Introduction Whakarewarewa Forest comprises approximately 3264 ha. (8065 acres), immediately south of the city of Rotorua. In the Forest Service's commissioned work, New Zealand Forest Parks, Geoffrey Chavasse introduces the park thus: Its exotic trees provide a regular harvest of timber. Nearby are four important Forest Service establishments - Waipa Sawmill, the Timber Industry Training Centre, the Forest Research Institute and the Forestry Training Centre.

This was once a place of legend. It is said that the terrible bird woman, Kura Ngai tuku, chased the crafty Hatupatu through the Pareuru Pass and met her frightful death in a hot mud pool called Whangapipiro. Several historic sites are preserved within the park including Tokorangi, once an important pa, and encircled by planted trees is Lake Rotokakahi where chiefs lie buried on tapu Motutawa Island. Before 1886 the main tourist route to the famed pink and white terraces of Lake Rotomahana passed through here, but when Tarawera blew its top they were destroyed. The countryside was covered with ash and mud and Te Wairoa village lay buried. It is difficult to imagine now, that scene of desolation. During the 1870's the Premier, Sir Julius Vogel, and the noted biologist Thomas Kirk (among others) became concerned at the rapid depletion of the native forests, and, in the 1880's, an afforestation programme was started under the control of skilled nurserymen. Production of trees in Whakarewarewa Nursery, consisting of about 20 hectares, began in 1898. By 1934 the nursery had grown to 66 hectares, and in that year 22 million seedlings were produced. The nursery declined following the planting of these seedlings. In 1965 the site became a research nursery.

In 1899 the planting of exotic trees began in Whakarewarewa Forest - about 170 species were tried, from Europe, the Americas, and Australia. The place was still remote; there were two prison camps and the inmates planted the trees. Many of those introductions grew well. By 1916 the original site was planted, except for small areas of native bush, which still remain. By 1939 sawlogs were being harvested .... Tens of thousands of people visit the Whakarewarewa Forest park every year ... In these green and pleasing surroundings it is sometimes difficult to believe that there is a bustling city very close at hand, a city whose rapid growth over the last 30 years has been largely due to the harvest of trees ~lanted during the years of the Great Depression."

The Crown acquired most of the Whakarewarewa forest lands from the Arawa sub-tribe, Tuhourangi, in ten purchases and three compulsory acquisitions. Nearly all of the lands were included in the first eight purchases, which occurred in an eight-and-a­ half year period from August 1894 and February 1903. Apparently, all the lands were acquired specifically for forestry purposes.

The Forest consists solely of parts of the old Whakarewarewa block, and parts of subdivisions 2, 4, 6A, 6L and 6S of the Rotomahana-Parekarangi block (see map, p 60 of DOSLI databank). As the claims in Wai 204 have apparently been made on behalf of Tuhourangi, and the customary title to the Whakarewarewa block is shared between Ngati Wahiao and Ngati Whakaue, we focus most closely on the Rotomahana-Parekarangi parts.2

This submission seeks to give an overview of both Tuhourangi and the Crown's involvements in these lands prior to this period of sale, in order to better understand their respective motives and interests in the sales themselves, and the consequences of the sales for each party. Overall, we aim to characterise the transactions sufficiently to enable their initial assessment in light of the Treaty of Waitangi.

G. Chavasse and J. Johns, New ZeaLand Forest Parks, Wgtn:Government Print, 1983, pp 81 & 84; Databank, voLume IV, p163, 164.

2 This is not to say that Tuhourangi Lack customary interests in the Whakarewarewa part. Ngati Wahiao and Tuhourangi are cLoseLy inter-reLated. Self-management Debased

The Tuhourangi tribe was the keeper of the legendary Pink and White Terraces, Otukapuarangi and Te Tarata, which the first Europeans did not lay eyes on, until the 1840s. Te Wairoa, an important Tuhourangi settlement, was the point from which the final seven mile journey to the Terraces was made. According to Te Awekotuku, "such awesome loveliness was used by the local Maori as a leprosy colon~, a place of the diseased and the scourged, a place to die." Europeans saw the Terraces from a different perspective, with early visitors such as John Johnson, Colonial Physician,4 Ferdinand von Hochstetter in 1858,5 and Joliffe6 being quick to recognize the potential of Lake Rotomahana as a tourist and health resort for visitors from not only the Australasian colonies, but from all parts of the world. Quoting Te Awekotuku again,

Rotomahana, for decades the horne of Tuhourangi, for a few years perhaps a well kept secret, was about to become the "eighth natural wonder of the world" in a previously inconceivably wealthy merger of native village and tourist resort. 7

Those few early travellers who ventured to the region left with marvellous tales of this "scenic wonderland". As word spread, so too did European attempts to purchase land and exploit Rotomahana. In 1853, Abraham Warbrick, an English flax trader who married the daughter of the chief of Ngati Rangitihi, moved his whole family from coastal Matata to Rotomahana. Tuhourangi, infuriated by Warbrick' s "trespass," attempted to evict him from

3 Te Awekotuku, Ngahuia "The SociocuLturaL impact of Tourism on the Te Arawa PeopLe of Rotorua, New ZeaLand" University of Waikato 1981, unpubLished thesis, pp36 - 37. Hereafter citied as "Te Awekotuku". (No copy of this thesis submitted>. 4 Te Awekotuku, p37, citing Johnson, J: "Rotomahana wouLd be a most agreeabLe summer residence - pLeasing scenery, riding parties to the Lakes, hot and coLd bathing, and it may be anticipated at no very distant period when the true character of its waters and remediaL agents has been ascertained, and its beautifuL LocaLities and saLubrious air known, it wiLL be part of the country much resorted to by invaLids, and by those whose Leisure wilL permit them to vary their residence."

5 Te Awekotuku, p4D, citing Ferdinand von Hochstetter: "I have no doubt that, at no very distant period, this remarkabLe Lake wiLL become the centre of attraction not onLy for tourists of aLL nations, but aLso a pLace of invaLids from aLL parts of the worLd."

6 Te Awekotuku, p37, citing JoL iffe: "What a fashionabLe bathing pLace wouLd this fairy Like spot become, if it were transferred to EngLand."

7 Te Awekotuku, p4D the area and destroyed his house. 8

Apparently the tribe neither wanted nor encouraged a pakeha presence. Apart from the missionaries, the only European residing in Tuhourangi's rohe in the early 1870's was Pierre Fangerrand, a Frenchman married to a Maori woman. He ran a hostel for those few early European travellers, and even he faced hostility and attempts to drive him away.9

In the early 1870s, then, facilities at Te Wairoa, the base for the Terrace visits, were rather basic. Awekotuku suggests that "visitors were catered to by Tuhourangi themselves on a casual basis." A local Maori, Waretini, established an accommodation house at the village, advertising that visitors could be assured of "good accommodation at reasonable charges." 10 Waretini evidently did not meet pakeha standards, though, as guide books of the time were critical at what they saw as "the want of proper accommodation". The same guide book explained,

"The reason of this discomfort is that the Natives [Tuhourangi] object to a proper European hotel being built. "11

Perhaps Tuhourangi, having learnt the economic value of the Terraces, wished to keep its development to themselves. However, Te Awekotuku notes another factor as to why Tuhourangi remained firmly opposed to European development:

" ... they were feeling ambivalent about what was happening around them. They enjoyed the cash, gifts and tobacco; they probably even enjoyed the strangers presence in their kainga, but they also sensed impending change. 12

Increased contact with European brought about a breakdown of their traditional society. Once considered the "picked tribe of the Arawa", accounts of the early 1870s, such as Trollope's,13

8 Te Awekotuku, p 38 - 40. According to Te Awetokutu, Warbrick's settLement may have been part of a Ngati Rangitihi attempt to estabLish a cLaim to the ngawha of Rotomahana. 9 Te Awakotuku, p 49, citing an account of Fegerrand: "OnLy shoost the other day, I horsevipped a Maori woman I caught setting fire to my house. Dey want aLL the trade of this pLace, so they are going to turn me aowt." 10 Don Stafford, The Founding Years in Rotorua, Rotorua, Rotorua District Counci L & Ray Richards PubLisher, 1986, p 87. Hereafter cited as "Stafford"; DB voL IV, p207. 11 Langbridge and Edgecumbe's 'Handbook', 1875, p 13, 'The Don Stafford CoLLection,' Rotorua PubLic Library; DB voL IV, p251 12 Te Awekotuku, p 48. 13 [1872J " There was a church, a cLergyman's house, a corn-miLL and a considerabLe extent of cLeared Land Lying amid the beautifuLLy broken ground. The church was empty, and deserted. The cLergyman's house was faLLing into decay, and was occupied by a Maori woman and a Frenchman. The corn-miLL was choked up and in ruins. On the Land there was no sign and Langbridge and Edgecumbe's,14 depict a tribe falling into "chaos" and decline. What was once a carefully cultivated and well organised village, Te Wairoa, had deteriorated after its evacuation during the land wars of the 1860s. Crops were abandoned and the flour mill fell into disrepair. 15 Stafford notes, "it was the rapid development of tourism after 1873 that was the prime reason for the drastic changes. Village industry ceased, crops and cultivations were not worked and previous sober habits forgotten ... it was the flow of money which the tourists brought with them that led to a decline in attributes that moralists at the time considered the only ones that should exist. Much has been said and written about the debasement of locals who were encouraged in debauchery, at Te Wairoa particularly, to suit the requests of some of its visitors. There was some prostitution, a great deal of drunkenness and occasional performances of native dances that offered an extra display of 'indecencies' for those who were prepared to pay extra. ,,16

Liquor was undoubtedly a major factor in Tuhourangi's decline. While alcohol had been a part of the colony since the earliest days of whaling and sealing, it did not reach Tuhourangi until the 1860s, when it became customary for tourists to give the Wairoa boat paddlers rum as a type of gratuity.17

In 1873, at a meeting with the Native Minister at Te Wairoa, Hoani Te Whati, on behalf of Ngatitama asked that the sale of spirits should be stopped. H. T. Clarke, appointed kaitiaki by the Native Minister, agreed that the sale of spirits should be

of crop, or of preparation for crops .... everything was going back to the savageness of the wilderness ... There were Maoris in pLenty -- a vilLage fuLL of Maoris." TroLLope, Anthony New ZeaLand London, 1874 p144 'The Don Stafford CoLLection' Rotorua PubLic Library; DB voL IV, p245

14 "On the border of Lake Tarawera, the home of Tuhourangi, formerLy considered the picked tribe of Te Arawa. This pLace now presents a sad picture. as one can see nothing the remnants of former Labour - this peopLe having forsaken their habits of industry are now dwelling among ruins, Living a hand to mouth Life, being actuaLLy too Lazy to grow sufficient potatoes to keep themseLves from starving." Langbridge and Edgecumbe's 'Handbook' 1875 p13 'The Don Stafford CoLLection' Rotorua PubLic Library; DB voL IV, p251

15 AJHR 1873 6-1, p17 in 'The Don Stafford CoLLection' Rotorua PubLic Library; DB voL IV, p249. 16 Stafford, p93; DB voL IV, p93 17 Te Awekotuku, p 100. stopped, and bemoaned Tuhourangi's slide from temperance. 18

In 1877, Tuhourangi opposed the re-licensing of the Cascade Hotel, which they said had been run in a disgusting manner. The Bay of Plenty Times wrote that the "disgraceful scenes" at Te Wairoa stemmed from the Government's choice of "men who are either holders of licenses or owners of hotels, or sly­ grogsellers" as policemen. 19 Notably, the Cascade's license was renewed that month, against Tuhourangi's wishes, by Commissioner Herbert Brabant, who much later decided their customary interests to the Rotomahana-Parekarangi block. 2o

Contrary to these mid-1870s accounts of Tuhourangi in disarray, Tomoana claimed in the 1881 House of Representatives that "Tuhourangi have been managing their springs for many years in such a way that the people are satisfied with them. ,,21

In the late-1870s to early 1880s, then, Tuhourangi enjoyed increasing numbers of visitors and improved self-management. They seem to have struck a good balance between tourism and protecting their traditional ways of life. Scores of people had visited the Terraces, as evidenced from the "literally hundreds" of tourists' signatures carved into the slopes of the White Terrace. 22

Blomfield spent six weeks at Rotomahana, and reported,

"The tourists came every week day, from ten to thirty of them, mostly moneyed people, from all parts of the

18 H.T.CLarke: "I have aLways heLd tuhourangi up as an exampLe of temperance to the other hapu of the Arawa, but I am sorry to hear that Tuhourangi are imitating the other hapu in drinking to excess. I warn you that if you persist in drinking, and set such a bad exampLe to your chi Ldren, you wi LL become a degraded peopLe, and Lose the good name you possess." AJHR 1873 G-1 P 18; "Meeting between Tuhourangi and the Native Minister heLd in Tarawera SchooL House," 19 December 1873, from 'The Don Stafford CoLLection' Rotorua PubLic Library; DB voL IV, p250

19 Bay of PLenty Times 1 September 1877, and 3 October 1877, both in 'The Don Stafford CoLLection,' Rotorua PubLic Library. ALso, Stafford, p 88; DB voL IV, p2S3, 254, p208. 20 " .... The Licensing Court for the Maketu district was heLd yesterday; Herbert W. Brabant being the onLy commissioner resent. Mr BrookfieLd appLied for an adjournment of the court for fourteen days in order to aLLow the necessary time to eLapse (21 days) for making an appLication for a License to the hoteL at Wairoa known as the Cascade HoteL, which he understood had been cancelled by the poL ice. Mr BrookfieLd pointed out the great inconvenience tourists wouLd be LiabLe to if there was no Licensed house at Wairoa. The Court ... no quorum present ... no power to grant an adjournment." Bay of PLenty Times 5 September 1877, 'The Don Stafford CoLLection,' Rotorua PubLic Library; DB voL IV, p253 21 ParLiamentary Debates, September 12 1881, P 522; Databank, voLume I, p89 22 Te Awekotuku, p80 estimated to be over six thousand pounds. 25 They obtained this not only from admission fees to visit the Terraces, but for guiding, whale boat and canoe hire, accommodation, dance and entertainment. 26 They were undoubtedly one of the most wealthy of Maori tribes L being guardians of "the colony's most lucrative tourist asset. ,,"t.7

There was considerable discussion about the high costs involved in visiting the Terraces, and especially about the charge of 5 pounds to photograph or paint the Terraces. 28 However, given the distances travelled, and the relative expense of getting to the district, the tribe rightly considered that those travellers who came to the Terraces on a visit, and especially those who came to paint or take photographs, must have been wealthy, or a great deal richer than the average pakeha. As well, Maori figured that pictures taken were for sale, and that image being 'theirs,' they felt entitled to their share of the profits. 29

Te Awetokutu notes that -

Another reason may have been to supplicate the sense of guilt, or fear, Tuhourangi experienced in permitting the pakeha to "steal" the image of Te Tarata, thereby reducing its mauri, or mystical essence. 3D

And despite complaints of "fleecing", Stafford notes that -

no research has revealed any statement that indicated that a visit to the Terraces was anything less than well worth the cost, whatever it was.~

In short, the relative expense in visiting the Terraces benefitted the tribe, who were able to accomplish, 100 years ago, what indigenous people today hope for: by limiting the number of accommodation houses in the area, and charging substantial costs for Terrace visits, the tribe attracted only the wealthy to their region thereby ensuring a good income for them, while at the same time, their lands did not become overrun with pakeha

25 RockeL, pp 11-13; DB voL IV, P 196 - 198. 26 Te Awekotuku, p82

27 Peter Waaka, "Whakarewarewa" unpublished thesis p 9, Rotorua PubLic Library. Hereafter cited as "Waaka". (no copy of this thesis submitted) See aLso, Ian RockeL (ed), pp 11-13; DB voL IV, p196 - 198 28 AJHR 1885 G-1 P 53 - 54; DB voL I, p28 - 29. 29 "Te Rangipuawhe, Te Keepa," in The PeopLe of Many Peaks 1769 - 1869 [The Maori Biographies from The Dictionary of New ZeaLand Biographies, VoL 1J WeLLington, Bridget WiLLiams Books & Department of InternaL Affairs, 1990, p 258, hereafter cited as "The PeopLe of Many Peaks". See aLso Te Awekotuku, p 54 citing The Southern Guide of J. Chantry Harris; DB voL IV, p191. 30 Te Awekotuku, p 54. 31 Stafford, p 242; DB voL IV, p219. no research has revealed any statement that indicated that a visit to the Terraces was anything less than well worth the cost, whatever it was.~

In short, the relative expense in visiting the Terraces benefitted the tribe, who were able to accomplish, 100 years ago, what indigenous people today hope for: by limiting the number of accommodation houses in the area, and charging substantial costs for Terrace visits, the tribe attracted only the weal thy to their region thereby ensuring a good income for them, while at the same time, their lands did not become overrun with pakeha visitors.

Encouraging extra visitors to their region would have brought them little that they did not already have - except perhaps more of the same problems which they experienced when the first tourists came in 1873. Thus, this form of "boutique" tourism suited them very well.

However, the end of the land wars in the early 1870s, combined with the development of roads, boosted the tourist traffic ,32 and the local settlers and Government wanted to see it boosted even more. The region had initially been seen unfavourably for settlement purposes "but with the colonial migrant population reaching 248,000 by 1870, and a burgeoning new generation of homegrown New Zealanders, expansion was essential."TI

Tuhourangi, though, remained firmly opposed to European development of their assets. 34 Frustration grew over te Arawa's refusal to sell land, or share control of the spectacular tourist resources. 35 Formerly considered "friendlies" in the land wars of the 1860s and early 1870s, the Arawa was increasingly regarded as

"a prolific nuisance, an obstruction to what some pro~ected as 'the greatest sanatorium in the southern world.'" 6

By 1876, pakeha settlers were frustrated that speculators, "willing and anxious" to acquire lands in the region, with tens of thousands of pounds available, could not purchase because of

31 Stafford, p 242; DB vol IV, p219. 32 Te Arawa Maori Trust Board 1924 - 1974 Rotorua, 1974, p7; DB vol IV, p154 33 Te Awekotuku, p 51.

34 Parliamentary Debates September 12, 1881. p 522; DB vol I, p89. 35 Te Awekotuku, p 51. 36 Te Awekotuku, p 57. See also, comments of Travers (1876) and Payton, cited in Te Awekotuku, pp 62 & 78, and Bay of Plenty Times, 19.6.80 in 'The Don Stafford Collection' Rotorua Public Library; DB vol IV, p257 want of a secure title. They complained of living on their small tenures of land in sufferance, liable to be turfed out at any time and demanded a settlement to "this sickening land question".~ In 1878, even the lease of a single acre of land was the subject of vigourous dispute. 38

In August 1878, the question of purchasing in the district was raised in Parliament. The Hon. Mr Richardson said it was a matter of "general interest and desirability that the Government should possess land in the vicinity of Rotomahana. "39 He told the House that the Government was taking steps to acquire the land from the natives. He stated that the Government had obtained from America copies of the Act dealing with similar reservations, and next session "would probably ask the House to pass a measure to make the springs public recreation grounds."~

In 1880, the County Council urged the Government to purchase Lake Rotomahana and surrounding country, oblivious to the fact that Tuhourangi relied on its revenue for their survival. The Council hoped to increase the number of visitors so it would be a source of great wealth to New Zealand41 - yet it already was this to Tuhourangi; the Council's pleas amounted to a desire to

37 Bay of PLenty Times, 3 June 1876, and Bay of PLenty Times, 31 October 1877, both in 'The Don Stafford CoLLection,' Rotorua PubLic Library; DB voL IV, p252.

38 Bay of PLenty Times, 30 January 1879, and Bay of PLenty Times, 13 February 1879, both in 'The Don Stafford CoLLection,' Rotorua PubLic Library. ALso, Stafford p 96; DB voL IV, p256, 210. 39 "The question of acqUlrlng the Land at Rotomahana and Rotorua for the benefit of the generaL pubLic was a matter of generaL interest and this question had been brought forth to ParLiament as far back as 1874. According to the Hon. Mr Richardson, there was a great desire that the Government shouLd possess the Land in the neighbourhood of Rotomahana in order to increase the accommodation for visitors ... " Bay of PLenty Times 10.8.78 'The Don Stafford CoLLection' Rotorua PubLic Library; DB voL IV, p255. 40 "According to the Hon. Mr Richardson, there was a great desire that the Government shouLd possess the Land in the neighbourhood of Rotomahana in order to increase the accommodation for visitors, but owing to "the extortion practised by the natives resident in the district, the stream of visitors abroad had been checked, and unLess something was done, there wouLd be very few visitors from the adjoining coLonies during the ensuing year. Mr Sheehan said the government was taking steps to acquire the Land from the natives. The Government had obtained from America copies of the Act deaLing with simi Lar reservations, and next session wouLd probabLy ask the House to pass a measure to make the springs pubLic recreation grounds." Bay of PLenty Times, 10 August 1878, 'The Don Stafford CoLLection,' Rotorua PubLic Library; DB voL IV. p255. 41 "Deputation from the County Counci L to Hon. Mr RoLLeston. 2. The Lake District. Capt. Morris said the matter was the desirability of purchasing Lake Rotomahana and the surrounding country as a perpetuaL reserve. The state of confusion and anarchy prevaiLing in that district was very __ to its prosperity, and if it was purchased by the Government it wouLd put an end to aLL this. Mr WrigLey said the Lakes might be a source of great weaLth to New ZeaLand by attracting visitors from aLL parts, and if security was given to investors, there wouLd be better hoteL accommodation and the number of visitors wouLd be increased. Bay of PLenty Times 27.3.1880 'The Don Stafford CoLLection' Rotorua PubLic Library; DB voL Iv, p257. acquire the benefits from Tuhourangi.

So, despite numerous approaches, Tuhourangi showed no interest in parting with their lands prior to about 1880. Bryce said to the 1880 Parliament, it had been admitted by successive Governments that it was very desirable that this part of the country be acquired and retained as a permanent public reserve. The Native owners, though, did not want to part with it. However, Bryce pointed to a hopeful sign: the Maori

"had been induced to accept advances -- not to a large amount -- and in consequence, the land was proclaimed to be under negotiation thereby preventing private persons from seeking to acquire it. ,,42

42 Bay of PLenty Times, 1 JuLy 1880. 'The Don Stafford CoLLection,' Rotorua PubLic Library; DB voL IV, p257. Tuhourangi Land Politics: 1880-1886

Relations both good and bad between Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi run deep. It is unnecessary here to trace their long history of unions and splits and feuds.~ Suffice to say, by the 1860's Ngati Whakaue were centred at Ohinemutu, and Tuhourangi lived in various parts of the Roto-Pare block (see above), perhaps centring at Motutawa and Te Wairoa. 44

Around 1869 a portion of Tuhourangi (Ngati Wahiao) moved to Parekarangi45 (NE of Horohoro), where some of Ngati Whakaue lived. 46 In 1877, most of these same Tuhourangi/Ngati Wahiao shifted to ancestral lands at Whakarewarewa. There they stayed -- in varying proportions to those at Tarawera, Rotokakahi and Rotomahana -- upto the present day.

This background of feuds (mostly unrelated to questions of land), shared lands and settlements (often on less-than-friendly terms) , and internal movements (leaving 'trace' rights to mahinga kai scattered everywhere) made intractable fodder for the Native Land Court. Added to this, Tuhourangi lacked any financial incentive to bring their lands before the Court, plus they shared in the wide-spread Maori mistrust of things-Pakeha of the period. Clearly, the Land Court in the early 1880's faced a tough task in assigning coherent customary rights in identifiable blocks of land in the Rotorua area. We would state at the outset that much more research would be required to fully understand Tuhourangi's relationship to the Crown's 1865-to-1887 Land Court and purchase operations. Hopefully, though, our rudimentary view of the 1880's hearings will help others to decide whether such research is warranted for claim purposes. From our preliminary research, it appears that the boundary between Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi presented special challenges for Tuhourangi at this time, possibly acting as a catalyst bringing Tuhourangi into the Land Court process.

