusion ensued' . 108 On the following day, Te Keepa produced a list of 10 names to go onto the certificate of title. This sparked a debate when a number of persons called for names to be struck out or inserted. The Court proposed and took another adjournment. 109 Following this, on Friday 10 August 1877, Aropeta Haeretuterangi appeared before the Court stating that the owners had not yet agreed to the names of the 10 persons for the certificate of title. The case was adjourned again. I 10 On 23 August 1877, Buller reported to Clarke on the present position of the question over lands in the Murimotu district. He noted that Topia Turoa and other chiefs had held several meetings during the year, with the aim of making adjustments to the boundaries of the block before bringing their claim before the Native Land Court. At some of these meetings, a draft lease was settled on between Moorhouse (who represented the Murimotu Company) and claimants, and as a result, arrangements were being made for the survey of Rangipo and other adjacent blocks. This survey had been stopped, however, by both Renata Kawepo and Te Keepa, although the latter had declared it his intention to take the survey work in hand himself: I am of opinion that until then it will be impossible to make any further progress with the negotiations either on behalf of the Government or of the Company. In the face of such determined opposition from professedly 108 8 Aug 1877, MLC Whanganui MB 2, p35, Supporting Papers VoLlO, p.5294 109 Ibid, pp36-39, Supporting Papers Vol, 10, pp.5295-5298 110 Ibid, p40, Supporting Papers VoLl 0, p.5299 85 friendly chiefs, it would I conceive be a very unsafe policy to attempt to push matters in any way. III The 'friendly chiefs' had an obligation to defend their interests, which was exactly what they were doing. For reasons already explored, Government decisions about leasing had presupposed the leasing rights of certain Maori, which had in fact to be established. Not appreciating this led Buller to conclude that difficulties really sprang from other quarters. Buller then turned to the situation of the Murimotu block recording the difficulties owners had in selecting grantees: The presence of land speculators from other parts, who were endeavouring to out-bid the Company, incurred the difficulties of the position and strengthened within minds of the Natives their determination not to enter into any lease to which the Government is a party. I ought also to state that the existence of this feeling militates very much against the completion of this title by the Murimotu Company. 112 For the Ruanui block, the owners identified by the Court had concluded a fresh lease \ .... )] with Russell, ignoring past agreements with the Government. Buller concluded his memorandum: The conclusion to which I have arrived is this, that in the present state of the Native feeling among the Murimotu and Wanganui tribes, and in the absence of any survey of hapu boundaries, it is useless to attempt further \ negotiations for the present. Its effect would be only to irritate the natives and to make them more determined than ever to resist the overtures of the Government and to suspect the existence of some ulterior design on their land. Under these circumstances I would respectfully recommend the suspension for sometime of all negotiations till the natives themselves appear to invite it. Such a course is far more likely to succeed in the end than an apparent determination to force the natives into some arrangement now. In 111 23 Aug 1877, Buller to Clarke, MAlMLP 77/3544 in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vo1.10, pp.5545 112 23 Aug 1877, Buller to Clarke, MAlMLP 77/3544 in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vo1.10, pp.5546 113 23 Aug 1877, Buller to Clarke, MAlMLP 77/3544 in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vo1.10, pp.5548 86 Given what we know in hindsight, the 'natives' would have been quite right to have suspected 'the existence of some ulterior design on their land'. Even allowing at this stage that the Crown may not have had the intention of acquiring as much of the land as it finally was to, the Crown wished to be in a privileged position as regards negotiations. Tactics on the ground concerned how best to bring this about, against in some cases the express wishes of the 'natives'. Clarke notified Native Minister Onnond that Buller's report 'will be found to be the correct one' and therefore Clarke noted that he was 'reluctantly compelled to recommend that all further negotiations for the present be suspended' .114 In October 1877, Clarke sent a memo to the Native Minister regarding the Ruanui block stating that 'I have for a long time been quite in the dark' in respect to the 'Ruanui Block': 1 fmd that it is included in the 300,000-acre lease known as the Murimotu block. In the agreement to lease it is mentioned as the 40,000-acre block by actual survey it turns out to be 11,375- acres - hence my mistake. The land has passed the Native Land Court and it would appear that Messrs Russell and Howard have new dealings with the natives without any regard to the Government. My reason for stating this is Mr J. Russell has been in communication with the Inspector of Surveys with a view to repay the Government the cost of surveys. 115 . Clarke noted that the Government held an agreement to lease the 300,000 acres of the Murimotu district, which was protected by a proclamation prohibiting any dealings while the lease was current: In the agreement between the Government and Morrin & Studholrne there are certain stipulations in regard to reserves for special settlement and I submit that the Government in the Public interests should not relax their hold on the block. 116 11424 Aug 1877, Clarke to Onnond, MAlMLP 771194 found in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5544 115 Oct 1877, Clarke to Native Minister, MNMLP 77/4219 found inMA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5550 87 On 17 October 1877, J obn Bryce submitted a report on a petition submitted by Aropeta Haeretuterangi and others, summarising the petition as follows: The petitioners state that, in 1873 at Wanganui, the Native Land Court awarded a block of land known as Murimotu, containing about 46, 353 acres, to the petitioners and other Native applicants; that they (the petitioners) have since discovered that several Natives have been erroneously included amongst the applicants, although having no interest in the block; that.they who were so wrongly included are now anxious to sell the land in one block, but the petitioners desire to promote settlement, and to dispose of the land in small blocks; and that unless the error complained of is remedied, the matter will remain a source of discontent to all the real owners. 1I7 Here there was an indication of the variety of possible Maori interests in the block;, and the range of opportunities Maori saw might be gained. It offers another perspective apart from leasing to either Government or private parties. Some Maori also wanted to manage and benefit from the settlement process, or sell on a larger scale, which might have precluded leasing on the grand scale. Government interests left no room for these options. On 23 April 1878, the Murimotu block was again before the Court. The Court explained that, because the owners had been unable to agree to names, the Court was prepared to hear any other observations and, if possible, make an order. The first to speak was Te Aropeta Haeretuterangi, who stated that Te Keepa now wished only to have one name on the grant. Hoare Kuramate, after summarising the events that had occurred, also declared that he wished only one person to be inserted in the Grant and that person to be Aropeta Haeretuterangi. If the nominee declined this proposal, Hoane Kuramate suggested then that his own name should go on the grant. In response Te Keepa stated: 116 Ibid, Oct 1877, Clarke to Native Minister, p.5550 117 AJHR, 1877,1-3, Report on Native Affairs Committee, Report on Petition of Aropeta Haeretuterangi and Others, 17 October 1877, p. 28 88 I have been directing these hapiis in matter of land for some time and I was directing with others relative to this land from 1873 to the present time. I conducted the case in 1873 and called these people as witnesses. I only wanted one person in the grant so that he might represent the whole tribe. 118 Te Keepa also stated that he wished this one person to act as a trustee for the tribe, with the power to lease but not sell the block. This would seem to indicate his position as being one of maintaining tribal control, in order to avoid selling by other factions. After an adjournment of four days, the Court wished to know if the assembled owners had arrived at any decision as to names. Henare Haeretuterangi stated that 101 persons were in favour of one person being inserted - Aropeta Haeretuterangi - and the rest of the owners being registered. In response, Henare Takarangi stated that Winiata Te Puhake and Te Keepa should represent the remaining 108 persons. Again, after a great number of persons spoke on the subject, the Court decided that it was 'utterly impossible 1 to come to any arrangement'. Therefore the case was adj ourned. 19 There is some evidence to suggest that the population of Murimotu increased between 1874 and 1878, derived from a census that Booth conducted. 120 It has been suggested that this increase arose because of the realisation of its suitability for sheep grazing.l2l However, the unreliability of the census figures, and lack of clarity about what exactly Murimotu covers, means that it is difficult to obtain an accurate picture here. A further attempt, in February 1879, to arrange names in Murimotu did not succeed. On 12 March 1879, Native Minister John Sheehan wrote to Moorhouse with regard to the Murimotu block noting that the Government had decided to ask Parliament to give legal effect to the agreement made between the Government and Moorhouse's clients: 118 23 Apr 1878, MLC Whanganui MB 2, pp69-70, Supporting Papers VoLlO, pp.5300-5301 119 27 Apr 1878,MLC Whanganui MB 2, pp86-87, Supporting Papers VoLlO, pp.5302-5303 120 K. Rose, Whanganui Maori and the Crown: Socio-Economic Issues (CFRT ,March 2004), pp.l 05-1 06; and A. Walton, Settlement Patterns in the Whanganui River Valley, 1839-1864, Department of Conservation (Claimant evidence), Wai 167, A47, p. 8 121 Ibid Rose, p. 105 89 Pending the fonnal sanction of Parliament they will at once undertake the work of acquiring either the leasehold or freehold interest of the block, and on the completion thereof will recommend the execution by the Queen to you of a lease for fourteen years of the area comprised in your agreement, and subject to the tenns therein specified. 122 On 8 July 1879, having received the above letter, Moorhouse responded with thanks but asked whether, in light of the delays, and uncertainties, it was possible that the lease could be made for a tenn of 21 years. 123 On 24 December 1879, John Bryce wrote to Moorhouse fonnally advising him that Parliament was to empower the Government to give legal effect to the arrangements made in 1874. Bryce also acknowledged that, as there were delays in the settlement of this question, the Government was granting Moorhouse a 21-year lease as he had requested. 124 As noted, the lease agreed to by Te Keepa, in September 1874, and by Topia, in March 1877, had already contained a 21-year lease clause, so the Government was fonnally agreeing to what it had already negotiated between itself and Maori. Bryce also identified the obstacles to progress: You are of course perfectly aware that the fulfillment of this intention as expressed above must be contingent upon the Government being able to secure a position relative to the Maoris, and upon Parliament giving the necessary authority to enable it to be done legally. The best endeavours of the Government will be used to obtain that authority in both cases.125 This necessitated land going through the Native Land Court, and some fonn of parliamentary authorisation, both of which were to be achieved by 1882. 12212 Mar 1879, Native Minister to Moorhouse, MAJMLP 79/967 found in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vo1.10, p.5577 123 8 Jul1879, Moorhouse to Native Minister, MAJMLP 79/181 found in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol. 10,pp.5566-5572 12424 Dec 1879, Bryce to Moorhouse, MAlMLP 791181 found in MAl3 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers Vol.lO, p.5563 125 Ibid, 24 Dec 1879 90 Over most of the following three years, lease negotiations remained stalled. More payments were made to Murimotu parties, with the following charges against the blocks being recorded. 126 Table 3: Crown Payments on Murimotu Date of Particulars of payment Payment Voucher payment 7.9.1876 lBooth. Topia Turia - o/a lease 32.0.0 410 14. l.l 877 lBooth. Topia Turia - o/a lease 20.0.0 857 16.1.1877 J.Booth. Winiata Te Puhaki -o/a lease-'Ruanui' 20.0.0 858 portion 1.1.1877 J.Booth. Arapata Terangi - canoe hire etc 1.8.0 869 7.5.1877 J.W. Buller - paid for telegrams 2.12.6 1159 28.7,1877 H. Walker - travelling expenses 0.13.6 101 9.11.1877 J.Booth. travelling expenses 9.0.0 400 17.12.1877 N.Z.S.S. Co passage of Kemp 2.0.0 449 15.1.1878 N.Z.S.S. Co passage of Booth and Tupia 6.0.0 556 28. l.l 878 Peters - coach hire 2.10.0 557 11.3.1878 Hastwell and Co. - carriage etc 4.17.6 590 8.11.1878 Te Aro et al expenses of visit to Wellington 20.10.0 735 4.11.1878 T.W. Lewis. Mete Kin/ti - gratuity 15.0.0 788 22.10.1878 Hon. lSheehan. Ereni Turoa et aI-gratuity & expenses 35.0.0 1218 8.12.1879 Taylor & Watt - passages 3.0.0 1488 31.12.1879 C.D.Kennedy - salariet etc - re Rangipo survey 80.1.0 1638 28.11.1879 C.Gordon - horse hire - re Ran/tipo survey 5.10.0 2147 Negotiations could begin again to complete the lease agreement of 1874, as modified in 1879, once Rangipo-Waiii had been through the Native Land Court. On 13 April 1882, the Murimotu block came before the Native Land Court to hear the evidence from various parties for the arrangement of lists of each hapii and to allocate shares to those persons found to be owners in the block. 127 Map 3 shows Murimotu before partition occurred. Aropeta Haeretuterangi appeared before the Court and stated that this case had been 'going on for nine years and more and that at great loss to all of them'. Presumably this refers to the confusion as to who should be receiving rentals and inability to derive 126 See MAlMLP 7/2, p326 [Not Copied] 91 sustained benefit. He also stated that he regretted the removal of Judge Williams, and would have been 'better satisfied if the remaining Judge had been himself a Native Scholar' .128 The Court adjourned. Evidence such as this suggests that, for some Maori, the extended process was both frustrating and not as well resourced at certain hearings as it needed to be, in order to inspire confidence in the outcome for Maori. On the next day, Dr Buller appeared before the Court and gave a brief outline of the case, from the original hearings in 1871, through to the 1873 hearing when the Court passed judgment in favour of the Ngati Rangi tribe and identified that 209 persons were interested. Buller noted the hearings called on 13 March 1876 (adjourned for a survey to be completed), 19 January 1877 (no appearance by interested parties), Au~st 1877 (no reason assigned), to the April 1878 hearing, through to the 1879 case when a further attempt to settle names did not succeed. 129 Te Keepa objected to the interpreter being employed, arguing he was too young and inexperienced, but his suggested replacements were either unavailable or inadmissible, so it was suggested that James Booth translate. Despite the objections of other Maori that Booth was an interested party, this was accepted by the Court. On 18 April 1882, when the Court resumed its hearing, Sheehan pointed out that, as an interlocutory order had been made for the 209 persons, the present application was to arrange a subdivision between the entitled parties. 130 Outside court, the attractions of the local town presented another set of difficulties for Maori attempting to put their case properly, as revealed in this aside: 'Owing to actions taken in closing the Hotel last night, the natives had been in a condition to take the questions involved into serious consideration, and had been doing so'. This was one of those rare comments arising from within the Court that suggest that attendance at Court proceedings posed difficulties for Maori which may have impacted on effectiveness of their case. 127 13 Apr 1882, Whanganui MB 5, pp76-77, Supporting Papers, Vol. 10, pp.5305-5306 128 Ibid, p.77, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, p.5306 . 129 14 Apr 1882, Whanganui MB 5, pp.78-80, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, pp.5307-5309 130 18 Apr 1882, Whanganui MB 5, pp.85-86, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, pp.5314-5315 92 On 19 April 1882, Sheehan informed the Court that after a great deal of discussion four lists had been produced. The fIrst list identified 106 persons out of the original 209 names whom all parties were ready to admit as entitled owners of the block. The second list of 45 names showed those persons objected to by all parties. A third list of 15 names were persons objected to by Winiata but accepted by Aropeta. The fourth list, comprising 43, were persons who were dead. 131 The Court began hearing evidence from witnesses establishing their rights to the Murimotu block. As was pointed out, the Court processes made it in the interests of the claimants to arrive at a small number of names: The Court reminded the parties that the Court rules imposed a leasing fee of £ 1 per diem on Each party before the Court: - if therefore Each went on an individual claim, that would imply a fee of £1 per diem from each and every one of them: - the smaller therefore the number of parties into which they can arrange themselves, by fInding a common basis for their pretentions(?), the better for themselves. 132 It did not follow of course that this Court procedure, which made certain courses of action more fmancially attractive, would also conveniently reflect the best interests of Maori in trying to decide who could be included on the list, especially given the implications for the tribe in creating a small number of individuals who had authority to alienate. There was at least one reason why the list should be expanded, as Te Keepa pointed out in trying to defend the inclusion of children of living parents and grandchildren. Te Keepa was informed that the inclusion of children was unnecessary as the fact of children could neither diminish nor enlarge the estate of their parents, but as Te Keepa was recorded as rejoining, this was not the real point, but rather to protect the interests of minors: The list of the 209 names as made out in 1873 was intended to be a full and complete list of the whole of the numbers of the two. hapus interested: 131 Ibid, 19 April pp.89-90, Supporting Papers, Vo1.10, p. 5318 132 Ibid 19 April, p. 94, Supporting Papers, Vol. 10, p. 5323 93 and that it was expanded directly to protect the children from any reckless extravagance on the part of their adult relatives. 133 However, this point of protection for Maori interests run up against the legal assumption that parents would work for the best interests of their children, and the cost of an expanded list. It was further complicated in that claimants, such as Topia Turoa, hoped to establish their claim within the block through children who had been included on the lists. The hearings continued through to 15 May 1882.134 On 15 May 1882, following ongoing out-of-Court negotiations, Sheehan explained to the Court the arrangements that had been arrived at. It was proposed that the Murimotu block be divided into three portions. First the Rangituhia block on the east according to the line defined in Winiata's evidence, second a block of 10,000 acres for Rawhitiao and the balance of the block to Ngati Tamarua and Rangihaereroa, who would later decide on a separate subdivision between themselves. Sheehan noted: 'These three divisions being all subject to a proportionate reduction for a block to be given to the "Tangata Takekere" estimated at 1000 acres in all, to be adjudged to them by the Court' .135 This later group comprised those names which the principal parties believed had little or no claim, so a special place was found for them inside the Murimotu block. Later in the day, names of 10 persons were identified who would represent the different hapu in each ofthe divisions.136 On 16 May 1882, the Court announced a judgment for the Murimotu case. After noting that the Court was called upon by terms of section 24 of the Native Lands Act 1865 to order the making and issuing of two or more Certificates in respect to this block, Judge O'Brien noted: that this case has occupied so much time, and has been so thoroughly discussed inside and outside of this Court, and the parties are so completely in possession of all the facts and different proposals that have 133 Ibid 3 May, p. 208-209, Supporting Papers, Vol. 10, p. 5341-5342 134 Ibid, pp.89-314, , Supporting Papers, Vol. 10 135 15 May 1882, Whanganui MB 5, pp.314-315, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, pp.5382-5383 136 Ibid, pp.319-320 & 327, Supporting Papers, Vol.9, p.5385-5386 & 5392 - 94 been made on each side, that it will not be necessary for the Court to do more than simply announce its judgement. 137 Therefore, the following divisions were announced, as can be seen at Map 5.: • Murimotu 1 - 500 acres - for persons who are stated by the principal parties in the case to have little or no claim. • Murimotu 2 - 10,700 acres - for the hapu of Rangituhia. • Murimotu 3 - 13,000 acres - to the Rawhitiao hapu. • Murimotu 4 - 11,000 acres - to the Ngati Rangihaereroa hapu • Murimotu 5 - 11,165 acres - to Ngati Tamaroa hapu (later corrected to 13,081 acres) This decision removed the last major obstacle in implementing the 1874 agreement, leaving only the need to confirm or acquire Maori leasing agreements. On the fmal day, amid the congratulations extended to officials and various parties, the Judge also praised attending Maori: r , He wished especially to bear testimony to the patience and forbearance, and general good conduct of the Natives, throughout the trying circumstances of unusually protracted hearings in extremely inclement weather. 138 Attendance at hearings, especially protracted hearings such as this, imposed real burdens on Maori. Woon supplies ample evidence to suggest some of the deleterious consequences for Maori in being obliged to pursue and safeguard their interests through attendance at Native Land Court hearings. Referring to a hearing held in Wanganui in January 1879, Woon observed: 137 16 May 1882, Whanganui MB 5, p.324, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, p.5387 95 The Native mind has become quite absorbed in, and unhinged by, land selling operations. For the summer they took up their quarters in town and neighbourhood, and have been continually engaged in offering block after block of land for sale. As a consequence, large sums of money have passed to the Natives. Of course the greater portion of their money has been spent in town, in food, clothing, and alas, drink! and a rich harvest has been reaped by the traders and publicans. 139 While it is true that this particular sitting of the Native Land Court in 1882 did not concern land sales, it nevertheless imposed costs in terms of accommodation, food, and lost earnings. Woon explored some of the possible implications for Maori: In agricultural pursuits no improvement has been made, and, as reported by me last year, much neglect has been shown on this important matter, and during the prolonged stay in town of the Natives this summer many of their crops were left to the tender mercies of the cattle and swine, who have made sad havoc therewith. The health of the Natives, from negligence and exposure has not improved. The wonder is that there is not more mortality amongst them, owing to their drinking habits, and crowded state of living, for months of the year, in tents in the Town of Wanganui. 140 Woon was in no doubt that the issues concerning land, and the necessity of being immersed in the various proceedings, was having a major detrimental effect on Maori: \ ; Much of their land being in dispute, a great deal of time has been consumed in holding meetings to discuss and arrange their differences; and therefore the surveys, and attending the law-courts, have swallowed up most of their time, and serious attention will of necessity be taken up on this all-important business for years to come, so that after all it is not a matter of surprise that the Maoris could not give their continued attention to other affairs, and in a manner be compelled, from force of circumstances, to neglect the education of their children. 141 138 16 May 1882, Whanganui MB 5, p.330, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, p.5393 139 AJHR, 1879, G-1, Reports of the Officers in Native Districts, No. 10, p. 9 140 Ibid, AJHR, 1879, G-1, No. 10, pp. 10 and 11 141 Ibid, AJHR, 1879, G-1, No. 10, p 11 96 The hearings in Murimotu and Rangipo-W ain were part of a broader upheaval in Maori life as they were obliged to defend their interests, but in such a way as to seriously threaten their long tenn interests, even survival. W oon was quite consistently clear about this in his reports. Regardless of the decisions the Native Land Court was arriving concerning Maori land, the very requirement to participate over long periods of time in areas often outside one's own immediate area, had a destructive effect on Maori social cohesion. The disintegration of Maori social life, and attendant consquences, could not have added to the respect Pakeha might have otherwise extended to Maori. In August 1882, Charles E Nelson, a former purchase officer who had been involved in negotiations concerning the Rangipo-Wain leases, reported on the present position of the Rangipo-Murimotu blocks. 142 Nelson outlined developments, which had occurred with the Murimotu block: You will remember that this block had been left in an unsettled condition for more than eight years. It was dealt with by the Native Land Court in 1873 and the tribal owners ascertained by that Court but as the Natives could not agree among themselves upon the appointment of the ten persons to be placed in the Certificate of Title the matter remained in status quo until May last; at the same Court where the Rangipo rehearing was settled the Murimotu case was also dealt with and after a long and patient hearing the Court revised the list of names entitled to be entered on the Certificate of Title, the number of owners was reduced to about one half and the block itself was awarded in four separate sections - to - "r, Ngatiarangituhia 10,700 acres, to Rawhitiao 13,000 acres, to Ngatiarangihaereroa 11,000 acres and to Ngatitamarua 11,165 acres. At present the lease of this block stands in the following condition: of 21 N' Haereroa - 8 have signed the lease of 36 N' Rangituhia - 29 have signed the lease of76 N'Tamerua - 59 have signed the lease. of 37 N' Rawhitiao - 2 have signed the lease. 143 Nelson remarked on the low number ofNgati Rawhitiao signatures and noted that the disinclination to sign came after the Court's judgment 'being in their opinion adverse to 142 August 1882, Nelson report,MA-MLP1, 1901155, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, pp.5831-5841 143 August 1882, Nelson report,p.5836 97 their interests and certainly not in accordance with their anticipations'. Despite this, Nelson held the following view: I apprehend no absolute difficulty in the completion of the leases of both blocks and believe that the great bulk of the signatures will be obtained within the course of the present year: the delay which has arisen has without a doubt been partly occasioned by the action or inertia rather of the Government the policy of which appears to the Maori mind to be unusually unconcerned and in this instance, at any rate, of an exceedingly listless or lymphatic temperament. I have on more than one occasion been plainly told by the natives that the Government is not at all anxious to have the transaction completed; this matter I feel sure might be overcome at once, as any action on the part of the Government indicating a firm determination to have the transaction closed in terms of the agreement with the natives will, I may safely say, induce most of the present waverers to fulfil their agreement and sign the lease. 144 Nelson also stated that another hindrance arose from the arrangement between the Government and the private occupants not having been completed. He believed that although the Maori owners understood and supported the Government's promise to allow continued occupation, their faith 'is gradually evacuating its premises concerning the whole matter in consequence of the apparent neglect or absence of action as between the Government and the European occupants'. He proposed that urgency existed in completing the leases to the Crown in order to enable the Government to fulfil its bargain with Messrs Studholme Morrin & Co: I may point out that this firm has been occupying this land for the last eight years with the knowledge and approval of the Crown and that during that time they have been put to enormous expense in consequence of the quarrel between the different sections of the people claiming the ownership of the land.145 Nelson again stated that he was working to procure the outstanding signatures and he again mentioned 'that the Natives have all been fully informed that upon completion of , J 144 August 1882, Nelson report,p.5837 145 Ibid, August 1882, Nelson report,pp.5838-39 98 the Crown's lease of Rangip6 and Murimotu, these blocks will be released to Messrs Studholme Morrin & Co': 1 would also respectfully submit that my hands would be considerably strengthened in this work if the Government were to legislate during the present session and assume sufficient power to enable it to give legal effect to its agreement with the above mentioned f111li - such legislation would be the strongest and most useful evidence that could be placed before the Native owners, of the intention of the Government to give effect to the agreement between it and the firm. Having been practically relieved from my position as a Government officer 1 of course furnish this report non- officially. 146 What was not appreciated by Nelson were the reasons behind the 'inertia' of the Government, inertia he noted Maori had also detected: 'I have on more than one occasion been plainly told by the natives that the Government is not all anxious to have the transaction completed'. Only now was the Government in a position, with the lands covered in the 1874 agreement having at last gone through the Native Land Court, to take action. Confusion about what had taken place did nothing to lesson its impact on Maori interests, which had suffered in the process. This forthright assertion for the need to legislate, coupled with the completion of the Native Land Court process, meant that the Government could proceed with the Rangip6-Murimotu Agreement Validation Bill. The debates concerning this Bill will be discussed in the Rangip6-Waiii discussion of the next chapter. 4.2. Discussion: What emerges from this investigation so far was the extraordinarily close involvement ofthe parties with each other, and a collection of competing interests, which defy simple categorisation. Maori had differing, changing and competing interests, as did Pakeha, both as private individuals or companies, and the Crown itself. However, the Crown emerged as the one party that obtained exactly what it had hoped to achieve, in terms of being able to effect policies directly, whatever they may be. It might be said that the 146 Ibid, August 1882, Nelson report,pp.5841 99 process itself1ed the Crown to a position of sympathy, fmally of obligation, to Studholme and Morrin, culminating in the Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act 1882, an Act which served to give this company's irregular and unofficial position a properly defmed status. However, closer investigation reveals that in pursuing a general strategy of being the major party in this region, the Crown's tactics on the ground were confusing and divisive for Maori. The Crown's determination to prevent private leasing, while at the same time protecting the interests of those private parties who had entered leasing arrangements, led it into a position of trying to force the outcome of leasing agreements before land title issues had been resolved. Maori wished to be part of the process of leasing and share in the benefits of leasing. While initially sceptical of leasing through the Government, they were generally persuaded that this was favourable to their interests. The Government attempted to seal leasing agreements in 1875, but failed through lack of agreement among Maori, springing from uncertainty about who had authority to agree to what. The Government tried again in 1877, but, as evidenced, with real confusion about which lands were under discussion. Maori were unclear as to what the implications of the agreement were among themselves, negotiations inevitably stalled and the chances of conflict were greatly increased. The conflict that did result in Rangipo-Waiu, as is investigated, was largely determined by the Crown's confused policies on the ground. Both in 1879 and in 1882, the Crown expressed sympathy for the plight of the private company involved and implemented legislation, which offered relief for the perceived disadvantages that the company had endured in terms of insecurity of land use and what owners to deal with. That Maori in the region had also suffered disadvantage was without question. Leasing arrangements, which some Maori had sought from 1871 onwards, were fmally able to be implemented legally from 1882, after confusion, division and dissipation of what moneys were received. Given Maori willingness to participate in the Native Land Court process in the belief that a favourable outcome was possible for themselves, Maori might have expected that the process regulating land use 100 between Pakeha and Maori would have been applied more effectively by the body responsible for so setting up those processes. Not that participation in the process came without costs to Maori, whatever their intentions for their land. The need to attend Native Land Court hearings, and the effects this had on social life on Maori throughout the region, not just in Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii, needs to be taken into account when trying to assess how successful Maori could be in pursuing their own interests. It could be argued that the very processes set up to help Maori define their land interests legally, and use their land constructively, were, at another level as so ably pointed out by Woon, helping to undermine the very capacity of Maori to so use their lands. The costs of court attendance both fmancially and socially, and the consequences for Maori coherence and stability, might be interpreted as adding in tum a further justification for assisting other interests to use the land more constructively. In pursuit of its own agenda, there is evidence to suggest that the Crown demonstrated an indifference to Maori interests, and hostility where those interests directly challenged its own. It remains to be seen whether this attitude would change in the post-1882 period. In the meantime, the effects of this unstable Crown amalgam of policy and interest were further evidenced through developments explored in chapter 5 on Rangipo Waiii, revealing in the process some of the broader concerns and interests of the Crown. 101 5. Chapter 5: Rangipo-Waifi from 1877 to 1882 Returning again to focus specifically on Rangipo-Waiii, the journey to the Rangipo Murimotu Agreement Validation Act 1882 was much more problematic compared to Murimotu, especially around the question of entitlement. On 23 August 1877, Buller had reported, as noted, that a survey of Rangipo-Waiii had been stopped by Renata Kawepo and Te Keepa. As a result of Buller's recommendations, all negotiations had been suspended. 147 This chapter looks at the conflict that broke out in Rangipo-Wain from 1879, the forces and personalities behind it, and the resolution that followed, namely the Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act 1882, with a view to gaining some understanding of what this resolution may have meant for the parties concerned, and what drove it to take the particular form it did. 5.1. Dissension at Rangipo-Waiii Trouble broke out from late 1879 as the Government attempted to survey the area leased to Studholrne and Morrin, at Rangipo-Waiii, preparatory to passing it through the Court. Te Keepa took up arms in defence of Ngati Rangi interests as opposed to Topia Turoa and Ngati Tama, Tuwharetoa, and Ngati Whiti. That struggle became entangled with Te Keepa's deepening disillusionment with the course of land alienation in the Whanganui rohe and its economic and social impact on his people. The transfer of land had not resulted in the close settlement and rising values which Te Keepa saw as key to Maori development; rather land was passing from their hands at an uncontrolled pace, largely as a result of the scatterings of monies which mortgaged tribal lands, but which were quickly spent. Richard Woon, commenting on these developments, acknowledged the problems being faced by responsible leadership, the continuing importance of the 'land question' to Maori, and the spectrum of responses to it: The Native mind has all along, and still continues to be, much exercised upon the question of how to administer their land in such a manner as to 147 23 Aug 1877, Buller reporting to Clarke, MAlMLP 77/3544 found in MA13 50a, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers VoLlO, pp.5545-5548 102 best promote their interests as a people. Opinion is much divided on the question. Some are for shutting up and monopolising their lands altogether; some are for selling portions thereof, so as to let in the European element; and others- the extravagant and reckless - would part with every acre they have. 148 Te Keepa began an attempt to control land disposal, by establishing a tribal boundary, through negotiation, survey, and if necessary, by force. The Government condemned these efforts as acts of tribal expansionism and disorder, and as of particular concern because they implied repudiation of past Whanganui dealings with the Crown. The focus ofTe Keepa's attack was, however, the unfair practices of purchase officers, not transactions which he conceded to be legitimate. He began advising his people to withdraw from the land court system and 'rest satisfied with Maori tenure as derived from their ancestors; to cease from selling and leasing and go in extensively for utilising their lands by clearing them and laying them down in grass, and putting stock of their own on them'. 149 On coming to office as Native Affairs Minister in late 1879, John Bryce ordered Te Keepa (as an assistant Land Purchase Officer) to bring his influence to bear in order to effect the survey of the Studholme and Morrin lease. Te Keepa supported the idea of a tribal line being established between Ngati Rangi, Ngati Tama, and Ngati Whiti, but there was still no agreement about where it should run. He argued that Whanganui interests were being sacrificed to the pastoralists and to other tribes, and on arriving at Murirnotu, concluded that a clandestine survey of Rangipo-WaiU was being attempted. ISO In response he led a large contingent of armed men to Waipuna station. The Government tried to rein in Te Keepa. Local officers warned the Native Minister that fighting was imminent. Booth wired Bryce that he had restrained Topia, who was currently in Napier, only with 'great difficulty', and that Ngati Whiti chiefs had appealed to Mete Kingi to recall Te Keepa, apparently with little result, since \, .3 Whanganui leaders from the lower reaches of the river had demanded full information 148 Reports from Officers in Native Districts, AJHR, 1880, G-4, p.5 149 Ibid, Reports from Officers in Native Districts, p.5 103 from the Government before they would act.l5l Bryce attempted to order Te Keepa, as an officer in the pay of the Crown, to return to Wanganui: It has been reported to me that instead of assisting the Government in its work of surveying the land at Rangipo, preparatory to the investigation of title by the Native Land Court, you are resisting it at the head of armed men. This is not the sort of work that I expected from you when I told you to go to Murimotu to assist in the survey. 