I I DUPLICATE Wai 814 I ( I
Ngai Tamanuhiri Land Alienation Report
A report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal
Keith Pickens
September 2000 1- (
1
11 Contents 1 ( Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Ngai Tamanuhiri 1 1.2 Topography 5 1.3 Ngai Tamanuhiri in the 1860s 6 1.4 Relationship to Other Reports 7
Chapter 2: The Poverty Bay Commission 11
2.1 Maraetaha and Te Kuri 11 2.2 ~erovvhero 14 2.3 Pakovvhai 15 2.4 ~aretunoa 17 2.5 Tangotete 19
Chapter 3: Legislative Confusion 1869-1874 27
3.1 The Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869 28 3.2 Joint Tenancy 29
Chapter 4: Maraetaha 1869-1880 35
4.1 Early Sales 37 4.2 Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1870 38 4.3 Native Land Act, 1873 40 4.4 Maraetaha Lease 1869 40 4.5 W L Rees and Wi Pere 42 4.6 Land Trusts 43 4.7 Pru1ition of Maraetaha and Te Kuri 1880 44 4.8 The Trust Commission 44 4.9 The £3,000 47 4.10 The Lost Acres 47
Chapter 5: Maraetaha Partitions 1880-1988 51
5.1 Maraetaha lA 1880 - 1904 51 5.2 Maraetaha IB 1880 - 1902 53 5.3 Maraetaha 1C 57 5.4 Maraetaha ID (Te Kopua) 1880 - 1988 58 5.5 Part Maraetaha, DP 795 63
Chapter 6: Te Kuri 65
6.1 Te Kuri lA 65 6.2 Te Kuri 1B 66
111 I 1 6.3 Te Kuri 1 68 6.4 Te Kuri 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D 68
1( Chapter 7: The Advent of the Maori Land Court 69
1 7.1 The End of the Poverty Bay Commission 69 7.2 The Ngai Tahupo Block 70 1 7.3 The Poverty Bay Lands Titles Act, 1874 71 ( 7.4 The Native Land Court 72 7.5 Whareongaonga 74 7.5.1 Whareongaonga A 76 7.5.2 Whareongaonga B 77 7.5.3 Whareongaonga C 79
Chapter 8: Takararoa and Paritu 83
8.1 Takararoa 83 8.2 Paritu 84 8.3 The Ownership of Takararoa and Paritu 86
Chapter 9: Rahokapua and Umuhaku 95
9.1 The Owners of Rahokapua 96 9.2 Rahokapua 1B 9T 9.3 Rahokapua 2 98 9.4 Okahu 98 9.5 Umuhaku 99 9.6 Sale ofUmuhaku 99 9.7 Umuhaku lA and IB 101
Chapter 10: Maraetaha 2 105
10.1 The Investigation of Maraetaha 2 105 10.2 Maraetaha 2 Petitions 111
Chapter 11: Maraetaha 21883 -1954 119
11.1 The Carroll Pere Trusteeship 122 11.2 The Pmiition of Mm'aetaha 2 124 11.3 The Validation Court 125 11.4 The Validation Comi Hearing and Maraetaha 2 127 11.5 Maraetaha 2 Alienations 130 11.5.1 Trust Alienations 130 11.5.2 Private Alienations 130 11.6 Sununary of Alienations 134
IV I 1 Chapter 12: Puninga 139
12.1 The Herbert Interest 139 12.2 Partition 1891 140 12.3 Appeal 1895 147 12.4 Puninga Purchase Declined 144 12.5 Puninga and the Validation Court 145 12.6 Puninga Alienations 149
Chapter 13: Rangaiohinehau, Tarewauru, Tiraotane and Ranginui 155
13 .1 James Cattell 156 13.2 Maori Attitudes to Alienations 158 13.3 The Trust Commission 158 13.4 Land Prices 159 13.5 The Remnants 160
Chapter 14: Surveys and Rates 161
14.1 Survey Charges 161 14.2 Whareongaonga C 162 14.3 Rates 164
Chapter 15: Overview 165
15.1 Crown and Local Body Alienations 165 15.2 Crown Purchases 19th Century 167 15.3 Alienation of Trust Lands 168 15.4 Private Purchases: 19th Century 168 15.4.1 Maraetaha and Te Kuri 169 15.4.2 Tarewauru 171 15.4.3 Puninga 2 172 15.5 Private Purchases: 20lh Century 174 15.5 1 Private Purchases 1894-1909 174 15.6 The Stout Ngata Commission 177 15.7 Private Purchases 1909-1954 179 15.8 Private Purchases 1954-1991 182 15.9 Final Position 182
Appendix 187
Appendix A: Statements of Iwi/Hapu Identification 187 Appendix B: Ancestors Claimed 191
Sources 193
v List of Illustrations
Figure 1: Location Map 3 Figure 2: Maraetaha, Te kuri and Pakowhai Blocks 10 Figure 3: Wharetunoa Block, 1926 18 Figure 4: Muriwai District Blocks 20 Figure 5: Johnson's Te Kuri Partition, 1892 48 Figure 6: Maraetaha Pruiitions 52 Figure 7: Te Kuri lA, 1927 64 Figure 8: Whareongaonga Paritions 73 Figure 9: Rahokapua, Okahu and Umuhaku Blocks 94 Figure 10: Mru'aetaha 2 Partitions 126 Figure 11: Maori POliion of Maraetaha 2 1882-1991 135 Figure 12: Puninga Block 138 Figure 13: Puninga Block, 1910 151 Figure 14: Rangaiohinehau, Tarewauru, Tiraotane ruld Ranginui Blocks 154 Figure 15: Categories ofNgai Tamanuhiri Land 166
VI I 1 Chapter 1 1 ( Introduction 1 In December 1868 over 270 'loyal chiefs and men' of Rongowhakaata, Te Aitanga-a 1 Mahala and Ngai Tahupo ceded their Poverty Bay lands to the Crown. l According to one
contemporary estimate, this was an area of about 300,000 acres.2 A recent assessment is
that the ceded area contained over 800,000 acres. 3
In Febmary 1869, the Governor, Sir George Bowen, gazetted the Crown's acceptance of
the Poverty Bay cession. He also announced that native title over the lands in question had
been extinguished.4 On the same day John Rogan and Henry Monro were appointed to a
commission of inquiry.s The task of this commission, usually referred to as the Poverty
Bay Commission, was to consider applications for the ceded lands. Those Maori who
could prove both their loyalty and their title would receive their land back, by way of a
cOlmnission award and a Crown grant.