43 Long history, see e.g. Brabant judgment (appendix 3), and Peter Waaka, pp 30-37; DB voL I, pp9-19. 44 The testimony in Mair's 1882 Land Court (Rot MB 2) paints quite a compLex picture of Tuhourangi settLements (and shared settLements) within this bLock at this time. Of this period, Waaka,Op. cit. p 30, writes, "In generaL terms, Tuhourangi seem to have been a nomadic tribe, aLways wiLLing to invoLve themseLves in battLes of conquest or revenge. The Ngati Wahiao tended to be more permanent in their settLement pattern ... " 45 1Rot MB 2 FoL 218, testimony of Mohi Aterea (Ngati Tumatawera, centred at Tumunui), 18 ApriL 1882; DB voL IV, p18. 46 Rot MB 2 FoL 238, testimony of Hamuera Pango (Ngati Hurunga/Whakaue), 20 ApriL 1882; DB voL IV, p19. 47 Rot MB 2 FoL 95, testimony of Mohi Aterea (Ngati Tumatawera), 12 ApriL 1882; DB voL IV, p5. We have surveyed, therefore, three broad processes occurring around 1880: the Crown's purchase activity in the Rotorua­ Patetere block, the Fenton agreement (and subsequent hearings and legislation), and the Mair - O'Brien hearings of the Rotomahana­ Parekarangi block.

Nearby Purchase Activity Around 1880

In May 1879, the Native Land Purchase Officer, Henry Mitchell, began informal negotiations with te Arawa rangatira for the purchase of Patetere Forest, directly west of Lake Rotorua. 48

By 16 July 1879, Mitchell reported to the Under Secretary of the Native Lands Purchase Department, Richard John Gill, that he might be able to purchase up to 300,000 acres, stretching between Lake Rotorua and Cambridge. 49

The next month, the Native Minister authorised Henry Mitchell's negotiations "for acquirement of the lands between Rotorua and Cambridge called ... Patetere Forest, and to pay deposits of money thereon on behalf of the Crown." 50

Shortly, Mitchell forwarded bundles of te Arawa consents (e.g. R. Tapsell's) to sell their interests in Patetere and Rotohokahoka Blocks to the Crown. These consents, obtained between 9 September and 12 November 1879, were bundled with receipts for several hundred pounds of advances paid out already, as well as two similar-sized bundles of deeds (one from August 1879, signed by H. Mitchell, and the other dating from March 1880 to January 1881, signed by Gilbert Mair).

Mitchell and his assistant, Edwards, appear to have pushed the purchase more rapidly than the Purchase Department thought prudent. On 10 October 1879, Gill criticised Mitchell's bundles, noting "it is necessary that the authority to purchase should be noted." He pressed Mitchell to complete the related surveys "at

48 MA 13/57 notes: Rotorua-Patetere-Paeroa Block acquisition (ending in Okoheriki purchase by H.T. Clarke) 1879-1891. Note this Box File is -10 thick (though much of it is Mitchell's payment vouchers and deeds). These are gleanings from the early part of the file, without claim to have grasped the full story of this obviously complex block. Archives' own Series Index describes it in terms resembling Rotorua township: 1870's Crown was intensely interested in this large area to the west of Lake Rotorua, particularly for its forests. Native Land Court awarded most of area to Ngatitura, partitioned it, they fell into debt, and eventually sold to the Crown, in the late 1880's and early 1890's. Maori asked for 7/6 to 15/6 for the lands. Crown paid 4/ to 7/6 for it. We have not submitted photocopies of any of this file. 49 Note, in 1879 the Land Purchase Department branch of the Natie Department was constituted a separate, more autonomous, Sub-Department. See Alan Ward, A Show of Justice, Auckland, Auckland University Press/ Oxford University Press, 1973p 279. Hereafter cited as "Ward". Gill was apparently Under Secretary of the new Sub-Department; DB vol IV, p238. 50 Authorisation: 26 August 1879, No fi le reference, in MA 13/57 (photocopy submitted); Databank, volume III, p116. once. ,,51

Mitchell replied that he foresaw opposition to the surveys, which were to start in December. In particular, he wrote that the Komiti Nui 0 Rotorua

"will be troublesome, I believe, but measures are being adopted which will neutralize probably the actions of this body. The removal of [illeg.] Davis' appointment from this Native District would also lessen the trouble I believe."

Indeed, in April that year, the Komiti Nui had issued a panui prohibiting all land sales, leases and surveys except "under the authority of the Great Committee of Rotorua." Mitchell, nonetheless, succeeded in advancing 100 pounds to several members of the Komiti Nui itself. These advances to Komiti Nui members did, according to Stafford, cause sufficient dissent within the Komiti to temporarily "neutralize" the Komiti. 52

Upon receiving Mitchell's November report, Gill suggested to Native Minister Bryce that the advance payments stop until the surveys were complete. Bryce agreed, and instructed that Mitchell's authority to negotiate be withdrawn. 53

By 28 November 1879, Mitchell had completed a large sketch map, delineating large blocks of land south and west from Lake Rotorua (see appendix 6 "sketch of Mitchell's Sketch"). In the same month, Edwards prepared an recommendation to re-open the Patetere purchase negotiations, citing its timber resources, its potential as a rail route, and "for its strategic position for purposes of special settlements, as it borders I might say the King Country. ,,54

Mitchell's map, along with Edwards' urgings, were sent to Gill a few days later. The map showed the "area of negotiation" (and advance payments), including Rotorua-Patetere, Rotohokahoka, Te Koutu, Owhatiuru blocks. According to Mitchell's cover letter, though, purchase negotiations included "also the adjacent lands of Te Tokoroa, Horohoro, Parekarangi, etc. abutting thereon. ,,55

51 This exchange might represent re-structuring confusion - as it had onLy been in 1877 that responsibiLity for surveys of Maori Land had shifted from the Native Department to Crown Lands Department. Ward, p 279; DB voL IV, p238. 52 Stafford, pp 151-152. Of course, MitcheLL might equaLLy have been referring to Fenton's pLans (beLow), which the Komiti were apparentLy aware of in 1879; DB voL IV, p213-214. 53 NLP 79/422, GiLL/MitcheLL 16 October 1879; MitcheLL/GiLL (n.d.); GiLL/Native Minister 10 November 1879 in Archives MA 13/57 (photocopy submitted). Note, just the year before, Tuhourangi had used armed force to stop nearby surveys. See Stafford, p 149; DB voL III, p117, DB voL IV, p212. 54 NLP 79/619, Edwards to GiLL, November 1879, in Archives MA 13/57 (photocopy submitted); DB voL Ill, pp111-115. 55 MitcheLL/GiLL, 1 December 1879, in Archives MA 13/57; DB voL Ill, p110. Notably , Mitchell's Blocks did not resemble very closely the block-arrangement that emerged from the 1880's. In particular, stretching southwest from Ohinemutu past Whakarewarewa, Mitchell showed a thin "alleyway" of unlabelled land (later included in. Pukerua-Oruawhatua and Whakarewarewa blocks). And due south from Ohinemutu, all the way to Lake Rotokakahi, he drew a block labelled "Owhatiuru." Mitchell's original "Owhatiuru" block comprised almost exactly the area that is now Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area.

Other contemporary sources record a circa-1880 Whakaue/Tuhourangi boundary that sounds similar to that shown by Mitchell. E.g. on 9 March 1879, the Komiti Nui 0 Rotorua approved some such boundary56 -- evidently awardin~ Tikitapu Lake to Ngati Whakaue (as shown in Mitchell's map).5 Consistent with this also, in Judge Williams' 1882 Rotomahana-Parekarangi hearings, Ngati Whakaue claimed to have fully and finally removed Tuhourangi from Lake Rotokakahi in 1849.~

Considering that Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi had long haggled over the boundaries separating the Rotorua settlements from those to the south, it would seem that the currency Ngati Whakaue's boundary was enjoying (with both Crown and Komiti) around 1880, probably posed a challenge to Tuhourangi. Indeed, considering the Crown's Land Purchase Officer was basing his advance-payment operations on this Whakaue-version of the Rotomahana-Parekarangi boundary, Tuhourangi had little option but to apply to have their version heard in the Land Court.

Judges Mair and O'Brien remarked on this very process in their September 1883 judgment on the Rotorua-Patetere-Paeroa blocks (the focus of Mitchell's purchase efforts):

"There is no doubt that in ancient times when large tracts of land had no particular value in the way of affording patches for cultivations, or fisheries, snaring grounds, etc., that the possessions of a people were in many instances indefinitely held, that is to say, the boundaries were often not fixed, and the limits of possessions of neighbouring people converging virtually faded as they approached -- perhaps the question of ownership was never raised -- certainly not clearly settled. In these later times, however, a money value gives importance, and titles

56 Rot MB 2 FoL 313-315; testimony of Te Whareauahi (Ngati Whaoa), 2-3 May 1882. NB: Aporo Tipitipi (Ngati Tamahiki - Whakaue?) and Mita Rawiri (Ngati Tuwhakaoroahu - Rangitihi?) both reported that the "Rotorua Native Committee" approved of "Tuhourangi's" boundary as it stood in 1882: Rot MB 2 FoL 353, and 364; DB voL IV, pp22-24,25,26. 57 Rot MB 2 FoL 203, testimony of Mohi Aterea (Ngati Tumatawera, centred at Tumunui), 12 ApriL 1882; DB voL IV, p17. 58 Rot MB 2 FoL 242, testimony of Hamuera Pcmgo (Whakaue), 20 April 1882. Judge Mair initiaLLy presided over the 1882 Rotomahana-Parekarangi case, but Judge WiLLiams joined him about one month into the two month hearings, and apparentLy deLivered the judgment. Rot MB 3 FoL 224, and R. F. Kearn, Tarawera: The VoLcani c Eruption of 10 June 1886, Auck:Author, 1988, p 84. Hereafter cited as "Kearn"; DB voL IV, pp21,28,179. are now contested by people who a generation since would not have thought of setting up a claim."

Regarding part of the very boundary we are discussing, the Judges remarked:

"Whakarewarewa does not appear to have been continuously occupied by any tribe or hapu, but has been occasionally occupied at one time by hapus of Wahiao[/Tuhourangi], and at other times by certain hapus of Whakaue, and we find also that these hapu's are all closely connected and that Wahiao is the common ancestor -- in fact that they are all one people." 59

So, while traditionally extremely fluid boundaries -- both in blood lines and property lines -- separated Tuhourangi and Ngati Whakaue, by the early 1880's a money value gave importance, and created the need for a mechanism that could fully and finally settle boundaries and interests. The Native Lands Purchase Department, the Native Land Court, and the Lands and Survey Department -- as a unity -- were that mechanism.

The Fenton-Whakaue Agreement

Quite possibly, Mitchell's southern boundary of "Owhatiuru" was one of those that concerned Tuhourangi in Chief Judge Fenton's 1881 negotiations for the Rotorua Township lands.

Fenton's work on the Pukeroa-Oruawhata Block definitely caused boundary unease amongst Ngati Whakaue's southern neighbours. On 25 November 1889 -- the same day Fenton and Whakaue formally agreed to establish a township 60 -- Tuhourangi wrote to Fenton,

"We the undersigned of Tuhourangi beg to request that you appoint a time to meet us tomorrow in regard to proposed township. We will not submit to be guided by Ngati Whakaue, but wish to hear from you the proposals you have to make, and terms that Ngati Whakaue have agreed to. We will then agree to meet them not otherwise." [no Maori version extant in file]~

Fenton agreed to meet, and on the 26th, the same six Tuhourangi agreed,

"We Tuhourangi agree to the undertaking of yourself and Ngatiwhakaue that a town should be established at Rotorua. Let the land first be investigated by the Native Land Court that the ownership may be clear. We undertake that the

59 Judgment in MA 13/57

Fenton attached this Tuhourangi statement to his primary agreement with Ngati Whakaue. Surveys of the township began that week,63 but before the week was out, a nearby Land Court Judge, Puckey, telegraphed Fenton, "Tuhourangi have stopped survey and Council of Rotorua [i.e. the Komiti Nui] are going to take the matter into consideration this evening. ,,64

Rotohiko Haupapa wrote the same day, on behalf of the Komiti Nui: "Mr Mitchell's survey was stopped yesterday by Tuhourangi. The members of the Great Council of Rotorua have thought they should have four days to think about this plan of stopping (the survey) ... The Great Council of Rotorua will sit this evening to consider the plans given hereunder: 1st To consent to the survey 2nd To subdivide the land for the town from the land in the block outside of the town. ,,65 In its meeting, the Komi ti Nui renewed its own conditional consent to the survey.66 Tuhourangi, though, apparently remained unsatisfied. On 8 December 1880, Mitchell's Assistant, Edwards, reported to Fenton that "Tuhourangi are getting obstructive," and that he planned to meet with them. Fenton instructed Edwards to " ... Tell them the survey will not affect their case for good or bad."

62 NLC 80/6110, Wi Kepa Te Rangipuawhe & ors to Fenton, in Archives MA 13/79a; DB voL III, p188. 63 Stafford, p 155; DB voL IV, p217. 64 Note on TeLegraph, NLC 80/5766, Puckey [questionabLe IDJ to Fenton, 1 December 1880, in Archives MA 13/79a; DB voL III, p191. 65 NLC 80/5766, Haupapa/Fenton, 1 December 1880, in Archives MA 13/79a; DB voL III, p192. 66 NLC 80/6170, Haupapa/Fenton, 17 December 1880, in Archives MA 13/79a; DB voL III, p192. Similarly, W. M. Hikairo telegraphed Fenton on 16 December 1880. The English summary of the telegraph read, "Tuhourangi are strongly opposing the survey and asking what is to be done." Fenton replied again, "Let Mitchell survey the sides that are unopposed and leave the rest. The Court will hear the case without survey - and survey afterwards. ,,67

A third time, Tuhourangi protested. Tamati Paora Rangikatukua (Ngati Wahiao) wrote to Fenton again the next month, January 1881, complaining that the Court should not be advertising its sittings on the basis of a trigonometric survey alone. He pleaded this would "have the effect of stealing the land of the Maori. ,,68

Nevertheless, the survey for the township proper was completed a few months later, 30 March 1881. 69 Meanwhile, hearings on the Pukerua-Oruawhata block began 29 January. Five months later, on 28 June, Judge J. Symonds delivered a remarkably brief judgment, awarding the whole to Ngati Whakaue. 7o Chief Judge Fenton had requested that Symonds keep him informed of the pro~ress of the case, and fearing the possible effects of delays,7 encouraged Symonds to avoid any lull in hearings during which agreement might fall apart. When Symonds notified Fenton of his award of the Pukeroa­ Oruawhata block to Ngati Whakaue, Fenton's telegraph to Rolleston chimed,

"Ohinemutu judgment in favour of our people except 45 acres. ,,72

Symond's judgment apparently differed from that which the Komiti

67 In Archives MA 13/79a, no copy submitted. 68 NLC 81/86, Tamati Paora/Fenton, 4 January 1881, in MA 13/79a. Note, in this Letter, Tamati states the boundary he is cLaiming, but we have been so far unabLe to identify any of the points named in his boundary; DB voL III, pp183-185. 69 Stafford, p 155; DB voL IV, p217. 70 Rot MB 26 FoL 344-47. See Boast's transcription, "The LegaL Framework for GeothermaL Resources: AHistoricaL Study" Appendix 4 pp 1-2; DB voL IV, pp242-244. 71 Fenton himseLf had faLLen ill, had for several months left matters to others, and had recentLy heard that even Ngati Whakaue might be getting coLd feet. See NLC 81/3148, Fenton/Pukuatua 7 July 1881, in Archives MA 13/79a; DB vol III, p179. 72 NLC 81/3120, Fenton/Rolleston, 1 July 1881, in MA 13/79a. Note, Tuhourangi were still petitioning for the rehearing of the Pukerua-Oruawhata bLock in 1885; see Meeting with BaLLance, in 1885 AJHR G-1, P 51; DB vol III, pp180-181. Nui 0 Rotorua had reached in January of the same year. Without a report of the Komiti's judgment, we can only roughly surmise one point in which Symonds deviated from the Komiti's judgment: the women of Ngati Rangiwewehi telegraphed Fenton on 12 August 1881 that Symonds had ignored their long occupation of portions of the block, whereas the Komiti had awarded portions to them. 73

It was possibly in anticipation of such rumblings that Fenton told Petera Pukuatua on 7 July,

"The Komiti should not return to things that have once been settled. "74

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Tuhourangi continued to protest against and obstruct surveys well after Symond' s decision. In September, Ngati Wahiao requested control of the southwest line between Whakaue and Tuhourangi:

"Let me know your thoughts respecting my application and Te Keepa's also, for a rehearing of the Ohinemutu block: because the line on the Whakarewarewa side of that block will not be allowed by me to proceed. But let me have your reply to our applications, and whether you consent for me to survey that line."~

In September 1881, Tuhourangi' s reservations regarding the impact of the Fenton-Whakaue agreement reached Parliament, in the debates for the Thermal Springs Districts Bill 1881. Mr. Tomoana (Eastern Maori)[?] explained for the Members,

The Arawa Tribe was a very large tribe, composed of many very important sections, and those sections might not pull together in this matter. He would like to have his mind made easy upon that point ... Some of the Arawa people had made arrangements with regard to some of the springs in their district, from which they were deriving large benefits, and when they saw the Bill they might not like it. He referred to the Tuhourangi tribe. For many years past they had been managing their springs in such a way that the people were satisfied with them, and this Bill might have the effect of stopping them. If the Bill were made to affect every warm spring district in the colony, the Tuhourangi might object to it ... The Chief of Tuhourangi was the proper person to say whether this thing should be done, and if came to this House and said, 'It is our desire to have these springs brought under the operation of this

73 NLC 81/4276, M. Hikairo & 6 ors/Fenton, 12 August 1881, in Archives MA 13/79a. DB voL III, pp174-178. 74 NLP 81/3148 Fenton/Pukuatua 7.7.81 in Archives MA 13/79a. DB voL III, p179. 75 NLC 81/5186, Paora/Fenton, 23 September 1881, in Archives MA 13/79a; DB voL III, pp171-173. Act,' they would have nothing to say against it. ,,76

Rolleston replied that a copy of the agreement was available in Wellington, but moreover, that the Act was "designed to meet a special case, that of the township of Rotorua." The Act provided "a machinery by which Native interests in these wonderful springs could only be dealth with with the consent of the Natives throughout. ,,77

In assuring that Native consent was required, though, Rolleston could only have been referring to Sections 5, 6 and 12 of the Act. This rather missed the issue, as these Sections only regulated actions taken within a district after it had been proclaimed under the Act. The Governor's power to initially proclaim such districts, granted in Section 2, was not restricted by any Natives' consents.

The Act entered law on 24 September 1881, and about a fortnight later, on 13 October, the township area was defined a district under it.n Then, another fortnight later, on 27 October, that district suddenly expanded another 646,790 acres. 79 This second proclamation included and extended well beyond all of Tuhourangi's lands at Rotomahana-Parekarangi.

On 7 March 1881, the first town lands were auctioned. On 27 April 1882, H. T. Clarke confirmed Ngati Whakaue's owners lists for the township. But then, the town failed to grow, while broken leases, lawsuits and Royal Commissions grew in abundance. Ngati Whakaue ended up selling the lands to the Crown outright in 1888, completing the purchase in 1910 by Act of Parliament. 8o

This story of the development of Rotorua proper lies beyond the scope of this submission. We are concerned only with the effect of the 1881 Act, through its proclamations, on Tuhourangi' s lands to the south.

From the first, the link between the township and the Lakes was crucial to the envisioned health/tourist development. Fenton described the link to Rolleston in 1881:

"From Ohinemutu it is easy to visit the other points of interest in the district. A coach-road for a distance of ten miles leads past the Tikitapu lake, whose waters are of a deep indigo blue, and past the end of Rotokakahi Lake to the Native village of Wairoa, with its European hotels.

76 Parliamentary Debates, 18 September 1881, p 522; DB vol I, p89. 77 Ibid., pp 522-23; DB vol I, pp89-90. 78 NZ Gazette, October 13 1881, p 1267; DB vol I, p85. 79 NZ Gazette, October 27 1881, p 1375-1376; DB vol I, pp87-88. 80 See 1910 Parliamentary Debates, 29 November 1910, pp 1134-1135; DB vol I, pp104-105. From there, the visitor, after seeing the falls on the river, will cross Lake Tarawera for six miles by boat, landing at Te Ariki, its southernmost bay, and thence by a footpath, or sometimes by canoe, up the warm stream of Kaiwaka for a mile and a half to the far-famed White and Pink Terraces of Rotomahana. Starting again from Wairoa a bridle-path leads along the western shore of Tarawera Lake to the pretty Falls of Waitangi, where a divergence of half a mile to the west will lead to Okarika, a pretty lake, partly surrounded by wooded hills. By continuing onwards along the path from Waitangi for another four or five miles Okataina Lake is reached, which is considered by some to exceed in beauty all the other lakes in the district. ,,81

Consistent with this vital town-Lakes link, in a February 1882 telegraph to Rolleston, Fenton mentioned he "hope[d] to see a town on their [Tuhourangi's] land at Rotomahana."~

Fenton's overall purpose in this same telegraph, though, was to inform Rolleston that the Governor did not need to confirm Tuhourangi's letter of consent to the first township agreement, specifically because "their claim to this [Pukerua-Oruawhata] block was disallowed." Clearly, to Fenton, Tuhourangi' s November 1880 letter of consent only pertained to the township agreement. And by implication, his hopes for developments at Rotomahana amounted also to hopes for a further, Tuhourangi agreement.

The Members of Parliament were certainly surprised that such a large area was proclaimed under the Act. In the debates for the 1883 Thermal Springs Act, the Government was challenged on this point. Whitaker defended the action,

"The object was to prevent these springs being used by private individuals starting grog-shops, and making a number of small settlements over which there would be no control, and to include the chief springs in one block."~

Attention in these 1883 debates focused, in part, on precisely our question -- whether Maori owners of the vast lands proclaimed under the 1881 Act consented to their lands being brought under the Act. Numerous petitions had been made in 1882 and 1883 -­ some asking for removal and others asking for retention of the proclamations. Parliament's debates, though, left the question of consent unanswered, and passed the Bill.

