'The Key-stone of the District':

The Crown Purchase of the Mahia Block, 1864

Elizabeth Cox

Waitangi Tribunal 1999 Contents

INTRODUCTION 3

MAP ONE: MAHIA PENINSULA CROWN PURCHASE AND NATIVE LAND COURT BLOCK DIVISIONS 6

CHAPTER ONE: THE MAHIA PENINSULA BEFORE 1864 7

MAORI OCCUPATION OF THE PENINSULA 7 THE MUSKET WARS AND THE REFUGEES ON THE PENINSULA, 1820-1840 14 EARLY MAORI·PAKEHA CONTACT 16

CHAPTER TWO: CROWN PURCHASE OF THE MAHIA BLOCK, 1864 26

THE NEGOTIATIONS AND SALE OF THE MAHIA BLOCK 31 THE DISPUTES BEGIN 33

CHAPTER THREE: TWENTIETH CENTURY PROTESTS 45

SIM COMMISSION, 1927 47 NATIVE LAND COURT INVESTIGATION, 1938 49 ROYAL COMMISSION, 1948 52 THE FATE OF THE MAHIA RESERVES 59 KlNIKINI 59 KAIUKU 61 OTHER LAND RETURNED TO IHAKA WHAANGA 64

CONCLUSION 67

APPENDIX ONE: CONTEMPORARY MAPS 72

MAP Two: SKETCH MAP A ITA CHED TO THE MAHIA BLOCK DEED, 1864 73 MAP THREE: MAPAITACHED TO THEROYAL COMMISSION REPORT, 1948 74 MAP FOUR: MAP OF VARIOUS SECTIONS WITHIN MAHIA TOWNSHIP, c.1935 75 MAP FIVE: MAP OF KINIKINI, FROM THE CROIVNGRANT, 1871 76 MAP SIX: MAPOFKAIWAITAU, FROMTHECROIVNGRANT, 1872 77

APPENDIX TWO: MARIA BLOCK DEED 78

APPENDIX THREE: LOCKE TO MCLEAN LETTERS 1864 - 1865 81

BIBLIOGRAPHY 89

2 Introduction

It was expected that the sale of this block would open the way for much larger purchases, as was afterwards the case. The Mahia may be considered as the key-stone of the district.!

This report discusses the Crown purchase of the Mahia Block, signed on 20 October 1864. The Mahia Block was the first land purchased by the Crown in the Mahia Peninsula and Wairoa district. The Mahia Peninsula is a small isthmus of land on the eastern coast of New Zealand, between Hawke's Bay and Gisborne. Today it had two small settlements, Mahia and Mahia Beach. It is around 21 kilometres long, and 12 kilometres wide. It is joined to the mainland by a narrow neck of land, which also encompasses the Maungawhio Lagoon. At the bottom of the peninsula is Waikawa, or Portland Island. The land that was to become the Mahia Block is substantially bounded by water: all of the western and part of the eastern boundary is formed by the sea, and the northern boundary is mostly the edge of the Maungawhio Lagoon. The eastern boundary follows hills through the body of the peninsula, until it meets the Maungatea Stream. The southern boundary follows the stream to the sea. The western and southern boundary lines have been disputed several times in the twentieth century, as has the point at which the boundary hits the Maungatea Stream. These disputes will be discussed in detail in this report. The block was around 14,600 acres in size. Once the rest of the Mahia Peninsula had been divided up by the Native Land Court, the block was bounded by five blocks: Whangawehi, Tawapata North 1 and 2, Tawapata South, and, at the very top of the block, Kaiwaitau. Te Mahia was the sight of many important events in the history of Ngati Kahungunu. The first chapter of this report will discuss this history, and also the history of early European occupation of the Peninsula, mainly by whalers, traders and sheep-run holders, up until the sale of the block in 1864. The purchase of the Mahia Block was made in the midst of the New Zealand Wars and the growth of the King 'and Pai Marire movement in the region. The second chapter will discuss this background to the sale, and attempt to explain not only why the government bought the land, but also why Maori decided to sell at this time. It will then go on to discuss

! James Grindell, 'Visit of Mr McLean and Party To the North', 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.2. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40.

3 the specific events that surrounded the negotiations, the investigation of owners, and other aspects of the purchase of the Mahia Block. It will then focus on the protests that emerged after the sale of the block, until the end of the nineteenth century, and the impact that the sale had on the Mahia Peninsula. The third chapter will discuss the twentieth century protests about the sale of the Mahia Block. On no less than twelve recorded occasions, whether in person or by petition, Maori have complained to the Crown about aspects of the purchase during this century. The two main themes of these complaints have been, firstly, that the people who sold the block had no right to sell it, or some part of it; or secondly, that the boundaries of the block have been incorrectly laid out, resulting in more land being taken than the Maori had intended to sell. This report will discuss these complaints, and the investigations made into them, in as much detail as possible. This chapter will conclude with a discussion of the fate of the reserves made from the Mahia Block.

A note on references An important source of information has been Angela Ballara and Gary Scott's block history, 'Mahia', which is contained within their large report 'Crown Purchases of Maori Land in Early Provincial Hawke's Bay' written for the Wai 201 claimants to the Waitangi Tribunal. This has been referenced in the footnote of this report as 'Ballara and Scott, 'Mahia'.' Other block histories contained within the Ballara and Scott report, plus its introduction, have also been very important sources on information. Each of the block histories within the report has its own internal pagination. Their report also contains a huge document bank, and whenever possible I have referenced primary sources to that document bank, as well as giving the original source. I have referenced these as 'reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank' and given the appropriate section numbers. Section 20 to 26 of the document bank directly concern the sale of the Mahia Block, but other sections have also been used. 2

l Angela Ballara and Gary Scott, 'Crown Purchases of Maori land in Early Provincial Hawke's Bay', and document bank, report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Wai 201, Document II, 1994

4 MAP ONE

r------,~ ~

Te Ika AMaui North Island

'" Rehulmokair08

TAWAPATA SOUTH

o IOkm,

o 6miles

~ Waikawa U(Portland Island)

Mahia Peninsula: Crown Purchase and Native Land Court block divisions· The author My name is Elizabeth Cox. I graduated with a BA (Hons.) in History with first-class honours, and then a MA in History with distinction, from Victoria University of Wellington. I have had several contracts to work for The Dictionary 0/ New Zealand Biography, and also for Auckland University Press and Bridget Williams Book. I have worked as a Research Officer at the Waitangi Tribunal since July 1998.

Abbreviations used AJHR Appendix to the Journals 0/ the House o/Representatives ATL Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington DNZB The Dictionary o/NewZealand Biography NA National Archives, Wellington

5 Chapter One The Mahia Peninsula before 1864

Maori occupation of the Peninsula The Mahia Peninsula has a long history of Maori occupation, and was, in particular, the location of many important events in the history of the Ngati Kahungunu people. This chapter will discuss the history of Maori occupation of the land that became the Mahia Block and Te Mahia as a whole, with an emphasis on the people who lived there during the nineteenth century. It will then discuss the arrival and settlement of Europeans in the region in the decades leading up to the sale of the block in 1864.

The tapu canoe Takitimu is thought to have landed on the Mahia Peninsula on its journey down the East Coast after its arrival in New Zealand.' One explanation of the name Mahia is that the travellers considered it to be similar to a place in the Islands, Mahia-a-Tawhiti. The logs that were used to drag the Takitimu onto the shore still exist in the mouth of the stream next to Kaiuku marae. When Takitimu landed on the shores of Mahia the high priest of the canoe, Ruawharo, disembarked and made his home there. He built his first pa at present day Oraka, at the very top of the peninsula near the neck to the mainland, and his second on the other side of the peninsula facing Hawke's Bay: Both of these pa were within or very near to the land that was to become the Mahia Block. Ruawharo's second pa was called Tirotiro-kauika: watching the progress of the school of the whales. Many of the stories of Te Mahia invoke and explain the presence of the whales that travelled close to the shore of the peninsula, and sometimes beached themselves on it. Ruawharo is thought to have placed sand from the Pacific Islands on the beach at Mahia: this sand acted as a mauri of the whales and attracted them to the peninsula. In order to enlarge the

) J. H. Mitchell, Takitimu: a history of the Ngati Kahungunu people, [1944], n.p., 1972, p.43. The history of the Takitimu canoe and the Ngati Kahungunu people in this chapter is largely based on this and the various works of Angela Ballara including 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', phD thesis, Victoria University 6f Wellington, 1991, and Ballara and Scott, 'Introduction' and 'Mahia', in their 'Crown purchases of Maori land in early provincial Hawke's Bay', Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Wai 201, DocumentI1, 1994 , Mitchell, Takwmll, ppA3,60.

7 feeding grounds of the whales and fish, Ruawharo later planted his three sons at various places around Hawke's Bay, where they turned to stone.' In other stories the mauri of the whales takes the physical form of a whale-shaped rock. w. J. Phillipps wrote that he visited a mauri called Ika-whenua in 1924 at the base of a hill called Maota or Mokotahi. It enticed the whales up a deep channel alongside the peninsula and onto the beach. He believed that it was the biggest and probably most important mauri in the North Island and that .the Maori of Mahia and the nearby mainland regarded it as highly tapu and were careful not to go near it.' Elsdon Best had also heard the tradition of the whaled­ shaped rock, which he said was named T akamautahi, which called the whales in from the sea; when they tried to reach it they beached themselves. Hori Ropiha told him that the beach would be tapu from the time a whale had been sited until it had beached itself. 7 This rock, and the beaches on which the whales landed, were probably within the land that was to become the Mahia Block. A local writer has suggested that the mauri has since been destroyed to allow for the construction of a road from Opoutama to Mahia Beach.'

Takitimu is considered to be the canoe of the Ngati Kahungunu people, and the disembarkation of Ruawharo was the first of many connections between the history of Ngati Kahungunu and Te Mahia. It was there that Kahungunu found his fourth and favourite wife, Rongomaiwahine. Kahungunu was the son of Tamatea, who may have been the commander of Takitimu, and is also thought to have visited Mahia at some stage.' Kahungunu grew up in Tauranga, Opotiki and Turanga. He had heard of the great beauty of Rongomaiwahine and came to find her on the peninsula. Although she was already married, he set·out to win her and, having done so, settled with her people at Maunga-a-kahia, a high hill on the eastern coast of the Mahia Peninsula. He spent the rest of his life on the peninsula. His children, however,

, Elsdon Best, Fishing Methods and Devices 0/ the Maori, 1929, reprinted Wellington, 1977, pp.58-60; Mitchell, Takitimu, p.60-1 6W. J. Phillipps, 'Ika-Whenua: the mauri of the whales on Mahia Peninsula', Journal 0/ the Polynesian Society, Vol. 57,1948, pp.41-5 7 Elsdon Best, Fishing Methods and Devices o/the Maori, 1929, reprinted Wellington, 1977, pp.58-60 and Appendix 22, p.249 , Mere Whaanga-Schollum, Bartlett: Mahia to Tawatapu, Mahia, 1990. It is hoped that claimant evidence will provide more information about the site of the mauri and whether or not it has since been destroyed. , Ballara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1991, p.60-1

8 spread throughout the East Coast and it was not for several generations that the descendants of

Kahungunu came back to live on the peninsula. 10 Their return has meant that the story of Ngati Kahungunu has come to so dominate the history of the Mahia peninsula that the history of those who lived there before Kahungunu is difficult to trace. Despite her importance, for example, little is known of Rongomaiwahine's ancestry, and Angela Ballara found during extensive reading of the Native Land Court minute books that there were no recitals of the whakapapa of either Rongomaiwahine or her first husband Tamatakutai." There are a number of theories as to their origins: Gudgeon suggested that the pre-Kahungunu people of the region were the descendants of Maui and Toi.12 Ballara suggests that the people of Ngati Ruapani were the tangata whenua in the area when

Kahungunu arrived, although the origins of Ruapani are not clear. 13 Rongomaiwahine is an important ancestor in her own right for many of the people of Te Mahia and she features as the starting point of the whakapapa of many people.'4 Angela Ballara explains that most Ngati Kahungunu can trace their descent back not only to Kahungunu but also to the pre-Kahungunu tangata whenua, who never died out or left, but simply combined with the incoming Kahungunu people. This is certainly the case for the people of Te Mahia: Paora Tunge, for example, said in a Native Land Court investigation into a block of land on Mahia in 1867 that he was of Ngati Kahungunu, and that he derived his title from Rongomaiwahine.15 The people of Mahia often claim the mana of the pre-Kahungunu tangata whenua. From perhaps the late nineteenth century Mahia Kahungunu people began to call themselves Ngati Rongomaiwahine, and use her name as 'an umbrella of mana over Te Mahia', as they do today.16 Angela Ballara has argued that there was no overarching Ngati Kahungunu structure in the generations before 1840 and that, while remaining Kahungunu, the hapu or descent groups

10 Mitchell, Takitimu, chapter 10 11 Mitchell, Takitimu; Ballara and Scott, 'Mahia', p.1; Ballara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', p.62. 12 W. E. Gudgeon, 'Maori Tribes of the East Coast of New Zealand', Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vo1.5, 1896, p.2 1l For a summary of the various traditions surrounding the pre-Kahungunu communities see Ballara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', pp.60ff. 14 See Mitchell, Takitimu, Chapter 11 L\ Whangawehi No.1, 19 February 1867, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 1, p.18 16 Ballara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', p.176, based on information from Mitchell, Takitimu, pp.90-2

9 would adopt the name 6f an ancestor that marked the differences between the groups, rather than bound them together. 17 One such group that lived on Mahia during the contact period was Rakaipaaka or Ngati Rakaipaaka." They were the descendants of Rakaipaaka, the grandson of Kahungunu and Rongomaiwahine through their son Kahukura-nui. Rakaipaaka and his sister Hinemanuhiri were forced to leave their homes in Turanga after a family quarrel. The party separated and Hinemanuhiri and her people settled in the Marumaru district. Rakaipaaka and his group briefly visited Mahia on their way south, then settled in Nuhaka, but some of their descendants eventually returned to Mahia and settled there, as well as retaining their dominance over Nuhaka. The incoming Rakaipaaka people intermarried with the pre-Kahungunu people of Mahia. Rakaipaaka also formed marriage alliances with many of the neighbouring descent groups: Ballara give the example of Te Huki who, through his own marriages and those of his children, formed alliances with Rangitane of the Porangahau area, Ngati Whatuiapiti in Heretaunga, Ngati Kahungunu of Wairoa and the people of Turanganui.19 However, BaHara argues that the Rakaipaaka people, especially at the chiefly level, remained distinct from other groups in the nineteenth century.20 BaHara notes that by the eighteenth century, Rakaipaaka and his sister Hinemanuhiri were beginning to have just as much relevance in Wairoa, Nuhaka and Te Mahia as Kahungunu and Ruapani.21 During the early nineteenth century Rakaipaaka lived in Nuhaka, Waikokopu and Mahia: Ballara suggests that the visits of American whaling ships in the 1820s and subsequent establishment of whaling stations in Hawke's Bay and on Te Mahia in the 1830s encouraged

Rakaipaaka to settle in these coastal villages. 22 An important chief of the contact period from Rakaipaaka was Te Whareumu, who was captured by Te Wera in 1820 and taken to the Bay of

17 BaHara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', pp.19-24 " See BaHara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', pp.175-77 and BaHara and Scott, 'Nuhaka', in 'Crown Purchases of Maori land in Early Provincial Hawke's Bay', Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Wai 201, Document 11, 1994, pp.1-5. Gudgeon has suggested that in fact that there was an 'ancient tribe' Ngati Rakaipaaka that lived near Mahia and that the incoming descendants of Rakaipaaka II, Kahungunu's grandson, combined with the original group of the same name. W. E. Gudgeon, 'The Maori Tribes of the East Coast', Journal a/the Polynesian Society, Vol. 5, 1896, p.2. " Ballara and Scott, 'Mahia', p.2 20 Ballara and Scott, 'Mahia', p.3, and 'Nuhaka', p.2. See also Mitchell, Takitimu, p.145 21 Ballara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', p.131-2 "Ballara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', p.176

10 Islands, but was then returned to Mahia in around 1823. These events will be discussed later in this chapter. Two other important Rakaipaaka chiefs during the contact period were Te Ratau and his son, Ihaka Whaanga.2J Te Ratau was killed by his relative Te Matenga Tukareaho and Te Whakatohea. Rakaipaaka divided over the issue. Some supported Te Matenga and others gathered to avenge the death. Ballara and Scott argue that continued disputes within Ngati Rakaipaaka over Te Ratau's death were the cause of many of the later clashes over the sales of

2 land in the region. ' Ihaka Whaanga went on to be one of the most important chiefs in the Wairoa region, bolstering his position by co-operation with the Crown. Ihaka Whaanga was the main chief involved in the sale of the Mahia Block, and he will be discussed in more depth in the next chapter. . Another Kahungunu hapu living on the Mahia Peninsula was Ngati Hikairo. Hikairo was another descendent of Kahungunu and Rongomaiwahine, through their daughter Tauheikuri.25 Again, although the people associated themselves with Hikairo, they were also part of the loose alliance of Ngati Kahungunu. In 1867, Tamati Matangihia said at a Native Land Court hearing for a block of land neighbouring the Mahia Block that he was of the 'Ngati-Hikairo hapu of Ngati-Kahungunu'. Ngati Hikairo also claimed land through Rongomaiwahine: Tamati went on to say that 'we derive our title from Rongomaiwahine. The other claimants are all descended from the same ancestor by different branches'?6 Thirty years later, Komene te Ito, putting his case in the Native Land Court as a member of Ngati Hikairo, said 'I would be known in Manawatu as a N'Kahungunu. I do not know that the name N'Kahungunu applied to Te Ratau only'.27 Ngati Hikairo are thought to have lived mainly at Tawapata and Nukutaurua on the eastern side of Mahia, and they also made strong claims to Waikawa (Portland Island) in the

2J Angela Ballara, 'Whaanga, Ihaka', ?be Dictionary o/New Zealand Biography, Volume 1, Wellington, 1990, pp.584-5; Grace Smit, 'Mana Maori: Questions of Authority on the East Coast During the Nineteenth Century', MA Thesis, Auckland, 1997. See also Ballara and Scott, 'Nuhaka', p.2-3 24 Ballara and Scott, 'Nuhaka', p.2 25 See whakapapa in the appendices of Mitchell, Takitimu, p.xix. Mitchell also traces Hikairo's whakapapa to Rongomaiwahine's first husband, Tama·takutai 26 Tawapata South hearing, 19 February 1867, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 1, p.20 27 Komene te Ito, Waikawa hearing, 22 January 1897, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 10, p.21. Te Ratau was lhaka Whaanga's father.

11 Native Land Court." They also had claims to the southern part of the Mahia Block. In 1870 there were 120 living in Nuhaka. In 1874 the census takers found 52 living at Nukutaurua on Mahia.29 One of Ihaka Whaanga's wives, Te Haka, was a Ngati Hikairo woman.30 At various times it was alleged that this marriage had given Ihaka Whaanga rights over N gati Hikairo, and that he was their chief, even after Te Haka's death. Te Rina Te Rita (Ihaka Whaanga's grandchild), for example, said in 1897 that although Ihaka Whaanga was not Ngati Hikairo himself he was 'their chief'." However, in several Native Land Court cases, Ngati Hikairo people argued that they had never lived under his mana, and that he had had no right to sell their land:32 The last chapter of this report will show that they argued this point in regard to the southern part of the Mahia Block. A third hapu on Mahia that had rights in the Mahia Block were Ngai Tu or Ngati Tu. They were living at Nukutaurua in the 1820s." They were said to have been involved in the disputes which led to the death of Te Ratau. 34 By the 1870s, they were living at Nukutaurua, Kopuawhara, on the neck of the peninsula, and at Mahia township. In 1870, 133 Ngati Tu were listed as living in Nukutaurua. In 1874, there were 82 people of a hapu of Ngai Tu, Pirirakau, at Mahia. Four years later there were 459 Ngai Tu living at Nukutaurua. Their protests against the sale of the Mahia Block will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.35 Although these are the three main identifiable groups, there are a few other groups found by record keepers in the 1870s in Mahia such as Ngai Te Rakatoa, Naetoma (Ngai Toma?) and Naiteamaru (Ngai Te Amaru?)." It would seem that the people of Mahia often had contact with the people living in Hawke's Bay and Poverty Bay: canoe journeys between Mahia, Wairoa and Hawke's Bay were

28 See Waikawa case, 1897, in Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 9, pp.357ff and minute book 10, pp.lff, especially pAO 29 AJHR, 1870, A-ll, p.7; 1874, G-7, p.ll 30 There is evidence about her in Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 10, p.lff. 31 Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 10, pA3. See also Tawapata South judgement in the Appellate Court, 4 December 1925, minute book 22, p.235. 32 Ngati Hikairo argued this at length in the Waikawa (Portland Island) case in the Native Land Court in 1897. See Wairoa minute book 9, pp.357ff, and Wairoa minute book 10, pp.2, 5, 14, 19 )3 J. G. Wilson, History a/Hawke's Bay, Dunedin, Reed, 1939, p.81 34 Ballara and Scott, 'Nuhaka', p.2 "AJHR, 1870, A-II, p.7; 1874, G-7, p.ll; 1878 G-2, p.23 and 1881, G-3, p.23 36 See Ballara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', Appendix II; AJHR, 1870, A-ll, p.7; 1874, G-7, p.ll; 1878 G-2, p.23 and 1881, G-3, p.23

12 cdmmon, although the coast of Te Mahia could be dangerous." Intermarriage with these people seems to have been fairly common. Fish were plentiful off the coast of Mahia, and a petition written by local Mahia people in 1945 lists the large number of ancient fishing grounds around Mahia and the fish that were taken at these sites." A seal and bird butchery has been found on the Peninsula." Beached whales would have been an important source of food, although an unpredictable one. Evidence was given at the 1948 Royal Commission on the Mahia Block about a pool in the stream that forms a boundary of the Mahia Block in which eels were kept and fed to ensure a constant supply.'o There were also cultivations within what was to become the Mahia Block: the Commission heard evidence that Waerenganui, one of the named boundary points for the Mahia Block, was a large clearing for cultivation. It was estimated that this cultivation was about 10 acres or more in size." Archaeological evidence indicates that most of the settlements on the Mahia Peninsula were on the north and eastern coasts, which are more sheltered from the prevailing winds. There were, however, definitely settlements on the land that became the Mahia Block. At the top of the block there were communities clustered around the Maungawhio lagoon, at Oraka, and a pa called Okuraranga or Puke-kararo." There was also a settlement on the western coast near Kinikini (Long Point) and another at the mouth of the Mangatea Stream, at the bottom point of the Block. There was also a pa behind the hill Taupiri, which is within the block near Kinikini.43 During the early nineteenth century Maori also lived at the Mahia township, which sprang up with the arrival of the whalers, near the neck of the peninsula on the western coast.