152 But Te Keepa refused to comply, accusing Bryce of deception. He replied that he thought that he had been sent to the district to put 'put a stop to the troubles of that part of the country and also to survey the tribal boundary line', and it had been no part of the ·understanding that the area of the Moorhouse lease with Topia was to be defmed. Te Keepa protested the growing power of former opponents of the Crown. In his view, Topia's rights had been set at Kokako in 1860 when the Whanganui boundary had been drawn by Hori Kingi: The boundaries of this land were fIxed in 1860. That was the year when the King and Topia seceded ... A meeting was then called at Kokako, Murimotu, Hori Kingi and his tribe fIxed the boundaries - commencing at Kaiwhaiiki, thence to Houhou, thence to Waitapu, thence to Hurlwaka, thence to Raro-o-tai-te-ariki, to Tongariro. These were the boundaries dividing off the lands of Kingi and Topia, and preventing the sale of the land to Europeans (within said boundaries). These are the boundaries of which the Government prior to you have been make acquainted by men. You say I have caused the trouble. In my opinion, covetousness after riches, and grasping for land are the cause of the confusion. 153 The Wanganui press gave some endorsement to Te Keepa's position because the Government was seen as pushing the survey through on behalf of a land ring. 154 One correspondent suggested that Te Keepa's actions demonstrated the dangerous levels of Te Whitism along the river but the editorial of the Wanganui Herald argued that 150 19 February 1880, Keepa to Woon, Le 1 1880/151 151 24 February 1880, Booth to Bryce; Woon to Bryce, 24 February 1880 and 6 March 1880; Mair to Booth, 6 March 1880 Le 1 1880/151 . 152 18 February 1880, Bryce to Te Keepa, Le 1 1880/151 153 25 February 1880, Te Keepa to Bryce, Le 1 1880/151 104 whatever the outcome of the dispute to title, 'the Europeans who [had] fixed themselves at Murimotu [had] no rights there and [were] entitled to no sympathy'. In John Ballance's (editor, later Native Minister and Premier) view, the Government was at risk of taking anned measures to bolster the claims of 'monopolists' who had 'spread themselves' over an area of 150,000 acres supposed to be under Government proclamation, and on which public monies had been advanced. According to Ballance, the decision to support the claims of these parties ~as a political one, which could be traced back to their influence within the Atkinson and Hall Ministries (1876-77,1879- 82). The editorial of2l February argued that Te Keepa had a 'right to drive off sheep and shepherds if they [were] on land without a title' and concluded that, although he was likely to be made the 'scapegoat', the real cause ofthe trouble at Murimotu was the 'insatiable land greed' of speculators. 155 A further editorial reiterated that Te Keepa had 'colorable' claims which deserved serious consideration and which could not be dismissed as mere Native 'bounce': Kemp is engaged, rightly or wrongly, in vindicating his claim to land, and we venture to affinn that any threats used for the purpose of making him forego these claims will be as the idle wind. We published yesterday the report of a meeting held in 1874, and published in the official records of the following year, which affords conclusive evidence that Kemp's claim is a very old one, that it was recognised by the late Sir Donald McLean as Native Minister, and that this very claim is at the basis of the title to the Block. 156 The Government was accused of having deliberately stepped aside from its purchase operations to throw its influence behind land speculators.157 This growing criticism indicated a swing of public opinion against private purchase because it was seen as detrimental to the small settler and which was to influence native policy in the l880s and 1890s. Its bearing on Maori in this region will of course need to be detennined. 154 Wanganui Herald, 9 February 1880 155 Wanganui Herald, 21 February 1880. For report ofTe Whitism, see 20 February 1880 156 Wanganui Herald, 26 February 1880. See also editor's comment 1 &5 March 1880 157 Ibid, 26 February 1880 105 In March 1880, Te Keepa led his party to Auahitotara, built a pa within four miles of Wain where Ngati Whiti were based, and threatened to drive the stock offboth Murimotu and Rangipo-Wain. According to Gilbert Mair's report, Te Keepa had told a peace-making delegation from Taupo that he was 'fighting the Government, now that he had been robbed of his land', and 'when the Waikato chiefs advised him to look nearer home, he replied that when he had restored this land, he would then win back all that his people had sold on the Wanganui River'. Some of Te Keepa' s people travelled to Karioi where they intended to destroy the wool washing stages, but Te Hinaki, who worked for Studholme and Company, had defied them to interfere with their equipment. 158 In the end, despite the arrival of reinforcements on both sides, armed conflict was avoided. Te Keepa's attitude to Ngati Whiti and Ngati Tama fluctuated; he seemed ready to fight but reluctant to strike the first blow, and also tried to win their consent to his proposals to rid the region of European stock. Ngati Whiti and Ngati Tama proved largely conciliatory. They refused to follow Te Keepa's lead at Rangipo-Wain, but acknowledged that he was free to do as he liked with the 46,000 acre Murimotu block. 159 This indicates the varying degrees of interests, and authority, of the differing groups in the respective blocks, degrees recognised prior to any decisions made by the Native Land Court. However, how one used one's authority, and what interests were pursued or debate~, had implications for Maori over and above a traditional context. Maori who opposed Te Keepa were informed of the Government displeasure with him: 'Hearken: The Government disapprove ofTe Keepa's violent conduct, and will discontinue his connection with the Government. Instructions have been sent to him to return to Wanganui but he has not obeyed' .160 Despite an effort by his daughter Wikitoria to persuade him to withdraw, Te Keepa remained firm, stating that his argument was with the Government and that he would not return to Wanganui until 158 6 March 1880, Mair to Booth, and Scannell to Under -Secretary Native Office, 10 April 1880. Le 1 1880/151 159 Ibid, 6 March 1880, Mair to Booth, Le 1 1880/151 160 2 March 1880, Lewis to Hohepa Tamamutu, Le 1 1880/151 106 Parliament sat and he had had an opportunity to petition the Assembly. 161 In response Te Keepa was dismissed from the Government's service in March 1880. Woon reported, however, that this had had no effect. Te Keepa was 'quite indifferent' to the rebuke and was 'threatening to prevent his people attending any approaching sittings from the Native Land Court' .162 He was seen as failing in his purpose by Bryce, however, because the survey of Rangipo-Waiii was 'sufficiently advanced to satisfy the requirements of the court. 163 5.2. Kemp's Trust and Government Response Later in 1880, the disillusionment of many Whanganui with the conduct of purchase operations in the upper river lands, took a new and alarming political direction for the Government, as the movement that became known as 'Kemp's Trust' was founded. Te Keepa, acting with the assistance of Napier-based lawyers, Sievwright and Stout, now tried to utilise the framework of property law to protect Whanganui lands. A deed vesting Whanganui tribal lands in the trust was drawn up, and signed by some 180 leaders.164 Again Government officials emphasised Te Keepa's tribal imperatives, his efforts to assert a claim to Rangipo-Waiu, in particular, and saw the Trust as an effort to both frustrate the court hearings, and to repudiate legitimate purchases. But, while the question ofWhanganui rights in Rangipo-Waiu were obviously of importance, Te Keepa himself stressed issues of the fairness of the Court and Government purchase practice, and by means of the Trust, tried to promote a greater Maori role in both title decision and general government. Sievwright and Stout wrote to Bryce, asking for the 'cooperation and moral and practical support of the Government in giving effect to the Trust', and that these questions be dealt with in a 'spirit offaimess'. Bryce was hostile, however, attributing the most venal motives to the movement. He replied that 'until the ownership [was] ascertained 161 10 March 1880, Woon wire to Native Minister, 162 Ibid, Woon 163 Ibid, 28 March 1880 Bryce wire to Topia Turoa, 164 Suzanne Cross and Brian Bargh, The Whanganui District', ('Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, April 1996), p.52 107 natives [were] not in a position to convey land to which they assert a claim, either in trust or in any other way'. Furthennore, the Trust boundary would transect blocks on which the Crown had initiated purchase negotiations, and Bryce saw it as 'objectionable that natives who had disposed of their land, so far as they could legally do so to the Government attaching their names to agreements to sell, and taking advances or payments thereon, should, aided by you [Sievwright and Stout] seek to convey it to another person for a different purpose' . 165 Sievwright, Stout, and Te Keepa strongly protested this construction. The lawyers stressed that the trustees were intending to 'fulfil and give effect to all agreements to sell and convey land which had been legally and properly entered into'. They questioned, however, the legitimacy of past transactions undertaken by the Government, arguing that purchase officers had breached their own standards of conduct. Sievwright and Stout pointed to McLean's condemnation of the system of advancing monies to Maori 'who frequent [ed] Wellington for the purpose of obtaining money lands to which title [was], in many cases, of the most slender character'. 166 McLean had, in 1873, set out the parameters of correct procedure, but which had been since abandoned; the determination of title through the Land Court, 'and then by fixing time to assemble together all the interested tribes, who then should execute a general deed of cession, and should thereupon receive, in the most public manner the whole or nearly the whole of the purchase money. 167 Pollen was also cited as warning that stock should not be placed on Murimotu until all owners were agreed, as was Bryce's own condemnation of purchase methods in the district, during the debates on the Native Land Sales Bill, 1880: In 1871, when the Crown commenced that system of purchase in competition with private individuals, there commenced also a course of conduct on the part of agents, both of the Crown and private individuals, which, I think has done more to demoralise and degrade the Maori race 165 29 September 1880, Bryce to Sievwright and Stout, NO 80/3418, MA13/14 166 30 September 1880, Sievwright and Stout to Bryce. NO 80/3418 In MA 13/14 167 Cited in Sievwright and Stout to Bryce. 30 September 1880, NO 80/3418 In MA 13/14 108 than all the efforts at colonisation can ever redeem ... The Native people have always been excited upon the subject of their land, and when you see agents, both on the part of the Government and on the part of private individuals, continually pestering them to sell their land, when you see these agents scattering money among them like dirt, when you see them bribing these people in all directions, supplying them with rum and spirits of all kinds - I say that it is no wonder that the signs of demoralisation made themselves apparent. 168 Sievwright and Stout argued further, that these transactions were often conducted in a one-sided and irregular manner, Maori being without the assistance of independent advice, and given no information about the nature of the debt on the land, or its alienation. In these circumstances, they asked that the Government supply the trustees with papers regarding the Crown's purchase ofWhanganui land, and a detailed statement of advances, the lands upon which they had been paid, the amounts involved, and the persons who were in receipt of them. 169 A similar point was emphasised by Te Keepa to Woon, that the Government policy and practice had been calculated to entrap Maori into sale of their tribal estate. The boundaries of his lands had not been properly investigated, and: Yet I am accused by him [Mr Bryce] of being an offender, and he turns aside to lead me 'into ways unknown by me viz to the land courts, to the scattering of money (advances in land purchase) among the night crying fowls, those of them being caught thereby being captive kaka, and foolish captives (those taking the money). 170 Te Keepa tried to expand the compass of the ban. He called a meeting at Raorika, inviting Bryce to attend so that his proceedings should be conducted with full Government knowledge, and for Ngati Whiti and Ngati Tama to join him in his movement and to try to arrange their differences on tribal boundaries. Suspicious ofTe Keepa's motivations, Ngati Whiti and Ngati Tama refused, however, to give their support to the goals of the trust. And Bryce, replying with some initial tact, also 168 Bryce NZPD, 1880, vol. 35, p.267 169 30 September 1880, Sievwright and Stout to Bryce, NO 80/3418. In MA 13/14 17°18 October 1880, Keepa to Woon NO 80/3625 In MA 13/14 109 declined the invitation to attend. Woon wrote to Te Keepa, giving 'the message from the Native Minister respecting the Court being the proper tribunal to discuss questions of title and boundaries & c; and remonstrated with him about his conduct, and the result thereof .171 Later in the month, Te Keepa wrote to Bryce, protesting the Government's policy as changed from that under McLean, and as wooing the kingitanga at the sacrifice of the interests of those who had been long-term supporters of the Crown: The laws held good ... from that time you and I have attempted to amalgamate laws, which have been like clouds driven by the wind ... You have administered affairs between us for forty years past, now that homed beast is seen breaking down the fences, that animal does not eat the green herb (grass) but feeds on the leaves of the 'rau-rakau' in the dense forest of Tane. Do not lean on the bosom of those persons who were corrected by us in former days. I have been an intimate of your house for forty years, then I suffered hunger and thirst, was nipped by the frost and sleep fled from my eyes. 172 Bryce replied in similarly allegorical terms: that it was 'well to rely on the law but. .. not well always to rely on lawyers' who were as a staff sharpened at both ends. He warned that one end would cut the hand, and the other' sink into the earth, and as that end [was] barbed, it [would] be difficult to withdraw it'. Bryce then drew a lesson for Te Keepa, describing how his parents had two cows, one of which was wild and went into the bush, where they had tried to kill it for its 'evil proceedings'. The other had been petted, 'fed with sweet grass' and protected until it, too, had gone wild and 'tried to gore with its horns'. Bryce continued: Then my parent said 'Put this cow out in the common paddock. It will still have protection of the strong fence of the law, but I can no longer treat it as a favourite daughter until its madness departs from it. The bush cow which at one time gave us much trouble is now tame and tractable, and obeys the voice of the herdsman. Why should it not also be in the pasture of the law, and eat the grass of the paddock? 173 171 6 November 1880, Woon to Under Secretary Native Department, NO 80/3784 In MA 13/14 172 16 November 1880, Meiha Keepa to Bryce, NO 80/3784 In MA 13114 173 29 November 1880, Bryce to Kemp NO 80/3921 In MA 13114 110 The letter ended with an accusation that Te Keepa, as an 'inmate of [his] house for forty years' had now turned and stabbed his host. Te Keepa replied in equally strong terms: You quote the law in support of what you say. I recognise the Queen's laws relating to Crown Grants, money advances, and other matters, but scattering money upon lands that have not been brought within the operation of the law, and making advances to people who have not been decided by the law to be the owners of the land, these are not the Queen's laws, but are the laws of the present Government and of your heart who enacted such laws in order that you might obtain possession of my land for yourself. 174 This accusation was a serious criticism of Crown action, as the Crown had not taken steps to ensure that it and other leasing parties were dealing with all legitimate owners of the land. This did not mean that the Crown was not in the process of determining who the legitimate owners were, but that, as well as doing this, it was trying to enter into deals with people before the outcome ofthe process to determine who in fact was legitimate had concluded. While there were reasons for this, as has been explored, these reasons were not working for the interests of Maori. On the contrary, the situation was working to exacerbate Maori divisions and suspicion of Crown motives. Not choosing to focus on this element of Government involvement, or simply being unaware of it, tended to leave a simpler explanation for the troubles, namely division among Maori, as paramount: There can be no doubt that the question of title to the land in that part of the country is very much in dispute - both tribal, family, and individual title. During the many years I have been in Wanganui, I have always understood it to be a debatable subject, both among resident and non resident Natives; and it would be a good thing if the various claimants could agree to some concerted line of action, whereby the vexed question of title might be gone into, and settled by joint survey and investigation before the Land Court. 175 174 10 January 1881, Meiha Keepa to Bryce NO 8111 13 In MA 13/14 175 AJHR, 1880, Reports of the Officers in Native Districts, G-4, p. 14 111 In January 1881,a body of20 armed men from Whanganui under the leadership of Porokura and calling themselves 'Kemp's Council' confiscated 34 bales of wool at Moorhouse's station over the remonstrances of Aropeta Haeretuterangi who sided with Turoa in this dispute. Two days later, a party of 40 Ngati Rangi and Ngati Ruaka armed with government revolvers and carbines, arrived from Wanganui under the leadership of Koma, Kiritahanga, and Reimona(?) to survey their claims within the Rangipo block. The party had expressed their 'determination to go on with the survey' of their claim but no threats were made, and Te Keepa called them back from Murimotu within a matter of days. 176 In the following month, the Whanganui Council attempted to bar surveyors from the trust area, while Te Keepa wrote to Rolleston (who had taken over from Bryce in February 1881): We will not acknowledge this reptile James 'Booth as we have already had enough of his misdoings. Now we fmd him forced into this district again. This is to tell you positively that we will not permit him to put his foot within any part of the Whanganui River District. 177 The drawing of a tribal line through blocks under negotiation was seen as an attempt to repudiate past transactions, even though any such intent had been disavowed by the trust lawyers and leaders, and Booth attributed Te Keepa's animosity to fear that he would reveal his past participation in those sales. 178 This Government interpretation did not seem to be borne out, however, when, in April, two settlers were refused access to the land they had purchased up-river at Ohautahi; but Te Keepa intervened, wiring the person concerned (Kurumate) to open the road since the land had been Crown granted and he had 'no desire to steal' .179 Te Keepa's efforts to establish tribal boundaries, outside the framework of courts and rules provided by legislation, met with the standard response that applications for survey 176 29 January 1881, Captain Preece to Bryce NO 81/113 In MA 13/14 1772 February 18.81, Meiha Keepa to Rolleston NO 81/346 In MA 13114 178 7 March 1881, Booth to Lewis NO 811709 In MA 13/14 112 should be sent through the usual channels; and that he should 'show his loyalty' by submitting such questions to the proper forum, and by 'promoting an acceptance of the Court by all concerned,.180 The Government saw the formation of the trust as a deliberate attempt to frustrate the hearings at Rangipo-W aiU preparatory to the Government following through on the arrangements there. Of course, the Government had its own very interested reasons for pushing that survey through, that is, to complete the March 1874 Agreement. When Te Keepa travelled to Taupo to attend the hearings for Rangipo-WaiU, in March 1881, he was seen as really there to prevent the sitting or have it moved to the west coast. 181 In fact Te Keepa had little alternative but to attend if he wished to protect the interests of Whanganui on the slopes· of Ruapehu, although he did wish to have the hearing shifted from Tapuaeharuru where Tuwharetoa were the acknowledged tangata whenua, to Murimotu where Ngati Rangi were the stronger party. 182 While travelling to the hearings, Te Keepa was shot at by one of Turoa's people, allegedly when drunk. ~amuel Locke, reporting to the Native Department, downplayed the incident, while suggesting that Te Keepa's motivations in travelling to Taupo were obstructive rather than in support of the COurt. I83 He was directed to investigate the matter, Rolleston minuting his telegram that: 'Mr Locke had better do anything he may consider necessary to deprive Te Keepa of any excuse for saying he would be in any danger by going to Taupo.I84 Pohoi who had fIred the shot was brought before the Resident Magistrate Scannell but Te Keepa did not appear to press charges. I8S The Crown urgently needed a resolution of title, and Te Keepa could not afford not to be represented. Common but competing interests drove the parties to the Native Land Court. 179 7 May 1881, Kemp to Kurumate NO 8111407 In MA 13/14 180 See 10 February 1881, Booth memo to Native Minister, NO 81/443 & memo of interview 16 March 1881 NO 811813 In MA 13/14 181 21 March 1881, Locke wire to Under Secretary, NO 811813 In MA 13114 182 13 April 1881, Keepa to Rolleston NO 8111587 In MA 13/14 183 21 March 1881, Locke wire to Under Secretary NO 81/813 In MA 13114 184 See Rolleston minute, undated, on ibid 185 4 Apri11881, Scannell to Under Secretary NO 8111017 In MA 13/14 113 5.3. Rangipo-WaiU goes through the Native Land Court The Rangipo-Waiu case was set to be heard in April 1881 (cfMap 2 for Rangipo-Waiu before it was partitioned). Several further delays occurred due to parties being held up at other hearings. It appears that Te Reuheu Tukino and others also put in a claim over the block but that it was soon learned that the claimants had not produced a surveyed map. Therefore, the 1881 hearing of the Rangipo-Waiii block proceeded under the claim of Topia Turoa and others who had surveyed the land and had a map before the Court. The case opened, on 20 April 1881, with the boundaries of the block being read out in Court and Topia affirming that these were correct. Counter claimants were then called for and the following responded: • Te Reuheu Tukino represented by himself • Meiha Keepa represented by Emera Whakaahu • Nika Waiata (alias Mrs Adamson) represented by Macdonnell • Wineti Paranihi represented by himself • Aropeta Haeretuterangi . Topia Turoa opened the case: I belong to Ngatitamapinea, Ngatiwaewae and Ngatituope, hapu of Ngatitiuwharetoa; also to Ngatitama a hapu of Ngatitamakopiri. I live at Poutu outside south end of map, also at Patea, near Te Pou a Tamuringa but outside the block. I claim the whole of the land, the north end through Tuwharetoa, the south end through Tamakopiri. 186 Topia Turoa noted that, at this stage, he was merely opening the case and that he would call witnesses later. 186 20 April 1881, statement of Topia Turoa, NLC minutes, Rangipo-Waiii case, MB p.88 114 Counter claimants challenged, the first being Te Heuheu Tukino. At the beginning of his evidence he set out the boundary of his claim, boundaries which he claimed were not restricted by the block surveyed by Topia: My boundary commences at Waitangi river, thence to its source thence by a line to the mouth of Mangaio river, which it follows to its source, thence by a line to Waipahihi river, following down that river to Waikato, along Waikato, thence by a line to Nukuhau on Wangaehu river thence to Makahikato river, thence to Waitangi river. (Portion to the north east) This is a part of a large block that I claim, most of which lies outside of the map. 187 Te Heuheu Tukino denied the rights of Topia Turoa to the north-eastern part of the block, which the latter had claimed through N gati Waewae connections.188 On the following day, Te Heuheu Tukino was further questioned about a range of issues raised by his evidence. During this cross-examination Te Heuheu named all of the hapu of Tuwharetoa including Ngati Waewae who, he said, lived at Rotoaira and Patea. 'Their boundary extends south to Rangipo including that land.' Under further cross examination Te Heuheu acknowledged that the land south ofWaitangi was owned by Ngati Rangi. 189 The next witness was Wineti Paranihi who claimed under Ngati Waewae with Te Heuheu. Wineti Paranihi outlined his boundaries: My boundary commences at Waitangi river where boundary of map crosses it, thence up Waitangi to its source (the shortest source as shown on map), thence to source of Waikuta, thence in a direct line to the mouth of the Mangairo, along Mangaio to its source near Horotea thence to Waipahihi, along Waipahihi past a stream called Te Mimi a hinewaipahangihangi, to its junction with Waikato along survey line, crossing Waikato again, to a place when there is a stone called Nukuhau, 187 20 April 1881 evidence ofTe Heuheu Tukino, NLC minutes, Rangipo-WaiUCllse, ~pp.89-90 188 Ibid, p.90 189 Ibid, p98 115 thence to station C, thence to a stream, Wahianoa at station D along survey 1me· to t h e commencement at W altangI. . . 190 On 23 April 1881, Wineti Paranihi was cross-examined by several parties during which he noted that the boundaries described on the previous day did not include all the lands of Ngati Waewae. Keepa conducted one of the cross-examinations: Who owns land outside the part you claim? Ngatirangi own land south of Waitangi river. Rangituhia gave the name Waitangi; it should be called Waitangi a tuhia. Waitangi is the boundary between us and them. 191 Te Heuheu's next witness was Paurini Karamu who also was of Ngati Waewae. He supported the evidence given by Te Heuheu and Wineti. When questioned by Keepa, Paurini Karamu stated that N gati Rangi owned land south of the Waitangi river. When the Court resumed, on the 25 April 1881, he was recalled to give further information on this matter: Ngatirangituhia own the land outside of my block, south of Waitangi river. That tribe together with Te Oti and Winiata own it. Nika Waiata and Hamiora have a right to cultivate at Auahitotara because they belong to Ngatirangituhia. 192 The Court also recalled that Wineti Paranihi to also give evidence on this point: Ngatirangituhia own the land south of Waitangi. The part they own is inside the block before the Court. 193 The next of Te Heuheu's witnesses was Hami te Kuri who, in giving boundaries of the block which he claimed as belonging to Ngati Waewae, was recorded as identifying the same area as pointed out by Te Heuheu and Wineti Paranihi. Hami te Kuri rejected the 190 21 April 1881 evidence ofWineti Paranihi, Rangipo-Waiii case, NLC Taupo MB2 p99-100 191 23 April 1881 evidence ofWineti Paranihi, Rangipo-WaiU case, NLC Taupo MB2 pl09 192 25 April 1881 evidence ofPaurini Karamu, Rangipo-Waiii case, NLC Taupo MB2 pliO, 193 25 April 1881 evidence of Wineti Paranihi, Rangipo-Waiii case, NLC Taupo MB2 plIO, 116 Ngati Iama claim to Ngati Waewae's part of the block noting that all ofNgati Tama's lands were on the eastern side of the Moawhango river.194 When questioned by Ie Keepa, Hami te Kuri discussed those people whom he had seen on the block and outlined the places belonging to various neighbouring iwi: I saw people at Rakitepaunga and Iuhirangi. Ngatirangituhia occupied the former place. Ngatirangituhia own the land south of Waitangi. Ngatitama own the land on the east ofMoawhango river. North east portion of block belongs to Te Oti Pohe. West ofMoawhango at south end of block, belongs to Ngatirangituhia. 195 With the conclusion ofHami te Kuri's evidence Te Heuheu's case was closed. In the afternoon Ie Keepa's case began: We claim over the whole block; I and ancestors excluding the north east portion. The part included all the rest together with Murimotu through ancestry. Taiteariki is the ancestor I [claim] through. I claimed through Houmea on Murimotu. I claim for my party. 196 Te Keepa then outlined the boundaries of his claim, which were confIrmed by Winiata Te Puhaki, who lived at Murimotu and belonged to the Ngati Rangituhia hapu: This land belonged to my ancestors. The boundary given by Meiha Keepa, along the Moawhango, was boundary. Point out same boundary on map. Pou a Tama Ringa, Okurukuru, Mangahohonu, Mangaraureka, Te Kurae, source of Moawhangoiti, along that river than along Moawhango, Maunganui, Takapokura, Te Rei, Huriwaka, Takapukotuku, Manaiko, Kaikoura Te Apiti, Whitingara, Okura, mouth of Mangaio, along Mangaio, to Ngapuketurua, Te Atua Te Rahi on Whangaehu, along road to Waikato, crossing it, then to Te Roro 0 Tai Te Ariki, follows survey line to Nukuhau, then to Makahikatoa, then along survey line of Murimotu to Te Pou A Tamuringa. 197 Winiata Te Puhaki also discussed the residence of his ancestors: 194 25 April 1881 evidence ofHami te Kuri NLC minutes, Rangipo-WaiU case, NLC Taupo MB2 plIO 195 Ibid, pl12, 196 25 April 1881 , evidence Meiha Keepa Te Rangihiwinui, Rangipo-Waiil case, NLC Taupo MB2 pl13 117 Tarikuao, Te One ki Rangip6, are also hunting grounds. My ancestors used the land for hunting as they wished. Fighting began in the time of Taiteariki. Te Rangiwhakarurua was killed by Te Puhi. Te Rangi belonged to a tribe and hapu. I do not know. Te Puhi belonged to the tribe of Taiteariki. 198 On the following day, 26 April 1881,Winiata Te Puhaki continued with his evidence: Puhi and Taitaeriki belonged to the tribe of Ngatihauninapaparangi, related to the Whanganui tribes. Te Rangiwhakarurua belonged to the same people. Then Tai Te Ariki was killed by the children of Homea called Tura and Rotuia. They killed him with slings and stones at Te Onetapu. Then the Ngatihotu killed my ancestors outside this block. Two of my ancestors with their dogs avenged their death by killing some of . Ngatihotu at Rotoaira. 199 The evidence continued with a recitation of a series of fights and altercations that Ngati Rangituhia had with neighbouring peoples especially Ngati Whiti.2OO This evidence went on for some time until the Court intervened, demanding why there was a need for such a detail account of various fights in which Ngati Rangi participated. Winiata Te Puhaki responded: 'My object is to show how the people from outside came to fight us on the land,.201 He then went on to describe places of occupation on the block noting that in several places there are permanent houses which have been occupied from the time of Taiteariki down to Rangituhia's time. On 27 April 1881, Winiata Te Puhaki continued with his evidence through cross examination discussing a range of matters many of which had been raised on the previous day.202 When asked about the claimant Topia, Winiata Te Puhaki was of the 197 25 April 1881 , evidence ofWiniata Te Puhaki, Rangipo-WaiU case, NLC Taupo MB2 p.l14 198 Ibid, p.116, 199 Ibid, 26 April 1881, p.116, 200 26 April1881 evidence ofWiniata Te Puhaki, NLC minutes, Rangipo-Waiu case, NLC Taupo MB2 ~p.116-118, 01 Ibid, P118 202 Ibid, p125 118 opinion that he was a descendant of Rangituhia and that his people only built houses on the land in question when the sheep were brought onto the block. 203 Just before the lunch adjournment, Te Oti Pohe, who described his iwi and hapu as Ngati Rangituhia, gave evidence. He supported the boundary given by Wineti and stated that the land belonged entirely to Ngati Rangituhia who had occupied it from the time of Rangituhia. Te Oti Pohe then gave evidence of hunting in this area noting the eeling stream Hautapu, and the birdlife caught on the block:204 Ngati Rangi have caught the eels from these streams our company lived at Ngamatea ... I went from Orongotama to catch rats at Tarikuau ... Te Apiti is a precipice where mutton birds build. The Ngati Rangi caught them. I have caught them myself no other tribe caught game on this land. . .. I catch wekas on this north east portion also kiwi, mutton birds and rats. I have probably 100 places where I catch mutton birds. Taupunamu and Rangitau caught birds on this land. My ancestors have operated there down to my own time?05 After naming a number of hunting places on the block, and claiming that other people were excluded from hunting on the block, Te Oti Pohe recorded that he had opposed Topia's survey.206 Under cross-examination from Heperi, Te Oti Pohe listed the permanent residences on N gati Rangituhia both on and off the block. He also stated that the land ofNgati Tama was on the eastern side of the Moawhango River.207 The next witness, Paora Tutawhaa, was of the N gati Rangipoutaka hapu and lived at Murimotu. He supported the evidence ofWiniata regarding the fighting with Ngati Whiti and noted that the links between Ngati Poutaka and Ngati Rangituhia were reflected by their joint award of Murimotu and their joint occupation elsewhere: 203 Ibid 204 Ibid, p127 205 28 April 1881, Evidence ofTe Oti Pohe, Rangipo-Waiii hearing, NLC Taupo MB2 p.128 206 28 April 1881 evidence ofTe Oti Pohe, NLC minutes, Rangipo-Waiii case, NLC Taupo MB2 p.129 207 Ibid, pp130 & 131 119 From the days of Rangituhia, the Ngatirangi and Potaka [sic] have occupied the land south of Waitangi to the Moawhango river. 208 He also discussed the bringing of sheep onto the block by Ngati Tama and Ngati Whiti in 1872 and dated their occupation of Rangipo-Waiu from this time,z°9 Winiata Te Puhaki specifically testified regarding the northeast portion of Rangipo Waiti: The block has been occupied by Rangituhia. The land is not available for residence, the people only go up hunting there, stay for a night or so, and return home again. 210 On 30 April, Te Keepa gave evidence supporting the Ngati Rangituhia claim and noted their continual occupation and cultivation of the block 'and the surrounding lands'. Te Keepa stated that this occupation was maintained despite attempts by others. to conquer the area. Te Keepa supported evidence previously given regarding the fighting between Ngati Rangituhia and others.211 On 2 May 1881, Te Keepa was still giving evidence. He discussed the Kokako meeting and was cross-examined for the rest of the day on the issues raised by his evidence. After cross-examination concluded, Te Keepa's case then closed,z12 On 4 May 1881, Nika Waiata's case opened. On the following day, Nika Waiata testified identifying herself as Ngati Rangituhia. She had a more limited claim based on her personal experience of occupation on the block. She identified the boundaries of her claim noting that the claims ofTe Keepa and Winiata were correct, that she did not oppose Te Keepa but that she wished to show her own occupation to certain areas.213 After a few brief statements her case closed. 208 28 April 1881 evidence ofPaora Tutawhaa, Rangipo-WaiU case, NLC Taupo MB2 p132 209 28 April 1881 evidence ofPaora Tutawhaa, Rangipo-Waiii case, NLC Taupo MB2p133 210 28 April 1882, Evidence ofWiniata Te Puhaki, Rangipo-Waiii hearing, NLC Taupo MB2 p 140 211 30 Apri11881 evidence ofMeiha Keepa, Rangipo-WaiU case, NLC Taupo MB2 p141 2122 May1881 evidence ofMeiha Keepa, Rangipo-Waiii case, NLC Taupo MB2 ppl44-5 213 4 May 1881 evidence ofNika Waiata, Rangipo-WaiU case, NLC Taupo MB2 pp151-2 120 After this, the N gati Tama case of Topia Turoa opened. Over the next two weeks, the witnesses denied the Ngati Rangi claim.214 The Ngati Waewae andTuwharetoa claim to a southern boundary at Waitangi was also rejected.215 The southern boundary of Tuwharetoa was claimed as being at Makahikatoa and Wahianoa.216 During the course of the Ngati Tama evidence, most witnesses claimed Te Oti Pohe was Ngati Tama whilst he occupied the block. Under cross-examination, virtually all the Ngati Tama witnesses acknowledged that they also were Ngati Rangituhia.217 During this evidence, Te Haupaimariri described his view of the Ngati Rangituhia / Ngati Tama boundary: I can point out the ancient boundary between Ngatitama and Ngatirangituhia. It begins at Makahikatoa down that stream to Wangaehu, thence to Waitangi stream, thence to Makiokio, thence to Te Hum a Tamakopiri thence to Waioru, along that river till it joins the Hautapu, thence down the Hautapu to Pahekeheke, thence to Maungawhitau. I will not continue this boundary because the land further south has already passed the Court. This is the boundary laid down by my ancestors between Murimotu and Patea. 218 The Ngati Tama case closed on 17 May, 1881. The Court gave its decision on 20 May 1881. The northern portion of the block, from Waitangi, was awarded to Ngati Waewae. Regarding the remainder of the block both the claims ofNgati Rangituhia and Ngati Rangi were considered to have been proven: Now as to all the remaining part of Rangipo Waiii block. The Court upon full consideration of the evidence comes to the conclusion that in past times it was not held exclusively and solely by either the Ngatitama or by the Ngatirangituhia, but was used by both of them in common, and that since those times nothing has happened to alter their relative positions. 2144 May 1881 evidence of Topia Turoa, Rangipo-Waiii case, NLC Taupo MB2 pp.153-200 215 See minutes for Rangipo-Waiii case, NLC Taupo MB2 at p 185 216 Ibid, p189 . 217 Ibid, pp153-200 especially pp. 176-77, 180, 183, 197 218 Evidence ofTe Haupaimariri, Rangipo-Waiii case, NLC Taupo MB2, p.l56 121 It therefore only remains to the Court to say that as to the Ngatitama and the Ngatirangituhia they are now equally entitled and the Court adjudges them to be so. 219 The Court acknowledged that at a future time a subdivision of the block would be possible?20 However, while Ngati Waewae's interests and land are clearly demarcated, the same was not true for Ngatirangituhia and Ngati Tama, where their interests were defmed as being fifty percent of the block each, but the land was not divided, so that effectively every square centimetre of land in Rangipo-WaiU block and Rangipo-Waiii 2 block was equally shared between the two groups. This situation was not addressed, with implications that will be explored when partitions occurred. The final awards were (cf. Map 4): BLOCK SIZE (acres) Rangipo-Waiii 42,000 Rangipo-Waiii No.1 26,000 Rangipo-Waiii No.2 30,000 To reiterate the point made during the 1882 hearing on Murimotu, this hearing would have involved considerable disruption to Maori social life in order that the participants be present. For two years, in the Rangipo-Waiii case in 1881 and the Murimotu case in 1882, very often the same Maori had had to appear for long stretches of time with all the pressures of dealing with the attendant costs. Whatever the outcome of decisions, their subsequent ability to derive any effective benefit had already been compromised by the demands of participation in the process. In August 1882, Charles E Nelson reported on the present position of the Rangipo Murimotu blocks.221 With reference to the Rangipo-Waiii block, he summarised as follows: ,- ? 