Our own one-day examination of the 1882 to 1885 petitions for-

81 Fenton to Rolleston 19 October 1881, printed in Stafford, Boyd, Steele (Eds) Rotorua 1880- 1980, Rotorua, H. A. Holmes and Co., 1980 p 38-9. Hereafter cited as "Rotorua 1880 - 1980"; DB vol IV, pp232-233. 82 NLC 82/862, Fenton/Rolleston 14 February 1882, in Archives MA 13/79a; DB vol III, p170. 83 1883 Parliamentary Debates, August 29 1883, P 340. RolLeston also protested that the extension was clear from the wording of the Bill; Ibid. 3 September, p. 514; DB vol I, pp102, 95. and-against the Thermal Springs Act 1881, revealed ample cause for the M.P.s' confusion. In this period, there were at least ten separate petitions praying for removal of the Act from certain lands. None of these appear to be from Tuhourangi. Rather, the campaign seems led by Waikato people (under Rutene Te Umanga) involved in the Patetere block purchase, wanting freedom to deal with the Auckland Native Lands Colonisation Company. 84

Petera te Pukuatua and Richard Tapsell led an effective 1883 Ngati Whakaue campaign in favour of the Act. 85

On 19 July 1883, the 1883 Native Affairs Committee considered the petitions of te Pukuatua, Tapsell, and te Umanga together. 86 The Committee resolved, on motion of Mr. Tomoana: That evidence in support of this petition was similar to that given last session on the petition of Petera Te Pukuatua (No. 73) and the Committee has to make a similar recommendation, namely: that in any attempt to amend the Thermal Springs Act 1880 [sic] careful attention should be

84 Petitions against 1881 ThermaL Springs Act, see: - 1882 AJHR 1-2 P 15, Petitions arguing Act breached the Treaty of Waitangi: #256 Te Puni & 96 ors, #257 Henare Haepa & 66 ors, #258 Reta Teiputere & 92 ors, #259 Arama Karaka & 220 ors, and #260 Rawiri Kahia & 32 ors. - 1882 AJHR 1-2 P 8, Petition #120 Kamanera Heretaunga &151 ors, "for withdrawaL of restrictions pLaced on Maori Land in Rotorua District." - 1882 AJHR 1-2 P 31, Petition #458 Ruahuihui Tukiterangi & 17 ors, for repeal of Act. - 1882 AJHR 1-2 P 17, Petition #231 Petera te Pukuatua & 86 ors, for exemption from Act of a 600 acre parceL at Koutu. - 1883 AJHR J-2 Petition #70 of Rutene te Umanga & 204 ors, praying for removal to enable saLe of lands at Opohutu, Patatere, etc. - 1884 AJHR 1-2 P 23, Petition #252 Wiremu te Niku Te Nguru & 13 ors of Ngatitira, for removal of Act from their land in Rotorua District. - 1885 AJHR 1-2 P 13, (same as 1884 #252). 85 Petitions to retain the 1881 ThermaL Springs Act, see: - 1882 AJHR 1-2 P 7, Petition #73 Petera te Pukuatua & 400 ors, asking that the Act be made permanent, not temporary. Committee commended evidence of Aporo Te Tipitipi to the earnest attention of the Government. - 1883 AJHR J-2, Petition of Petera te Pukuatua &4 ors opposing petition of Rutene Te Umanga &204 ors. Pray for Act to be "fixed untiL the whole district of Rotorua had been investigated by the Land Court." - 1883 AJHR J-2, Petition #3 Wi Matenga Te Waharoa (Ngati Rangiwewehi). - 1883 AJHR J-2, Petition #4 Petera te Pukuatua & 2 ors and all Ngati Whakaue, to keep Act in force. NB: Petere te Pukuatua aLso petitioned for special exemption from the Act to enable lease of 600 acres in the Koutu block (just SWof Rotorua). 86 Native Affairs Committee Minute Book, 19 JuLy 1883, and loose minute sheets bundLe #8. Same page of Committee Minute Book: On Petition No. 70, no evidence had been given, and no recommendation was forwarded. According to Richard TapseLL, Umanga was from "Waikato, where the Ngati Raukawa's are. They belong to Patetere and beyond that." -- see bundle #8 p 6. Cf. the Patetere operations of the AuckLand Native Lands Colonisation Company, above. Bundle #8 pp 14-15 make it absoLutely cLear that Umanga's petition arose out of the Auckland Land Company's dealings. Also according to TapselL, te Arawa were unanimous in wanting to deal with Government, not any private company. Waikato wanted the private company. Ibid. pp 27-30. (No copy submitted) accorded by the Government to the evidence then given by Aporo Te Tipitipi, and would further recommend for consideration the evidence now given by Retireti Tapihana. Resolved - that the Chairman do report the foregoing to the House.

Tapsell's commended testimony stressed that "the boundary of the proclaimed land under the Thermal Springs Act only goes as far as the boundary of the Arawa tribe."~ Further, he assured the Committee that bringing the land under the Act "was a subject that was freely discussed by all the Committees in that district, and the chiefs of the different tribes agreed to it."~

One must read Mr. Tapsell's version of events cautiously, though. First, by November 1881, the Act had extended all the way to Lake Taupo, where it would seem safe to say that non-Arawa people had interests. 89 Second, it emerged in the 1883 Parliamentary debates that Fenton and Clarke had failed to gather more than about 50 signatures to the township agreements (the "heart" of the 1881 Act), even from Ngati Whakaue. 90 And finally, Mr. Tapsell was himself interested in the Patetere purchase, having entered an agreement to sell to the Crown, in opposition to the te Umanga petitioners' desire to sell to the Auckland Native Lands Colonisation Company. 91

We cannot, on the evidence so far, ascertain certainly Tuhourangi's response to the extension of the Thermal Springs Acts over their lands. Nor have we seen evidence of any effect of that Act on the Crown's position as purchaser of Tuhourangi's lands (e. g. monopoly pricing). In such absence of decisive evidence, we would guess that Tuhourangi welcomed the Thermal Springs Act as a means of helping to calm their lands hark-filled waters.

Rotomahana-Parekarangi Block Enters the Land Court

As explained in our discussion of late-1870's tourism, above, the unique resources of the Thermal District injected peculiar pressures into any and all activities associated with land-sales, such as initial block definition and determination of customary ownership.

87 Ibid, P 27. 88 Ibid. P 9. 89 1881 NZ Gazette October 27, 1881 pp1375 - 1376; DB voL I, pp87-88. 90 1883 ParLiamentary Debates, September 3, 1883, p522i DB voL I, p99. 91 TapseLL agreed to seLL his interests in Patetere to the Crown, and perhaps accepted advance payments, in 1879. See MitcheLL's bundLe of advance payment receipts and Letters from chiefs, in MA 13/57, above. The land-sales developing to Tuhourangi' s Northwest, and the township scheme developing to their North, both promised Block definitions, surveys, and Land Court determinations of title. And in their early stages, prior to at least 1882, these neighbouring land-sales activities clearly overlapped into Rotomahana­ Parekarangi, and thereby, engaged Tuhourangi.

Apparently in part-response to an application from Tuhourangi's wi Keepa Rangipuawhe, Henry Mitchell's initial survey of the Rotomahana-Parekarangi block was ordered 16 November 1881 - about eight months after the Pukeroa-Oruawhata survey was completed, and probably shortly after Mitchell had produced a final Rotorua­ Patetere plan (with the Owhatiura block dangling down into Rotomahana-Parekarangi) .92 In December 1881, Tuhourangi complained to Fenton "about the survey outside the district arrived at for a town. Let the survey go back to the place you mentioned to us. ,,93

Wi Keepa te Rangipuawhe opened Tuhourangi's case at Rotorua on the Rotomahana-Parekarangi block on 8 April 1882 -- right in the midst of the process of deciding owners lists for the Pukeroa­ Oruawhata block. Rotohika Haupapa, Henare Pukuatua (Whakaue) and Okiwi Ngatara (Ngati Raukawa) all complained that they would not be able to prepare lists and be "watching the Tuhourangi boundaries" at the same time.~

Tuhourangi's claim to the Rotomahana-Parekarangi block was contested by:

1 Ngatituara and Ngati Keai 2 Ngati Tumatawera, Ngati Tuteata and Ngatiwhaki; 3 Ngati Whaoa, 4 Ngati Tahu, 5 Ngati Uenukukopako, 6 Ngati Rahurahu, 7 Panuiomarama, 8 Ngati Manawa, 9 Ngati Tamahika, 10 Ngati Whakaue, 11 Ngatiputa, 12 Ngati Huikai, 13 Ngatitarawai, 14 Ngati Rangitihi, 15 Ngati Tuwhakaoroahu, and

92 Lands and Survey, Chief Surveyor's Office No. 423/24, in Ak. Archives BAAZ 1108/423, Rotomahana-Parekarangi BLock fi Le. Note, this Large fi Le contains much Maori-Language materiaL, as weLL as MitcheLL's rough depiction of rohe on a trigonometric survey. The fiLe definiteLy deserves closer attention than we have given so far. For excerpts, see; Databank, voLume II, pp1-15. 93 Tamati Paora to Fenton, 20 December 1881, in MA 13/79a. ALthough bundLed with the Fenton agreement papers, it is hard to see how this Letter referred to the Pukeroa-Oruawhata survey, as that survey was compLeted eight months earLier; Db voL III, pp171-173. 94 Rot MB 2 FoLs 8-9, 6 ApriL 1882; Db voL IV, pp2-3. 16 Ngati Tama.

Each of the sixteen groups claimed a sub-block of the Rotomahana­ Parekarangi block.~ various claims were merged or dismissed along the way, leaving just ten successful claimant groups, covered in nine separate clauses of Judge Williams' award. Williams read his judgment on 26 June 1882, about three months after the case opened:

"This case has occupied many weeks in hearing and owing to the number of counter-claims, has called for a large measure of patience and forbearance on the part of the Court.

A great many witnesses have been examined and the evidence has been very conflicting but the Court has weighed all the evidence and in giving its judgment will take each of the counter-claims in the order which has been observed through the proceedings." 96

Judge Williams proceeded to award sub-blocks of the Rotomahana­ Parekarangi Block. For each portion, he simply named the hapu and their conductor(s), then recited the boundaries of their award, and formally awarded the land to the hapu and conductor "and those persons claiming with them who are entitled by ancestry" [or similar phrases].

Tuhourangi received portions of, or shared interests in, the awards for the first (Ngati Tuara and Ngati Kea), third (Ngati Whaoa), fifth (Ngati Whakaue), seventh (Mita Rawiri/Tuhourangi~f eighth (Ngati Rangitihi), and ninth (Tuhourangi's own) cases.

The award shared between Tuhourangi and Ngati Whakaue was the most troublesome:

"This side of the Block (the N. side) claimed by Tuhourangi has exercised the mind of the Court most of all, for it is impossible to say where N. Whakaue end and where Tuhourangi begin. But the Court is quite clear that Whakaue have not the large claim upon the Block which their witnesses have endeavoured to prove. At the same time it is evident that members of the Tribe have cultivated at Moerangi, Kaihihi and in various places near the northern boundary of the map. As it is quite impossible to define the interests of the two tribes, the Court has decided [to award a large area along the northern end of the Block to both Tuhourangi and Ngati Whakaue] in equal parts and the Court recommends to the two tribes named to agree among themselves as soon

95 Rot MB 2 FoLs 167-176; DB voL IV, pp6-7. 96 Rot MB 3 FoLs 224-225. See appendix 1; DB voL IV, pp28-29. 97 Rot MB 3 FoLs 224-231. See appendix 1; DB voL IV, pp28-29. as possible upon a line dividing the award equally in two parts that the Court may have the same placed upon the map."

Judge Williams closed,

"With reference to Rotomahana and the adjacent hot springs, it appears that as Tuhourangi have for many years held possession in spite of the attempts made to eject them, it is not right that they should be dispossessed now, and for this reason the Court now awards Rotomahana and all those portions of the Block now before the Court which are not affected by the previous clauses of this judgment to the Tribe of Tuhourangi.

All the pieces of land described have been defined upon the map by lines drawn in red and blue to enable the people interested to see the extent and positions of the various awards. ,,98

Apparently, within weeks Judge Williams' mongrel award had broken down. The next year, Rotohiko Haupapa (who conducted Ngati Whakaue's 1882 case) and 55 ors, petitioned Parliament:

"the judgment over the big [Rotomahana-Parekarangi] block included in it all these little blocks [such as Horohoro and Tumunui]. The block Rotoamahana-Parekarangi was awarded to all the Tribes and Tuhourangi. There is nothing to show the existence of any boundary between the two tribes. ,,99

On 7 August 1883, Retihana Tapihana [Richard Tapsell] explained to the 1883 Native Affairs Committee, that when setting up cases in April 1882, only counter-claimants to the large block had even attended, and so, some people who were interested in the smaller blocks (but who claimed no interest in the larger Tuhourangi block) had not even attended.

Furthermore, those who had attended had set up their cases, reasonably enough, solely as counter-claims to the large block - -not claims in their own right. Everyone expected that cases for the smaller sub-blocks (having been Gazetted separately) would be cut out and heard separately. Instead, Williams had adjudged the small blocks on the basis of the big-block counter-claims alone. 1oo

98 Rot MB 3 FoL 231; DB voL IV, p36. 99 Native Affairs Committee Minutes, 7 August 1883, on Petition No. 113: Rotohiko Aupapa and 550rs. Testimony of Retireti Tapihana [Richard TapseLL], pp 1-2, in Archives Le 1/1883/8. (No copy submitted) 100 Ibid., Native Affairs committee minutes 7 August 1883, pp 1-7; and 16 August 1883, testimony of Pirimi Mataiawhea, pp 4 - 5, in Archives Le 1/1883/8. (No copy submitted.) Still, HaupapajWhakaue's petition faced a tough time: just the week before, the same Native Affairs Committee had resolved to dispel the "erroneous impression" that "disappointed claimants seem to think that they can bring Parliamentary influence to bear upon the Chief Judge by Petitioning the House and getting their case stated to this Committee. ,,101

Further, Haupapa's complaint was itself difficult to sustain. On the 16 August, for instance, Bryce asked Mataiawhea, "Why didn't you submit your evidence of title when it was called on?" Mataiawhea answered, "All our case was against Taorangi and the Court did not say to us what about Horohoro, what do you think of Horohoro?" Bryce asked, "Did Ngati [blank] advance any claim in the Court to Horohoro?" and Mataiawhea answered, "I did" and described that case as he had advanced it in 1882. Bryce then asked, "What more could you do if there was a rehearing?" Mataiwhea: "I would say the same thing." 102

Chief Judge MacDonald reported on the matter, and despite the large number of complaints, denied anything unusual or incorrect had happened. On 16 August, the Committee resolved not to recommend a rehearing.

If Ngati Whakaue had been the only dissatisfied 1882 claimant, then there the matter may have lain. However, six of Judge Williams' nine awards were similarly "mixed" -- even the equally intractable (and lon~-running) title. dispute between Tuhourangi and Ngati Rangitihi. 03 In referring such difficult questions back to the contestants, the Land Court could hardly be said to have adequately determined title.

So, somewhat remarkably, at the same time the ngati Whakaue counter-claimants were petitioning, Wi Keepa Te Rangipuawhe, on behalf of Tuhourangi, was also in Wellington seeking a rehearing of Tuhourangi's own (apparently victorious) case. actuall~ participated in the campaign to have their own case reheard.14

Wi Keepa's complaint was, in essence, the same as Haupapa's:

"The decision given by the Court was to this effect. It included the Tribes who were the claimants and the counter­ claimants in one piece, and the troubles of that lands are just the same now as they were formerly, and it is like to

101 1883 Native Affairs Minute Book, 2 August 1883, resoLution re: Petition No. 79. (No copy submitted) 102 Op cit., Native Affairs Committee Minutes 16 August 1883, pp 7-8. 103 Rot MB 3 FoL 230; DB voL IV, p35. 104 The PeopLe of Many Peaks, p257-258; DB voL IV, pp190-191. land that has never been adjudicated upon. "1M

On 10 November 1884, Parliament, in effect, ratified the existing state of affairs by passing the Special Powers and Contracts Act 1884. The Act provided for the Rotomahana-Parekarangi block to be

"deemed and taken to be lands held by the native customs or usages, as held before any action was taken by any Native Land Court of New Zealand to investigate the title to such lands. "106

Four months later, in Tuhourangi's 18 February 1885 meeting with Ballance, Wi Keepa reiterated and elaborated somewhat his complaint with the 1882 judgment:

"Tuhourangi surveyed their external boundaries, but when the land was brought before the Court, one portion was awarded to a different tribe, and another portion was given jointly to Tuhourangi and another tribe, and so on for the whole block. It was cut up in that manner. In future we do not wish to have the whole block heard at once; we would like the various internal blocks taken one after the other, because some people who own a bit of land on the far side have to make a claim to the whole block, and conduct their case as for the whole block."

Still more specifically, Wi Keepa pressed now for rehearing at Te wairoa{ and after adjudication by the Arawa District Commi ttee. 07

Note, even this District Committee/Te Wairoa venue request was probably a compromise position: Tuhourangi no doubt would have preferred to have the 1882 internal Roto-Pare boundaries settled by the 19-person Tuhourangi Committee, as provided in Section 14 of the Native Committees Act 1883. However, their Committee, "elected by the six hundred owners of the Rotomahana-Parekarangi block," had run into snags with the Land Court (leaving the Arawa District Committee the only legally recognised Maori body) .108

Either the boundary with Ngati Whakaue, or that with Ngati Rangitihi, or the failed Tuhourangi Committee -- or all three -­ could have been the immediate cause of the 1882 judgment f s

105 R. F. Kearn, Tarawera: The VoLcanic Eruption of 10 June 1886, Auck: Author, 1988, p 85, citing Wi Keepa Te Rangipuawhe to Minister of Native Affairs, 17 August 1883, NO 82/2519, in Archives NO 92/2244; DB voL IV, p180. 106 SpeciaL Powers and Contracts Act 1884, CLause 2 and Para. 14 of Second CoLumn; DB voL I, p112. 107 1885 AJHR G-1, pp 51; DB voL I, p26. 108 Native Committees Act 1883, Section 14; and 1885 AJHR G-1, pp 51 &54-55; DB voL I, pp26, 29. collapse. What remained essential was the need to bring the Block through the Court. The threat of 'wildcat' sales was fairly removed by the Thermal Springs Act 1881. But under Section 5 of that same Act, even leasing lands via the Government was prohibited until those lands had passed through the Land Court. 109

The doubts hanging over the 1882 judgment could well have been hampering development plans. Perhaps we see this frustration in Mita Taupopoki's 1885 defence of Tuhourangi's tour and Terraces­ sketching fees on the grounds that "under the Thermal Springs Act they [were] debarred from giving leases to Europeans and raising a revenue that way. "110

Beyond this, an outgrowth of the first, fruitless Land Court was an 1883 surveJ lien of 392 pounds 16/8, registered against the whole Block.1 As this lien was apportioned against all the subdivisions of the original block (including Horohoro, Paeroa, etc. ), it placed all the "successful" claimants in the same debtors' boat.

Gilbert Mair cancelled part of the lien on 15 September 1885, and re-issued it for 332 pounds 1/8. On 17 July 1896, he (apparently personally) paid off another 32 pounds 10/. Without further research we cannot be certain, but perhaps Mair reduced the liens to help alleviate anxieties. Up to at least 1915, the Land Court was still extracting sums from compensation awards to pay this 1883 lien. 112

109 ThermaL Springs Act 1881, Section 5; DB voL I, p106. 110 AJHR 1885 P 54; DB voL I, p29. 111 LS 423/43, Asst Surveyor GeneraL to Chief Judge, MLC, 24 October 1883, in Ak Archives BAAZ 1108/423. Note, Wi Keepa began his 1885 description of his compLaint with, "Tuhourangi surveyed their exterior boundaries."; DB voL II, p6. 112 R. J. Knight to Under Secretary for Lands, 5 August 1915, in LS 22/1002, heLd at Department of Conservation, WeLLington. Existence of Liens confirmed by reference to Roto-Pare Listings in BAAZ 1, Lands and Survey:Survey Ledger 1887-1904, at AuckLand Archives. Paid in 1915: see H. S. King, Registrar Waiariki District Maori Land Board to Under Secretary Native Department, 26 JuLy 1915, in LS 22/1002, above. Tuhourangi Tourism Blows: 1885-86

In 1885, William Fox urged Premier Seddon that "the time has come" for the Government to utilise the springs at Tarawera. He was critical of the small number of visitors either for health, recreation or curiosity, claiming that they were destined to become ... . the sanatorium not only of the Australian colonies, but of India and other portions of the globe. 113

This grand Government vision for Rotomahana was clearly at odds with Tuhourangi's small scale, no-sale approach. Some aspects of that approach, such as lewd hakas and lingering problems with alcohol, certainly did not appeal to all tastes. 114 But overall, by the 1880s, "instead of an exposure to negativity and defeat," tourism had become "a celebration of resilience and triumph" for Tuhourangi. 115

On 10 June 1886, Tuhourangi's celebration ended. The massive volcanic eruption of Mount Tarawera destroyed much of the tribe's homeland, including the Terraces and ngawha at Rotomahana. "Entire villages were buried beneath 70 - 100 feet of mud. "116

Following the eruption, Tuhourangi tangied for their dead and salvaged what property they could. Within days, they received at least nine offers of a new home from neighbouring Maori. 117

In contrast, the Government's response seems almost incredibly cynical. Looking on the devastation, what it saw was an "opportunity" of acquiring the Rotomahana-Parekarangi Block. A powerful coterie comprising the Under Secretary for Crown Lands, S. Percy Smith, the Under Secretary for Native Affairs, T. W. Lewis, the Native Minister Ballance, and Premier Stout, instantly formed around the idea of offering resettlement lands in exchange for tools, provisions and the Rotomahana-Parekarangi Block. 118

113 1885 AJHR H-26 P 5; DB voL I, p33. 114 "There are innocent hakas, the performance of whi ch wouLd harm nobody; but at Wai roa, these innocent ones are more frequentLy exceeded than not, and the resuLt is often unLimited drunkenness and immoraLity." Thorpe TaLbot, A Month in Hot Water 1882 p 42; aLso J. A. Froude, Oceana 1892, both in 'The Don Stafford CoLLection' Rotorua PubLic Library. ALso, RockeLL, p 13. Note in the universaLLy poLemicaL sources on these points -- both private and Government -- it is difficuLt to teLL whether one is Learning more about Maori immoraLity or Victorian prurience; DB voL IV, pp258a,261,198. 115 Te Awekotuku , p 283. 116 Waaka, p 9. R. F. Kearn, gives an exceLLent account of "Tuhourangi Bereft," in Op. cit., pp 179-181; DB voL IV, pp180-182. 117 R. F. Kearn, Op. cit., p 295; DB voL IV, p183. 118 This section from R. F. Keams, Op. cit., pp 295-297, whose materiaLs aLmost aLL come from Archives LS 22/2433. We have not yet consuLted this important primary source; DB voL IV, pp183-185. Just a few weeks after Tuhourangi's loss, Percy Smith wrote to Ballance,

" ... the opportunity of acquiring a territory which must for ages be one of very great attraction notwithstanding the loss of the Terraces should not, I submit, be lost."

Percy Smith suggested possible sites for exchange, and recommended that Ballance move ahead the Land Court determination of the Rotomahana-Parekarangi Block. Ballance tried to do so, but could not find an available judge. Under Secretary Lewis went further, suggesting that the exchange should be attempted without waiting for "tedious preliminary process of investigation of title by the Land Court."

Evidently, Ballance undertook to raise the idea with Wi Keepa, but we have found no evidence that the discussion ever occurred, let alone of wi Keepa's response. The resettlement/exchange idea faded before the end of July 1886.