1.1 Ngai Tamanuhiri
Those directly affected by the 1868 ceSSIOn and subsequent developments were
Rongowhalcaata, Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki and Ngai Tahupo. TIns repOli deals with the last of
these three groups, Ngai Tahupo. In the document of cession, the Ngai Talmpo people
were called a hapu. By descent, they derived from Tamanuhiri, more ilmnediately from
Kahutia. 6 There were other descendants of Tamanuhiri in the Poverty Bay district in the
1 Copy of 1868 Deed of Cession in RDB, vol 131, P 50521 2 Halse to Rogan, 15 February 1869, NA file MA 62/8. RDB, vol 130, p 50163 3 Ward, A. National Overview. Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 1997, vol 2, p 201 4 ) New Zealand Gazette, 13 February 1869, P 60. RDB, vol 131, P 50524 5 New Zealand Gazette, 13 February 1869, pp 59-60. RDB, vol 131, P 50523f G Halbert, R. Horouta: The Histol)' ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 268; Gudgeon, W. E. The Maori Tribes of the East Coast. Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol. 6, 1897, pp 175- 1860s, notably Ngati Rangiwaho. But for some reason, perhaps because of the prestige of
1 the Ngai Tahupo chief Tawheo Pohatu, perhaps also because ofPakeha mis-perception, the ( hapu name Ngai Tahupo seems to have functioned, in the middle of the 19th century, as an 1 umbrella for all of Tamanuhiri's descendants. In this name all of their land was ceded in
1868, including the southern Whareongaonga district, where Ngati Rangiwaho held the
mana. In 1873, when a large area of the ceded land was returned, including land that
belonged to Ngai Tamanuhiri hapu other than Ngai Tahupo, it was returned, so the minute
book says, to Ngai TahupO.7 Towards the end of the 19th century, the name Ngai Tahupo
fell into disuse: Ngai Tamanuhiri became the preferred label. At the same time, during the
1860s, 1870s and 1880s, it was possibly more common for Tamanuhiri's descendants to
use hapu names as their main way of identifying themselves. The iwi affiliations of some
of these descendants, it should be noted, were not necessarily limited to Ngai Tamanuhiri.
In celiain circumstances descendants of Tamanuhiri could and did identify themselves as
descendants of Rongowhakaata or Kahungunu. 8 In this repOli, Ngai Tamanuhiri includes
Ngai Tahupo and all the other groups who claimed Tamanuhiri or one of his descendants
as their eponymous ancestor. However, where the sources use Ngai Tahupo or some other
hapu name, the repOli will use these names.
In 1840, according to evidence given to the Poveliy Bay Commission in the late 1860s,
and then in the Land Court in the 1870s and 1880s, those groups who traced descent from
Tamanuhiri were located to the south of the Poverty Bay district, in the Muriwai district
and along the coast to the south of Muriwai. Whareongaonga was a principal location.
188. This was Tawheo Pohatu's lineage, regarded as one of the principal Poverty Bay chiefs in the 1840s. For the origin of the name Ngai Tahupo see Gisborne MB, no 44, 4 November 1919, p 317 7 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 22 November 1873, p 41 S The reverse is also true. During the Maraetaha 2 hearing Wi Paetarewa said that he belonged to Ngati Hauaraki ofNgati Kahungunu. He began his whakapapa with Tamanuhiri. Gisborne MB no 8, 22 March 1882, p 17
2 1 ( 1
PavertyBay
Nicks HeadlTe Kuri a Paaa
Hawke Bay
KEY: ---<:P- Main roads
~ Crown forests
~g Topography (in metres)
3 They also extended inland, into the district later defined as Maraetaha 2. There is some
independent evidence, dating from the 1840s, as well. In the Turanga Journals William
Williams noted that Taweo (sic), described as a principal Poverty Bay chief, was resident
at Maraetaha in February 1840.9
Ngai Tamanuhiri were a coastal people. It is no accident that some of their key locations,
for example, Kopututea, Te Kuri, Whareongaonga and Paritu, were all on the coast, or that
they tended to defined their rohe as running from point to point along the Poverty Bay
coastline. They did have land in the interior, but the northern and southern boundaries, and
where they crossed the coastline, were always matters of great importance.
These boundaries, between Ngai Tamanuhiri and their neighbours, were neither sharp nor
fixed. Instead there were zones of overlapping interests, with primary rights to the ) resources within these zones moving backwards and forwards as the relative strengths of
hapu or tribe waxed and waned. Internal bOlU1daries, between and among different
Tamanuhiri descent groups, were ofthe same kind. It was the Land Court that insisted that
claims to land be based on maps and plans that clearly depicted, and separated, one block
of land, and one hapu or set of owners, from another. In the European scheme of things, an
area of land could not have movable boundaries. Nor could rights to land be contestable,
or shared among different groups according to varying kinds of take.
9Williams, W. The Turanga Journals 1840-1850: Letters and Journals of William and Jane Williams, Missionaries to Poverty Bay. Edited F Porter, Victoria University Press, 1974, p 83. The map attached to The Turanga Journals locates Maraetaha, incidentally, to the south of Whareongaonga. There are a handful of other references to Ngai Tahupo in The Turanga Journals. These refer to what seem to be quite large groups ofNgai Tahupo taking instruction at the mission station at Waerenga-a-hika. These references are for various dates during the 1840s. The Turanga Journals, pp 197,256,276,310,324
4 I
1 1.2 Topography
1 The Crown Forest Rental Trust is preparing a series of maps covering the Gisborne inquiry ( district. At the time of writing, details of this project are unknown, but it is expected that 1 maps showing blocks, rivers, coastal features and topography will be produced. Brad
Coombes, of the University of Auckland, is preparing an ecological impact report. Again,
at the time of writing, details of this study are not available, but it is expected that it will
cover issues relating to land use, waterways, foreshores and fisheries, and in part with the
impact of drainage scheme, river protection work and the like on the 19th century landscape
and coastline. Both of these works will contain detailed topographical and geographical
information relevant to Ngai Tamanuhiri's situation and both will need to be consulted
while reading this report.
The land arolmd present day Muriwai, the territory extending along the coast south of
Muriwai to Whareongaonga, and the adjacent inland districts are the parts of the Gisborne
inquiry district of paliicular concern in this report. There is some flat land arOlmd
Muriwai, and along the coast to the n01ih, where the Poveliy Bay plain begins. Te Kuri
headlalld, to the east of the Muriwai settlement, rises to some 600 feet at its highest point.
To the south, in the direction of Whareongaonga, the hills extend to the coastline. Inlalld,
the country is generally steep and hilly
Tlu·ee major rivers and numerous stealllS and creeks traverse and divide the land. The
Waipaoa River flows down from the north, across the Poverty Bay plain to the sea,
reaching the coastline currently at a point about midway between Gisborne city and
Muriwai. The Waipaoa is the most imp01iant waterway in the Poveliy Bay district, alld the
point at which it reaches the sea has changed several times within the last 200 years. Te
5 Arai river rises inland, on Maraetaha 2 to the north of Puninga, and runs to the north and east. It flows into the Waipaoa on the seaward side of Manutuke. The Maraetaha River rises to the south, and inland, but much nearer to the coast than Te Arai River. It runs to the north more or less on a parallel course to Te Arai river before turning to the east, and finding its way to the sea south of Te Kuri. Rivers are always important. They provide transport or lines of travel, fisheries, some associated arable land, and they may also function as boundaries.
In the 19th century the lagoons on the coastline, notably the A wapuni lagoon, into which the Waipaoa flowed, and further to the south the Wherowhero lagoon, which extended along the coastline of the Pakowhai and Te Kuri blocks, were important food resources.