219 Judgment, Rangipo-Waiu case, NLC Taupo MB2, p201 220 See minutes for Rangipo-Waiu case, NLC Taupo MB2 at p204 221 August 1882, Nelson report of Rangipo-Murimotu blocks, MA-MLP1, 1901155, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vo1.10, pp.5831-5841 122 In May 1881 the Rangip6 block comprising an estimated 98,000 acres I may say passed through the Native Land Court at Taupo definitely; it was then apportioned in two pieces one of which, containing 26,000 acres was awarded to Ngatiwaewae hapii and 72,000 acres given in equal shares to Ngati Rangituhia and Ngatitama. In consequence, however, of the Ngatitama chief Topia Turoa having made application to the Chief Judge for a rehearing of the case it was deemed prudent to leave the question of procuring the lease until the decision of the Court upon the application for rehearing had been given.222 Despite Topia's concerns, the rehearing confIrmed, with the exception of one name, the original decision. Nelson continued his report by relating events and the result of the rehearing: Previous to this I had, however, obtained the bulk of the signatures of the Ngatirangituhia and the Ngatiwaewae hapiis. At present six of forty-two Ngatiwaewae and five of fifty Ngatirangituhia remain to sign. These are all, but one, residents of up country districts, one at Hauraki, one at Matata (East Coast) another at Hikurangi, three at Parihaka, three at Patea, &c. As soon as I have an opportunity to visit the particular settlements just mentioned I have no doubt but I shall be able to secure all the remaining signatures. 223 Nelson noted that the Ngati Tama had not yet come into the arrangement and that the chief Topia Turoa and his people had not yet signed the new lease despite being key in having the first lease completed: I believe that it would have been quite possible for me to have obtained the signatures of some of these people one by one, but in giving the matter careful consideration I decided not to attempt to obtain an individual signature until Topia should profess to be agreeable to the transaction or should commit some overt act justifying mr present belief that he is most anxious to repudiate the whole transaction. 2 222 Ibid, August 1882, Nelson report ofRangipo-Murimotu blocks, p.5831 223 Ibid, August 1882, Nelson report ofRangipo-Murimotu blocks, p.5832 224 Ibid, August 1882, Nelson report ofRangipo-Murimotu blocks, p.5832 123 This decision of Nelson to wait for the chiefs consent rather than acquire individual signatures indicated a fair degree of latitude about how Maori assent might be obtained from Crown agents on the ground. In other words, the central concern was to obtain signatures, not what might have been in the best interests of Maori. Decisions to go one way rather than another were dictated by judgements concerning the likelihood of obtaining agreements that would be representative and that would last, given the obligations the Government had undertaken. This of course had been the major problem on these blocks. Nelson suggested his personal belief that the reason for Turoa not supporting the lease was fear that his people would realise that he had been the sole recipient of rents to date. Assuming that this was a factor in Topia' s 'obstruction', the reason Topia was in a position where he could be accused of having taken rents that, according to Nelson., should have been distributed among others of his hapU, was because the land had not been taken through the Native Land Court unti11881, despite Topia's own stated desire to have had it taken through earlier. In other words, Topia had been placed in an invidious position, one which he had recognised and endeavoured to change, but which had proved difficult to implement, that is, the need to have surveying completed and title awarded prior to leasing, despite the existence of lease arrangements over land in which there was disputed title. Topia's call for a rehearing was further evidence that he still had problems with the decisions arrived at in 1881. That Topia's position had been inconvenient for the Government was not automatically a reason for condemnation of the choices Topia had made, unless it was believed that his choices should always coincide with what was most convenient from the Government's perspective. Nelson lay all the blame for ongoing difficulty at the feet of Topia, suggesting dishonest motivation, or external influences. Of course, Nelson had developed certain opinions about Topia, which he had expressed in a letter justifying his own conduct throughout the negotiation process: 124 I, however, found a different opinion of Topia's character from the fIrst, and made up my mind to act on that opinion - his unflinching perseverance in openly and defIantly thwarting and denying the genuineness of the agreement he had signed, and made with the Government, which still pays him a yearly salary, had been strangely enough tolerated, without even an attempt at resistance, until I encountered him - I knew I had no ordinary native to deal with, and cautious self reliance was necessary, he was a bane, or obstruction in my path, and I was determined to "level the eminence", or accept the consequences of the failure. 225 The need to implement the leases could also become personalised on the ground as contests between individuals, as this letter demonstrated. Nelson was not one to regard resistance to the achievement of the leases as anything other than driven by perversity, which determination could eventually overcome. Indeed, the methods Nelson had used in order to undermine Topia, with proposals for private sale, led the Government to question his commitment to concluding the leases.226 Despite a long defence of his actions,227 Nelson felt compelled to resign from Government service in March228 , but Gill still evidently valued his contribution. Nelson believed Topia's resistance was also linked to the influence of private Europeans 229 who were antagonistic to the Government securing the leasehold of the block. Again, this assumed that Topia's best interests should coincide with what the Government desired, and that pursuit of interests which ran at cross-purposes to Government interests were ipso facto to be deplored. A fIrm approach was best: I feel assured that a just and fIrm policy of the Government with Topia and his party will ultimately result in the whole of them coming to their senses, and confIrming the Rangipo lease?30 The subsequent determination of the Government to compel some of Topia's people who had signed leases in 1877, but who did not want to agree to new leases of 1884, had 225 MAlNLP 82/6, National Archives, Nelson to Gill, 5 January 1882, pp. 3-4 226 MAlNLP 82/6, National Archives, Gill to Nelson, 1 December 1881 227Ibid, MAlNLP 82/6, Nelson to Gill pp.I-9 228 MAlNLP 82/121, Gill to Nelson, 17 March 1882 229 Ibid, August 1882, Nelson report of Rangipo-Murimotu blocks, p. 5835 125 at least some basis as a policy in this advice to press on despite Maori opposition. Nelson was quite sure on the advantages of firmness for the Government; Any action on the part of the Government indicating a firm determination to have the transaction closed in terms of the agreement with the natives will, I may safely say, induce most of the present waverers to fulfil their agreement and sign the lease.231 Nelson was convinced this was a minor issue among Maori, as Maori: ' speaking generally are fully prepared to give effect to the promise made by the Government to the above mentioned occupants'. There was some opposition recognised, but to all intents and purposes it could be ignored, indeed to press on would be the most effective way to dispel opposition. It was this confidence that allowed him to report that that leases could be obtained, and to recommend that the Government legislate to give legal effect to its agreements. 232 Land Purchase Department Under-Secretary R. J. Gill, for whom Nelson's report was intended, concluded his own summary of events on the block with the following observations; The Rangipo Block was awarded to three hapus. Ngatiwaewae 42 Grantees of whom 36 have signed the Deed of Lease. The Ngatirangituhia 50 Grantees of whom 45 have signed - the Ngatitama 43 Grantees have not yet signed, Topia Turoa the principal man among them is held back by certain European influences. The Murimotu Block is held by 4 Rapus 170 Grantees of these 98 have signed the lease. The greater part of those unsigned will probably sign before the end of the year.233 On the advice being received, it seemed timely for the Government to proceed with legislation, and to that end the Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Bill was introduced. 230 Ibid, August 1882, Nelson report ofRangipo-Murimotu blocks, p. 5835 231 Ibid August 1882, Nelson report of Rangipo-Murimotu blocks, p. 5838 232 Ibid, August 1882, Nelson report ofRangipo-Murimotu blocks, p.5841 233 August 1882, Richard Gill to John Bryce re Rangipo-Murimotu blocks MA-MLP1, 1901/55, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, pp.5847-5848 126 5.4. The Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act Debates There was much discussion about the matter when the Bill was debated in the House. 'It involves one of those matters of old standing in connection with Native lands around which considerable suspicion has grown up,.234 The Native Minister, Bryce, saw in no uncertain terms the 'whole thing as a very foolish proceeding' containing many difficulties, but urged that the Bill be passed to 'complete the agreement' .235 His understanding of the original situation that led to the Agreement of 1874 was interesting, in that it was portrayed as an affair entirely between the private parties and the Provincial Government, yet the central Government was also directly involved as an interested party: Consequently the Provincial Government of Wellington - as I think very foolishly, and, I might almost say, very improperly - sent up parties to negotiate as against the private individuals who were in treaty with the Maoris, and complications of a highly disagreeable character arose, and it became pretty evident that, what with the contending offers to the Maoris, and the suspicions instilled in their minds by both sides, there was little chance of anything being done.236 Bryce conveniently ignores the Government's own reasons for involvement, suggesting instead that it arose from concern for these parties: 'That being so, the then Native Minister, Sir Donald McLean, became convinced that it would be conducive to the ,settlement of the country to enter into Maori leases' .237 Precisely why there were problems after the 1874 agreement were glossed over: 'Matters drifted on, and there appeared very little probability of getting the lease completed'. Bryce himself knew exactly why there were problems, as he was intimately involved with the parties concerned. He did allude to difficulties, but in such a way as to suggest the problem lay with Maori: 'There were great difficulties in the way, which I need not enter into, in the shape of obstructed survey, and so on', and that once Maori difficulties were sorted, progress could be made: 'but as last the matter was brought before the Court, the title 234 NZPD, 1882, vol. 43, p.884 235 Ibid, NZPD, Mr. Bryce p.885 236 Ibid, NZPD, Mr Bryce p.885 127 was ascertained, and the order made'. This explanation removed the Crown from any active role in this situation, except as a mediator between contesting parties. This simply was not the entire case, and ignored how the Crown's participation directly contributed to the problems in this region. Given the Crown's subsequent drive to purchase the land in this region, Bryce's assessment of the land was interesting: It is not land that is adapted for agricultural settlement. It is what might be called in the North Island third-class pastoral land, or what would perhaps be called in the South Island second-class pastoral land. Speaking generally, and more especially with regard to this land, I think the Government cannot hope to do anything in the way of settlement by keeping these lal1ds. 238 Or again in a further speech: There is also that question with reference to the 25 percent of land to be taken for settlement. I am quite willing that that clause be retained in the lease; but I do not wish to conceal from the House my individual opinion that it is a useless provision, and that probably it will never be exercised.239 This needs to be compared with Booth's assessment of the land in 1875: 'The greater portion is good sheep grazing country, covered with native grasses; the land towards the base of the mountain is of poorer description,24o. While this description also covered Ruanui and Rangiwaea, it also included land that subsequently became Rangipo North, which is 'towards the base of the mountain'. This is further evidence of a pattern when describing land in this block, which was to describe it as having little value when the Government was expressing a lack of interest in acquiring it, or later when describing smaller blocks of land in Maori ownership, but when the Government had a direct interest in acquisition the advantages and opportunities in the land were more readily recognised. 237 Ibid 238 Ibid, NZPD, Mr Bryce, p.885-886- 239 Ibid, NZPD, Mr Bryce, p. 893 128 Bryce portrayed a situation and agreements which the Crown had entered into for the best of reasons at the time, reasons which he did not consider now to be good reasons, but which nevertheless should be honoured, as well as offering relief to the private parties, who had been disadvantaged. In as far as Maori were considered, speakers in favour of the Bill expressed their belief that would accrue to Maori as a result of leasing: I do not know that any injustice will have been done to the Natives in this matter. They will have at the end of the lease a magnificent property which otherwise might be frittered away or made nothing of. 241 This accorded with Maori belief about the benefits of leasing, and had been a factor in their agreeing to lease. The circumstances as to how the lease was established were, in this argument, less important precisely because all parties were portrayed as gaining from agreement; and this entailed a specific vision of how Maori would benefit. It is not clear to what extent the fact that it was argued that Maori would benefit had any bearing on how Members voted, but it was a component within the argument to justify confinning the leases. The Bill was subjected to some harsh criticism. Condition 10 of the March 1874 agreement was focussed on: Well, I should like to know before passing this Bill, what sums have been refunded? To what extent has the colony been bled under condition 10 of this agreement? This was an illegal chase after a title that was being attempted, and yet the Crown in that day was obliged to agree to repay an immense expense incurred illegally?42 240 18 July 1875, Booth to Under Secretary of Native Affairs, AJHR, 1875, G4A, p. 2 241 Ibid NZPD, Mr. MacAndrew, p.886 242 Ibid NZPD, Mr De Latour, p. 887 129 As regards the concession to extend the leases for another seven years, the official reason for this, that the private parties needed some form of compensation for losses incurred, was also severely criticised: I ask, did the Crown subject them to extortion? Then if the Crown did not, are those persons to be paid by the State because in their attempt to obtain a valuable property [again, these areas are always 'valuable' when sought after by the Crown or private persons], they were opposed by other tribes, and perhaps by persons influencing these tribes, with whom the Crown had nothing to do?243 Maori Members expressed some concerns about the status of owners who had not signed the lease or who were not prepared to sign. There seemed to be some confusion about exactly what had been decided about Rangipo-Waiii: As I understand it, there are three divisions of the land. One division of the land has been portioned off for the Wanganui Natives, another for Te r'*'l Heuheu and his people, and another for Topia and his people?44 J As noted, this was not correct as the land set aside for the 'Wanganui Natives' and Topia was equally shared, and no division had taken place. Bryce put his interpretation as to the situation regarding Maori: Those who have signed the lease will be required to keep their promises; and here I might say that the chief Topia, whose name has been mentioned in this connection, did sign that lease, with most of his people, and has received large sums of money in consideration of the land leased?45 The need to honour agreements was to be a major theme of this debate. Bryce was later to affirm this position. In December 1882, Bryce provisionally decided that Maori who had been present at the meeting for settlement of the Murimotu and Rangipo blocks, or who had taken money on account, should be looked upon as persons who had entered 243 Ibid NZPD, Mr De Latour, p. 887 244 Ibid, NZPD, Mr Te Wheoro, p. 888 245 Ibid, NZPD, Mr Bryce, p.892 130 into a contract with the Crown. Those Maori who had not 'compromised themselves' in the above ways could apply to have their interests subdivided.246 Attention was drawn to the possible negative impact the Bill might have, and that that should be taken into consideration, as well as the existence of discontent among some of the owners: I think it is a fair thing for the House to consider whether any injury will be inflicted upon anyone by this Bill. It would have been placed on a much clearer footing had the names of the Natives who leased to the Government been mentioned in the Bill. Then we should have known what we were doing. I have heard that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst those Natives who own the land and live on it as to the manner in which the land is being leased.247 The Opposition case for passing the Bill, as a matter of honour, was put in particular by J. Hall: I went very carefully into this matter [evidenced as well by his correction to St John's 24 January 1874 report concerning the block, as noted], and could come to no other conclusion than that the faith of the colony was pledged to the parties concerned, whoever they are; that they had acted on a promise which at the time was within the scope and authority of the Government of the day; and that under the circumstances it would be a breach of faith were we not to carry out the agreement which Sir Donald McLean made. 248 The language of obligation and faith used here demonstrated how the Crown could and did enter into agreements that it then felt obliged to uphold, even if subsequently it might have wished not to do so. In this instance of course, the Crown's own interests were also safeguarded; nevertheless, when under pressure to justify an agreement which could be attacked as not in the best interests of the Crown to uphold, the arguments in favour of agreeing focussed on what the Government had undertaken to do and the 246 Memorandum of interview with Native Minister, 7 December 1882, MA 13/50, pt A 247 Ibid NZPD, Mr Tawhai, p. 889 248 Ibid NZPD, Sir J. Hall, p. 889 131 expectations that the private parties had been led to have concerning these obligations. This point was reiterated in the second reading debates of this Bill by G. S. Whitmore: They should remember the statement of Macaulay that the great source of our power in India was the inviolable faith of the British Government, who always acted on the policy of rigidly adhering to whatever had been promised by responsible officers, even if there was no legal document supporting it.249 Maori might have expected that the same considerations of honour and obligation would have also been part of the Crown's position when dealing with Maori expectations arising from their participation in these agreements. In as far as Maori concerns were acknowledged, it was assumed, as noted, that leasing would be of great benefit to them. An honour bound obligation, along the lines of the one demonstrated towards the private parties, might have led to greater concern to ensure that this in fact would prove to be the case for Maori. Such an obligation did exist of course, which predated the 1874 March agreement. This is not to claim that there was not serious objection to the Bill, some of which was strikingly aware of some of the issues that proponents of the Bill had chosen to ignore: The position was this: These persons came to the Government and said, "You are stronger than we: coerce these Natives into giving you a lease to be given to us." That was the position, and it is an agreement of that kind in respect of which this House is to be told the honor of the colony is at stake, and that we must coerce the Natives into giving effect to it. In law and in equity such an agreement could not stand for a moment. No Court would look at it, and it is all nonsense to talk about the honor of the Crown in giving effect to such an agreement. Yet the resistance of the Natives to having such an agreement put upon them is, forsooth, called the extortion of which this company complains. And what has been resorted toto force the Natives into the transaction is this: that the heads of the different tribes who have resisted the pressure of the Government have been bribed to carry out the agreement, and bribed to coerce those under them?50 249 NZPD, 1882, Sir G. S. Whitmore, vol. 43, p. 950 250 Ibid, NZPD, Mr De Latour, pp. 893-894 132 While not acknowledging the more active interest of the Crown in the region, or the precise problems generated in trying to secure the leases, this criticism did at least demonstrate how a concern for the 'Native' perspective, not just the simple assumption that they would benefit, could lead to a more critical response to the Bill, and an awareness that Maori may not have been treated as properly as alleged or assumed. Moreover, it became apparent that the Government would conveniently overlook the provision in the Native Land Act 1873 that voided all private acquisitions of Maori land over which native title had not been extinguished. Not that the situation was not pointed out in debate: As to the way in which the agreement was first entered into, and the equity and justice of it, I venture to say those gentlemen who entered into it did so knowing that they had no law to support them. Whereas "The Native Lands Purchase Act, 1873" says that all transactions relating to any lands over which the Native title has not been extinguished shall be deemed to be absolutely null and void, the gentlemen who were entering into this agreement must have known they were endeavouring to get something in which they had no law to support them. 251 Ward has pointed out the same issue, and the Government response: the Government involved in the agreement of 1874 and the Government and many of the legislature involved on the Bill of 1882, overlooked this [ ... ] sympathising instead with the purchasers who had paid money to the Maori rightholders. 252 Despite all the above misgivings, the Bill was passed. The text of the Act is as follows: An Act to Validate an Agreement made by the Crown in respect of the Rangip6-Murimotu Block. [15 th September, 1882] Whereas on or about the twenty-fifth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, an agreement for the lease of certain lands was entered into between the Government of the colony, the Provincial 251 Ibid, NZPD, Mr Stevens, p. 894 252 Ward, ibid, p. 37 133 Government of Wellington, and certain private persons referred to in the said agreement (the terms and particulars of which said agreement are contained in a printed paper published in the Appendices of the House of Representatives for the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, and indexed as c-6): And whereas on or about the twelfth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, the Colonial Government confirmed the said agreement, and agreed to take steps to give effect to the same, and also, in consideration of the delay and expense to which the said private persons had been subjected, that, on the completion of the Crown's title, the term of the lease to be granted should be extended to twenty-one years: And whereas the said agreement was again ratified by the Colonial Government on the twenty-fourth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine: And whereas it was provided in all of the said agreements above referred to that the necessary legislative power to give effect to such agreements should be applied for by the Colonial Government: Be It Therefore Enacted by the General Assembly of New Zealand in Parliament assembled, and the by the authority of the same, as follows: 1. The Short Title of this Act is "The Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act, 1882." 2. It shall be lawful for the Governor to lease to the said private persons all or any of portion of the said land so soon as the title of the Crown to the same, whether by way of lease or purchase, shall have been completed, and subject to the following conditions: (a.) The lease or leases to be so granted shall be in accordance with the said agreements (b.) Each portion of the said land, as it may be acquired, may be forthwith dealt with under the said agreements without the necessity of waiting for the completion of the Crown's title to the whole of the blocks comprised in said agreements. (c.) The rentals to be paid by the said private persons shall, in the event of the Crown only acquiring a leasehold interest from the Native owners, be equal to the rental which the Crown shall have agreed or may agree to pay to the Native owners of the said lands.253 5.5. Discussion: Kemp's Trust arose as an attempt to limit and control the processes of land alienation among Whanganui Maori. Land alienation of significant scale was a relatively recent phenomenon in the region, so the speed of alienation over a short space of time was interpreted by some Maori as detrimental to their long-term interests. Maori were 253 NZ Statutes, 1882, No. 12, p. 901 134 prepared to alienate land, for benefits they believed would follow, and other parties were prepared to buy or lease. It was also becoming understood that unless some better form of control was put on the process, Maori ran the risk of losing a large part, if not almost all, of their land. Subsequent history shows this fear to been well-grounded, and their concern to act entirely appropriate, despite whatever reservations there were about the methods employed. The Government was suspicious of Kemp's Trust and actively worked to undermine it, as the trust was regarded as a threat to official Government processes. Kemp's Trust was also weakened by internal dissent among Maori, some of which directly arose out of disputes in Rangipo-Waiii. In this region, Te Keepa's attempt to rise above tribal and hapii divisions in order to express common Maori concerns was undermined by the perception that he was an interested party with his own agenda in Rangipo-Waiii. This of course was correct. Other Maori parties mistrusted his intentions, and this contributed to their unwillingness to support the trust. Although there was a history of competing interests in this region, the involvement of the Crown through the attempt to close leases in accordance with the March 1874 agreement dramatically heightened the tension. This tension, verging at times on open conflict, proved fatal in the end to attempts by Maori such as Te Keepa to organise a common front against land alienation. In working to protect its own interests and those of private parties, the Crown directly and indirectly worked to weaken Maori efforts to better protect their interests. The history of Crown involvement in Rangipo-Waiii played, therefore, an important part in understanding events concerning Maori and Crown relationships outside the block in the broader Whanganui district. The processes of the Native Land Court brought the competing Maori parties together in order to safeguard their own particular interests. Te Keepa, despite his knowledge of the system and his organised attempt to withdraw from the Native Land Court processes, was obliged to participate with the others. Participation in itself imposed severe costs on Maori, in terms of social cohesion, expenses incurred, and general disruption to communities already having to adapt to the growing dominance of European ways. The 135 decision arrived at by the Native Land Court was accepted by the parties, but an ambiguity was left concerning the status of individuals who had signed leases before title had been awarded as to whether they would be expected to honour those leases if they had changed their minds subsequently. Strictly speaking, those leasing arrangements between Maori, private parties and the Crown should have been void because they were entered into before the Native Land Court had awarded title. Another ambiguity introduced was the equal sharing of interests between Ngati Rangituhia and Ngati Tama, with no subsequent land division, leaving a prospect of confusion for the future. The debates concerning the Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Bill brought to the fore many of the major issues in the history of Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii to 1882. Bryce presented a picture of reluctant Government intervention, of being drawn in-to mediate between conflicting parties, namely Maori, private parties and the Provincial Government. This was not entirely accurate, as the Government had expressed an interest in this region for security, settlement and development reasons. It would seem that, after 1874, enthusiasm for these possibilities diminished, but the Government was now intimately involved because of the March 1874 agreement. This meant that the Government was well placed should it regain direct interest in acquiring land in the region, as no other party could now compete. It may be that an apparent waning of interest in direct acquisition in the region, between 1874 and 1882, once the Government's position had been safeguarded, has been retrospectively applied by Bryce to describe the tenor of the Government's involvement throughout. This would indicate a somewhat selective approach by Bryce to the full nature of Crown participation. Great concern was expressed during the debates for the interests of the private parties, and the need for the Government to uphold obligations entered into with them. Although it was acmowledged that Maori had had their rights to lease or sell curtailed by the Crown, this was considered acceptable because of the benefits that leasing through the Crown would provide, such as roads, bridges and available resources as argued for by Booth, and accepted generally in the debates. These benefits Maori 136 largely believed would be forthcoming and formed the basis of their willingness to accept the situation. This Maori perception, not formalised as an agreement per se, seemed not to have weighed on the Crown as an obligation, although at this stage, in 1882, the Crown simply assumed Maori benefit was a very likely outcome. Where expected outcomes had not eventuated, the Crown had shown a willingness to intervene to correct what it declared were injustices suffered by private parties. It is interesting to see in the subsequent history of the blocks to what extent there were similar concerns for Maori where their expectations were not met. Criticisms that could be brpught against the Bill were largely voiced during the debates in parliament, despite the limited time set aside for them. Certain politicians perceived and criticised that arrangements entered into before title was awarded would nevertheless be upheld. Others perceived and criticised that private party interests would be protected, despite the manner of their origin. Still others noted that Maori interests might not have always been considered, and may even have suffered, especially those Maori who had signed prior leases and who might be obliged to honour them despite subsequent misgivings. Finally, a number of speakers had been critical of the. Government's handling of the whole affair, indeed that its very involvement left much to be desired. Despite these criticisms, the nature of obligations entered into, and the expectations that they should be fulfilled, was largely sufficient to carry the Bill, .even with an acknowledgement by its supporters that the original situation had not been satisfactory. The private parties had obtained an official guarantee of their leases; the Government was in a position to control sale or leasing in the blocks and benefit from this, despite a declared lack of interest in the blocks by Bryce; and Maori were assumed to be in a position to benefit from all of this. The land was still in the hands of Maori and the advantages ofleasing were understood. The next 21 years would reveal to what extent Maori interests and expectations were acknowledged and capable of fulfilment. 137 A more favourable interpretation of Crown actions might take the following form. Much of the difficulty for the Crown, and indeed trying to understand the Crown's actions here, arise from the changing nature of the interests that the Crown was trying to balance. The Crown's primary interest in the area arose from considerations to do with security, which were understandable after the 1860s conflicts, from settlement, and from development. If private parties had been able to tie up very large parcels of land in the regions below Taupo, all of the Government's concerns for the region would have been compromised. In a more limited fashion, the Provincial Government entered into negotiation to obtain specific advantages for Wellington province. In other words, both at the national level and at the provincial level, it was perceived that there were broader issues at stake than that which might arise from simple purchase by private parties. Nevertheless, the Government had to respect the interests of the private parties, as influential groups within the colony, with proven success in leasing and using land, and who had already begun a process of negotiation in the region. From the Government's side, the decision taken in 1874 seemed to satisfactorily address all oftheir concerns. The Crown was placed in a decisive position in terms of being able to influence how the land might be used; the private parties obtained a guarantee that they could lease; and Maori obtained a Government guarantee, by extension, that they would not lose their land to private speculators, as well as, of course, being able to share in the benefits of leasing. This was not initially understood by Maori, but after discussions and meetings in Wellington in September 1874, the benefits became clearer, and with Te Keepa's acceptance of the agreement, the Government might have felt that it was on track to obtain the agreement of Maori, thus completing the deal. This was not to be, due to confusions and disagreements among Maori, some of longstanding origin, and the processes whereby survey had to be completed and title had to be awarded. By seeking to deal with one set of issues, to do with Government access and control in the area, addressing the concerns of private parties and allowing Maori to lease within a new Government-controlled framework, the Government had created another set of problems to do with how best to bring the leases forward. It actively sought to address 138 these problems through hui, and made some progress towards obtaining lease agreements, but was unable to bring about a happy resolution. The mechanisms whereby surveys were carried out and title awarded were able to proceed, albeit slowly, and eventually, with title determined, the hopes of 1874 were able to be realised. To that end, the Rangip6-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act was passed in 1882. This process took place in a context of debate, with no monolithic decision simply imposed. Within parliament, there were interests who resisted the idea of the Crown assisting the private parties to establish their leases. The very agreement of 1874 was criticised by parties, who otherwise were advocating for its being officially sanctioned, for being not in the best interests of Government. It was not brought out in the debates what other course of action adopted in 1874 might have been more in the Government's interest, but it would seem unlikely that had another alternative been put in place, it would have allowed Maori as much as freedom to negotiate as they in fact obtained. It might be said that the offers to purchase or lease made by private parties were not substantially higher than that offered by the Government, and came without the Government's ability to intervene to prevent the land being substantially alienated to private parties. At the end of the process, Mmimotu and Rangip6-Waiii had been surveyed, title awarded, and apart from some further issues to do with leasing which are discussed below, the parties concerned, namely Maori, the Crown and the private parties were in a position to pursue their interests within an agreed legal framework. Perhaps the process leading to this result could have been better managed, and this the Government acknowledged during the debates on the BilL Overall however, with Maori able to lease from a position oflegal security and certainty, the private parties able to lease officially, and the Crown in a position to control future land alienation, thus preventing private speculators from stripping Maori of their land, the outcome from the Government's point of view might have looked not unsatisfactory. 139 While this interpretation puts the Crown's involvement in a more positive light, this position largely assumes that the Crown had the interests of Maori in mind, or at the very least, did not make decisions that actively undermined them. However, the accommodation of Maori interests still appears as an almost accidental ingredient in balancing the Crown's own interests and those of private parties. In as far as Maori still had land to lease at the end of the process, it was not apparent that the Government particularly valued this end per se, but that it was determined that private parties not have the ability to purchase this land. This the Government achieved, with the perhaps accidental and substantial advantage for Maori that they still retained control of their land in 1882 in this region. Of course, one might argue that Maori interests had been actively protected by Government, and that appreciating this constraint makes Government actions more comprehensible. The extent to which this more favourable interpretation of the Government's actions can be sustained depends very much on what happened subsequently in the blocks. 