J7 See BaHara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', pp.37ff J8 LE 1/1945/12 - Petition No.76/1945, NA. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 22 39 Mike and Mary Jeal, A Third Season of Archaeological Site Recording on the Mahia Peninsula, Wellington, 1986. The butchery contained the bones of several seals and at least 8 different variety of birds, including fragments of moa . • 0 This evidence was given by Rangi Ehu in the 1948 Royal Commission on the Mahia Block, MA94/1, pp.HI-2, NA .1 This evidence was given by Rangi Ehu in the 1948 Royal Commission on the Mahia Block, MA 94/1, p.G2,NA 42 This pa is now called Kaiuku, and is one of the main marae of the Rongomaiwahine people. This pa will be discussed below. 43 Information in this paragraph is based on Mike and Mary Jeal, A Third Season of Archaeological Site Recording on the Mahia Peninsula, Wellington, 1986; Kevin Jones, Nga Tohuwhenua Mai Te Rangi: A New Zealand Archaeology In Aenal Photographs, Wellington, 1994, p.156, 251-4, 268-70; and for the

13 The Musket Wars and the Refugees on the Peninsula, 1820-1840 During the Musket Wars Te Mahia was again the scene of an important period in Ngati Kahungunu's history, when it became a haven for Ngati Kahungunu people from Port Nicholson to Wairoa.44 During the summer of 1820 and 1821 a musket-armed Nga Puhi group led by Te Wera raided a pa at Nukutaurua (Table Cape) on Mahia. The chief Te Whareumu and his sister, of Ngati Rakaipaaka, were taken back to the Bay of Islands by Te Wera. Impressed by Te Whareumu, and having married his sister, Te Wera promised to return the chief to his people. After a series of events on their journey down the island, Te Wera and Te Whareumu arrived in Mahia in around 1823 to find the coast empty. The people of Mahia, Ngati Hikairo and Ngati Rakaipaaka and other hapu, had fled, either to Moumokai or to Waikawa (Portland Island) to avoid the raids of the northern tribes. They were persuaded to emerge and they gathered to welcome Te Whareumu home. Te Whareumu then persuaded Te Wera to remain on the peninsula as protection for the Kahungunu people, saying 'take you the people and the land; you will be a fence against this wind'." Under protection of Te Wera and the Nga Puhi people, the Mahia Peninsula became a place of refuge throughout the years of upheaval caused by the Musket Wars. Over the next few years, raids in the Hawke's Bay region brought more and more people to the peninsula; those who came from the Wairarapa making an overland journey of several months to get there!6 After he was warned by a tohunga to take his people to safety, T e Pareihe, a leader of the Ngati Te Whatu-i-apiti people of Hawke's Bay, also made peace with Te Wera and brought his people to Mahia. 47

settlements at Kinikini and the mouth of the Mangatea Stream see the evidence given by Rangi Ehu and George Ormond to the 1948 Royal Commission on the Mahia Block, MA 94/1, pp.E3, H1-2, NA. 44 This section is largely based on BaHara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', pp.461-8 45 The speech is quoted in Takaanui Tarakawa, 'The Doings of Te Wera and Nga-Puhi', translated by S. Percy Smith, Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vo1.9, 1900, p.57. For information about this period in Ngati Kahungunu's history see Tarakawa; MitcheH, Takitimu, Chapter 20; S. Percy Smith, 'Wars of the Northern Against the Southern Tribes on New Zealand in the Nineteenth Century', Vol. 9, 1900, pp.149-59; BaHara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', pp.441-442; BaHara, 'Te Wera Hauraki', DNZB, Volume 1, pp.518-520, and 'Tc Pareiha', DNZB, Volume 1, pp.476-77 46 BaHara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', p.459 47 Angela Ballara, 'Te Wera Hauraki', DNZB, Volume 1, pp.518-520, and 'Te Pareiha', DNZB, Volume 1, pp.476-77

14 The people lived in pa scattered all over the peninsula." William Williams, who visited the peninsula in 1840, found a pa just past the neck of the peninsula on the northern coast, then travelled past two more pa within a mile and a half and then visited a fourth pa, that of the Nga Puhi people. Two miles further along the coast was a pa 'belonging to the natives of Port Nicholson'. Each group stayed in a separate pa, including on land that was to become the Mahia Block: Te Pareihe established himself in a pa called Okurarenga or Puke-kararo on the northern coast of the peninsula, and Te Hapuku set himself up at Te Mahia township." During these years of refuge the northern tribes once again attacked Kahungunu, this time at the pa called Okuraranga or Puke-kararo, which is above the beach on the neck of the peninsula on the north-eastern coast. Some suggest that this was in 1824; Mitchell suggested that it was as late as 1832.50 The northern tribes laid siege to the pa but the inhabitants held out for a number of months. During this time food became so scare that they were reduced to eating a greasy clay. To record the event the name of the pa was changed to Kaiuku, 'to eat clay', which is what it is still called today. 51 Accounts differ as to whether the siege was successful or not, although it seems generally accepted that it was not, and that a peace was arranged.52 This pa was on the very corner of the Mahia Block, or was added to the block at a later point, and will be discussed in more detail at the end of the third chapter of this report. Ballara suggests that the number of people on the peninsula during the time of the refugees probably reached its peak between 1834 and 1838. Although it is difficult to say how many people lived on Mahia at this time, William Williams estimated in 1840, when many of the refugees had already gone home, that as many as 3,000 Maori were living in Wairoa and on the peninsula. 53 Conditions during this time were not ideal, and land and resources were scarce. During his visit to the Peninsula in 1840 William Williams talked to Tutepakihirangi, a chief of the Wairarapa region. Tutepakihirangi told Williams that he did not have enough to eat, he had no

48 Ballara and Scott, 'Mahia', p.5 49 Angela Ballara, 'Te Hapuku, DNZB, Volume 1, p.443; Frances Porter, (ed.), The Turanga Journals 1840-185 O. Letters and Journals of William and Jane Williams, Wellington, 1974, pp.84-5 50 Best suggested 1824 in Tuhae: Children of the Mist, [1925], Wellington, 1996, pp.541-2; Mitchell, Takitimu, p.174 " Ballara, 'Te Pareiha', DNZB, Volume I, pp.476-77. For a waiata about the siege see Apirana Ngata (ed.), Nga Moteatea, Volume 2, Wellington, 1974, pp.68-71. 52 Elsdon Best in Tuhae: Children of the Mist, pp.541-2 says that the pa was taken, and many people were slain or taken prisoner. Sec, however, Mitchell, Takitimu, pp.170-1 ',.\ William Williams to Alfred Brown, 23 April 1840 in Porter, (eel.), 'Inc 'filranga journals, p.IOI

15 land to cultivate and that 'those to whom this land belongs tell me that they want it for themselves'. He also said that he was 'living here a stranger', and that he was very concerned for his land at home.54 Te Wera remained at Mahia, and protected the Kahungunu people from the upheaval of the Musket Wars until 1838 or 1839, the year he died. For their help, the Nga Puhi people were given a block of land on the peninsula at Whangawehi. They remained there until the block was sold in the 1860s.55 Ballara has argued that this contraction of the Ngati Kahungunu people from a region of around 200 miles from Palliser Bay to Wairoa into the tiny Mahia Peninsula was a 'remarkable phenomenon'. During their stay the people of Kahungunu began to see themselves as linked by common goals; the refugees made a number of joint sorties out to fight their enemies off the peninsula, there was intermarriage between the various groups, and they also engaged in joint trading with the whalers, which helped them to buy arms. The period was also important because during this period the people lived under the authority of chiefs who were not a part of the 'main stream of chiefly authority, based on hereditary mana'. Ballara credits the time on the peninsula with helping to set up a new 'ideological base for a regional social and political unit' for Ngati Kahungunu."

Early Maori-Pakeha contact Until the early 1850s there was very little contact between the Crown and those living in Hawke's Bay and Mahia Peninsula. This meant that Maori contact with Europeans was restricted to four groups: traders, whalers, missionaries and settlers. It was, therefore, from these groups that Maori acquired information about European understandings of land ownership and transactions, and whose day to day interaction would have affected the way they understood such relationships as leases. 57 It is certain that for the first decades of European presence on the peninsula, their continued presence would only have been possible with the agreement and co-operation of the local Maori. By their very nature their agreements

54 William Williams, Journal, 22 February 1840, in Porter, (ed.), TurangaJournals 1840-1850, p.8S. 55 See Ballara and Scott, 'Whangawehi' in 'Crown Purchases of Maori land in Early Provincial Hawke's Bay', Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Wai 201, Document II, 1994 '6 Ballara, The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', p.464-8 57 For the Hawke's Bay see Dean Cowie, 'Hawke's Bay', Rangahaua Whanui District Report, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, pp.13-22

16 were temporary and difficult to trace, but there is some evidence of co-operation between the two peoples. This section reviews this early Maori-European contact on Mahia and will discuss some of the early 'purchases' and leases that were negotiated between the two groups. William Williams, the missionary of the Church Missionary Society (CMS), first visited Mahia in 1834. Although Williams made a few visits to the region in the late 1830s, while he was still based in the Bay of Islands, missionaries had very little contact with East Coast Maori until William and Jane Williams set up the CMS mission in Poverty Bay in 1840. For many years William was the only ordained CMS missionary on the East Coast, and travelled over the whole region regularly. He made several visits to the Mahia Peninsula. In 1844 he was joined by .william Colenso, who was based in the Hawke's Bay, and James Hamlin, who was based in Wairoa." . Catholic missionaries also came to Mahia in the 1840s. Bishop Pompallier met some Mahia Maori in the Bay of Plenty and they invited him to visit them in Nukutaurua. In 1841 he did so and later that year left a priest, Father Baty, there for several months, who estimated that he had 100 Maori receiving instruction there.59 The Catholic and the CMS missionaries fought over their congregations; Williams recorded with pleasure in his journal the appearance at his services of anyone who had previously been seen with the Catholic priests. East Coast Maori were eager pupils of the missionaries and often demanded visits from them, as well as Bibles and books to help them learn to read. William Williams wrote in 1838 that Maori 'seem to take it for granted that peace is the universal consequence of the introduction of missionaries'. 60 In fact the spread and influence of Christian ideas did assist in bringing the Musket Wars to an end on the East Coast." A war-weariness and.desire for peace assisted in acceptance of the Church, and peace-making was a pre-requisite for acceptance into the Church; one helped to feed the other. The CMS missionaries were concerned about the effect of land sales by Maori to unscrupulous Europeans. Williams, Colenso and Hamlin all urged Maori in the district to resist land sales. Colenso's efforts to encourage Maori to lease rather than sell their land, and if

" Frances Porter, 'Williams, William', DNZB, Volume 1, p.598; Porter, (ed.), The Turanga Journals "J. Hickson, Catholic Missionary Work in Hawke's Bay, New Zealand, Auckland, 1924, pp.20-1 1.0 William Williams journal, 23 January 1838, in Porter, (ed.), The TurangaJournals p.60 61 BaHara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', p.469; Smit, Grace, 'Mana Maori: Questions of Authority on the East Coast During the Nineteenth Century', MA Thesis, AucklanJ, 1997, pp.53-4

17 they did 'sell to ensure that they retained large reserves, have been well-documented.62 Williams also lobbied the government to refuse to uphold the 'sales' of huge tracts of land to William Rhodes in 1839." As Dean Cowie has argued, the missionaries' efforts provided Maori with 'positive, and most importantly, different advice concerning land alienation, than that provided by the Crown':' Three of the earliest Europeans in the Hawke's Bay and Poverty Bay area were the traders John Harris, Barnet Burns, and Thomas Halbert, all of whom arrived in the early 1830s. John Harris visited the area regularly and traded flax for muskets and powder with the local Maori.65 Barnet Burns lived on Mahia Peninsula for almost a year, trading muskets, powder, blankets and tobacco for flax fibre, which he sent off to Sydney. Both of these men married local women:' Thomas Halbert, who was both a whaler and a trader, also lived in Mahia for around a year and married a Mahia woman, in what was to be the first of six marriage alliances with Maori women during his travels.67 William Morris was another early trader in the region, but he remained on the peninsula for much longer than Burns or Halbert." Morris must have had an arrangement of some sort with the local Maori to allow him to live there and run his businesses, because at this time there had been no land officially alienated from Maori on the peninsula. By 1865 Morris ran a store, had a licence to run a pub, and was the postmaster of the district." The local Maori obviously considered their relationship with Morris to be a valuable one: when Donald McLean visited the peninsula in 1851 he faced protests from the local Maori because they were under the impression that McLean was there to remove Morris from the peninsula as a

62 See Dean Cowie, 'Hawke's Bay', Rangahaua Whanui District Report, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, pp.17-18, who cites P J Goldsmith, 'Aspects of the Life of William Colenso;, MA thesis, University of Auckland, 1994 " This is discussed in more detail below. 64 Dean Cowie, 'Hawke's Bay', Rangahaua Whanui District Report, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, p.18 65 Philip Whyte, 'Harris, John Williams', DNZB, Volume 1, p.l77; Ballara, 'Whaanga, Ihaka', DNZB, Volume 1, p.585; Thomas Lambert, Old Wairoa, North Island, [1925), Dunedin, 1952 pp.350-55 66 A. E. Korver, 'Burns, Barnet', DNZB, Volume 1, p.57. See also Thomas Lambert, Story of Oid Wairoa, p.355-362 "7 K. M. and C. M. Simpson, 'Halbert, Thomas', DNZB, Volume 1, p.l71 '" Hawke's Bay Almanac for 1865, Napier, 1865, pp.77 and 100, ATL ,,', Hawke's Bay AimarzacfiJr 1865, Napier, pp.77 and 100, ATL

18 punishment for selling them gunpowder.70 The signing of the Mahia Block deed in 1864 took place at his house. It would seem that the presence of traders on Mahia encouraged Maori migration to the region: it was suggested in a Native Land Court hearing that the tribes 'even as far as Heretaunga assembled to scrape flax to buy guns. This was at Mahia'.71 Maori from other areas, such as Nuhaka, used Mahia as a point from which to trade and ship their produce: Donald McLean noted in 1851 for example that there were 500 bushels of wheat and 2 tons of pork exported from Mahia that year.72 It was not trading but whaling that brought the first influx of significant numbers of Europeans to Mahia. Although there had been visits to the region by American whalers from the 1820s, it was the late 1830s when the first whaling stations were set up in Mahia. Ellis, who had previously been a whaler in the Bay of Islands, was the first to set up a station on the peninsula, the same year that the Ward brothers set up a station in Waikokopu, right next to the peninsula, probably in 1837. The peninsula was to become one of the most important whaling sites in New Zealand.

Some whalers seem to have arranged informal leases with Maori to allow them to run their shore stations. These leases, and the relationships that they established, were obviously very valuable to the local Maori. The whalers were accommodated within the Maori social structure, in a same way as the Maori refugees were accommodated. There is- some indication that they may have paid rents per annum: Colenso recorded the example of William Morris paying £5 per annum for his station at Cape Kidnappers.73 Evidence is available from the records of the Old Land Claims Commission that whalers, like traders, often formed relationships with local Maori women, which served to establish valuable links with the local tribes just as marriage alliances between Maori did. Part of this relationship seems to have been the granting of land to live on and establish their stations. One whaler who did this was the well-known John Greening, also known as Happy Jack, who lived on and near the peninsula

70 Donald McLean's journal, 27 February 1851, MS-1286, A TL. McLean wrote that their fears were unfounded and that he had 'no complaint against the man'. 71 Evidence of Mihingare, Hereheretau 2 hearing, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 3, p.113 72 Donald McLean journal transcript, [27?] February 1851, , MS-1286, ATL. See also the reference to Nuhaka Maori rejoicing in McLean's offer of a road to improve their access to Mahia with their drays of grain in Hawke's Bay Herald, 19 November 1864, p.3. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40

19 for many years." Other whalers in the region claimed to the Old Lands Commission that they had paid for land outright.75 There were a number of different whaling stations on the land that was to become the Mahia Block." Ellis's first station was at the very top of the peninsula on the western coast near the neck of the isthmus, opposite Waikokopu on the mainland. This is the site of the modern day town of Mahia Beach. In 1844, the New Zealand Spectator reported that Lewis had an operation using three boats and employing 35 men at Mahia. 77 Another station was at Kinikini, next to Long Point, about half way down the western coast. According to E J Wakefield's Hand-book to New Zealand, published in 1848, Ellis had 3 whaling boats employing 20 men there.78 Dinwiddie says that in 1845 26 sperm whales were taken from Kinikini alone. 79 McLean mentioned in passing in March 1851 that a whaler called Bartlett had a 'deed of gift' for his children, presumably from a relationship with a Maori woman, at Te Mahia.'o After the sale of the Mahia Block in 1864, McLean had requested information as to the holdings of the whalers and traders remaining in the region, to ensure that their holdings were acknowledged when the Mahia Block was sold_ John Smith wrote that he had lived at Te Hoe for more than twenty years, and Bartlett wrote that he had been at Kereru for twenty-two, and in that time had built two houses, a boat house, a try-shed and had one acre of land fenced in." Neither whaler says what arrangements they came to in order to be allowed to run their stations on that land. These were both on Mahia Block land. Six years later, in 1870, Smith and Bartlett were awarded a agricultural block of 50 acres each, for which they had to pay the

7J A H Reed, The Story of Hawke's Bay, Wellington, 1958, p.87, cited in Dean Cowie, 'Hawke's Bay', Rangahaua Whanui District Report, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, p.16 74 OLC 1/1338, NA 7S OLC 1/61 and OLC 11989, NA 76 There were at least another five whaling stations on or in close vicinity to the Peninsula: Wakefield mentioned a station of 3 boats and 20 men at Waikokopu, just above the neck of the peninsula, and one of 3 boats and 20 men at Portland Island, at the bottom of the peninsula. The Spectator mentioned two stations using 6 boats and employing 45 men at Table Cape (by which they meant Nukutaurua). See E. J. Wakefield, Hand-book to New Zealand, London, 1848, p.193. 77 New 2ealand Spectator, cited by R. Sherrin and J. Wallace, Early History of New Zealand, Auckland, 1890, p.691 78 E. J. Wakefield, Hand-book to New Zealand, London, 1848, p.193. 79 W. Dinwiddie, old Hawke's Bay, Napier, 1916 EO McLean journal, 15 March 1851, MS-1286, ATL 81 John Smith to McLean, 26 December 1864, and Bartlett to McLean, 13 December 1864, HB 4 Box 4, NA

20 upset price of £50, and Morris was awarded a town section in Mahia township of 2 roods in size, for an upset price of £13.82 Whalers also established themselves in a township on the peninsula, called simply Te Mahia, in the late 1830s or early 1840s. It would seem that was just past the neck of the peninsula, on the western coast, where the township of Mahia Beach is today." It is part of the land that was to become the Mahia Block. Both Europeans and Maori lived side by side in the township, and this is where Morris ran his store and other businesses. When James Grindell visited in 1864 he wrote that Ihaka Whaanga lived about 200 hundred yards from Morris'

85 house. Sf Ihaka Whaanga is said to have been the patron of the Mahia whalers stations. Whalers often engaged in trading and were therefore a valuable asset to the community. The influx of whalers coincided with the influx of Maori during the refugee period. When Te Pareihe was living on the Peninsula during this time he instructed his people on the peninsula to prepare flax fibre and cultivate surplus crops so that they could trade with the whalers and flax traders for muskets and powder. 86 These combined efforts of the various tribes on the peninsula were, Ballara claims, an important part of binding the groups together as a unit 8 during this period. ? As Dean Cowie has argued, the employment on the whaling stations and the work of preparing flax, growing new foodstuffs and tending new animals would have meant significant changes in the work patterns of the local Maori.88 Whalers often employed Maori to work on the boats, and when Donald McLean visited Mahia in 1851 he wrote that Maori made up a majority of the workers on whaling boats. McLean estimated that there were now 26 boats in Mahia and around 140 Europeans and 280 Maori working on the boats or employed in whaling in some way.8' Whalers did, however, face some opposition. from some Maori living on the Peninsula. Te Hapuku, the important Ngati Te Whatu-i-apiti leader, established himself at the township

82 Hawke's Bay Crown Lands Sale Act, 1870 83 The present-day town of Mahia Beach is the main settlement on the peninsula. It should not to be confused with a small settlement called simply Mahia, which is on the northeastern coast. Mahia Beach is within the boundary of the Mahia Block, whereas Mahia is just outside it. 84 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.2. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40 85 Ballara, 'Whaanga, Ihaka', DNZB, Volume 1, p.584 86 Ballara, 'Te Pareiha', DNZB, Volume 1, pAll "' Ballara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', pA67 " Dean Cowie, 'Hawke's Bay', Rangahaua Whanui District Report, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, p.17

21 ofTe Mahia during the refugee period and he became so well known for his domineering behaviour towards the whalers that James Busby threatened to send a warship to the area. 90 An account published in 1868 recalling these years said that the whalers 'led a pretty considerable, careless, reckless, Godless kind of life, drinking and gambling, having, in these halcyon days, full liberty of action'.91 In July 1845 the US brig Falco was wrecked off the coast of Mahia. Archdeacon William Williams rushed to the scene, ~nd recounted in his journal that:

a number of wreckless [sic] Englishmen belonging to a neighbouring whaling station began to plunder the cargo which till this time was without damage... as soon as the news had spread that the plunder had commenced all the natives who were near, most of them being professed christians, joined in the work of desfruction and pillage92

Williams and other clergy made a concerted effort to reclaim the goods, which included the colony's mail and many goods belonging to the US Consel, and to Williams himself, and although some of the goods were returned immediately, it took over 18 months for all of it to be returned." Whalers had little presence in the region after the 1850s, as the whaling industry declined. The third category of European settler during the period before the Crown purchases were sheep-run holders. Leasing of sheep runs was also common in the Hawke's Bay region. The first run-holders arrived in Hawke's Bay in the late 1840s; it is unclear when the first runs were leased in Mahia. In 1864, the year the Mahia Block was purchased, the Crown estimated that between Whangawehi, on northern side of the Mahia, to Porangahau, Europeans were leasing at least 571,522 acres from Maori, usually for sheep runs." This return shows three leases listed for the Mahia Peninsula itself: James Watt and George Walker were listed as leasing a sheep run of around 20,000 acres at Whangawehi and Table Cape, John Campbell a 5,000 acre sheep run at Kinikini and William Morris a 6,000 acre run at Mahia. The last two were within the land that became the Mahia Block. Unfortunately

89 McLean to Grey, 14 March 1851, AJHR, 1862, Cl, No.4, p.309 and McLean Journal, 28 February 1851, MS-1286, ATL 90 Ballara, 'Te Hapuku, DNZB, Volume 1, p.443. See also William Williams' journal entry for 28 September 1840 in Porter, (ed.), The TurangaJournals, p.123 91 'An Old Colonist', Hawke's Bay Herald, June 1868, quoted in Joseph Mackay, Historic Poverty Bay and the East Coast, Gisborne, [self-published], 1949, pp.146-7 92 2 August 1845, William Williams Journal, in Porter, (ed.), The Turanga Journals, p.342 9J See Porter, (ed.), The Turanga Journals, pp.342-3 ·11 'Return for Persons Occupying Native Lands', AJHR, 1864, E-10, ppA-6

22 there is no information on whom they were leasing the land from or how much they were paying for it.'5 This means that the farmers had already come to agreement with local Maori about the land that McLean and Locke bought. As with leasing to whalers, these sheep run leases would have taught Maori the value European's placed on their land, and the economic return that could made from it. Because there has been very few land sales in the Hawke's Bay in the late 1850s and early 1860s, the practice of sheep farmers illegally squatting on Maori land, usually with Maori sanction, reemerged. Cowie has written that the preference of Maori in the Hawke's Bay to lease rather than sell their land created much concern within the general and Hawke's Bay provincial governments in the 1860s. McLean was granted a warrant from the central government to prosecute squatters in the region in October 1864.'6 McLean was also concerned that those squatters may be attempting to purchase the land that they had been leasing in the Mahia region. McLean wrote to Walker, who was leasing land on the peninsula at Whangawehi, to warn him not to try to convert his lease into title, just seven days after the sale of the Mahia Block. It was, of course, illegal for settlers to purchase land directly at this time, and McLean threatened him with firm action if he attempted to buy the land before the

Crown could do SO.'7

The first recorded 'sale' of land on the Mahia peninsula occurred just prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. William Rhodes claimed to have bought 1.4 million acres of land from the Hawke's Bay to Wairarapa for his employers in 1839. One of these 'sales' was the whole of the Mahia Peninsula and Portland Island, for which he paid £50 in cash on the .13th December 1839.98 He claimed to have bought it from 'Wanga alias Brown Maracowai Tukareao Wairiunu Peiro Erito Chiefs of New Zealand'." The memorial stated that a tenth of the land was reserved for the chiefs and their heirs; the positions of the reserves were to be determined by

95 'Return for Persons Occupying Native Lands', AJHR, 1864, E-lO, pp.4-6 96 Dean Cowie, 'Hawke's Bay', Rangahaua Whanui District Report, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, pp.62-4 '7 McLean to Walker, 27 October 1864, qMS-1203, ATL " Memorial of Cooper, Holt and Rhodes to Sir George Gipps, Governor of New South Wales, 4 February 1841, OLC 1/132, NA. See Brad Patterson, 'Rhodes, William Barnard', DNZB, Volume 1, pp.361-2 and Vincent O'Malley, 'The Ahuriri Purchase', Waitangi Tribunal record of documents, Wai 201, Doc J19, 1995, pp.18-25 'I" Memorial from Cooper, !-Iolt and Rhodes, 4 February 1841, OLC 1/132, NA.