According to Halbert, Muriwai was one of three places where the Horouta canoe landed at
Poverty Bay. It probably did so at the mouth of one of the streams feeding from the
0 Wherowhero lagoon into the sea. 1
1.3 Ngai Tamanuhiri in the 1860s
The events in the Poverty Bay district which led to the cession of 1868 have been covered in other repOlis. 11 It is not clear whether Ngai Tamanuhiri were involved in the mid 1860s fighting in the district. They did take pali in at least some of the battles against Te Kooti in the late 1860s.1 2 Binney says, for example, that a contingent of Ngai Tahupo from
Muriwai fought in the battle at Te Karetu on 23 November 1868, alongside Ngati
KahunglUlll. 13 Ngai Tamanuhiri may have found themselves at loggerheads with Te Kooti
10 Halbert, R. Horollta: The HistOI)1 ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 26 II For example, O'Malley, V. "An Entangled Web". Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki Land and Politics 1840-1873, and Their Aftermath. CFRT, 1998. 12 An-IR, 1884, Session 2, G-4, pp 17-18 13 Binney, 1. Redemption Songs: A Life ofTe Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki. Auckland University Press, 1995, p 132. Cowan talks about a skirmish at a place called Makaretu at about that date. Cowan, 1. The New Zealand Wars: A Histol)1 of the Maori Campaign and the Pioneering Period. Government Printer, 1983, vol
6 from the date of his return from the Chathams. Belich reports that Te Kooti obtained a few guns from the Maori at Whareongaonga when he landed there in July 1868. 14 Belich does not identify these Maori other than to say they were locals. This probably means they were
Ngati Rangiwaho. But whether these guns were freely given, or simply talcen, is unclear.
Cowan, on the other hand, says that immediately on arrival an armed party of Te Kooti's men went up the coast to Muriwai, which was a Ngai Tahupo settlement, to 'requisition arms and ammunition' .15 The implication here is that the Muriwai people were given little choice. Belich does not list Ngai Talmpo among the kupapa who fought against Te
Kooti. 16 Nor does Cowan. But they did fight, and they did gain a reputation for loyalty.
In 1873 Porter reported that Hami Mataora, a Ngai Tahupo chief, had allegedly threatened to talce violent action against any Maori who sided with the Government over the Patutahi block. 17 Porter recorded this piece of news with some surprise: he had always thought of
Mataora as 'a loyal man'Y In a 1928 petition John Pohatu described Ngai Tahupo as always a loyal tribe, from the time that Christianity had been introduced, 'even through the
Hauhau Wars and the Wars of Te Kooti' .19 This appears to be the case, and this report describes some of the fruits of that loyalty.
1.4 Relationship to Other Reports
The intention is that three social impact reports will be prepared for the Gisborne casebook, one for the Ngai Tamanuhiri claimants, one for the Rongowhakaata claimants
2, P 269 14 Belich, J. The Neyj! Zealand Wars and the Victorian interpretation of Racial COJ?jlict. Auckland University Press, 1986, p 222 15 Cowan, 1. The New Zealand Wars: A Hist01J) ofthe Maori Campaign and the Pioneering Period. Government Printer, 1983, vol 2, p 233 16 Belich, J. The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian interpretation ofRacial Conflict. Auckland University Press, 1986, p 220 17 Thomas William Rose Porter served with the British forces and then the Colonial forces 1860-1866. He was in the Armed Constabulary 1866-1871, and took part in the East Coast campaigns. He was subsequently a land-purchasing officer. Porter would have known who had been loyal in Poverty Bay and who had not. A Dictio/1C11J) of New Zealand Biography, vol 2, 1940, P 179
7 I I and one for the Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki claimants. At the time of writing, details of the
(/ Tamanuhiri social impact report are not available. However, a draft of the social impact report prepared by Professor Brian Murton for Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki claimants was 1 sighted. If the Ngai Tamanuhiri social impact report follows the same general plan, then it
will deal with social and economic patterns between 1840 and the 1860s and the operation
of the Land Court after the 1860s. Finally, it will describe the long-term economic and
social impacts on Maori of Palceha settlement, legislation and government, and the
crucially associated land alienations, before dealing with issues of 20th century
development.
This report, the land alienation report, deals with where, when and how Ngai Tamanuhiri
land passed into Pakeha hands or Pakeha control. It will not cover the cultural, social and
economic consequences for Ngai Tamanuhiri that flowed either from the loss of land, or
from the loss of control over their land. The social impact report will deal with these.
Dr Katherine Orr-Nimmo has prepared a report on the East Coast Trust Lands?O There
will be some lmavoidable overlap between that report and the land alienation report. But
where it is possible to do so, the land alienation repOli will not traverse ground already
covered by the East Coast Trust Lands report. Both repOlis need to be read conjunctively.
Finally, Mr Peter McBurney has prepared a manawhenua repOli for Ngai Tamanuhiri. This
repOli, which was sighted in draft form, is Ngai Tamanuhiri's own account of who they
are, and where they held the mana. The land alienation report, on the other hand, deals with
18 Porter to McLean, 20 October 1873, McLean papers, ATL 19 Pohatu Petition, 1928, NA file MA J ND 5/13/93 20 Orr-Nimmo, Katherine W. Report/or the Crmlln ForestlJl Rental Trust on the East Coast Maori Trust. CFRT,1997
8 Ngai Tamanuhiri lands as they were determined, first by the Poverty Bay Commission and
I then by the Land Court. But as the location and extent of Ngai Tamanuhiri's land was I defined by these Pakeha institutions, so too were the relationships between the people and the land, and, inevitably, so were the people themselves. It is a matter of simple
observation that some of the hapu mentioned in the 19th century minute books have been
lost somewhere along the way. It is also true that the statements of hapu affiliation
common in the mid 19th century were generally superseded, towards the end of the century,
by statements of iwi identification.
The manawhenua report records the intricate connections between and among the different
descent lines in Poverty Bay. In simple terms, everyone in the Poverty Bay district was
(and is) related to everyone else. Into this genealogically complex society, with settled
beliefs about the collective nature of rights to the resources of the land and sea, came the
Pakeha with their deed of cession, their commissions and their courts, their survey
instruments and their ideas of individual and absolute ownership.
9 Graphical Represenlation Only ( Wal814 • n.harris nov2000 J F=====r*==~r=~~~==~~==~==~=6~'m~:; I ?\'Jer North ~'I>\ 11 G~ \~
TAREWAURU
)
/~,., /, ' / /
/
.,
( ..~ C' J ( l ...... ----.""<.....:~.~. '1, "'/
I ;' ( Figure 2 Maraetaha-j,J:-e Kuri and Pakowhai blocks
10 Chapter 2
The Poverty Bay Commission
The Poverty Bay Commission sat for the first time in the middle of 1869. In August 1869
the Commissioners reported to McLean, the Native Minister, that they had heard 75 Maori
claims, covering around 101,000 acres. Nineteen European claims, involving 1,200 acres,
had been settled as weIl.21 In the absence of completed surveys, the Commission could not
deal with the rest of the land covered by the deed of cession.
Among the 75 claims heard in 1869 were several from Ngai Tahupo or dealing with Ngai
Tahupo land. These claims covered Maraetaha, Te Kuri, Wherowhero, Tangotete and
Whareumoa.
) 2.1 Maraetaha and Te Kuri
The Maraetaha district lay towards the southern end of Poverty Bay.22 It contained over
14,000 acres, extending to the coastline both to the north and south of the promontory
lmown to Maori as Te Kuri a Paoa and to Europeans as YOlmg Nick's Head.23 Maraetaha
came before the Poverty Bay Commission early in July 1869.