Instead, various portions of Tuhourangi accepted various of their neighbours' offers. The large majority -- (over 300) -- simply moved over to Ngapuna, and in with their closest relations at nearby Whakarewarewa. The refugees outnumbered their hosts 2:1. 11"9

119 The PeopLe of Many Peaks, p 258; Waaka, p 9; Kearn, p 297. G. ConLey, Tarawera: Destruction of the Pink and White Terraces, WeLLington, Grantham House, 1985, p90; DB voL IV, pp191, 170. Tuhourangi Return to the Native Land Court

While Tuhourangi were still visitin~ the various resettlement lands offered them by fellow Maori, 0 the special hearing for the Rotomahana-Parekarangi Block began. Judge Brabant first tried to open the case on 28 January 1887. The assessor was Hameora Magakahia, who claimed to have "never been before in this district and to be unrelated to any of the claimant groups." The Court initially tried sitting in the Rotorua Resident Magistrate Court house. Judge Brabant apologized for the cramped quarters. 121 Brabant also apologized for having to adjourn for a month, as a Land Court judge at Taupo had telegrammed "that his work will be seriously interfered with if (Brabants) Court continues sitting .... as most of the natives present there wish to attend the Court." When the Court re-opened on the 28th of February 1887, Hipirini Te Whetu, on behalf of Tuhourangi applied for and received an adjournment for a further month. Then, in March, at the request of Wi Keepa, proceedings were moved to Tamata Kapua. Henare Te Hukuatua welcomed the Court.1~ From April to the time of judgment, Brabant heard the claims of Tuhourangi and the now-20 counter-claimants.1~ Brabant summarised the situation: 124

I have to day to give the Judgement of the Court on the ownership of the Rotomahana Parekarangi Block, the investigation of the title of which has occupied the Court for the last five months. The land is the tribal claim of the Tuhourangi or descendants of Wahiao, it contains approximately 211,000 acres; its original survey contained a considerably larger area but it has been curtailed by various decisions of the Native Land Court affecting the external boundaries. The claim of the Tuhourangi to this land was heard and determined by the Court in 1882, but this is a rehearing by special act of Parliament. After listing counter claimants and summarising their claims, Brabant explained

120 Keam, p 297; DB voL IV, p185. 121 Rot MB 12 FoL 14; DB voL IV, p44a. 122 Rot MB 12 pp 15-17; DB voL IV, pp45-47. 123 20 counter-cLaimants: there appear to have been 28 initiaLLy; six merged and two withdrew. Rot MB 12 pp 19-22 and 29; Rot MB 13 FoL 195-96. Note, Tuhourangi appear as both cLaimant and counter-cLaimant at MB 12 FoL 29, 1 ApriL 1887; DB voL IV, pp49-52,57-58,53. 124 See appendix 2, "Brabaant Judgement"; DB voL I, pp9-19. Evidence on behalf of both claimants and counter claimants have been heard at great length. The whole of the counter claimants, while they do not deny that Umukaria was murdered on the Block, deny that what is called through conquest of Wahiao had any effect in deciding the ownership of the land; each set of them assert their own occupation of the land severally claimed by them, in apportion to that of the claimants. It will probably be expected that the Court state the view it has taken of this conquest of Wahiao. The claimants state that Umukaria having been murdered by the then owners of the block, Wahiao a Chief of Rotorua raised a war party to avenge him and conquered the murderers at Titaka a pa a little on the E side of the boundary of the Block; they allow that Tutanekai an ancestor of N'Whakaue accompanied Wahiao but in a subordinate position and state that the latter have no claim to the land because they did not occupy it but returned to Rotorua. From amongst the mass of evidence in many cases contradictory which has been heard about the feuds of the different tribes and the occupation of this land from the time of Wahiao to the present time these facts stand out conspicuously. That in his time or shortly after it the ancestors of the tribe now called Tuhourangi having separated themselves from N'Uenukukopako began to take possession of and to spread themselves over this Block, that since then they have been frequently at War with the surrounding tribes, the N'Whakaue, the N'Pikiao and the N'Rangitihi, but nevertheless have held this land against their attacks ...... The Court then holds that the title of the Tuhourangi tribe to the bulk of the claim has been made out, but it does not hold that they have proved any settled external boundary to have been fixed either at the time of Wahiao or at any other time and it appears to be the work of this Court to continue that of previous Courts in cutting off the portions of the claim to which other tribes have made out a right. The Court has carefully considered the evidence given of the feuds which were carried on between the Tuhourangi and surrounding tribes and also the evidence of occupation and on the evidence has based its conclusions.

The judge stated his findings on the various claimants cases and awarded the block in eight parts to various groupings of the claimants. Brabant closed his judgement with the award to Tuhouragi: The whole of the rest of the block ( including the islands in Rotokakahi Lake) is adjudged to Wiremu Kepa Te Rangipuawhe, to Mita Taupopoki and to the Tuhourangi tribe including the hapus claiming with them. These awards have all been placed by the surveyor accurately on the tracing plan in the Court, and the formal orders will be signed whenever the surveys are completed or the plan or plans approved by a judge. The day after the judgement, the Court requested owners lists. No lists were ready and Judge Brabant had to leave for Tauaranga that same day. Mita Taupopoki requested at least a month to prepare lists. 125

From 21 to 26 October 1887, owners lists for blocks 1,2,3,4,5 were received. 126 Lists for Rotomahana-Parekarangi lA, 1C, 2, 3 and 4 were confirmed virtually immediately. 127

In November 1887, owners lists were submitted for Roto-Pare 6 - where Tuhourangi interests were concentrated. Kaipa Te Rangikaripiripia appeared for Tuhourangi and stated that all the Tuhourangi lists were now ready and that Tuhourangi wishes the block divided into 18 sub divisions. The Court informed the agent [Kaipa] that it had no objection in doing so and if the tribe are unanimous in wishing their subdivision to be made the Court will confirm them. 128

Kaipa submitted owner lists for the 18 sub-divisions, and the agents for each sub-division were appointed [see table]:

125 Rot MB 13 Fol 204; DB vol IV, p66.

126 Rot MB 13 Fols 249-281. (No copies submitted.) 127 Rot MB 13 Fol 249-281, (No copies submitted). 128 Rot MB 13 pp 294; DB vol IV, p69. Roto-Pare 6 Sub-divisions and Conductors 9 November 1887129

Number of Sub Division Name of Block Agent or Conductor

6A Rotomahana Parekarangi Te Rangikaripiripia 6B Muangarawhiri Katene Waiaua 6C Ohorongo II It 6D Akakahia-Okareka " 6E Te Karua-Pawhero " & Himiona Te Kura 6F Whakarewakiwa-Waitangi Rehari Heretaunga 6G Te Anga Pukapenga Hoani Te Kahutaka 6H Tokimiho Tikitapu Mika Aporo 6J Te Wairoa Karikaria " 6K Te Wairoa Otupoto Wi Kawana te Rupe 6L Moerangi Wi Hapi Kerei 6M Motutawa II II 6N Te Kumete II .. 60 Matakana Hoani te Kahutaka 6P Wairua Himiona te Kura 6Q Rotomahana Te Arihi(Nth) Wi Hapi Kerei 6R ditto (Sth) Wi Keepa Te Rangipuawhe 6S Waipa Te Rangikaripiripia

Conductors handed in lists for all blocks A-to-S. By 22 November 1887, lists were passed and confirmed for sixteen of the eighteen sub-divisions of 6 (B-to-S, excluding R, were confirmed.) The Court ordered a Certificate of Title to issue in favour of the individuals in the submitted lists.

Lists for 6A were published for challenge on the 22 November 1887, and

"there being so many objections, ... the Court [with the concurrence of the claimants] considered it better to return the lists to the agent."

6A was therefore adjourned until 24 February 1888.1~

For all of the Rotomahana-Parekarangi blocks besides 6A, then, Brabant "made interim order that Certificate of Title to issue in favour of [the] persons [listed]." For each, he instructed,

"properly certified plan to be deposited in Native Land Court, Auckland. Order to be dated March 2 1888.,,1~

129 Rot MB 13 FoL 294; DB voL IV, p69. 130 Lists: Rot MB 13 pp 294-382 (No copies submitted). 6A objections, Rot MB 13 FoL 377. Concurrence: Rot MB 13 FoL 382; DB voL IV, pp71,72. 131 See e.g. Rot MB 13 FoL 356; DB voL IV, p356. It remains to be ascertained exactly what happened to 6A between November 1887 and the start of Edger's 1894 hearings. From the Court minutes we have seen so far, though, it appears Judge Brabant left-off 6A as something like a large "commons" lying to the West of the other blocks (6B to 68), used by all the awardees of these other blocks for flax-gathering, bird-snaring, timber and firewood, and with scattered cultivations .132 Even the boundary definition for 6A was in the nature of an award for residue of the other 17 sub-divisions. 133 80, while Brabant' s 1887 award largely settled the various Tuhourangi hapus' interests to the Eastern 17 blocks (6B to 68), their interests in 6A remained basically inchoate.

132 See, e.g. testimony on 18 June 1894 in Rot MB 31 FoL 6-10: Mita and Panapa took ConstabLe Murray into the bush on 6A to prove the existence and Location of a certain canoe; Hipirini cLaimed interests in parts of 6A on bases of permanent cuLtivations, bird snares, rat-runs, fern root digging, and canoe-making -- and teLLs of disputes with Mita Taupopoki in 1888 and 1891 over timber rights. On 21 June [MB 31 FoL 28-29J, Papanui toLd of Taoi's occupancy of the pa on Matatawa IsLand, and of getting "fLax in the centre of this [6AJ bLockJ" in the 1850's and 60's; DB voL IV, pp76-80,81-82. 133 Rot MB 13 FoL 382; DB voL IV, p72. Tuhourangi Society Entering the 1890's After the Tarawera eruption, when Tuhourangi moved from Te Wairoa to Whakarewarewa, they effectively shifted homes from the region's old "premier tourist attraction" to its new "premier attraction." Stafford explains, Whakarewarewa's "extensive field of almost every form of thermal phenomena, its proximity to the township and its Maori village sited amongst the activity brought ever-increasing numbers of visitors, and a considerable income to the inhabitants.1~ Upon settling at Whakarewarewa, Tuhourangi resumed concerts and dances for tourists. 135 Guiding tourists through the thermal area became an important duty of women of the village, just as it had been at Te Wairoa. The most famous guides of this time - - Sophie, and the Papakura sisters, Maggie and Bella -- were all Tuhourangi . 136

Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao had separated in the late 1860's, with Tuhourangi remaining at Te Wairoa, and Ngati Wahiao settling first at Parekarangi, and in 1878 onto ancestral lands at Whakarewarewa. 137 Accordingly, in the 1883 Land Court hearings on Whakarewarewa, Tamati Paora (on behalf of Ngati Wahiao) claimed quite distinct rohe for Wahiao (at Whaka) and Tuhourangi (south of 'the ridge' ) .138 Wahiao' s roots here were sufficiently deep that Judges Mair & O'Brien awarded customary ownershi~ of the block to both Ngati Whakaue and Ngati Wahiao .1 So, unsurprisingly, soon after Tuhourangi's resettlement into Whakarewarewa, Tuhourangi's and Ngati Wahiao's hapu identities and affinities appear to have been in flux. In Brabant's 1887 hearings, we find Mita Taupopoki speaking on behalf of Tuhourangi, and naming the first two of the 1883 Wahiao hapu as "Tuhourangi" claimants to the Rotomahana-parekarangi block. He

134 Stafford, pp 269, 352-353; DB voL IV, pp220,223-224, 135 Te Awekotuku, p 116. 136 Te Whakarewarewawatanga 0 te ope taua a wahiao: The peopLe and pLace, Rotorua, Rahui Trustees. p1; DB voL IV, p240. 137 Ibid.; aLso Waaka, p 8. 138 NLP 1/81/5186 in MA 13/79a: Tamati Paora to Fenton, 23 September 1881; DB voL Ill, pp171- 173. 139 Judgment, in Archives MA 13/57, SpeciaL FiLeon Okoheriki BLock. In this 1883 case, Tamati Paora and Mita Taupopoki named the hapu of Wahiao as Huarere, Tukiterangi, Hinganoa, Huranga te Rangitaeotu and Te Kahu. Most sources onLy name Mair's first three as Ngati Wahiao hapu: cf. P. Waaka, "Whakarewarewa," p 30; and "The PeopLe and PLace of Whakarewarewa," Rahui Trustees, Rotorua N.Z., p. 1. Waaka, p 54, claims the onLy Ngati Whakaue occupants of Whakarewarewa when Ngati Wahiao moved there were Mohi Atarea' s whanau; DB voL Ill, pp118-134, voL IV, p240. also named "Ngati Wahiao" itself as a Tuhourangi hapu .140 In the midst of these family adjustments, from 1888 to 1896, the Whakarewarewa Block was again heard, awarded and partitioned. In a nutshell, Ngati Whakaue received the major portion of the lands with thermal activity (surrounding the village) - most of which were sold to the Crown by 1896. Ngati Wahiao received the 58 acres of village proper, which they occupied with their Tuhourangi relations, and soon the question of whether or not to sell was presenting itself. 14f On 16 April 1890, for instance, Mita Taupopoki wrote to the Native Minister, offering to sell a portion of the Whakarewarewa lands (No 2).1~ While we have not located the Crown's response to Mita's particular offer, there is ample reason to believe that the Crown would have been keen to acquire Whakarewarewa lands. First, Whakarewarewa had been a major tourist destination since at least the early 1880's, causing continuous pakeha-Maori struggles for control of related activities, such as toll-fees, guiding, and geyser-soaping. 143 As a result, local settlers' pressures on Government to purchase "as much as possible of the lands around the lakes" had continued apace into the 1890' s. 144 There is evidence also of some Maoris' eagerness to sell, and of a rift developing over the prospect of sales. On the evidence so far, we cannot characterise this land sales rift very precisely. However, fairly certainly, Ngati Whakaue favoured selling at Whakarewarewa, while some combination of Tuhourangi/Wahiao did not.1~ Beyond that, either of two scenarios fit what we know so far: either a "Ngati Wahiao" faction at Whakarewarewa were generally favourable to selling Whaka lands, while a " Tuhourangi/Wahiao" faction were generally opposed. Or, maverick individuals (of whatever hapu) were inviting purchase/sale before their hapu had agreed to collective aims or strategies on the matter.

140 Rot MB 13 FoL 196. Note, the other 1883 Wahiao hapu names aLso do not appear in the other 1887 agents' case introductions; DB voL IV, p58. 141 See Stafford, 1986, p 353; DB voL IV, p224. 142 NLP 1/1890/122 in Archives MA MLP 1/49 (no copy submitted). 143 Stafford, p 270-271; DB voL IV, p221-222. 144 Bay of PLenty Times, 21 November 1892. 'The Don Stafford Collection', Rotorua PubLic Library. ALso, Cover sheet of NLP 92/70, in Archives MA-MLP 1/49. [ ILLeg.J to Sheridan, 15 August 1893 (beLow); DB voL IV, p262, voL III, p165. 145 In his 1890 offer to seLL Whaka Lands to the Crown (above), Mita Taupopoki compares his wiLLingness to seLL with that of Ngati Whakaue. Ngati Whakaue had just compLeted severaL years' saLes effort for the Rotorua Townshi p Lands; see 1910 Par Liamentary Debates, p 1135. ALso, see P. Waaka, p 63; DB voL I, p105. Whichever way it ran, the seller/non-seller rift in the Tuhourangi/Wahiao community ran deep. Note the April 1892 objections of Wi Keepa, Tamati Paora and 51 others to proposed sales at Whakarewarewa: 146

23 April 1892 The Honourable Native Minister Sir, Greeting. If you have received a letter from some members of Ngati Wahiao offering to sell Whakarewarewa as far as (? including) Rotomahana Parekarangi block, we protest against it. That offer does not emanate from the rest of the people. It is simply the secret doing of certain persons. If the offer is confined to Whakarewarewa only then it is not right. First because it was not made known to the three hapus Ngati Hinganoa, Ngati Tukiterangi, Ngati Huarere, to whom the land was awarded by the Court. The offer is therefore a secret one and made only by the owners themselves. Secondly, because a good deal of difficulty is attached to this block, Whakarewarewa, owing to the fact that it has neither been subdivided by the Court amongst the three hapus above named nor individually subdivided. We request therefore that the offer be not accepted. If the Government wishes to buy land let some one come and explain the wish of the Government before all Tuhourangi and let all Tuhourangi say yes or no to it. Our concluding word is do not purchase any of the lands belonging to us, that is, to Tuhourangi while these difficulties are in evidence. It will be time enough to think of that when the Crown has settled all questions. Attached are our signatures, [Wi Ke Te Rangipuawhe and 52 others]1Q In response to this plea, Sheridan, of the Native Land Purchase Department, advised the Native Minister to hold off purchases at Whakarewarewa until the Land Court had reheard the block.

However, shortly after, on 9 June 1893, Richard John Gill was authorised under the Native Land Purchase Act Amendment Act 1892, to begin acting as Native Land Purchase Officer in Rotorua

146 The Maori originaL of this Letter ought to be consuLted. The ambiguity over whether the Land referred to extends to or incLudes Rotomahana-Parekarangi is noted in the originaL transLation. Minute Books and further Native Land Purchase Department searches ought to cLarify the actuaL disputes at issue.

147 NLP 1/1892/70 in Archives 1/49; DB voL III, p164-169. district. 148 Considering he been Under Secretary in 1879, he was probably one of the Department's best. Despite his long experience with Maori land purchases, Gill apparently had not yet learned to speak Maori. 149 For this reason, his appointment raised complaints from te Arawa at Ohinemutu - and requests from Te Puke that he be replaced by Gilbert Mair. The petitioners maintained that purchases (especially in the large blocks) would proceed more smoothly under Mair, who knew "the character and position of the lands in the Arawa district, [and] the Maori language and their customs. ,,150

Gill found the request "amusing, knowing who instigated it being made." Sheridan similarly dismissed the complaints, "I quite understand the influences that are at work. The Native appear to be under the impression that exclusive purchases of the valueless lands generally around Rotorua are going to take place, and the Pakeha Maori who live upon the unfortunates are as usual at work. ,,151

Of course, Gill was armed with an interpreter, Mr. Carnachan -­ an ex-storekeeper from Maketu, who had lived in Rotorua since 1882, and joined the Rotorua Native Land Purchase Department in the same year as Gill. 152 Gill seems to have set straight to work on Whakarewarewa purchases from his offices in the Rotorua courthouse. 153 In August 1893, the Whakarewarewa hearings drawing to a close, Gill's superior, Sheridan, was instructed,

"There is no use offering a little price for this Block -­ it is very important Government should buy it. There may

148 NLP 1/93/106, in Archives MA-MLP 2/2, NLP Register. See Native Land Purchase Act 1892; DB voL I, pp113-118 149 WeLL ington: see, e.g. Gi LL addressed as "Under-Secretary" by Henry MitcheLL in NLP 1/79/422, in Archives MA 13/57. No Maori: see NLP 1/1894/101, Te Tupara Tupaeitua & 12 ors/Seddon, 6 March 1894, in Archives MA-MLP 1/34; DB voL III, pp110,142-145. 150 NLP 1/1894/101, Te Tupara Takaeitua & 12 ors of Ohinemutu/Seddon, 6 March 1894; and NLP 1/1894/85, Takaanui Tarakawa & ors of Te Puke/Sheridan (n.d.). Both in Archives MA-MLP 1/34. As far as we know, Gi LL was new to the Rotorua scene. He may have appeared as another "expert" from WeLLington -- a breed Rotoruans are known to resent even today; DB voL III, pp135-145. 151 NLP 1/94/85, GilL/Sheridan 21 ApriL 1894, and NLP 1/94/101, Sheridan/GiLL 5 May 1895, both in MA-MLP 1/34; DB vol III, pp135-145. 152 N.Z. Cyclopedia, VoL. 2, AuckLand District. Christchurch, The CycLopaedia Company, 1902, p 804. By 1902, Carnachan was an Assistant Land Purchase Officer; DB vol IV, p172. 153 New ZeaLand Cyclopedia, VoL. 2, AuckLand District, [1902] p 804; DB voL IV, p172. have to be special arrangements made for each division ... ,,154

Sheridan deferred to Gill, who proposed 7/6 per acre for most of the Whaka lands, but for the "wonderful" No. 3 Block, which "contains all the Springs, Baths and Ngawha's ... it would be fair to offer 2,000 pounds for it. If I am instructed, I will purchase as cheaply as possible, with a margin for contingencies. ,,155

By March 1894, Gill had paid out about half of the authorized 2,000 pounds for just over half of Ngati Whakaue's 215 acre No. 3 block, and purchased 546 acres of their 871 acre No. 1 block for 7/6 per acre. He had only obtained 1 share in Wahiao's No. 2 block. '156

Purchases evidently continued until mid-1895, when the Crown's interests in the Whakarewarewa blocks were defined by partition - - on application of the Crown and against the protests of Wi Keepa and others: Whakarewarewa August 15 1895 To Sir Robert Stout, We have seen the speech made by the premier in the House of Parliament stating that in a very short time he would have his two feet in Whakarewarewa..... By what law is the Government empowered to subdivide our land, and what empowers them to take the part they want? We applied to the Court that it should hear each hapus case in regard to the subdividing of this land separately, and go according to the boundaries, as laid down by ancestors, but the Court would not agree to this. Now we know the reason it was [not] done. It was so they could cut us out anywhere, and that the Government could take the part that we have lived on for ages. But we will not give up our houses and our hot springs that we have owned so long. Rihare Heretaunga Te Katene Paora & others including Te Keepa Te Rangipuawhe1~

154 Cover sheet of NLP 92/70, in Archives MA-MLP 1/49. [ ILLeg.J to Sheridan, 15 August 1893; DB voL Ill, p165. 155 Cover sheet of NLP 92/70, in Archives MA-MLP 1/49. GiLL/Sheridan 29 October 1893; DB voL III, p165. 156 1894 AJHR G-3 P 5. Native Land purchase tabLes; DB voL I, p72. 157 NLP 1/1897/151 in Archives MA-MLP 1/49. This Letter is anonymousLy noted, "[ALL these peopLe on the List are non seLLers who reside at WhakarewarewaJ."(EngLish transLation of this Letter not submitted.) Stout forwarded this complaint to Premier Seddon, who explained that the partition was intended "to as soon as possible, putting an end to the systematic blackmailing of tourists and other persons who by the construction of roads and railways at the public expense are enabled to visit the locality in daily increasing numbers - I refer to the exorbitant tolls demanded by the Natives. "158

By the Court award of 1896, the Crown received the 157 acres it had purchased from Whakaue,1~ Tuhourangi having to be content with about 1/6 of the Block. 160 According to Waaka, the fact that Whakaue were known to be in favour of making their lands available to the Government, and gifted land to the Crown upon the establishin~ of the Rotorua township, may have favoured them in this award. 16 The western portion which the Crown obtained contained all of the geysers, mud-pools, etc., and the eastern portion contained springs and the spout bath "Turikore. "162 "Having thus obtained the land with all its natural wonders," the Government set about developing facilities, such as replacing the footbridge across Puarenga Stream. 163

The most obvious effect of the Crown's partition was that Tuhourangi and Wahiao now had no right to charge any toll for admission to the reserve. 164 Thus, they were denied a major income earner which had enabled them gradually to increase facili ties at Whakarewarewa. A broad shift occurred with Government ownership: where once Tuhourangi had managed their own tourist attractions, they now became managed tourist attractions themselves. 165 Indeed, a local newspaper, reporting on the Crown's partition of

158 Ibid. Seddon/Stout, n.d. This fiLe contains an anonymous report Laying out the Crown's three options for partition. If it divided Whaka into two, it wouLd either miss the geysers or the springs - so, the Crown proposed to divide it into three, Leaving the middLe to the Maori. "After considerabLe discussion with the peopLe, they, so far as was in their power, agreed to this."(no copy submitted) 159 Stafford p 353; DB voL IV, p224. 160 Te Awekotuku, p 91. 161 Waaka, p 63. 162 Te Awekotuku , p 93, citing The Hot Lakes ChronicLe and Tourist Times 163 Stafford p 353. Note, for at Least eLeven years prior, Maori residents of Whakarewarewa had requested this bridge be widened, AJHR 1885 G-1 P 51; DB voL IV, p224, voL I, p26. 164 Stafford, p 354; DB voL IV, p225. 165 Stafford, p 357. Te Awekotuku, pp 107, 110, 233, 249 (and various); DB voL IV, p226. Whakarewarewa, bubbled:

.... [the Native Land Court award] ensures the continued presence of Natives on the ground. This is a source of great interest to the tourists who seem never tired of watchinq the peculiar customs and manners of the ."MAORI AT HOME. ,,166

166 Te Awekotuku, p 93. The Land Court Awards Relative Interests in 6A

At the same time that their Whakarewarewa lands were under pressure of sale, Tuhourangi were settling their various hapu claims in the neighbouring Rotomahana-Parekarangi block. From at least early-March to late September 1894, Judge Edger, with Hone Patene as Assessor, sat at Rotorua to hear again the competing claims to the Rotomahana-Parekarangi block 6A. It appears he also either made adjustments to, or perhaps completed Brabant's 1887 awards of, the owners lists for the other 17 blocks. Judge Edger's opening remarks to his judgment of 3 July 1894 are instructive: 167

"The original title to the Rotomahana-Parekarangi Block has been twice investigated by the Court [in 1882 by Judge Mair and 1887 by Judge Brabant]. At the last hearing in 1887 before Judge Brabant, the part now before us - Rotomahana­ parekarangi 6A, containing by estimation 94,436 acres - being the main part of the [approximately 167,000 acre block] - was awarded to 437 persons, belonging to 12 hapus of the Tuhourangi tribe. The present investigation of title is for the purpose of determining the relative interests. It is much to be regretted that this was not done at the former hearing, as in the meantime, the hapus have quarrelled amongst themselves, rendering necessary what amounts almost to a fresh hearing of the whole case.