23 the purchasers. Grace Smit believes that the 'Wanga' was Ihaka Whaanga, which, while possible, is not definite. 'oo William Williams discovered the purported sales in 1840 when he arrived to begin his work in the region. He was very concerned about the effect that the purchases would have on Maori. When he visited the peninsula in February 1840 he reported that: 'A nominal purchase has been made by a Captain Rhodes from one chief, but the natives generally are altogether opposed, and the principle claimants are now living upon Table Cape.,'01 He had found a similar refusal to acknowledge the sales amongst Maori all around the region. He campaigned against the official recognition of the sales, and also counselled Maori not to be forced into acknowledging this doubtful sale.102 The Land Claims Commission investigated most of Rhodes' 'purchases' in the 1840s. Although the record is not clear, it would seem that very little of the land alleged to have been sold to Rhodes and employers was ever awarded to them by the Commission. 103 It would seem that the Land Claims Commission never investigated the Mahia claim at all and seven years later, in 1846, Rhodes was still asking what was happening in respect to the sale of Mahia. '04 The Crown obviously considered it to have been invalid when it purchased the Mahia Block 15 years later. Donald McLean made a short visit to the Hawke's Bay in 1851, when he was touring the district looking at land that could be bought for settlement. He was offered .land by various groups in the Hawke's Bay region. He promised himself that he would 'watch over their interests as if they were mine'. lOS As part of this trip he visited Mahia at the end of February. It seems that it was during this tour that he met Ihaka Whaanga for the first time. During this trip Ihaka and other chiefs of the Wairoa region offered McLean land, although McLean said he had other priorities and that it would be some time before a purchase could be concluded. As it turned out it would be not for another 13 years, in 1864, when McLean came back to the region to purchase land. 106

100 Grace Smit, 'Mana Maori: Questions of Authority on the East Coast During the Nineteenth Century', MA Thesis, Auckland, 1997, p.60 101 20 Feb 1840, William Williams Journal, Porter, (ed.), The TaurangaJournals, p.84 102 See William Williams to the Chief Protector of the Aborigines, OLC 1/132, NA. 10.1 See Vincent O'Malley, 'The Ahuriri Purchase', Wai 201, Doc J19, 1995, pp.18-25 104 Rhodes to Major Richmond, 31 April 1846, OLC 1/132, NA lOS McLean's journal, 7 January 1851, MS-1286, ATL i:'. See McLean's journal, 27 February 10 4 March 1851, MS-1286, ATL

24 Te Mahia remained an isolated place, with very little contact with Europeans. Many of the whalers that had lived on the peninsula began to leave in the 1850s, reducing even further the number of Europeans in the region. All the land on Mahia was still owned by Maori until the Crown purchase of the Mahia Block in 1864, although some informal leases existed. Maori dominated the society of the peninsula, although the presence of the whalers, missionaries and traders would have made some changes on the peninsula. This chapter has concentrated on the conditions on Mahia during the period between the arrival of Europeans in the area and the time when the sale of the Mahia Block was made in 1864. The next chapter will discuss the process of the sale of the Mahia Block and the protests that followed.

25 Chapter Two Crown Purchase of the Mahia Block, 1864

Donald McLean, the Superintendent of the Hawke's Bay region, made a tour of the Wairoa and Mahia region in October and November 1864, with the intention of purchasing land from Maori. With him were Samuel Locke, a Land Purchase Officer, and James Grindell, a Government Agent in Hawke's Bay, who later documented the trip. Their first stop was the Mahia Peninsula, where they purchased the Mahia Block on 20 October 1864. It was the first sale of land to the Crown in the Mahia Peninsula and Wairoa regIOn. The tour then continued, making purchases at Nuhaka, Wairoa and Waihua.107 The purchase of the Mahia Block was made against the back-drop of the growth of the King and runanga movement in the Hawke's Bay, and, in the other parts of the country, the New Zealand Wars. Donald McLean's motivations in attempting to purchase land from Wairoa and Mahia Maori in these troubled times were two-fold. The first was fairly simple: to provide land for further settlement in the Hawke's Bay region. McLean had been elected to the position of the Superintendent of Hawke's Bay in February 1863. His election saw the beginning of a concerted effort to increase settler numbers in the province through assisted immigration, construction of roads into the interior, and the purchase of land from Maori. He told the Provincial Council in 1863 that without the purchase of more land the Hawke's Bay region 'can hold out but few inducements for the introduction of labor and capital'.108 This policy was a continuation of Governor Grey's policy in the 1850s of obtaining blocks of land ahead of the needs of settlers, as inexpensively as possible. 109 However, in the late 1850s and 1860s, Hawke's Bay Maori began to refuse to sell any more land. TheKing and Runanganui movements, alarmed at the huge tracts of land that had already been sold, vowed that no more land sales would be allowed in the district. Their

107 For a discussion of McLean and Locke's 1864 tour see Joy Hippolite, 'Wairoa', Rangahaua Whanui District Report, November 1996, pp.19-28. For more detailed reports about blocks purchased during this tour see Joy Hippolite's 'Crossing the Bar: Aspects of the History of the Waikokopu and Opoutama block with special reference to the Waikokopu Harbour', Waitangi Tribunal, 1999 and David Alexander, 'Block history of Waihua 1868-1941', Waitangi Tribunal record of documents, Wai 201, DocumeritJ24, 1996 108 Quoted from McLean's speech at the Opening of Provincial Council of Hawke's Bay, 1863, in Acts and Proceedings of the Provincial Council of Hawke's Bay, 1863. See also Leslie Geoffrey Gordon, 'Immigration in Hawke's Bay 1858-1876', MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1965, p.29 !'O" Waitangi Tribunal, Mohaka River Report, Wellington, 1992, p.23

26 determination meant that from the late 1850suntil the advent of the Native Land Court in 1865, sales came to a virtual standstill in the region. 110 As G S Cooper wrote in 1861, the Crown's system of buying land in the Hawke's Bay region had been faulty, and Maori of the district, who were 'smarting under the wrongs arising from land selling, gladly joined a

movement which promised at once, and for ever to stop any further sales'. [11 McLean . conceded the point, and wrote in reply that no more land sales would be made in the Napier

district without the special sanction on the governor. 112 Therefore, faced with the rejection of attempts to buy land in the more coveted Hawke's Bay, McLean moved instead to the northern-most part of his province, Wairoa and Mahia, to buy land. As James Grindell commented in his account of McLean's land purchasing tour of the region, the Mahia Block was expected to be the 'key-stone of the district', and that once

thitt block had been sold, much larger blocks in the region would be offered up for sale. [ll The second motivation for wanting to buy land in the region at this point was more complicated. McLean was concerned that Wairoa Maori could become involved in the growing King or Pai Marire movements and the ongoing wars that were engulfing so much of the North Island at this time. He saw the land purchases and the promises that surrounded them as a way to ensure the support of Wairoa Maori for the British Queen, rather than the Maori King, and also a way of judging that loyalty. The sale of land was intended to establish a advantageous relationship between Wairoa Maori and the Crown. In return for land McLean could offer a number of things: money, of course, but also a European community in the region, better roads, an entry into the larger Hawke's Bay economy. The promise of this relationship was seen as a way of heading off the political and religious movements that were

regarded with such hostility by the European community. [[4

110 Ballara and Scott, 'Introduction', Volume 1, p.120ff; Cowie, 'Hawke's Bay', Rangahaua Whanui District Report, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, pp.62-4 111 Cooper to McLean, 20 June 1861, AJHR, Cl, 1862, pp.353-5. Quoted in Ballara and Scott, 'Introduction', Volume 1, p.122-3 [[2 McLean to Cooper, 22 July 1861, AJHR, C-l, 1862, p.355. Quoted in Ballara and Scott, 'Introduction', Volume 1, p.l23 [[J 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.2. Reproduced in BaHara and Scott document bank, Section 40 114 BaHara and Scott, 'Introduction', Volume 1, p.120ff; Joy Hippolite, 'Wairoa', Rangahaua Whanui District Report, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, pp.19-20; Paul Clark, 'Ha"hau~' the Pai Marire Search of Maori Identity, Auckland, 1975

27 Samuel Locke wrote later in his 'Reminiscences of the Wairoa' that during this period he and McLean had been working towards 'the organization of all the natives at that end of the Province, into a strong loyal party, making the Wairoa the centre. By which means the

Government trusted to save the settled portions of the district from becoming another Taranaki'. He wrote that the purchase of the Mahia Block, along with others in the region, 'tendered much towards the safety of this province through giving the government a hold on that end of the district, by which means we were enabled to occupy without reference to the Native population'."5 The leasing of land in this region was common, and, as discussed in the previous chapter, there were already at least three sheep farmers, plus a number of whalers and traders, leasing land from the Maori on the Mahia Peninsula. With potentially large amounts of money to be made from leasing their land, why did some Maori choose to sell at this time, especially as they faced much pressure from other Maori not to sell? What were the Maori motivations for the sale of the Mahia Block, and what did they expect to gain from it? Ballara has argued that one of the main motivations for selling land in this period was the desire to take part in the emerging financial economy."6 Ward has argued along the same lines, saying that that many Maori sold land during this period, despite the low prices they were paid, because of their aspiration to 'engage with modernity': selling some of their land in order to help them develop the rest, and help their specific families or communities.1l7 This certainly seems to be the case in Mahia; Grindell concluded his account of the Mahia purchase by writing that:

The natives appeared highly satisfied and delighted at the conclusion of the purchase of the Mahia, not so much on account of the money received by them, as they said, as in the prospect of getting Europeans to reside amongst them to whom they could sell their pigs and other produce, and who would introduce amongst them European customs and pursuits. They emphatically declared that they were weary and impatient of the isolated and lonesome position in which they had been placed of late years; that the land of their ancestors was a mere dreary and

lIS Samuel Locke, 'Reminiscences of the Wairoa', McLean Papers, Hawke's Bay Museum, p.l 11' Angela Ballara, 'The Pursuit of Mana? A Re-evaluation of the Process of Land Alienation by Maoris, 1840-1890', Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 91, No.4, December 1982, pp.519-541 117 Alan Ward, National Overview, Vol. 2, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, 1997, pp.169- 70

28 unoccupied waste, and that they were anxious to see it occupied by a race who had ever befriended them ... 118

In a similar vein, Grindell recorded that Nuhaka Maori were 'excessively delighted' at McLean's promise to spend £100 for a new road from Nuhaka to Mahia which could be used by drays, so that they could take their grain to Mahia to sell.'" As noted in the previous chapter, the Mahia township had developed into a trading center in the decades leading up to the sale, even though Wairoa and Mahia had very few European settlers. Mahia Maori obviously viewed the prospect of a larger European settlement on the peninsula as a way in which they could build on that beginning, to help them to join the growing economy of the Hawke's Bay region . . The politics of the current rise of the Pai Madre movement in Wairoa also formed an impetus for land sales. Land selling was a way in which some Maori could cement and prove their relationship with the Crown, and, by extension, their opposition to the Maori King and Pai Marire movements. A Wairoa correspondent for the Hawke's Btty Herald wrote in 1864 that amongst those keen to sell land in the region 'the King is never spoken of but in terms of derision, and the protection and friendship of the pakeha is eagerly sought after. Nothing will go down now-a-days but towns, towns, pakeha towns'. He went on to say that 'the feeling here and all along the coast is in favour of selling. In fact there appears to be a general mania in that direction; but of course there are some exceptions. These however, will ·be overruled'.120 Grindell also noted, in reference to the siege of Kaiuku pa mentioned above, that at Mahia 'the loyal natives ... in opposition to the King party, have a saying that "the Waikatos gave them clay, but the Queen gives them flour" '.121 Ballara and Scott have argued that amongst Maori in the Wairoa region in the 1860s:

the land-selling and the anti-land selling groups developed into opposite political camps. The land sellers supported the Queen, and those who refused to sell later became Pai Marire disciples, opposed to the Crown ... It seems that a natural alliance was forged from Wairoa to Mohaka between land sellers and Crown agents; each partner was concerned to prop up the other to their mutual benefit.'"

118 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.2. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40 119 19 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40 120 29 October 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.3. Emphasis in original 121 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.3. Emphasis in original. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40 120 Ballara and Scott, 'Introduction', Volume I, p.130-1

29 The main Maori figure in the sale of the Mahia Block, Ihaka Whaanga, was part of this 'natural alliance'. Ihaka Whaanga was a chief of Ngati Rakaipaaka, and lived at Mahia and Nuhaka.'2l He was the son of Te Ratau, of Rakaipaaka and Ngati Kahungunu, who was killed by Whakatohea and his own relative Matenga Tukareaho. Whaanga converted to Christianity sometime before 1851, and became a supporter of the government. He was appointed as an assessor of the Native Land Court in 1863. Ihaka continued to show his support for the government by land sales throughout the 1860s. He also fought in the campaign against the Wairoa Pai Marire in the mid 1860s, and later took part in the pursuit of Te Kooti and resisted the efforts of the repudiation movement in the 1870s. 124 Griildell claimed that Ihaka was the 'principal chief at the north end of the Bay, and a man of great influence throughout the district and indeed throughout the whole province'.125 However, Ballara and Scott have argued that while as the son of Te Ratau Ihaka had genuine authority within Ngati Rakaipaaka, his position was more limited than has been suggested. Indeed, they argue that Whaanga was 'bound to support the Government and its purchases because he had made enemies. He was the de facto principal chief because he supported the

Government'. 126 The relationship between McLean and Whaanga was therefore a mutually beneficial one. During McLean's 1864 tour, McLean used Whaanga to buy land in the region, at a time when he was unable to buy land elsewhere, and he was able to fight the inroads that the anti-land selling movements were making in the region. In return, Whaanga used the land sales to show his loyalty to the Crown, and his opposition to the King and runanga movemen,t. He also used his involvement in McLean's tour of the region as a way to increase his own mana. Grindell's account of the entry of Whaanga and McLean into Wairoa after the sale of the Mahia Block make this quite clear:

Ihaka himself was greatly elated at the idea of escorting officers of the Queen to the Wairoa to purchase land in opposition to the policy of the King party. He seemed

123 See especially Ballara, 'Whaanga, Ihaka', DNZB, Volume 1, pp.584-585 and Grace Smit, 'Mana Maori: Questions of Authority on the East Coast During the Nineteenth Century', MA Thesis, University of Auckland, 1997 124 Ballara, 'Whaanga, Ihaka', DNZB, Volume 1, pp.584-585 '" 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.2. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40

Jl(, Ballara and Scott, 'Mahia', p.30, fn.l04

30 to look upon himself somewhat in the light of a victorious general marching at the head of his army to take possession of surrendered territory.127

Furthermore, it has been argued that Ihaka Whaanga was given land on a personal basis for the help that he gave the Crown in these purchase negotiations. 128

The negotiations and sale of the Mahia Block There are three main sources of information about the meetings preceding the purchase of the Mahia Block, and the protests that followed. The first is an account by James Grindell, who accompanied McLean on his tour in October and November 1864. Grindell published an account of the tour in three issues of the Hawke's Bay Herald in November 1864.'29 The second source is a series of letters from Samuel Locke to McLean that begin in November 1864, when Locke was sent back to Mahia to finalize the deal.1l0 Unfortunately, it seems that none of the letters from McLean to Locke on the subject have survived. The third source is a report that Locke wrote called 'Reminiscences of the Wairoa'.131 These provide important information about the sale of the land and the protests that began almost as soon as the sale was concluded. McLean arrived at the Mahia Peninsula on 17 October 1864, and the next day met with 'a number of Ihaka's natives', at which time a lengthy discussion took place about the sale of a block of Mahia land. It was decided that a block would be sold once those who were still absent had been consulted. There is no indication as to who those missing people were, or to which hapu or iwi they belonged. 132 On 20 October a large number of Maori gathered at William Morris' house to discuss the terms of the sale. Grindell wrote that a 'large number of speeches were made, the general tenor

127 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.2. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40 128 Ihaka Whaanga's executor said that he had told him that he had been given reserves in return for his assistance in offering land for sale. See Joy Hippolite's 'Crossing the Bar: Aspects of the History of the Waikokopu and Opoutama block with special reference to the Waikokopu Harbour', Waitangi Tribunal, 1999 129 James Grindell, 'Visit of Mr. McLean and Party to the North', Hawke's Bay Herald, 12, 19 and 26 November, 1864. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40 130 The first sequence of letters has been collected in Folder 393 (Samuel Locke, 1860-1870) of the McLean Papers, MS-Papers-32, in ATL. The second is in the Outwards Letters box of the Hawke's Bay Provincial Council records at HB 4, Box 5, NA. Transcripts of the most important of these letters are appended to this report as Appendix Three. 131 Samuel Locke, 'Reminiscences of the Wairoa', McLean Papers, Hawke's Bay Museum 132 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.2. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40

31 of which was in favour of having white settlers amongst them and the protection of the Government extended to them'.l3J This is, unfortunately, the only record of the negotiations conducted by McLean with the iwi or hapu of Mahia to obtain agreement over the sale of the block, from then on simply called the Mahia Block. McLean agreed to pay £2,000 for a block, £1,500 immediately, and the remaining amount once the survey had been made. The block had been estimated to be around 16,000 acres: McLean promised to make a further payment if the block was found to be larger. In fact the block turned out to be around 14,600 acres. The signing of the Mahia Block deed occurred at the home of William Morris on 20 October 1864. Seventeen Maori signed the deed, including Ihaka Whaanga, his son Hirini Whaanga, Tangihaere, and Ihaka Makahue. It was witnessed by, among others, Grindell, Morris and John Campbell, the sheepfarmer at Kinikini.13t A transcript of the text in Maori, and a translation into English, appears as an appendix to this report. The deed set out the boundaries of the block by the usual method of naming prominent natural features, in this case all of them fairly close together. Much of the boundary is coastline: all of the western and part of the eastern boundary is formed by the sea, and the northern boundary is almost completely formed by the edge of the Maungawhio Lagoon. The eastern boundary follows hills through the. body of the peninsula, until it meets the Maungatea Stream. The southern boundary follows the stream to the sea.135 The block took in the Mahia township, where both Maori and Pakeha lived. Discussion in the previous chapter highlighted some of the other important sites within the block. The deed contained the common paragraph:

Now we have fully and finally considered, wept over and finally bid adieu to these lands inherited by us from our ancestors, which with their rivers, lakes, streams,

m 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.2. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40 134 A transcript of the deed appears, in Maori, as Deed 151, Old Native Land Purchases: Hawke's Bay, pp.42·43, MA·MLP 6/3, NA. A copy of the signed original deed is held at LINZ National Office, Wellington (Deed HWB 157). The translation reproduced in Section 25 of the Ballara and Scott document bank (which was copied from MA 1/5/13/81, NA) which was used in the investigations into the sale of the block in the 20,h century, is incorrect, as the sentence about the Kinikini reserve is missing, as discussed below. The deed is not listed in Turton's Maori Deeds. 135 The western and southern boundary lines have been disputed several times in the twentieth century, as has the point at which the boundary hits the Maungatea Stream. These disputes will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.

32 woods, plains, grass, trees, stones and everything either above or beneath the surface of the soil, we have absolutely conveyed ...

The Kinikini reserve was the only reserve mentioned in the deed. It was around 110 acres in size, on the western coast near Long Point. The Maori version of the deed said 'Ko te wahi rna matou hei nohoanga, hei mahinga ika kei Kinikini ki raro iho a te hiwi a Taupiri', or that Kinikini, under the hill called Taupiri, is a place for all of us to occupy and to gather fish.136 The gazetted notice of 1865 also mentions this reserve: 'a piece is to be reserved for the Natives at Kinikini under the hill called Taupiri, as a fishing residence'.137 The reserve prominently features drawn on the sketch map made at the time of the purchase. There is no doubt that McLean intended for there to be a reserve at Kinikini. Since the 1920s, however, every translation of the deed examined by the author has omitted mention of the reserve.1J8 The fate of this reserve, and other reserves made from the Mahia Block which did not appear in the deed, will be discussed in detail at the end of the next chapter. Attached to the deed was a very vague sketch map. The only places marked on it are Oraka, the northern-most point of the block, the Maungatea Stream, Long Point, and a 'Native Reserve'.139 A copy of this sketch map is attached to end of this report.

The disputes begin James Grindell reported that only a day after the deed was signed, people had arrived from various parts of the peninsula:

for the purpose of asserting their claims to a particular portion of the block just ceded to the Government, with a view to obtaining a larger share of the purchase money than Ihaka and his friends might otherwise be inclined to award them. After a great deal of trouble and much patience and delicate management on the part of the Chief Land Purchase Commissioner [McLean], the claims of all were amicably adjusted and all conflicting interests harmonised.140

116 Old Native Land Purchases: Hawke's Bay, MA-MLP 6/3, pp.42-3, NA 117 New Zealand Gazette, 31 May 1865, No.18, p.161. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 43 118 See, for example, the copy of the deed in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 25 139 This map appears with the deed in the deed book, Old Native Land Purchases: Hawke~ Bay, MA-MLP 6/3, pp.42-3, NA. A copy is also at MA 1/5/3/81, NA. It has been attached to this report in Appendix One. 140 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.2. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40

33 The fact that people showed up only one day after the sale, asserting their rights to the block, clearly shows that McLean failed to make an adequate investigation of the owners of the block. Unfortunately, no record was kept of the way in which these claims were 'amicably adjusted', and the deed does not seem to have been altered. Despite the fact that these people had not been consulted, the sale went ahead. It is worthy of note here, as it becomes an important issue later, that Grindell says that McLean gave the money directly to Ihaka and his allies, for them to distribute as they saw fit. McLean left Mahia on 24 October, after having discussed the possible sale of the Whangawehi. He then moved on to Nuhaka, where Te Matenga told him that since Mahia had been sold". he would sell too: 'The Mahia, he said, was gone, and the Wairoa was to follow, and, whether they turned to right side or to left, they would see the power and influence of the Queen. The head, he said, being cut off, the body could not live - that is, the Mahia being sold, the rest would soon follow'.141 McLean then moved onto Wairoa and Waihua, where he signed deeds with local Maori for further blocks.142 Grindell's prediction that the sale of Mahia would lead to further sales had been quite correct: the Mahia had become 'the key-stone of the district'. 143

Samuel Locke returned to the Mahia Peninsula in November 1864, a month after the sale of the block, in order to complete the sale by presenting the rest of the purchase money, to deliver goods to Ihaka Whaanga, and to survey the block. He was also instructed to conclude the Nuhaka, Wairoa and Waihua purchases during this trip and to attempt to negotiate the sale of more Gnd in the region. 14. Locke arrived in the region on 28 November 1864. He took Ihaka Whaanga, his son Hirini Whaanga and his nephew on board at Nuhaka and proceeded to Mahia. When they landed at the Mahia township, Locke gave Ihaka goods 'presented to him by the government', which Ihaka had clearly been expecting. It is not clear what they were for, although

141 19 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.3. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40 142 12,19 and 26 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40 1'.1 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.2. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 40 144 5cllllucl Locke, 'RcJniniscences of tlw \V'

34 presumably they were for his assistance in the Government's purchasing policy.'45 While Locke was on the peninsula he stayed at a house lent to him by Ihaka. Locke began a survey, and a Mr. Fitzgerald arrived to layout a township. 146 Locke realised very quickly that the conclusion of the Mahia Block sale was not going to be simple, and that the negotiations the day after the sale had not successfully 'harmonised' the conflicting claims and interests in the block, as Grindell had stated. Locke wrote later that on his return to Mahia: 'I soon discovered that I had a very difficult and uphill part to play, being opposed by the Turanga [Poverty Bay] Natives and also by a strong body of the inhabitants of the Mahia peninsular'.14' The protests that occurred over the sale are documented in the series onetters from Locke to McLeari in November and December 1864. They show the tense situation that developed after the sale of the Mahia Block, and are worth quoting in detaiL 14' On the first day he landed, Locke wrote to McLean that:

From what I can ascertain since my arrival all the owners of the land are perfectly satisfied in every respect with the late sale, and the effect of your visit has been most beneficial, but I am also informed that the 'Kingites' or 'Runangaites' or 'Land Leaguers' (or whatever they may be called) are coming from Turanga, amongst others the Chief Rahauiha to Wangawehi to hold a meeting on the 12th of December or there abouts, for the purpose of getting the Natives, who have sold the land to the government, to return the money and retain the land, but I am happy to state that 1haka Whaanga is, as he has always been, firm and true to his word, and I feel convinced in my own mind that the Turanga people by coming will cause the very thing they wish to prevent, that is, the sale of the whole peninsular. 149

The main protesters of the sale of the block were a Mahia hapu Ngai Tu, and other Maori from Nukutaurua (also called Table Cape, on the eastern coast of the peninsula).150 1haka Makahue, who had actually signed the deed, but was obviously upset about the amount of money that had been allocated to him by Ihaka Whaanga, thereafter took a leading role in attempting to have the sale abandoned. These Mahia protesters were supported by leaders of

145 Locke to McLean, 28 November 1864, HB 4, Box 5, NA 146 Locke to McLean,S December 1864, Folder 393, MS-Papers-32, ATL. 15 June 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.2. None of these surveys seem to have survived. It was noted in the 1948 Royal Commission of Inquiry into the block that the surveys were probably destroyed in the fire following the Napier earthquake in 1931. 14' Samuel Locke, 'Reminiscences of the Wairoa', McLean Papers, Hawke's Bay Museum, p.2 14' These letters have been attached as an appendix to this report. 149 Locke to McLean, 28 November 1864, HB 4, Box 5, NA 1'1': See previous chapter for information ahout Ngai Tu.