W A Graham, who was working as an agent for claimants, immediately asked for an
adjournment of the case?4 There was, he said, an 'extensive tribal dispute' over
21 Rogan and Monro to Native Minister, 29 August 1869, NA file MA 62/6. RDB, vol 129, p 49650 22 The map produced to the Poverty Bay comm ission, and then later, in 1880, for the partition hearing, is ML 375/2. This gives the area of Maraetaha as 13,798 acres, plus 824 acres for the Te Kuri partition. 23 Reed's Dictional)1 of Maori Place Names, 1985, gives Te Kuri a Paoa. Halbert gives both Te Kuri and Te Kuri a Paoa. Halbert, R. J-Jorouta: The HistOI)1 of the HoroZlta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, pp 28, 477. Te Kuri seems to be current usage. Te Upoko 0 Te Kuri a Paoa is also a name associated with the headland. 24 William Australia Graham was born in Auckland in 1841. Educated in Auckland and then in England, he was a surveyor by profession. He was said to have become 'closely acquainted with the Maori', and was
II Maraetaha, but he hoped it would be possible to resolve things amicably outside the
COurt?5 The next day, Graham reported that the dispute had been settled.26 Maraetaha ( was to be divided by a line from Orongo, on the coast to the south ofTe Kuri, to Pukehau,
a point inland and to the west of the headland. The area south of this line was to be given
to Ngai Tahupo. The area north of the line, to be called Te Kuri, would belong to both
Ngai Tahupo and Rongowhakaata. Two areas of the northern district were excluded from
the agreement between Rongowhakaata and Ngai Tahupo to split Maraetaha into a larger
southern portion and a smaller northern area. 27 These two areas were a 21-acre block at
Wherowhero, and the Tangotete district. These areas were both in the northern partition,
and they were dealt with separately.
During the adjournment, the Crown Agent, W S Atldnson, had also been involved in
discussions with the 'the natives,?8 This may mean one or both of the two claimant tribes.
In any event, he reported to the Commission that he had arranged to remove from
Maraetaha the claims of 'celiain rebels', and place them upon Te Arai.29 Given Ngai
Tahupo's reputation for loyalty, the rebels in question were probably Rongowhakaata.
There are several things to be noted about these transactions. First, there is evidence of
overlapping interest in at least the nOlihern (Te Kuri) pOliion of Maraetaha. Second, there
is a suggestion that Graham, the Pakeha agent, arranged the out-of-court compromise
able to act as a translator. A Dictio11a1)' ofNew Zealand Biography, vol 1, 1940, P 317 Graham played a leading role during the 1869 sittings of the Poverty Bay Commission. He acted as an agent for various claimants, but whether he was employed by Maori, or appointed by the Crown, is, according to O'Malley, a matter for further research. O'Malley, V. Reportfor the Crown Forestl)1 Rental Trust on the East Coast COl?fiscatio11 Legis/ation and its implementation. CFRT, 1994, fl1 393. It is not clear, in the case of Maraetaha, whether Graham worked for Rongowhakaata, for Ngai Tahupo, or for both. 25 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 8 July 1869, P 92 26 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869, P 93 27 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869, p 96 28 Little seems to be known about William Smith Atkinson, other than his membership of the Atkinson family. He was appointed resident magistrate at Poverty Bay in 1869.
l2 which resolved this situation. Without evidence to the contrary, and in the absence of any
1 contemporary protest, we have to assume that this compromise was acceptable to both ( l Rongowhakaata and Ngai Tahupo interests. It was certainly acceptable to Rogan and Monro. They later than1ced Graham for his work in settling disputes of this kind in this
way.3D Thirdly, some of those who had claims to Maraetaha were defined as rebels - on
what basis we are not told. With the agreement of either one or both tribes, their claims
were moved elsewhere. The Crown Agent played a key role in the negotiations that
produced this particular outcome. Atkinson's instructions were that he was not to act
harshly towards former rebels who were now friendly, and who were making reasonable
claims on the land.3l In this case, while former rebels were being deprived of their rights
to ancestral land, they were being given land elsewhere. From a Pakeha perspective, this
would have seemed generous treatment.
) The Commission took no evidence on the completing claims to MaraetahaiTe Kuri, the
acts that were said to constitute rebellion or which would have identified those who had
allegedly committed these acts. It did take evidence concerning the Ngai Tahupo entitled
to claim an interest in Maraetaha.32 When introducing his list of Ngai Tahupo for this
southern portion, the Ngai Tahupo witness Mita Hamuera remarked that there had never
been 'any dispute as to our title of this pOliion of the block,?3 Rongowhakaata witnesses
also provided the Commission with their names for the nOlihern (Te Kuri) portion of
Maraetaha. One of them remarked that this was land formerly in dispute, but that it 'has
been now arranged,.34 Mita Hamuera (Ngai Tuhapo) said that some of the names given in
29 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869, P 95 30 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 10 August 1869 31 Richmond to Atkinson, 13 February 1869, NA file MA 62/8. RDB, vol 130, P 50164 32 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869, pp 94-95 33 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869, P 95 34 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869, P 96
13 I I by Rongowhakaata 'belong to our tribe Ngai Tuhapo also' .35 This comment is a direct
1 confirmation that the northern, Te Kuri, end of Maraetaha was an area of overlapping ( interests. It also indicates that the people living there, Rongowhakaata and Ngai Tuhapo, 1 had intermarried. Mo Pohatu gave evidence about this intermingling in 1919, when the
Court considered the ownership of Tangotete 2. 36
In any event, the larger southern area, henceforward known as Maraetaha, an area of about
13,798 acres, was granted to a list ofNgai Tahupo on 9 July 1869.37 The smaller northern
Te Kuri block, of about 800 acres, was awarded jointly to Ngai Tahupo and
Rongowhakaata on the same day. 38
2.2 Wherowhero
Wherowhero was the site of one of the first trading post in Poverty Bay.39 It was located in
the northern part of Te Kuri, on the Pakowhai boundary. It was one of the areas excluded
from the agreement between Rongowhakaata and Ngai Tahupo to split Maraetalla into a
larger southern pOliion and a smaller nOlihern area.40
On 9 July 1869 Graham told the Poverty Bay Commission that Wherowhero was land
claimed by George Read. 41 According to the evidence presented, the block was the joint
propeliy of Ngai Tahupo and Rongowhakaata. The Maori owners had agreed to transfer
title to Read once they themselves had obtained title. Additionally, both tribes had selected
35 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869, P 96 . 36 Gisborne MB, no 44,11 November 1919, p 325; Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistDlJi a/the Harouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 268 37 NA file MA 62/1. RDB, vol 128, p 49220-49921 38 NA file MA 62/1. RDB, vol 128, p 49222-49924 39 I-lair, A. Muriwai and Beyond. Gisborne, 1985, p 16 ,10 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869, p 96
14 trustees to fIrst receive the land and then convey it to Read. The block was awarded
accordingly on 9 July 1869.42 ( 1 The Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board purchased Wherowhero from its European
owner in 1928, and some years later, in 1943, title was transferred to the East Coast
Commission.43 The adjacent Te Kuri 1A block was purchased at the same time. The
Board paid £800 for the nearly 32 acres contained in the two parcels of land. In 1954
Wherowhero was transferred to the Proprietors of Pakowhai.44 It was subsequently
included in the Manutuke consolidation scheme as part of the newly created Pakowhai 2
block.
2.3 Pakowhai
This block, designated Pakowhai 1, containing 4,950 acres, came before the Commission
on 9 July 1869. It lay to the north of Te Kuri. The principal claimant was Himiona Riki.
He claimed to be Rongowhakaata, and resident at Muriwai.45 Riki and his supporters
claimed from an ancestor called Te Uhu, on the basis of possession and occupation.
According to Riki, no one disputed their title, and there were indeed no COlmter claimants.