140 6. Chapter 6: Leasing, Alienation and the Main Trunk Railway 6.1. Background to the Coming of the Main Trunk Railway The major public works schemes developed by the Government in the central North Island added a new twist to land purchasing in the Whanganui district. By the l870s, the Government had decided to undertake a massive programme of public works and immigration. This was intended to both stimulate the failing economy and at the same time to encourage a vast influx of European settlement into areas with hitherto limited European penetration. At the same time, the public works considered most important were the development of a national infrastructure of telegraph, roads and railways, particularly in the North Island. The completion of the North Island Main Trunk Railway was an important part of this. Work had already begun on the southern and northern ends but the actual route joining these up still had to be decided. In preparing for the railway, the Government passed several legislative measures, including the granting of full pardons to those involved iIi killings ofPakeha in the interior regions. This was in marked contrast to the way Government treated peaceful means of defiance in other areas at around the same time, for example at Parihaka. Government action could be flexible in different situations, depending on what ends it was hoping to achieve. How far flexibility took into account Maori concerns is a point of issue. The North Island Maori Trunk Railway Loan Bi111882 was introduced in tandem with the New Zealand Loan Bi111882. The latter, the main Bill, authorised the borrowing of £4 million for the construction of the line (not land purchase). In the debate on that Bill the Government acknowledged that the route for the railway was not yet specified, but that any route depended on 'settling the native difficulty' as one member put it. Hone \. J Mohi Tawhai, MHR for Northern Maori, spoke against any borrowing from England for 141 public works. All such borrowing, he argued, victimised the Maori people because it involved the loss to Maori of their land, and the taxing of Maori land. A Mr Fergus also spoke of the devastating effect on Maori of land purchases. Nevertheless the Bill passed with Messrs Tawhai, Tomoana and Taiaroa voting against the Governrnent.254 In June 1883, John Rochfort set out on a railway reconnaissance survey through the centre of the North Island between Marton and Te Awamutu. He was to encounter much opposition. At Karioi, he was stopped by Pita Te Rahui and others, who were occupying part of the Rangataua block under Te Keepa's instructions, and infonned that he would be shot if he continued. Rochfort detoured to Upokongaro to consult Te Keepa, who said the stopping was done without his authority and that he would support Rochfort 'with five hundred men, if necessary, for I consider a railway will be for the good of my people' .255 Te Keepa played an important role in convincing Maori of the benefits of the railway. In April 1884, he was reported as having: made himself very popular with the Europeans generally. He received quite an ovation at a public meeting held here lately, when he made an excellent speech on the subject of throwing open the Upper Whanganui, Murimotu, and Tuhua country for railway purposes and gold seeking, offering, if need be, to go with the prospectors, and aid them in every way his extensive influence could be brought to bear. The hearty and strong support he is giving Mr Rochfort and party in surveying the much talked-of, and by many the much-hop ed-for, central railway line, may be regarded as proof of the genuineness of his friendly professions. 256 Te Keepa had been persuaded to believe that the railway would bring real benefits. These putative benefits largely presupposed that Maori would retain sufficient land so as to make the benefits realisable. There was nothing to suggest that Te Keepa imagined that the benefits would accrue to Maori regardless of whether they retained their land, in fact the opposite was the case, so persuasive arguments about benefits must be linked to land retention by Maori. 254 PD, 1882, vol. 43, pp.165, 207, 251-77, 309 255 Appendix to Mr John Rochfort's Report, AJHR, 1884, D-5, p.3 256 Robert Ward to Under-Secretary, 14 Apri11884, AJHR, 1884, G-l, p.20. James Booth left Wanganui to take up a position as a magistrate at Gisborne in 1883 142 Legislation continued to be passed to facilitate the construction of the railway. Crown pre-emption was reinstated over a very large area of land, and was achieved by the 1884 Native Land Alienation Restriction Act (s3). The route the railway was to take was defmed by the Railway Authorisation Act 1884 as running from a point at or near Marton to Te Awamutu via Murimotu, Taumarunui and the Ongarue River Valley. In early February 1884, representatives ofNgati Maniapoto, Ngati Raukawa, and Whanganui, but not Ngati Tuwharetoa, agreed on their terms for the railway: it was to be one chain wide, fenced on both sides, and sold rather than given.257 In April 1885, the railway route was gazetted under section 8 of the Railways Authorisation Act 1884 and sections 129 and 130 of the Public Works Act 1882. It needs to be noted that the Government was willing to pay for the chain width. The use of the Public Works Act 1882 was essentially to obtain title by the most expedient legal means available.258 The Government conducted a series of meetings in 1885 with major iwi whose land was 1 -~j to be traversed by the railway. Native Minister John Ballance promised that the 1884 Native Land Alienation Act was intended to protect Maori land that the owners wanted to keep. He agreed with Maori that leasing seemed a better option than sales and he promised that Maori would be protected in their decisions whether they wished to sell or lease: In the case of leasing ... land it remains ... for ever, ... I have noticed with great regret that when land is sold the money is soon parted with, and the money and the land are gone too. How much is anyone of you the better for any land you have sold at the present moment? But where you leased your land your rents are coming in year by year, and remain with you for ever; but the Government will give to you the right to say whether you will sell or lease your lands, and assist you in carrying out whatever decision you may arrive at ... We think that this is the best thing to do - what I have suggested: it enables the owners of the land to exercise the principal vote as to how their own land shall be disposed of, 257 Wilkinson to Under-Secretary (telegrams) 27 and 28 February 1885, MA 13/43, pp. 30-33 258 Cross and Bargh, ibid, p.61 143 at the same time you get the assistance of the Government in enabling you to dispose of your land. 259 For their part, some Maori as was evidenced by Te Keepa, were not opposed to the idea of a railway and they welcomed the opportunity of the future prosperity everyone was confident the railway would bring. The problem again was how to allow the railway to go ahead without losing control of the land. Despite these reassurances from Ballance, it became clear, from parliamentary debates of the time, that the Government intended to buy large areas of land along the railway route for settlement. These purchases would be under Crown monopoly and the Land Purchase Agents and their methods would continue to be used. In contradiction to his encouraging statements about leasing at meetings with Maori, Ballance told the House that 'there is only one safe way of getting land from natives along the line, and that is by purchase' .260 .,1 J The development of the railway also provided an insight into the way the Government would handle the issue of Maori participation in new economic developments. There was apparently almost universal confidence that the railway would bring increased prosperity and new economic opportunities. Sometimes the level of confidence was unrealistic but it seemed that if anyone would benefit, those owning the land appeared to be in the best position to do so, if only through the increase in land values. Maori were, therefore, constantly told that they would be bound to share in the promised prosperity?61 Some of the promises were excessive. For example, Ballance is on record as promising Maori in 1885 that 'Land which is worth now not more than five shillings an acre will be worth more than five pounds an acre when the railway runs through the land' .262 th 259 Notes of a Meeting between the Hon Mr Ballance and the Wanganui Natives at Ranana on the 7 January 1885, AJHR, 1885, G-1, p.4 260 NZPD, vol. 53, 1885 pp 354-5 261 Marr, Whanganui Land Claims Historical Overview, ibid, p.28 262 AJHR, 1885, G-1, p.4 144 This was wildly optimistic and it was not until the 1920s before Maori began to receive that sort of value for their land?63 Importantly, the expected rise in land values was also used to avoid paying Maori compensation for loss of resources associated with land alienation. For example, the Government refused to consider compensation for lost resources such as eel fisheries and forests, on the grounds that this would be more than offset by the expected increase in land value.264 However, the effective Crown monopoly on purchasing threatened to exclude Maori from gaining the benefits of increased land values. The effects of Crown policy, backed up by legislative provisions, appeared to be effectively going to exclude Maori from what prosperity was available. Bearing all this in mind as brief background, the question to be addressed is how these issues impacted on Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii, especially on Murimotu as the railway was to directly traverse this region. Did developments in this region reflect a sensitivity to Maori interest, as Ballance's speech about the value ofleasing seemed to confirm was possible, or did policy in this region lead to significant land alienation, with the consequent inability to share in the benefits that land ownership was argued would promote? Murirnotu and Rangipo-WaiU were good case studies for the exploration of Crown relationships with Maori, because at the beginning of the lease period, from 1882, the land was in Maori ownership. The benefits Maori were able to attain over the 21 year period of the lease, and the extent to which the Crown contributed to, or subverted these benefits, especially given its stated conviction that Maori would so benefit and its role as sole party able to effect purchases, are crucial points for examination. 263 Ward, ibid, p.54 264 AJHR, 1885, G-l, p.24 145 6.2. Leasing and Subdivision in the Murimotu to 1900 On 22 July 1884, Land Purchase Department Under-Secretary R. J. Gill appeared before the Native Land Court on behalf of the Crown with applications for partitions over the Murimotu subdivisions recognising the interests claimed by the Crown by lease. The leasing details were as follows: • Murimotu No.2: containing 8822 acres. Leased to the Crown for 21 years from 20 August 1882 for £13 per 1000 acres. Lease signed by all registered owners. An order was sought and obtained. • Murimotu No.4: containing 11,000 acres. Leased to the Crown 21 years from 20 August 1882 for £140.16 per annum or £13 per 1000 acres. One .owner had not signed. A partition was requested and passed by the Court, with 786 acres being set aside for Hemi Nape, leaving a leased balance to the Crown of 10,214 acres. • Murimotu Nc.5: containing 13,081 acres. Leased to Crown 21 years from 20 August 1882. Deed estimated area of 11,165 acres, "when the next rent is due it will be paid on the increased area." Rental .of £13 per 1000 acres. 265 Pacro Tutauha appeared before the Court and made an cbjecticn over the Murimctu Nc. S block. He stated: as the timber had been burned and destroyed and the words of the lease are not what he afifeed to. The Maori in the deed is very much shorter than the English. 2 6 The Court responded: 265 22 Ju11884, Whanganui MB 7, p.l76, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, p.5402 266 Ibid, p.177, Supporting Papers, Vol. 10, p.5403 146 If the lessee does not keep to the terms of the lease, you have your remedy. But as you don't deny that you understood the deed when signing and did not object, you cannot do so now. 267 This judgement treated as irrelevant whether there might have been a difference between the Maori and English versions of the lease. This assumed that the question at issue was whether the lease in English had been understood. This had not been denied at the time of signing, so the presumption was that the terms of the lease had been understood. Whether the Maori party signing had understood that comprehension of the English version was crucial is not clear, but the evidence presented by the Maori party in court suggests that it may not have been. On the next day, 23 July 1884, the discussions continued over Murimotu No.5 block. Gill applied to the Court to have two interests cut out of the block, both of238 acres· each and leaving a balance to the Crown of 12,605 acres. Pehimana Te Paki appeared and stated that he had been appointed as a Trustee for one of the owners. He now wished to sign the deed. This would increase the Crown's interests to 12,843 acres. The order was issued. 268 Gill then appeared for the partition over Murimotu No.3 block containing 13,000 acres. He produced a lease to the Crown for 21 years from 20 August 1882 at the rate of£13 per 1000 acres. He noted that out of the 40 grantees, 14 owners had not signed. He applied to the Court for orders in favour of the Crown for 8450 acres leaving 4550 acres to the non-lessees. 269 Aropeta Haeretuterangi objected to the shares being equal and stated that he being 'a chief ought to have more'. Paora Tutawha then stated that he did not recognise Gill's lease and wished to have 'nothing to do with those who have signed'. Tarihira Whakaopa agreed that those who had signed did not have equal rights. He requested his 267 Ibid, p.177, Supporting Papers, Vol.IO, p.5403 268 Ibid, 23 July, p.178, Supporting Papers, Vol. I 0, p.5404 269 Ibid, 23 July, p.179, Supporting Papers, Vol. I 0, p.5405 147 portion to be divided off. In response, the Court therefore declared that 'nothing could be done without individualising the interests' . 270 Paora Tutawha again appeared before the Court and stated: I am one of the 40 owners of this block. I am not clear about the division of the Rawhitiao block. I can't see any reason for dividing it, because 26 have taken money from Mr Gill. At first we did not know it was going to be leased to the Crown - We agreed first to Studholme Morrin & Co - We heard they transferred it to the Government. 271 This was a valid point. Initially, Maori had attempted to enter into direct leases with private parties. The Crown had interjected itself into the process, such that the private parties had to lease through the Crown. Maori had been expected to fit in with this, and in as far as they had not, came to be regarded as a problem. Paora Tutawha simply makes a point about how decisions taken without consulting Maori had effects on Maori land, in this case partition, which he could not see were justified from the perspective of the Maori landowner. Gill appeared again and also stated: I regret this opposition much. Although a subdivision cannot be made now, one will certainly be made at the next Court. I see very great reason for subdivision. They have been disputing among themselves for years. I ask for an order for those 26 owners who had signed for a 21 year lease of this block ... 272 Whether or not they 'have been disputing among themselves for years', the concern to deal with this issue was not driven by concern to end Maori division, but to enable leasing arrangements, now backed up by legislation, to take effect. Arguably Maori division, within this hearing, was more an effect of this imperative, rather than the cause, as was alleged. The Court issued an order, as requested by Gill, for the undefined and unascertained interest of 26 grantees in lease for 21 years. 270 Ibid, 23 July, p.l79, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, p.5405 271 25 July 1884, Whanganui MB 7, p.187, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, p.5406 272 Ibid, p187, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, p.5406 148 On 26 July 1884, the case for Murimotu case No.3 continued. Dr Buller appeared and addressed the Court, objecting to the orders that had been made with the assumption that the owners had equal shares. He stated that: It would in fact be prejudicing their interests when at the end of the 21 years it was found that they had for so long a term, been accepting the rents in equal shares. Not only that, the Court was in favour of subdividing the land for twenty-one years, after distinct and repeated objections. 273 Legally what Buller criticised may have been perfectly defensible, but its effect was to weaken the authority ofleading figures, in terms of being able to make decisions about land use, and make Maori land more vulnerable to purchase by non-Maori interests from individuals who might be more easily persuaded to alienate what had been, before the awarding of title, Maori tribal land. Gill then declared that, as the Court had already awarded the orders for the unascertained and unallocated interests of 26 grantees, he now requested the Court to make a further order in favour of the Crown for 8450 acres being the proportionate area belonging to the 26 grantees. This was based on an assumption the shares in the block were equal. Several objections were recorded?74 When the Court resumed, on Monday 28 July 1884, Gill called witnesses to provide testimony on the ancestry of all the grantees. Following this, Gill closed his case: I have no more evidence to offer. There has been no occupation. I have proved that the whole 26 have descended from Rawhitiao and handed their whakapapa into Court, showing they are the 26 who are in the order given a few days ago. I submit there is sufficient evidence to enable to award the Crown the area asked. 275 Te Keepa also stated that he too had witnesses he wished to call. Aropeta Haeretuterangi took the stand stating the block was his land: 273 26 July 1884, Whanganui MB 7, p.l92, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, p.5408 274 Ibid 275 28 July 1884, Whanganui MB 7, pp.193-196, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, pp.5409-54 12 149 I have mentioned all my places in this block. These settlements were hunting lodges for the catching of birds. I am the chief of those who live on the land. I have snaring trees on the block. There is no one living at the kaingas now; but they did live there in my father's time. How many acres would you allow to those 26 who have signed? It would be generous of me to give them 3000 acres at the north. 276 On the next day, 29 July 1884, Aropeta Haeretuterangi was recalled. Questions were put to him: Who was the man who the principal cause of the Europeans coming on this land? I was the person who assented to the Europeans after the sheep of Moorhouse had been killed by N'Whiti. I obstruct the present European because he is not well disposed towards me. When I spoke to him he said the land should not be given over to the Government. He said 'If this land is leased to me, the Government shall have nothing to do with it'. Before you assented, who took the rent? I took £500. 277 On being asked whether this had taken place before the Native Land Court divided the land, Aropeta Haeretuterangi replied in the affIrmative. Again, the matter of receiving money for the use of land had complicated the process of determining who had the authority to lease. In this case, part of Aropeta Haeretuterangi's strategy for arguing hat he had authority on this No.3 Block was to claim that that he had been in receipt of money for the use of the land. This presupposed what had not at that point been established, namely proper entitlement. Any party, whether Government or private, which entered into leasing arrangements with Maori before title had been determined, created further difficulties in the process of determining who had authority to lease. Whatever the obligations of private parties, the Government had a duty to ensure that the proper procedures were followed, and had been, from 1874, in a position to insist on this. Of course its ability to do this had been compromised by specifIc obligations made for private parties in 1874. Paora Tutawha then gave his evidence. He too was questioned: 276 Ibid, pp.196-197, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, pp.5412-5413 ISO What do you say to Te Aro's proposal to cut off a piece of land for these 26 people? i.e. 3000 acres? I think Te Aro simply said that as an offer to Mr GilL My own idea is I am quite willing to give the 3000 acres to Mr Gill - because he says these people have an interest, and I give them this amount as their share. The first money owing on this land has not been paid. The money is not produced by Moorhouse & Russell and Mr Gill before the owner of the land - not before the assembled people. That is why we objected to sign the leaseMr Gill has. Te Aro is the man who ought to make the arrangements .... 278 Gill then questioned Paora Tutawha: Do you object to the lease because the money is not paid in one sum to one or two people? I object to that plan of doing it. Why? I have no objection to the decision of the Court, that this land belongs to the 40 of Rawhitiao, but I do object to the way the Government has been conducting this affair. 279 Having heard the evidence, the Court issued a judgment in the case (cf. Map 7):280 We define the portion of the block to which the lease shall solely apply to be 8000 acres contained in a line running parallel to the Rangihaereroa boundary line. The balance 5000 acres to be eastward will be excepted from the lease of Murimotu No.3. Table 4. Leasing and non-leasing arrangements from 1884 in Murimotu Block Area Owners No. of Grantees Grantees Area Area Not (a.r.p.) Grantees Signing Not Leased Leased SiI~nine; (a.r.p.) Ja.r.p.) Murimotu 500 Ngati 46 No.1 Takekore Murimotu 8822 Ngati 36 36 8822 No.2 Rangituhia Murimotu 13,000 Ngati 40 26 14 8450 4550 in No.3 Rawhitiao the North East Murimotu II,OOO Ngati 21 20 I 10,214 786 in the No.4 Rangihaereroa South Murimotu 13,031 Ngati Tamarua 76 75 I 12,843 238 in the No.5 North 277 29 July 1884, Whanganui MB 7, p.198, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, p.5414 278 29 July 1884, Whanganui MB 7, pp.198-199, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, pp.5414-5415 279 29 July 1884, Whanganui MB 7, pp.199-200, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, pp.5415-16 280 Ibid, p201, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, p.5417 151 At last, the leasing arrangements could be implemented, as there was now clarity as to whom the parties actually were. The private parties could now press for the leases to be fmally formalised, with the leases for Murimotu dated to begin from 20 August 1882. On 5 August 1884, Messrs Izard and Bell wrote to Native Minister McLean regarding the Rangip5-Murimotu leases. They wished to inform the Minister that the 'title of the Crown to a lease of the above block had been practically completed' and that orders were subject to a defmed survey: we have now the honor to request that leases of the above blocks may be granted by the Governor to our clients Messrs Studholme and Morrin & Co pursuant to the Rangip5-Murimotu agreement Validation Act 1882. 281 Gill'replied informing the solicitors that as soon as the Certificate of Title was issued by the Native Land Court the deeds would be drafted and submitted to them?82 On 22 November 1884, Messrs Izard and Bell again wrote to the Native Minister regarding the Murimotu and Rangip5 subdivisions and suggesting that the Government should only be entitled to purchase 25 percent of the block: We would ask that if the lease is to contain a clause relating to the selection of the 25 per cent, should the freehold be acquired from the Natives, that there should be a provision by which the Government should bind itself not to select the whole of the best of the land. In your conversation with Mr Izard you expressly stated that in your opinion such a course would not be fair and to use your own expression you said "the Government will not pick out the eyes of the block". We suggest that the provision should bind the Government not to take now the 25 per cent of the best land. You are aware that the land is very variable in quality and that a large part of it is more pumice and practically useless for grazing purposes. It seems only reasonable that the good and improved land should be naturally divided between the Government and the Company. 283 281 5 Aug 1884, Izard et al to Nat Min, MA-MLPI 1884/158, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vo1.10, pg.5618-5619 . 2 26 Aug 1884, Gill to Izard, MA-MLP1, 1884/158, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vo1.10, p.5616 152 The Company was not under any obligation to consider Maori interests, and as this communication proved, did not do so, nor seemed to consider that the Government was under any obligation either. Whether there was any felt obligation by the Government could only be ascertained through what it said and its policies in relation to land purchase in these regions. The Government certainly did not make it easy for private parties to purchase land in Rangipo-Waiii or Murimotu, and to that extent may have protected Maori interests in that private interests could not work to purchase land, but this was incidental, in that the Government's central aim was to be a position to purchase land itself without competition. The private company saw and argued that for the Government to purchase land in the blocks, selecting the best land and more than 25 percent, would be disadvantageous to the company. They sought to limit this, but as will emerge, the Government ignored this concern of the private company. This was quite consistent with its policy since 1874, which was to restrict private parties to leasing, with itself as the sole potential pUrchaser. If purchases involving the best land in the blocks and more than 25 percent of the blocks were disadvantageous to private parties, then by extension one might assume that land alienation at this scale or greater would also be disadvantageous to Maori. If it were not disadvantageous to lose land at this rate and value, the compensating advantages would presumably be clear and understood by Maori, and provide the justification for the Government's land purchase policies. In the meantime, on 21 November 1884, Richard Gill wrote to the Native Minister reporting his view that a 'favourable opportunity now offers to commence the purchase of the Rangipo-Murimotu blocks of land'. He noted that these blocks were under lease '..:.JJ to the Crown: The Government by "The Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act 1882" have to release this land for 21 years to certain Europeans for the same rent paid to the Natives. I think a fair price to pay for the Murimotu blocks, the Rangipo-Waiii block and the Rangipo-Waiu No.2 block, 45,022 acres would be six shillings per acre this would allow £4.6.8 per 283 22 Nov 1884, Izard et al to Nat Min, MA-MLPI, 1885/25, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, pp.5628-5629 153 cent of the rental. The Rangipo-Waiii No.1 Block 24,126 acres is not so valuable although the rental is within £1 per 1000 acres, it is not worth more than three shillings per acre (if so much) the price 3/- would allow 8 per cent on the rental.... The total purchase money at acreage rates [illegible], assuming the whole of the land to be purchased would be £35,125.10.0. If this purchase is approved the money would be required from the Treasury at the rate of about £4,000 per month for the first five months and at a less rate afterwards. 284 Gill then supplied some data on each of the blocks involved: Table 5: Block Lease Details Block Name Area Rent Annual 21 yr Shillings Purchase Percent (acres) per Rent£.s.d lease from per acre money of Rent or 1000 per acre Purchase acres £.s.d £.s.d. Rangipo-Waiii 1 24,126 12 289.10.6 31 May 81 3/- 3618.18.0 8.0.0 Rangipo-Waiii 38,000 13 494.0.0 31 May 81 6/- 11400.0.0 4.6.8 Rangipo-Waiii 2 27,143 13 352.17.0 31 May 81 6/- 8142.18.0 4.6.8 Murimotu2 8822 13 114.13.8 20 Aug 82 6/- 2646.12.0 4.6.8 Murimotu3 8000 13 104.0.0 20 Aug 82 6/- 2400.0.0 4.6.8 Murimotu4 10,214 13 132.15.9 20 Aug82 6/- 3064.4.0 4.6.8 Murimotu5 12,843 13 166.19.3 20 Aug 82 6/- 3852.18.0 4:6.8 Total 129,148 1654.16.2 35,125.10 Minister John Ballance minuted the letter: 'Proceed with purchase but limit payment of £2,000 per month'. 285 On 21 February 1885, Gill telegraphed Colonel McDonnell requesting him to purchase the interests in the Rangipo-Waiii No.1 & 2 blocks at 116 per acre for No.1 and 3/- per acre for No.2.286 In another telegram of the same day Gill requested McDonnell to also purchase the shares in all the Murimotu blocks at a price per acre not to exceed 3/-. He also noted: 'There are no advances to stop from the purchase money nor any charge for survey expenses. ' 287 284 21 Nov 1884, Gill to Land Purchase Office, MA-MLPl, 1884/219, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol. 10, pp.5624-5626 28S Ibid, 21 Nov 1884, Gill to Land Purchase Office, p.5625 286 21 Feb 1885, Gill to McDonnell, MA-MLPl, 1885/25, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vo1.10, p.5630 154 Government policy, as revealed through these directives, was to purchase as much of the blocks, if not all of them, at prices that the Government judged were affordable. Should any of the sellers have desired higher prices, this was precluded by the Government's position as monopoly purchaser. Whatever advantages might have accrued to sellers therefore, the Government had ensured that price would be controlled and, where purchases occurred, would be favourable to the buyer, namely itself. Why directives for systematic land purchase at a controlled and reduced price would not be, at the very least, disadvantageous to Maori would have to be established on other grounds. On 24 May 1885, John Studholme wrote to Ballance informing him that he was arriving in Wellington with his agents in the hope of arranging a fmal settlement of the Rangipo Murimotu leases with the Government.288 The Minister responded that the Government "are prepared to give effect to the provisions of the Murimotu-Rangipo Act." 289 These leases became part of a 200,000 acre lease extending from Turangi down to Karioi, covering much of the Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii survey blocks, and became known as the Murimotu Run. This was just a part of much more extensive holdings acquired by Studholme. The leases came at a time when Morrin was verging on bankruptcy and, by 1884, Morrin had withdrawn from his partnership with Studholme. Moorhouse no longer acted as agent for the company, and Studholme was able to take sole charge of the run, which he maintained until the leases expired. On 3 June 1885, Gill forwarded a minute to the Native Minister regarding payments he thought 'should be repaid by the lessees in the Rangipo-Murimotu leases': The sum charged against the Murimotu and Rangipo lands to be adjusted is £3,619.0.0 of this I have marked £1149.0.0 sums paid to Natives on account of rent which I think should be repaid by the Lessees. The balance 287 21 Feb 1885, Gill to McDonnell, MA-MLPl, 1885/25, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, p.5631 288 24 May 1885, Studholme to Ballance, MA-MLPl, 1885/132, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, p.5639 289 MA-MLP1, 1885/132, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol. 10, p. 5639 155 is made up of a payment to Mr J. Buller £500 survey expenses, incidental charges as to title etc. The lessees should also pay to the Public Trustee the sum of £549.17.6 unpaid rent due to six Natives to the date the Court ordered the lease to the Government. 290 On 11 June 1885, Lewis informed Chief Judge Fenton that by direction of the Native Minister he submitted for approval the draft leases ofthe Murimotu-Rangipo blocks prepared in conformity with the Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act 1882 (cf. Maps 6 and 7)?91 Nothing further is recorded until 1 October 1891, when Arthur Desmond wrote to the Native Minister regarding the leases over the Murimotu block held by Studholme. He requested information from the Minister's department: They have in their possession over 100,000 acres and I wish to know if there is any clause in their lease giving power to the Government to resume possession if anyone of the various blocks should the same be required for settlement. I understand that the Maoris leased the country (through the Government) to the Studholmes and that since then the Maori title has been extinguished by the State. In fact that the land itself (or some of the many blocks) is now virtually Crown Land. It is also said that 9/10ths of the rent is now paid to the Government. If this is so the Government possess some splendid country within a few miles of the N[orth] I[sland] M[ain] T[runk] Railway line (up here) and specially suitable for settlement. I shall be pleased to know if the above facts are correct (ie if the information can be given without any breach of regulations). 292 In response to this, Land Purchase Officer P. Sheridan, on 16 October 1891, informed the Native Minister that the lease by Studholme over 129,000 acres at Murimotu would expire in 1903: 290 3 June 1885, Gill to Nat Min, MA-MLP1, 18851142, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, p.5641 291 11 June 1885, Lewis to Fenton, MA-MLP1, 1885/142, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, pp.5671- 5672 292 1 Oct 1891, Arthur Desmond to Nat Min, MA-MLP1, 1891/331, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, p.5732 156 Gov[ ernmen]t on acquiring the freehold has the right under certain conditions to resume possession, see presented copy of the lease attached. The Gov[ ernmen]t is gradually acquiring shares in freehold. 293 The policy of purchasing interests, as signaled in 1885, was still the driving concern of the Government in 1891. On 22 March 1892, Judge Browne wrote to Sheridan informing him that he had an application for rehearing, Judge Ward was going 'to re-open' the enquiry into the Murimotu No.5 block. He wished Sheridan to forward to Judge Ward all copies of correspondence.294 Sheridan wrote to Judge O'Brien, on 6 April, informing him that some months ago an application had been mad~ by Ruka Puhaki, under section 13 of The Native Land Court Act Amendment Act 1889, to an order made by O'Brien on the subdivision of the Murimotu block at Wanganui on 16 May 1882?95 This case was heard by Judge Ward who reported that 'three names as per margin were through a clerical error, omitted from your order above referred to': Ruka Puhaki, Wereoa Kingi, Wairama Kingi. On looking over the papers I fmd that the three names are in the list handed in for Murimotu No.5 (Ruka Puhaki's name is however apparently erased with a faint pencil mark) but omitted in the minute book (not apparently through oversight as three lines where it is alleged they should appear are left blank) and in the order and certificate subsequently made and signed by you. In the list for Murimotu No.2 the names ofWereroa King and Wairama Kingi are struck out, yet they appear in the order and certificate for that block. I fmd also that Ruka Puhaki appears in the lists and orders for No.2 and 4 blocks. 296 293 16 Oct 1891, Minute from Sheridan, MA-MLP1, 1891/331, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol. 10, p. 5734 294 22 Mar 1892, Judge Browne to Sheridan, MA-MLP1, 1892/104, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, ~.5763 9S 6 Apr 1892, Sheridan to Judge O'Brien, MA-MLP1, 1892/104, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, pp.5758-5760 296 Ibid, 6 Apr 1892, Sheridan to Judge O'Brien, pp.5758-5760 157 Sheridan felt quite confident that an error could not have been made, and that there would be a logical explanation, which would show that the claim would not be supported: As a great deal more than ordinary care was taken in the drawing up and checking of the orders and certificates, I cannot imagine that any mistake has been made, and I feel certain that the explanation of the alleged omission is that the insertion of the name of Ruka Puhaki in the order for No.2 and 4 blocks exhausted his interest in the whole of Murimotu, and that the names of the other two Natives, who by the way made no application, were transferred by arrangement, from No. 5 to No. 2 block.297 Sheridan informed Judge O'Brien that from an analysis of the subdivision of Murimotu: that to include the name of Ruka Puhaki in No.5 would place him in an exceptional position to all the other members of his family and make him the largest of the whole of the owners. 298 Sheridan felt 'quite convinced' that the late Mr Austin or Mr Dickson would be able to 'fully explain the alleged omissions' but as that was not possible he would be obliged if Judge O'Brien would send for the papers: It is somewhat beside the question for me to inform you that the Crown is considerably interested in the matter. P.S. The subdivision of Murimotu was I believe in the first instance schemed out by Capt Blake and Mr J.M. Fraser and the lists are if I recollect correctly in their handwriting. 299 Despite Sheridan's opinion on the matter, on 18 June 1892, Judge Seth-Smith authorised that the order made by the Court in May 1882 over Murimotu No.5 block be amended to include the names of Ruka Puhaki, Wairama Kingi and Weraroa Kingi.300 This was 297 Ibid, 6 Apr 1892, Sheridan to Judge O'Brien, pp.5758-5760 298 Ibid, 6 Apr 1892, Sheridan to Judge O'Brien, pp.5758-5760 299 Ibid, 6 Apr 1892, Sheridan to Judge O'Brien, pp.5758-5760 300 18 June 1892, Authority from Judge Seith-Smith, MA-MLPl, 18921104, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vo1.10, p.5755 158 necessary in 'that an error or omission within the meaning of the said thirteenth section has been committed or made .. ' Sheridan minuted the Chief Judge, on 18 July 1892, wishing to know whether 'Ruka Puhaki has any claim to back or future rent under the lease to the Crown of a portion of the Murimotu No.5 block' .301 Sheridan later informed the Native Minister that back rents from 20 August 1886 to date were due to Ruka Puhaki and others. The amount totalled £41.0.2:302 The Government is I think in these particular cases morally responsible for the mistakes of the N.L.C. The amount can be taken out of the rents for shares which since the date of the lease have been acquired by the Government in freehold.303 Sheridan instructed Mr Butler to: offer Ruka Puhaki £55 for his entire interest in both freehold and leasehold including arrears of rent. If he accepts let him sign deed at once. Deal with other two Natives for a half share each on same basis.304 This went beyond paying back rents, and showed the Government intent to purchase wherever possible. It is not completely clear, but it would appear that Puhaki accepted the offer to sell in the No 5 Block. He continued to receive rent until his death in 1897, but at a reduced rate from what he had been receiving up to 1892.305 He is noted as 306 being succeeded on his death in Murimotu No 4 , where he appears to have retained his interests, but there are no records of any equivalent succession for Blocks 2 and 5. This suggests that he had alienated his interests in Murimotu 2 and 5. 301 18 July 1892, Sheridan to Chief Judge, MA-MLPl, 18921104, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, p.5754 302 lO Aug 1892, Sheridan to Nat Min, MA-MLP1, 1892/l04, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, p.5752 303 10 Aug 1892, Sheridan to Nat Min, MA-MLP1, 1892/l04, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol.lO, p.5752 304 Ibid, 10 Aug 1892, Sheridan to Nat Min, p.5752 305 Rentbooks, Murimotu rents 1889,1890,1891, 1892, compared to 1894,1895,1896 306 MLIS (Maori Land Information System), Murimotu 4 Block, Ownership Schedules (NB the date of death provided on this document, 29/5/87 should read 29/5/97). 159 On 2 September 1892, Sheridan forwarded a detailed minute to the Native Minister in regard to the leases over the Murimotu blocks. He noted the Certificate of Title was issued by the Native Land Court in 1882. The various subdivisions were afterwards leased to the Crown and then subleased on in the same terms to Messrs Morrin and Studholme: As regards these leases the Government is in the position of the "middleman" but without the usual perquisites - (the leases to the Crown are being gradually converted into freehold by the purchase from time to time as opportunities offers of individual shares). 307 Sheridan then noted that an application for rehearing by Ruka Puhaki had been obtained and that his name with two others were now inserted in the certificate to the subdivisions: 1. Have the Natives any claim upon the Govt for back rents prior to the date of the publication of the notice of their claim in the Kahiti the back rents as received from the subleases having all been paid to the Native owners according to the certificate of title prior to the making of the order by the Chief Judge above referred to or rather prior to date of notice in Hakiti? 2. Are their interests affected in any way by the conveyance to the Crown in freehold of a considerable number of the shares or interests of the other owners - the Chief Judge being applied to suggests that these questions should be referred to Crown solicitors? 