35 Rongowhakaata from the East Coast, who were attempting to ensure that no more land was sold in the region, and who travelled to Mahia to support the local objectors. Before the meeting planned for mid-December took place, another group arrived in Mahia in early December. This group, Ihaka Ngarangiowe from Whareongonga and people from Ngai Tu, offered to sell a piece of land at Kopuawhara, on the neck of the Mahia Peninsula. This offer was made as a protest against the sale of the Mahia Block; they offered it solely in order to take revenge on Ihaka Whaanga for selling the land at Mahia. As Locke put it, they offered only 'that portion on which Ihaka Waanga's [sic] cultivations are on and to

reserve the rest for themselves and the King or Runanga - in fact to sell Ihaka out'. 151 Ballara and Scott argue that these actions show that 'clearly Ngai Tu felt their rights had been trampled on by Ihilka in his Mahia sale, which means that in both these sales [Mahia and Kopuawhara] the Crown agent, Locke, had failed to establish the proper ownership of the land and to consult widely before purchase'.!52 Despite the fact that the sale was clearly in dispute, and that he knew that there was a meeting planned to discuss it further, Locke handed over the remaining £500 for the sale to Ihaka Whaanga alone on 1 December 1864.153 The meeting to dispute the sale began on 16 December at Waiwhara on the peninsula. Ihaka Whaanga, and people from Wairoa and Mahia, collected and made a 'few complimentary speeches' about the sale. A few days later a group of eight to ten East Coast leaders, including Wi Pere, arrived to represent the Rongowhakaata people.1S4 Locke recorded that:

the ostensible object of the meeting was to collect money. sufficient to pay for the ordination of a man named Watene, as priest, but advantage was taken of the occ~sion to turn it to political purposes, namely, as I before mentioned to return the money paid by you for the Mahia, and to prevent the sale of any further lands in this district, by having them transferred over to their care.

Ihaka Whaanga, Paul Apatu of Wairoa, and others spoke, saying that the land 'was gone to the Pakeha, and that the Wairoa, and Nuhaka were gone also'. Locke wrote that:

15! Locke to McLean, 5 December 1864, MS-Papers 32, Folder 393, ATL. 152 Ballara and Scott, 'Kopuawhara', in 'Crown Purchases of Maori land in Early Provincial Hawke's Bay', Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Wai 201, Document Ii, 1994p.5 '53 Locke to McLean, 5 December 1864, MS-Papers-32, Folder 393, ATL '54 Wi Pere was of Te Atinaga-a-Mahaki and Rongowhaakata. See Alan Ward's article in DNZB, Volume 2, Wellington, 1993, pp.380-382, which says that in the 1870s he 'effectively took up the

36 the speeches of the other party were violent, going so far as to threaten that if the land were not returned to them, and the money to the government, that they would go back to Turanga and bring a party and drive the Pakeha off the land and the loyal natives with them. They were then told that the land belonged to the government, that it had been bought from the real owners, and that the money had been paid, and unless they could prove a claim to some portion that no notice would be taken of them 155

A few days later the people gathered again, when Ihaka Whaanga intended to distribute £50 of the purchase money to various parties. Locke wrote that 'it was perceived that the Turanga people had not been idle having persuaded the Ngaitu to refuse the money offered by Ihaka'. Locke indicated in the margin of his letter that Whaanga had intended to pay £20 to Ihaka Makehue, £10 to Paora Arawhariki [?], £10 to Wi Pere and £10 to Wi Paretupua. (l:t is strange that, if Locke was correct in saying that the protesters had no right to the block, that Ihaka Whaanga believed he had to give them any money at all). Ngai Tu refused to take the money and told Locke to take it back. Locke refused, saying that the land now belonged to the government. lS6 In a second letter, dated on the same day, Locke wrote to McLean that:

Ihaka [Whaanga] is very anxious to have some arms sent down for he seems convinced the Turanga people mean harm he has been counting his ammunition and cleaning an old gun or two. Wi Pere told me at the meeting that Ihaka Rangiowe came for the purpose [of] selling Ihaka out or rather driving him out. Some complain that Ihaka has not divided the money fairly others say that he might have kept nearly the whole - he has kept six hundred pounds - I feel one comfort which is that they all say that I am not in the least the cause of the disturbance Rongowhakaata have done it, and I cannot help thinking but that a little time and management will put it all right again [ ... ] It is just now dawn of day. One demand of Ihaka Makahui [Makahue] and his party is that they should have one thousand, and Ihaka Wanga [sic] one'57

Locke continued to maintain that the sale of the block would not have been disputed without the interference of the East Coast Maori. He wrote that they had 'worked these

mantle of Repudiation in Poverty Bay... [and] emerged as the most significant public Maori figure in the district'. '" This meeting was recorded in a lengthy letter from Locke to McLean, 19 December 1864, MS­ Papers-32, Folder 393, A TL !S6 19 December 1864, MS-Papers-32, Folder 393, A TL ''7 Locke to McLean, 19 December 1864 [leller 2 of that Jate], l'olJer 393, MS-Papers-32, ATL

37 people up to a great state of excitement', and that they were taking advantage of the dissatisfaction over the money to make it into a wider issue.1Ss Three days later, on 22 December, Locke wrote again and said that the Ngai Tu had once again attempted to return the money and that some 'Natives from the Cape' had rejected their share, saying that it was too small. A postscript to this letter says that he had proposed that Ngai Tu should get another £50 pounds, which he believed would settle the matter. He also wrote that he believed that Ihaka Makahue was not the head of his hapu, but that instead Hirini Takotoroa [?] of Waiwhara and Wi Paritupua [?] from Wairoa were, and that they were both 'friendly'.I59 With this letter Locke also forwarded a letter from Ihaka Makahue written on 22 December to McLean. Makahue said that he was angry about the sale of the block. He wrote that he had collected all the money that was paid to Ngai Tu, and then travelled up to Turanga to collect more. He had collected £50 and tried to return it to 'Raka', which is probably a transliteration of Locke. He wrote that he wanted to return the money and get his portion of the block back, but that the money was not accepted. He says that the mistake over the block was not McLean's, but Ihaka and Tangihaere's, and asks McLean to come to Mahia to discuss the issue. 160 Who, then, did receive money for the purchase of the Mahia Block? In his letters to McLean Locke indicates that Ihaka Whaanga, Paul Apatu (also of Ngati Rakaipaaka) received the bulk of the money. Tangihaere, another ally of Whaanga, also seems that have received some. Ihaka Whaanga kept £600, and Apatu £290. Ihaka Makahue was given only £40 at the time of the signing of the deed. Locke wrote that Ngai Tu were offered another £50 in December, although in the margin of his letter he indicates that some of that money was in fact

158 Locke to McLean, 19 December [letter 2 of that date], and 22 December 1864, Folder 393, MS­ Papers-32, A TL 159 Locke to McLean, 22 December 1864, Folder 393, MS-Papers-32, ATL 160 'Tenei taku kupu kia rongo mai koe ko nga moni 0 te Mahia kua pau kahore[?] au i kite i te kainga 0 Te Moki no reira au i riri ai homai ana e Tangihaere raua ko Iahka e rna tekau pauna Maku hui katoa nga moni i Ngaitu i Wiremu Te Paretipua patu noa ki Turanga a tae atu ana ki Taitanga mahaki e rima tekau pauna Ko aua moni kua hoki katoa i au te whakahoki kia Tangihaere raua ko Ihaka no reira ka timata ta matou riri Whakahoki tonu mai raua i nga moni muri iho ka hoatu e au kia Te Raka Ki atu ana ahau kia Raka Mauria atu 0 moni Ko toku pi hi Ka mauria[?] i au ki waho ki ana mai a Raka ki au Kahorc kai au te kainga kai a koutou tc moni ki atu ana au mauria to moni waiho tc kainga Hcoi ana mahue noa iho i au nga moni hoki ana au ki toku kainga ko tenei kai rongo rnai koe kua he a taua korero chara i au te he e hara i a koe engari na Tangihaere

38 intended for the East Coast Rongowhakaata protesters. Three days later he indicated that he believed another £50 should be given to Ngai Tu to settle the matter. 16l No more information is available, as the portions given to each person were not recorded in any official manner.

In the midst of these protests, and having refused to reconsider suggestiOns that Ihaka Makahue's portion of the block be returned to him, and with the Rongowhaakata Maori threatening to bring a party to fight the sale of the block, Locke left Mahia and proceeded to Nuhaka. It is clear that he was not under the impression that the situation had been satisfactorily resolved: he wrote in his next letter to McLean that the Maori who wished to sell the Whangawehi Block wanted to have the 'Ngaitu affair' settled first, and that Ihaka Whaanga

I continued to be suspicious of the intentions of the East Coast Maori. '2 Therefore, as BaHara and Scott have also argued, there is no evidence that either of the Crown agents involved in the purchase of the block paid proper consideration to the concerns of Ngai Tu and the other protesters, and the sale of the block was finalized without making sure that rights of all the owners of the land had been consulted or acknowledged. l63 The purchase of the Mahia Block was gazetted in May 1865. 164 Although McLean bought the land in his general government capacity as Chief Land Purchase Officer, the money for the sale came from the Hawke's Bay Provincial Government, and the land belonged to it rather than the general government until it was sold. The total payment for the block was recorded as £2,679, significantly over the original agreement of £2,000. The final cost of the block per acre was 3s 3d. Of this, £2,379 was paid in cash; it is not clear who received this extra money. There was also expenditure 'other than direct payments in money' worth £260. It is worthy of note that the figure for payments 'other than direct payments in money' for the other purchases made by McLean during that same period did not reach even half of this amount, and three of them were only £23. This

raua ko Ihaka kati kia mohio koe ka mau te riri mo taua pihi aianei e hoa harae mai kia korero taua'. Ihaka Makahue to Donald McLean, 22 December 1864, Folder 688E, MS-Papers-32, ATL. 161 Sec Locke to McLean, 19 Dec 1864, [both letters of that date] and 22 Dec 1864, Folder 393, McLean Papers, MS·Papers-32, ATL. 162 Locke to McLean, 31 Dec [1864], Folder 393, McLean Papers, MS-Papers·32, A TL 163 See Ballara and Scott, 'Mahia', p.33 1'.1 New Zealand Gazette, 31 May 1865, No.18, p.161.

39 amount did not include the survey, as this was enumerated separately at £80. 165 It is possible that at least some of the £260 went towards the goods presented to Ihaka Whaanga by Locke when he first arrived at Mahia in November, mentioned above, or the boat that the Provincial Government bought for Ihaka. Locke wrote to McLean that Ihaka said he intended to pay back the money for the boat 'by and bye'.166 Mahia was the site of Pai Marire disturbances in 1865. John Campbell reported a large meeting at Oraka, at the top corner of the Mahia Block, with the Pai Marire on one side, and Ngati Hikairo and Ngai Tu on the other.167 In May of that year Whaanga reported to McLean that Matenga Tukareaho had joined the Pai Marire, and in October he asked McLean to station soldiers at Mahia, to protect him and his people. l68 Ihaka Whaanga went on to fight against the Pai Marire, alongside Samuel Locke, in Wairoa. l69

In June 1865 McLean, as Superintendent of the Province of Hawke's Bay, reserved the Mahia Block from public sale for the purposes of a special settlement, using the Additional Land Regulations of the Province of Wellington 1855, along with the newly purchased Nuhaka, Lower and Upper Wairoa and Waihua blocks.!70 In 1867 McLean wrote to the Colonial Secretary suggesting that they settle Pai Marire from Wairoa on the Mahia Block land, 'where they are least likely to endanger the peace of the Country'.!7! When he asked for the Hawke's Bay Provincial Council's approval of the scheme in 1867, he told them that:

I have agreed, subject to your approval, to transfer to the General Government about 19,000 acres of the provincial estate at the Mahia peninsula, for £5,700. This land is required on political grounds for some of the Wairoa natives' for whom the Government is bound to make provision. These natives are at present living in too

165 'Return of the Cost of the Lands in the Northern District', Council Paper, Votes and Proceedings of the Provincial Council ofHawke's Bay, 1865 166 Locke to McLean, 28 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Series 5, Box 4, NA; Locke to McLean, 10 December 1864, Folder 393, MS-Papers-32, ATL 167 John Campbell to Locke, 11 April 1865, Folder 202, McLean Papers, MS-Papers-32, ATL 168 There are a series of letters from Ihaka Whaanga to McLean in Maori that record his views of the Wairoa Pai Marire situation in HB 4, Box 13, NA. See for example Letter 212, Ihaka Whaanga to McLean, 15 June 1865. '" See Samuel Locke, 'Reminiscences of the Wairoa', McLean Papers, Hawke's Bay Museum 170 Hawke's Bay Gazette, 6 July 1865, No.19. See also Leslie Gordon, 'Immigration into Hawke's Bay 1858-1876', MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1965, p. 49-50 III McLean to the Colonial Secretary, 6 April 1867, Session XII, HB ]/11, NA

40 close proximity to the inland Uriwera [sic] tribes, and will be glad to have land placed at their disposal, as they may require it, in a more settled district. In

J C Richmond also supported the scheme, and told the Colonial Secretary that:

the Mahia is well adapted for a Maori population small sheltered flats and good fishing with good climate and it is all but an island, with its approaches by the mainland commanded by Ihaka a most trustworthy chief... I think the settlement of the Hauhaus on a good block to be a matter of urgent importance.173

McLean offered, on behalf of the Provincial Government, to sell the land to the general government for 6/- an acre (a considerable profit for the Provincial Government, having bought the land only two years earlier for 3/- 3p an acre). It seems that the plan did not go ahead however. J. D. Ormond's attempt in the early 1870's, while he was Superintendent of the Hawke's Bay, to establish a 'special settlement' at Mahia of ten or twelve families of vine growers from the Rhine Valley, also didn't eventuate.'"

Despite the sale, and Maori expectations for the development of the region through their sale of land, Te Mahia remained isolated from European contact. In 1873, nine years after the sale of the Mahia Block, the only Europeans listed as livir"tg at Mahia were a publican and an accommodation-house owner, three whalers and a sheepfarmer. I75 In 1887 an East Coast almanac described Mahia as 'a large whaling station and the site of a Government township ... occupied during the whaling season by an average of about fifteen crews. In this remote district is the sheep station of Mr. J D Ormond, the largest of the East Coast .. .- There is a considerable population of natives and half castes,but few Europeans'."6 It seems that the way in which the Mahia Block land was used abo changed very little after the sale, because of the reservation of the block from sale. There is little evidence to show when Maori were forced to leave the Mahia Block land; in other words, when the actual rather than paper alienation of the land took place. Locke had noted, as an aside, that 'there is a question here as to who the Whales belong to, which are driven on shore within the Govt

172 'Address of His Honor the Superintendent on Opening the Provincial Government', 24 June 1867, Council Paper, Votes and Proceedings 0/ the Provincial Council 0/ Hawke's Bay, 1867 173 J C Richmond to the Colonial Secretary, 6 April 1867, Hawke's Bay Provincial Council, Session XII, HB 1/11, NA 17. See Leslie Gordon, 'Immigration in Hawke's Bay 1858-1876', MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1965, p.147 '" Hawke's Bay Almanac, 1873, ATL

41 boundary', which shows that Maori continued to expect to be able to use the resources the block had to offer after the sale.177 It is certain that Maori continued to live in Mahia township after the sale. The Hawke's Bay Herald reported in July 1865 that a township had been laid out and pegged within the Mahia Block and that the sites were ready for sale, as were 30- and 40-acre 'suburban sections'. 178 However, although some were sold, many of the urban and suburban sections remained unsold throughout the 1860s and 1870s. (Wilson records that, in attempt to sell more of the urban blocks in 1874, the township was promoted as 'the Brighton of New ZealandV79 Indeed, so few of the township blocks were sold that in the 1930s the township was resurveyed and the Crown put the blocks up for sale again. ISO A similar situation occurred with the rural sections of the block, and it is quite likely that Maori continued to live on the rural land after the sale, especially at the southern end of the block, near the Kinikini reserve. An 1870 map noted a Maungatea Village, near the mouth of the Maungatea stream. 181 William Morris and the other sheep farmers that had been leasing the land before the sale simply continued to run their sheep there, and it seems that the rural land was not offered for sale until 1875, and the first Crown Grants issued in 1878. 182 It may, therefore, be no coincidence that the first petition for the return of part of the Mahia Peninsula occurred the same year. In 1878 Hod Pomoana and others petitioned that the .Mahia Block should be. returned to them. A translation of their petition reads that the land should be returned because those that had sold it were not those 'from whom the land came', or that those who .sold the land had no rights of ownership. The Native Affairs Committee reported that it had no recommendation to make. 183 There is no further information available about the-petition.

176 Harding's Almanac East Coast Directory and Local Guide, 1887, ATL, pp.246-7. 177 Locke to McLean, 10 December 1864, Folder 393, MS-Papers-32, ATL 178 8 July 1865, Hawke's Bay Herald. Reproduced in Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 43 179 J.G. Wilson, et aI., History a/Hawke's Bay, Dunedin, 1939, p.431 180 See 'Town of Mahia Sections 57 and 153', MA 1/5/13/76, NA 181 AJHR, 1870, D-13, p.14 182 Hawke's Bay Government Gazette, No.67, 3 November 1875, p.234. James Watt and George Walker received the Crown Grants for the four rural blocks that stretch along the top of the block, between the township and lagoon, in 1878 (Grant No.2858) and D. McDougall was granted four rural blocks next to the Kinikini reserve the same year (Grant No.2861). Hawke's Bay Crown Grants, LINZ, Mayfair House, Wellington 183 AJHR, 1878, 1-3, Petition No 262, p.2l. The relevant sentence in the original petition reads 'Ko te take i lonna ia kai whakahokia laua whenua ehara nga t

42 The same year also saw the arrival of the repudiation movement in Mahia. Discontent about the Native Land Acts in the mid 1870s led to a new movement on the East Coast called . the Komiti, led by Henare Matua, and supported by lawyer William Rees. Its objective was to practice passive resistance to all land sales, upset land transactions and stop land being put through the Native Land Court. I" The Komiti quickly made an impact in Wairoa, and then in Mahia. In 1878 Frederick Ormond was to hold a hearing of the Resident Magistrates Court in Mahia to hear a case of the removal of horses that had been impounded. The local committee, led by Ihaka Makahue, refused to allow the accused to appear, and would not allow the case to be heard. As discussed above, Ihaka Makahue was one of the signatories of the Mahia Block deed,. but had also been involved in disputing the purchase with NgaiTu in the meetings held a month after the sale . . Ormond wrote that not only were the Mahia people 'averse to the action of the law', but that they were also 'impressed with the belief that they have been unjustly deprived of their lands, and that in due course these will be restored to them, and the present European possessors driven off'. The two native assessors, and James Carroll as translator, went to their meeting house, and Ihaka Makahue told them that:

the land was Maori land; notwithstanding the purchase by the government, it was coming back to us again, for the land had never passed the Native Land Court, neither has it been surveyed. We shall see whether our Committee is not as strong as your Court.185

It is fairly certain the land referred to was the Mahia Block, as it was the only piece of land on the Mahia Peninsula that had not passed through the Native Land Court, but was sold directly to the Crown. It can probably be assumed that this protest by Ihaka Makahue was a continuation of the grievances aired, along with others of Ngai Tu, after the sale of the Mahia Block.

ake te whenua'. The translation published in the AJHR translates this as that 'the sole right of sale did not vest in the persons who signed the deed', which understates the allegation made by the petitioners '"' See Alan Ward, A Show ofJustice: Racial 'Amalgamation in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, 1974, reprinted Auckland, 1995, p.272; Tom Brooking, 'Rees, William', DNZB, Volume 2, pp.409-410; Joy Hippolite, 'Wairoa', Rangahaua Whanui District Report, Waitangi Tribunal, November 1996, pp.61-4 "c 'Wairoa Public Pound', AjHR, G-IO, 1878

43 This chapter has discussed the protests that occurred about the sale of the block in the nineteenth century. The next chapter will consider the twentieth century protests about the sale, and the fate of the Mahia Block reserves.

44 Chapter Three Twentieth century protests

The prevIOUS chapter discussed in some detail the sale of the Mahia Block and the subsequent protests that surrounded it in the nineteenth century. During the twentieth century, there have been twelve recorded occasions of protests about the Mahia Block purchase, mostly in the form of letters and petitions to parliament. This chapter will discuss those protests in detail. On three occasions the Crown investigated the Mahia Block purchase or aspects of it in response to these letters and petitions. The purchase was first investigated during the Royal Commission into Confiscated Lands and other Native Grievances, known as the Sim Commission, which reported in 1928. Judge Carr of the Native Land Court then investigated aspects of the purchase under the 1937 Native Purposes Act, and reported in 1940. Finally, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into and report on 'claims preferred by certain Maori claimants concerning the Mahia Block' in 1948 .. None of these investigations found in favour of the Maori petitioners. This chapter will discuss the evidence given in these investigations, and the light that that evidence throws onto the purchase. Finally, the chapter will conclude with a discussion of the fate of the reserves made from the Mahia Block. The concerns of the petitioners fall into two main themes. The first of these is that the sellers of the block did not have the authority to sell it, particularly the southern part of the block. This brought up discussion about the role of Ihaka Whaanga in the Mahia sale, and the allegation that he sold the block without the permission of other hapu who had rights to the block. The second theme is that, due to the Crown giving incorrect names to features on the peninsula, the boundary was surveyed incorrectly at the time of the sale, which meant that the government took more land than the Maori were intending to sell. Slightly different arguments on these two themes appear in the petitions and evidence given throughout the twentieth century.