After a hearing that cmmot have taken more than 15 minutes, the Commission awarded
Pakowhai to Himiona Riki and a list of 28 others. The majority of the nmnes on this list
do not appear on the ownership lists for any of the nearby blocks: Maraetaha, Te Kuri or
Tangotete. Other names on the Pakowhai list do appear on the lists for nem"by blocks.
41 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869, pp 98-99. Read married Noko Pahipa in 1873. The Dictiol1QlY of New Zealand Biography, vol 1, 1990, P 358. Noko was the principal Rongowhakaata, and unsuccessful, claimant to Tangotete. 42 NA file MA 62/2, Poverty Bay Commission Awards, 17 July 1869, A22. RDB, vol. 128, p 49162 43 Under-Secretary to Native Minister, 15 June 1928, NA file MA 111928/259; Board of Native Affairs, 24 February 1943, NA file MA 1119281259 4,1 CT 111/64
15 Rapata Te Whakapuhia, for example, gave evidence for Rongowhakaata during the
Tangotete hearing. He was one of the Wherowhero Rongowhakaata trustees and he was on the Rongowhakaata list for Te Kuri as well. Raharuhi Rukupo was another
Wherowhero Rongowhakaata trustees. He also received interests in Maraetaha and
Tangotete. At the 1919 hearing into Tangotete 2, Raharuhi was identified as Ngati
Kahutia, an affiliation confirmed by Halbert.46 It seems likely, however, that Raharuhi's inclusion among the Pakowhai owners was because of his Rongowhakaata heritage.
Tamihana Ruatapu was another of the Rongowhakaata trustees for Wherowhero. He was also on the Rongowhakaata list for Te Kuri. Rawiri Hokeke was one of the
Rongowhakaata owners of Tangotete 2. He was also one of the Rongowhakaata owners of Te Kuri. Other individuals on the Pakowhai list, men like Hemi Taka and Hoera
Ngaungau, seem to have been Ngai Tamanuhiri, judging by the way they were identified elsewhere. Pakowhai was evidently a district where, as was the case in some of the areas immediately to the south, intermingling had occlUTed. The main impression, however, is that Rongowhakaata held the predominant interest among the intermingled people who occupied Pakowhai in the 1860s. This in effect was the evidence laid before the Poverty
Bay Commission in 1869 and, as Himiona Riki said at the time, no one disputed their title.
These owners conveyed Pakowhai to the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company.
Title was issued to the Company in 1887.47 In the same year, 86 acres ofPakowhai were conveyed to Pene and Tarita Mataora, the successors of the Ngai Tamanuhiri chief Hami
Mataora. There was nothing in the files about the reason for the conveyance of this part of
Pakowhai to Ngai Tamanuhiri people. The residual land, the bulk ofPakowhai, passed in the 1890s to Carroll and Pere, and then into the hands of the East Coast Native Trust Lands
45 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869 46 Gisborne MB, no 44, 6 November 1991, P 320
16 Board. In 1905 the Board sold all but 374Y2 acres ofPalcowhai. The latter area (Lot 1
Palcowhai, DP 1359) was returned to an incorporation of owners in 1954, and subsequently
included in the Manutuke consolidation scheme as part of the newly created Pakowhai 2
block.
The 86 acres of Palcowhai conveyed to Pene and Tarita Mataora remained in their hands
until 1911. In that year Pene's interest in the block was vested in his successor Tru:ita
Mataora, and the whole block conveyed to a European.48
2.4 Wharetunoa
Wharetunoa was a small area of land, about one and a half acres, located on the western
side of Tangotete. On its seaward side, it was bound by the Wherowhero creek. The
Wharetunoa creek formed the inland boundary.49 The land came before the Poverty Bay ) Commission on 10 July 1869. The Ngai Tahupo evidence was that the land had been sold
to Joseph Rhodes for some blankets and items of clothing. No date for this sale was given.
The two men who had sold to Rhodes were still alive, but old and sick. Hami Mataora
spoke on their behalf. He said no one disputed the sale. 50 Atkinson and Graham had some
kind of conversation about Rongowhakaata's attitude, and Graham said that Maori knew
that the claims lying inside the external boundaries [of Te Kuri] were excluded from the
claim. This seems to mean that while some areas were in contention, Wharetunoa was not
one of them. In any event, Rhodes had his claim to Wharetunoa confirmed, although it
) 47 CT 20171 48 CT 22120 49 ML 493 50 Poverty Bay COlTIm ission MB, 10 J lily 1869, P 117
17 Wai 814 - n.hanis nov2000
100melres,
) .~.
,,' . . .
!' .'
':" -', .,...
. c Ed ~ .Tc;..rc::e/?g~c,.;/' ·S:LJ·.
Surveyed by .... .9.~:.1.t.:::~~... "''''."'" ...... I .. _ Chief . 8urveyor:.g~~~$H'"'''_'H''' DI'Bu/Jhtsma.n: M"~"'"'":~' .....~,...... ~~ Scale: ...... ;Zf!:...... Oha. ns to an Inaht;;'" ~ _/' Mrr~SI.:r--r"....(!/ . ., "<-Cr'''''' L '0 ~------,
Figure 3 : Wharetunoa block 1926 Source: eT7S/187
18 was 1926 before a certificate of title was issued. 51 At some stage, a road was laid though
Wharetunoa, reducing the total area by about a quarter of an acre. 52
2.5 Tangotete
Tangotete was the another area excluded from the agreement between Rongowhakaata and
Ngai Tahupo to split Maraetaha into a larger southern portion and a smaller northern
area. 53
Tangotete came before the Poverty Bay Commission on 10 July 1869. There were both
Ngai Talmpo and Rongowhakaata claimants. The Rongowhakaata claimant, Noko, was
explicitly identified as 'hauhau', but was not prevented from giving evidence. 54 A number
of Pakeha gave evidence as well.
) A majority of the witnesses agreed that a Pakeha, Peter Simpson had originally purchased
part of the block, and that Thomas Halbert had later taken over Simpson's land. 55 Halbert
had cropped the land for several years. Then, according to James Wilson, Halbert had sold
it to Hemi Mahuki. 56 Most of the witnesses agreed that Simpson and then HalbeIi owned
only about 5 acres of Tangotete. However, when this area was sold back around 1859, the
new Maori owners had a larger acreage surveyed, which caused conflict with
Rongowhakaata. 57
51 CT 75/187 52 CT 75/187 53 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869, P 96 54 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 10 July J 869, P 109 55 Details about Simpson can be found in Hair, A. Muriwai and Beyond. Gisborne, 1985, p 16 56 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 10 July 1869, plIO 57 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 10 July 1869
19 Grap'hlcal Representation Only Wa,814 ·n.hams nov2000
lOOm,lres
440yanJs Norlh
, L\ , , , l , i , Pakowhai Whero;.vhero \,
TeKuri 1 Te Kuri 1
Tangotete 2
Part Maraetaha Te Kuri a Paoa/ D P795 Young Nicks- Head Maraetaha
1km ! ,'! I I' I I , 440yd 880yd 1320yd 1m!s
on NZMS 260 shl Y18
Figure 4 . Muriwai district blocks
20 The Rongowhakaata witnesses, Noko and Rapata Te Whakapuhia, gave the only evidence
concerning the original Maori owners. Noko claimed from Hineteao, a Rongowhakaata ( l ancestor.58 It was her family, in addition, who had originally sold the land. She said, however, that Halbert had purchased the land, not Simpson. The other Rongowhalcaata 1 I witness, Rapata Te Whakapuhia, also agreed that Halbert had made the original purchase.