One perhaps senses Judge Edger's frustration, as he continued: The present hearings are therefore in the nature of a family quarrel, and in view of this fact, the Court at the opening of the case used every endeavour to induce the parties to corne to some agreement amongst themselves, but with only partial success. We would earnestly impress upon the natives that it would be greatly to their advantage not to fight such matters out in Court, but to agree together and then come to the Court for the ratification of their agreement. "168

In the present case, the twelve hapus are so mixed up by frequent intermarriage that it is often difficult to say under what hapu a particular native should be placed. Indeed some of the witnesses and leading people claim under several hapus, and most of the owners trace their descent from the same ancestors, not more than seven or eight generations back.

167 The entire judgment, as printed in The Hot Lakes ChronicLe, 11 JuLy 1894

Briefly, following Brabant in 1887, Edger accepted the over­ arching Tuhourangi claim to Rotomahana-Parekarangi 6A by descent from Wahiao and Tuteata, accompanied by conquest of surrounding tribes. He granted that these factors secured all the Tuhourangi hapus' claim to the block as a whole.

This was no help in the present instance, though, for purposes of apportioning the relative interests of those Tuhourangi hapu within Rotomahana-Parekarangi 6A.

As all the hapu claimed equally by take tipuna, Edger turned rather emphatically "to the remaining ground of claim, viz., occupation, on which our judgment must be based. " Mita [Taupopoki]... claims occupation allover the block. - Panapa [te Nihotahi] ... claims only over the western side of the block. The other hapus claim only over the eastern side of the block with varying boundaries. We may here say that we attach no credence whatever to the various boundaries that have been laid down, some of which are alleged to be ancestral boundaries, while others are spoken of as 'rohe paanga.' We disbelieve in the existence of any ancestral boundaries -- between hapus -- on this land.

Edger then stated which occupation claims he accepted, and to what extent.

The nature of Tuhourangi's disputes over the Roto-Pare area can perhaps be gleaned from a few examples. First, in his judgment, Edger mentioned claims of urupa advanced as evidence of occupation. Apparently, these urupas' existence and location

169 This six-fold grouping of claimants is apparently reflected in Edger's December 1895 sub­ division of the residue (6A Section 2) from the partitioning of the Crown's interests (6A Section 1) into six sections (6A Section 2 Numbers 1 to 6). were not denied or disputed -- only whether claimant or counter­ claimant was more closely related to those buried there. Edger also mentioned two witnesses' evidence "being unwillingly given. " And finally, "the centre part of the [Roto-Pare 6A] block does not contain permanent settlements of any of the hapus. It is mostly open poor land, and has been used only for flax dressing and fowling purposes. All the hapus seem to have participated in such work." We are led again to the idea of a large "commons," shared by the various resident hapu in settlements around 6A. Judge Edger closed his 3 July judgment: It remains to fix the relative interests of individuals. Lists have been given in for each party with suggested individual shares. These will require some amendment, but we should prefer the natives themselves to settle the details, subject to some direction from the Court. He instructed that, in preparing their lists, claimants were to propose a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 800 shares per individual owner, "unless by special consent of the Court." Edger awarded relative interests in 6A surprisingly soon after, on 16 July 1894. 170 From a preliminary examination of the minutes, it appears the last owners' list for Roto-Pare Block 6 was arranged and awarded on 21 September 1894 (separate awards for each block, 6A to 6S - block 6B being last).1n Judge Edger awarded relative interests in 6S on August 10 1894. Panapa Te Nihotahi was the applicant. The shares were divided between 233 owners in the attached list - holding 2822 unequal shares (1 share = 1 acre). Individual shareholdings ranged from 1 share to 36 shares with the majority being between 5 - 30 shares. Mita Taupopoki was the sole exception, owning 70 shares. 172 On 7 August 1894 Edger determined interests in 6L (Moerangi.), again on application of Panapa Te Nihotahi. The list attached to the award named 538 owners, awarded roughly equal portions

170 See Rot MB 31 FoLs 66-91; DB voL IV, ppB5-110. 171 Rot MB 31 FoL 24B; DB voL IV, p114. 172 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, pp 199-20B. Note, this was a compLex case, heard from Panapa's submission of appLication on 16 JuLy, untiL Edger decided the owners List on 10 August. The case deserves attention in itseLf. See Rot MB 31 FoLs 91-136(no copies submitted), pp155-5B. Upon award, the Court ordered fees of: witness fees 1 pound; hearing fees 9 pounds; both of which were marked "paid" in the same handwriting as the Award; and an Order fee of 1 pound; Databank voLume V, pp103-112, voL IV pp113a-d. (range = 1 to 6 shares) out of 1504 shares (= 1504 acre block) 173

173 DOSLI Databank on Whaka Forest License Area, pp 230-251 &284 and 268. Rot MB 31 FoL 143- 145. [& ors?J Fees were ordered of 40/ for the hearing and 20/ for the order. They were marked "15/ paid 17/11/24 (6L2B5)'''; DB voL V, pp133-154,185,170, voL IV, pp111-113. Late 1894: The Crown Begins Purchasing Rotomahana-Parekarangi Lands Al though the first purchases of interests in the Rotomahana­ Parekarangi 6A, 6L and 6S deeds were only completed in January 1895, we find Tuhourangi discussing organised purchase activity with Premier Seddon on his visit to Rotorua on 10 December 1894. Here, after meeting with other Maori, Seddon had a "desultory conversation" with Tuhourangi. They asked both that money paid by them for Whakarewarewa surveys be refunded, and that the price for Rotomahana-Parekarangi lands be fixed at 20/, 10/ and 5/ per acre. To both requests, Seddon replied that he had full confidence in Mr. Gill, that no doubt the Maori did too, and that the matter of the Roto-Pare purchase was entirely in his hands. He advised Tuhourangi "to keep closer guard over [Whakarewarewa], and that probably a policeman would be appointed. ,,174

The next month, January 1895, Gill started purchasing interests. He approached the process using Deed Form No 4 - a remarkable clerical device, to say the least.1~ Reconstructing the purchase, it seems to start with a parchment form, about A2 size, printed with a declaration that certain lands were hereby vested in Her Majesty. Gill would have partially completed the form at the outset, filling in the sub-block(s) to be covered by the deed, and the total acreage of those blocks -- but probably leaving the date of completion and the total amount paid for the lands blank. 176

Gill's first, and primary, deed covered the twelve Eastern-most Roto-Pare 6 sub-blocks, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G, 6H, 6J, 6L, 6N, 60, 6P and 6Q. Gill did not transact for 6M - Motutawa Island, 6B (which, we believe, was awarded to Wi Keepa personally), or 6K, an inalienable part of Te Wairoa, or the small te Mu School Reserve, also at Te Wairoa. 1n

6A and 6S (and, apparently, 6R) e~ch had their own separate deeds, both begun shortly after this "omni-deed" (see below). On 24 January 1895, armed with the "omni-deed," the Land Court's

174 NLP 1/1894/407, Carnachan Report to NLP Office, 11 December 1894, in MA-MLP 1/36. Note, in November 1894, Seddon sought to step-up purchase activity. He advised John McKenzie, "to increase the number of Native Land Purchases." The bulging AJHR Returns of Land Purchased from the Natives show the result; DB vol IV, pp148-151, for a sample of Native Lands Purchased see DB vol I, pp70-83. 175 We would say that the method of purchase used here represents an important technological innovation in New Zealand's history. The story of its development deserves telling. 176 Original deeds are at Land and Survey, Head Office, Heaphy House, Wellington. 1n Deed 1960, pp. 1-2. Cf. the Rotorua settlers' committee's 1892 plea for Government to purchase "the lands around the lakes" (above>. DB Deed 1960 (submitted>. owners lists, and payment vouchers, Gill set about gathering signatures conveying interests in Roto-Pare sub-blocks to the Crown. Gill witnessed each signature as Justice of the Peace, and Carnachan witnessed each as translator. As he received each signature, Gill noted on the deed which sub-block it affected (6C, 6D, etc.), and keyed it to the signatory's number on the owners' list for that sub-block.1n

Since anyone person usually had shares in several of the sub­ blocks, he or she would sign several times -- once for each sub­ block he or she wished to sell. Each 25-signature page of the deed included, on average, one or two people who divested themselves of interests in five sub-blocks at one sitting, and several others selling shares in two or three sub-blocks. Occasionally an individual owner parted with interests in six or seven sub-blocks. We saw no instance on Gill's 1895 "omni-deed," though, of anyone selling only a specified portion of their interests in a block. The first day alone, Gill obtained about 80 signatures (from probably 20 - 30 owners). He obtained another 100 in the week after that. One imagines this might have been done at hui of some sort, though we have not yet found any specific record or reports of such a land-selling gathering.

A general report, though, from early in this century, broadly suggests some of the social dynamics involved in the initial rush into seller-non seller camps. When Ramarihi Tanara & her husband F. B. Scott, wanted to sell their interests in Roto-Pare 3A Sec 2A (740 acres on the Rotorua-Taupo Road), Mr. Scott wrote that his wife, Ramarihi,

"has been at all times the first to place the lands of her people in the hands of the Government - as in the Okoheriki block for the Rotorua railway to pass through, then her interest in the toll gate portion of the Waiotapu Valley, then Paeroa South and the Alum Cave at Orakei Korako, which she fought for [in] open Court against her own relations, to become the property of the Crown, and was successful, and other instances all of which were sacrificed, she herself scarcely getting a penny after paying Court expenses - and now for the many services rendered therein, she expects at least, that a sufficient price will be given in this instance ... ,,179

Frequently husbands and wives signed Gill's Roto-Pare "omni-deed" together, and successors of a given owner often carne forward in a group. Gill, Carnachan and owners met in Tuhourangi homes, and

178 Note, EmiLy Way transLated for Later signatures. See, e.g. Deed 1960 p. Z xxxxvi. We have not tracked through the procedure Maori wouLd have foLLowed for redeeming GiLL's vouchers. At some point -- either issue or redemption? -- the vouchers were recorded in the Native Land Purchase Department's Ledger and JournaL voLumes. DB Deed 1960. 179 Archives LS 1/50546. [Need date] signed the deed on kitchen tables. 1OO

We sampled every sixth page of the "omni-deed," creating a table of people selling their share in five or more sub-blocks at once. 181 Twenty-five or more such multiple sellers sold their shares in Sub-blocks 6H, 6L, 6N, 60 and 6Q. Yet, from our overlay map, one can see that the Crown did not thereby obtain a much greater proportion of the land area in these blocks than in sub-blocks 6C-6G, and 6J. Probably, this means that the multiple-seller blocks had proportionately more multiple-block owners -- perhaps the customary equivalent of "absentee owners. ,,182

For instance, a few Tuhourangi may have actively cultivated, etc. around Moerangi and thus had 6L awarded to them (see above); then, those few included others in their 6L owners list by right of common descent. In this way, the "original awardees/absentee relations" distinction may have formed one of the lines along which the "seller/non-seller" division ran.

About 60% of the signatures selling these sub-blocks were obtained in Gill's first two months, from 24 January to 22 March. After that, sales tapered off until the hearings defining the Crown's interests in these sub-blocks, in November and December 1895. 183

6A merited two deeds of its own -- one with ten signatories and one with 242. Gill started buying this block on 20 February, in the midst of his peak activity on the Eastern lake blocks. He apparently followed the same procedure as with the first deed, although in this instance only owners of this particular block could sign, so each only signed once. In this case, also, about one out of eight signatories (20:242) specified a certain number of shares they were selling, presumably retaining some for themselves. 184

The signature hunt for 6S was begun on 21 March and completed 2 December 1895. Again, the Maori vendors' names and signatures were gathered onto two deeds. The first deed contained the names and signatures of 153 vendors. The second contained the signature of one seller only who owned 11 acres and sold on 7 September, 1895. Again, Gill, witnessed all the signatures,

180 See Deed 1960, pp. 0, Ziv, Zxvi, and Zxxxxvi. Kitchen tabLes, see Rot MB 35 FoL 20-22 and 43-44 (story recounted beLow, p ). DB Deed 1960. 181 See Appendix 4, "1895 Roto-Pare purchases"; DB voL I, pp22. 182 This couLd be confirmed rigorousLy by checking owners' Lists, which we have not had time to do for this preLiminary report. SampLe pages of "omni-deed" 1960 submitted, and originals inspected at Lands and Survey, Heaphy House, WeLLington. DB deed 1960. 183 For some reason, the Last signatures in this deed -- of the successors to Wikitoria Te Kuritai -- were dated October 1898. 184 SampLe of 6A deed 1959 submitted. OriginaLs inspected at Lands and Survey, Heaphy House, WeLLington. DB deed 1959 (submitted). except four witnessed by R. [Hanssen?]. F. M. Carnachan witnessed all the signatures.

The attached compiled plan showed a 2822 acre parcel, bounded in the North East by the Moerangi block, by the South East by 6A and in the South West by the Puarenga stream. Perhaps this sub-block merited its own deeds due to its closeness to Whakarewarewa.1~

185 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, pp 211-221; DB voL V, pp115-125. Defining Crown Interests in 6A, 6S and 6L

Native Land Court Procedure for the 1895 Awards

In November and December 1895, Judge Wilson, with Karaka Tarawhiti as Assessor, heard the cases to define and partition the interests in the various Rotomahana-Parekarangi 6A-to-S blocks which Gill had acquired for the Crown. These hearings have absolutely nothing of the 'whaikorero feel' of hearings determining customary interests. They resemble, rather, a production line. 186

The cases were heard on application by the Crown, under Section 78 of the Native Land Act 1894. This 1894 Act contained at least three expedients relevant to the Roto-Pare case:

- Section 78 enabled the Crown to apply at any time to have its interests defined in any block of Maori land;

- by Sections 53 and 114, the Court assumed the role of the Trust Commissioners under the old Native Land Fraud Prevention Acts;

- by Section 65, the Court (with approval of the Minister) was empowered to vest lands in any legal person in payment of survey liens. 187

Each of the Crown's Rotomahana-Parekarangi cases (after the first one) opens with the margin note, "same plan [5432], same page, same witness." Land Purchase Officer Gill opens each, asking for a partition in favour of the Crown.

He states (in near-identical wording in every hearing) the total number of shares in the block, the total number of owners of the block, the number of owners selling "wholly or partially," and the number of shares sold to Crown.

Gill then requests a partition for a certain number of acres (usuall~, but not always, equal to the stated number of shares sold) .1

Then, he states the number of non-sellers, the number of shares they still hold, and submits both the deed and a list of non­ sellers, showing the remaining interests of each. (Each non­ seller list was assigned a letter, e.g. for 6C the non-seller list was marked "J," in 6D it is "K", and so on.)

186 Rot MB 35 Fols 1 - 66. [probably not the complete series of hearings]. (No copy sUbmitted).

187 Native Land Court Act 1894; DB vol I, pp119-153. 188 See, e.g. 6H, where 227 owners sold 1726+ shares, but these only equalled 1701 acres. 6N: 1478 shares = 1928 ac. Rot MB 35 Fol. 13 and 23; DB vol IV, pp121,128. The deed and the list are read out in Court, and after "challenging obj ectors," the Court adjudges deed and list as " correct" or "incorrect." 189 Gill (for the Crown) would then ask to receive a particular part of the parent block (e.g. "the south side"), sometimes mentioning earlier discussions with the owners (e.g. for 6F partition).1w Again, the Court would "challenge obj ectors" to the proposed partition.

If no objectors rose to the challenge, then [5] the Court would order the partition as proposed, name the new block "6(A, C, D, etc.) Section 1," and specify its acreage and boundaries in relation to existing block boundaries. This point in each case was marked in the margin as "Order." In the few cases where objectors rose, discussion followed. (see 6S & 6A below). Adjustments seem fairly readily made. 191 The partition of 6K, however, did seem unfortunate: Hipirini Te Whetu objected that Gill's proposed partition would take away the grave of a revered tohunga, Hikatawhao. He proposed a one-acre reserve over it. Apparently without even much discussion, Judge Wilson refused, instructing the owners to remove Hikatawhao's remains if they desired, "because it is not desirable that the Government lands should be spotted over with reserves of this kind. ,,192

Then the Court would order "the balance" of the sub-block, to contain a certain number of acres, to be partitioned in favour of the owners who did not sold to the Crown. In the same breath, the Court would name the block and specify the acreage it was to contain. Most cases closed with a rote statement, "The same to be made in favour of the owners who have not sold to the Crown as their names and interests are described in List [blank] handed to the Court by Mr. Gill, said list having been examined and found to be [blank]."

189 In the case of 6J, there was an objector, Eru Paora. He set up a case that he (more specificaLLy, his wife) onLy received 121 for 14 shares. WhiLe Eru's wife had intended to seLL aLL of her shares in that bLock, she had been confused at the payment procedure (which was not transLated by Mr. Carnachan). GiLL agreed that this wouLd be incorrect if it had happened, as the correct price wouLd be 2 pounds 2/. GiLL teLegraphed to WeLLington to see whether the 121 on Paora's voucher was a cLericaL error. Eru's case was adjourned untiL receipt of the information. It turned out GiLL had under-paid, so he compLeted payment and the Crown's partition resumed. See Rot MB 35 FoL 20-22 and 43-44; DB voL IV, pp125-127. 190 Rot MB 35 FoL 6; DB voL IV, p116. 191 See e.g. 6G, where "the partition was adjusted to suit aLL parties." Rot MB 35 FoL 9 - 12; DB voL IV, pp117-120. 192 6K objection: Rot MB 35 FoL 57; DB voL IV, p131. In these cases, the first [blank] was filled in in different handwriting -- probably sometime after the hearing. In a few cases, the second [blank] was not filled in at all -- leaving the question open as to whether the lists were examined. 193

Precisely this procedure was followed for the partition of 6L, on 29 November.~4

Both 6S and 6A, however, ran into hitches over partition. For 6S, heard on 10 December, Gill proposed a dividing-line running North-South. Mita Taupopoki objected that this would run through existing cultivations. After discussion outside the Court, they agreed to an East-West dividing line, which Wilson then ordered. 195

Similarly, the next day, Gill proposed a North-South dividing line for the large 6A block. Panapa te Nihotahi objected this would take the whole of the lands of four hapus -- Ngati Tama and Ngati Wharetokotoko, Ngati Umukaria, and Ngati Waihakari. Again, after discussion, the line was swung around to Southeast-to­ Northwest, and so ordered by Wilson.

Following this routine, the Court completed on average two-to­ three partitions per day's sitting. Both 6S and 6A, with their objections and discussion, appear to have each consumed an entire day's sitting. 196 On 9 July 1896, a sweeping Proclamation issued, declaring the Crown's ownership of all the "Sections 1" of the sixteen Rotomahana-Parekarangi A-to-S blocks (see overlay). The Proclamation issued under Section 250 of The Land Act 1892, by the Liberals' notable Minister of Lands, John McKenzie (under authority of the Governor). 197

193 E.g. 6E: see Rot MB 35 FoL 6; DB voL IV, p116. 194 Rot MB 35 FoLs 15-17. Note, Chief Judge Davey signed the award on behaLf of Judge WiLson. See DOSLI Databank Whaka Forest License Area, pp 285-286; DB voL IV, pp122-124, voL V, pp186-187. 195 Rot MB 35 FoL 61. For award, see DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, pp 209-210; DB voL IV, p133, voL V, pp113-114. 196 Rot MB 35 FoLs 60-65. Note, WiLson aLso made orders for Residue at some of these hearings, e.g. for 6S Section 2, on December 10 1895. This order defined the reLative interests of Tuhourangi individuaLs in the part of 6S that remained (i.e. the residue) after the Crown's interests had been defined and partitioned out (i.e. 6S Section 1) earLier that day. In these cases, acreage of residue was specified: e.g. 6S Section 2 being 1022 acres, beLonging to 93 Maori owners. The sharehoLdings ranged from 1 - 51 shares (1 share = 1 acre), with Topua Rotohiko having the Largest share at 51 acres; DB voL IV, pp132-137. 197 DOSLI Databank on Whak Forest License Area, pp 287-88 and 223-224; DB voL V, pp188- 189,127-128. The Birth of Forestry Charles Darwin epitomised the European philosophy towards plant life in Aotearoa: "If all the animals and plants of Great Britain were set free in New Zealand a multitude of British forms would in the course of time become thoroughly naturalized there and would exterminate many of the natives. ,,198 Joan Boyd, writing for the N. Z. Forest Service, summarized the early period, "Where the Maori had needed only a few hectares of land for gardens and a modest amount of timber for canoes and houses, the white settlers wanted thousands of hectares for farms, and enormous quantities of timber for boats, houses and other buildings necessary to their way of life.,,1w

The pakeha cut the forests for timber and burned them for farm settlement so rapidly, that by the 1870s, experts were already claiming that the country would be seriously short of timber within two or three generations, "unless something was done to conserve what was left and replace what had already gone. ,,200 In an early effort to replace some of what had been lost, the 1871 Forest Trees Planting Encouragement Act enabled individual farmers to receive two acres of Crown land for everyone acre of their own land they planted in trees. 201 In 1874, the New Zealand Forests Act aimed to generally create, extend and improve State Forests. 202 Vogel introduced this Bill: "It then forcibly presented itself to my notice how very large was the demand for timber which arose from our railway works and our telegraphic construction and maintenance; how much deterioration our climate was liable to sustain from the destruction of forests.,,2~

The State Forests Act 1885 enabled forest lands to be set aside as such, and provided for the establishment of a school of