In 1924 Ngahiwi Peka and 53 others petitioned the government claiming that Ihaka Whaanga and the other sellers of the Mahia Block had sold land that actually belonged to them. Although the petition itself does not make it clear, it becomes apparent in later evidence that

45 the petitioners were writing on behalf of Ngati Hikairo. The petition says that they had owned the southern part of the Mahia Block, and that Ihaka Whaanga had no right to sell it:

Our ancestral pas are on this land, one is named Taramahiti. We also have ancestral sepulchres there. We have kiangas (villages) at Kinikini, Hopuni and at Maungatea. Our forefathers and parents lived there. These places were inhabited even to the time when this land was sold by Ihaka Whanga to the Crown. Wherefore we respectfully request that the Crown return us our land which was inadvertently included in the land sold. We have been loyal to the King of England. We have never at any time been rebels. "6

The under-secretary of the Native Affairs department met with R. Bartlett, who represented the petitioners, in November 1924. Bartlett told him that the petitioners did not repudiate'the sale of the whole block, but that they believed that Ihaka Whaanga sold too much land. He argued that there was a traditional boundary between Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Hikairo which extended across the whole peninsula, with Kahungunu in the north section and Hikairo in the south, and that therefore Whaanga had no right to sell the southern part of the block. He said that the boundary follows the line between Tawapata North No.1 and Tawapata North No.2, and then proceeds from there across to Waihi on the western coast. 187 Ngahiwi Peka's petition was not considered until 1927. In the meantime, however, two further attempts were made to have the sale of the block investigated. In 1926 a petition from Maata Kirinini asked that 'our land Mahia, which was taken by the Government by mistake, be returned to us. No benefit is coming to us, to the owners of the land'. Unfortunately there is no indication on whose behalf the petition was made. No further investigation was made in response 'to the petition.!88 Then in 1927 Hirini Whaanga Christy visited the Native Department in Wellington with Mr. C. E. Pfeifer of the Land Department in Napier, to discuss the sale of the block. He was told that he would have to petition parliament for relief.!89

186 Petition 87/1924. Copy in MA 1/5/13/81, NA. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 25 18' Under-secretary, Native Department, Memorandum, 6 November 1924, MA 1/5/13/81, NA. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 25 . '" Translation of a letter from Maata Kirinini to the Prime Minister, 30 April 1926. Copy in MA 1/5/13/81, NA 'Wi SeeMA1lS/]}/81.NA. !-lis family name is often spelt Christie in other documents.

46 Sim Commission, 1927 In 1927, Ngahiwi Peka's petition was referred to the Royal Commission into Confiscated Lands and other Native Grievances. This Commission was known as the Sim Commission, for its chair, Sir William Sim.190 During the Commission's hearing it emerged that there were two parts to the claim.191 The first concerned the ownership of the southern part of the Mahia Block. The petitioners

called this lower half of the block 'the Mangatea Block'. 192 They argued that N gati Hikairo were the real owners, and that none of their ancestors had signed the deed. They said that the part of the block that they owned amounted to about 6,000 acres of the Mahia Block. 19) The petitioners presented evidence that they hadpa, kainga, urupa and cultivations on the block. Rangi Te Rita gave evidence that NgatiHikairo had a fortified pa on the block at Taramahiti and at least four residential pa, including at Waimoto and Kinikini. The petitioners . argued that they had used Taramahiti during the Musket Wars, that the grandfather of the

petitioner, Ngahiwi Peka, had been killed there, and that that they continued to live there

'until they were ousted by officers of the Crown'. 194 They also argued that 'there are no burial grounds of the sellers on the block we claim as ours: none of their dead are buried there. They did not live on the block, and they did not do any bird-snaring upon this block'.195 No evidence was given by the Crown to the effect that members of Hikairo had in fact signed the deed. Instead, the Crown, supported by Whaanga's great-grandson, Hirini Christy, put forward the argument that Ngati Hikairo had been allowed to live on the block only on sufferance, because of Ihaka's marriage to a.Ngati Hikairo woman.'96 Ngati Hikairo responded

190 The report was published inAJHR, 1928, G-7 191 Evidence given before the Sim Commission, MA 1/5/13/81, NA. Reproduced in the BaHara and Scott document bank, Section 25 192 Also in 1927, the law firm O'Malley ~nd Jones wrote to the Native under-secretary on behalf of Haenga Paretipua to ask whether there was going to be an investigation into the 'Maungatea Block'. 1 July 1927, MA 1/5/13/81, NA 193 J Paku, evidence given before the Sim Commission, MA 1/5/13/81, NA. Reproduced in the BaHara and Scott document bank, Section 25 194 Rangi te Rita, evidence given before the Sim Commission, MA 1/5/13/81, NA. Rangi Te Rita also presented this argument to the Native Land Court hearing of Tawapata South, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 36, p.1S4 195 J Paku, evidence given before the Sim Commission, MA 1/5/13/81, NA. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 25 196 Mr. Taylor, evidence given before the Sim Commission, MA 1/5/13/81, NA. Reproduced in the Ballara allli SCUll JUCllnWlll bank, Section 25

47 by saying that although Whaanga had been married to a Ngati Hikairo woman, Te Haka, they had never lived under his mana, and as a Ngati Rakaipaaka, Ihaka had no right to sell that part of the block on their behalf. It is worth pausing here to note that Ngati Hikairo had argued elsewhere that they had rights across the whole southern part of the peninsula, separate to the rights of Ihaka Whaanga. Ngati Hikairo evidence given in the Native Land Court hearing for Waikawa (Portland Island) argued that although Ihaka Whaanga had married a Hikairo woman he had never had mana over their land ('Kahore te taane e mokai ki ti kainga 0 te wahine').I9? There is evidence in the history of the formation of the three Tawapata blocks that Ihaka Whaanga:.acknowledged the rights of Hikairo to the southern part of the peninsula. At a hearing ofthe Native Land Court in 1867, originally. intended to be for the whole Tawapata block, the block was split into two, and then a year later the northern block was split again into Tawapata North No.1 and No.2.'98 Tamati Matangihia spoke at this hearing for Ngati Hikairo. He was the nephew of Matenga Te Takawhenua, who had put in the application for the Tawapata land to be heard, and who had since died without issue. Tamati identified himself as belonging to 'the Ngati-Hikairo hapu of Ngati Kahungunu ... We derive our right from Rongomaiwahine'.'99 Although Ihaka Whaanga put himself into the list of owners for Tawapata South, he acknowledged at the second hearing that 'Tamati Matangihia's piece is the Southern Block heard last Court'.200 The Native Affairs under-secretary. noted that the Tawapata North No.2 was also granted to a hapu (Ngati Tame) 'whose rights are through N'Hikairo'.20' In 1897, a Ngati Hikairo witness in a Native Land Court case, Panuera Te Aitu, said that they had wanted to put Hirini Whaanga into the Tawapata Block rather than Ihaka as Hirini was Ngati Hikairo through his mother 'but the Court would not allow it - He [Ihaka] did not explain that Ihaka had no right and that Hirini derived his right from his mother'.202 There is further evidence that Ngati Hikairo had strong claims to the southern part of the peninsula, including land within the Mahia Block. A 1945 petition from Ngati

197 Evidence of Komene te Ito, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 10, 23 January 1897, p.23 198 19 February 1867, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 1, p.20ff 199 19 February 1867, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 1, p.20 200 19 September 1867, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 1, p.58 201 Native Department under-secretary, Memorandum, 6 November 1924, MA 1/5/13/81, NA. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 25 102 Waikawa case, Wairoa Nalive Land Courlminutc book 10, January 1897, p.33

48 Rongomaiwahine, asking for the protection of around 35 fishing sites on the Mahia Peninsula, listed four sites by name and by fish species which they stated belonged to Ngati Hikairo rather than themselves. The text underneath the list acknowledges that Ngati Hikairo alone had fishing rights from Kinikini around to a point on the coast of Tawapata North.203 These points would take a line across the peninsula similar to those discussed by Mr. Bartlett and the under-secretary of the Native Department in 1924. Although the main thrust of their argument was that Hikairo had rights to the southern part of the Mahia Block, the petitioners also argued that the boundaries of the block had been incorrectly marked. They argued that some of the place names in the deed were not marked in the right place, which meant that the government had unwittingly taken too much when it bought the block. J. Paku, who was presenting the case for his people, attempted to discuss the incorrect place names in more detail but the chairman would not allow him to. In his closing submission, however, Paku said that he believed that the two points Waerenganui and Pukewhatu, which were named in the deed as being boundary points, 'are practically in the centre of the Mangatea Block, that there is a overlapping of practically half of the block,?D-I The Sim Commission decision about the Mahia Block was only a paragraph long. It said that it was the first petition on the matter since the land was sold 60 years previous, and that

the evidence in support is not convincing. If the N gatihikairo hapu were the owners of the block containing 5,800 acres, and could substantiate their claim, it is improbable that no action would be taken while the elders were alive.

It concluded by saying that the commissioners were of the opinion 'that the petitioners have not made out any case for relief'.205

Native Land Court investigation, 1938 Hirini Whaanga Christy (the great-grandson of Ihaka Whaanga and the grandson of Hirini Whaanga) and four others petitioned the government in 1936 about the boundaries of the Mahia Block. Their petition stated that the survey did not follow the features named in the deed or the boundaries pointed out by the sellers at the time. The petitioners argued that in

203 'No Ngati Hikairo anake itunata mai ite Tematata kinikini wahi ote Mahia inutu mai ki waho 0 Taiwanga (Tawapata Raki).' Petition 76/1945, LE 1/1945/12, NA. 204 Evidence given before the Sim Commission, MA 1/5/13/81, NA '" Petition 18, AjHR, 1928, C-7, p.28

49 particular two place names had been misplaced - Tikapu and Pukewhatu. They said that the true placement of Tikapu was seventy chains, and Pukewhatu one hundred chains, within the present government boundary. They argued that the mistake had meant that 'in the South-east corner of the said Mahia block a considerable divergence from the true boundary took place', and that an extra 2,270 acres was taken, which the Crown had never paid for. They noted that they were not suggesting that the divergence from the true boundary was in. any way deliberate, and that this area was in heavy bush and scrub at the time the deed was made.206 I R Burnley, Commissioner of Crown Lands, made an investigation of the purchase in response to this petition. He wrote that he believed that there 'may be some difference of opinion between the present Generation and the older .generation of natives as to the locality of different places names mentioned in the block', and concluded that he believed that 'the intention of the sellers was carried out, and the Crown acquired the area that it was intended to show, and that the Natives have no claim to it,.207 The Lands under-secretary agreed, and wrote that he believed that the claim was 'altogether contrary to fact'.20s The Native Affairs under­ secretary, writing to the Native Affairs Committee, said that 'it seems hardly likely that the five points which fix the eastern boundary - a boundary of some 4 and a half to five miles in length - all lie within a range approximately 60 chains'.209 Nevertheless, the Native Affairs Committee referred the petition to the government for inquiry, and special legislation was made to empower the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court to refer the petition to one of the judges of the court.210 The petition was heard in front of Judge Carr at Nuhaka in June 1938.211 The claimants once again pursued the issue of the misplaced place names. Rangi Te Rito gave evidence that the place names had .been marked in the wrong place, and that the place names had been listed in the deed in the wrong order. He alleged, for example, that Whakaumu-a-Hika-Tupuni was actually northeast of Tikapu, whereas the Crown had Whakaumu-a-Hika-Tupuni to the southeast of Tikapu. He also said

206 Petition No. 81/1936, LE 1/1936/16, NA. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 19 207 Burnley to Lands under-secretary, 18 May 1936, MA 1/5/13/81. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 25 208 W. Robertson, Lands under-secretary, to Native under-secretary, 17 June 1936, MA 1/5/13/81, NA 209 O.N. Campbell, Native under-secretary, to the clerk of the Native Affairs Committee, 14 September 1936, LE 1/1936/16 - Petition No.82/1936, NA. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 19 210 Section 16, Native Purposes Act, 1937 '" Wairoa Native Land Coun minute book 46, pp.75 and 162-168

50 that the correct placement of Waerenganui is actually 'about the centre of the Mahia purchase as surveyed'. Rangi said that the reason for this diversion was that his elders had not wanted the sale of the land between Ika-a-Tama and the Mangatea Stream (in other words the southern part of the block) to take place and the surveyor was forced to divert the line to avoid the protests?!2 Judge Carr concentrated on evidence from the Native Land Court Tawapata blocks hearings in 1867. He pointed out that while these blocks were going through the court there was no protest that the Tawapata Blocks overlapped with the government line and that since some of the boundary of the Tawapata blocks was the disputed boundary of the Mahia, 'it may be assumed that the boundaries had been correctly followed'. He concluded that the claims of 2 the petitioners had not been proven. !)

Five petitions followed, alleging the inadequacy of Judge Carr's investigation. In 1942, Hirini Whaanga Christy petitioned to the effect that during the proceedings the judge had promised to inspect the disputed boundary line. He said that 'the Report of the Court ... was and is wrong in fact, and in effect has perpetuated the original wrong committed by the Crown'.214 A report written for the Minister of Native Affairs said that the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court had been told by Judge Carr that 'he felt that the claim has so little merit that an inspection would not help. The Chief Judge states that two independent tribunals have found against the claim and thinks that the matter should be allowed to rest'.215 The next year, 1943, and then again the following year, Christy petitioned again, with the support of others, to ask that an inspection be made and that the case be reheard in front of two Native Land Court judges?!6 Two petitions were also received from Oranoa Te Ngaio and others which argued along very similar lines to the three from Christy, arguing that the surveyor had 'willfully digressed' from the proper line and that:

212 Rangi Te Rito, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 46, pp.162-3 213 AJHR, G-6C, 1940 214 20 October 1942, Petition 43/1943, LE 1/1942/8, NA m Native Department report on Petition No. 43/1942, MA 1/5/13/81, NA 216 Petition 28/1943, seeMAl/5/i3/81.NA.andPetition50/944.LEI/1944/17.NA. reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 21

51 the case of the Natives cannot be properly determined except by actual inspection of the physical features of the land in question particularly in and about the disputed line. Your petitioners say that the physical features of the land are mute witnesses in favour of the Natives.21l

Although Judge Carr continued to maintain that an inspection would not assIst the claim,218 the Native Affairs Committee referred both Christy's and Te Ngaio's 1944 petitions to the government, along with a recommendation that an inspection by made by the Court?" Arrangements were begun in 1945 for a visit to Mahia, but due to bad weather no inspection was actually made.220 In 1947 Christy and M.P. George Omana approached Peter Fraser, the new Native Minister, during his visit to Kaiuku pa and discussed the Mahia Block sale; Fraser promised'~hat an investigation would be carried out.221

Royal Commission, 1948 In 1948 Peter Fraser appointed a Royal Commission in inquire into the sale of the Mahia

Block. 222 This hearing and the evidence given will be discussed in some detail. The Royal Commission was headed by Sir Michael Myers, and the other members were Harara Reedy and Albert Samuel. The Commission sat in Wairoa from 8 to 11 March 1948, one day of which was spent visiting the Peninsula inspecting the sites which were important to the investigation. The Commission then sat again on 5 July to hear further evidence. Both Christy's and Te Ngaio's 1944 petitions were heard by the Commission. Both of the petitioners had counsel to represent them. The claimants called evideQce from a number of long-term Mahia residents, both Maori and Pakeha, who gave evidence about place names,

217 Non-dated petition, [c.1943] signed by Te Ngaio and 31 others, MA 1/5/13/81, NA and Petition 12/1944, signed by Te Ngaio and 19 others, LE 1/1944/17, NA, reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 21 218 Judge Carr, Native Land Court Gisborne, to Chief Judge 24 August 1943 and Native under­ secretary,. to Native Minister, 13 January 1944, MA 1/5/13/81, NA 219 Petitions 12/1944 and 50/1944, AfHR, 1-3, 1944 220 See Tiaki Omana M.P. to Mason, Minister of Native Affairs, 28 December 1943, MA 1/5/13/81 2Z1 'Notes of representations made to Rt. Hon Native Minister at Kaiuku Marae, Mahia, on Monday 17 March 1947', MA 1/5/13/81 222 Reported in the 'Report of Royal Commission Appointed in Inquire into and Report Upon Claims Preferred by Certain Maori Claimants Concerning the Mahia Block', AfHR, 1948, G-S. The papers of the Commission are held at National Archives: the proceedings at MA 94/1, Exhibits MA 94/2 and Correspondence and NOles, MA 94/3.

52 fishing marks, occupation of the block, and protests about the survey. k surveyor, Glanville, who resurveyed the block at the request of the petitioners, also gave evidence.223 The claimants again argued that when the land was surveyed the maps attached the wrong names in the deed to the wrong features, and also that the points were listed in the deed in the wrong order. The sequence in dispute, as listed in the deed, was ' ... thence to Maungaowhau, thence to Tikapu, thence to Pakake-a-Mahere, thence to Whakaumu-a-Hika­

Tupuni, thence to Waerenganui, thence to Pukewhatu, thence to Maungatea, thence to the sea'.224 The claimants argued that the correct sequence should be Whakaumu-a-Hika-Tupuni, Tikapu, Waerenganui, Pukewhatu, Pakake-a-Mahere and then to the sea. Effectively, they argued that at Whakaumu-a-Hika-Tupuni, the boundary should turn southeast rather than turn southwest as it does in the Crown plan. Evidence was given about each.ofthese five points. The Commission's report included a map, which shows the position of the Crown points and the Maori points.225 It also shows the area of land claimed by the petitioners in the Sim Commission. The map has been copied into this report, in Appendix One. From examination of the evidence given before the Commission, it seems that the map fairly accurately represents the petitioner's claim and the position of the points they were concerned with, and also the block as the Crown saw it.226 The claimants gave evidence that Pukewhatu was a hill that was used as a reference point in order to help find fishing grounds while at sea .. The claimants maintained that the site the Crown alleged was Pukewhatu could not even be seen from offshore on the western side of the peninsula, so it could not be the correct site. 227 It is worthy of note that Rangi te Rito, ten years earlier in evidence before Judge Carr, had repeatedly said that Pukewhatu was· a hill used as a fishing mark. 228

223 Proceedings of the Royal Commission, p.D3, MA 94/2, NA 224 Mahia Block deed, copy in MA 1/5/13/81. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 25 225 The map was based on the one used in the Sim Commission report. 226 This map was printed in AJHR, 1948, G-5, p.7. Note that the map is not an accurate representation of the Mahia Block as a whole, as there are many inaccuracies at the northern end of the map, an area the Commission was not concerned with 217 Evidence of Ra Bartiett, p.P1, and of Rangi Ehu, p.G1, proceedings of the Royal Commission, MA 94/2, NA 228 Rangi te Rita, evidence given before the Sim Commission, MA 1/5/13/81. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 25

53 The Crown and the Maori disagreed markedly over Pakake-a-Mahere - both in terms of the sequence in the deed and in the actual placement on the land. The claimants said that it was a 'bold whale-backed ridge' very close to both the Maungatea Stream and the sea. They said that this ridge was also used as a fishing mark.229 The surveyor Glanville gave evidence that he was not able to find any outstanding points at either of the places the Crown maintained were Pakake-a-Mahere or Pukewhatu.2JO A boat trip was organized for the members of the Commission to go and see the points Pukewhatu and Pakake-a-Mahere from the sea (or rather, from the petitioners point of view, prove that the Crown's points could not be seen from the sea). However, the Crown conceded the point and said that after hearing the evidence they were 'prepared to. admit that these two points could, and that the Pukewhatu on the Crown line could not, be seen from the seaward on the western side of the Peninsula', as the Maori had claimed, and so the boat trip was unnecessary.231 The claimants gave evidence that Tikapu was a conical hill where a particular cabbage tree, Ti, grew, and that that was the only place where that particular tree grew on the whole peninsula. The claimants argued that the name of the fifth point had been misspelt on the deed and that it was meant to be Waerenganui, not Wairenganui. They said that this translated as 'big clearing', and that there was nowhere on the Crown's line that fitted that description. They argued that a lO-acre clearing used for cultivations existed at that point where they said Waerenganui was. Glanville gave evidence that the Crown's placement of Waerenganui would put it on a steep bush-clad hillside with 'no trace of any extensive flat anywhere in that locality'. He said that the point where the Maori told him Waerengariui was had 'about 10 acres of plougable sloping ground,.m Ra Bartlett also gave evidence that Waerenganui was between Tikapu and Pukewhatu.233 Once again, the evidence before the Sim Commission

229 Evidence of Ra Bartlett, p.P1, and of Rangi Ehu, p.G1, Proceedings of the Royal Commission, MA 94/2, NA

2)0 Evidence of Glanville, pp.C1-4, Proceedings of the Royal Commission, MA 94/2, NA 2lJ AJHR, 1948, G-S, p.s 232 Evidence of Glanville, p.C4, Proceedings of the Royal Commission, MA 94/2, NA '" Evidence of Ra Bartlett, p.P 1, Proceedings of the Royal Commission MA 94/2, NA

54 agreed with this evidence, when Mr. Paku said that Waerenganui was not on the line as shown on the departmental plan.234 Maungatea was the only one of the five points discussed in front of the Commission which had appeared on the sketch map that accompanied the deed?J5 There was a fair amount of discussion about this point. The Crown maintained that when the deed listed 'Maungatea' it meant the source of the stream, at about the middle of the peninsula. The petitioners, however, maintained that the source of the stream was called Te Reinga, and that when the deed referred to Maungatea it actually meant a place much further along the stream, almost to the sea. Rangi Ehu, who was 74 years old at this time, gave evidence that there was a settlement at the mouth of the stream that was known as Maungatea.236 It is worth noting that the petitioners to the Sim Commission made the same argument twenty years earlier. Rangi te Rito was asked, if he placed himself at Whakaumu-a-Hika-Tupuni and look back towards the south towards Waerenganui and Pukewhatu, where. the line would hit the Maungatea Stream. He said that the line would hit 'a little inland of the mouth of that stream'.2l7 Evidence was also given about the disruption to the survey. Hirini Christy told the Commission that:

I have heard it all over the Mahia Peninsula. It is common knowledge there. Almost every man you talk to in Mahia will tell you that... when those Maori knew that the surveyors were coming down on Pukewhatu proper, on the land that the Maoris are claiming now, they diverted the boundary and went down in the gullies instead of the hills and points which would have been natural landmarks for the Maoris.238

Christy said that the survey was disrupted by the people of 'Tawapata South', by which he meant Ngati Hikairo. Crown counsel discussed the Tawapata Native Land Court hearings in some detail, and argued that the owners of Tawapata would have raised some objection to the boundary of their block if the Mahia Block had indeed been drawn incorrectly. He maintained that as Ihaka

234 Evidence before the Sim Commission, MA 1/5/13/81, NA. Reproduced in the BaHara and Scott document bank, Section 25. 235 MA-MLP 6/3, pp.42-3, NA. A copy is also at MA 1/5/3/81, NA. The place name is spelt both Maungatea and Mangatea in this cross·examination record 2.\6 Evidence of Rangi Ehu, p.H1, Proceedings of the Royal Commission, MA 94/2, NA 2.\7 Rangi te Rito, evidence given before the Sim Commission, MA 1/5/13/81. Reproduced in the BaHara and Scott document bank, Section 25 "" Evidence of Hirini Christy, p.N3, Proceedings of the Royal Comillission, , lvlA 94/2, NA

55 Whaanga was 'an owner in all three pieces of land' he would have raised some objection.239 He also reminded the Commission that a number of surveys had been done of the Tawapata and Mahia blocks, and that during the Tawapata hearing process:

there is no suggestion of any complaint, annoyance or any disturbance of surveyors or of settlers... by the sellers of this land, I submit must be convincing to anyone that what happened was this, that the owners of the Mahia land sold to the Crown exactly what they wanted to selL'40