Hami Mataora, the Ngai Tahupo applicant, claimed Tangotete on the basis that he had
purchased the land from Thomas Halbert in 1859.59 TIns contradicted later evidence that
Hemi Mahuki had been the buyer, but confirmed the point that the land had been· re-
purchased by Ngai Tahupo interests.6o There seems to have been no evidence laid before
the Commission that Ngai Tahupo had an original interest in Tangotete.
Eventually, the Commission decided to divided Tangotete into Tangotete 1, an area of 5 ) acres, and Tangotete 2, an area of just lmder 73 acres. Both sections were awarded,
according to the Commission's records, to Ngai Tahupo.61 None of the grantees for
Tangotete 1 appear on the list of grantees for the adjacent Te Kuri block, although they do
appear on the list of owners for some of the other Ngai Tamanuhiri blocks. Two of the
grantees for Tangotete 2, Eruera RengaTenga and Te Teria Te Whakanguru, appears only
on that list, that is to say, neither received an interest in any other Ngai Tamanuhiri lands.
Another, Rapata Te Whakapuhia, gave evidence as Rongowhakaata. He was also one of
the Wherowhero Rongowhakaata trustees, and one of the grantees for Pakowhai. He was
on the Rongowhakaata list for Te Kuri as well. Raharuhi Rukupo was also one of the
Wherowhero Rongowhakaata trustees. He received an interest in Maraetaha as well. At
58 Halbert, R. Horouta: The His/Oly of the Floraula Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 275 59 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 10 July 1869, p 109 60 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 10 July 1869, plIO
21 the 1919 hearing into Tangotete 2, Raharuhi was identified as Ngati Kahutia, an affiliation
1 confirmed by Halbert. 62 Tamihana Ruatapu was another Wherowhero Rongowhakaata ( 1 trustee. He was also on the Rongowhakaata list for Te Kuri. Rawiri Hokeke was another of the Tangotete 2 grantees who was also on the Rongowhakaata list for Te Kuri. The Te
Kuri Rongowhakaata list had been put forward by Paora Kati and he had made it quite
clear who his list covered: 'These are all on the side of Rongowhakaata' . 63
The evidence given to the Commission did show that Rongowhakaata had an interest in
Tangotete. This was also the case in Te Kuri, which surrounded Tangotete, and in the
nearby Wherowhero block. In the case of both Te Kuri and Wherowhero the two tribes
had reached settlement of their respective interests outside. They simply carne before the
Commission to get approval for the an-angements they had made. Tangotete was different.
There was no prior agreement. The parties argued their claims before the Commission. ) For the first time, there was a public dispute over Ngai Tarnanuhiri's rights to land, and an
appeal to the Pakeha commission to settle the argument.
Subsequently, the larger Tangotete 2 block was awarded to a list of grantees identified as
Ngai Tahupo, but including people of Rongowhakaata or with links to Rongowhakaata.
Assuming that the list of grantees for Tangotete 2 was drawn up by the pmties, and that it
was the parties who identified themselves as Ngai Tahupo, one could perhaps draw the
conclusion that it contained individuals who, for the purposes of Tangotete, considered
themselves Ngai Tahupo. For the purpose of Wherowhero, and Te Kuri, on the other hand,
these individuals considered themselves Rongowhakaata. Another possibility is that the
61 NA file MA 62/2,PovertyBayCommissionAwards, 17July1869,A31,A32. RDB, vol 128, pp49176- 49177 62 Gisborne MB, no 44, 6 November 1991, p 320; Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistOlY of the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 268
22 Tangotete 2 owners wished to conceal the fact that some of them belonged to, or had links
with, Rongowhakaata, a tribe tainted in the eyes ofthe Crown as 'hauhau'. Noko, the main I Rongowhakaata claimant to Tangotete, for example, did not appear on the list of grantees. Noko had been explicitly identified as 'hauhau' during the hearing, and this was probably
the reason she was excluded. Has she been included, the list of grantees might been
subject to close scrutiny. As presented, however, it contained only people identified as
Ngai Tahupo, and Ngai Tahupo had a reputation for loyalty.
These scenarios are not mutually exclusive. It was Crown policy that each block of land
must have identified owners. Add to this the genealogical complexities created by the
ability of Maori to identify with different ancestors, something very evident among the
people who lived on the northern part of Te Kuri block. Mix in the added pressure that it
was official policy that 'hauhau' interests in land would not be recognised. The Tangotete if ') \, ' result satisfied both of the Crown's requirements. There was a single list of owners, all of
whom were said to be Ngai Tahupo, a tribe wellimown for its loyalty. Underlying this
was a Maori reality: people who could claim membership of both Ngai Tahupo and
Rongowhakaata.
Both of the Tangotete blocks came before the Comi in 1910, for definition ofinterest.64 In
the case of the smaller, 5 acre, Tangotete 1 block, the people had worked out an
arrangement of their own. However, they wanted this arrangement to be provisional while
some undefined matter to do with Maraetaha 1D was settled. 65 A list of 12 names was
63 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869, P 99 64 According to the East Coast Commissioner, many of the Ngai Tal11anuhiri blocks lacked up-to-date lists of their beneficial owners. He set out to rectify this situation. AJHR, 1909, G-8, P 2 65 Hearings to determine interests were held in respect of both Te Kuri and Maraetaha I D in 1914. In neither case do the MBs contain legible text.
23 I
1 handed in and provisionally accepted by the Court.66 One of those present pointed out that
1 there were houses at Tangotete owned by people 'not now' in the title, and asked that the [ Commissioner be directed to pre~erve the rights of these people over their houses.67 Wi Pere was present, and said that this difficulty could be got around if it was possible to treat
the two blocks as one.68 No one else had anything to say or, if they did, it was not
recorded.
The Comi then tm-ned its attention to the larger Tangotete 2 block. Again, a provisional
list of owners had been drawn up. There was some objection to this list, and the matter
was stood down for a day, so that the objector could prepare a submission.69 The next day,
the objection was withdrawn, the list was read out twice, there were no further objections,
and the list of 75 names was provisionally passed. 7o
In 1919, on the initiative of the East Coast Commissioner, the beneficial ownership of
Tangotete 1 and 2 was investigated again. The matter came up first on 31 July 1919. A
lawyer had been engaged, and he repOlied to the Court that the interested pmiies were
holding meetings, with a view to coming to some sort of arrangement. 71 The Court
decided to hold the case over. Nothing seems to have come of these meetings, and at the
end of October 1919 the Comi began to hear evidence. There were a number of
claimants, and they based their claims variously on ancestral rights, occupation, or descent
from one of the original grantees. Some argued that those who had rights in Te Kuri
66 Gisborne MB, no 36, 10 June 1910, p 64 67 Gisborne MB, no 36, 10 June 1910, P 64 68 Gisborne MB, no 36, 10 June 1910, P 64 69 Gisborne MB, no 36, 10 June 1910, P 65 70 Gisborne MB, no 36, 11 June 1910, P 67 71 Gisborne MS, no 44, 31 July 1919, p 222
24 I I ought to be admitted into Tangotete as well, since the two blocks had originally been part .\ of the same block. f One witness remarked that in the old days the war pa were on Pakowhai and Wherowhero,
while the residential pa were on Te Kuri and Maraetalla.72 Evidence given before the
Poverty Bay Commission suggests that by the 1860s Rongowhakaata held the dominant
interest in Palcowhai and important interests in Wherowhero and Tangotete. This later
piece of evidence suggests that the boundary between Rongowhakaata and N gai
Tamanuhiri had originally been north of Palcowhai.