308 A reply from the Solicitor General was forwarded to the Native Minister, on 18 September 1892: Upon the facts stated and in answer to the several questions in Mr Sheridan's memo I am of opinion: 1. That the Natives have no claim upon the Govt for back rents prior to the date of the publication of the Notice of their claim. 307 2 Sept 1892, Sheridan to Nat Min, MA-MLP1, 1892/104, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vo1.10, p.5751 308 Ibid, 2Sept 1892, Sheridan to Nat Min, p.5751 160 . 2. That the interests of these Natives are not affected by the prior conveyance to the Crown of the interests of other owners. Such conveyances of course only relate to what is conferred in them and their interests created by the Order of Court remains to be dealt with if so desired. 309 It is not clear what happened as a result of this response as regards the offers already made to Puhaki. If he had already accepted the offer made, which would have involved selling his land, he would also have received back rent. Ifhe had declined the offer to sell, then the payment of back rent might have been delayed long enough for this judgement to have applied, thus denying any opportunity for back rent. There was no explanation as to how the decision by the Attorney General was arrived at, simply the assertion that there was no claim. Since Sheridan had already accepted that the Government was morally responsible for the mistakes of the Native Land Court, and it had been established that the Native Land Court had made a mistake, there would seem to have been a case for compensation for Puhaki. Until the judgement of the Attorney General, the Government appeared to have been willing to acknowledge this. While there is little evidence about the exact manner in which sales were conducted, or what precise considerations may have led Maori to sell, the following exchange of communication provides an insight on at lease one occasion. Land Purchase Department Under-Secretary T.W. Lewis wrote to E.B. Dickison on 25 September 1889: Hare Watene Ngarangi can write and has always heretofore signed his name. How is it that we now find him making his mark. I suppose that is no doubt whatever as to his identity.310 To which Dickison replied: There is no doubt of the identity. The signature moreover is witnessed by Mr W oon. The reason of the receipt being taken by mark was that Hare Wetini was too ill to be able to control his hand to write his name.311 309 18 Sept 1892, Solicitor General, to Nat Min, MA-MLPl, 18921104, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol.IO, p.5751 310 Lewis to Dickison, 25 Sept 1889, Supporting Papers 5938 311 Ibid, Dickison to Lewis, 26 Sept 1889 161 Without further details one can only speculate, but it would have been interesting to have known the state of mind of a man prepared to sell his land, when at the time of sale he was too ill to sign his own name. The pattern of land acquisition can be traced through the rentbooks.312 Purchase of land by the Crown, and selling by Maori, was particularly pronounced during 1885 and 1886. This was precisely in the period when the advantages of leasing were being expounded to Maori by Ballance, while at the same time the Government was actively trying to purchase. It would seem that what happened, that is, considerable land sales, coincided very closely with Government intentions. Given that Maori had not sought to sell their land systematically to the Crown before 1884, one would have to presume either a major change of heart, or a change in conditions such that selling was possible in a manner not possible prior to 1884. While we cannot be sure of the former, we do know the latter was true, as a result of the ability of Maori to alienate land individually. There was variation in the Murimotu blocks in the amount ofland sold. The Crown had acquired over half of Murimotu No.2 by the end of 1886. This must have been a cause of great satisfaction to the Crown,as this land was to be part of the route for the Main Trunk Line. Why Maori would part with land that the Crown had argued would be valuable in the future because of the railway is less obvious. On the Crown's own understanding as to the future of this area, Maori, in selling, had let go a significant opportunity to benefit. Whatever the reason for selling, the question could still be raised as to the appropriateness of the Crown acting in such a manner at, what would appear to be, Maori expense. There was considerably less successful purchase activity by the Crown in Murimotu No.3, which might be explained by the large number of owners who had refused to 312 MA 13, Box 86, SOB Special Files 80. This is an especially interesting and valuable source, providing a detailed breakdown of rents paid to Maori, who they were, how interests were individuated, what rents were paid to whom, and at what periods individual Maori sold their interests. The precise pattern of Crown purchase, with the periods of greatest concentration, can be traced through this source. 162 lease. This pattern is observable in Rangipo-WaiU Block, where Ngati Tama's partial refusal to lease seems to correlate to a greater reluctance to sell, and is discussed at the relevant section of this report. Resisting leasing to the Crown seems to translate into a greater unwillingness to sell, at least in this early period of the lease. This may be partially related to the obvious point that if one is leasing land, one has lost one's connection with it over the period of the lease to some extent, so might be more tempted to sell, as opposed to one who retains a direct connection. This raises the question as to how advantageous leasing really was to Maori as an option, breaking as it did what was otherwise a vital support for a distinctive way of life. If Maori did not have other alternatives to making a living, or in making sense of their lives, outside blocks where they had resided, then this could only increase their vulnerability to sales pressure as they sought to survive. Maintaining the integrity of the lease by Maori would assume a strong coordinating group interest was able to be applied throughout. Leasing assumes a certain perception of land, over and above an ability to understand the leasing process. Short term gains are weighed against the long term benefits that leasing might bring, and a decision is made in favour of leasing if those long terms benefits are judged to be greater. A detached and commercial approach to land is essential, along with a long term view as to benefits. Maori had been persuaded of the benefits ofleasing from a tribal perspective, but lacked the ability to maintain tribal cohesion, through the process of individual sales, which in tum impacted on whatever long term benefit might have been derived from leasing for Maori as a group. The individuation of title had made it extremely difficult for Maori to coordinate a strategy for long term tribal benefit. A willingness to lease necessitated involvement with the Native Land Court process in order to set up the conditions for leasing, but through that very process, took away Maori ability to sustain themselves as a group interest that could derive benefits through to the end of the lease. Keeping within the notion of land as a commodity, the perceived value of the land seems to have influenced the pattern of alienation more obviously in Murimotu No.3, as over the term of the lease, there was a gradual selling up by Maori of the less productive land 163 that had not been originally leased in the north of the block, but a consistent reluctance to part with land within the leased area towards the south nearer the proposed railway. This becomes evident on the dividing out of the Crown's interests in the twentieth century. Whether this was accidental, or showed greater collective business acumen on the part of Maori in this block, or the Crown was not as persuasive here as elsewhere is not clear from the evidence. That the major tribal figure in this block was Aropeta Haeretuterangi, an experienced and sceptical observer, both of the Crown and ofTe Keepa's more convoluted involvement with the Crown, may also have had a bearing on the options Maori chose. One further point concerning this block relates to Hemi Manakore, listed as No. 18 on the list for Murimotu No.3. He died, and was succeeded by minors, whose interests were then sold to the Crown. While this may have been quite legal, it seems unfortunate that the land interests of this family were lost, before the directly interested parties could exercise their judgement. The situation for Murimotu No.4 and No.5 more closely paralleled that of Murimotu No.2, where significant Crown purchasing activity occurred from 1885 into 1887. This pattern of early purchase on the blocks by the Crown was the dominant theme, with Murimotu No.3, an exception only to the extent of the more limited number of successful purchases by the Crown there. The situation for Maori, once the lease was established, was to have rent money paid individually, and for individuals to be in a position to decide what to do with this money. From 1888, the numbers of owners receiving rent had sufficiently reduced for them to be entered more efficiently onto one comprehensive table for all Murimotu Maori owners.313 These documents also list the places where rent was to be paid. The most common place to pick up the rents was in Wanganui and, to a lesser extent, in Karioi. This of course made it very convenient for Land Purchase Officers to locate Maori landowners. With individual Maori detached from their land, empowered with rent money, in towns where the normal constraints of tribal authority were weaker, and exposed to the professional desire of Land Purchase Officers to effect purchases by 313 MA 13, Box 86, 50B Special Files 80 164 offering the prospect of more fmancial gain, it was not perhaps surprising to see sales proceed so quickly and in such quantity. Maori society in this region, and its ability to exercise control over the practices of individual members whose decisions might serve to undermine that identity, was arguably at its weakest after 1882. Land purchasing by the Government at this time, whether consciously or not, was able to take advantage of this weakness to push through purchases. This served the interests of the Government, but it would seem more difficult to argue that it served the interests of Maori. For Maori, both as individuals and as members of particular groups, to alienate their major economic and cultural asset on this scale, without an obvious alternative apart from immediate cash, would suggest an upheaval in their society that the Government was quite correct in preventing private parties from taking advantage of. However, the evidence points to the Government having blocked private purchase, not so much to protect Maori as to promote its own interests, which led to the vigorous purchasing by Purchase Officers. When the 1888 Murimotu rent book is compared to the 1901 Murimotu rent book, there are only approximately 20 names that appear on both lists, although the actual total numbers do not differ greatly, being 70 in 1888 and 65 in 1901.314While some of those who appeared in 1888 were likely to have died, with perhaps more than one successor named, the other major reason for the dropping out of names was that their interests had been purchased. Government purchasing within these blocks continued up to the end of the leases. Furthermore, the rents aided the purchases, as will be explored. As noted, the yeady leases for Murimotu amounted to £518.8 a year, made up of £114.13.0 for Murimotu No.2, £104 for Murimotu No.3, £132.15.0 for Murimotu No: 4, and £167 for Murlmotu No.5 .. In September 1889, the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment was passed. Section 4(2) stated: 314 MA 13, Box 86, 50B Special Files 80 165 The remainder of such land so acquired or that may be acquired as aforesaid shall constitute an endowment for the purposes of the North Island Main Trunk Railway, and may from time to time be sold, leased, or otherwise alienated or disposed of [ ... ] and all the proceeds thereof (after payment of all expenses necessary for carrying out any such sale, lease, alienation, or disposition) shall be paid into the separate account mentioned in the third section of the said Act, and shall be applied thereout as the General Assembly shall direct from time to time in the construction of the said Main Trunk Railway and of branch railways, . . h ·th 315 tramways, and roa d s th ereto or III connectIOn t ereWl . This brought about a change in the allocation of rent received from Murimotu such that the total of £518.8 was now divided from 1891, with £280.7.1 going towards the Native Land Purchase fund, and £238.0.11 set aside as legislated by the North Island Main F Trunk Railway Loan Application Amendment Act. This pattern continued until the end of the lease. Table 6: Allocation of Rent by the Government from Murimotu316 Murimotu 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 Native £280 £245 £311. £200.4 £196.9 £196.9 £191.1 £175.1 £168.4 £148.2 Land .7.1 .12.6 3.1 .6 .7 .7 8.6 9.7 .4 .1 Purchase Fund North £238 £272 £207. £318.3 £321.1 £321.1 £326.9 £342.8 £350.3 £370.5 Island Main .0.11 .15.6 4.11 .6 8.5 8.5 .6 .5 .8 .11 Trunk Railway Loan Fund As more land was purchased within Murimotu, so more of the money paid in rent by the sub-lessees could be used directly for these two purposes. Money obtained through the purchase of Maori land could be used both for the purchase of further Maori land, and to repay debts acquired in the construction of the North Island Main Trunk Railway. The initial costs of purchase by the Crown could be recouped later through the income derived from rents that would flow directly to the Crown after purchase. The advantage of the initial substantial purchases on the blocks was that now the rents paid by private parties could fmance the continued purchase of the remaining Maori land. The 315 New Zealand Gazette, 1889, No. 33, p. 141 166 commercial attractions of this situation were obvious, and the Government did not hesitate to continue purchasing. Furthermore, the inexpensive cost of purchase was not the only attraction. The land near the Main Trunk Railway would be of great value, as Ballance had explained to Maori in 1885. The Crown found itself in a remarkably favourable position, which it exploited to the full, with no room for private parties, and a direct interest in persuading Maori to sell. Records exist for Government purchasing in the blocks from 1893, and were as follows: Table 7: Crown Purchases on the Murimotu Blocks from 1892 to 1901317 Crown 1893 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1901 Purchases Land Land Land on the acquired acquired acquired Murimotu to 1893 in 1893 by 1901 Blocks (acres) (acresl (acres) Muriniotu 80 16 16 20 132 No.1 i500acre~ Murimotu 6300 945 217 7462 No.2 (8822 acres) Murimotu 4124 317 1161 337 5939 No.3 (13,000 acres) Murimotu 4714 786 786 786 7072 No.4 (11,000 acres) Murimotu 5496 458 238 304 660 278 203 7637 No.5 (13,081 acres) Government expenditure, including incidentals, in order to acquire Murimotu land, was as follows: 316 MA-MLP1, 1891/259; 921120; 93/141; 941201; 95/348; 961239; 97/175; 98/137; 991154; 00/88; Nat Archives 317 Table drawn from information extracted from AJHRs, Land Purchased and Leases from Natives in the North Island, West Coast and Wanganui, 1893, G4; 1894, G3; 1895, G2; and 1896 to 1901, G3 167 Table 8: Crown Expenditure, including incidentals, for land purchase in Murimotu318 Crown 1893 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1901 Expenditu Costs Costs Costs re on the to in by Murimotu 1892 1893 1901 Blocks (£.s.d)) (£.s.d) (£.s.d) Murimotu £12.2. £2.8.5 £2.8. £2.8. £19.14. No.1 1 5 5 4 (500 acres) Murimotu £991.4 £1.10 £152 217 £1,144. No.2 .9 .5.2 acres 19.11 (8822 at no acres) cost? Murimotu £662.1 £47.11 £123 £1.1 £50.1 £885.1 No.3 .10 .3 .8.8 8.1 0.9 0.7 (13,000 acres) Murimotu £628.1 £117.1 £150 £39. £117. £1,053. No.4 0.7 7.2 5.9 17.2 10.8 (11,000 acres) Murimotu £1,017 £244.1 £35. £45. £75. £29. £64.1 £1,512. No.5 .8.3 9.3 13.6 12.5 0.10 7.6 2.2 13.11 (13,081 acres) While it was true that the Crown could not keep all the money paid to it in rent, as a percentage had to be paid on to the outstanding Maori owners, nevertheless what the Crown was able to keep as rent by 1892 was becoming sufficient to both subsidise continued purchasing, and to service debts acquired in purchasing up to that date .. Continued purchasing could only improve the Crown's position. Purchases to 1901, especially in Blocks 2 to 5, therefore continued, both to significantly increase the land the Crown had already acquired to 1892 and to increase the rate of return. With the partitioning of the blocks in 1900, the interests of the Crown, and of Maori were clarified on the ground, with the Crown and Maori non-sellers' land identified. The financial benefits that purchase provided for the Crown will also be clearer at that point, and this, with further developments on the blocks will be explored in the next chapter. 318 Table drawn from information extracted from AJHRs, Land Purchased and Leases from Natives in the North Island, West Coast and Wanganui, 1893,04; 1894,03; 1895,02; and 1896 to 1901, G3 168 6.3. Rangipo-Waiiiproceedingsfrom 1884 to 1900 Although very much intertwined with developments in Murimotu, there were some distinctive decisions and issues that arose over Rangipo-W aiii, following on from the establishment of the leases. The next hearing of the Rangipo-Waiii block before the Court was held on 22 July 1884 for the subdivision of Rangipo-Waiii No.1 block. The application was made on behalf of the Crown to ascertain the Crown's interests.319 Land Purchase Department Under Secretary Richard Gill appeared on behalf of the Crown and stated: 1 would explain this is a lease of the block for 21 years from 31 May 1881 at a rental of £12 per 1000 acres per annum. 1 submit the deed of lease signed by all except 4, 1 ask for an order in favour of the Crown, all the block except for the 4 who have not signed. 320 . Gill requested the Court to cut out for the four owners their shares, which equalled 1874 acres. The remaining 24,126 acres were awarded to the Crown as a lease. No objections were recorded to these decisions. The 1874 acres were located at the north west comer of the block. On the next day, 23 July, Gill appeared again before the Court and sought a similar result. He produced an early lease for the whole 72,000 acres of land of Rangipo-Waiii and Rangipo-Waiii No.2. The terms were for 21 years from 31 May 1881 at a yearly rental of £ 13 per 1000 acres. All of Rangituhia had signed the lease and most of N gati Tama. Emera Whakaahu brought the attention of the court to the question of the '- j boundary between Ngati Rlingituhia and Ngati Tama: 'I want to have the boundary between Rangituhia and N'Tama set out. [ ... ] On the western side Rangituhia have their houses, N'Tama on the other.' Emera Whakaahu applied to the Court for an 319 22 July 1884, Whanganui MB 07, p.l74, Supporting Papers, Vo1.22, p.l2379 320 Ibid, pp.174-175, Supporting Papers, Vo1.22, pp.12379-12380 169 adjournment to give time for Rangituhia and Ngati Tama to talk: 'Not to obstruct but to have their minds perfectly clear regarding the boundary'. 321 This question of the boundary between the two iwi could have been a problem, but did not appear to have become one. No official boundary was ever established, so that while the two iwi had equal ownership rights to 50 percent of the blocks each, what that meant on the ground was never formally established. The lack of objection from Ngati Rangituhia about the subsequent partitioning out and definition ofNgati Tama non lease signers' land would seem to indicate that they had informally agreed that such a partitioning out was appropriate. As there were non-signing Ngati Tama, this was the focus of the rest of the hearing. On 24 July 1884, Gill appeared again producing two more recent leases one for Rangipo Waiii and Rangipo-WaiU No.2 completed since title was awarded. He noted some persons had signed on one lease, and some on the other. Out of 42 Ngati Tama in the Certificate of Title, 28 had signed. Gill also produced an agreement, dated 10 March 1877, which recorded an intention to lease. This was signed before title of the block had been given. Gill noted that there were six persons who had signed the 1877 agreement to lease, who then did not sign the post title investigation lease. He noted: 'I claim these shares. The agreement is very explicit' .322 He therefore asked that these signatures be counted in as part of the award the Crown was seeking. He explained that the six persons had not ever received rent, but that their share of the rental payment had been kept aside and would be paid out when matters were settled. In response, the Court stated its opinion: that they were sitting to determine the interest acquired by the Crown. If the Court awarded the interests of these six, it would be saying that these 321 23 July 1884, Whanganui MB 07, pp.l74-180, Supporting Papers, Vo1.22, pp.12379-12381 322 24 July 1884, Whanganui MB 07, pp.l81-2, Supporting Papers, Vo1.22, pp.12382-12383 170 interests had been acquired, whereas these interests were only under agreement to be acquired. There was surely a remedy at law to compel them to fulfil their agreement. 323 Gill drew the Court's attention to the Native Land Purchase Act 1877 and s.3 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1881. After further discussion, the Court stated: that it must consider this point - would not decide at once. At present the Court was of opinion that it could not assume as done that which was not done. 324 Later in the afternoon, the Court invited Gill to make further submissions before a decision was made. Gill then stated: I argue that in this case the interests have been acquired, inasmuch as the 6 were owners when they signed the agreement although not legal owners. The lease is simply the carryin~ out of the agreement. There is nothing repugnant in the lease to the agreement. 3 5 If the primary purpose ofthe Native Land Court was to determine who the legal owners of Maori land were, so as to facilitate the legal use of that land, it might seem on the face of it rather expedient to hold parties to a legal agreement before their legal rights to so enter it had been established. In fact it might seem to presume that the Native Land Court would rubber stamp with legality arrangements already entered into. On the 25 July 1884, the Court stated an opinion in respect of the six interests. The Chief Judge had been consulted and his opinion and the opinion of the Court was 'that an equitable right had been acquired by the Crown. The Crown is entitled to the performance of the agreement; and is entitled to an order of this Court' .326 At this stage, Hiraka appeared before the Court and explained how it was that the six did not sign: 323 Ibid, 24 July 1884, Whanganui MB 324 Ibid, 24 July 1884, Whanganui MB 325 Ibid, 24 July 1884, Whanganui MB 171 of late years Mr Nelson had been trying to get the signatures; and Mr Donnelly told them they would get into trouble if they did. First I thought the latter was right, but afterwards found he was not doing right. Last year I saw Mr Nelson and said if he would give me my money and I would sign - when my people saw this they signed also. On returning to Patea, Mr Donnelly was very angry at us signing. He wanted us to sign a paper promising him we would not sign. That is why the other six did not sign. I have always considered that they would sign if not influenced otherwise.317 At the very least, this seemed to indicate some confusion in the mind of the Maori concerned about what leasing offered, confusion apparently sown by competing European interests. Gill then continued: The deed of 1881 recites that if the lessors are not present when the money is paid accordingly to the lease, the money will be paid accordingly to s.13 of the Act of 1878 No.2. I propose to pay the money of the six in accordance with that clause. The grass money is from 11 March 1877 (accordingly to agreement) to 31st May 1881 4 years, 82 days. The rent payable to each grantee for that term is £47.1.4 and for the four years from 31 May 1881 to 31 May 1885 is £44.11.4. I ask the Court to direct as to what account I shall pay these amounts. 328 Although this was compensation which the Government was prepared to pay and did so, this might be seen as appropriate from the point of view of those who had signed in 1877, as that had been the agreement, but a new agreement for another twenty-one year period requiring new signatures might not automatically be accepted as an extension of that original agreement. However, that was not the Court's fmding, which favoured the Government interpretation. Having considered those who had signed both the pre-title and post-title leases, Gill then requested from the Court an order be made in favour of the Crown for 17,000 acres 326 25 July 1884, Whanganui MB 07, p.l83, Supporting Papers, Vo1.22, p. 12384 327 Ibid, 25 July 1884, Whanganui MB, p. 12384 172 representing 34 interests of the 42,000-acre block Rangipo-Waiu. He also asked for an order of12,143 out of Rangipo-Waiii No.2 (30,000 acres) representing the interest of the 34 persons who had had signed this lease. Gill also tried to arrange to have the interests of non-signing Ngati Tama cut out and awarded. The total Ngati Tama interests in Rangipo-Waiii was 50 percent of the block. Therefore in addition to the 17,000 acres leased to the Crown, Gill sought that the remaining 4,000 acres belonging to the 8 non-signing grantees be set aside. Similarly, in Rangipo-Waiii No.2, where Ngati Tama's interests totalled 15,000 acres and where the leased interests made up 12,143 acres, Gill sought that the 2,857 acres of the two non signees be set aside by the Court. In the face of disagreement from those who had not signed as to the location of their award, Gill abandoned the attempt.329 On 26 July 1884, however, the Court decided that existing legislation gave it the power to defme the location of the non-signing interests. Therefore, Gill again appeared before the Court in respect ofNgati Tama's share in Rangipo-WaiU: The Court had already found that the Crown has acquired 34 out of 42 interests in Rangipo-WaiU, 30,000 acres the majority of that belonging to Ngati Tama is 15,000. I would ask that 12,143 acres be given to the Crown and to cut out the 8 grantees who have not signed the deed of lease. I wi11leave these non-sellers to take these 2857 acres where they like but in one piece. 330 Retimana Te Rango appeared and stated that he was one of the Ngati Tama who had not signed. 'There are 7 others. It might be that if they were here they would consent to take this land in one block, but they are not here. I have a settlement at Manutaki on this block. In Rangipo-W aiU I claim my land in the centre.' Ihakara later stated that he 'agreed with what Retimana had said'. Ani Pako stated that Retimana was her brother therefore she agreed with what he said. 331 328 Ibid, 25 July 1884, Whanganui MB, p. 12384 329 Ibid"p.l84, Supporting Papers, Vo1.22, p.12385 330 26 July 1884, Whanganui MB 07, pp.l88-189, Supporting Papers, Vo1.22, pp. 12387-12388 331 Ibid, 26 July 1884, Whanganui MB pp. 12387-12388 173 The next speaker Emera Whakaahu stated that he wished to know where the 15,000 acres for Rangituhia and the 15,000 acres for Ngati Tama had been located on the block before any decision was made as to where the 2857 acres for the 8 non-signing Ngati Tama were to be located. The Court invited Emera Whakaahu to provide comment on this. Emera responded that he preferred the award being on the east side of the block: 'so as to run with their other lands'. Ihakara also claimed the Ngati Tama interest lay in the north and east of the block, while Kingi Topia stated that the Court could put the 2857 acres where it liked. Therefore the Court ordered that 2857 acres in the north east comer of Rangipo-WaiU No.2 be exempted from the lease. 332 Gill then appeared again asked for a similar order for the portion known as Rangipo Waiu where 4000 acres was to be excepted from the lease as the non-signing Ngati. Tama interest: 1 am aware that there are many Natives living on this block. They have houses, CUltivations, and sheep. 1 am willing that this 4000 acres will include those cultivations. They are on the south east comer of the block. 333 Retimana appeared and stated that he would 'not go away from Awaitatare near the Middle'. Gill pointed out that an award to this nature 'would include the houses and fences of the Europeans now in occupation'. Retimana replied, 'I don't care anything about that, 1 want my land there'. Instead Gill proposed to cut the 4000 acres out of the south east comer and asked what Hikaka had to say. Hikaka stated: I heard that the bush marked on the map was to be the Europeans boundary. Our house and cultivation are there. 334 332 Ibid, 26 July 1884, Whanganui MB, pp. 12387-12388 333 Ibid, 26 July 1884, Whanganui MB 07, pp.l90-191, Supporting Papers, Vo1.22, p.12389 174 In response, Retimana stated: 'I object. All the others are away'. Despite this, the Court made an order that 4000 acres be excepted from the lease of the whole block at the south east comer of Rangipo-Waiii. Despite objections from Maori over this decision, which was different from the general acceptance of the decision in Rangipo-Waiii No.2, the Court ruled in the Government's favour, presumably because to have taken into account Maori wishes here would have disrupted European presence and constructions in the block. The Rangipo-Waiii leases (cf. Map 6) were now in a position to be implemented, according to the Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act, running from 31 May 1881. Table 9: Leasing and Non-leasing arrangements from 1884 in Rangipo-Waifi Block Area Owners No. of Grantees Grantees Area Area Not (a.r.p.) Grantees Signing Not leased Leased Signing (a.r.p.) (a.r.p.) Rangipo- 42,000 Ngati 50 from Ngati 50 from 8 from 21,000 of 4000 of Waiii Rangituhia Rangituhia Ngati Ngati Ngati Ngati and Ngati and 42 from Rangituhia Tama Rangituhia Tamain Tama Ngati Tama and 34 and 17,000 the South (same ones as from of Ngati East Rangipo- Ngati Tama Comer Waiii No.2) Tama Rangipo- 26,000 Ngati 42 38 4 24,126 1474 in WaiiiNo. Waewae the North 1 West comer Rangipo- 30,000 Ngati 50 from Ngati 50 from 8 from 15,000 of 2857 of WaiiiNo. Rangituhia Rangituhia Ngati Ngati Ngati Ngati 2 and Ngati and 42 from Rangituhia Tama Rangituhia Tamain Tama Ngati Tama and 34 and 12,143 the North (same ones as from of Ngati East Rangipo- Ngati Tama Comer Waiii) Tama While there was little official communication involving Rangipo-Waiii until the leases expired, there was one very interesting exchange, in 1889, in terms of the light it shines on Government interests in this region. 334 Ibid, 26 July 1884, Whanganui MB 07, pp.190-191, Supporting Papers, Vo1.22, p.l2389 175 On 7 May 1889, H.A. Comford wrote to the Native Minister in respect of the 4000 acres cut off from Rangipo-Waiii for those 8 Ngati Tama who had not signed the lease. Since then, one of the interests had been purchased: The land is now useless to the remaining 7 owners and is squatted on by a native (Heperi Pikirangi) who has no interest and pays no rent. The seven would I believe lease their shares to a client of mine but are powerless first on account of the notifications gazetted and secondly because the survey would be at the expense of the intending European lessee who fears to advance the amount without knowing to what extent his lease would be affected by the alienation of Te Ohini Neri's share and without some definite agreement for lease. 335 Cornford requested, therefore, that the Government remove its notifications over the block to give his client a free hand in negotiating a lease with the owners. If the difficulties could be resolved, Cornford was prepared to offer a deal whereby his clients would lease from the seven for 21 years, at £200 per annum for the first five years and ~'l J- £260 per annum for the remainder of the term.336 Unable to make use of their land, its Maori owners sought to have Government restrictions lifted, which would have allowed a regular income. Sheridan commented on this application: 'It would complicate the title very much to allow private dealings with this land at present' . Comford was informed, therefore, 'that the Government cannot consent to remove the notification or to allow the lease as it is acquiring the freehold of the block'. 337 In this case, Government interests overrode the interests of Maori, with the effect that Maori were prevented, despite wishing to do so, from using their land in a profitable manner. On 8 July 1889, the local parliamentarian Smith sent in an application from seven owners of Rangipo-Waiii that they might partition out their shares in the block. Sheridan 335 7 May 1889, Comford to Native Minister, MA-MLP1, 1889/143, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vo1.10, EP.5722-5723 36 Ibid, Comford to Native Minister, p. 5723 337 May 1889, MA-MLP1, 1889/143, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vol. 10, p. 5724 176 referred to his previous Minutes on this matter338and commented: 'A subdivision of Rangipo-Waiu at present would create numerous complications'. Under-Secretary Lewis advised the Native Minister: 'The Govt do not wish to offer facilities to private parties to purchase any portion of this block as it is the intention of the Crown to acquire the whole ifpossible,.339 Despite legal representation, and the approaches ofa parliamentarian, the Maori owners of this block could not change a policy that directly discriminated against their desire to use their land. The Government response presupposed that Maori could be persuaded to sell in these regions, and that, therefore, to offer economic opportunities would be counterproductive to this aim. The interests of Maori were ignored in this consideration. As noted, the yearly leases for Rangipo-Waiii amounted to £1136.7 a year. In September 1889, the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act Amendment was passed, with the same implications as with Murimotu. The rent received was divided, with a certain percentage going to the Native Land Purchase fund and the rest set aside to be used as legislated for by the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Amendment Act. This pattern continued until the end of the lease. Table 10: Allocation of Rent by the Government from Rangipo-Waiii. 340 Rangipo- 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 Wain Native £399 £387 £349 £320. £265. £238. £222. £215. £198. £185. £183. Land .18.7 .1.6 .16.4 5.2 7.9 9.3 1.2 1.10 13.1 16.0 18.1 Purchase fund North £736 £749 £786 £816. £870. £897. £914. £921. £937. £950. £952. Island .8.5 .5.6 .10.8 1.10 19.3 17.9 5.10 5.2 13.11 11.0 8.11 Main Trunk Railway Loan Fund 338 Ibid MA-MLP1, 1889/143 339 See MA-MLP1, 1889/143, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, VoLlO, p.5725 340 MA-MLPl, 1891/124; 92/82; 93/93; 94/143; 95/251; 96/151; 971116; 98/83; 99/91; 00/42; 01/55 Nat Archives 177 The trend in the allocation of the rent was for less to be used for Native Land Purchase and more for loan repayments. As far as this region was concerned, this made sense as land required for the railway in Murimotu had virtually been acquired, leaving more for direct debt servicing. Of course, part of the purpose of the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Fund was to purchase land for the railway, so the small return from rents was contributing to the servicing of a debt in part created through the purchase of Maori land. The pattern ofland acquisition can be traced through the rentbooks.341 For the early period of the lease, to take Rangipo-Waiii No.1 first, land sales were particularly concentrated in the 1885/1886 period. Over half the leased land was alienated to the Crown in just over two years. What was also a consequence of succession was the division and reduction of the rent, where there was more than one successor involved. The process of individual payment and its successive division made it difficult for Maori collectively to use what could otherwise have been the fmancial benefits of leasing to their collective advantage. The same pattern was present in Rangipo-Waiii No.2, as it was in all the blocks, and was to gain momentum as the lease period drew to its end. Another consideration here was that neither of tfiese two blocks was near the proposed new railway line, which may have been a factor in Maori willingness to sell. The enthusiasm of the Crown to purchase might be seen as taking advantage of the purchasing opportunities provided in having these lands included within the Main Trunk Line land purchase boundaries. While this was advantageous to the Crown, there was no such obvious advantage for Maori in this. In Rangipo-Waiii, sales were brisk, if not quite as brisk as in the other blocks, and there did seem to be more reluctance to selling from N gati Tama, which perhaps was not surprising given their unwillingness also to lease as compared to Ngati Rangituhia.342 341 MA l3, Box 86, SOB Special Files 80 342 MA l3, Box 86, SOB Special Files 80 178 Where Maori had leased, the benefits were paid in small amounts to many individuals, who, if they did not sell, were often succeeded by even more individuals, thus dissipating the possible advantages. Where non-leasing Maori sought to gain advantage, they were constrained from doing so by the Crown, as was seen in 1889 in Rangipo Waiii. This process had not favoured Maori interests; rather the reverse with potential for Maori development and cohesion more and more compromised over the period of the lease. Figures for alienation ofland in Rangipo-Waiii are available from 1892, and the following table shows the gradual progression of Crown acquisitions on the blocks. Table 11: Crown Purchases on the Rangipo-Waiu Blocks from 1892 to 1901343 Crown 1893 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1901 Purchases Land Land Land on the acquired acquired acquired Rangipo- to 1893 in 1893 by 1901 Wain (acres) (acres) (acres) Blocks \...... j Rangipo- 26,468 1234 1622 2387 850 2037 617 35,215 Waiil (43,036 acres) Rangipo- 19,000 216 390 1163 1133 1150 21,526 WaiiiNo.l (26,000 acres) Rangipo- 18,447 756 492 1521 323 675 372 22,586 WaiiiNo.2 (27,550 acres) By 1892, a significant proportion of land in Rangipo-Waiii. had been purchased by the Crown. Purchasing remained steady until the end of the lease, by which time it was apparent that the Crown had succeeded in acquiring a much greater percentage of the land in this area than in Murimotu. Unlike Murimotu too, there seemed to be no area of reduced sales, as all three regions saw substantial purchasing. There was nothing stated by any party in 1882 that envisaged alienation on this block amounting to virtually 80 343 Table drawn from information extracted from AJHRs, Land Purchased and Leases from Natives in the North Island, West Coast and Wanganui, 1893, G4; 1894, G3; 1895, G2; and 1896 to 1901, G3 179 percent of Maori land. However Government actions and words might be construed at that time, and they were certainly not incompatible with purchase as such, Maori certainly had given no indication that their advantage could encompass an alienation of this scale. It would seem that Maori interests were not a major factor determining what happened in Rangipo-W aiu during the lease period, especially if Maori interests were to involve more than holding land which had yet to be purchased. The costs to the Government of this purchasing activity are set out as follows, Table 12: Crown Expenditure, including incidentals, for land purchase in Rangipo- ,- 344 W alU. Crown 1893 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1901 Expenditu Costs Costs Costs reon the to in by Rangipo- 1892 1893 1901 Waiu (£.s.d» (£.s.d) (£.s.d) Blocks Rangipo- £3,865 £191.1 £292 £450 £125 £58. £79.7. £102. £92.1 £5,259 Waiii .11.9 6.10 .12.4 .5.2 .13.1 15 6 10.8 2.1 .5.11 (43,036 1 acres) Rangipo- £1,322 £25. £87. £52. £79.1 £73.1 £1,640 Waiii No.1 .7.6 16.4 2.9 14 5.8 .17.3 (26,000 acres) Rangipo- £2,761 £109.0 £73. £252 £47. £23. £36.1 £63.1 £55.1 £3,423 Wain No.2 .13.6 .8 17 .12.7 7.5 1 7.11 0.11 6.11 .17.11 (27,550 acres) Even ~ore that in Murimotu, what the Crown was able to keep as rent by 1892 was becoming sufficient to both subsidise continued purchasing, and to service debts acquired in purchasing up to that date. As in Murimotu, continued purchasing could only improve the Crown's position. With the partitioning ofthe blocks in 1900, the interests of the Crown, and of Maori were clarified on the ground, with the Crown and Maori non-sellers' land identified. The fmancial benefits that purchase provided for the 344 Table drawn from information extracted from AJHRs, Land Purchased and Leases from Natives in the North Island, West Coast and Wanganui, 1893, G4; 1894,03; 1895, G2; and 1896 to 1901,03 180 Crown will also be clearer at that point, and this, with further developments on the blocks will be explored in the next chapter. 