Counsel for the Crown also told the Commission that the purchase of the Block had never been questioned until Ngahiwi Peka's petition in 1924, 60 years after the purchase. The Commission was also told that the boundaries were not questioned until 1936, in Christy's original petition, 78 years after the purchase.2H The Royal Commission decided against the claim.242 The Commission said of the Sim Commission that they 'need say no more ... than that we respectfully agree with it'. The Royal Commission placed great importance on timing. They said the fact that 'no question was ever raised' about the issues of the boundary of the block for 72 years after the purchase of the block was very important. They said that:

during the whole intervening period the area which is now in question was, to the knowledge of the Maoris, occupied by Europeans who had acquired the land from the Crown, and not only no claim but no objection was ever made or raised by the old Maoris of the day or their immediate descendants, who must have known a great deal more of the place-names and of the boundaries than the members of the present generation.243

This ignores, of course, the protests made by Ngai Tu directly after the sale of the block, and also the 1878 petition from Hori Pomoana, and the other protests made in that year.'" This also ignores the fact that the boundary issue was brought up before the Sim Commission, and that the boundary point sequence the petitioners gave, in the limited time allowed to them to do so in the Sim Commission, was almost exactly the same as the one given before the Royal Commission. It also overlooks the fact, as discussed in the previous chapter, that the sale of the

2J9 Evidence of Nolan, p.AA3, Proceedings of the Royal Commission, MA 94/2, NA 240 Evidence of Nolan, p.BB4, Proceedings of the Royal Commission, MA 94/2, NA 241 Evidence of Nolan, pp.AA3, Proceedings of the Royal Commission, MA 94/2, NA 242 Their report is at AJHR, 1948, G-S '" AJHR, 1948, G-5, pp.lO-11

56 block caused very few material changes to the use of the land for many years, and it is possible that for many years Maori, especially in the case of the southern part of the block, might not have even known that it had been sold. The Commission also stated that it was 'interesting, and perhaps not without significance', that although Hirini Christy originally noticed his disagreement with the boundary on the map at the East Coast Commissioner's office in 1924, he did not put in his petition until 1936. This ignores the evidence he gave to the Commission that he had initially encouraged Ngati Hikairo to put in the 1924 petition, which was not heard until 1928. Christy also approached the Native Department about the block in 1927.'45 Given the amount of evidence presented to them with regard to the place names, the Commission had remarkably little to say about them. They remarked that it was 'perhaps not without significance' that the claim before the Sim Commission 'seems to have involved the acceptance of the Government line as the correct boundary-line'.'46 This clearly goes against the record of the Sim Commission evidence, where Mr. Paku says:

We do not agree with the departmental plan. The proper boundaries can be pointed out by outside witnesses ... On the departmental map Mangatea is shown, but we claim that that is not Mangatea but Te Reinga ... I want to prove that Waerenganui and other places are not on the line as shown on the departmental plan.>"

The Commission also seems to have placed more importance on the fact that one of the disputed points (Pukewhatu) was not discussed at the Sim Commission, and that Rangi te Rito had not known where this point was, rather than the fact that in every other regard evidence given in 1927 agreed with the placement that the present petitioners gave. The Commission said of Waerenganui that there was an old clearing of 5 acres within the Tawapata North No.2 block that could be the large clearing that was being referred to, rather than the 10-acre clearing that the petitioners argued was actually Waerenganui. 248 As a final remark to the report, the

244 See previous chapter. The Commission had access to information about the Ngai Tu dispute, as they had read Locke's letters, AJHR, 1948, G-S, p.6 24S AJHR, 1948, G-5, p.8 '" AJHR, 1948, G-5, p.ll 247 J. Paku, evidence given before the Sim Commission, MA 1/5/13/81. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 25 '", AJHR, 1948, G-5, p.ll

57 Commission noted that 'even if the Maoris claim was entitled to succeed, the whole value of the subject-mater in dispute as at the time of the sale would be only about £550'.249 As noted above, the Commission made several errors of fact, such as that they argued that the block had not been disputed until the 72 years after the purchase. Furthermore, the lawyers acting for the Crown before the Commission found it necessary to concede that the fishing marks that were named in the deed could not have been seen from the sea if the Crown had positioned them correctly. The Commission also heard evidence that there were no outstanding points anywhere near two of the sites the Crown claimed as being on the boundary, which would go against the common practice of naming prominent natural features. Other evidence given by the claimants also put the Crown boundary into doubt. Ballara and Scott wrote that the evidence given to the Royal Commission with regard to the boundaries 'seems conclusively in favour of the Maori claim; even Crown officers admitted this to be so. But no redress for the land lost, or the revenue from it, was ever made'.250

Other petitions Two other petitions were presented in relation to the Mahia Block, in regard to the protection of fishing rights. The first petition, made in 1943, from Huitau Te Hau and another, asked for the control of the shell fisheries and sea fisheries around the peninsula for three miles offshore. In response to the petition, a Senior Fisheries Officer visited Mahia and discussed the issue with Te Hau and Christy. Although they were not able to prove any commercial fisheries had been operating in the area, they proved to his satisfaction that cases of misuse of the shell fishery had occurred.·· The Fisheries Officer noted that:

The delegates stressed that they did not desire to prohibit the fishing operations of pakehas in the area in question, but did desire the authority to see that the resources were exploited by the means and at the times which were considered good by the elders of the tribe.251

Haitau te Hau petitioned again in 1945 along with 13 others of Rongomaiwahine, asking for the protection of their tauranga-ika from fishing fleets. The petition listed 38 fishing

249 AJHR, 1948, G-5, p.12 250 Ballara and Scott, 'Mahia', p.34 251 Senior Fisheries Officer to the Secretary Marine, 18 August 1943, quoted in Sheppard, Native Department under-secretary, to Clerk of the Maori Affairs Committee, 1 November 1945, LE 1/1945/12, NA. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 22

58 grounds by name and fish species, of which some, they acknowledged, belonged to Ngati Hikairo and the people of Tupurupuru. They wrote that since the Treaty of Waitangi they had never alienated their rights to their fishing grounds.'52 The under-secretary for the Native Department said that since there was little evidence of commercial fishing vessels in the area, and 'in any case, the area was too great to be set aside for the Maoris' use', no fishing grounds were set aside for them, although a general ban on collecting all shell-fish except crayfish for the purposes of sale, and the banning of trawling within two miles of the coast, was being considered.'53

The Fate of the Mahia Reserves

Kinikini

The Kinikini reserve appeared in the deed of the Mahia Block sale, and was marked in the sketch map that accompanied the deed as a 'Native Reserve'.'54 Kinikini had traditionally been used as a place to launch fishing expeditions and Ngati Hikairo gave evidence in the 1920s that they had lived at Kinikini and at other pa nearby in the nineteenth century. Maori may well have continued to live there or use it as a temporary dwelling place after the sale of the Mahia block.255 The version of the deed reproduced in English in the Gazette says that the reserve belonged 'for the Natives ... as a fishing residence'. The Maori version of the deed says 'Ko te wahi mo matou hei nohoanga hei mahinga ika kei kinikini': that Kinikini belongs to all ofus as a place to live and gather fish.'56 Given McLean's usual reluctance to make reserves out of the blocks that he sold, it is reasonable to suppose that the reservation of Kinikini was an important part of the negotiations for the Mahia Block. The Kinikini reserve, of 115 acres, came before the Native Land Court on 21 September 1865, less than a year after the sale of the Mahia Block. Ihaka Whaanga said at the hearing of the case:

252 Petition 76/1945, LE 1/1945/12, NA 253 Sheppard, under-secretary Native Department, to Clerk of the Maori Affairs Committee, 1 November 1945, LE 1/1945/12, NA. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 22 25' Old Native Land Purchases: Hawke's Bay, MA-MLP 6/3, pp.42-3, NA. This map has been reproduced in appendix one of this report 255 Rangi te Rito, evidence given before the Sim Commission, MA 1/5/13/81, NA

59 This piece of land belongs to me. It was reserved by me in the sale of te Mahia Block. I requested that it might be excluded from the purchase, and Mr McLean excluded it. The Native title was not extinguished over it. This piece belongs to me alone, and the Grant should be in my name only. There is no dispute about this piece.

No objectors appeared, and a Crown Grant was duly awarded to Ihaka Whaanga alone.257 In fact, Ihaka Whaanga was quite wrong in saying that Kinikini had been reserved for him alone. It is clear from the language used in the deed that the land was to be held and used collectively. None of the representations of the block - the deed in Maori, the English translation printed in the Gazette, or the sketch map attached to the deed - mention Whaanga's name. It is possible, of course, that Ihaka Whaanga did not intend to take this land as an individual, and that he considered himself to be a trustee of the land for one or more hapu. Whether he did or not, however, is not the point. The important point is that the award to him alone was allowed to happen, which led to the alienation of the land, because it allowed his children or other successors to sell it.'" There were a number of ways in which workings of the early Native Land Court caused this to happen. For example, Alan Ward has noted that the Court took a very rigid line against allowing evidence not presented in the court to be taken into account. This certainly had an impact in this case: the relevant information from the deed could have been found with ease.259 The Court also had a well-documented preference for allocating land to individuals rather than to hapu, even though it had the ability to do so under the legislation that governed it.260 Furthermore, even though the Court acknowledged that Kinikini was a 'native reserve' (it

256 New Zealand Gazette, 31 May 1865, No.18, p.161; Old Native Land Purchases: Hawke's Bay, MA-MLP 6/3, pp.42-3, NA. See appendix two of this report 257 Te Kinekine [sic] Native Reserve, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 1, pp.71-72 258 Joy Hippolite has argued that several reserves were made out to Whaanga alone as return for his assistance in the purchases made during McLean's tour of 1864. She has argued that although he and his family claimed that they were just for Ihaka Whaanga alone, the reserves should have been for the whole hapu. Joy Hippolite, 'Crossing the Bar: Aspects of the History of the Waikokopu and Opoutama block with special reference to the Waikokopu Harbour', Waitangi Tribunal, 1999 '" Alan Ward, National Overview, Volume II, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, Waitangi Tribunal, 1997, p.22D 260 Grant Phillipson, 'The Native Land Court and Direct Private Purchase, 1865-1873', reproduced as Appendix II in Dean Cowie, 'Hawke's Bay', p.194ff

60 gave it that title in the minutes of the hearing) it failed to put any restrictions on its alienation, even though, again, it had the ability to do SO.261 Thus the Native Land Court played an important part in the eventual alienation of the block. It took the block, then held collectively by the hapu of Mahia, and transferred it to the ownership of one person. Once that had been done, there was nothing to stop the land from being alienated as soon as Whaanga or his successors chose to sell. John Ormond bought the Kinikini block in June 1926.262

Kaiuku

Kinikini was th~only reserve mentioned in the deed of the sale. However, a number of other pieces of the block were later classified as reserves, although their genesis is now difficult to decipher. Themost important of these is the site of the Kaiuku Pa, which was mentioned earlier as the site of an important battle during the Musket Wars, where the occupants were held in a siege for some time. The mouth of the stream that runs next to the marae also contains the tapu logs thought to have been used to haul the Takitimu waka onto the shore. The area is one of the most important sites for the Maori people of Mahia.263 Harvey, the Registrar of the Gisborne Native Land Court, when comparing a tracing of the block made for the East Coast Commissioner (now lost) with the deed, came to the conclusion that the area of Kaiuku was not part of the original Mahia sale, at least as it was written in the deed.264 Kaiuku is not mentioned in the list of place names that formed a border to the sale, even though it would mark a change of direction in the line, and therefore a logical place name to list. As it is, the deed says that that. the line starts from Oraka, thence to Pareihe, then to Mangaroa. A line from Oraka and Pareihe would follow the coast, and then a line to Mangaroa would turn inland, skipping the site of the Kaiuku Pa completely. In 1948, Harvey, by now a judge of the Native Land Court, repeated this point. He wrote that he had noticed in 1924:

261 'Te Kinekine [sic) Native Reserve', Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 1, p.7l. Alan Ward, National Overview, Volume II, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, Waitangi Tribunal, 1997, p.262 262 H B Sealey, Commissioner of Crown Lands, and A J Wattie, Chief Surveyor, to F W Nolan, 16/3/48, MA 94/3, NA 26) For information in this section see 'Kaiuku Public Reserve', LS 1/16/693, NA and 'Kaiuku Reserve', MA 1/5/13/81, NA 264 See Harvey to the under-secretary of the Native Department, 23 July 1924, MA 1/5/13/81, NA. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 25

61 that there was an obvious mistake in that the Crown boundary on the map commences at Kaiuku whereas the boundary in the deed commences at Oraka. There should I considered be no argument about the location of these two well known place names and as my informants were able to identify very definitely the points Te Rau (not Ra)-o-pareihe, Mangaroa (stream), Punawehiwehi (spring) Otamoana and Tangikakoro as shown on the plan, it seemed plain that there was a triangle of land at this end of the line incorrectly included in the Crown area.265

It is also worthy of note that although James Grindell spent a great deal of time describing the events of the siege of Kaiuku in his account of McLean's trip to Mahia, he did not mention that the pa was inside the boundaries of the block. 266 Therefore, it would seem that the small triangle of land that contained the Kaiuku pa was not part of the original sale of the Mahia Block. It is probable that Ihaka Whaanga added it to the block a year later. On 22 April 1865 Samuel Locke wrote to McLean that Ihaka Whaanga:

often mentions a small piece of land which he added to the Mahia block at the inland side since the sale to make the block more square. I suppose he looks [for] something for it. I tell him I have no time to see it at the present. He will be in 2 town in a day or two when he will tell you all the news. "

Since the map attached to the deed was a very vague sketch, and all the other early survey maps were destroyed in the Napier earthquake, there is no way of telling how the block was changed in 1865, or indeed whether it was changed at all. Kaiuku was definitely regarded as a Native Reserve by agents for the Crown after the sale. In 1870, the Commissioner of Native Reserves, Charles Heaphy, considered Kaiuku to be a both a Public Reserve and a Native Reserve 'for landing and fishing'.26' A map of Kaiuku also appeared in the volume Plans 0/ Natives Reserves in the Several Provinces 0/ New Zealand made in the 1870s.269 Samuel Locke also mentioned the reserve in his report to the Hawke's Bay

265 Judge Harvey to Sir Michael Myers, 26 April 1948, MA 94/3, NA. Reproduced in the BaHara and Scott document bank, Section 24 266 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, pp.2-3. Reproduced in BaHara and Scott document bank, Section 40. 267 Locke to McLean, 22 April 1865, Folder 393, MS-Papers-32, ATL '" Heaphy to the Native Minister, 28 May 1870, Enclosure in No.9, AJHR, 1870, D-16, p.14. 269 Plans 0/ Natives Reserves in the Several Provinces 0/ New Zealand, MA-MT 6/17, NA. The maps in this volume are not available to be photocopid

62 Native Lands Commission in 1873 as one of only ten reserves made for Maori in the northern Hawke's Bay region."o These reports refer to Kaiuku as being 20 acres in size. In 1919 the Wairoa County Council asked for permission to put a road through the reserve, and informed the Lands and Survey Department that the land was not used for any public purpose, but that it was being occupied by Maori.27! Despite the way in which the land had been classified in the past, the Lands Department decided that Kaiuku was not a Native Reserve, but a public reserve for landing purposes, and therefore Crown land. A road was then put through the block.272

In April 1924 Rewi Toheriri and others petitioned Henare Balneavis In the Native Department saying that:

We heard that the Pa Kaiuku is to be confiscated by the Government. Will you explain. We object because it is a pa of our ancestors, our dead are buried there and we are also living there. Will you please explain to us so that we may know.273

The under-secretary of the Native Department then wrote to his Minister saying that 'it would be a graceful act to vest it in the Natives'.m That same year legislation was passed which deemed the Kaiuku block to be Maori freehold land, and entrusted it to the Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board. The legislation noted that Maori had maintained that the land had been reserved for them out of the sale of the block, and that it was a piece of land 'for which they have great attachment, and it is desirable that any doubt should be set at rest'?" The site was exempted from rates in 1929. In 1969 it set aside as a Maori Reservation for the purposes of recreation, burial ground, and place of general historical interest, 'for the general benefit of the Maori and pakeha people of Mahia'.276 Today the site includes a rugby field, a memorial to a

270 AJHR, 1873, G-7, Appendix I, p.156 271 Chief Surveyor, Napier, to Under Secretary of Lands, 6 November 1919, LS 1/16/693, NA 272 Chief Surveyor, Napier, to Under Secretary of Lands, 28 August and 6 November 1919, LS 1/16/693, NA and Under Secretary Native Affairs to the Minister of Native Affairs, 16 August 1924, MA 1/21/3/549 [Ace 2459), NA. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 26. The road is very close to the Kaiuku marae; the claimants may have more information about whether the those living there at the time made any objections to the formation of the road 27J Rewi Toheriri and others to Raumoa [Balneavis), 9 April 1924, translation. MA 1/21/3/549 [Ace 2459), NA. 274 Under-secretary, Native Department, to the Minister of Native Affairs, 16 August 1924, MA 1/21/3/549 [Ace 2459), NA. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 26 27S Section 33 (1) of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1924. 276 See New Zealand Gazette No. 51, 18 July 1929, p. 1868 and No.76, 20 Nov 1969, p. 2342. Reproduced in the Ballara and Scott document bank, Section 26

63 member of the Ormond family, a cemetery and a meeting house and remains an important marae for the Rongomaiwahine people. The main road around the Mahia coast still runs through the block.

Other land returned to Ihaka Whaanga

Although they were not recorded III the deed of sale, six other small blocks were returned to Ihaka Whaanga from the land that had been included in the Mahia Block. These were four urban blocks and a burial ground, all within Mahia township, and a 40 acre block at Kinikini.277 No ,mention of these blocks were made at the time of the sale. However, six years later, in 1870, .the central government passed the Hawke's Bay Crown Lands Sale Act 1870 at the request of the Hawke's Bay Provincial Council.278 The Act acknowledged the claims of various settlers and whalers and, in three cases, Maori, that had lived on the land before it was sold to the Crown. The preamble stated that part of the agreement to purchase the land had been that those that had been living there before the land had been sold to the Crown could 'complete their titles' by the 'payment of certain specified sums by way of purchase money'. At Mahia William Morris, Williams Bartlett and John Smith, all early whalers and traders that had lived in Mahia at the time of the sale, received small blocks, and Ihaka Whaanga received the blocks listed above. The four urban sections (sections 58, 59, 90 and 91) collectively made up a little over 1 acre. For the Crown Grants to the blocks, Ihaka Whaanga had to pay an upset price of around £24. As was discussed in the first chapter of this report, Ihaka Whaanga lived in Mahia township? and Samuel Locke recorded that Ihaka had let him stay in 'a large weather-board house belonging to himself which he has set apart for my accommodation during my staying in this district'.219 These small blocks, then, probably included the sites where this and other houses belonging to Ihaka stood. For the 40-acre block at Kinikini he had to pay an upset price of £20. Samuel Locke's report about the Native Reserves to the Hawke's Bay Native Land Alienation Commission in 1873 also mentioned the town sections and the block at Kinikini. He noted that, along with the Kinikini reserve, Ihaka Whaanga's town sections 'have not yet

277 This township is now called Mahia Beach 178 Hawke's Bay Provincial Council, Session XIII, HB 1/11, NA

64 been paid for in accordance with the provisions of the Hawke's Bay Crown Land Sales Act, 1870'.280 In 1874, however, a Crown grant was issued to Ihaka Whaanga for the blocks.28! No further mention has been found of the 40-acre block. In Heaphy's 1870 return on Native Reserves, it noted that as well as the four urban sections, a 'Maori Burial Ground' had been reserved for Ihaka Whaanga and family.282 The burial ground was only 20 perches in size. The ground was next to the four urban blocks that were reserved for Ihaka Whaanga. It was said to have contained the remains of descendants of Ihaka Whaanga and 'other Natives all of high rank'?" In October 1935 Patu te Rito wrote to the Native Department about the urupa on behalf of Te Rina Whaanga, Ihaka Whaanga's granddaughter who was at least 90 years old. He wrote that the blocks in the township had been lying idle for many years, but that the Crown had recently resurveyed the township and offered blocks for sale. During the re-survey, land that had always assumed to be part of the urupa, also called section 153, was put into section 57.284 Section 57 was then sold to Mr. H. Harker, the mayor of Wairaa, even though it contained at least seven grave sites. Mr. Harker built a summer house on the site which, Mr. Rito said, covered some of the graves.2&5 A map of the various sections concerned is attached in Appendix One. Judge Carr of the Native Land Court visited Mahia in February 1936 to investigate the situation.286 Before his visit, the house that Harker had built on the site was blown down in a hurricane. Also before his visit, Te Rina Whaanga, who had indicated that she wished to be buried in the urupa, died?" The Judge found that the general impression of Maori and Pakeha people in the township was that all of the land that made up sections 57 and 153 had been reserved for the urupa. This was supported by the fact that there had been fairly recent burials on section 57. He concluded that there were indeed grave sites on section 57, and that the area set aside had not been

279 Locke to McLean, 28 November 1864, HB 4, Box 5, NA 280 Heaphy to the Native Minister, 28 May 1870, Enclosure in No.9, AjHR, 1870, D-16, p.14 281 Memorandum, Chief Judge to Napier District Land Registrar, 15 February 1938, MA 1/5/13/76, NA 182 Heaphy to the Native Minister, 28 May 1870, Enclosure in No.9, AjHR, 1870, D-16, p.14.

18) Patu Te Rito to undersecretary of the Native Department, 24 October 1935, MA 1/5/13/76, NA 284 Patu Te Rito to undersecretary of the Native Department, 24 October 1935, MA 1/5/13/76, NA m Patu Te Rito to undersecretary of the Native Department, 24 October 1935, MA 1/5/13/76, NA 286 Carr to under-secretary of the Native Department, 27 February 1936, MA 1/5/13/76, NA '-"7 Judge Carr to under-secretary of the Native Department, 7 February 1936, MA 1/5/13/76, NA

65 sufficient to avoid disturbing all of the graves. He proposed a land swap, and got Harker's agreement. However, it was not the Crown gave up land for the swap but the Whaanga family. At this time they still held two of the blocks granted to Ihaka Whaanga in 1870 discussed above, sections 58 and 59. By special legislation in 1938, these two blocks were vested in Harker in return for section 57.'" The Crown also agreed to pay Harker costs for building a new house on the land he had obtained in the exchange?"

288 See Native Purposes Act, 1938, s.l1 ,"'I Under-secretary of Native Department to Balneavis, 30 June 1936, MA 1/5/13/76, NA

66 Conclusion

This report has examined the sale of the Mahia Block by Ihaka Whaanga and others to the Crown on 20 October 1864. It has also examined the protests that arose after the sale, and the Crown's response to those complaints. There have been a number of themes that run through the complaints made in the nineteenth and the twentieth century. The first of these was that McLean did not consult and get the consent of all of those who had customary rights to the land that was to become the Mahia Block. The second was that the purchase money for the block was not distributed fairly amongst all the owners. Thirdly, complaints were made that there were errors in the boundaries of the block. This conclusion will examine all of these issues in turn, and then discuss some of the other issues of concern that arise from the purchase of the block.