Another witness stated that the descendants of Tamanuhiri and Rongowhalcaata had
intermarried on the block, and that the name Ngai Tahupo was how these merged people
had been known. They had been 'all practically one family,.73 Another included
\. ) Rongowhalcaata among those who had occupation rights on Te Kuri.74
The COUli decided that the original grantees for the small Tangotete 1 block were the
original owners: the land had not been given to them in trust for anyone else. 75 In the case
of Tangotete 2, the COUli found that the original grantees, whom the Court understood to
have been both Ngai Tahupo and Rongowhalcaata, were trustees for themselves and others:
anyone who could show they were represented by one of the 1869 trustees could get in.
The difficulty was that some of the original trustees had sold their interests to Jolmson.
Then, in the exchange of lands that had occurred in 1880, some who had not sold their
lands in the adjacent Te Kuri block were nonetheless dispossessed, while all of the
72 Gisborne MB, no 44,5 November 1919, p 319 ) 7J Gisborne MB, no 44, 7 November 1919, p 325. Te Pera Waaka gave the more traditional account of the origins of this name, fi'om the cremation ofKoroiti. Gisborne MB, no 44,4 November 1919, p 317 74 Gisborne MB, no 44, 7 November 1919, p 326
25 I I interests previously sold in Tangotete were returned to Maori. This had created a situation
1 that was now very difficult to unravel, and all the Court could do was to try to make a fair
and equitable adjustment. It then listed the owners of Tangotete 2. 76
These two blocks were among the blocks that became trust blocks, successively under the
control of Wi Pere and W L Rees, the New Zealand Native Land Trust, Wi Pere and James
Carroll, the East Coast Board and then, finally, the East Coast Commissioner.
Dr Katherine Orr-Nimmo has covered the history of the Commissioner's administration of
the land tmder his control, and it is not proposed to repeat that work in this report. 77 In
1954 the Tangotete blocks were among the lands transferred by the East Coast
Commissioner to various incorporations of owners. It is not proposed to cover the post-
1954 history of the two blocks in question. )
75 Gisborne MB, no 44, 7 November 1919, p 327 76 Gisborne MB, no 44, 7 November 1919, p 330 77 Orr-Nimmo, Katherine W. Report/or the Crown ForeSl!y Rental Trust on the East Coast Maori Trust. CFRT,1997
26 I 1
1 Chapter 3 I ( Legislative Confusion 1869-1874 [ There was confusion during the late 1860s and early 1870s about exactly what Maori land
legislation applied in Poverty Bay. W L Rees, for example, thought in the late 1860s that
the 1867 Native Land Act applied in the district. 78 Daly says it did not.79 According to
her, the operative land legislation in Poverty Bay between 1866 and 1874 was the 1865
Native Lands Act, as specified in section 2 of the East Coast Land Titles Investigation Act,
1866. 80 This legislation was replaced by the East Coast Act, 1868, but G R Johnson
wondered (in 1872) if this latter legislation was actually in force in Poverty Bay.81 Murton
says, more or less, that the land acts did not apply in Poverty Bay between 1869 and 1873,
when the area was subject to the provisions of the Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869.82 Jolm
Cumin, from the Crown Law Office, gave McLean an opinion in 1872 that favours
Million's position. According to Cumin, if the Govermnent wished to establish common
tenancy as the rule for land granted under the Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869, it would have
to amend that act accordingly. Similarly, if the Government wished to make provision for
the paIiition of land granted under the Poveliy Bay GraIlts Act, 1869, it would, again, have
to amended that act, to the effect that the relevant clauses of the Native Lands Act, 1865,
applied. 83 The Native GraIltees Act, 1873, was intended to apply to Poveliy Bay, but this
was legislation with lllaI1Y exceptions. So many, according to Daly, that the question of
78 AJHR, 1891, Session 2, 1-3A, P 6 79 Daly, S. Poverty Bay. Waitangi Tribunal, 1997, p 98 80 Daly, S. Poverty Bay. Waitangi Tribunal, 1997, pp 125-126. This legislation (and its 1867 amendment) was repealed in 1868, by the East Coast Act. 81 Johnson to Secretary for Crown Lands, 3 September, 1872, AJLC, 1872, no 9, p 2 82 MUlton, B. Te Aitanga-A-Mahaki 1860-1960. The Economic and Social Experience of a People. (Draft) CFRT,1999,Part2,p58 83 Cumin to McLean, 18 December 1872, NA file MA 6217. ROB, vol 129, P 49831. See also AJHR, 1891, G-I, P 170
27 whether the legislation did or did not apply was frequently debated in court cases during
the 1880S84
G R Johnson was one of those who questioned the legality of a sitting of the Land Court in 1 ! , Gisborne in 1870, proceedings retrospectively validated by the Poverty Bay Land Titles
Act, 1874. 85 This particular episode suggests that even the Government of the day did not
know (or perhaps did not care) what legislation applied to Poverty Bay land. If the
Government did not lUlderstand what law applied, how could Maori, or Poverty Bay
Pal 3.1 The Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869 The Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869, enabled the Governor to issue Crown grants to those Maori awarded land by the Poverty Bay Commission. According to Wi Pere, about 150,000 acres of land were eventually covered by the Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869. 86 This included the lands granted wholly or in part to Ngai Tamanuhiri in 1869: Maraetaha, Te Kuri and Tangotete. Titles issued under this legislation listed the names of all of the owners (grantees), and established joint tenancies. This meant that each owner had an equal share, rather than a share detennined on the basis of customary right. These shares could not be passed on to descendants. When someone died, his or her share passed to the remaining grantees. The other thing to be noted about these grants is that no restrictions were placed on them: the land could be leased, or alienated, at will. 84 Daly, S. Poverty Bay. Waitangi Tribunal, 1997, p 130 85 Joshua Cuffwas another. His point was that native title had been extinguished by the Crown's acceptance of the 1868 cession. The Court's jurisdiction was over native land, which the ceded lands were no longer. The Court could not therefore investigate these lands, or issue titles to them. Cuff to Unknown, 24 December 1870, NA file MA 6217. RDB, vol 129, P 49758. Another question followed on from this. Did the provisions ofthe Native Land Acts apply to granted lands that had not been granted by the Land Court? K6 AJHR, 1884, Session 2,0-4, P 14 28 3.2 Joint Tenancy There was nothing in the Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869 that specified that grants made I under this legislation had to be joint tenancies. Joint tenancy awards had been the standard practice of the Land Court since 1865, but on the same day that the Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869, was passed, the Native Lands Act was amended, doing away with joint tenancy grants. 87 Why joint tenancy grants continued to be made in Poverty Bay after 1869 is a mystery. It may have something to do with the fact that the applicable land legislation in Poverty Bay between 1866 and 1874 was the 1865 Native Lands Act, as specified in section 2 of the East Coast Land Titles Investigation Act, 1866. Grants made under this legislation (Native Lands Act, 1865) were virtually identical to those made under the Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869, that is to say, the grantees were joint tenants with equal shares. The Poverty Bay grants, however, usually included all of the owners, not just the 10 prescribed by the 1865 Native Lands Act. Tangotete 2 was one of the exceptions to this rule. There were only 10 names listed when the Poverty Bay Commission awarded tIns block. The Land Court decided in 1919 that these 10 were trustees. They were not the sole owners of Tangotete 2. 