198 PauL Harman, "Forest PoLicy and Practices of the Crown," unpubLished draft report, p4, citing Darwin, 1933, p404. Hereafter cited as "Harman"; DB voL IV, p267. 199 Joan Boyd Wharewarewa Forest Park, Wgtn:New ZeaLand Forest Service, 1983, p26. Hereafter cited as "Boyd, 'Whakarewarewa'''; DB voL IV, p161. 200 Joan Boyd, Rotorua Forests - A History, Wgtn: NZ Forest Service, 1980, p 6. Hereafter cited as "Boyd, 'Rotorua Forests"'; DB voL IV, p156. 201 PauL Harman, p 4; DB voL IV, p267. 202 New ZeaLand Forests Act 1874, s3, cited in Harman, pp4-5; DB voL IV, pp267-268. 203 ParLiamentary Debates 1874, pp 16 & 75, cited in Harman, pp4-5; DB voL IV, pp267-268. forestry and appointing of forest staff. In 1886, a professor of natural sciences, Kirk, was appointed Chief Conservator of the State Forests and Agriculture Branch of the Lands Department. 204 Despite these early attempts to stem deforestation, though, timber continued to disappear at a great rate, fuelled by increasing number of settlers. Government attempts to halt this through legislation were thoroughly ineffectual, generally focusing only individual farmer-planter efforts. Further, by the close of the 1890's, the depression forced the small Forestry Department back under the wing of the Lands Department. The tides only turned again in the mid-1890's. In fostering the break-up of the runholder oligarchy which had formed in the early years of the Provincial Government, Ballance & Seddon's Liberal Government established the broad balance of political and economic interests which has characterised New Zealand society right upto the present. Roughly speaking, the Liberals' 1890 "revolution" created a society of creatively cooperating Labour and Small-holder farming interests.2~ Without doubt, the key to the Liberals' achievement was their land redistribution and settlement schemes. Generally, in the South Island, the Government acquired land for settlement by seizing or purchasing (some would say "bailing out") the large estates; in the North Island, by purchasing Maori land. Kawharu characterised this 1891 to 1911, Liberal period, as one in which "the Maori managed to divest himself and his heirs of 3,692,281 acres in the North Island, most of it going to the crown for 6 shillings an acre.,,2~

Equally doubtless, rising from the midst of New Zealand's 1890's economic depression, the newly-settled farms succeeded (and even perhaps occurred) primarily because of newly-opened export markets for meat, butter and cheese - which, in turn, had only opened due to the newly-developed technology of

204 Harman, p 10; DB voL IV, p269. 205 Seddon forged his poLiticaL reputation on protectionist Labour LegisLation under Atkinson, and then boLstered it with his LiberaLs' moderate 1891 and 1895 import tariffs. See e.g. J. B. Cond Liffe, "Economi c DeveLopment," in Rose, Newton, Benians, (Eds). Cambridge Hi story of New ZeaLand, 1933, pp 169-70; DB voL IV, pp200-201. 206 Ian Kawharu, Maori Land Tenure, New York, CLarendon Press, 1977, p 26. Hereafter cited as "Kawharu". In his critique of Kiwi LiberaLism, AVision Betrayed, p 41, Tony Simpson notes that the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act of 1893 "enabLed the Crown to decLare any Maori Land 'suitabLe for settLement' and to purchase it at Government vaLuation whether the owners wished to seLL it or not." Simpson cLaims

The industry's response was clear: they rebuffed the Government' s proposals of tree-ringing and close-season cutting (ham-fisted regulation), and rejected its offer of purchasing London wharfage for timber (premature pie-in-the-sky). All they wanted was a free hand at cutting and trading, and some immediate relief in the form of railway transport concessions.~3

207 Simpson, pp 44-45. CondLiffe, op. cit. p 168, sees the Land for settLement as caused by the economi c and technoLogi ca L deveLopments, not vi ce-versa. Of course, the LiberaL Government's wiLLingness to enter into the banking business aLso heLped (purchasing the Bank of New ZeaLand's bad mortgages, and returning to Large overseas borrowing) - and is equaLLy iLLustrative of the LiberaLs' hands-on approach to business. See Simpson pp 42-44, and CondLiffe, pp 165-166,168; DB voL IV, pp166-168,204-205. 208 Link to opening Lands, see Trapp speech, in 1896 Timber Conference Report, AJHR H-24 P 11. ALso, Link to extension of roads and raiLs, p 44; DB voL I, pp40,56. 209 Ibid. P 11; DB voL I, p40. 210 Butter-boxes, see Report 1896 AJHR H-24 pp 12-13; dai ry' s concurrent expansion, see Simpson, op. cit., p 45: "As a proportion of totaL exports butter and cheese rose spectacuLarLy from 4 per cent in 1896 to 18 per cent in 1912."; DB voL I, pp41-42,57. 211 Conference Report, AJHR 1896 H-24, P 6. The Government had paid the representatives' expenses in attending the meeting. Ibid. p 25; DB voL I, pp37,49. 212 Ibid. top and bottom of pages 7 and 8; DB voL I, pp38-39. 213 Report, 1896 AJHR H-24, pp 20-22, 44. 'Free hand,' passim; DB voL I, pp44-46, 56. Government and industry thoroughly agreed, though, on two fundamentals: first, that this "most important industry" was in crisis. By 1896, most mills and merchants had run at a loss for many years. Supply simply outstripped domestic demand. 214 And second, that the industr¥' s future would be best built on expanded (export) markets. 15

However, when these fundamentals were held adjacent to the Liberals' even broader fundamental - that lands were to be thrown open for small-holder settlement - Seddon and the timbermen set in motion an historic corollary chain of reasoning. First, all acknowledged that clear-felling and burning the forests on lands for settlement was wasteful, and that both the timber industry and ultimately the Colony would suffer. The obvious solution, apparently desired by all, was to continue to tie the process of small-holder settlement with the extraction of timber for market .216

Equally obviously, though, where this link had taken hold, it had locally exacerbated the current glut of timber, threatening both industry and colonial economy in the short-to-medium term. The solution, again apparently desired by all, was the even more urgent expansion of export markets.

And finally, if both land for settlement and timber industry happened to succeed - if both forces united and poured timber into overseas markets - then the day was not far off when New Zealand would be denuded of forests. '217

By this stark chain of reasoning, botanist Thomas Kirk's 1870's conservationist concerns, presented anew (at the Government's behest) at the 1896 Timber Conference, at last took root in both

214 Crisis, Linked to wastefuL settLement: Ibid. pp 7, 11, 15, 24, 44 & 46; DB voL I, pp38,40,43,48,56,57. 215 Ibid. passim, but see e.g. p 8, Seddon: "The crux of the whoLe thing, is to extend our markets." and p 23, J. Jay (WestLand): "ALL I can say is this: that, if we have not any export trade, we have so many milLs in the country that haLf our milLs wilL be idLe."; DB voL I, pp39,47. 216 Ibid. P 15, Butler: "When we see spLendid forests being felled and burnt, the conviction forces itseLf [thatJ that forest is rather an encumbrance than otherwise. It may be said that the above-mentioned waste caLLs for the proposed LegisLation [reguLating cutting and miLLingJ. WouLd it not be of more practicaL advantage to find and foster a market for the timber?"; DB voL I, p43. 217 Note, the timbermen vehementLy denied any truncated version of this conservation rationaLe; i.e., the suggestion that increasing timber production aLone wouLd depLete the forests. For instance, the Conference rather angriLy disposed of one Committee's proposaL, "that there is but LittLe timber in this coLony for export; that our forests are not so extensive as represented; and that in twenty years hence there wilL be LittLe timber in the coLony." Mr. Tanner argued the motion for striking this proposal: "If they were to say that unless the Land settLement in New ZeaLand is aLtered, and that instead of the bush being cut up in sections of 250 acres - the settLers being required to feLL so much every year ... - then they may have some reason for saying that a great deaL of vaLuabLe timber in this country wouLd be destroyed ... but to say that the timber for export aLone wouLd Leave no timber in this country in twenty years is wrong." The LiberaLs' timeLy Link between Lands for settLement and timber markets was the key to gaining the timber industry's "bLame-free" cooperation in estabLishing forestry in New ZeaLand. Government and private industry soils.~8 As Seddon had urged, the 1896 Timber Conference recommended: "That it is desirable to at once commence the planting of lands unfit for agriculture or pastoral purposes, especially in treeless districts, and where native timbers are becoming scarce." and "That experimental grounds be established in such districts for the raising of various trees and for the supply of trees at nominal cost to those wishing to make plantations for timber purposes only." and "That a qualified practical man be appointed to organize and direct forestry operations in the colony under the Lands Department, and the committee urge that great care should be taken to obtain a really good man." and

"That black wattle and other suitable trees for tannin~ purposes be planted on pumice and other suitable lands."~ Plainly gratified, Professor Kirk addressed the Conference in its closing seconds:

"I feel now that the question of forest conservation and forestry in its wider sense is in a position which it has never before attained in New Zealand. "220

Thereby, the mid-1890's prophets of New Zealand's Liberal society became also the acknowledged founders of New Zealand's conservation and forestry movements. 221

The next year, a report entitled "Conservation of New Zealand Forests" by George Perrin, Conservator of State Forests, Victoria, was presented to Parliament. Perrin warned "The necessity for immediate action in New Zealand is apparent and unless forest reforms are inaugurated speedily, the timber famine which already threatens your

218 1870's: G. Chavasse & J. Johns, New ZeaLand Forest Parks, Wgtn:Government Print, 1983, p 81. Kirk at Conference: 1896 AJHR H-24 pp 6 & 49; DB voL IV, p163, voL I, pp37,58. 219 Ibid. P 5. Recommendations introduced and discussed pp 30-33. The Conference "carried with accLamation" Mr Prouse's paper, which outLined a forests information system, putting men "connected with timber-miLLing" onto Crown Lands' survey teams, to advise on surveys so as to faci Litate timber-extraction, and to report potentiaL timber resources to proposed "Forest Boards" - "empowered to decide whether such Land sha LL be reserved for the purposes of timber industry, or whether it shaLL be handed over to the Land Board for settLement purposes." See pp 28-29; DB voL I,·pp36,52-55,50-51. 220 Ibid. P 49; DB voL I, p58. 221 See e.g. Leon ELLis Progress of Forestry in New ZeaLand Wgtn: Govt Print, 1922. See chapter one for discussion on LiberaL forestry poLicy in the 1890s. (no copy submitted). colony, must corne. 222

He considered New Zealand fortunate to have a leading politician, Premier Seddon, so well versed in the issues affecting forestry, timber being "of such practical money value to the colony. ,,223 Perrin called for immediate steps to be taken at re­ afforestation, forecasting a crisis for the country if nothing was done: "The state of the New Zealand forests is found, during my recent tour, such as to urgently demand close and immediate attention. They are generally in a deplorable condition. Nothing short of drastic legislation and the prompt establishment of the Department ... can save the timber reserves from practical extinction within the next thirty or forty years. By far the most serious aspect of the question involved in the maintenance of the timber supply, however, is found in the comparative absence in New Zealand forests of regenerating powers - in other words, that there is but very slow natural growth to replace those which have been destroyed. Thus, unless steps are taken to counteract this disadvantage, the forest fauna of the colony is doomed, like the native races, to extinction. ,,224

He urged that New Zealands "natural glories" should be preserved as well, especially "the lakes ... Taupo, Rotorua, Tarawera, Rotomahana, Roto­ iti and others of the volcanic region in the North Island. What beauty spots are found in all these localities!"

In sum, all of Perrin's 1897 roads led him to conclude, "perhaps nowhere in NZ is the expenditure of state funds for improvements more justified than in the country about the lakes district - Taupo, Rotorua, etc. ,,225

The Whakarewarewa Site is Selected and Planted Forestry in New Zealand, though long dreamed of by a few, and loosely subsidised for many a year, only got underway in an organised fashion in 1896 -- and it did so at Whakarewarewa.~6 Similarly, although milling had been underway near Rotorua since

222 1897 AJHR C-8, Report on the Conservation of New ZeaLand Forests.,p 4; DB voL I, p60. 223 1897 AJHR C-8, P 49; DB voL I, p67. 224 1897 AJHR C-8 P 19; DB voL I, p61. 225 1897 AJHR C-8 P 43; DB voL I, p66. 226 Joan Boyd, 'Forestry' in Rotorua 1880 - 1980, p 101 - 102; DB voL IV, pp235-236. the mid-1880's, it received its greatest boost with the corning of the railway in 1894. 227

In February 1898, Henry Mathews reported on his efforts to select a site for the establishment of a nursery at Rotorua. "I selected a very suitable situation at the base of Ngongotaha - well watered and convenient to the Railway, but as there seemed no prospect of arranging the title to this land I choose[sic] the next best locality at Whakarewarewa. Water supply is the only objection to this site, but, (though costly) an inch pipe can be connected from the supply service at Whakarewarewa Village. This land is close to the surrounding hills and has a northern aspect. It is covered with high fern and very strong growing Tutu. ,,228

Thus, the Whakarewarewa state Nursery, at its present site, was started on March 1 1898. 229 The nursery had two initial purposes: "providing timber trees for the Auckland district (both for State forests and farmers wishing to grow their own plantations) and ornamental trees and shrubs for the parks and reserves of Rotorua. ,,230 The nursery and plantation was worked almost entirely by Maori labour, with only the foreman and his assistant being European. 231

While the pumice soils of Rotomahana-Parekarangi, may have been growing nothing but fern and tussock grass, Victoria's forester, Perrin, (above) considered, I have no doubt whatever that trees, both native and exotic, would thrive well on these pumice plains. The pines, spruce, firs, and gums at Tokaanu; the Terrace Hotel, Taupo; at Wairakei, Rotorua, and other places, show unmistakeably that timber growing in these localities can be most profitable, provided that means of access and transit are made available. 232

Perrin stated that some of "the finest silver pines on the

227 Stafford, p 397; Db voL IV, p227. 228 Report from H. J. Mathews, State Forester, February 1898, in Archives LS 56/1; DB voL III, pp66-70. 229 1900 AJHR C-1 P 116. Bay of PLenty Times, 14 March 1898, 'Don Stafford CoLLection,' Rotorua PubLic Library; DB voL I, p68, voL IV, p264. 230 Joan Boyd, 'Forestry' in Rotorua 1880 - 1980, P 101; DB voL IV, p235. 231 Ibid., P 101. Boyd notes that the Chief Forester praised the Maori women's care and neatness, which he said exceeded that of the European Labour in the southern nurseries; DB voL IV, p235. 232 1897 AJHR C-8 P 35; DB voL I, p64. island" were seen on pumice lands, south of Taupo.~3 He hailed the "magnificent" specimens of Pahautea, with Totara, Rimu, white and silver pine trees being "unusually good in both quality and size". 234

Evidently, the pumice lands at Whakarewarewa yielded the same excellent result. In his 30 June 1899 report on the Whakarewarewa to the Surveyor General, Henry Mathews observed that the Plantation's most striking feature was "the extraordinary growth" of the California Redwood trees. The general growth rate of coniferous trees was also "somewhat in advance" of that at the southern nurseries. 235

233 1897 AJHR C-8 P 28; DB voL If p62. 234 1897 AJHR C-8 P 29; DB voL I, p63.

235 Report from Henry Mathews to the Surveyor GeneraL, 30 June 1899, in Archives LS 56/1; DB voL III, pp66-68. The Crown Resumes Purchasing

The week after the 1895 hearings defining the Crown's interests in the "Section 1" blocks, Land Purchase Officer Gill forwarded his deeds and Judge Edger's awards to his superior, Mr. P. Sheridan, in the Native Land Purchase Department in Wellington. The bundle apparently raised no large issues for the Department (in January, Sheridan noted spelling errors).a6 Besides forwarding deeds, Gill also "recommended that deeds be prepared at once [for his district], as a large area of the land recently cut off from the blocks under purchase can be purchased during the next year." He requested fresh forms, "for commencing work as soon as the Native Land Court orders will allow the Survey Department to place plans on them. ,,237

Sheridan replied, "It will be necessary to adopt some more expeditious way of dealing with Native Lands than signature hunting. Don't start the purchase of any of the residues of the blocks referred to without specific authority as [to] each case. ,,238

Though a "a more expeditious way" than that already pursued seems hard to imagine, Sheridan's concern was apparently real. In March 1896, for instance, Sheridan arranged a "skeleton form of 'Correct Statement in Maori' printed on the back sheets of No. 4 Government Deed forms." He estimated to Wilkinson, Land Purchase Officer in the Waikato, that his new skeleton translation would cut out clerical work in "19 out of every 20 deeds that are required in connection with Rohe Potae purchases and ... will also be equally suitable for a majority of Blocks outside Rohe Potae. ,,239

For his part, Gill wrote again 6 January 1896, re~uesting instructions to proceed with the 15 Roto-Pare blocks, 40 and urging,

236 NLP 1/1896/24 in Archives MA-MLP 1 Box 40; DB voL III, p154-155. 237 NLP 1/1896/75, GiLL to Sheridan 19/12/1895, in Archives MA-MLP 1 Box 40; DB voL III, p159. 238 NLP 1/1896/75, GiLL/Sheridan 19/12/1895 and Sheridan/GiLL 24/12/1895, in Archives MA-MLP 1 Box 40; DB voL III, pp158-159. 239 NLP 1/1896/90, Sheridan/WiLkinson 17 March 1896, in Archives MA-MLP 1 Box 40; DB voL III, p160-161. 240 As weLL as 2 Taumata BLocks, 2 Herenui bLocks, 2 Whirianahi bLocks, 2 Rerewhakaitu, Kaikokopukoe, Mararoa Oteroa [?J, Takuuaroa No 3B, and Patetere South No 3. "the sooner lists of owners and plans on deed are prepared the better. The Rotorua and Galatea Natives will be disappointed should there be any delay." Sheridan replied, "to stand over for the present. The natives should have sold when they had an opportunity to do so before partition. The deeds and lists can in the meantime be prepared at [ illeg.]. "241

Apparently, Sheridan soon gave the go-ahead to resume purchasing. As with the Whakarewarewa block (and arguably the 1895 Roto-Pare purchases), Gill started with Ngati Whakaue interests -- this time in Rotomahana-Parekarangi 4A (Moerangi). He acquired the first signature for this block on 3 February, and 160 others by the end of that month. 242

Tuhourangi Partition the 6A Residue (6A Section 2) While Gill was purchasing interests in the Roto-Pare residues (mostly named 6C-S Section 2's) Tuhourangi partitioned their 6A Section 2 residue. At Rotorua, on 29 July 1896, Judge Wilson (with Karaka Kereru Tarawhiti as Assessor) sub-divided this large residue block into six parts, 6A Section 2 Numbers 1 to 6. Only part of one of these subdivisions, 6A Section 2 Number 6, containing 9851 acres, was later included in Whaka Forest. We shall see, though, that was in large part due to this fortuitous partition, which prevented the Crown from obtaining further lands in a contiguous block (see below, p ). One wonders whether the 1896 partition was at all intended as the defensive stratagem it turned out to be. Wilson awarded this future-forest block, 6A Section 2 No.6, to 44 owners. The standard attached owners list showed the proportionate holdings out of the total of 9851. Most owners held between 28 4/7 and 400 shares. Four owners stood out: Anahera te Nihi, with 600 shares (as 1 of 8 successors to Marama Kerekorio), and Mita Taupopoki, Mere Kanea Taupopoki (f. 14), and Topia Rotohiko, with 800 shares each.2~

Wilson apparently did not order any fresh survey of the partition, relying instead on plans compiled from the old ML 5342 plan. We shall see that, by 1900, this lack of survey also became something of a rusty cog in the Crown's otherwise smoothly

241 NLP 1/96/75, GiLL/Sheridan 6/1/1896 and Sheridan/GiLL 16/1/1896, in Archives MA-MLP 1 Box 40; DB voL III, pp156-159. 242 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest, pp 158-187; DB voL V, pp69-98. 243 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, pp 293-295. Note, Wi Lson ordered wi tness fees of 2/, heari ng fees of 11 pounds 10/, and an Order fee of 1 pound. The witness and hearing fees were marked "paid" (n.d.), but the Order fee was marked "[IlLeg.J/1/8 [iLLeg.: "prop'n?"J of fees due on Te Kohekua Tamawhakaara paid. J.W.B. 6/6/1904."; DB voL V, pp193-195. efficient 'purchasing machine. '

Gill may have run into other purchase snags. We are unsure whether it was routine, or a response to some rumour, but in October 1896, Gill paused in purchasing to ask the Registrar of the Court in Auckland whether the Rotomahana-Parekarangi blocks were clear of appeals. The Registrar reported that there were only two neither of which seem of a scale to obstruct purchases.

So, by 19 October 1896, Gill was in full swing. On that day, and the following two, he obtained the first signatures for interests in Roto-Pare 6S, 6L and 6A, all blocks which later formed parts of Whakarewarewa Forest.~4

Gill obtained the last signatures on the deeds for 6L Section 2 and 6S Section 2 on February 20 1899 -- the day the Crown's applications for partition of interests in those block were being heard. As with the 1895 deeds, each seller had signed these deeds in turn, forming long lists in the deeds themselves. Each signature was keyed to the signatory's numbered place on the (non-sellers) owners list for that residue-block.

Gill, as Justice of the Peace, witnessed 28 of the 55 vendors' signatures on the 6S Section 2 deed. F.M Carnichan, as licensed interpreter, witnessed all 55. Other signatures were witnessed by a Postmaster, and by several Clerks of the Court.

The 6S Section 2 block was roughly the southern half of the 6S block (6S Section 1 having been awarded the Crown in 1865). For a total of 153 pounds 6/0., the 55 various vendors of 6S section 2 sold 1022 shares/acres to the Crown, supposedly equal to the entire sub-block.~

6L Section 2 was likewise the southern residue of the 6L block, lying just to the west of Lake Tikitapu. Gill completed the deed of sale for 6L Section 2, and produced it before the Native Land Court (Judge Johnson) on the same day as his 6S deed -- 20 February 1899.

The 6L deed contained 53 owners' signatures, obtained between 20 October 1896 and 25 January 1899 (accumulating in steady chronological sequence, with Nfour-month breaks in the winters of 1897 and 1898). Most [n = 28] of these signatures, again, were witnessed by Gill, as Justice of the Peace, and the Interpreter, F. M. Carnachan. Again, other signatures had been wi tnessed by various Clerks of the Court, another J. P., Mr. Brent, and Postmasters in Otaki, Maungapukahia [?], and Taupo.

The plan of the awarded section, named 6L Section 2A, showed a

244 See deeds for 6S, 6L and 6A in DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, pp 252-259, 260-61, and 298-317; DB voL V, pp155-162,163-164,198-217. 245 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, pp 346-353; DB voL V, pp245-252. triangular 447 acre block bordering the northwest corner of Tikitapu Lake, and bordered on its northeast side by the middle of the Rotorua -- Te Wairoa Road. This was a choice section, later to prove a pearl of great price.~6 Two days later, Gill completed the two deeds for the 6A Section 2 block -- one with only three signatures, and the other with 151. Since 6A Section 2 had been sub-divided, next to each signature Gill noted which sub-division the signer's interests pertained to (e.g. 6A Section 2 No.1, No.2, No.3, etc.). The smaller deed only conveyed interests from 6A Section 2 No.'s 1 and 6. The larger deed conveyed interests from all six 6A Section 2 sub-divisions (remarkably, in roughly even proportions) . Gill, again as Justice of Peace, witnessed all but 18 signatures. Again, Carnachan witnessed all. Carnachan filled-in the printed Maori translation on the deed that had only three vendors' signatures, and apparently composed his own, handwritten translation on the 151 signature deed. 247 The two deeds, combined, conveyed to the Crown a total of 55,752 acres, in return for a total of 8,362 pounds, 17/. Notably, whereas less than 10% of the vendors in 1895 "held back" shares, in 1899 exactly half (50%) did so. That is, seventy-seven signatories sold only specified numbers of their shares in their respective blocks (See table of specified sales in 6A Sec. 2 Number 6 block, below).

246 Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, pp 252-259. Plan is labelled 153426L2" - apparently a sketch off ML 5342; DB vol V, pp155-162. 247 The Engl ish versions are identical, yet Carnachan's own translation appears quite different from the standard one. We have not ascertained the reasons for or effects of the different wordings. .§..§.