6.4. Discussion In 1907, the Government commissioned Chief Justice Robert Stout and Apirana Ngata to inquire into: the areas of Native land which are unoccupied or not profitably occupied, and as to the models in which such lands can best be utilised and settled in the interests of the Native owners and the public good. 345 The Commission's report summarised land purchase activities in the Whanganui region from the 1880s: The Crown has been purchasing largely in this district since the early eighties. We fmd that from 1881 to the present time, during a period of twenty-six years, the total area purchased at nearly 1,273,000, at a cost of £273,340. Nearly one-half of this area lies within the boundaries of what may be called the North Island Main Trunk: Railway loan system of blocks, and was acquired in conjunction with that undertaking. Deducting from the cost incidental expenses, the amount paid to the owners did not average more than 4s an acre. We believe that for the practical cessation of Crown purchases between 1901 and 1905 another quarter of a million acres would have been acquired. The Maoris knew in later years that they were parting with their lands at absurdly low prices, but the restriction against private dealings left them no alternative. They had to sell to the Crown at the latter's price, for, among other things, Court fees, agents' costs, and survey charges had to be met, and in litigation, in order to substantiate claims to one block, a whole tribe will recklessly throwaway the land it has already won. And the taste for good Government cash or cheques once cultivated easily became a passion. The purchase-money has generally gone in litigation and riotous living. This weakness has been known for a generation, and ministered to whenever there is an outcry for the settlement of the waste areas of the colony.346 345 'Native Lands in the Whanganui District', AlliR, 1907, G-la, p 15 346 Ibid, 'Native Lands in the Whanganui District', AlliR, 1907, G-la, pp 15-16 181 These are general observations, and the question remains as to how far they are applicable to Murimotu and Rangipo-W aiii. Evidence indicates that they are applicable. The Crown steadily sought to purchase significant amounts ofland in these regions, Maori group identity as iwi and hapii, already vulnerable because of the individuation of land title in a society that had no tradition for this practice, was further weakened as a result, and this compromised Maori ability to derive benefits from the severely depleted land resources that remained to them at the end of the leasing period. That the Government believed Maori should be protected from land speculators was obviously a factor in restraining private purchase. However, the Government also had views about how Maori should use their land. The comment of John McKenzie, Liberal Minister of Lands from 1891-1900, concerning Maori land provides an insight into Liberal thinking on this question: 'The time has come, when the Natives must be called upon to make up their minds as to whether they would make good use of their land, or allow use to be made of it by the Government'. He went on to suggest that Maori lacked the capital, expertise and administrative machinery to farm their land effectively.347 In other words, the Government had a particular view about land use, one that was generally shared among Pakeha, and in which there was little room for alternative Maori perspectives. Political opponents such as McKenzie and William Massey, along with nearly every Pakeha politician and probably nearly all settlers rejected any concept of communal ownership, such as existed among Maori.348 On this Pakeha conception, land had to be used in a particular way, and where that was not the case, then that land should be purchased so as to allow others to use it profitably. Because it was believed that Maori land use precluded their using it to the best possible advantage, preventing speculators from seizing this land became an issue, and to that end justified the Crown' s exclusive right of purchase in these blocks. Maori had to be protected from private parties, and from their own inefficient land use habits, and Government purchase allowed Maori to gain some fmancial benefit from selling, and opened up the land to 347 NZPD, 1893,81, pp.512-513 348 McKenzie, NZPD, 1893,83, pp.511-514, and Massey, 1894, 86,p.475 182 those better able to use it profitably. These assumptions underpinning Liberal land policy in the 1890s give some insight into how massive land alienation could be justified under a rubric of protection. Regardless of any ideological clash, the reality was that land was steadily purchased by the Crown in Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii from Maori throughout the lease period, the amount becoming known with the formal identification of Crown interest in the blocks in the twentieth century. It must be noted, however, how critical Stout and Ngata were of so many aspects of Crown procedure in reports only a few years, in some cases, after the events criticised. At one point, there was also a strong criticism of the risks of unscrupulous speculators, yet, ironically given the Crown's stated intention to stop this abuse, the following extract provides an insight into the advantages the Crown possessed when purchasing these blocks: Theoretically there is competition; practically there is none. The first man to secure the assistance of the leading influential owners to carry the deal through generally gets a clear field until he obtains the signatures 'of all willing to lease. It is possible for an ordinarily resourceful man, who is persona grata to the Maoris, who knows where to look for the influence necessary to 'round up' the scattered owners of a block and obtain their indispensable individual signatures; it is possible for such a man to negotiate successfully all the leases he may require, and even to set up in business as a medium for obtaining leases for less fortunate if bone fide settlers not so well versed in the underground methods of dealing with Native lands. There is freedom of leasing to the man who knows, and unlimited scope for operating. 349 Allegedly to prevent these methods from occurring seemed to provide the Crown with opportunities to operate in a like manner within Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii. The consequences were also appreciated; c. .J Further it has to be remembered that the large Maori blocks are communal or tribal lands, and therefore in one sense they may be said to be impressed with a trust. To allow the present possessors to destroy the tribal land means that they destroy the tribe, what has happened in the past 349 'General Report on Native Lands', AJHR, 1907, Gl, pp 28-29 183 would happen in the future, that certain persons, adepts in what was once termed 'Oriental [mance', would become the possessors of Maori land for nominal sumS.350 Knowing this to be the case would seem to impose some obligation on the Crown to prevent it becoming an outcome, rather than pursuing policies that helped to ensure it would be an outcome. Yet Crown assumptions about proper land use, shared as they were by Pakeha in general, imparted a moral force to its willingness to acquire land, despite its effects on Maori society. What was peculiar about Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiu was that these areas in general were not favourable for close settlement. This meant that, even after the Crown had purchased considerable amounts ofland in these blocks, it was still obliged to lease the land in substantial blocks to obtain a commercial return. In other words, even in areas where Crown rhetoric about land use was not practicable, where large landholdings controlled by a single person or company were more effective economically, the Crown still left no opportunity for Maori to pursue options for themselves. Maori were shut out of any possibility of either entering into large-scale runholding themselves or leasing to others, as the Crown did, and sharing directly in benefits, including perhaps skills. Only the Crown, and its sub-lessees, was to draw any benefit from the large-scale enterprises this area required, whether in runholding or later in forestry. After the Government's interests were partitioned out in 1900, Maori land ownership was shown to have decreased, dramatically in the case of Rangipo-Waiu, and less dramatically in Murimotu (see Chapter 7). Given the expectations of Maori regarding the benefits of leasing, expectations actively fostered by the Government, this result appears surprising. What benefit did Maori obtain by selling that so outweighed the advantages of continued land ownership? This was not at all clear in 1900, especially as the land remaining in Maori hands was not of especially good quality, or lent itselfto any obvious use that could benefit its Maori owners. On the contrary, as generally land of the poorest quality, its ownership rather imposed burdens on its owners in terms of 350 Ibid, p.29 184 maintenance, and the difficulties of trying to make a living on it. Whatever the reasons for Maori selling most of the land and of the best quality, it would seem, on the face of it, rather difficult to argue that this was done for the best interests of Maori, unless it could be shown that somehow some real benefits did in fact accrue to Maori through selling. The resulting limited land ownership by Maori certainly did not accord with expectations expressed by Maori in the 1870s and 1880s, or the promises and hopes that the Government had given and encouraged, particularly in order to justify its position as sole legitimate land purchaser throughout the period of the lease. The Government had expressed definite opinions about the benefits. of leasing for Maori, with Ballance extremely clear to Maori about what he saw as the real benefits. Of course, what he had proclaimed in public did not accord with his private instructions regarding the need to purchase Maori land within areas reserved for the Main Trunk Railway. W oon had been insistent in his reports as to the needs of Maori to retain sufficient land, and by this he obviously meant generously sufficient land: I have all along advised them to sell portions of their surplus lands, and retain in perpetuo ample and goodly portions thereof for themselves and their posterity, feeling sure that by such policy the interests of both races will be permanently secured.351 r , Both through advice from officials on the ground and through the express advantages proclaimed by prominent politicians, the Government was fully aware of the benefits and importance of land to Maori, and how leasing that land might contribute further to Maori development, in whatever terms that was judged to involve. Maori also had certain definite ideas about the benefits they thought would emerge, benefits which the Government's arguments helped to confirm, as well as helping to ensure Maori willingness to accept the Government's leading position in determining who could lease. 351 AJHR, 1880, Reports of Officers in Native Districts, G-4, No. 17, p. 15 185 Despite all these advantages acknowledged as existing for Maori leasing, why did the Government actively purchase land in these blocks? There would appear to have been a number of strands to this strategy. The blocks seemed to be affordable within the Government's budget. One of the major concerns expressed through the debates concerning the Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act was the loss that the Government had incurred in relation to its dealings with these blocks with nothing to show for it. The freedom now to purchase seemed to offer some means by which perhaps a return could be made. Money had been set aside for land purchases connected with the construction of the North Island Main Trunk Railway and, with the inclusion of Rangipo-Waiii and Murimotu within these boundaries, meant there was money available for land purchase. Put simply, money was available for certain land purchases, the blocks were within those boundaries, the Government had lost money on these blocks before but now they were affordable, therefore purchasing seemed a solid opportunity to be pursued. Needless to say, there was no consideration in this line of thought for Maori interests as such, in fact they simply do not feature. However, there was more to Government purchasing strategy than these rather narrow economic considerations, and some of this further reasoning did involve some perception that there were Maori interests to be considered.. Maori were not completely invisible to the Government, but the Government's perceptions of what were Maori interests has to be tested against the reality of policies adopted. The Government knew the importance of land to Maori in these areas. W oon had indicated in his reports about how necessary it was to leave Maori with sufficient and useable land. The notion of useable land is obviously of vital importance, since if the land left is substantial but effectively unusable, due to unsuitable location or quality for example, then any resulting claims about sufficiency are to that extent of limited value. If there were legal protections in place to ensure sufficient useable land was kept aside, then the degree of purchasing and the quality of land purchased did not suggest that this was a factor that influenced purchasing policy. 186 In its own understanding of Maori, and Maori interests, the Government understood that land ownership, and use, were important to Maori. If Maori were to become citizens along the lines that those Pakeha of the time felt they should become, then a degree of self reliance and independence was essentiaL Land that could be used economically would seem a crucial necessity for this vision, if Maori interests were to be met. Yet within these blocks, with this vision of Maori interests, the reality ofland purchase by the Government did not help to this end. Of course, if the extent of land purchase by the Government in these blocks was unusual compared to normal purchasing patterns elsewhere, then only a local anomaly has been identified. This would still need to be explained, but if the pattern were an example of a general policy then the history of these blocks may only serve to confirm this pattern, rather than hope to offer a complete explanation for it. Within Murimotu and Rangipo-WaiU, Maori were marginalised, left with the poorest lands, and provided with no economic assistance, as a result of policies that did not officially aspire to achieve this, but rather had been couched in terms of advantage for Maori. In the light of its own standards of the time therefore, the Government had actively worked to undermine Maori interests, under a rhetoric claiming to do the opposite, in pursuit of outcomes directly favourable to the Crown. As a consequence of land purchases in Rangipo-Waiu and Murimotu, the Government became a large landowner. There was no obvious advantage in this for Maori. The Government had operated as sole land purchaser, and as such had prevented private parties from buying the land. Maori had not lost their land to land sharks and speculators. While this suited the Government both politically, in that this thwarting of large scale private land purchase was popular, and practically, in that land had been acquired for purposes which the Government could determine, its effect on Maori was the same as if private purchasers had taken it, namely that the land was lost. Not only indeed was it lost, but higher prices that might have been obtained were denied Maori in the process. Whose ever interests were being served by Government land purchases, it is extremely difficult to see how these alienations served Maori interests. Of course, if 187 Government were under no obligation to consider Maori interests, then the land purchasing did make sense. The difficulty here was that the Government did recognise some form of obligation to Maori, and had justified its policies, in part, as benefiting Maori. One could raise a question as to whether Maori could have used the land productively, if they had been left with substantially more of it. While this must be speculative, there was evidence from within the Wanganui district that Maori were able to farm pastorally with some success. W oon identified this as an area in which Maori were demonstrating some competence: The Natives are now turning their attention to the depasturing of sheep and cattle, and much of the hillside bordering on the river has been cleared and laid down in grass as food for their increasing flocks, to which they are constantly adding, by fresh purchases from Wanganui and neighbourhood. A good deal of wool has been sent to town from Ranana and the other river settlements, and disposed of, for the most part in the grease, at market prices. Woolsheds, pens, and sheep-washes are being constructed, and European labour employed.352 The enforcement of the 1874 leases did not take into account the growing ability of Maori to work the land effectively themselves, and Government purchases after 1884 severely reduced the quantity and quality of land that might have been used for these activities by Maori. The loss of this asset and the skills that had been acquired, without some form of adequate replacement, cannot have been other than detrimental to Maori prosperity, development and cohesion. For cultural, historical, social and economic reasons, it simply did not make sense for Maori to have alienated as much land as was alienated up to 1900. Alienation to this extent was not in Maori interest. The question then arises as to why Maori sold land if land alienation was not in their best interests. Clearly distinctions have to be made between individual Maori and Maori as communities. The Native Land Court had made it possible for individual Maori to alienate land, giving in the process an authority to 188 individuals that in Maori culture, to that point, was novel. Maori society faced a dilemma where it could no longer exercise authority over individuals on such a crucial component for ongoing cohesion, namely land, in trying to adjust to external pressures. The Crown was aware of the communal nature of traditional Maori land tenure, as evidenced by the 1891 Report of the Commission into Native Lands: Without doubt, all lands in New Zealand were held tribally. The certificates of title should have issued to tribes and hapus by name and some simple method of public dealing with land provided analogous to that which had always been recognised and acted upon in the early days and which, in the ownership of land and dealings of all corporate bodies had been practiced from time immemorial by civilised nations. Had this been done, the difficulties, the frauds and the sufferings, with their attendant loss and litigation, which have brought about a state of confusion regarding the title of land would never have occurred.353 Despite being aware of this and the effects that this decreasing ability to coordinate Maori resistance to land sales was having on Maori society, the Government not only followed practices that made a collective Maori interest difficult to maintain, but in purchasing individual shares itself in these blocks, actively worked to undermine the ability of Maori to keep a coherent and cohesive common interest. In other words, the legal processes, over which Maori had no control, had made Maori society vulnerable. Rather than respond to this sympathetically, which a recognition of Maori interests would seem to require, the Crown made small adjustments to the process that did not address major Maori concerns, and actively used the advantages that the system gave for breaking down large scale Maori land ownership for its own benefit. The degree of land alienation in these blocks, and the quantity and quality of the land left to Maori would seem to offer much support to this interpretation. A possible Government perspective would challenge some of the assumptions within this interpretation. The Government was not some moral arbiter, a sort of conscience of 352 Ibid, AJHR, 1880, G-4, No. 17, p. 15-16 . 353 W.L.Rees and J. Carroll, Report of Commission on Native Land Laws, AJHR, Gl, 1891, p. vii 189 the nation, although what it did or did not do would affect the decision-making ability of others. The Government's role, one could argue, was about balancing interests, which had legitimate but competing aims. Within that, balancing interests was itself an aim, with effects in turn on the aims of others. Part of the lobbying process of competing parties to Government was to argue the need for a particular set of interests to be taken into account, and that failure to do so would be in some sense unjust to the party or parties concerned. The weight and lobbying power of these interests could change over time, and with it Government policies to reflect these changes. Part of political debate was about changing policies that were appropriate for one set of interests but which had become less appropriate as new interests emerged, with a desire for legislative support for whatever it might be particular parties were pursuing. Policies that might at one time have favoured large landowners changed to reflect the desires of those who had a vision of small farms. As the balance of interests changed, so did Government policy where those interests were able successfully to bring pressure. A complicating factor for New Zealand was that this process was recent here from the nineteenth century perspective, and, even in the homelands of New Zealand's Pakeha immigrants, was undergoing change. The system was allowing more interests to express their concerns, to bring pressure to bear for change, becoming more democratic, and Government itself was changing to accommodate these changes. The franchise was \ expanding and new interest groups yvere emerging, and these groups, whether they were business groups, farming lobbies, prohibition or women's rights activists, freeholders versus leasing or whatever, had to learn how to cope within a structure itself evolving in response to the plethora of new social and political bodies. Within New Zealand, inflows of immigration brought greater numbers of Pakeha with expectations of how New Zealand should be, and into a system that could give weight to those preferences. This was the reality with which the Government had to deal and coherently manage, and in that process retain the allegiance of the people from whom it ultimately derived its legitimacy. 190 Maori interests were a factor in that, but only a factor. The fact that Maori interests were perhaps not always upheld was not automatically an argument to say the Government had ignored them. ill Murimotu and Rangipo-Waiii, from 1882, the Government believed that Maori would obtain benefits from leasing. It also believed that the land was valuable for national reasons, and so prevented private parties from purchasing during the time of the leases. The Government argued that the best policy for Maori was to retain their land in order to obtain the benefits of leasing. This did not preclude Government attempts to purchase land in the blocks, for reasons that the Government judged would be advantageous to the national community. Not to have done so could have been seen as irresponsible. Some Maori were prepared to sell, and there was little evidence to suggest that they did so reluctantly or that the Government was in some sense underhand in seeking to purchase. On 2 July 1884, Niha Waiata and 15 others wrote: .'C .•~ We the members of the Ngatirangituhia tribe consent to sell our land - Rangipo Waiii and Rangipo Waiii No.2. We have appointed Tanui Aramatiu (Thomas Adamson) to act on our behalf in arranging this sale.354 The sale that followed was not rushed, being completed for Rangipo-Waiii on 24 September 1885, and for Rangipo-Waiii No 2 on 3 June 1885?55 As the rent books indicate, a considerable number of sales took place over the period 1885 to 1887 in certain blocks, particularly in Rangipo_Waiii356. There is no evidence to suggest that deception was employed in the conduct of these sales, that the Crown was going beyond being simply a willing purchaser, and Maori willing sellers. A vigorous purchase policy was certainly in place: 'Please purchase what shares you can in the 'Murimotu Blocks' and 'Please purchase what shares you can in the Rangipo-Waiii', but it was constrained by price and by how willing Maori were to sell at that price. 357 Many were prepared to sell at the Government's price. Where particular issues arose, they were dealt with in 354 2 July 1884, Nika Waiata petition, MA-MLP1, 1884/198, Nat Arch, Supporting Papers, Vo1.10, p.5621 355 MA 13, Box 86, 50B Special Files 80 356 Ibid, MA 13, Box 86, 50B Special Files 80 357 21 Feb 1885 and 21 July 1885, MAlMLPI 1885125, National Archives, Under secretary Gill to Colonel McDonnell 191 Court or through Government communication, as in the Ruka Puhaki case. Maori were aware of and used the normal official channels to express concerns in this block, and these concerns were listened to, if not always acted upon to their satisfaction. Where criticism of the mechanisms and decisions of the Native Land Court were made, this was actually evidence in favour of a Government preparedness to have its processes subject to criticism. It did not follow that because the Government might not have implemented all the recommendations of a particular report, for example the 1891 Report of the Commission on Native Land Laws, it was necessarily culpable or negligent in dealing with Maori concerns. Maori concerns on the contrary were part of the debate, the Government was conscious of them, but it made decisions based on what was judged to be politically, legally and socially possible at the time, as put most persuasively by the most influential pressure groups and parties. Maori were quite rightly part of the argument, but the outcomes were ones arrived at through political negotiation. A willingness to subject those decisions to criticism now must take into account the Government's room for manoeuvre within the body politic of the time from which it derived its overall legitimacy. Rangipo-WaiU and Murimotu had never been areas of large Maori settlement. If the Government had purchased all the land in the blocks, there might have been some complaint, but it did not. Maori were left with quite substantial landholdings, and not always of land of poor quality. Substantial amounts of land bought by the Government were also of poor quality. The fact was that this region was a difficult region to farm profitably. Hopes that both the Government and private parties had for this region in the l860s and 1870s were never realised. Studholme, an experienced runholder, never made substantial profits on his lease, and it would have been quite understandable that Maori, when provided with an opportunity to sell, might have decided to give up land that was not easy to work. In hindsight, it is known that the Government's hopes for the area were never realised, but the purchase policy at the time was driven by the belief that the region did have some future in the national interest. While this was true as regards the railway, this region otherwise has never been greatly sought after since the end of the 192 nineteenth century. Only the Government has been able to approach it as an area that could be used in the national interest in the twentieth century. For different reasons, this had driven its desire to purchase in the nineteenth century. Unless one were to argue that the Government had no business trying to purchase Maori land in this region, that it had no business making judgements about the right of private parties to purchase, that this region in some way was to be excluded from the Government calculus of interest, then the fact the Government actively sought to buy land, and that Maori were willing to sell, is not an obvious cause of complaint. While this argument puts Government actions in Rangipo-Waiii and Murimotu from 1882 to 1900 in a more positive light, it too contains important assumptions. Essentially Maori were treated both as citizens, which they were, and as agents potentially able to compete in the capitalist economy, which they also were. The focus was on Maori as individuals. If Maori had been able to form into more recognisably acceptable interest groups like political parties for example, then, on this argument, the Government might have given their concerns more weight, but Maori did not, at least not in a manner that was considered persuasive by Government. The central assumption was that Maori were just like everybody else, and their interests had to defended in the manner that this system was most amenable to. In a certain sense, this was an admirable assumption, and explained the ability of Maori to participate as much as they did in Pakeha society. The problem was that Maori were not like everybody else. They had communal structures of association and their use of land flowed from that social organisation. They could not be simply approached as landholders in the European sense, the recognition of this difference leading to the creation of the Native Land Court, but which also had implications for Maori identity. The issue in Rangipo-Waiu revolved around the Crown's treatment of Maori, which weakened their ability to sustain a coherent Maori identity. Either through process or through general approach, decisions about purchase ignored this collective aspect of Maori identity. It was expedient'todo so because to have acknowledged Maori group interests would have limited the 193 Government's room to manoeuvre. The history of these blocks to 1900 showed that whenever Maori group interest threatened to hinder Government action, Maori group interest was ignored, overcome, or subverted indirectly by the processes of the Native Land Court. These consequences were brought to the Government's attention in various reports, such as the 1891 Report of the Commission on Native Land Laws, but the actions taken did not address the inability of Maori to have a proper representation of their group interest, something which they sought to have recognised. Even if the processes of land purchasing in these regions could be shown to have been completely robust, the point was that they were undertaken without a serious policy consideration as to the effects of land alienation on Maori group identity. It was the lack of consideration of this crucial point, combined with the consequences for Maori on these blocks, which meant that land that had been integral to tribal identity and lifestyle had been lost. These factors form the basis of the judgement that the Government neglected legitimate Maori concerns, with detrimental effects for Maori and beneficial effects for the Government. Furthermore, where Maori tried to act as citizens hoping to engage productively through leasing, this option, as was demonstrated in Rangipo-Waiu with the attempt of the Maori owners there to lease, was stopped by the Government in defence of Government interests. Perversely, where Maori might have expected some consideration as Maori they received none, but where they sought to act as individual citizens exercising their rights to lease, they were prevented because they were Maori, holding land that the Government could constrain the use of. Rather than Maori collective identity being protected, it became an impediment to Maori, as the Crown applied legislation selectively to Maori land, with negative and prejudicial effects on Maori. It remains to be seen whether the relationship between Maori and the Crown in the twentieth century would be different, especially given that there was so much less Maori land, as well as land in general that was of value within these blocks. 194 7. Chapter 7: Twentieth Century Alienation After the drama of the nineteenth century, the twentieth century proved to be much quieter. Having purchased most of the blocks, the Crown began to sell or lease it to private parties. However, once it was decided to plant a forest, the Crown returned to acquire land for this, a small portion of which involved Maori land. The Crown also acquired land for defence, but the history and issues of this will be covered in another report by Phillip Cleaver. This chapter will briefly investigate the history of the land, excluding defence land, with a view to understanding how Maori were able to use the limited resources they had left, and what impact Crown decisions had on that use. 7.1. Murimotu On 12 December 1900, Murimotu Nos. 2, 3,4 and 5 came before the Native Land Court rrll, for an identification of the Crown's interests. Sheridan recorded the number of shares -~j purchased, approximately 65 percent of the total block. He also noted that he had arranged the boundary lines (cf. Map 9) with the non-sellers of each block.358 BLOCK NO. SIZE (a.r.p) NO. OF OWNERS COST TO CROWN 2A 7461 Crown £1,144.19.11 2B 1361 - 3A 5622 Crown £885.10.7 3B 7378 - 4A 7345 Crown £1,053.10.8 4B 3655 - 5A 9511 Crown £1,512.13.11 5B 3570 - The overall cost to the Crown of purchase came to approximately £4594.53. The advantages of having received an increasing percentage of the rent over the period of the lease were now apparent. The rent set had been £518.8 a year over 21 years. Murimotu No.3 needs to be treated carefully because, although the Crown made purchases in this block, they were largely concentrated in areas not leased, so the Crown would have 358 12 Dec 1900, Aotea Land Court MB 47a, pp. 89-90: Crown costs taken from AJHR, 1900, Land Purchased and Leased from Natives in the North Island, G-3, p.8 195 retained a much smaller percentage of the rent from this block compared with other blocks. Ifwe were to exclude the yearly rent from Murimotu No.3 from our calculations, that is £104 yearly, then the overall figure reduces to £414.8 a year. If the Crown on average had received, and been able to retain as landowner, half ofthis amount, over 21 years, as a minimum realistic assumption, this meant that it had received just over £207 a year for 21 years. Obviously the Crown would have received less. in the early years, but as purchases gained momentum, the amount received directly in rent would have increased proportionately. It needs to be remembered that by 1892, the Crown had bought more than half of Murimotu No.2, No.4 and No.5, from which the bulk of the· rents were received directly, so the working assumption that half the rents paid went directly to the Crown is very conservative. Receiving, over 21 years, at least £207 a year, making a total of £4347 as a conservative approximation of what the Crown in fact received, shows the commercial incentive and advantage to the Crown of purchase. On this very cautious estimate, this figure was very near to breaking even in terms of money spent in purchase compared to money received in rent. In reality, the figures for the average percentage of rent retained by the Crown over the 21 years was almost certainly higher than £207 a year, such that it was unlikely the Crown made a loss on its purchases over the 21 years. Of course, it had also been believed that the land purchased would increase in value, and so allow a further substantial return on resale. If no such profit were to be realised, and the Crown were to sell for a modest price, this would still represent a profit from the investment. There was no suggestion that Maori were in a similarly fortuitous position, either in terms of investment, the quantity of the land held, or in any other obvious advantageous situation. Between 1903 and 1907, further partitions of Murimotu blocks occurred. 359 359 Unless otherwise stated all material presented for the post-1900 period has been taken from Block Order Files WHI19-122, Aotea Maori Land Court, and from Berghan, Murimotu Supporting Papers. For this immediate reference, see also MLIS, Murimotu, Title Ord~r Files 196 DATE PARTITIONS SIZE (a.r.p) NO. OF OWNERS 23 March 1903 5Bl 1108/3127 6 5B2 118110124 13 5B3 517/1/39 2 5B4 762/1130 9 11 June 1903 3Bl 4113/2110 17 3B2 3250/0/36 18 7 September 1905 4Bl - 2 4B2 - 1 4B3 - 5 4B4 - 2 4B5 - 2 3 October 1905 5B2A 537 3 5B2B 103/0/24 2 5B2C 541 2 24 October 1905 3BIA 949/1/5 3 3BIB 3164/1/5 15 12 September 1906 5B4A -- 5B4B 277/2 - In 1907, the Commissioners Stout and Ngata reported on the Murimotu block. They noted which blocks were held under lease or were under negotiation. These comprised:36o BLOCK NO. SIZE (a.r.p) NO. OF OWNERS 1 500 51 2B 1361 11 3BIA 949/1/5 3 3BlB* 579/1/13 6 3BIC* 2584/3/32 8 3B2 3250/0/36 18 4B2 788/3/3 '4B3 788/3/3 4B4 1,557/2/6 4B5 519/0/29 The Stout-Ngata report also set out the Murimotu blocks they recommended for Maori occupation. These were:361 360 Block Order Files WHI19-122, Aotea Maori Land Court, and also AJHR, 1907, Native Lands and Native Land Tenure: Further Report of the Native Land Commission, G-la, p.21 *[Actually there is an error in these records as 3BlB and 3BIC have become inverted, and should read 3BIB 2584/3/32 acres, and 3BIC 579/113. This is quite apart from variations that will occur subsequently, with more accurate surveying.] 197 BLOCK NO. SIZE (a.r.p) NO. OF REMARKS OWNERS 5Bl 1,108/3/37 6 To be incorporated (?) 5B2A 534/2111 3 5B2B 103/0/24 2 5B2e 541 8 5B3 517/1/39 2 5B4A - 1 To be incorporated(?) 5B4Bl - 2 5B4B2 762/1/39 1 5B4B3 - 5 5B4B4 - 3 When these lists are compared to the list of remaining Maori land at the end of this Murimotu section, lands that might have been either leased or lived on have been significantly eroded by alienation. Land was also taken under the Public Works Acts. For example, on 21 March 1907, the following lands were taken for a further portion of the North Island Main Trunk Railway:362 Amount taken Being Portion of (a.r.p.) 0/0/24 Murimotu Run No.3 011/5 Murimotu Run No.3 0/1/13 Murimotu Run No.3 19/2112 Murimotu Run No.4, P.E.R. 22/1/30 Murimotu Run No.4, P .E.R. 0/0/36 Murimotu Run No.3 0/0/8 Murimotu Run No.3 0/0/4 Murimotu Run No.3 0/0118 Murimotu Run No.3 19/3/29 Murimotu Run No.4, P .E.R. 15/3/12 Murimotu Run No.4, P.E.R. 5/2/29 Murimotu Run No.4, P .E.R. 7/2/5 Reserve in Waiouru Township 12/0/0 Reserve in Waiouru Township 3/2/7 Reserve in Waiouru Township 911/37 Reserve in Waiouru Township 0/3/36 Section 7, Waiouru Township 361 Block Order Files WHI19-122, Aotea Maori Land Court, and also AJHR, 1908, Native Lands and Native Land Tenure: Interim Report by Native Land Commissioners on Native Lands in the counties of Wanganui, Waimarino, Rangitikei and Waitotara, G-lb, p.7 362 NZ Gazette, 21 March 1907, p.970 198 10/3/25 Murimotu Run No.4, P.E.R. 0/0/25.6 Road in Murimotu Run No.4, P.E.R. 27/2/30 Murimotu Run No.4, P .E.R. 16/l/27 Murimotu Run No.4, P.E.R. 10/2135 Murimotu No. 3B 24/1/29 Murimotu No. 3B 15/113 Murimotu No. 3B 8/2/37 Murimotu Run No.2 35/3/4 Murimotu Run No.2 0/1/8 Road 23/l/35 Murimotu Run No.2 24/0/0 Murimotu Run No.2 9/1/27 Murimotu Run No.2 The majority of this land was already in Crown ownership, with the exception being land taken from Murimotu No. 3B. The Crown had not been able to acquire as much land in Murimotu No 3 as in the other blocks, with the consequence that Maori still owned land over which the railway was to pass. The amount taken from Maori in this block came to just over 50 acres. It was not possible to establish whether any compensation was paid for these takings. On 16 July 1907, Murimotu No.1 was partitioned, following an application from the Crown.363 BLOCK NO. SIZE (a.r.p) NO. OF OWNERS lA 179 Crown lB 321 - On 1 November 1907, solicitors Armstrong and Craig made application on behalf of William Craig for a lease over the Murimotu NoAB3 block from 6 owners. They proposed that the lease should commence from 1 June 1907, and this was confrrmed by the Board on 11 September 1908.364While private leasing was to become an important factor for MOori landowners, the fact of a reduced land base, which became even less as the century advanced, meant that the advantages of leasing were now much more circumscribed. 