For an alienation of land to be comprehensive, all those with customary interests had a right to be identified and consulted, and their full consent gained. This report has demonstrated that this was not done. McLean arrived in Mahia on the 17 October 1864, began discussions about the sale of the block the next day, and then finalized the deed just two days later. It seems unlikely that Mclean had time to adequately contact and consult all the owners of the block, as well as discuss boundaries, reserves, and other issues, in that short space of time. This is especially so as it was a region that had been fiercely contested throughout the nineteenth century, as evidenced by the murder of Ihaka Whaanga's father, and where there were complex relationships between and among hapu. It was also a region that McLean did not know well, having last visited in 1851. Rather than spend the time to ensure that he had consulted all those who had interests, McLean acted with the assumption that Ihaka Whaanga was the paramount chief of the region, and relied on his relationship with him to push through the sale. There is no indication that McLean talked to anyone other than those who could be classed as 'Ihaka's natives' before the signing of the deed. Yet just one day after the sale Maori from all over the peninsula turned up to assert their rights to the block. McLean pushed ahead with the sale nevertheless. On two other occasions it has been alleged that all those who had rights to the block were not consulted about the sale. A petition in 1878 argued that those who had sold the block

67 had no rights of ownership. No investigation was ever made of this petition.290 Ngati Hikairo have also argued during the twentieth century that although they had rights to the southern part of the peninsula, including land that became the Mahia Block, they were not consulted about the sale of the block, and none of their ancestors signed the deed. They have disagreed with the presumption that because Whaanga had married a Ngati Hikairo woman he had rights over them or over the land that they still occupied during the nineteenth century. They argued that their customary rights to the block have never been recognized or received compensation for the loss of those rights. This failure of McLean to adequately consult all the owners is in keeping with his actions in relation to the sale of other blocks in the Hawke's Bay region. Both Cowie and Ballara have written that McLean learnt to overlook the complexities of Maori social organization in Hawke's Bay and refused to acknowledge the independence of many of the chiefs and communities in the region. In addition, McLean often promoted chiefs as being the paramount chief of a region, raising their status above what it would otherwise have been, because he wanted to make use of them in his land purchase programme. These actions were, as Ballara has argued, serious defects in McLean's approach to land sales in Hawke's Bay.291 McLean used these tactics again in the Mahia Block sale and other purchases he made during the same period, where McLean promoted Whaanga as the only principal chief of the region. Ballara and Scott have argued that Whaanga 'was the de facto principal chief because he supported the Government,.292 The second theme of protests was that the money paid for the sale was not allocated fairly after the sale. McLean again chose to rely on Whaanga to accurately ass.ess the rights of various groups and allocate a fair amount of money to each group accordingly. Most, if not all, of the £2,000 for the block was paid to Whaanga for him to distribute as he saw fit.'" It is difficult to see how McLean could believe that Whaanga could justly and fairly do this, in a region where rights had been contested recently, and the relationships between hapu were complicated.

190 AfHR, 1878,1-3, Petition No 262, p.21 m Cowie, Hawke's Bay, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, 1996, p.28; Ballara and Scott, 'Introduction', pp.69-70 292 Ballara and Scott, 'Mahia', p.30, fn.104 "" Locke to McLean, 19 December 1864 [Ieller 2 of that date], Folder 393, MS·Papers·32, ATL

68 As discussed in the third chapter, some of those who had signed the deed, Ngai Tu and

others from around the peninsula, believed that their rights to the block had not been fully acknowledged by the money that Ihaka was prepared to give them. Supported by Rongowhakaata people from the Bay of Plenty, who were opposed to any further land sales, they attempted to return the money, and take back their portion of the block, but Locke refused to take the money. They then threatened to 'sell Ihaka out', in other words to sell only the portion of the land at Kaiwaitau that Ihaka owned, and keep the rest for themselves, as a protest against the sale. They finally threatened to 'drive the pakeha off the land and the loyal natives with them'.294 It could be argued that McLean and Locke were acknowledging. the rangatiratanga of Ihaka Whaanga by allowing him to distribute the money as he saw fit. This argument is, however, too simplistic for a number of reasons. Just as McLean should not have consulted only some of the owners of the block, he should not have relied on only some owners to fairly distribute the money to everyone else. McLean's error was further reinforced by the actions of . Locke, who, knowing that the block and the money for it was being contested at the time, nevertheless handed the remainder of the money to Whaanga to distribute in the same manner. Furthermore, despite repeated attempts to protest the sale, Locke simply told the protesters that it was too late. As Ballara and Scott have argued, there is no evidence that the concerns of these protesters were ever given proper consideration by the agents of the Crown.295 The third main theme of protest about the Mahia Block was that the boundaries of the block had been misunderstood by the Crown, which meant that it took more land than Maori had been intending to sell. Several attempts were made during the twentieth century to argue this point. Petitioners have argued that the place names given on the deed were not accurately plotted by the Crown, who assigned places the wrong names. This meant that a significant piece of land was taken by the Crown without Maori consent and without payment. The issues surrounding the contested boundary points have been discussed in some detail in the third chapter of this report. This report has argued that the claimants made a convincing case on several occasions to the effect that the boundary points had been marked incorrectly by the Crown. However, the Crown has taken no action to correct or otherwise compensate for the errors.

294 See Chapter Two of this report ,." Ballara and SCOll, 'Mahia', p.}}

69 Alan Ward and Angela BaHara have argued that sales during this period were often made as an attempt by Maori to modernize their communities, and enter into the growing economy of the region. These objectives were often more important than the price actually paid for the land, which was usually very low. However, these expected benefits were usually only bestowed on a few select chiefs, not on all of those who had interests in the land. Furthermore, these benefits were only given temporarily, as a lack of protection for reserves and ever diminishing of access to mahinga kai and other land made access to the new economy more and more difficult?" These arguments are valid for the Mahia Blockpurchase. When Maori sold the Mahia Block they made confidant and enthusiastic statements about the way in which the sale would improve their economic position. It would bring European settlement to their region, it would give them an increased market for their produce, it would provide them with the protection from the Crown and the company of 'a race who had ever befriended them'.297 However, the Mahia Peninsula never became the settlement that Maori expected, and it continued to remain isolated from European contact. Furthermore, the Crown, as we have seen, concentrated the benefits of the sale on Whaanga and his allies. Both Smit and Hippolite have been critical of the actions of Whaanga and his family in insisting that the reserves created from the sale of blocks in the region with his help had been reserved for him alone, and not for all of the hapu that had customary rights to the land. Furthermore, we have seen that Whaanga was given goods, and even a boat, on a personal basis at the time of the sale. This report arid particularly that of Hippolite have also argued that Whaanga gained mana from his interactions with the Crown, and used his relationship to score points from his rivals, including those that had been involved in the murder of his father. 298

296 Alan Ward, National Overview, Vol. 2, pp.169-70 and Vol. 3, pp.20S-6, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, 1997; Angela BaHara, 'The Pursuit of Mana? A Re-evaluation of the Process of Land Alienation by Maoris, 1840-1890', Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 91, No.4, December 1982, pp.SI9-S41 297 12 November 1864, Hawke's Bay Herald, p.2. Reproduced in BaHara and Scott document bank, Section 40 298 Grace Smit, 'Mana Maori: Questions of Authority on the East Coast During the Nineteenth Century', MA Thesis, University of Auckland, 1997, pp.71ff; Joy Hippolite, 'Crossing the Bar: Aspects of the History of the Waikokopu and Opoutama block with special reference to the Waikokopu Harbour', Wailangi Tribunal, 1999, p.77

70 The Crown failed to protect reserves it had made from the sale. An outstanding grievance must be the fact that the Crown allowed the individualisation, and then alienation, of the Kinikini reserve through the workings of the Native Land Court. The Crown had an obligation to the people of Mahia to protect Kinikini, and ensure that it remained a reserve, as it had been guaranteed to them in the deed. Cowie has argued that since reserves were usually important areas for Maori 'either economically or spiritually, or both, some onus must have rested on the Crown to secure the reserves from alienation, since it had insisted on setting up, controlling and regulating the land title system'.'99 As was often the case, the people of Mahia progressively lost their access to their land and traditional sources of food, and therefore their economic base. The loss of the Kinikini Reserve must be counted as this. Petitions in the 1940s also reflect the claimants' concern about incursions into their customary fishing rights. In addition, the Crown failed to protect urupa on the block, and, although it was eventually returned to Maori ownership, the Kaiuku reserve, so important for the people of Mahia, was regarded for some of the time as a piece of Crown land, and a road put through the block. The Crown purchase policy in the case ot the Mahia Block has been found to be faulty in a number of ways. More care needed to have been taken in ensuring that all those with customary rights to the block were notified of the proposed sale, that it was discussed openly and at length before their consent gained. Furthermore, a thorough and accurate survey needed to be made before the sale was finalized. The boundary should have been marked clearly on the ground, rather than replying on a simple and very inaccurate sketch map. As Ballara has noted, if the colony could not afford teams of surveyors to do this sort of work, the

3 purchasing policy should have been slowed down until they were available. °O Furthermore, the Crown should not have adopted such a belligerent attitude to protest about the sale of the block, and more carefully considered the reasons behind it. The Crown should also have actively protected the reserves that were made from the block, as well as urupa, wahi tapu and mahinga kai. Finally, this report has also concluded that the investigations made by the Crown in the twentieth century have been faulty, and have overlooked important pieces of evidence that were submitted to it. The issues raised by the petitioners still remain unresolved.

"9 Cowie, p.54 '''' Ballara anJ SCOll, 'Introduction', p.195

71 Appendix One Contemporary maps

Map Two: Sketch map attached to the Mahia Block deed, 1864 This map appears with the deed in the deed book, Old Native Land Purchases: Hawke's Bay, MA-MLP 6/3, pp.42-3, NA Map Three: Map attached to the Royal Commission report, 1948 AJHR, 1948, G-5, p.7 Note that this map, although it seems to accurately represent both the 1924 petitioners claim, and the claim before the Royal Commission in 1948, it does not accurately represent the top of the block, as the block includes the land where the township is located. Map Four: Map of various sections within Mahia township, c.1935 MA 1/5/13/76, NA Map Five: Map of Kinikini, from the Crown Grant to Ihaka Whaanga, 1871 Map Six: Map of Kaiwaitau, from the Crown Grant, 1872 This map of the Kaiwaitau Block confirms the position of the very top of the Mahia Block

See also map of the Mahia Peninsula showing purchase and Native Land Court boundaries, on p.6 of this report

72 # . . i '. , _f:'f~fij~;!i:~i1c:tl),' ~!~" c~!~: j,t0:);~~\K,::;,;:~,;~~:<:~~ :?";L:':'.~:;I~;;9i'tV~~~~, '. r MAr TWO

I

,II I

I

, .

r· I

...

\

7S 7 G-5

; .------:------_._------, 1 ~ . . J , ! ! !

MAHIA l1okotlli

NUKUTAURUA "" ". 5LOCK Whakatahai

Te Ika a Iama T<1.iporutu

Moemotv Waihi N22

TAWAPATA SOUTH -.....: ". :~ 1 "

'",'

lJiack Reef Scale of MJles I ~ 0 I 1-...... ,:0- -~ '1'1 i Mallia Block Shewn Ar~a clalmed before 1927 CommissIon as unfairly sold Khu·,'.';ni Aeservl;> / r ,,.

\ ,

54

; 8(; 87 88 8f) ,90. ,1

SA1::fah J'how/ny 0/ ~hjl~ ~.£{/n:'17""!!7 u".av'eJ' ~ Nr/l.;r/((!;;Lh()w(! ~ ,At;,h/s . ..5ccde: Z ah.r. ro eM IncA "'/

I

"H A,{,(l<.E.S

[

u 0>1 . ,c- ~.-,;;;::;::- T"~""

J. \ ~

r--- I 76 /AAP S~

:.:'

. "',......

: .. '

,..

~• ®t'<1ltt l111(\el' /{~ 1a t: ,~(

~

3::tnotU ~£: thnt, rOl' gO(,'\ :consi(\ol'utions Us thel'e

~. "t ;,/['1 {It.... rJt.l1~.Lr(L JIA:~t."<. .v ~/ Jlcu/ J~aC~€C.~.('".e. . /. / 1/..t";tHeil's and As::.igns,?:In thnt l>nl'cr\ of .L:md in oUl"l>l'oyitH'l~ flf // rLL, .. /t1.

conktining hy 'lI\mrn"m'(,IlH'llt (/"',, !'7//~

luI;!./" ,·'It· (ltf .('( A~ I "/ . /(H (-I )ILl ~Jt -t!'-~;c..~:" ... ;;;(~r ( l\ /{"~/~ ""~7/" J /.},..,

r '/r:/"d ll '1alC( /"" i -+ . /7« ..." I .11 i.lt, .fro /d~ tl w( //,,; 1 (7.)/J / II;' , . ",,/1 IJ/~'L-'t 11';'111, I

.~ t; t'! [1/.L· t /;:!(' it '( I'll

.... ,,' //' , , I- "I {f I( /fh{ /( /( /( /( .-(1/ .J,~ Iy' !(JI/WII/T/I{J ,1..." /-1-;0 ACn. /1<') '-/'(f ft"lH.t( 1(' .. 1.. !,!.~."" .. , ,.. ft;"'f .' .)-d/l /ll: A./~_ I ,~ ,n /;{; ~('{'.{'" "': '/ C/c ( /56':5-'i /;;/t;; ') :.It" >( /a" d ," .,:/A'"." t- l 77 Appendix Two Mahia Block Deed

Tenei Pukapuka tuku whenua e tuhituhia nei i tenei ra te kau (20) 0 nga ra 0 Oketopa i tetau 0 to tatou Ariki kotahi mano e waru rau e ono te kau rna wha 1864. He pukupuka tino whakaae pono na matou, na nga rangitira me nga tangata 0 Ngatikahungunu e mau nei nga ingoa ki tenei pukupuka, mo matou mo 0 matua whanaunga mo 0 matou wri katoa e whanau e muri

iho i a matou kia tino tukua rawatia tetahi wahi 0 to matou whenua ki a Wikitoria te Kuini 0

Ingarani, ki nga Kingi, Kuini ranei 0 muri iho i a ia aka tonu atu.

A mo to matou whakaaetanga kia tino tukua rawatia tenei wahi 0 te matou kainga e whakaae ana a Wikitoria te Kuini 0 Ingarani mona kia utua matou ki nga pauna moni e rua mane £2000. Kotahi mano, a rima rau 0 ana moni £1500 kua riro mai ki a matau i tenti ra - ko te rima rau e toe ake nei ka homai ki a matou 0 te otinga rawatanga 0 te ruritnaga 0 taua whenua e tukua nei e matou.

Nga Rohe 0 taua whenua e tukua nei inaianei ka timata ki Oraka ke rere ki Pareihe ka haere ki Mangaroa ka haere ki Punawehiwehi ka haere ki Otomoana ka haere ki Kaitangikaroro, ka haere ki Hautaroa ka haere ki Mangawhau ka haere ki Tikapu ka haere ki Pakake a Mahere, ka haere ki Whakaumu a Hika Tupuni ka haere ki Wairenganui ka haere ki Pukewhatu, ka haere ki Maungatea puta noa ki te Moana, ka ahu mai ki te Ahimanawa ka tae mai ki Taramahiti, ki Moemotu, te Ika a Tama te Hoe, te Whakatahae, te Ke~eu, ki Maota, ki

Mokotahi, te Mahia, te Waha 0 Toanga te Upoko 0 Tataramoa, ki Papawhakaango ki Takitaki te Pakipaki tutaki no a ki Oraka te timatanga 0 terohe. (Ko te wahi mo matou hei nohoanga hei mahinga ika, kei Kinikini ki raro iho a te hiwi 0 Taupiri.) Heoi kua oti i a matou te hurihuri te mihi te poroporoake te tino tuku rawa atu i tenei kainga 0 a matou tipuna iho ki a matou me ona awa, me ona wai me ona roto me ona ngaherehere, me ona hiwi me ona parae me ona wahi atuhu me ona wahi kino me one tarutaru, me one rakau me ona pohatu me ona mea katoa kei runga ranei 0 te whenua kei raro ranei a te whenua me ona aha noa iho 0 taua whenua, kua 0 ti i a matou te tino tuku rawa atu, i tenei ra e whiti nei, hei whenua pumau tonu iho ki a Wikitoria te Kuini 0 Ingarani ki nga

Kingi, Kuini ranei, 0 muri iho i a ia aku tonu atu.

A mo te matou whakaaetanga kia tino tukua rawatia tenei wahi 0 to matou kainga kua tuhia iho ki tenei Pukapuka e matou 0 matoa ingoa, me 0 matou tohu. A, mo te whakaaetanga

78 o te Kuini 0 Ingarani mona ki nga tikanga katoa 0 tenei Pukapuka kua tuhia iho e te Makarini tona ingoa. Kai whararite whenua mo te kawanatanaga 0 Niu Tirani

Donald McLean Ihaka Whanga Tangihaere Rikimona Kamura T e Matenga te Mano Piripi T omotomo Hori Te Whareumu Reupene te Mahia Ihaka Makahua Hoani Koura Ihakara Waipakiaki Riwai Te Kauru Hirini Whaanga Ko he mi Taruke Tamihana Taruke Ha mue na Whanga Kahori Menuku Paraone Te Nohoaro

N ga kai titiro i tenai homaitangi moni ne te tuhinga 0 nga ingoa M. Fitzgerald, Justice of the Peace, Napier, New Zealand William Morris, Settler, Mahia, New Zealand John Campbell, Settler, Kinikini James Grindell of Napier, Clerk of the Resident Magistrate's Court F.W. Christian Sturm, Settler, "Mohaka, New Zealand

79 Translation: This deed dated the twentieth day of October, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four (1864) is a paper of the full and final assent of us the chiefs and people of Ngati-Kahungunu whose names are hereto subscribed for us, for our relatives, for our descendants to be born hereafter to sell and absolutely convey a portion of our land to Victoria, Queen of England, to all the Kings and Queens Her Successors for ever AND in consideration of our consent to convey absolutely this portion of our home, Victoria, Queen of England on her part consents to pay to us the sum of £2000. The sum of one thousand pounds five hundred pounds £1500 has been received by us this day and the balance of five hundred pounds will be paid to us when the survey of the said land has been completed. The boundaries of the said land which now being parted with commence from Oraka, thence to Pareihe, thence to Magaroa, thence to Punewehiwehi, thence to Otamoana, thence to Kaitangokaroro, thence to Hautaroa, thence to Maungawhau, thence to Tikapu, thence to Pakake-a-Mahere, thence to Whakaumu a Hika Tupuni, thence to Wairenganui, thence to Pukewhatu, thence to Maungatea, thence to the sea, thence to Te Ahimanawa, thence to Taramahiti, to Moemotu, te Ika a Tama, te Hoe, te Whakatahae, te Kereru, to Maota, to

Mokotahi, te Mahia, te Waka a Toanga, te Upoko 0 Tataramoa, to Papawhakaango, to Takitaki, te Pakipaki, thence meeting Oraka the commencement of the boundary. Kinikini,

30 under the hill called Taupiri, is a place for all of us to occupy and to gather fish. ! Now we have fully and finally considered, wept over and finally bid adieu to these lands inherited by us from our ancestors, which with their rivers, lakes, streams, woods, plains, grass, trees, stones and everything either above or beneath the surface of the soil, we have absolutely conveyed and assured under the shining sun of the present day as a lasting possession to Victoria the Queen of England and to all the Kings and Queens Her Successors for ever. And in testimony to our assent to all the conditions of this deed, we have hereto subscribed our names and marks. And in testimony to the assent of the Queen of England to all the conditions of this deed, it has been signed by Mr. McLean, Land Commissioner for the Government of New Zealand.

'" This last sentence is left out in error from all translations of tile deed si~hted by the author

80 Appendix Three Locke to McLean Letters 1864 - 1865

During 1864 and 1865 Samuel Locke was sent back to the Mahia region to complete the purchases agreed between McLean and Maori during his 1864 trip. During this time Locke wrote frequently to McLean, sometimes more than one letter a day. These letters provide information about the final arrangements for the purchase of Mahia and also the protests that follow.

This sequence of letters has now been broken up: some are housed at the Alexander Turnbull Library and some at National Archives. I have chosen to collect them here in date sequence, rather than by repository, so that the changing thinking of Locke and the changing events on the Peninsula will be clear. One set of letters have been collected in Folder 393: Samuel Locke 1860-1870 of the McLean Papers (MS-Papers-32) in the Alexander Turnbull Library.· The second set are in the Outwards Letters box of the Hawke's Bay Provincial Council records (HB Series 4, Box 5) at National Archives.

HB Series 4, Box 5, National Archives Te Mahia November 28 th 1864

Dear Sir As we have been a long time on our passage I will only say a few words here and write more fully tomorrow by the mail. We left Napier on Thursday afternoon and arrived at Waikokopu on Friday but could not land the goods, Ihaka, Hamiona, and Hirini came on board there and were rather disappointed at your not coming but as you had written saying that you did not think you could come and they found all the things on board they recovered, . Hamiona and Hirini went on shore again but Ihaka (finding that we could not land the goods) accompanied us to Whangawehi where we were obliged to stop all Sunday. I visited Tohuroa and gave him the blanket and also a little rice and flour at which he was very pleased, but said that he had a great wish to see Maroaroa[?] face to face. I also saw Ihabi Makahui who appeared [to] be perfectly satisfied, and said that he with his party conjointly with some natives from Maraetaha wished to offer at the hui some land, next [to] Waikokopu in the direction of Turanga - but I did not encourage him but told him that I should be glad to hear any thing at the meeting, on the whole I think that everything looks as well as I could expect [ ... ]

HB Series 4, Box 5, National Archives Te Mahia November 28 th 1864 Sir In obedience to your instructions contained in your letter of November 23,d I proceeded in the government cutter 'Iris' on Thursday to the Mahia for the purpose of surveying the land lately purchased by your Honor at that place, and also to pay the chief

81 Ihaka Whaanga the sum of five hundred pounds being the remainder of the two thousand pounds due for the Mahia Block. We started from Napier on Thursday afternoon and arrived at the Waikokopu the following day but through contrary winds were not able to land the goods sent for the Natives. Shortly after we anchored we were visited by the Chiefs Ihaka Whaanga, Hirini his son and Pamuwera[?] his nephew who expressed great pleasure at out arrival but were disappointed at not seeing you on board, but after reading your letter, and finding that you had kept all your promises with them they were satisfied. Finding that we could not land conveniently and that the southerly wind was increasing we started for Wangawehi taking Ihaka Whaanga with us, we stopped at Wangawehi part of Saturday and Sunday. I took advantage of our stay by visiting Tangi-haere, Teira, Ihaka Makahui, Te Touroa and others and from the their [sic] expressions to me and from what I heard the visit was very opportune. We set sale again on Sunday evening but through being becalmed all night were not able to land at the Mahia till this evening. My first object on landing was to deliver over to Ihaka Whaanga all the goods presented to him by the government, with which he.seemed very pleased, and immediately stored them away in a part of a large weather-board house belonging to himself which he has set apart for my accommodation during my staying in this district. From what I can ascertain since my arrival all the owners of the land are perfectly satisfied in every respect with the late sale, and the effect of your visit has been most beneficial, but I am also informed that the 'Kingites' or 'Runangaites' or 'Land Leaguers' (or whatever they may be called) are coming from Turanga, amongst others the Chief Rahauihia[? Raharuhi?] to Wangawehi to hold a meeting on the 12'h of December or there abouts, for the purpose of getting the Natives, who have sold the land to the government, to return the money and retain the land, but I am happy to state that Ihaka Whaanga is, as he has always been, firm and true to his word, and I feel convinced in my own mind that the Turanga people by coming will cause the very thing they wish to prevent, that is, the sale of the whole peninsular. Ihaka Makahui, Teira and others have offered me a large block of land at the west end of Mahia, I informed them that the government were not anxious to buy that or any other land unless all parties ful.1y agreed to sell, but that if such were the case, that there would an opportunity at the meeting to offer any land they might felt disposed to sell. It is proposed by Ihaka Whaanga and his party, that the meeting at Wangawehi where the T uranga chiefs will be present, should take previously to that at the Mahia. In the mean time I shall proceed with the survey of the late purchase a plan of which I hope to be able to forward very shortly [ ... ]

Folder 393, McLean Papers, MS-Papers-32, ATL Te Mahia Nov 28th 1864

Dear Sir I wrote a few lines to you by the vessel and have since written another letter in which I said that the Turanga natives were coming on the 12th of December. Tamihana Ruatapu called here on his was from Napier and tryed [sic] to turn these people but could not succeed so they intend to try again and bringing[?] as much force in the way of argument as they can muster. I wish it were possible for you to come for a few days at that time for after a long talk to Ihaka