Specified Share-sales in 6A Sec. 2 No. 6 :248

# on # of Owners Shares List: Signed: Sold: Date:

42 Te Onira Nohi 100 31/10/96 09 Katene Paora 150 31/10/96 33 Katene Paora249 174 8/ 1/97 28 Paora Te Konui 200 1/ 3/97 01 Anahera Te Mihi 450 16/ 8/97 09 Katene Paora 50 4/12/97 35 Ripeka Hurihia 100 10/ 2/98 29 Ripeka Hurihia250 74 2/ 8/98 02 Ripeka Hurihia251 74 13/10/98 34 Raponi Te Arawa 100 23/12/98 39 Topia Rotohiko 200 10/10/98 11 Kaperiere Wharematenga 200 5/12/98

Gill paid 3/ per acre for these lands - well below the 6/ per acre average price for Maori lands at the time.~2 Presumably, Gill's price reflected the lands' reputation for "bush sickness, " making them unsuitable for farming or pastoral development.

Yet, on 10 May 1898 Gill wrote to Sheridan regarding his Roto­ Pare purchase operations:

"I frequently have enquiry from Natives as to whether they can lease part of the Roto-Pare lands for sheep farming purposes ... Mr. Mitchell informs me that a Native wished to lease 6000 acres of the Government portion of the Roto-Pare A No 6 [sic - prob 6A Section 1] block ... I have every reason for believing that this offer of the Natives would be carried out by him ... There is little doubt as to the bulk of these [residue] lands being taken up for sheep farming by the Natives."

Gill closed this letter:

"The Crown's portion of the Roto-Pare blocks is 63,119 acres held under Native Land Court awards dated Dec. 1895 ... To bring the purchase of these blocks to a close, I forward applications for signature of the Minister of Lands

248 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, pp 298-317; DB vol V, pp198-217. 249 Signed as Trustee for Rangitakahi Katene. 250 As trustee for Peti Hurihia. 251 As trustee for Areta Hurihia. 252 Kawharu, p 26; DB vol IV p175. requesting the Native Land Court to ascertain what are Her Maj esty' s interests in these Blocks of land ... 253

253 Archives LS 1/50546. In this same file, owners of 56 urge the Crown to purchase their land. Gill was wiLLing, but Sheridan decLined, without expLanation. Perhaps his refusaL refLected his beLief that Tuhourangi were now LandLess (see May 1899, beLow). (No copy submitted). 1899: Defining the Crown's Share in "Section 2" Left-overs254

In the late 1890's, Ngati Tu and Ngati Tuohonoa occupied distinct parts of 6L Sect 2. While Gill was purchasing, disputes broke out over clearing bush. The rival hapu met, and agreed to leave the matter "for decision of [the Land] Court." They evidently anticipated a hearing on their block whenever Gill had completed his purchasing.

When the Crown's case for 6L Section 2 carne before the Court on 20 February 1899, Ihaka Marino (Ngati Tu) could not be present to state Ngati Tu's side of things. Judge Johnson opened the hearing with a letter from Ihaka, who apparently objected that the Crown's partition (which Gill "had previously arranged with Mita") threatened to leave most of the residue to Tuhourangi.

Mita Taupopoki, representing Tuohonoa in the Court, argued that Ngati Tu would "have an opportunity of proving their right in the residue at some future time, when application for partition is made. "

Given the heat he had observed in the dispute, though, Gill advised "that Ihaka Marino should himself be present in order to avoid risk of possible appeal." Still, Gill suggested that the Court, "with special knowledge of the matter," might simply change the partition so as to receive the western-most side of 6L Section 2.

Judge Johnson consented, also undertaking to make separate residue orders for Ngati Tu and Ngati Tuohonoa. Mita agreed, and the Crown's case resumed.~5

There were further problems, though, with the owners' lists. The shares had not been totalled in earlier Court Orders, and Johnson "expressed strong opinion as to [the] trouble [this has] repeatedly caused." (perhaps related to the un-completed "blanks" in Judge Edger's 1895 minutes: "the List [blank] has been examined and found to be [blank]. See above, p .)

Gill commiserated. He had found the best approach was simply going to Auckland personally "and ferreting out [the] matter in the Office there which could hardly be put right by correspondence." He had stopped his trips, though, "owing to his action being misunderstood in Wellington. "256 .

254 See appendix 5, "Summary of Rota-Pare Crown Purchases 1895 - 1899; De, vol 1/ p J.. 3 .

255 Rot MB 40 FoLs 348-49; DB voL IV, pp139-140. 256 Rot MB 40 FoL 350; DB voL IV, p141. Judge Johnson instructed the Clerk, Sheridan, to write a memo to Auckland on the subject. 257

Johnson went on immediately to define interests in 6S Section 2. Gill presented his case in the standard form, and the Crown was awarded its 466 acres, in the partition requested, without obj ection. 258

The next Wednesday, 22 February 1899, Gill brought forward the Ministerial application for the Court to define Crown interests in, and partition 6A Section 2. He expected it would take two days to complete. 259 He introduced the case,

This application (covering [6A Section 2] No's 1 to 6) is in a different position to others which have been r~cently brought before [the] Court. In this case, there has been a sub-division following the cutting out of Crown interests [in 1895]. ,,260

Gill proceeded to present the Crown's claim, starting with 6A Section 2 Number 1. Following much the same script as in 1895, he produced the two 6A Section 2 deeds (see above), and owners' list (divided into sellers and non-sellers, specifying interests sold and retained) for Number 1. Objectors were challenged, none rose I the Judge ordered "accordingly in favour of Her Maj esty. ,,261

Cases continued apace for 6A Section 2 Numbers 2-to-6, with no objectors for any of the deeds, lists or partitions submitted by Gill. Indeed, little discussion was recorded at all: Panapa Nihotahi and Hira Rangimatini [?] both notified the Court of their desire to partition their residue of 6A Section 2 Number 4 (i.e., Number 4B) as soon as possible. Similarly, after the order for the final partition (of 6A Section 2 No 6), Mita Taupopoki requested that the Court immediately order the partition of the residue in 6A Section 2 Number 6 (i.e. Number 6B) .262

257 6L Award: DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, pp 260-61. Note, the award is noted, "DupLicate sent to Land Purchase Department, 19.9.1900" (unsigned); DB voL V, pp163-164. 258 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, pp 199-208 and 338-339; DB voL V, pp103-112,237-238. 259 Rot MB 40 FoL 354; DB voL IV, p142. 260 Rot MB 40 FoL 355; DB voL IV, p143. 261 Rot MB 40 FoL 355. Note, Johnson's order, as minuted, was marked "See cLosed fiLe series 155" near the area description. Perhaps this is the proper Location of Johnson's Letter to Browne, 8 September 1900, regarding poor pLans and surveys? Copy of 6A Section 2 No. 6A award in DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, pp 296-97; DB voL IV, p143,196-197. 262 Rot MB 40 FoLs 360-61 and 364-5; DB voL IV, pp145-146. Panapa Nihotahi wanted immediate action on Number 4, as well. After Mita spoke, Panapa asked that Mr. Gill remain in Court:

"to take part in [the] arrangement of matters re: the small area remaining to Natives, he having got the bulk of the land. " Gill replied,

"I -expressed my opinion re: Panapa' s application re: proposed sub-division of the residue of No.4. So far as I am aware, the Government have done with these blocks. Natives wishing to sell have had opportunities during the past five years. I have no concern in further sub-division of lands remaining in possession of these Natives. [The] Court has made [a] fixture re: other Government work for Saturday morning, and between now and then I shall have no other government work to bring before the Court. If these proposed sub-divisions are made amicably, they would not perhaps take much time, but I would point out that the sub­ divisions of No. 6A (Kapenga) have not been yet surveyed, and [the] Court has now made further sub-divisions which have not be.en surveyed. Although desirous of seeing family divisions of lands made, I am afraid that present proposals may lead to great future trouble and expense re: surveys. "263

Johnson observed that the previous partitions had all been laid off with fairly straight boundaries. If the proposed partitions of residues would be laid off likewise with straight lines, then he could proceed. Otherwise, a full survey would have to precede any further partitions.

Mita and Hira assured Johnson that "it was not intended to follow ancestral boundaries." Gill took this opportunity to ask whether this was "an indication that the Natives are satisfied with the work done by the Court, and that no appeals would be lodged." Mita and others assured him accordingly. Johnson requested lists and partition proposal s for the next day. 264

One final aspect of the 1899 hearings seems worth noting, perhaps for further research. Judge Johnson cross-referenced each of his Orders for Residue to the minutes for Edger's May-June 1894 hearings (which had determined customary interests in all of 6A) .265 In particular, Johnson cross-referenced· the part of Edger's hearings where the various hapu first agreed to seek an award of interests (vs. a partition), and roughed-out the apportionment of those interests between the 12 hapu.

263 Rot MB 40 FoL 365; Db voL IV, p145. 264 Rot MB 40 FoL 365-66; DB voL IV, pp148-149. 265 E.g. at Rot MB 40 FoL 359, Johnson's order for 6A Section 2 No's. 3 and 4 are cross­ referenced to Rot MB 30 FoL 140, 10 May 1894; DB voL IV, p144,73. Perhaps Johnson wished to keep an eye on the various hapus' interests (as described in these earlier hearings), to avoid the Crown's 1899 partition disadvantaging anyone hapu. If this was his intention, though, one would think he would have referred to the July 1896 hearings partitioning 6A Section 2 into Numbers 1 to 6. 266 The day after the hearings and awards, 23 February 1899, Gill informed Sheridan of the orders and undertook to forward copies of deeds and awards shortly. 2t 7 Tuhourangi continued in the Court off and on for several months, adjusting and updating owners' lists for the residual "2B" blocks. Final lists were ordered en masse on 29 June 1899.~8

Partitioning Roto-Pare 4 (Moerangi) While Tuhourangi prepared lists, on March 28 1899, Gill applied for another partition, based on his purchases of Ngati Whakaue interests in Roto-Pare 4 (Moerangi). According to the deed submitted, in return for 602 pounds, the vendors sold all of this block, described on the deed as including 3,440 acres -- though only 2953 acres were awarded. The deed listed 321 vendors, about 160 of them selling in the month from February 3, 1896, with most vendors selling by the end of that year. The first 140 signatures were obtained in February 1896, and a further 97 were obtained between October of that year and 1899. The final signature was obtained January 24 1899. The deed was witnessed similarly to Gill's others. 269 Again, Gill produced this deed before the Native Land Court on the same day he completed it. 270 The Court declared the Crown's interest in the block to be 3,720 acres. On July 27 1899, though, Block 4A was proclaimed Crown land, under s250 of the Native Land Act 1892, comprising 2 f 953 acres. 271

By May 1899, Gill's superior in the Native Land Purchase Department, Mr. Sheridan, suggested to Gill that he not purchase

266 Johnson's cross-references may be an avenue into the Court's reasoning in the 1899 partitions. 267 Archives LS 1/50546. (No copy submitted). 268 Hearings, Rot MB 43 FoLs 1 - 107. Lists, Rot MB 43 FoLs 108-144. Whaka Forest Lists (6L, 6S and 6A Section 2B's, and Tumunui No. 2A) foLLow FoL 131 (no copy submitted). 269 DOSLI databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest, pp 158-187; DB voL V, pp69-98. 270 DOSLI databank on the Whakarewarewa State Forest, p 156; DB voL V, p67. 271 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, p188. From NZ Gazette, July 27 1899, P 1359; DB voL V, p98a. any further Tuhourangi lands, even outside the Rotomahana­ Parekarangi block. In regard to a proposed purchase of Rihari Heretaunga's lands at Matata (obtained for loyalty in the wars), Sheridan advised:

"The Tuhourangi tribe are almost landless. It is only the other day we provided land for them at Waihi ... ln any case you had better decline the offer."

Gill had apparently already stopped purchasing in Rotomahana­ Parekarangi block. Still, he assured Sheridan, "It is a mistake to suppose that these people are landless."2n

272 Sheridan/Gill 2/6/1897 and Gill/Sheridan 9/6/1897, NLP 1/1897/103 in Archives MA-MLP 1/44. Purchases stopped: see Gill, 22 February 1899: "So far as I am aware, the Government have done with these blocks. U Rot MB 40 Fol 365. See Appendix 5, "Summary of Rotomahana Parekarangi Crown Purchases 1895 - 1899"; DB vol III, pp162-163, vol IV, p148, vol I, p23. Survey of the 1899 Partitions

On 27 July 1899, nearly all of the partitions effected by the February hearings were proclaimed Crown Land. 2n

E. Phillips Turner's compilation plan of the 1899 partitions of Rotomahana-Parekarangi was completed 18 June 1900. On 16 July 1900, the Chief Surveyor, Kensington, approved the plan. 274 On 13 August 1900, the Registrar of the Auckland Native Land Court, Mr. Browne, forwarded the plan to Judge Johnson for approval.

Judge Johnson refused to confirm nine of the partitions as shown, and requested further information. Three of the nine queried partitions were awards for future Whaka Forest blocks. Regarding 6A Section 2 No 6A and 6S Section 2A, Johnson complained,

"Areas correct, as awarded, but boundaries have not been struck from a common starting point, as ordered by Court -­ which starting point was to be 2 chains distant from a certain house on 6S Section 2. The position of the house is not marked on the plan, to enable proper check to be made. " Regarding 4A, Johnson noted,

"Area awarded was 2953 acres, but area on plan is 3720 acres, being an excess of 767 acres. (I note that the residue of No. 4 (Moerangi) is named No 4A, No 2 on plan. There is no such block. The residue was named "Omarukotuku" by the Court.) ,,275

4A was one of three such sub-divisions that had yielded a surplus when committed to a plan. Johnson queried why all of these surplus areas -- totalling 1361 acres

"have been in all cases added to the Crown awards, instead of being divided pro rata between the Crown and Non­ sellers, as would generally be done between parties in ordinary partitions."

On 18 September, Registrar Browne forwarded Johnson's query to the Auckland District Lands and Survey Chief Draughtsman, Mr. Kensington. Kensington's immediate, rather irritated reply described a partition process plagued with survey difficulties - - worth quoting in its entirety:

273 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, pp 188-89, 262-263, 318-319, and 354- 55; DB voL V, pp98a-98b,165-166,218-219,253-254. 274 See Map, ML5342, Lower and upper Left corners, respectiveLy. 275 Browne/Johnson, 8 September 1900, pp 1-2. In Archives J 1/1904/1012; DB voL III, p39-40. 74

"Replying to Judge Johnston's [sic] queries I may preface my remarks by saying that it was simply impossible literally to carry out the Orders of the Court as regards boundaries and positions because nothing could make them coincide on the ground [--] the sketched natural features such as Lakes etc. being quite different. I personally went over the ground with the surveyors and when the Court orders could not be carried out, I interpreted them as nearly as possible, and in some cases they were varied . because the Native owners pointed out that the Court descriptions did not agree with what had been definitely promised them by the Land Purchase Officer.

Again there is a surplus area over the whole block and as the Crown had made all the surveys for Native titles free, it is but just that the surplus areas should go to the Crown as long as the Native owners have the full areas within the boundaries ordered by the Court. Of course if the Court decided to upset the present divisions which have been arrived at after great painstaking investigations, then the Department will have to lodge full liens against all the Native portions, and this will in most cases be the whole value of the award.

Now with regard to the Special queries: No 4A Moerangi the Native portion of 487 acres as ordered by the Court was surveyed by the Staff Surveyor C. P. Turner. The Crown area was found to be in excess of the Native portion, but this is correct as the description of boundaries give the Natives a definite area. The residue was incorrectly named on the plan which has now been corrected. The above remarks also apply equally to No 6A Sec 2 No lA and No 4A, also to 60 Sec 2A, No 6D Sec 2A, and 6E Sec 2A. These were altered on the ground by Mr. Turner at request of Natives who all agreed (and with my consent) because Court orders and descriptions of boundaries conflicted with the positions on the ground.

No's 6A Sec 2 No 6A and 6S Sec 2A: These Blocks have not been surveyed, but laid down on compilation from fixed data -- if necessary they can be corrected on the ground when surveyed. No 6G Sec 3A Mr. E. P. Turner shewed me on the ground that he could not adhere to the Minutes of the Court - so made the subdivision to satisfy both Native owners and Mr Gill the Land Purchase Officer. The burial grounds are all surveyed and marked as agreed upon at the Court and Native owners. [ ... missing bottom of page ... ]

I may add that I have taken very great pains to carry out the orders of Court spread over long periods and made on most scanty information from very approximate sketch maps. I have identified disputed points on the ground myself, and interpreted the Court orders as nearly as possible to what 75

was its intention. If therefore the map is not approved, the matter must remain permanently in abeyance as this Department cannot waste any more time or put the Department to any further expense. The land is generally so utterly worthless that it would be simply a wrong to burden it with further survey costs. [signed ... ]"

The situation seems to have resembled the classic organisational battle between Sales Divisions and Production Departments: the Land Court had awarded estates faster than Survey Department could pin-down those estates to the standard required for a valid freehold.

Judge Johnson soon approved all of the held-over partition boundariesll6 -- though not without a wince:

... I do not think that a judge should be expected to approve blindly any plan which might be placed before him, whether in accordance with Court Order or not. 277

Johnson reiterated his complaint that Kensington had calculated acreages back-to-front, defining the Maoris' residue first, and then claiming the surplus as part of the Crown's award. Normally, upon survey, the awardee (in this case, the Crown) should get precisely the acreage they were awarded, and the recipients of the residue (Tuhourangi) should get the rest -­ including any surplus~ Considering the surveys were done free of charge to Tuhourangi, though, Johnson accepted the surplus for the Crown.

He also repeated his concern that Kensington's plan did not show the house which, in his award, was to provide the starting point of the common boundary between 6A Section 2 No 6A and 6S Section 2. He recalled, The natives stipulated that that house should be included in their portion of Mo.6S sec. 2, and I therefore think it would be desirable to get the matter settled definitely before approving the plan and signing orders. Seeing that no survey had been made, I trust that I shall not be charged, in this instance, with causing waste of time, or putting the department to further expense. 278

Kensington replied,

276 Johnson approved most of the queried boundaries on 6 October 1900. See Lower right corner of Map, ML5342. Number 6G Sec 3A was approved 6 January 1901. Numbers 6A Sec 2 No 6A and 6S Sec 2A were both approved on 9 January 1901. See upper Left corner, ML 5342. See aLso H. D. Johnson/Browne, 8 October 1900, in Archives J 1/1904/1012; DB voL III, pp41-42. 277 H. D. Johnson/Mr Browne, 8 October 1900, in. Archives J 1/1904/1012; DB voL III, pp41-42. 278 Ibid; DB voL 1111, pp41-42. "It is true the position of the house is not fixed, but if later surveys show that [the] line as laid down by Office does not exactly comply with Court Order, it should be put to rights on the ground, but it won't affect the area in any perceptible way. "279

One wonders why Kensington did not at this point refer to the events of January 1900, when the Cadet Surveyor, H. T. Mitchell, had gone to the site and spoken with Mita Taupopoki. Mitchell had reported that Mita "was very much concerned about it [this boundary], and it was evident by what he told me that the Native owners thought that a line swung from about that point (Hakaraia's Whare) would not include their cultivations and the bush in the Crown portion." Mitchell had moved the swing point for the boundary line, and requested approval from Kensington. Kensington only forwarded Mitchell's request to Judge Johnson after Chief Surveyor E. P. Turner finished the surveM" ,280 and Judge Johnson had approved the altered line (above).~

A few years later, in 1905, Mita Taupopoki petitioned Parliament to change this boundary. He claimed that he did not know the line had been surveyed until 1904 (perhaps misunderstanding H. T. Mitchell's role in things). The final boundary, he found, violated his 1895 agreement with Gill, by cutting off Hakaraia's house and certain cultivations for the Crown.~2 Mita said he had complained to the Government Surveyor, who had told him that the Survey Office could not help, as Judge Johnson had already approved the plan. After taking his grievance to the Premier and the Native Minister, and receiving no reply, Mita petitioned the House of Representatives.2~

The Native Affairs Committee referred Mita's Petition back to Sheridan for report. 284 Sheridan checked with the Chief Surveyor, Pollen, who warned him,

279 Kensington/Browne, 24 October 1900, in Archlves J 1/1904/1012; DB vol III, p43. 280 LS 7588, Chief Surveyor Pollen/Land Purchase Officer Sheridan, 4 August 1905, in Archives J1/1905/1012; DB vol III, pp35-36. 281 NLP 1905/67, H. T. Mitchell to the Chief Surveyor, 9 January 1900, in Archives J1/1904/1012; DB vol III, p37. 282 Petition 1905/57, Mita Taupopoki & anor., in Archives J 1/1904/1012. Eaorl ier discussions with Gill, see above at 1895 Land Court hearings, p , citing Rot MB 35 Fol 61; DB vol III, pp46-49, vol IV, p133. 283 Petition 1905/57, Mita Taupopoki &anor., in Archives J 1/1904/1012; DB vol III, p46-49. 284 1905 AJHR 1-3, P 19. 19 October 1905 Report on Petitions 57, 537, and 580; DB vol I, p69. 12 "If it is decided to do anything in the matter, a survey will be required of the line in dispute, cutting out the cultivation mentioned by Mita from the Crown Award and taking in an equal area from the Native portion. This, of course, may make the boundary very crooked and necessitate lifting and re-erecting about 2 miles of fencing. ,,285

Sheridan told the Parliamentary Committee on 8 September 1905, that the surveyors' alteration of the awarded boundary line was

"almost a matter of necessity, was entirely in the interest of the natives, and in accordance with the wishes of one of the petitioners - Mita Taupopoki. ,,286

He suggested the Committee examine Mr. Kensington. We have not checked the Committee's minutes, as yet, and so do not know their final response. Even if Mita's petition was successful, though, he Dnly got a few years' crops out of his restored garden; in 1911 the Crown took the remaining part of 6S for forestry purposes (see below).