363 MLIS Murimotu lB, Title Order 364 1 Nov 1907, Armstrong & Craig, 1907/269, Aotea Land Court, Nat Arch, MLC-WG Acc W1645 199 Nature & Date Block No. Size (a.r.p) No. of Lessee! Rental Detail of Owners Purchaser Alienation Lease 1/6/1907 4B3 778/3/3 6 William Craig 21 yrs, 6/- per acre On 16 February 1911, an application was made by Mata Thaka for confirmation of a lease to Laurie Strachan over Murimotu No.5B4A block. The lease was granted in 1912, along with the lease for SB2. Nature & Date Block No. Size (a.r.p) No. of Lessee/ Rental Detail of Owners Purchaser Alienation Lease 16/2/1911 5B2 - 1 Laurie Not recorded Strachan Lease 16/2/1911 5B4A 277/0/0 1 Laurie 42 yrs, 118 Strachan 1'121 yrs 5%rernain On 16 May 1911, the Native Land Court confirmed the Crown purchase ofMurimotu No.1B1 block, after further partition. The residue, Murimotu No.lB2, was awarded to 37 owners and later sold to the Crown. BLOCK NO. SIZE_(a.r.p.) NO. OF OWNERS lBI 64 Crown lB2 257 37 Block 1B2 was purchased because the Crown needed the land for Karioi Forest,365 and was one of three blocks acquired for this purpose. The Crown initially sought to purchase the land for £32, but this figure was rejected by the owners who passed a unanimous resolution to sell the land for £64, at a meeting on 24 October 1930. This price was agreed to by the Crown, the land sold, and recorded as Crown land in the New Zealand Gazette of23 December 1930. While the Crown was determined to purchase this land, which obliged Maori to sell, the negotiated fmancia1 outcome was arrived at through Maori agreement, and acceptance by the Crown. 365 Details concerning this purchase, 3BIAI and a section of3B2, are taken from MA-MLP 1 1928110 200 On 23 May 1917, an application was made by Rahapa Warea, an owner in Murimotu No.5Bl, for a mortgage to William H Clapham for the sum of £600. This application was dismissed on 18 August 1920 for want ofprosecution.366 On 10 August 1917, an application was made for confirmation of a transfer to D.S. Strachan from Rangi Whakapu, one of five owners in the Murimotu No.5B2A block.367 On the death of an owner, Hoani Moutoa, his interests had been divided in 1917 between Rangi Whapapu and Hinurewa Whakapu. This transfer to Strachan was confirmed on 17 June 1918 by the Board. Nature & Date Block No. Size (a.r.p) No. of Purchaser Sale Price Detail of Owners Alienation Purchase [part 10/08/1917 5B2A 53412/11 5 DavidS. £238 118/3128] . Strachan The following year, on 7 November 1918, another owner, Hinurewa Whakapu, applied for confirmation of a transfer of shares within the Murimotu No.5B2Al block. This was confIrmed by the Board on 31 May 1919. Nature & Date Block No. Size (a.r.p) No. of Purchaser Sale Price Detail of Owners Alienation Purchase [part 7/1111918 5B2A 53412/11 4 DavidS. £238 11910/01 Strachan When Murimotu 5B2A was partitioned on 6 February 1925, Strachan's purchases became 5B2Al, subject to a right of way half a chain wide giving access to and from the Main road for 5B2A. Strachan's section was much better quality land and the access road was never built, disadvantaging Maori in this block to the benefit of others, despite apparent legal protection. Block No. Size (a.r.p) Owners 5B2A 297.0.4 3 5B2Al 236.2.27 D. Strachan 366 See Alienation File, 1917/554, MLC-WG Acc W1645 367 MLIS Murimotu 5B2A Certificate of Title 298/3, and Murimotu 5B2Al Title Ordei: 82/188 201 On 22 December 1919, an application was made by lA. Cullinane for the purchase of interests in Murimotu No.3B1C block from two owners. It was noted that this block was already under lease to Cullinane. 368 In 1920, Cullinane was able to confIrm his lease over the block. Nature & Date Block No. Size (a.r.p) No. of Lessee Rental Detail of Owners Alienation Lease [part 31711920 3B1C 627/2/20 6 J.A. 21 yrs, 4/- per 527 and half] Cullinane acre Lease [part 31711920 3B1C 627/2/20 6 J.A. 21 yrs, 116 per 100 acres] Cullinane acre Very soon after, he was able to purchase a section of the block outright. Nature & Date Block No. Size (a.r.p) No. of Purchaser Sale Price Detail of Owners Alienation Purchase [part 28/7/1920 3B1C 627/2/20 5 I.A. Cullinane £577.6.8 209 acresj This was further evidence of a pattern of initial private leasing, followed by a part sale to the private lessor. On 27 September 1924,369 3BIC was divided into 3B1Cl, of 418.1.27 acres, and 3BIC2, with Cullinane the owner of3BIC2, of 209 acres. On 12 August 1924, Murimotu 4Bl was partitioned, in preparation for sale, with Maori retaining 144 acres. 370 On 25 November 1925, solicitors Marshall, Izard and Barton wrote to the Registrar regarding the purchase of Murimotu Nos. 3B1C2, 4B1B, 4B2, 4B3 and Lot 1 of 4B4 by Cullinane. They enclosed a cheque for £18,176 being the full amount due over these blocks: As we are only acting for a mortgagee of the purchaser we make the payment upon the following conditions which we trust under the circumstances will be acceptable to the Board. 368 See Alienation File, 1920/332, MLC-WG Ace W1645 369 MLIS, Mwimotu 3BIC, Title Order, 82/59/60 202 (1) That the sum of £18,176 be retained intact by the Board until a. All confirmation orders for the above blocks are sealed. b. Twenty four hours after you notify us that all transfers with confmnation orders sealed are ready to be handed to us in pursuance of the order enclosed, or the same are actually handed over. (2) In the event of any confirmation order in respect of any block not being sealed within three weeks from the date hereof that the sum of £18,176 be refunded to us. (3) We desire to make it quite clear that we are not in a position to pay the purchase money for anyone block unless we can get the title for all the blocks at the same time. 371 While private parties were prepared to lease or buy, they naturally wanted to buy land that could be, in their judgement, profitably used. Their desire to consolidate divided blocks, indeed as condition 3 just cited indicates, to make this a condition of purchase, was evidence that the block divisions, as they stood, were not practical or profitable for farming in their divided state. To this extent, Maori were vulnerable to offers to purchase that could offer some relief from the difficulties of using their limited and impracticalland resources. Map la, detailing a section of the Murimotu block, gives some idea of how the land was divided in 1926. One is struck by the vertical block divisions which predominate, these largely driven by the need to be located by a road or water if the land was to used effectively, and the long boundaries which resulted for the blocks as a consequence of this. Automatically, pressure to lease or sell would be generated on those for whom the \: j 370 MLIS, Murimotu No.4, Record Sheet; and Murimotu 4B 1 Title Order, 80/288 371 25 Nov 1925, Marshall, Izard & Barton to Registrar, 1920/332, MLC-WG Ace W1645 203 ------ cost of fencing would be too great, or those with access problems in a region with limited infrastructure in terms of roading or major waterways. Apart from Murimotu IB2, the Crown was also determined to purchase part of3BlA.372 Cabinet authority has been obtained to the proposal to negotiate for the acquisition of two Native Blocks - Murimotu No. IB2 257 acres and part Murimotu No. 3B lA approximately 540 acres, which adjoin Karioi Plantation. The purchase of these Blocks and more particularly the latter one, would facilitate the lay-out of this Plantation and add thereto a considerable area of plantable land, besides doing away with the necessity of fencing. I should be glad therefore, if you would please proceed with the acquisition as speedily as ~ossible and advise in due course when the 3 matter has been completed. 3 3B 1A had 7 owners in 1928. The amount ofland required by the Crown came to 390 acres out of a block comprising 949.3 acres, and instructions were given to acquire this at 10/- an acre. An initial obstacle by way of outstanding rates was overcome by a Crown willingness to pay any outstanding rates and survey charges on the proportion of land, that is 390 acres, that it wished to acquire. By 12 December 1929, the Crown had acquired approximately 237.2 acres, leaving 152.2 to be acquired to complete the purchase. However, resistance to sales made this objective much more difficult to attain?74 By 1931, in the absence of further progress on purchasing, the Director of Forestry, conveyed his concern about the need to take urgent action: 'It is a matter of immediate importance that the area be acquired and I have to enquire whether it would not be desirable for action to be taken in accordance with Part iv of the Public Works Act 372 The correspondence concerning 3BIA and 3BIAI can be found in MA-MLP 1, 1928/10; extracts from Wanganui Minute Book, 93, folio 98; and in MLIS Murimotu Title Order 93/98 373 MA-MLP 1, 1928/10, Memorandum from the Secretary of Forestry to the Under-Secretary, Native Department. 374 22 April 1930, Memorandum from J. Thomson, Native Land Purchase Officer, to the Under- Secretary, Native Affairs, MA-MLP 1 1928/10, 204 1928. ,375 In reply, it was noted that the Crown had now acquired 317 acres, leaving only 73 acres outstanding, which the Native Land Purchase Officer had been asked to make a 'special effort' to purchase.376 The Native Land Purchase Officer outlined his strategy: I have to inform you that I am again calling on Mere te Aowhakahinga at Ohakune, sometime during the coming week. She may change her mind and sell portion of her interest to complete the sale. There are three non sellers, and they have all refused to sell.377 This approach was ultimately successful, in that Mere te Aowhakahinga was persuaded to sell a portion of her interests, thus circumventing the obstacle of the other non-sellers, since the Crown was now in a position to have its purchased interests located on the ground, in the area it had wished to possess. This was achieved by Court Orders, following the Crown request: The total area of this block is 949 ac. 3r. OOp. and its value £475. The Crown has purchased 39/95 sh.ares for £195. On an acreage basis the Crown is entitled to 390 acres. I ask that this area be located to the north of the Wangaehu River.378 The formal taking was noted by New Zealand Gazette on 27 August 1931. . Block Nos. Size (acres) Owners 3BIAI 390 Crown 3BIA2 559.3 3 Essentially for the sake of convenience, as the land the Crown wished to acquire provided a neat river boundary for the proposed forest, the Crown had pressured Maori to sell their lands. Unlike the situation in Murimotu No IB2, where the Crown had shown a willingness to pay considerably more for land it wanted and to negotiate, there 375 20 January 1931, Memorandum from the Director of Forestry to the Under- Secretary, Native Affairs, MA-MLP 11928/10 376 4 February 1931, Memorandum from the Under-Secretary of Native Affairs to the Director of Forestry. 377 6 February 1931, Memorandum from J. Thomson, Native Land Purchase Officer, to the Under Secretary, Native Affairs, MA-MLP 1 1928/10 378 25 May 1931, Murimotu 3BIA Application for definition of Crown Interests, MA-MLP 1 1928/10, extract from Wanganui Minute Book, 93, folio 98 205 was more focus here on direct acquisition, despite opposition. When some Maori did not sell, the Crown used its privileged position to purchase interests, then had them located in the blocks to its advantage. The Crown obtained what it had sought, but the Maori who had not wanted to sell, were manoeuvred out of the way, with further loss of Maori land. To complete purchases ofland for the boundaries of the forest, which the Crown wished to have extend along the Wangaehu River, the Crown prohibited all alienation on Murimotu 3B2,379 in order to acquire a small section ofland in the north of this block. This was successfully completed with the agreement of the owners,380 and combined with Murimotu No 1B2 and Murirnotu 3B2Al, was the extent of the land the Crown acquired from Maori for the planting of the forest. In 1944, 3B2 was partitioned, creating the following blocks.381 Blocks Nos. Size (acres) Owners 3B2A 1034 6 3B2B 2054.3 62 3B2C 122.3 Crown Maori had already entered into leasing arrangements on 3B2, leasing 1377.2 acres from 1929 for 42 years to private parties?82 Leasing to private parties continues to be the predominant use of these blocks by their Maori owners. Some private alienations have occurred, and in November 1968, 5B3 and 5B4B2 were both europeanised.383 Today the following Murimotu blocks remain in Maori ownership, as Maori land: 379 New Zealand Gazette, 11 October 1928 380 12 December 1929, Memorandum from the Under- Secretary for Native Affairs to the Director of Forestry, MA-MLP 1, 1928/10; New Zealand Gazette, 20 June 1929; Berghan Supporting Papers, ~urimotu,pp.5900-5903 381 MLIS, Murimotu, Title Order 103/12-14 382 Berghan Supporting Papers, ~urimotu p. 5896 383 MLIS, Murimotu, Record Sheet 206 BLOCK NO. SIZE NO. OF OWNERS (acres.) 2B 1361 221 3BIA2 559.2.39 22 3BIB2A 42.0.2 1 3BIB2B/C 210.0.9 16 3B2B2 1672.1.25 1 3B2B3 340.1.5 249 4BIAI 105.2.20 5 4BIA2 38.2.7 1 4B4Pt 304.3.39 128 5Bl 1102.2.13 236 5B2A2 297.0.3 45 5B2C 537.3.24 184 5B4B3 190.2.33 74 Total 6757.1.19 1183 For Murimotu, out of approximately 45,520 acres, just on 6758 acres remain in Maori ownership. 7.2. Rangipo-Waiii On 12 December 1900, the Native Land Court issued Partition Orders over the Rangipo Waiii block to cut out the interests (cf. Map 8) purchased by the Crown.384 BLOCK NO. SIZE (a.r.p.) NO. OF OWNERS COST TO CROWN A 33,794 Crown £5,282.19.5 B 9,242 35 lA 21,526 Crown £1,640.17.3 1B 4,474 20 2A 22,546 Crown £3,423.17.11 2B 4,597 30 This was gazetted on 29 August 1901.385 Rangipo-Waiii A and 2A had been purchased by the Crown for 3/- per acre, while Rangipo-Waiii lA had been purchased for 1I6d per acre. On 6 November 1903, the Native Land Court issued Charging Orders for survey 384 As noted with Murimotu, unless otherwise stated, all material presented for the post-1900 period has been taken from Block Order Files WH603 Aotea Maori Land Court, For selective documents from the Block Order Files, see Berghan Supporting Papers Vo1.22, pp.12393-12507. These are numbered here as in the Murimotu section. For information here about costs to the Crown for purchase and the price per acre, cf. LINZ, File no 20/153, Rangipo-Waiii block, Letter from the Commissioner of Crown Lands to Mr J. Prenderville of Crown Law Office, I Dec 1943: also AJHR, 1900, Land Purchased and Leased from Natives in the North Island, G-3, p.8 385 New Zealand Gazette, 29 August 1901, p. 1752 207 lien charges to be registered against the Rangipo-W aiU blocks, two of which were recorded as follows: 386 BLOCK NO. AMOUNT 2B £83.8.0 B £144.6.0 If we apply the same approach as was used in Murimotu, the advantage to the Crown of purchase in these blocks was much more pronounced. The overall cost of purchase to the Crown in Rangipo-Waiii came to approximately £1 0,345 .53. The yearly rent, over 21 years, was just over £ 1136. If £600 pounds is taken as the average amount the Crown received directly in rents over that period, an extremely conservative figure as well over half of these blocks had been purchased by 1892, then over the 21 years the Crown received at least £12,600. The purchase of Rangipo-Waiii was a very sound investment policy from the Crown's perspective, since not only was the land purchased at a profit, but it could be resold at a further profit. The only flaw in this strategy was 1 f that the land proved to be much less valuable that had been originally anticipated, both -.~j for settlement and for continued farming. As in Murimotu, the place of Maori interests within this strategy was not clear, although it was true that the land was legitimately purchased, and an agreed price paid, so to the extent that what had occurred was within a legal framework, Maori had been protected. Some two years later, on 8 December 1905, the Rangipo-Waiii No.2B block was partitioned by the COurt. 387 BLOCK NO. SIZE (a.r.p.) NO. OF OWNERS 2BIA 338/1/08 1 2BlB 332/1/08 1 2BIC 498/1/31 1 2B1D 762/0/31 3 2BIE 379/2/36 1 2B2 996/0/21 7 2B3 1107/3/18 4 2B4 664/1/15 8 386 Supporting Papers pp. 12422 and 12449 387 Supporting Papers p. 12477 208 Two years later, on 18 October 1907, Partition Orders were issued by the Court over part of the Rangip6-Waiii B block.388 BLOCK NO. SIZE (a.r.p.) NO. OF OWNERS Bl 663/0/34 - B2 511/3/33 - B3 597/1/19 - B4 1195/3/16 - On 1 February 1909, the remainder ofthe Rangip6-Waiii No.B block was partitioned.389 BLOCK NO. SIZE (a.r.p.) NO. OF OWNERS B5 1025/2/00 - B6 2667/0/36 15 B7A 485/2/00 1 B7B 725/0/16 1 B7C 366/0/00 4 B7D 480/2/00 1 B7E 487/1/24 2 On 11 July 1910, the Court released survey lien charges registered against the Rangip6- Waiii No.B2 block for the amount of £9.4.0.390 A little over two months later, on4 October 1910, the Rangip6-Waiii No.B6 block was partitioned.391 BLOCK NO. SIZE (a.r.p.) NO. OF OWNERS B6A 530/0/00 1 B6B 1068/2/34 6 B6C 1068/2/02 12 On 21 October 1907, survey lien charges were released against the Rangip6-Waiii No.Bl for the amount of£I1.17.8 and over Rangip6-Waiii No.2B1D for the amount of 388 Supporting Papers p. 12477 389 Supporting Papers p. 12477 390 Supporting Papers p. 12441 391 Supporting Papers p. 12477 209 £8.16.3. Four years later, on 24 May 1911, the Court released the survey liens registered against Rangipo-Waiii Nos.B4 (£19.19.7) and B7D (£8.3.7).392 Precisely why this was done is not clear, but it indicates an apparent willingness by the Crown not to pursue costs in all cases. On the other hand, on 29 May 1913, the Court issued Charging Orders for further survey liens to be registered against the following Rangipo-Waiii blocks.393 BLOCK NO. AMOUNT DATE RELEASED B1 £17.19.0 B2 £18.18.3 B3 £19.9.11 B4 £33.1.2 B5 £28.11.3 B5A 12 June 1928 - £65.19.7 B5B 16 July 1928 - £53.8.8 B6B £39.11.0 5 June 1914 - £39.11.0 B6C £40.11.4. B6C2 12 June 1930 - £45.10.3 B7A £18.5.6 11 July 1913 - £18.5.6 B7B £39.2.2 B7C £16.16.3 B7D £21.11.0 24 Jan 1929 - £38.1.4 B7E £13.0.0 5 June 1914 - £13.0.0 Escalating unpaid survey liens were likely to have been a major factor driving sales. If we consider B5 (later to be partitioned), B6C2 (the result of a subsequent partition) and B7D, this is strongly suggested. By 1927, with B5, there were also outstanding rates of £67.0.5.394 When this is added to the cost of surveying for partition into B5A and B5B, as noted in the table above, the appeal of selling to remove these debts is obvious. The release followed the sale ofB5A and B5B in 1928. B6C2 was sold after partition, with the Maori owners retaining B6C 1. Inability to pay survey liens might have been a reason to subdivide and sell on this block. It also presumes that the Maori owners left in B6C1 had the initial intention to retain ownership ofthis block. With B7D, unpaid survey liens built up until selling the block resolved the problem for Maori owners. 392 Supporting Papers pp. 12448, 12410, 12473 and 12486 393 Supporting Papers pp. 12447, 12439, 12435, 12472, 12460, 12456, 12455, 12453, 12506, 12492, 12490, 12487, 12484 and 12481 394 Supporting Papers p. 12459 210 In February 1913 an assembled meeting of the owners of Rangipo-Waiii IB resolved to sell the land, but an Order in Council issued under Part XN of the Native Land Act 1909 stipulated that the land could only be leased. It was noted in 1941 that a lease had never been arranged, attributing this to 'the nature of the country' .395 On 28 August 1913, a notice was published in the New Zealand Gazette recording the vesting of the Rangipo-WaiU No.IB block in the Aotea District Maori Land Board. This land was fmally taken under the Public Works Act of 1928, as noted in the New Zealand Gazette No. 68 of9 July 1942, and is covered in the report on Defence land. The original intentions of the Maori owners had not been implemented: It is quite clear that there is a clerical error in the Order in Council vesting the land in the Board. The intention of the owners was that it should be vested in the Board for sale and not for lease. It is clearly expressed in the resolution. The land is very poor country and is in an area which is largely infested by rabbits. I do not think it ve}t likely that any private individual could use it to any profitable purpose.39 The Crown at this stage in 1924 was also not interested: 'The Lands Department are averse to this land being acquired by the Crown as apart from other considerations, the destruction of rabbits would become a heavy liability'. 397 While this was undoubtedly true in 1924, ifrabbits had been less of a problem in 1913 when Maori had wanted to sell, their chances of selling at that point would have been much higher, had they not been stopped by clerical error. The effect of that mistake was to make the land less usable or saleable. 395 Registrar, Native Land Court, to Under-Secretary, Native Department, MA 11695/5/29 Rangipo North 6G Rangipo-Waiu 1B - purchase by Army department- defence purchase at Waiouru, 1941-1941, NA Wellington. 396 Registrar, Native Land Court to Under Secretary, Native Affairs Department, WHB/AS, 19/8/1924 397 Under Secretary to Registrar, NLP 1918!l2, 23/10/1924 211 The owners had been prevented from selling it, as had been their wish in 1913, nor had any benefit been drawn from leasing owing to the poor quality that remained in Maori ownership. Indeed, ongoing charges, and continuing degradation made the keeping of this remnant of Ngati Waewae land a burden, until it was finally removed from Maori ownership. Maori had been disadvantaged, and the Crown was ultimately able to benefit at little cost. On 11 February 1914, Waikuri Karaitiana's application to the Native Land Court to have Rangipo-Waiii No. B7 A block held by him as European land was granted. The land was sold in March 1914?98 In 1916 the B7C block was sold:399 Nature and Date Block No. Size (a.r.p) No. of Lesseel Rental/Sale Detail of Owners Purchaser Price Alienation Purchase 16/10/1916 B7C 122/1/06 - Nellie £397.10.0 Conford On 27 November 1922, the Native Land Court issued Charging Orders for further survey liens to be registered against the Rangipo-Waiu blocks.4oO BLOCK NO. AMOUNT 2BIA £36.3.0 2BlB £36.3.0 2BIC £54.5.0 2BlD £83 2BlE £41.8.0 2B2 £108.9.0 2B3 £120.14.3 2B4 £72.6.0 These were large sums of money to be paid, the amount presumably determined by the very rugged nature of the land to be surveyed, but, given the quality of the land, the difficulties in paying must have been very great. 398 Supporting Papers p.12494 399 Supporting Papers p. 12477 212 ,~ On 23 October 1925, the Rangipo-Waiii NO.B6B block was partitioned by the COurt.401 BLOCK NO. SIZE (a.r.p.) NO. OF OWNERS B6Bl 534/1117 1 B6B2 534/1117 21 During 1925, J. Burridge purchased two parts of the Rangipo-Waiii No.B7B block.402 Nature and Date Block No. Size (a.r.p) No. of Purchaser Sale Price Detail of Owners Alienation Purchase [part 28/2/1925 B7B 72510/16 - J. Burridge £1997.10.0 362/2/08] Purchase [part 18/3/1925 B7B 72510/16 - J. Burridge £998.15 18111104] One year later, on 30 September 1926, application was made and granted for the partition of the Rangipo-Waiu No.B5 block.403 BLOCK NO. SIZE (a.r.p.) NO. OF OWNERS B5A 512/3/00 1 B5B 512/3/00 7 On 28 April 1927 , the Rangitikei County Council made application to the Native Land Court to have Charging Orders registered for rates charges against the Rangipo-Waiii blocks. These were:404 BLOCK NO. AMOUNT 2BIA £16.14.4 2BlB £16.14.4. 2BIC £22.4.8 \.- Y 400 Supporting Papers pp. 12419, 12416, 12413, 12409,12431,12429,12427 and 12425 401 Supporting Papers pp. 12398 and 12476 402 Supporting Papers pp. 12488 and 12489 403 Supporting Papers p. 12477 404 Supporting Papers pp. 12418,12415,12412 and 12459 213 In the latter half of the 1920s, a number of purchases of Rangipo-WaiU blocks occurred.405 Nature and Date Block No; Size (a.r.p) No. of Purchaser Sale Price Detail of Owners Alienation Purchase [part 261711927 B5 1025/3/10 7 Samuel £256.7.6 512/3/25] Burridge Purchase 251511928 B5A 51213/00 - Samuel £256.4.0 Burridge Purchase 14/12/1928 B7E 487/1124 - S.V. £1130 Burridge Purchase 1/5/1929 B7D 480/2/00 - Samuel £440 Burridge Purchase [part 2116/1929 B6C 1069/3/14 - J. Burridge £1082.16.3 1002/3/00] On 26 November 1929, the Rangipo-Waifi No.B6C block was partitioned by the COurt.406 BLOCK NO. SIZE (a.r.p.) NO. OF OWNERS 1 B6Cl 72/2/22 1 J B6C2 990/3/20 l3lBurridge In fact B6C2 consisted in the land purchased by J .Burridge, leaving B6C 1 as Maori land. Map 11 gives an idea of how the blocks related to each other in Rangipo-Waifi B, and the extent of their isolation from roads or other access ways. During the 1930s, the Rangitikei County Council made applications to the Maori Land Court for rate charges to be registered against Rangipo-WaiU blocks.407 405 Supporting Papers pp. 12458, 12457, 12477, 12483 and 12505 406 Supporting Papers p. 12477 407 Supporting Papers pp. 12470, 12468, 12467, 12466, 12444, 12502, 12500, 12499 and 12498 214 BLOCK NO. DATE AMOUNT B4 17/8/1932 £3.10.7 16112/1936 £5.13.6 1511111938 £7.11.11 2119/1940 £8.8.0 B1 17/8/1934 £14.15.10 B6C1 17/8/1934 £1.15.11 16/12/1936 £2.17.4 1511111938 £4.7.2 2119/1940 £7.19.3 It was likely that steadily increasing unpaid rates contributed to sales pressure, obliging Maori owners to reluctantly consider what they might otherwise have sought to avoid. The poor quality of much of their remaining land must have compromised their ability to effectively use this limited land asset. While one might simply consider that their plight was unfortunate, but otherwise not unusual in a capitalist economy and not one that would necessarily entail some Government involvement, the factors that led Maori to be in such a constrained position remain as an important circumstance in understanding the position. On 18 March 1931, the Court again registered Charging Orders against Rangipo-Waiii blocks for survey lien charges.408 BLOCK NO AMOUNT 2B1A £4.18.0 2BIB £4.18.0 2B1C £7.5.6 2BlD £11.2.1 2BlE £5.14.2 2B2 £14.13.6 2B3 £16.4.6 2B4 £9.16.0 On 1 October 1935, the Native Land Court conftrmed a lease of the Rangipo-Waiii No.BI block.409 408 Supporting Papers pp. 12417, 12414, 12411, 12408, 12430, 12428, 12426 and 12424 409 Supporting Papers p. 12443 215 Nature and Date Block No. Size (a.r.p) No. of Lessee Rental Detail of Owners Alienation Lease 7/11/1934 B1 663/0/34 - Clara Peters 42yrs@5d per annum for first 21yrs remaining 5% On 16 July 1945, the Court issued Charging Orders for survey liens to be registered against the Rangipo-Waiii No.B4 block for the amount of £8.4.4.410 On 14 February 1946, an application was made before Judge Dykes with regard to the Rangipo-Waiu No. B6C1 block. The Court was informed that:411 Rangipo Waiu No.B6C1 block is surrounded by land owned and occupied by the Guardian Trust and Executors Company of New Zealand Limited, the Executors of the Will of Jessie Burridge deceased. And whereas the said land has no access to a public road, is unfenced, uncultivated and is a menace to the lands adjoining it. And whereas it has been shown that the only satisfactory access to a public road is through that part of the lands owned and occupied by the Executors of the Will of Jessie Burridge deceased that is used for the homestead and yards. The Court recommended the issuing of an Order in Council authorising the acquisition of Rangipo-Waiii No.B6C1 block by the Guardian Trust. The Order in Council was issued, as recorded in the New Zealand Gazette of24 May 1946. An initial purchase price was agreed to by the one Maori owner and Guardian TruSt.412 However, investigation of the property confmned that there were certain issues outstanding that could have a bearing on the price. 410 Supporting Papers p. 12464 411 Supporting Papers p. 12497 216 It must be born in mind, however, that the owners of the adjoining lands have trespassed on this section and have had the grazing of it, free of charge, for a considerable number of years without payment of rent. It is a reasonable assumption that the same people also felled and burned the timber on the section. I contend that, as the timber on the section was mostly birch and it is obvious from existing stumps and logs that the section was heavily timbered with a substantial number of big trees, this bush would, had it not been felled, have had considerable value for fencing posts etc, at the present time and the fmancial return from fIrewood, timber and posts would have easily justifIed the cost of obtaining access.413 The recommendation that followed concerning the value of the property: 'In my personal opinion, the Government Valuation is perhaps a little high and I would estimate the value of the section in its present state to be £508' ,414 became the new price that Guardian Trust fmally agreed to, and to that extent went some way to addressing the problem. However, the report on the land had made two recommendations, the fIrst being: 'I consider every endeavour should be made to induce the Guardian Trust to increase the amount of their offer', which was implemented. The second recommendation did not appear to be have been followed: 'due consideration be given to the legal position regarding the present-day value of the bush had it had not been felled by the Burridge Estate. ,415 As these observations make clear, the price arrived at was in consideration of the present· value of the property. It did not take into account the damage the property had suffered in the past, and the loss sustained by the Maori owner as a consequence. In fact, the inability to make the property pay was the major consideration for sale, yet through no fault of that owner, the property had been devalued to such an extent that the Maori 412 Application for Confirmation, MLB 2, 3/6186/2, 1911211945 , ) 413 Field Supervisor to the Registrar, Native Affairs Department, 3/6186/2, 5 June 1946 414 Ibid, Field Supervisor, 5 June 1946 415 Ibid, Field Supervisor, 5 June 1946 217 owner could only contemplate sale.416 While formally aware of this situation, the Crown still allowed the purchaser to take advantage of this situation, intervening only to ensure a more equitable price was paid for the land as it was at point of sale. There were further consequences to the Maori owner as a result of the actions of the neighbouring purchaser's actions on this block. An initial expectation was that the Burridge Estate pay the outstanding rates, as they had had use of the block: 'The Board, however, considers that as the Burridge Estate has been in occupation of the land it should pay the rates outstanding' .417This was rejected by Guardian Trust, and it was denied that the land had been used by the Burridge Estate.418 Attention was drawn by the Registrar to procedural failure by the Rangitikei County Council: 'Your council should have invoked the provisions of Section 110 of the Rating Act and claimed the rates from time to time of the defacto occupiers of the property'. 419 This failure had had specific consequences: The Trustees of the Estate contend that as the land was not fenced they are not liable for rates. However, the provisions of Section 110 of the Rating Act make them liable if they have actually been in occupation and, had your Council proceeded for the recovery of rates, they, in turn, could have avoided the liability by ensuring that their own boundaries were fenced instead ofleaving the whole obligation of fencing on the Maori owner.420 In order to make progress, it was suggested in the same letter that there be a 50/50 split on a reduced rates bill. This was put to Guardian Trust who accepted to pay £20 towards outstanding rates, without accepting any liability, and in order to bring settlement, the Registrar agreed that the Maori owner pay £20 also, provided that the Council accept that £40 would clear the outstanding rates account.421 This the Board agreed to do. The outcome was favourable to the Guardian Trust who had to pay a part 416 Letter from the Maori owner, 3/6186/2 417 Registrar of the Native Land Court to the County Clerk, Rangitikei County Council, 3/6186/2, 7/2/1947 418 O. & R. Beere and Co, solicitors for Guardian Trust to the Registrar, 3/6186/2, 14/2/1947 419 Registrar of the Native Land Court to the County Clerk, Rangitikei County Council, 3/6186/2, 11511947 420 Ibid, Registrar to County Clerk, 11511947 421 Registrar, Native Land Court to County Clerk, 3/6186/2, 15/7/1947 ~ .!; 218 of a reduced rates bill, without accepting any liability, and were able to take possession ofthe land which they had effectively been using anyway. In other words, using the land by the neighbour meant that the neighbour should have carried some of the rates burden. If he had wanted to avoid this burden, he should have fenced his boundary. He did not fence his boundary, and enjoyed the use of the Maori owner's land, but left the Maori owner with the full rates bill. Only under pressure did Guardian Trust agree to pay half the outstanding amount of a reduced rates bill. The amount had been reduced after the Registrar had drawn attention to procedural failure by the County Council. While this was evidence of a Crown willingness to step in to protect Maori interests here at point of sale, there still remained the question of how the devaluing of the land had led to the need to sell in the first place. If the rates had been fairly shared initially, and if the property's timber assets had not been stripped, the overall value would have been much greater, sufficient to have allowed the Maori owner not to necessarily consider sale. In an area of depleted, usable Maori land, Maori might have expected the Crown to be less accommodating to the purchaser here, especially given how that purchaser had actively taken advantage of the land in the past to the purchaser's advantage and to the disadvantage of Maori. That Maori received a fairer price than might have been :~. j . obtained without Crown intervention is granted, but there seemed to have been no consideration as to whether there might also have been some entitlement to compensation for the Maori owner, from Guardian Trust, for actions that led directly to sale, and whether the Crown had any obligations to ensure this. On 14 December 1946, the purchase was confmned.422 422 Supporting Papers p. 12496 219 Nature and Date Block No. Size (a.r.p) No. of Purchaser Sale Price Detail of Owners Alienation Purchase 14/1211946 B6Cl 72/2/22 - Guardian £508 Trust On 9 March 1950, the Rangitikei County Council declared that all remaining rating liens against Rangipo-Waiii No.B4, totaling almost £40, had been paid.423 This prepared the way for the sale of this block. On 16 March 1950, the Maori Land Board confirmed the purchase of the Rangipo-Waiii No. B4 block.424 Nature and Date Block No. Size (a.r.p) No. of Purchaser Sale Price Detail of Owners Alienation Purchase 16/3/1950 B4 1195/3/16 - Guardian £150 Trust The reason for purchase is revealed in a letter from the Chief Surveyor to the Director General of Lands: The land is rough hilly open country, which has been purchased on 16.3.50 by the adjoining owner, Guardian Trust and Executors Company of New Zealand for £150, in order to save fencing costS.425 . It would seem that the nature of the land encouraged consolidation of the blocks by whom so ever was able to consider this. In this case, Guardian Trust seemed to wish to purchase in the area,426 and this was facilitated by the Crown, under the terms of section 246 of the Maori Land Act, 1931: The Governor-General may be Order in Council in any case in which he deems it expedient in the public interest so to do authorize any acquisition, 423 Supporting Papers p. 12463 424 Supporting Papers p. 12462 42S Letter from Chief Surveyor to Director General, 7 Feb 1951, LINZ, File no. 20/153, Rangipo-Waiu Block 426 New Zealand Gazette, 9 February 1950, p. 155, where authorisation is given under section 246 of the Maori Land Act, 1931 to seek to purchase Rangipo-Waiu Blocks B2, B3, and B4. 220 alienation, or disposition of any land, or any interest therein, by any person, notwithstanding the provisions of this Part of this Act. Later that year, on 3 October 1950,427 various Charging Orders were registered against Rangipo-Waifi No.B4 block requiring the payment of the sum of £95.3 for survey costs. This figure, when combined with the rating liens, gives some idea of one major reason why the Maori owners had felt the need to sell. The Court was of the opinion that this amount should be reduced by a remission of portion of the amount due and an order was made declaring £41.6.6 to be the principal sum to be discharged. The outstanding amount was paid on 18 Apri11951.428 This was a fortuitous circumstance for the new purchaser. A wider authorisation to purchase was granted to Edward and Eleanor Fernie, covering all the B blocks in Rangipo-Waifi with the exception ofB1, in 1952.429 While this may have made sound economic sense, the desire and need to consolidate these holdings by private parties, and the attraction this option may have had for Maori owners tempted to sell their individuated and uneconomic blocks, all flowed from purchase decisions taken earlier in the history of these blocks, which had so circumscribed Maori room for manoeuvre. If Maori wished to sell, then these authorisations made that process easier for private parties who may have wished to buy. It was also possible that, with limitations lifted on these lands, their value increased, with private parties in a position to benefit where they had purchased. On 16 April 1964, a Consolidation Order was issued recording the Rangipo-Waifi No.B3 block as having 118 owners, whilst the Rangipo-Waiii NO.B6B2 block was recorded as having 69 owners.430 While consolidation might be seen as an attempt to reforge some economically workable Maori interest by the Crown, its effect could also be to further 427 Supporting Papers p. 12461 428 Supporting Papers p. 12471 429 New Zealand Gazette, 31 January 1952, p. 103 430 Supporting Papers pp. 12433 and 12451 221 facilitate sales. This could be seen with Blocks B2 and B3, which were consolidated, then europeanised in 1965, and [mally sold to the Femies.431 Rangip5-Waiii No.B1 block was leased late in 1976, and the lease was extended in 1996.432 Nature and Date Block No. Size (ha.) No. of Lessee Rental Detail of Owners Alienation Lease 7!1l/1976 Bl 268.3925 - Brian Peters 15yrs@ £3330 per annum for 1sl 5yrs then 6% ofG.V. Extension of 6/1111996 Bl 268.3925 - K. Peters, J. 5yrs@ lease Henderson & $63.700 per K. Livingston annum Land taken for defence in the twentieth century include the following:433 Block No. Area (a.r.IJ.l Date Taken 1B 4474 30/7/42 2BIA 332/1/08 7/12/61 2BlB 332/1/08 7/12/61 2BIC 498/1/31 7/12/61 2BlD 762/0/31 7/12/61 2BIE 379/2/36 7/12/61 2B2 996/0/21 7/12/61 2B3 1107/3/18 7/12/61 2B4 664/1/15 7/12/61 A partial understanding of the poor quality of some of the 2B blocks can be gained from a meeting held to discuss the proposed military taking of 2B 1E in October 1961.434The land was described as 'high country, with no physical access'. It was 'unimproved. Never sown or ploughed'. The land had never been leased, and was 'too low producing for economic farming'. It was' only fit for grazing to some extent'. Finally it had no 431 Aotea District Maori Land Court, Who M.B. 5/181-2, File Ref 4/6365: MLIS, Rangipo-Waiii B2 and B3 Ownership Schedules 432 Supporting Papers, pp. 12395 and 12396 433 Phillip Cleaver, The Taking ofMaori Land for Public Works in the Whanganui District, A Scoping Report prepared for the Waitangi Tribunal, May 2003, pp. 37-38 434 Whanganui Minute Book, 125,232-234 222 real timber, just 'some stunted birch'. The amount of compensation awarded for all the blocks did not suggest that the other lands were any more valuable.435 As very poor quality, virtually unusable land, it had not served its Maori owners as an economic asset, and was vulnerable to taking if other purposes could be ascribed to it, which was of course what happened when it was taken for defence land. For all these 2B blocks, the compensation that was to be awarded, did not exceed the survey liens owing. This was noted at the time, as well as the comment 'the majority of the land concerned is unproductive high tussock country', and a suggestion made that the survey liens be waived.436 There was no evidence found to suggest that this in fact happened. It cannot easily be said that this situation benefitted Maori, but the Crown was able to obtain land for its own purposes. Currently, only three Rangipo-WaiU blocks remain as Maori land.437 BLOCK NO. SIZE~a.r .p.