82 he says that he has no particular fear for this place, although he would like you to see him [?] to the government, but that perhaps it would end in making an opening into Turanga [ ... ]

Folder 393, McLean Papers, MS-Papers-32, ATL Te Mahia Dec 5th 1864

Dear Sir I am sorry to say that there has not been much real progress made excepting that the survey is going on. When I last wrote I stated that the Turanga Natives were coming on the 12th of this month to prevent the sale of any more land and if possible to upset the late purchase since writing that letter Ihaka Nga-rangiowe from Whareongaonga has been here for two days with the Ngaitus they came without giving any notice knowing that Ihaka Waanga's people Matenga and Tamiha were at Nuhaka Their purpose was to offer the Kopuawhara that is the piece of land at the west end of Mahia Peninsula (the land before mentioned) but only that portion on which Ihaka Waanga's cultivations were on and to reserve the rest for themselves and the King or Runanganui - in fact to sell Ihaka out. After consulting Ihaka on the matter he said that if they would sell their right to Whanagawehi he would consent to the same of Kopuawhara that is if they would sell both sides of the stream, and then, that all parties should have reserves marked out for them but they would not agree, This was made known without him standing up to speak, When he found that their only object was to drive him out he treated them very coldly not taking the least notice of them, since the meeting Ihaka, Waka, Tamihana, Hirini and Paioneone have offered me the land up to the Black reef which I am going to look at tomorrow. The only one who objects is Capt. Snipe who has a: small claim which can be marked off. The main part which I was instructed to buy that is Wangawehi can not be done any thing with till after the 12th of this month when the T uranga Natives will be here, and I hope if possible you also, I think it would be of great benefit [ ... ] Mr Fitzgerald has just arrived to layoff a Township [... ] Ihaka wished me to stop till the meeting is over [... ]

HB Series 4, Box 5, National Archives Te Mahia Dec 10th 1864 Sir I have the honor to forward enclosed the receipt for five hundred pounds (£500) paid by me to Ihaka Waanga on the 1" of this month - being the balance of purchase money for the Mahia Block on which payment of one thousand five hundred pounds had been paid by your Honor- . In a previous letter to your Honor I mentioned that the Turanga natives intended coming to a meeting at Whaiwhaia near Wangawehi [ sic] to interfere in the late purchase, and to prevent if possible any further sales to the Government, and from all I have since heard they do not flag in their exertions, they will intend to be present on the 12'\ but not in so large a body as at first intended. The Natives of Turanga appear to be very much divided amongst themselves some going as far as to propose sales. They have of late been holding meetings for

83 the purpose of preventing any further leasing in their districts stating that the letting of the land only leads to the sale of the same. On the second of the month Ihaka Rangiowe from Whareongaonga with a few of the Ngaitu came here to offer a block of land at the west end of the Mahia, called Kopuawhara, but as they only offered one side of the stream including Ihaka Waanga's cultivations and kept the other side where their own are, and as they did not screen the fact that their object was to drive Ihaka out, and settle their side of the stream with kingites, knowing also that their title without Ihaka Waanga's consent was useless, I considered it my duty to refuse their offer, without causing any unpleasantness with the Ngaitu's so far to the contrary that I am informed that Wangawehi will be offered dn the 12th. If not then, that it is their intention to sell it to the government as soon as they have all agreed. The owners of the Reef and that portion of the peninsular including te Waka, Matenga, Paioneone, Hirini Waanga and others have offered me a piece of land stretching from your late purchase to the Black reef, they commenced by offering a small piece of. about two thousand acres then it was enlarged to about double, and now they added another piece making in all from eight to ten thousand acres, I went ina boat to see some of the boundaries a day or two back, but 'as some of the owners are absent, and as they have not fully decided on all the boundaries, I informed then that when they have fully settled the question amongst themselves that I will go over the boundaries and then decide the price etc

Folder 393, McLean Papers, MS-Papers-32, ATL Mahia Dec 10th 64

Dear Sir I enclose an account from Campbell for a boat &c which he has sold to Ihaka, they say that you agreed that Ihaka should have it, Ihaka says that he will pay the money by and bye, There is a question here as to who the Whales belong to, which are driven on shore within,the Govt boundary - Bartlett has driven up about eight or ten head of cattle from Turanga, he asked me if they might be on Govt lands told him yes, but not to bring any more till some arrangements were made by the Govt, I mention this because I believe that MrFitzgerald have been cross questioning him as to whether you gave him leave to stop on this land. I told Bartlett that his cattle could stop but that I should refer the matter to you so that arrangements might be made for such cases [ ... ] Tangihaere told me last night that the Turanga people have had a plan laid out for long time to ransack [?] store if things come to the worst they appear to think that there is powder there he asked me to mention this to no one but you lest the Natives should here [sic] of it. The Maraetaha people appear to be the most united and the best behaved excepting Ihaka of Whareongaonga but he has no claim here - Campbell has given me a great deal of information with respect to relationships. .

84 Folder 393, McLean Papers, MS·Papers·32, ATL Te Mahia Dec 19th 1864

Sir The meeting that I mentioned in two previous letters was to take place on the 12th of this month met on Thursday 16'h, at Waiwhaia. The ostensible object of the meeting was to collect money sufficient to pay for the ordination of a man named Watene, as priest, but advantage was taken of the occasion to turn it to political purposes, namely, as I before mentioned to return the money paid by you for the Mahia, and to prevent the sale of any further lands in this district, by having them transferred over to their care. On Tuesday 12th Paul Apatu and party arrived from the Wairoa, on Wednesday, Ihaka Waanga, Paul Apatu, with the people from the Mahia, Kopuawhara, and the Wairoa rode over to Waiwhaia, the party was overtaken by the. people from Nuhaka and Tahaenui just after starting from the Mahia. But as the people from Turanga had not arrived nothing more was done than making a few complimentary speeches. Thursday 15 th was spent very quietly the only event of the day being the collection of the money to pay for the priests ordination it was managed in a very orderly manner previous to our arrival a long tent had been built with a long table on each side with forms to sit on, about twelve o'clock the guests were all formed in a [?] and so marched to dinner, but before starting the money collected had been equally divided amongst them,. and as they entered the tent they left their money in a plate held at the door. In the evening a few disputes were settled, amongst which was one which arose through the sale of five gallons of rum by (as the Natives stated) Mr. Carroll of the Wairoa, which rum was carried to Nuhaka and there retailed [?] out. Early on the morning of the 16th the Turanga natives arrived they numbered but eight or ten, but were sent to represent the Rongowakaata tribe. The principal men were Paul Arawhariki, and Wi Pere. The talk was commenced by Paul Apatu, who told the other party that he knew the purpose for which they came, but that they would not succeed, for the land was gone to the pakeha, and that the Wairoa, and Nuhaka, were gone also, he spoke exceedingly well as did Ihaka, and t angihaere. The speeches of the other party were violent, going as far as to threaten that if the land was not returned to them, and the money to the government, that they would go back toTuranga and bring a party, and drive the pakeha off the land and the loyal natives with them. They were then told that the.land belonged to the government, that it had been bought from the real owners, and that the money had been paid, and unless they could prove a claim to some portion that no notice would be taken of them, we then rode back to the Mahia. On Saturday, Paul and Ihaka, assisted by others divided the money into different parcels and labelled them ready for the distribution on Monday. Monday 19th This morning Paul Apatu left for the Wairoa, shortly after his departure the Natives from Nuhaka arrived followed by the Ngaitu, and some of the people from the Cape immediately after their arrival it was perceived that the Turanga people had not been idle having persuaded the Ngaitu to refuse the money offered by Ihaka (fifty pounds) because they did not see the bags opened, they wished me to take the money back but I told then that I could not do that for I considered the land as belonging to the government, that you had previously paid Ihaka forty pounds, that he had consented to the sale and signed his name but that I wished them to settle the matter quietly amongst themselves, after me telling Ihaka the above, he told me that as far as he was concerned he would be quite willing to do so, but that

85 his people would not consent, he thought, but he would go and try, so he left me this evening. Since his departure there had been a meeting to consult as to what is best to be done for Ihaka Wanga appears to be fully under the impression that the Turanga people intend mischief that they only want an opportunity, he wishes me particularly to ask you to send some arms down and have them left with some European, all the natives of Nuhaka, Kopuawhara and with a few exceptions those at Nukutaurua declare themselves loyal.

[In the margin of the letter is written: Ihaka Makahue £20 Paora Arawhariki [?] 10 Wi Pere 10 Wi Paretupua [?] ~ f2Q..]

Folder 393, McLean Papers, MS-Papers-32, ATL TeMahia Dec 19th 1864

Dear Sir I am sorry to say that things have taken a bad turn rather here through the arrival of the Turanga people, they have worked these people up to a great state of excitement, at all events openly, although I believe if you could come down that you would be able to get land at Wangawehi, as soon as the Turanga people are gone. Although Ihaka Wanga says it can not be done yet, Ihaka is very anxious to have some arms sent down for he seems convinced the Turanga people mean harm he has been counting his ammunition and cleaning an old gun or two. Wi Pere told me at the meeting that Ihaka Ranigowe came for the purpose [of] selling Ihaka out or rather driving him out. Some complain that Ihaka has not divided the money fairly.others say that he might have kept nearly the whole. He has kept six hundred pounds. Paul got two hundred and ninety pounds. I feel one comfort which is that they all say I am not in the least the cause of the disturbance. Rongowakaata have done it, and I cannot help thinking, but, that a little time and management will put it all right again but I should like to see you here if you could spare the time. Ihaka intends going to Napier if you don't come up I wish that Mr Turley could be spared for a month as the natives of Nuhaka are getting anxious about their place, I can get men, he would only require an instrument. I am going with Ihaka as soon as I have finished the furthest boundary which will take a day or two, My men have not been idle for when I was away they helped Mr Fitzgerald, I went to the meetings at the request of the natives Hoping to receive an answer by the man who carries this I remain [etc ... ]

P.S. I forgot to bring a copy of the receipt of the forty pounds paid to Ihaka Makahui or rather I did not think I should want it It is now just dawn of day. One demand of Ihaka Makahui and his party is that they should have one thousand, and Ihaka Wanga one- [ have let Matenga of N uhaka have seventeen pounds of account of Nuhaka

86 Folder 393, McLean Papers, MS-Papers-32, ATL Te Mahia Dec 22nd 1864 Dear Sir I wrote to you on Monday saying that the N gatitu, through the interference of the Turanga people, had offered to return the money, they have done so again, but [IJ refused to take it. The Rongowakaata have returned excepting Paul Arawhariki who intends to stop till you come, the enclosed is a letter from Natives at the Cape who are dissatisfied with the share of the money.302 Some natives came yesterday and asked if the government would buy the land at the west end of the Mahia the same that was before refused after speaking to Ihaka, who consented, I told them that land without an outlet to the sea was useless that they must give Wangawehi then the government would buy theirs if there were no disputes about it, to which proposition they consented and left, I hope you can come for a few days Ihaka Makahui has written to you, Ihaka Wanga is very anxious to see you for all this disturbance has arisen through Rongowakaata taking advantage of some dissatisfaction about the money they told these people that they would back them with all the help they might require I remain [etc .. J

I have proposed just now that Tangihaere should give Ngaitu £50 more which I hope will settle the question, Ihaka Makahui is not the head of his Hapu but Hirini Takotoroa of Waiwhara who is friendly and Wi Paritupua who lives at the Wairoa he is friendly also

Folder 393, McLean Papers, MS-Papers-32, ATL Nuhaka 31 Dec 1864

[Locke talks about the Nuhaka Block sale, the boundaries of which start 'from where the road ascends from the beach at the Mahia ... 'J The natives look upon Wangawehi as gone to sea but they wish to have the Ngaitu affair settled first, Ihaka and his party appear to be very suspicious of the intentions of Turanga, They say that Ruharuhi is not dying[?J but that he means to show himself in his proper colours - he says that he only wants to let his dogs loose to end the fight in favour. of the Natives, I am very anxious to see the mail as so to hear from you, I believe that I have done every thing for the best so far as I could - Nuhaka now would make a very good settlement the flat land is very good indeed and sufficient of it - Ihaka is very pleased about his vessel.

Folder 393, McLean, MS-Papers-32, ATL Wairoa 22 April 1865

[After a lengthy discussion of a meeting between Hauhau and the Wairoa Maori, where Ihaka Whaanga took the side of the governmentJ [ ... ] Ihaka W anga [sic] is here telling me that the U rewera are going home at once so also are the others - He often mentions a small piece of

'" This leller has been copied into this report at p.37

87 land which he added to the Mahia block at the inland side since the sale to make the block more square. I suppose he looks [for] something for it. I tell him I have no time to see it at the present. He will be in town in a day or two when he will tell you all the news.

88 Bibliography

Primary sources

Published Hawke's Bay Herald

Hawke's Bay Almanac for 1865, Napier, 1865 Hawke's Bay Almanac, 1873 Harding's Almanac East Coast Directory and Local Guide, 1887

Official Sources Appendix to the Journals of the House ofRepresentatives Hawke's Bay Government Gazette New Zealand Census New Zealand Gazette Votes and Proceedings of the Hawke's Bay Provincial Council

Native Land Court minute books

Unpublished Alexander Turnbull Library McLean, Donald, Papers, MS-Papers-0032 Folder 202 Folder 393-4: Correspondence of Samuel Locke to McLean 1850-1876 Folder 688E: Letters in Maori to McLean

McLean, Donald, Letterbook, Superintendent of Hawke's Bay, qMS-1203

McLean, Donald, journal, (transcript), MS-1286

Locke, Samuel, 'Report of a visit to the Turanga, Wairoa and Waiapu Districts [25 October 1869]" MS-Papers-0883 '

Wakefield, E. J., Hand-book to New Zealand, London, 1848

Hawke's Bay Museum Samuel Locke, 'Reminiscences of the Wairoa', McLean Papers

LINZ Hawke's Bay Crown Grants, Mayfair House, Wellington

National Archives HB 1111 Hawke's Bay Provincial Council, Session XII 1111 Hawke's Bay Provincial Council, Session XIII 1/13 Hawke's Bay Provincial Council, Session XXII

89 4/5 Inwards Letters 4/13 Letters to and from Maoris

LE 1/1936/16 1/1942/8 1/1944/17 1/1945/12

LS 1/1306 56866 Mahia 1/16/693 Kaiuku Public Reserve

MA 1/5/13/76 Town of Mahia Sections 57 and 153 1/5/13/81 [Acc 2459] Petition 82/1936 Hirini Whaanga Christy Crown Purchase Mahia Block 1/21/3/549 [Acc 2459] Kaiuku

15/46 East Coast - Hawke's Bay outline map with Maori Settlements

Royal Commission to Enquire into Claims Concerning the Mahia Block 94/1 Proceedings 94/2 Exhibits 94/3 Correspondence and Notes

MA-MLP 6/3 Old Native land purchases, Hawke's Bay. Printed copies 0/ deeds o/sale, Hawke's Bay, including manuscript copies 0/ deeds MA-MT 6/17 Plans 0/ Natives Reserves in the Several Provinces 0/ New Zealand

OLC. 1/61 Thomas Bateman 1/132 Cooper, Holt and Rhodes 1/133 Cooper, Holt and Rhodes 1/134 Cooper, Holt and Rhodes 1/989 Robert Brown 1/1338 John Greening

90 Secondary Sources

Theses Ballara, Angela, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1991

Gordon, Leslie, 'Immigration mto Hawke's Bay 1858-1876', MA, Victoria University of Wellington, 1965

Smit, Grace, 'Mana Maori: Questions of Authority on the East Coast During the Nineteenth Century', MA Thesis, Auckland, 1997

Articles Ballara, Angela, 'Nuku-pewapewa', The Dictionary 0/ New Zealand Biography, Volume 1, Wellington, 1990, pp.320-321

Ballara, Angela, 'Te Hapuku, The Dictionary o/New Zealand Biography, Volume 1, Wellington, 1990, ppA43-445

Ballara, Angela, 'Te Pareiha', The Dictionary o/New Zealand Biography, Volume 1, Wellington, 1990, ppA76-77

Ballara, Angela, 'Te Wera Hauraki', The Dictionary 0/ New Zealand Biography, Volume 1, Wellington, 1990, pp.518-520

Ballara, Angela, 'The Pursuit of Mana? A Re-evaluation of the Process of Land Alienation by the Maori, 1840-1890',journal o/the Polynesian Society, Vol. 91, No.4, December 1982, pp.519- 542

Ballara, Angela, 'Whaanga, Ihaka', The Dictionary 0/ New Zealand Biography, Volume. 1, Wellington, 1990, pp.584-585

Boyd, Mary, 'Ormond, John Davies', The Dictionary 0/ New Zealand Biography, Volume 1, Wellington, 1990, pp.324-325

Brooking, Tom, 'Rees, William', The Dictionary 0/ New Zealand Biography, Volume 2, Wellington, ppA09-410

Downes, T. W., 'The History of Ngati Kahungunu', Journal 0/ the Polynesian Society, Vol. 23- 25, 1914-16

Gudgeon, W. E., 'The Maori Tribes of the East Coast of New Zealand', Journal 0/ the Polynesian Society, Vols. 3-6, 1894-1897

Korver, A. E., 'Burns, Barnet', The Dictionary 0/ New Zealand Biography, Volume 1, Wellington, 1990, p.57

91 Parsonson, Ann, 'The Challenge to Mana Maori', in Geoffrey Rice (ed.), The Oxford History of New Zealand, Auckland, 1992, pp.167-198

Patterson, Brad, 'Rhodes, William Barnard', The DictionalY of New Zealand Biography, Volume 1, Wellington, 1990, pp.361-2

Phillipps, W. J., 'Ika-Whenua: the Mauri of the Whales on Mahia Peninsula', Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 57, 1948, pp.41-5

Porter, Frances, 'Williams, William', The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume 1, Wellington, 1990, pp.597-598

Simpson, K. M. and C. M., 'Halbert, Thomas', The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume 1,'Wellington, 1990, pp.171-2

Smith, S.'Percy, 'Wars of the Northern Against the Southern Tribes on New Zealand in the Nineteenth Century', Journal ofthe Polynesian Society, Vo!s. 8, 9, 10 and 13, 1899-1904

Tarakawa, Takaanui, 'The Doings of Te Wera and Nga-Puhi', translated by S. Percy Smith, Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol.8, 1899, pp.179-87, 235-48 and Vol.9, 1900, pp.47-62, 65- 84, 135-41

Ward, Alan, 'McLean, Donald', The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume 1, Wellington, 1990, pp.255-258

Ward, Alan, 'Pere, Wiremu', The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume 2, Wellington, 1993, pp.380-382

Whyte, Philip, 'Harris, John Williams', The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume 1, Wellington, 1990, p.177

Books Ballara, 'Angela, [wi: The Dynamics of Maori Tribal Organistaion from c.1769 to c.1945, Wellingtbu, 1998

Best, Elsdon, Fishing Methods and Devices of the Maori, [1944], Wellington, 1977

Best, Elsdon, Tuhoe: Children ofthe Mist, [1925], Wellington, 1996

Paul Clark, 'Hauhau': The Pai Marire Search ofMaori Identity, Auckland, 1975

Dinwiddie, W., Old Hawke's Bay, Napier, 1916

Halbert, Rongowhakaata, Horouta: The History of the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast, Auckland, 1999

Hickson, J., Catholic Missionary Work in Hawke's Bay, New Zealand, Auckland, 1924

92 Jeal, Mike and Mary, A Third Season 0/ Archaeological Site Recording on the Mahia Peninsula, Wellington, 1986

Jones, Kevin, Nga Tohuwhenua Mai Te Rangi: A New Zealand Archaeology in Aerial Photographs, Wellington, 1994

Lambert, Thomas, Story of Old Wairoa and the East Coast District, North Island, [1925], Dunedin, 1952

Macgregor, Miriam, Early Stations 0/ Hawke's Bay, Wellington, Reed, 1970

Mackay, Joseph, Historic Poverty Bay and the East Coast, Gisborne, [self-published], 1949

Mitchell, J. H., Takitimu: a History 0/ the Ngati Kahungunu People, [1944], n.p., 1972

Ngata, Apirana (ed.), NgaMoteatea: the Songs, Wellington, 1974

O'Malley, Vincent, Agents 0/ Autonomy: Maori Committees tn the Nineteenth Century, Wellington, 1997

Porter, Frances, (ed.), The Turanga Journals 1840·1850. Letters and Journals of William and Jane Williams, Wellington, 1974

Sherrin, R. and J. Wallace, Early History 0/ New Zealand, Auckland, 1890

Ward, Alan, A Show 0/ Justice: Racial 'Amalgamation in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, [1974], Auckland, 1995

Whaanga-Schollum, Mere, Bartlett: Mahia to Tawatapu, Mahia, [1990]

Wilson, J. G. ~t aI., History o/Hawke's Bay, Dunedin, 1939

Unpublished reports on the Waitangi Tribunal record of documents Alexander, David, 'Waihua Block', report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Wai 201, DocJ24, 1996

Ballara, Angela and Gary Scott, 'Crown purchases of Maori land in early provincial Hawke's Bay', and document bank, report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Wai 201, Document 11, 1994

Ballara, Angela and Gary Scott, 'Mahia', in 'Crown purchases of Maori land in early provincial Hawke's Bay', and document bank, report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Wai 201, Document 11, 1994

Hippolite, Joy, 'Crossing the Bar: Aspects of the History of the Waikokopu and Opoutama block with special reference to the Waikokopu Harbour', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1999

93 O'Malley, Vincent, 'The Ahuriri Purchase', report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Wai 201, DocJ19, 1995

Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui reports Boast, Richard, The Foreshore, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, November 1996

Cowie, Dean, Hawke's Bay, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, September 1996

Hippolite, Joy, Wairoa, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, November 1996

Ward, Alan, National Overview, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, 1997

Waitangi Tribunal Reports Mohaka River Report 1992, Wellington, 1992

94 ,03' , . Ii~:;'l;:~~~ I L. h1" ____ / WAI 201 \I ).44

WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

CONCERNING the Treaty ·of Waitangi Act 1975

AND CONCERNING Wairoa ki Wairarapa claims

DIRECTION COMMISSIONING RESEARCH

1 Pursuant to clause 5A(1) of the second schedule of the Treaty ofWaitangi Act 1975, the Tribunal commissions Elizabeth Cox, a member of staff, of Wellington to complete a research report on the Mahia block purchase (1864), covering the following matters:

(a) The instructions given by the Crown to its land purchase agents, Donald McLean and Samuel Locke.

(b) The area ofland purchased by the Crown, the payments made, and their adequacy.

(c) What was the nature of the negotiations conducted by the Crown with IwifHapu in the area, on the purchase of their land. Were investigations carried out as to Maori ownership/control of the land, were payments correctly 'made to the appropriate IwilHapu representatives of that land, and were promises of collateral advantages resulting from the sale of land made but not kept?

(d) What reserves, ifany, were established, were they regarded as adequate at the time, were'there other lands which should have been reservedfrorn: sale, and what has happened to those reserves which were established?

(e) What has been the record of the IwifHapu complaints relating to the Crown purchase, and what has been the Crown's response to these complaints?

(f) Any other issues ofrelevance to the purchase.

2 This commission commences on receipt of written confirmation of the commissionee's acceptance of the terms and conditions ofthe commission.

3 The commission ends on 30 April 1999, at which time one copy of the report will be ~led in unbound form together with an indexed document bank and a copy of the report on disk.

Cont page 2. The report may ...... Page 2.

4 The report may be received as evidence and the author may be cross examined on it.

5 The Registrar is to send copies of this direction to:

Elizabeth Cox Claimants Counsel for Claimants Solicitor General, Crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements Secretary, Crown Forestry Rental Trust Chief Executive, Te Puni Kokiri

Dated at Wellington this 13cL day of November 1998.

Deputy I-Chief Judge N Smith Deputy Chairperson WAITANGITRIBUNAL