285 NLP 1905/67, Sheridan/Pollen, 4 August 1905, in Archives J 1/1904/1012; DB vol III, p35-36. 286 Sheridan, 8 September 1905, Report on Petition No.59 1905, of Mita Taupopoki and others complaining of a discrepancy in the boundary line of No.6S block Sec.2B, NLP 1905/67, in Archives J 1/1904/1012; DB vol III, p34. 1906 - 1924: The Forest Grows

By 1902, the Plantation Reserve at Whakarewarewa had six permanent employees, and covered 840 acres -- 30 acres of which were planted out. 287

On 24 September 1906, the Commissioner of State Forests, Robert McNab, under approval of the Governor in Council proclaimed 6,835 acres State Forest under the N. z. State Forests Act 1885. 288 This area included Rotomahana-Parekarangi 4A, 6L Section 1, 6S Section I, and 6L Section 2A. On 20 January 1909, the forest grew again. The Commissioner of State Forests, J. G. Ward, (under authority of the State Forests Act 1908 and the Governor in Council) set apart for State Forest purposes more of the Roto-Pare lands it had purchased, i.e. all of: 6S Section 2A, plus the northern 1,400 acres of 6A Sec. 2 No. 6A.2~

Just to the west of the above-mentioned 6S Section 2A, lay 6S Section 2B, being the 542 acres that had remained with the Maori owners. On 21 April 1911, the Minister of Public Works, R. McKenzie, requested the consent of the Minister of Native Affairs, J. Carrol, to take 6S Section 2B:

"This Department has been asked by the Department of Lands to take ••. 6S Section 2B ••• for State Forest Plantation purposes ••. "290

Carrol consented to the taking (as was required b~ Section 13 of the Public Works Act 1910) on 7 September 1911.2

Accordingly, on 19 September "Notice of an Intention to Take" 6S Section 2B for State Forest Plantation purposes was Gazetted:

287 New ZeaLand cycLopedia, VoL. 2, AuckLand, [1902] p 812. Stafford cLaims that a 9,000-acre pLanting of Whakarewarewa was begun in 1899, shortLy after the partition of the Crown's interests. He states (without citing his source) that the pLanting ran from the nursery to Lake Rotokakahi, bounded on the east by the track to Te Wairoa and on the west by the Rotorua - Waiotapu road; DB voL IV, p173. 288 DOSLI Databank on Whaka Forest License Area, pp 190, 225, 289, 264; DB voL V, pp98c,129,190,167. 289 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, p 320 and 356; DB"voL V, pp220,255. 290 McKenzie to CarroL, 21 Apri L 1911, [LS?] 11/2848 and [PW?J 209/734, in Archives MA 1/1912/2737; DB voL III, pp105-109. 291 carroL/McKenzie, 7 September 1911, (no fiLe ref.) in Archives MA 1/1912/2737; DB voL III, pp105-109. "all persons affected by the taking of the said land should, if they have any well grounded objections to the taking of such land, set forth the same in writing, and send such writing, within forty days of the first publication of this notice, to the Minister of Public Works, at Wellington. ,,292

It seems that no objection was lodged, as about ninety days after the initial notice, on 23 December 1911, 6S Section 2B was proclaimed taken for State Forest Purposes under the Public Works Act 1908, and Public Works Amendment Act 1910. 293 Judge Browne, sitting at Rotorua on July 18 1912, ordered compensation of 406 pounds 13/9 for 6S Section 2B, upon the application of the Minister of Works for such an assessment. A schedule attached to his order listed the 41 persons to be paid, and the amount that each should receive. 294

On 12 August 1911, Mita Taupopoki complained to the Native Minister that the compensation awarded was "simply absurd" [in translation]. He alluded to an Appeal being lodged, and decried the lack of an arbitration process for setting compensation. 295 The Native Minister replied the next week, "that there is no right of appeal aqainst the award of land taken for the purposes of Public Works. ,,"296

1916: The Crown Takes 2A On June 9, 1908, on application from an incorporated body of owners, the Native Land Court ordered the first partition of Rotomahana-Parekarangi 2. The group of owners requested that Ngaroma Steele (alias Ngaroma Tiria) be awarded 2A the northernmost portion of the block, 161 acres 2 roods 11 perches,

292 DOSLl Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, p 362, citing NZ Gazette 19.9.1911 p 2836; DB voL V, p260. 293 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, p 363, citing NZ Gazette p 3651; DB voL V, p261. 294 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, pp 364-367. The Land was not decLared State Forest untiL September 12, 1927, under section 18 of the Forests Act 1921- 22; see DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, p 367; DB voL V, pp262- 265. 295 Taupopoki/Native Minister, 12 August 1912, (no fiLe ref.), in Archives MA 1/1912/2737; DB voL III, pp106-107. 296 Herries/Taupopoki, 20 August 1912, (no fiLe ref.) in Archives MA 1/191212737; DB voL III, p105. abutting the western shore of Rotokakahi Lake. Jud~e Mair (with Akuhata Takatua as Assessor) ordered accordingly.29

By Proclamation dated 24 February 1916, the Crown took the northern half of 2A (2A Section I, containing 81 acres 2 roods), for purposes of Forest plantation. The proclamation was signed by W. Fraser, Minister of Public Works under the Public Works Act and Amendment, 1908 and 1910, and took effect on March 4 1916. 298

On September 12 1927, under the Forests Act 1921-22, 2A Section 1 was proclaimed a Permanent State Forest.~9 A letter from the Waiariki District Native Land Court to the Chief Surveyor in Auckland dated October 5 1937, indicates that Ms. Tiria was paid 81 pounds compensation. 300

From about the time 2A Section 1 was proclaimed a State Forest - - from 10 December 1928 to March 1937 -- four successive Orders in Council prohibited Ms. Tiria from alienating any of her remaining 80 acres 11 perches of 2A, except in favour of the Crown. 301

At some time, though, Ms. Tiria sold her remainder to Henry Pullar Fo[? illegible] Junior, a Rotorua farmer. The transfer was registered soon after the last prohibition on alienation had expired, on June 15 1938.302

297 Rot MB 50 FoLs 353-54. For award, see DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, p 376. Aone pound fee was charged for the order, which is recorded as "paid" on the order proper, in the same hand as the document i tse Lf . The order was Later signed by Jackson Patrick [?], Chief Judge, on behaLf of W. G. Mair, who had died; DB voL IV, pp150- 151, voL V, p273. 298 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, p 380, citing NZ Gazette, 24 February 1916, p 558. Note the short time span between notice and taking, compared to that for 6S 2B, above; DB voL V, p277. 299 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, p 381-382; DB voL V, p278-279. 300 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, p 383; DB voL V, p280. 301 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, p 377. Orders: K9342, K19075, K4682; DB voL V, p274. 302 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa State Forest License Area, p 377; DB voL V, p274. 1915 - 1963: Crown Attempts to Acquire 6L Section 2B

Just to the north of 6L Section 2A (incorporated into Whaka Forest in 1906), lay the 314 acre sub-division, 6L Section 2B. The Rotorua to Te Wairoa road ran along the northwest boundary of this section, curving just at the part of the section that bordered Lake Tikitapu. It was mostly steep, scrub and bush covered, except for the approximately nine-acre flat facing out onto ·the .. Lake. This flat sounds like one of New Zealand's holiday-home gems. It was valued by Tuhourangi as the site of an old kainga. 303

On the 7 February 1903, the Native Land Court at Rotorua, Judge D. Scannell presiding, with Nikorima Poutotara as Assessor, partitioned 6L Section 2B, which was held under an Order for Residue, dated 20 February 1899 (see definition of the Crown's section 6L Section 2A, above). For now, we will focus only on the two sub-divisions that ended up part of Whaka Forest.

One of these, 6L Section 2B Number 2 (7 acres), the Court awarded to Mita Taupopoki alone. It orderd Mita's section inalienable "by original title." (The Order was also noted in the margin, "Restricted by original title. ,,304

Another of the new sections, 6L Section 2B Number 5, containing 184a 2r 12p (= 184 shares) Judge Scannell awarded to 99 owners identified in an attached schedule. The 184 shares were divided 1/ roughly equally amongst the listed owners (range = 2/5 to 4 2 each). All interests were made inalienable, and marked "The whole by original title."

The compiled plan attached to the award for No. 5 showed an irregular oblong-shaped parcel dropping south from the County Road (labelled Gaz. 1924 p 1084), bordering the Whakarewarewa Plantation State Forest Reserve to the west. The other sub­ divisions of 6L Section 2B (Numbers 1 to 4) all bordered this larger parcel to the south and southeast.

The Crown Purchases 6L Section 2B Number 5

On 2 December 1915, the Native Minister, W. H. Denis [ ?? ] , directed the Waiariki District Maori Land Board to summon the owners of 6L Section 2B Number 5 to consider a Crown offer to purchase their section. Five meetings were called, from March

303 See, e.g. Chief Surveyor C. A. Lawn to Director-General of Lands, -3 Apri l 1958, in Department of Conservation file 22/1002: "This Block is situated in a locality which is one of the most attractive in the district." Also, Lands & Survey Field Inspector Robertson to Comm'r Crown Lands, 25 September 1947, Ibid.: "definite scenic value ... suitable for a future camping ground." Kainga: see Chief Surveyor, C. A. Lawn to Director-General of Lands, 3 April 1958, in Ibid; DB vol II, pp101-102,177. 304 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, 386; DB vol V, p282. 1916 to September 1918, apparently all failing for want of a quorum. 305

Except for some unsuccessful meetings with owners in 1917,306 the matter appears to have lain dormant until October 1920, when the Superintending Nurseryman at Whakarewarewa Forest told the Secretary of the Forestry Department that the land of this section, adjacent to the Whaka Forest, formed a fire hazard. 3078

The Secretary, E. P. Turner (who had himself completed the 1899 survey partitioning these lands), soon brought the matter to the attention of the Commissioner of State Forests. 308 As a result, in April 1921, the Native Land Purchase Board instructed the Native Lands Purchase Department to "commence the purchase of the Natives' interests. ,,309

They found some immediate success with Mita's 7 acre 6L 2B No. 2: on September 5 1921, Mita sold all seven acres to the Crown for ten pounds.~o

About two weeks after Mita's sale, on 22 September 1921, the Native Minister, J. Coates, proclaimed 6L Section 2B 2 to be Crown Land, under Section 14 of the Native Land Amendment Act, 1914 (which simply provided for such proclamation subsequent to purchase under the Native Land Act 1909).~1 The next day, the Commissioner of State Forests, F. H. D. Bell, set aside 6L Section 2B Number 2 for State Forest purposes, under the State Forests Act 1908.~2

305 Miscettaneous Gazette Notices and Directions to Summon a Meeting of Owners ... " in AuckLand Archives MA A73/4002. Note, sometime prior to this, the Waiariki District Maori Land Board had summoned owners of 6L 2B No.4 (21 acres), who consented to seLL for 10 pounds totaL. See Gazette Notice 11 February 1915, in Department of Conservation fiLe 22/1002; DB voL III, pp71-104, voL II p217. 306 See Land Purchase Officer BowLer to Under Secretary Native Department, 10 January 1917, in Department of Conservation fiLe 22/1002. He was offering Mita Taupopoki 15/ per acre for 6L 2B 2, and received permission to increase this to 17/6; DB voL II, p194. 307 Nurseryman Goudie to Secretary Forestry Department, 12 October 1920, LS 9/2/2 in Archives f 9/2/2; DB voL III, p24. 308 Turner/Commissioner, 13 December 1920, F 9/2/2; DB voL III, p20. 309 Native Minister Coates/Commissioner of State Forests, 12 ApriL 1921, in F 9/2/2; DB vol III, p19. 310 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, pp 387-390. We have not ascertained how the restrictions against aL ienation of this section were overcome; Da voL V, pp283-286. 311 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, p 391; DB vol V, p287. 312 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, p 392. Note, A certificate of titLe was onLy issued severaL years Later - on 13 December 1928. It momentariLy re-vested the section in Mita Taupopoki, but then registered the earLier procLamation of the section as Crown Land; DB vol V, p288. Shortly after, the Native Department summarized the position of the lands: besides Mita's 6L 2B No.2, the Crown had already purchased the 21-acre 6L 2B No. 4 (evidently not included in Whaka Forest, though), plus it had purchased 8 shares/acres in No. 3. 313 The next few months seem occupied by valuations and initial negotiations.

Evidently, though, the remaining 32 owners of 6L 2B 1, the 4 owners of 6L 2B 3, and 101 owners of 6L 2B 5 were resisting sale. 314 ·By May 1922, the Native Minister had had to resist suggestions to take the lands under the Public Works Act. The Secretary of Forestry, Turner, minuted that "it is not the policy of the Gov' t to take Rotorua lands forcibly at the present time. ,,315

So, the Native Department set about trying to arrange an exchange of Rotorua town lands that the owners of 6L 2B No. 1 had suggested might appease them,316 and from June to September 1922, the Native Minister instructed at least three more meetings of owners of 6L Section 2B No. 5 to consider sale. 317

On 13 June 1922, The Registrar of the Land Board, Mr. Anaru, wrote to the Under Secretary, Native Department: " .•. The majority of the owners in these [6L 2B] blocks are all dead and those living are scattered allover the District. The owners of [6L 2B] No. 5 who are here are prepared to accept 25/ per acre. As to [6L 2B] No.1, I have again to point out that those of the owners living are not anxious to sell but are willing to exchange for any Crown Lands in the vicinity of Rotorua. Under the circumstances I think it would be useless calling a meeting for No. 1 but there is every prospect of the owners of No. 5 carrying a resolution at 25/ per acre. "318

The Crown increased its offer, and directed the owners to consider again. On 29 August, ten owners met, the Native Land Purchase Officer, Mr. Goffer, presented the new offer of 25/ per

313 Jordan to Turner, 10 October 1921, in Archives F 9/2/2; DB voL III, p17. 314 Owner summary: Asst Surveyor Watt to Conservator State Forests, 2 October 1922, in F 9/2/2; DB voL III, p5. 315 "R. M." to Turner, 25 May 1922, in Archives F 9/2/2; DB voL III, p12. 316 See, e.g. N. D. Under Secretary Jordan to Turner, 2 November 1921, in ,Archives F 9/2/2. ALso, much on exchange attempts in Department of Conservation fiLe 22/1002, 1924 et seq.; DB voL III, p16, voL II, pp16-221. 317 AuckLand Archives MA A73/4002, excerpts; DB voL III, pp71-104. 318 Anaru to Under Secretary, 13 June 1922, (no file reference), in Archives A73/4002 excerpts; DB voL III, p84. acre., but again, the owners "were very unwilling to sell. They all wanted to retain their interests.,,~9 They met again on 20 September, and again declined to sell.320 Immediately after this second refusal, from 21 September 1922 forward (at the request of the Secretary of Forestry, E. P. Turner) 6L Section 2B Numbers 1, 3 and 5 were all proclaimed inalienable except to the Crown. The Proclamation was issued on the recommendation of the Native Land Purchase Board (see Native Land Act,1909, s. 363), and by Order in Council dated 18 September 1922. The next year, by Order in Council of 3 September 1923, the proclamation was extended for another six months.3~

The matter wallowed for the next couple years apparently focusing on continued purchase of individual shares, and on the possible exchange of 6L Section 2B No.1 for residential sections near Whakarewarewa village.322 The Conservator of State Forests pressed again for the lands to be taken under the Public Works Acts "in order to 'round off I the Whaka Plantation boundaries. ,,323

In June 1924, the owners of No. 5 met again, but were again unable to get a quorum. The next meeting, however, on 15 July 1924, carried a resolution to sell 6L Section 2B Number 5 for 2 pounds 10/ per acre only one person dissenting. The resolution was confirmed on the 18 September. Under Secretary of Native Department, R. N. Jones, forwarded payment on 24 September "under Section 376 (lB) of the Native Land Act, 1909, for distribution to the owners. IIj24

On 29 October 1924, the Native Minister, J. Coates, proclaimed 6L Section 2B No. 5 Crown land. The Under Secretary, Native Department I (Jones?) I forwarded this notice to the Auckland

319 / Minutes of ownersI meeting, 29 August 1922, in AuckLand Archives, MA A73/4002; DB voL tIl, pp89-90. / 320 20 September: see F 9/2/2, E. P. Turner to Conservator of State Forests, 20 September 1922, in Archives F 9/2/2; DB voL III, p8. I 321 ,I DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, pp 276-77. ALso, Turner to Under set'y Native Department, 2 September 1922, in Archives F 9/2/2; DB voL V, pp178-179, voL PI, p9. 322 ) JBy October 1922, the Crown's hoLding had increased to 28 acres out of its target of 314. j Exchange was stiLL being pursued: Ass't Surveyor Watt to Conservator .of State Forests, 2 October 1922, in Archives F 9/2/2; DB voL III, p5. 323 / Turner to Under-Secretary Native Department, 12 November 1923, in Archives F 9/2/2; DB voL 31/ III, p3. 3 Pounds 13/4 were deducted in rates. Entire transaction recorded in AuckLand Archives, / MA-A 73/4002 "ALienation File on Rotomahana-Parekarangi 6L 2B 5."; DB voL III, pp71-104.

/ J District Land Registrar on 25 November 1924, "For registration purposes. ,,325

The next month, 26 January 1925, a Proclamation by the Governor in Council set aside 6L Sec 2B No. 5 as a "Permanent State Forest" under the s. 18 of the Forests Act 1921-22. The Proclamation was Gazetted on 29 January 1925.326

325 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, p 279. The procLamation issued under authority of the Governor, under s.368 of the Native Land Act 1909, decLaring 6L Section 2B No 5 to be Crown Land. The procLamation was Gazetted 6 November, 1924; DB voL V, p181. 326 DOSLI Databank on Whakarewarewa Forest License Area, p 320; DB voL V, p220. 86

The Harried Shores of Lake Tikitapu

By 1918, the Whakarewarewa Plantation was the largest of the State's eighteen such forest nurseries. It covered nearly 8,000 acres. 327 From the compulsory acquisitions of 2A and 6S 2B -­ plus the intense purchase efforts for 6L 2B No.'s 1-5, it is evident that, once established, the Whakarewarewa Forest acquired its own 'logic of expansion.'

These .. are the only late acquisitions we are aware of that actually ended up part of the current forest. However, just as early Tuhourangi-Whakaue relations were most clearly defined in their shared borderlands, so here, Tuhourangi-Crown relations achieve greatest definition in the contested lands immediately surrounding the forest itself.

As these lands are not specifically under claim, we will not give a full exposition - merely illustrative examples and a rough storyline.

First, when negotiations to purchase 6L Section 2B lulled (between 1915 and 1920), the Crown's foresters sought to expand in the other direction -- into the 6A Number 2 Blocks. In July 1917, the Crown applied to the Native Land Court to have Tuhourangi's 1899 partition of this large area cancelled. "A large number of Natives appeared and strongly protested," so the Court refused the Crown's request.

The Chief Surveyor recommended that the Department of Lands and Survey "work in conjunction with the Registrar of the Native Land Court," to begin purchasing individual shares:

"I have no doubt that he will obtain many signatures, otherwise unsecurable; the privacy of the transaction appeals to natives who would hesitate and probably refuse to deal with a Land Purchase Office openly, for fear of incurring the animosity of their fellow-owners."

This course might have left the Crown with "scattered interests" unsuitable for afforestation, though. So alternatively, the Surveyor recommended taking the lands under "Section 34 of the War Legislation and Statute Law Amendment Act. "328

The final outcome of the Crown's 6L Section 2B efforts is equally illustrative. Long after it had acquired 6L Section 2B No.5, the Crown continued accumulating interests in the desirable 6L Section 2B No. 1 (for which it had evidently failed to arrange a suitable exchange in the 1920's). So, shortly after the War,

327 Roche, M.M Forest PoLicy in New Zealand: An HistoricaL Geography 1840 - 1918, PaLmerston North, Dunmore Press, 1987, p62; DB voL IV, p194. 328 H. M. Keet [?] to Under Secretary for Lands, 20 May 1919, and Under Secretary Native Department, C. B. Jordan to Under Secretary Land, 18 JuLy 1919, both in F 9/2/2; DB vol III, pp27-32. when inquiries were made (we do not know by whom) regarding the section, the Commissioner of Lands discovered that the

"block [was] legally native land, but the Crown [had] purchased about 80 1/~ [undefined] acres, leaving about 9 acres in Maori ownership."

He recommended trying to purchase the remaining Maori interests, either for the Forest Service or for a Scenic Reserve. 329

Before inquiries had progressed far, though, the Rotorua Branch of the Labour Party, through their M.P., requested two acres out of the site for a Labour Youth Club. From February to May 1848, the Department of Lands made inquiries on behalf of the Youth Club until they confirmed the land was in its difficult posi tion. 330

In the course of the inquiries, the Crown managed to acquire about another two acres, leaving it with 82 7/8 acres, five "non­ sellers" dead, one "non-seller" unable to be located, and the four members of the Paurini family, who "definitely refuse[d] to sell. ,,331

Over the next ten years, attempts were made at partition, at acquiring the land via a nearby consolidation scheme, and at another exchange for Rotorua town lands -- all unsuccessful. The valuations and offers for purchase cre~t up and up, by 1959 reaching 375 pounds for the remaining 6 116 Maori shares. At points, it appears every Department imaginable was helping try to acquire the last few interests in 6L Section 2B No.1. Even the County Council (interested in the possible development of tourist villas on the site) volunteered applying for receivership to collect rates.

Finally, on 28 June 1961, the Maori Land Court stepped in, appointed the Maori Trustee agent of the deceased owners, "to execute an instrument of alienation of above block to the Crown. ,,332 The last 1 14 share remained with Tupiriti and Te Horowai Pourini -- by January 1963, referred to by now as the "very difficult" owners. 333

329 Comm'r of Crown Lands/Under Secretary for Lands, 29 September 1947, in Department of Conservation fiLe 22/1002; DB voL II, p176. 330 ALL correspondence in sequence in Department of Conservation fi Le 22/1002; DB vol II, pp16- 221. 331 See MLP 1915/59, Under Secretary Maori Affairs, Ropiha to Under Secretary Lands, 29 March 1949, in Department of Conservation file 22/1002j DB voL II, pp153-154: 332 Rot MB 115 FoL 170, copy in Department of Conservation fiLe 22/1002. The order was under Section 447 of the Maori Affairs Act; DB voL II, p60. 333 D. G. of Lands, MacLaughLan to Secretary Maori Affairs, 15 January 1963, in Ibid; DB voL II, p43. A few months on, on 1 May 1963, the Maori Investigating Officer wrote, "I am pleased to report that after much opposition the purchase of the outstanding Maori interests in the above­ mention block has finally been completed.

Of the remaining interest, Tupiriti Paurini had passed away and it was necessary to obtain his successor Eria Moke. Memoranda of Transfers are attached herewith for the interests of Horowai Paurini and Eria Moke. ,,334

The Minister of Maori Affairs, J. R. Hanan, publiclr declared the Crown's ownership of 6L 2B No.1 in August 1963. 33

334 W. Roberts to Director-GeneraL of Lands and Survey, 1 May 1963, in Ibid; DB voL II, p35. 335 N. Z. Gazette, August 1963, No. 45, p 1071, in Ibid; DB voL II, p24. Conclusion It is inappropriate in a preliminary report such as this, prepared in about six weeks (about two of which over Christmas holidays), to venture any firm conclusions. We have relied overly on secondary sources, and have left many loose ends, and have hardly even touched upon the alienation of parts of Whakarewarewa Block. There does seem to be, though, a fairly definite story-line to Tuhourangi's loss of their lands. Up to the eruption of Tarawera, Tuhourangi were a weal thy and fiercely independent tribe, on a strong competitive footing not only with neighbouring related Arawa, but also with nearby pakeha. Before Tuhourangi had found their feet again after that eruption, the Crown embarked on policies -- both regarding lands generally and Lakes district lands particularly that brought an extremely efficient Native Lands Purchase mechanism to bear on Tuhourangi whanau and individuals. By the same token, the peculiar overlap of customary interests in the Rotomahana­ Parekarangi Block yielded intractable Land Court awards, ineffectual for forging any collective, hapu-based vision for most of the Block. Tuhourangi quickly sold, and the Crown quickly bought, most of the Rotomahana-Parekarangi Block. There is, of course, some question as to the adequacy of the reserve, given the virtual absence of any inquiry into this at the time of sale/purchase and award. Crown and Tuhourangi alike seem to have assumed that Tuhourangi's future lay not in a landed subsistence, but in waged service to tourism and timber. The rapidity of purchase, combined with the peculiarly low monetary value the Crown placed upon the lands, caused difficulties in surveys -- from which the Crown benefitted and Tuhourangi suffered. Also, there is the matter of the survey lien hanging over Tuhourangi heads for the entire thirty year period of Crown purchase pressures.

As the Whakarewarewa Forest grew, so did its needs for surrounding lands. By the late 1910's, the Tuhourangi owners were the butt of a steady pressure to sell -- difficult for any community, pakeha or Maori, to resist. Where Tuhourangi did resist, lands for the forest were taken under the Public Works Acts 1908 and 1910. In short, the Tuhourangi-Crown relationship regarding lands would seem to have been neither easy nor satisfying for Tuhourangi. Given the provisional nature of even our factual conclusions, though, we would leave to others to decide whether the information presented here is sufficient for any assessment of the Tuhourangi-Crown story in light of the Treaty of Waitangi.