} NO. OF OWNERS BI 663/0/34 103 B6BI 534/I117 42 B6B2 534/1117 358 Total 173I13/28 503 For Rangipo-WaiU, out of 97,190 acres, approximately 1731 acres remain in Maori ownership 7.3. Discussion After Studholme's lease, which had included Murimotu and Rangipo-WaiU, expired in 1903, the Government divided its land into runs. Run No.1 of 45,960 acres covered the area between the Moawhango, Waipakihi, Wangaehu and Waiouru streams, essentially the northern half of Rangipo-Waiii. Approximately three quarters ofMurimotu, being 435 Ibid, Whanganui Minute Book 436 MLC, Aotea District, Folio 37, 23/603 and 23/596, Letter from Registrar to the Chief Surveyor, Department of Land and Survey, 10 May 1962 437 MLIS Block information on Maori land in Rangipo-Waiil 223 all but the south eastern area and comprising 31,841 acres, became Run No.2. This was recognised as the Karioi Station in 1906, and it was on this land that Karioi Forest was later established. The Hautapu, Moawhango and Waiouru streams formed the boundaries ofthe 22,500 acres designated as Run No.3, essentially the southern half of Rangipo-Waiii. Run No.4 was initially designated as Education Reserve, but has been farmed for most of the period since subdivision. A 1914 plan marks the boundaries of an area of 475 acres called Waiouru reserve,438 on which Waiouru township was later to be located.439 Two plans, dated 1901 and 1902, show that the 475-acre area had been part of Murimotu 2A and Rangipo-Wain A blocks.44o In 1905, land to the west of the reserve area was sanctioned as an endowment reserve for education purposes.441 The large runs were held by a succession of leaseholders, until 1916 when, with rabbits a serious problem, the pastoral leases were bought by a c.P. Hansen.442 Hansen then sold to an Auckland land agent, W. Schollum, who provided a mortgage for F.J. Lysnar to buy three runs, while Schollum disposed of Run No.2 to the Government for what became Karioi Forest. After Lysnar defaulted on the property, Schollum took over Runs Nps.1 and 3, while Lysnar retained Run No.4 until 1939 when W. Harding took over this property. The history of the other runs will be covered in the history of military takings. The history of these lands in the twentieth century confIrms what one could have suspected at the start of the century with the partitioning out of Crown purchases. The remaining lands retained by Maori were not easily usable in a profItable manner. This was compounded by the degradation of the land, through the destruction wrought by rabbits. Farming required serious investment, which presumed fInancial resources. If 438 ML 3240, Wellington Land District, LINZ. 439 SO 18831, Wellington Land District, LINZ. This plan, dated 1929, shows the subdivision of the reserve into township lots. 440 ML 1687, Wellington Land District, LINZ; ML 1723, Wellington Land District, LINZ. 441 New Zealand Gazette, 1905, no 10, p 323. 224 the opportunities for investment and commercial outlay were absent or limited, then Maori were virtually compelled to consider leasing or selling to parties more able and prepared to work the land. Ongoing survey and rates expenses served further to erode what limited capital Maori might have tried to engage. This generated pressure to sell so as to escape mounting debt. The consequences following the end of the lease period of the nineteenth century were now apparent, with limited benefits gained, both throughout that period and for the necessary future investment that this land required, if Maori could hope to retain and work it with any real success. Where purchases took place, the pressure from private parties was to obtain sufficient land for them to use it successfully. Selling pressure involved land in more than one block, indicating further how the processes of title individuation had impacted negatively on Maori, making a more collective and coherent use of the land problematic. Some effort at consolidation took place on these blocks in order to overcome this difficulty, but this could also work to make blocks more attractive and easier to sell to would be purchasers, as seemed to have happened, particularly in Rangipo-Waiii. Where private parties wished to-buy land that appeared to offer little commercial opportunity, but which could be integrated into other already privately purchased blocks, the Crown facilitated this, as was shown with B6CI, and B4. A willingness to consider other options apart from sale, does not, on the evidence, seemed to have featured in Crown considerations. Having been left with portions of largely unusable land, Maori found that the Crown tended to favour further alienation to parties who could argue for the commercial need to buy. It was true that Maori were not objecting to selling, but there remains the question of how to consider the circumstances which led to their being in a position where further alienation became extremely compelling. The land for Karioi Forest had been almost entirely acquired by the Crown, and from private parties, before planting began, with three small exceptions, namely IB2, 3B2C 442 The following infonnation concerning the runs is drawn from M. George, Ohakune: Opening to the World (Ohakune, 1990), pp_ 161-162 225 and 3BIAl. The determination of the Crown to acquire this land meant that Maori resistance would ultimately prove futile. The manner in which the resistance to sell was overcome in 3BIA1 is questionable, not legally, but in terms of whether the Crown had any obligations towards Maori in this block different from non-Maori. If it is argued that the Crown had no such obligations to approach Maori differently, then Crown actions on this block are perfectly defensible, given its willingness to take land from Pakeha in other parts of Murimotu, over strenuous objections, for the same purpose of planting a forest. The land retained by Maori in Rangipo-Waiii remains as a very small residue of what had been. It is unexceptional land, and not well situated for access. It is not clear, if land value and quantity is considered, how the relationship between the Crown and Maori on this block has been of great value to Maori. A somewhat stronger case can be made for Murimotu. A larger percentage of land remains in Maori ownership, with some of it leased enabling a return to be made. Compared to what Maori had aspired to in the 1870s and 1880s, however, this result might seem to fall somewhat short of expectations that were not wildly optimistic at the time. Indeed, the fmal position on these blocks for Maori to date is almost impossible to imagine as something they could have aspired to. For the Crown, events on this block have proved much more favourable. The land was purchased at low prices during the period of the leases sufficient to return a profit. Sales subsequent to purchase by the Crown could only improve that situation. The Crown still continues to benefit in the twentieth century from these regions, with a forest in Karioi and ownership of substantial land for Defence purposes. That the Crown should actively pursue its interests with a view to benefiting the nation is not at question. What this chapter has focussed on is how far the advantages the Crown was able to obtain in these blocks came at the expense of Maori, who might have legitimately expected something different from the Crown. 226 8. Chapter 8: Conclusion What the report has revealed is a fascinating interplay of interests and personalities, with an overriding pattern of steady Crown purchase and Maori alienation of land. Murimotu and Rangipo-WaiU were originally Maori land, with Ngati Rangi, Ngati Tama, Ngati Whiti and Ngati Waewae, in particular, claiming authority over parts of these regions. The desire by private persons and companies to use the land for grazing meant that . ownership of the land had to be ascertained, according to European law, so that leasing rights could then be obtained, and monies paid to the right persons. The Crown also saw the value of the land for settlement and interior development, and so competed with the private parties before coming to an agreement to lease, once ownership was decided, followed by sub-leasing to the private parties. This was agreed in 1874 and reconfIrmed in 1879. Murimotu, a name that originally described an area larger than the block eventually described by this name, was divided, after much debate, among the hapii ofNgati Rangi. Rangipo-Waiii was more complicated, involving serious disputes among iwi, and efforts by Maori to restrict Crown processes, specifIcally the Native Land Court, from exercising unrestricted authority over decisions on land alienation. As regards this area, these attempts eventually foundered, and Rangipo-Waiii was divided among the competing parties, who gave their agreement to the settlement reached by the Native Land Court. With title ascertained, the Crown was able to lease the blocks from Maori almost in their entirety, and then sublease to Moorhouse and Studholme as per their agreement. This agreement was enshrined in the 1882 Rangipo Murimotu Agreement Validation Act. Due to its privileged position as major lessee, and its desire to open up the interior land for settlement and need for land for the Main Trunk Railway, the Crown steadily purchased interests in the leased blocks throughout the period of the 21-year lease. By 1900, when the blocks came before the Native Land Court to identify the Crown's interest, it was evident that the Crown had been successful in purchasing a considerable 227 proportion of the lands, leaving Maori as minority land owners in these blocks. In only one block, Murimotu 3B, was it necessary to take Maori land under the Public Works Act for the North Island Main Trunk Line. The twentieth century saw a continued pattern of leasing by private individuals of Maori land, purchase by private individuals and purchase by the Crown. The final situation on the blocks at present, including the broad alienation pattern from 1881, is as follows: Table 13: The Progress of Land Alienation from 1881 to 2000 Blocks Size Maori Maori Crown Maori Crown Private (acres land in land in land in land in land in land in approx 1881 1900 1900 2000 2000 2000 today) (acre~ (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Murimotu 45,520 45,520 15,844 29,676 6758 30,707 8055 (100%) (34.8%) (65.2%) (14.9%) (67.4%) (17.7%) Rangipo-Waiu 97,190 97,190 18,818 78,372 1731 87,443 8016 (100%) (19.4%) (80.6%) (1.8%) (90%) (8.2%) Totalland in 142,710 142,710 34,662 108,048 8489 118,150 16,071 Murimotu and (100%) (24.3%) (75.7%) (6%) (82.8%) (11.2%) Rangipo-Waiu This, in simplistic outline, is the story, which the report has described in more detail. The more detailed report enables a more critical and informed stance to be adopted in trying to understand what happened. Broadly, the report concentrated on events in the blocks up to 1882 as the first phase of exploration from ownership to lease; the period from 1882 to 1903 as the period from Maori ownership to alienation under the umbrella of lease; and fmally 1903 to the present, as a period of continued land alienation involving purchase, takings and leasing. While it cannot be the place here to go deeply into the legal, political and social origins and ramifications of the Crown's policies in Rangipo-Waiii and Murimotu, some discussion is required of the political circumstances in which the Crown operated. This is necessary to supply some context to the decisions made, and escape the danger of what might otherwise be a too simplistic understanding of the Crown's actions and possible alternatives. This discussion runs the risk of being also simplistic but 228 nevertheless will be attempted, for the explanatory value it offers in trying to understand Crown actions. The conditions of nineteenth century New Zealand gave considerable authority and room for maneouvre for the Crown among Pakeha, with authority initially concentrated in the hands of the Governor, guaranteed by England, and sometimes helped or hindered by Maori. In a new society for Pakehii, social and economic structures and infrastructures had to be created, and political processes expanded. This role was taken on by the state, and through this process was created the local conditions in which particular interests could exist and flourish. In New Zealand the state had to create the conditions from which its own legitimacy could continue to be affIrmed. Eventually, with its legitimacy established in New Zealand, the state, through the wishes of the people and the robustness of its institutions, might aspire to independence. The crucial point is that the authority of the Crown in nineteenth century New Zealand was transformed and earthed through the process of creating the nation state of New Zealand. The crucial problem for Maori was that the Crown, through this process of becoming the sovereign authority of New Zealand in New Zealand, became less inclined to consider Maori collective interest as it proceeded to construct the conditions for its own legitimacy in New Zealand. In 1863 the independent New Zealand legislature was granted responsibility for Maori affairs, breaking the formal protective link for Maori with the British Crown.443 The Treaty effectively disappeared as a factor in promoting Maori collective interest, in the implementing of the Crown's vision ofa flourishing, coherent and cohesive society. Maori had a place as citizens, but they had to be dispossessed of most of their major asset, land, which otherwise created an obstacle in the building of the necessary conditions, as judged by the Crown and accepted by Pakeha, for a stable, economically viable society. Maori collective interests were simply in the way, and from political necessity, quite apart from what individuals may have thought and done, tended to be undermined. 443 B.S. Gustafson, Consitutional Changes Since 1870 (Auckland, 1969), p. 3 229 Once undennined, the arguments of growing non-Maori group interests could only reinforce this tendency. The question arises as to how far the Crown could have generally acted differently, as regards Maori, in establishing a stable nation state. This in tum raises the further question as to how the Crown might have limited the resulting powers and interests that were created, for whom acting in Maori collective interests was of no conceivable benefit, and through whom the legitimacy of the Crown in New Zealand was further confirmed. This is not to claim that what happened absolutely had to happen in the particular way it did, but that the positing of alternatives has to take into account structural and political imperatives that the Crown faced in acting as it did, and in taking these into account, it is likely that a more nuanced and complex explanation will emerge for why particular policies were pursued. With this as background, admittedly very simple and not uncontentious, the Crown's actions in Rangipo-W aiu and Murimotu can be set into a more appropriate context for a body whose functioning encompassed much more than these blocks. There are three main periods which conveniently emerge in Rangipo-WaiU and Murimotu, providing an opportunity for focussed and comparative analysis. 8.1. Summary to the Native Land Court decisions To begin with the first period, which dealt with issues on the Blocks prior to partition by the Native Land Court, the major parties during this time were the Crown, Maori and private parties. The Crown initially approached these regions as areas that could serve the national interest. From an early stage, the Crown indicated that it wished to be involved as a purchaser, with a view to expanding settlement and increasing economic development. Maori, however, were reluctant to deal with the Crown, preferring private parties. Furthermore, the dealings of Buller, as a Land Purchase Officer, were at times underhand, creating suspicion in Maori minds about the motives and intentions of the 230 Crown. Organised private parties also had designs, which the Crown curtailed according to its own interests, and to that end the March 1874 agreement was signed between the Crown and private parties. As regards Maori interests, these decisions were taken without particular regard for them. Maori wished to be part of the processes whereby decisions could be taken about their land. Some Maori wished to deal directly with private parties. Leaving aside the difficulties that not having been through the Native Land Court would produce, Maori clearly believed that they had freedom to enter into negotiations with whomever was willing. This freedom was curtailed by the Crown, because it feared that opportunities in these blocks would be lost for itself if private parties were to purchase or lease directly from Maori. Both private parties and Maori lost the ability to negotiate directly with each other in these blocks, but in return for this loss, the private parties were able to negotiate guaranteed leases through the Crown. The Crown safeguarded their interests in a formal agreement. Maori received no such compensatory acknowledgement for their loss of negotiating ability. Not only that, they were further constrained by the expectation that both the Crown and private parties had to fulfil their mutual agreement. As explored in the chapters preceding, the 1874 agreement brought the Crown and the private parties together as interested parties seeking a specific conclusion from Maori. Maori became an obstacle for the formalising of the leases. However, the existence of agreements prior to 1874, and the receipt of money by various Maori after 1874 because land was already being leased, compromised the willingness, and ability of Maori to approach the Native Land Court. Assumptions about who had authority to receive money had already been made before the process to ascertain who really had the right to do so had occurred. Maori had shown a willingness to go to the Native Land Court, that is, to participate in the proper legal procedures of the Crown, to ascertain legal ownership. The Crown's agreement with private parties exacerbated any tensions there might have been among Maori over land in this region, making a coherent approach by Maori on how best to deal with their land less likely. 231 This was demonstrated particularly with Rangipo-Waiii, where tensions rose to such an extent that there were real fears of serious violence. Te Keepa was dismissed from Government service, as he actively sought to give Maori in the Wanganui region more control over the process of land alienation. This sprang from his disillusionment with the Crown in its dealings, despite his initial willingness to work on the Rangipo-Waiii block within Crown constraints. Suspicions generated among Maori in trying to complete a survey of Rangipo-Waiii, over land where grass money was already being received by contending Maori parties, contributed to the breakup ofTe Keepa's attempts to mobilise Maori collectively. That Maori were competing with each other, that there were different conceptions of how best to use the land; whether to keep it; lease it or sell; and who had the authority to detennine this about which land, were issues that were fermenting among Maori in these regions. The Crown had contributed to this situation through its own interest in the area, and had established a process for determining title, which at the time was considered to work to produce civil peace and economic security for both Maori and Pakeha. The Crown's active participation in the blocks, seeking to effect a particular favourable outcome for itself, made the Crown less able to bring about the outcomes it may have sought as a more disinterested party. The Crown compromised itself in terms of its ability to address Maori interests on these blocks, and this led to suspicion of the Crown among Maori, and ~reated a more adversarial context for the relationship between Maori and, the Crown. 8.2. Summary to the End ofthe Lease Period When turning to the next phase within these blocks, that of title determination through the Native Land Court, and subsequent leasing to 1900, this period was marked by initial hopes expressed by both the Crown and Maori about what could be achieved. Maori, although presenting different points of view in the hearings in the Native Land Court, generally accepted the decisions of the Court, and the slow advance towards establishing leases could now take place. This participation in the Native Land Court process came at some cost to Maori in these regions, due to the necessity of court attendance for 232 months at a time, away from their own communities, the expenses involved, and the obligation to live in sometimes makeshift or shoddy accommodation. With title determined, the Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act formalised legally the 1874 agreement, in a debate that largely presupposed that Maori would benefit, in as far as Maori were considered at alL The benefits that leasing might bring to Maori assumed a collective interest that would be able to benefit over the term of the lease, as well as be in a position, at the end of the lease, to decide how the advantages acquired might be best used. However, the processes of the Native Land Court, necessary to establish title, also had the effect of disintegrating group interest among Maori. Maori interest became individualised. The Crown strategy to establish a secure and viable country at this point in the early l880s drove considerations towards the construction of the North Island Main Trunk Line, and the settlement prospects this opened up. To keep out private parties, the Crown limited purchase rights to itself in Murimotu and Rangipo-WaiU over the term of the leases. Maori could only sell to the Crown at prices set by the Crown. In pursuit of its own advantage, the Crown sought to purchase land vigorously in these blocks with considerable success. As more land was purchased, the rents being paid by private parties stayed with the Crown and could facilitate further purchase. Buying within a controlled market made good economic sense, especially when coupled with belief that the land would subsequently be valuable. While this might be judged farsighted and prudent of the Crown, its effect on Maori was not obviously to their advantage. The weakening of Maori collective interest was something facilitated by the Native Land Court and benefitted from by the Crown, with the result that by the end of the lease there was no obvious advantage to Maori along the lines argued by the Crown in 1885. On the contrary, Maori were reduced to owning a rump of their former lands in Rangipo-Waiil, and while the situation was better in Murimotu in terms of land retained, the clear beneficiary of the leases had been the Crown. 233 If the Crown were seen as one interest group and Maori another, who were competing, then the outcome might be a cause of regret if one sympathised with Maori interests, but otherwise of no great significance. The problem begins if one has a conception of the Crown as more than just another interest group. If the Crown had obligations to seriously consider Maori interests, and not work actively to undermine them, then the history of these blocks over the period of the leases indicates that it did not take these obligations seriously. On the contrary, it actively benefited from Maori vulnerability, seeking to extract as much advantage as possible. Even when Maori wished to lease to private parties, the Crown blocked this, as it would have compromised its own determination to buy wherever possible, without the complications of private party presence. From being collectivities with sometimes competing visions about how best to use their lands, Maori by 1900 had individually alienated most of the blocks, and lost in the process the land that contributed to their collective identity. This had happened for prices that the Government had controlled for its own benefit, denying Maori opportunities to use their own non-leased land for their benefit, and all as part of a systematic Crown strategy of purchase. Given their own expectations, and especially given the advantages that the Crown had argued would accrue as a result of leasing, unless it could be shown that the original Maori inhabitants of these blocks had benefited elsewhere as a result of this outcome, it would be extremely difficult to see in what clear way the lease period had not seriously disadvantaged Maori. Individuals had received rentals, it was true, but the circumstances made it extraordinarily difficult to utilise that money collectively and constructively for benefits within the blocks. Furthermore, the Crown emerged as the major promoter and beneficiary of this situation, especially with private parties specifically excluded. If the end of the Crown's policy in these blocks could be seen as honorable, as part of a vision to create a vibrant, viable society, then the means to achieve it on these blocks did not help to enable Maori to share in this end. 234 8.3. Summary ofthe Twentieth Century Turning fmally to the third phase in the history of these blocks, essentially the twentieth century, the realisation that the value of this region was much less than the Crown had envisaged led the Crown to initially disengage. However, with land needed for a forest and later for defence, the Crown returned and obtained land for both these needs. The relationship between the Crown and Maori over defence land is covered elsewhere, but as regards the forest, most of this land had already been purchased from Maori during the lease period, leaving a small residue of Maori land, which the Crown set out to purchase in circumstances described in chapter 7. Maori were largely obliged to lease the land they had left to them, where they could, in order to obtain a return on the land. The difficulties in maintaining or living off some of the land led to further selling to private parties over the century. Rates and survey charges further reduced the limited benefits that could be extracted from holdings. The Crown generally facilitated the desires of private parties to purchase. Slowly, but steadily, over the century, Maori land diminished in quantity, leaving the residue that remains today. The major beneficiary of land use in these blocks remains today the Crown. The Crown did not so much attempt to mediate competing interests in Rangipo-Waiu and Murimotu, but, especially with the Native Land Court making Maori group interests vulnerable, did rather to take advantage of the situation itself. Concerns about what this might mean for Maori, and the obligations that the Crown should acknowledge toward Maori, were put forward in the Stout-Ngata Report of 1908: That the State has a right to prevent them disposing of their lands must be admitted, because the Maori lands are communal lands and the Maori owner has a duty to successors different from that of an ordinary European landowner towards his family. The State has a right to see that the Maori, unused to our civilisation and unused to our individual system, shall not deprive himself of the land that belongs to him or his tribe.444 '- .) 444 AJHR, 1908, Native Lands and Native-Land Tenure: Report of Native Land Commission on the Operation of Section 11 of "The Native Land Settlement Act, 1907" G-If, p.2 235 Whether the Crown had been sensitive to these concerns elsewhere is beyond the scope of this report, but within these blocks, the Crown's relationship with Maori did not manifest itself in a concern to prevent land alienation. The Crown was consistently, especially in the nineteenth century, a major interested participant in these blocks. It sought its own interests and worked, in that process, to block the interests of private parties and Miiori, except where private parties had obtained an agreement that the Government felt compelled to honour. This sensitivity to an agreement signed, and a willingness to at least consider a course of action that might not have been in the Crown's interest in order to honour it, showed that the Crown was not predisposed automatically to ignoring competing interests. If one considers that the Crown had obligations to Maori at least as great as those to private parties, then the Crown's actual policy in these blocks does not seem to provide good evidence to suggest that this consideration weighed heavily as an aspect of Government policy. It may well be that this comment, made during the Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Bill debate regarding obligations to private parties, indicates best what the Government might have been capable of when protecting Maori interests, if it had felt greater obligations to do so: They should remember the statement of Macaulay that the great source of our power in India was the inviolable faith of the British Government, who always acted on the policy of rigidly adhering to whatever had been . promised by responsible officers, even if there was no legal document supporting it.445 Set against that is the consideration, briefly touched on in the report and in this conclusion, that the evolving nature of Crown authority and legitimacy placed constraints on its capacity to address Maori interests coherently. The extent to which one is persuaded that this had been a major factor in understanding why Crown policies took the shape they did in these blocks will influence perceptions about responsibility for outcomes. An investigation of the evolving constitutional and political nature of the nineteenth century Crown is, however, beyond the scope of this report. 445 NZPD, 1882, Sir G. S. Whitmore, vol. 43, p. 950 236 9. Bibliography Official Published Appendices to Journals ofRepresentatives [AJHR] 1871 F-6B, pp.17-19: Further Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1872 F-3, pp.14-15: Reports from Officers in Native Districts F-3A, pp. 3-5: Further Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1873 G-1, pp. 16-19: Reports from Officers in Native Districts G-8, pp.17 & 27: Reports from Officers engaged in Purchase of Native Lands. 1874 C-4, pp. 5 & 12: Areas oflands purchased and leased G-2, pp. 15-16: Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1875 C-4A, p.5: Further Reports from Land Purchase Officers C-6, pp. 1-4: Correspondence relating to the Murimotu Block G-1, pp. 11-12: Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1876 G-1, pp. 32-35: Reports from Officers in Native Districts G-5, pp. 12-13: Purchase of Land from Natives G-10, pp. 13 & 21: Statement relative to Land Purchases 237 1877 C-6, p.7: Lands purchased and Leased from Natives in North Island G-l, p. 15: Reports from Officers in Native Districts G-7, pp. 17-22: Purchase of Lands from Natives 1878 G-1, pp. 13-16: Reports from Officers in Native Districts G-4, pp. 4 & 8: Lands purchased and leased from Natives in North Island 1879 G-1, pp. 8-12: Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1880 G-4, pp. 12-17: Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1881 G-8, pp. 4-6: Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1884 G-l, pp.19-20: Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1885 C-7, pp. 11-13, 17-18: Lands Purchased, Leased, or under Negotiation in the North Island D-6, pp. 1-5: Report on Ceremony oftuming the first sod, North Island Trunk Railway G-1, meetings of the Native Minister at Ranana G-2, pp. 12-14: Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1888 G-2, pp. 1-8: Native Land Purchases in the North Island since 1 April 1884 238 0-2A, pp. 1-13: Lands Purchased and Leased from Natives in North Island 1889 0-3, pp. 3-4: Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1890 0-2, pp. 3-6: Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1891 0-5, pp. 2-6: Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1892 0-3, pp. 2-6: Reports from Officers in Native Districts 1894 0-3, pp. 10-13: Lands Purchased and Leased from Natives in North Island 1899 0-3A, p.l: Native Lands Purchased out of the North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan 1907 Glc: Native Lands and Native Land Tenure G 1d: Native Lands Supplementary Report 1908 01b: Native Lands and Native Land Tenure; Interim Report,Wanganui, Waimarino, Rangitikei, and Waitotara G If: Native Lands and Native Land Tenure: operation of section 11 Native Land Settlement Act, 1907 Glq: Native Lands and Native Land Tenure; Further Report Summarising Previous Reports 239 New Zealand Parliamentary Debates [NZPD] 1882 vol. 43, pp. 165,207,251-277,309: North Island Main Trunk Line 1884 vol. 50, pp. 152-3,312-26,406-7: Native Lands Settlement Bill Vol. 50, pp. 427,431-438,464-465,478-479: Native Land Alienation Restriction Bill 1886 vol. 56, pp. 313-317,414-425,487,525: North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Bill Vol. 57, pp. 224-226: re Native Land on North Island Main Trunk Line Vol. 57, p.64: re Murimotu-Rangipo survey 1889 vol. 66, pp. 118-126,208-209,232-237,404-407,515-518,536-539: North Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Bill Legislative Council [Le] Series 1 1880: 111 Correspondence regarding Murimotu : 151 Kemp correspondence 1881: 5 Native Mfairs Committee 1882: 6 Native Affairs Committee 1883: 8 Native Affairs Committee 1884: 4 Native Affairs Committee 240 Maori Affairs [MA] Series 4: Outward Letterbooks Vols. 7-30, 1868-1880 Series 13: Special Files 50A [a],[b],[c],[d],[e] Murimotu and Rangipo papers, lease under Rangipo-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act 1882, payments, back rents, dispute re boundary in Rangipo Waiii Maori Land Purchase [MA-MLP] Series 1: Registered Files 1873 81 McDonnell re Booth obstructions at Murimotu 108A Booth report on land operations for 1872 1874 178 Buller re Murimotu 354 Murimotu 1875 316 Murimotu 1879 127 Obstruction of survey 193 Booth's annual report on land purchase 491 Winiata and help with Murimotu lands 595 Booth return re negotiations in progress 655-656 Booth's survey progress 1880 313 return re surveys including Murimotu lands 531 Obstruction of survey 1881 23 confidential report on state of Native Affairs in Murimotu etc districts 212 Booth report on obstruction of survey 1882 6 Rangipo 213 Murimotu 241 1885 205 employment of private agents in Crown purchases 321 North Island Main Trunk Line 1895 75 Murimotu Outward Correspondence, Series 3 Memo book 4/3 pp. 117-8 re considering purchase of Murimotu lease/lands along railway route/late 1884 p. 139 McDonnell to begin purchasing in Murimotu and Rangipo-WaiU blocks p. 156 re purchase proposal p. 233 re payments on Murimotu leases p. 260 re Murimotu pp. 358-9 re purchasing oflands within NIMT railway boundaries including RangipolMurimotu MA-MLP series 7 accounts journals MA Whang W 2140 Wh 118: Murimotu Aotea Maori Land Court Block Order Files WH119-122, WH603 Supporting Papers Vol. 22, pp. 12393-12507 Miiori Land Minute Book hearings Taupo Minute Books Taupo 2 66-67 Rangipo-Waiii Taupo 3 69-149 Rangipo-Waiii re-hearing 242 Aotea District: Whanganui Minute Books Wanganui IE: 596-656 Murimotu Unofficial, Published Wanganui Herald 1880 Unofficial, Unpublished Woon Richard, letter book, MA Wanganui, 211, NA Secondary, Published Boast R., Erueti A., McPhail D., and Smith N.F., Maori Land Law, (Wellington,1999) Brooking T., 'Busting Up' the Greatest Estate of All: Liberal Maori Land Policy, 1891- 1911 New Zealand Journal ofHistory 26 (1992), pp. 78-105 Dictionary ofNew Zealand Biography, General Editors, W.H. Oliver (Vol. 1), C. Orange (VoL 2), 1990,1993 George M., Ohakune: Opening To A New World (Ohakune, 1990) New Zealand Waitangi TribunaL The Pouakani Report Wai 33. (Wellington, 1993) New Zealand Waitangi Tribunal, The Whanganui River Report Wai 167 (Wellington,1999) O'Malley V., Ag~nts ofAutonomy. Maori Committees in the Nineteenth Century (CFRT,1997) 243 Ward A., A Show ofJustice: 'Racial Amalgamation' in Nineteenth Century New Zealand (Auckland, 1974) Williams D.V., 'Te Kooti Tango Whenua' The Native Land Court 1864-1909 (Wellington, 1999) Williams J .A., Politics ofthe New Zealand Maori: Protest and Cooperation, 1891-1909 (Oxford,1969) Unpublished Anderson R., Whanganui Land Loss and Protest in the Nineteenth Century, Wai 167 C2, (Apri1,1994) Whanganui 1wi and the Crown, 1865-1880, Draft (October,1999) Whanganui 1wi and the Crown, 1880-1900, Draft (March,1998) Berghan P., Block Research Narratives ofthe Whanganui District 1865-2000 A Resource Documentfor Whanganui District Treaty Issues, (Oct,2002) Cross S. and Bargh B., The Whanganui District, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series District 9, (Apri1,1996) Marr C., Whanganui Land Claims Historical Overview, Reportfor the Office of Treaty Settlements (November,1995) Rose K., Whanganui Maori and the Crown: Socia-Economic Issues (CFRT, March 2004) Walton A., Settlement Patterns in the Whanganui River Valley, 1839-1864, Department of Conservation (Claimant evidence), Wai 167, A47 244 Ward A., Whanganui ki Maniapoto: Preliminary Report to the Waitangi Tribunal', Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunalfor Wai 148 and related claims, (March, 1992) 245 Appendix 1 Wai 903, #2.4.58 Direction Commissioning Research OFFICIAL WAI903 WAITANGI TRIBUNAL CONCERNING the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 AND CONCERNING Whanganui Claims DIRECTlbN COMMISSIONING RESEARCH 1 Pursuant to clause 5A(1) of the second schedule of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Tribunal commissions Dr Nicholas Bayley, a member of staff, to complete a substantive report on the history of the Rangip5-WaiQ and Murimotu blocks in the Whanganui district. 2 The broad research themes ofthe report should include: a.) A brief introduction to the Murimotu area noting the different Maori groups that have and had interests in and around the lands to the South of Mt. Ruapehu. b.) The history of the Rangip5-WaiO and Murimotu blocks from the time of the Governments' (both Provincial. and Colonial) early interest in the Murimotu area from the 1860s and the arrival of European pastoralists in the 1870s. c.) Negotiations for grazing and then leasing of the blocks qnd early attempts at the "block's survey. d.) The -Rangip5-Murimotu Agreement Validation Act of 1882 and the subsequent alienation of the blocks by sale. e.) The Crown's acquisition of the land within Rangipo-Waiu and Murimotu upon which Karioi forest now stands and on the acquisition of the land for the Main Trunk Railway. f.) The twentieth century history of the land (takings for military purposes will be treated in a separate report). 3 This commission will commence on 2 February 2004 and end on 28 June 2004. By 24 May 2004, a full draft of the scoping report must be completed and a copy presented to the Waitangi Tribunal. The final version for release must be completed and a copy presented to the Waitangi Tribunal by 28 June. ' 4 The Registrar is to send copies of this direction to 246 2 Dr Nicholas Bayley Chief Historian, Waitangi Tribunal Deputy Chief Historian, Waitangi Tribunal Lead Facilitator Whanganui Inquiry, Waitangi Tribunal Solicitor General, Crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements Secretary, Crown Forestry Rental Trust Chief Executive, Te Puni Kokiri Counsel for the Wai 903 Claimants Dated this :!.7i~ day of February 2003 MP/J# Judge C M Wainwright U Presiding Officer WAITANGI TRIBUNAL 247