88 Poverty Bay Maori did not understand, in 1869, the nature of the awards made by the Poverty Bay Commission. It was not until the grants had been issued (early in 1871) that the significance of what had been done became apparent to them. 89 The Govermnent soon heard what Poverty Bay Maori thought about this form of tenure. Riperata Kahutia wrote to the Native Minister in December 1872. 90 She said that in many cases she had been 87 Native Lands Act, 1869, section 12 88 Gisborne MB, no 44, 7 November 1919, p 327 89 Poverty Bay Grants Act Amendment Act, 1871, second schedule. 90 Riperata Kahutia was a prominent member ofTe Aitanga-a-Mahaki, with strong links to. Rongowhakaata. She was a principal owners of land in and around Gisborne township, and held land elsewhere as well. The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 2, 1993, pp 249-250 29 J deprived of three-quarters of the land to which she was entitled. The land she had been granted could not be left to her heirs. She said that Poverty Bay Maori had never been told ( 91 I that when the land was returned, it would be in the form ofjoint tenancies. Earlier, in July 1872, Tucker had written to McLean on behalf of 'many' of the Poverty Bay Maori. He said that Maori had been advised to include as many names as possible when blocks were passed through the Commission, in order to secure a firm grip on the land. 92 They had done this, expecting that individual shares would eventually be determined on the basis of customary rights: But to the great amazement of the natives when the Crown Grants appeared it was found that they had been constituted Joint Tenants - though they had always imagined that the proving of claims before the Commission was merely a preliminary step and that before the issue of Crown Grants they would have to settle each man's boundaries and acreage according to descent and hereditary claims . which would have been just.. But through the arbitrary manner in which the Crown Grants have been issued they are all equal owners, it is impossible to defme any man's land and their children or nearest of kin do not inherit Now the natives' argument is this. We gave up our lands for a time with full faith that the Government would perform their promise and return them: they have not done so; they have only ) returned us a portion of our possessions and that small right they have given us, we cannot leave to our children. It is given back in such a manner as to be almost useless to us - is this justice? Is this giving us our lands back; no it is making a present of our lands to our slaves and leaving our children paupers.93 Tucker thought that an injustice had been down. He believed that where one of the joint tenants had sold his or her interest, the buyer would have to get the equal share of the block he had purchased. But the balance of the land remaining should be divided among the remaining owners according to 'hereditary right' and a Crown grant given to each man for his pmiicular portion. G R Jolmson, the brother of James, supported what Tucker had to say.94 He told the Secretary of Crown Lands in September 1872 that: the Maoris ... maintain that, according to the intention of[the] deed [of cession], the lands returned to them ... should be held ... in the same proportions, as nearly as possible, as they were held previously to the cession, and not in equal shares; - that such lands should be subject to the ordinary course of 91 Riperata Kahutia to Native Minister, 12 December 1872, NA file MA 62/7. RDB, vol 129, pp 49818- 49820. See also comments by Wi Pere, AJHR, 1884, Session 2, G-4, pp 13-14 92 Petera Honotapu and others to McLean, 12 December 1872, NA file MA 62/7. RDB, vol ]29, P 4982l. See also comment by Wi Pere, AJHR, 1884, Session 2, G-4, P 14 93 Tucker to Native Minister, 30 July] 872, NA file MA 62/7. RDB, vol 129, pp 49833-49834 9,1 So did Turton. Turton to Ormond, 23 February 1873, NA file MA 62/7. RDB, vol 129, pp 49813-49817 30 descent, and not to the rules of "survivorship;" - and that the large blocks should be subdivided and the claims individualized; ... and, further, that the names of many men who have no just claim to the lands in question have been wrongfully inserted in the Crown grants.95 I· [ The ostensible purpose of Johnson's letter was to call to the Government's attention the dissatisfaction of Poverty Bay Maori with the way in which the return of the ceded land was being managed. But Pakeha concerns, if not just the concerns of George Johnson and his brother James, were very evident in the letter as well. It was Jolmson's belief, for example, that the nature of the tenure created by the Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869, would discourage any further applications to the Poverty Bay Commission. As a result, land title in the Poverty Bay district would 'rema!n in doubt for a considerable time to come,.96 Johnson was particularly concerned about the impact this would have on pastoral farming. According to Johnson, almost all of the ungranted land in question was hilly, and lU1suitable for agriculture. He said Poverty Bay Maori wanted to lease out this land as pasture. He said there were Pakeha who wanted to take up these leases. The only thing preventing this development, according to Johnson, was the 'want of title, and the consequent insecurity under any agreement,.97 Jolmson though that the ungranted land should be returned at once, and Crown granted to the owners as tenants in common, with 'defined propOliionate interests' .98 It is possible that George had his brother's situation in mind in particular. By the early 1870s, James Johnson leased most of the Ngai Tamanuhiri lands awarded by the Poverty Bay Commission. But if he wanted to extend his pasture any fhrther, he could not do so easily. All of the sUlTounding land awarded by the Commission was already leased. There 95 Johnson to Secretmy for Crown Lands, 3 September, 1872, AJLC, 1872, no 9, p 1 96 Johnson to Secretary for Crown Lands, 3 September, 1872, AJLC, 1872, no 9, p 2 97 10hnson to Secretary for Crown Lands, 3 September, 1872, AJLC, 1872, no 9, p 2 98 Johnson to Secretary for Crown Lands, 3 September, 1872, AJLC, 1872, no 9, p 1 31 was unawarded land to the west, but these lands had, from a Pakeha legal perspective, no identified owners. No identified owners, no one with whom Johnson could arrange leases. ( l If Maori declined to take their lands through the Commission, (which they did decline to do in 1873), then these lands would remain without legally defined owners. Leasing in I such a situation might not be illegal, but the lease would have questionable legal status, and give the leaseholder little or no security of tenure. The Native Department accepted that something needed to be done about the Poverty Bay land grants. A legal opinion was obtained.99 This said that legislation was unnecessary. Joint tenants, while they could not will their interests, could dispose of them during their lifetimes by sale, by placing them in the hands of trustees, or by gifting them to their heirs. Land held under tIns form of tenure could also be partitioned, if all of the tenants agreed to that. But nothing could be done about the equality of interest: this was inherent in the ) nature of the grants that been made. It was decided to write to Tucker, Johnson and others who had raised the issue of the joint tenancies, including Riperata Kahutia. 10o Extracts from the legal opinion, detailing the remedies open to those who held land as joint tenants, were enclosed. They were asked to pass this information on to interested partips. The Govemment was prepared to concede that a blunder might have been made, but Poverty Bay Maori were to be left to fix it up themselves. No one was prepared to accept blame for the joint tenancy grants. Commissioner Momo said the matter should be referred to Beale, who was the chief surveyor for the Auckland province and also the colonial inspector of surveys. 101 It was in Beale's office that the 99 Prendergast to Under Secretary of Native Affairs, 17 March 1873, NA file HB 3/5. RDB, vol 131, pp 50613-50614; NA file MA 6217. RDB, vol 129, pp 49802-49803 100 Lewis to Cooper, 19 March 1873, NA file MA 6217, RDB, vol 129, p 49802 101 II Dictiol1WY of New Zealand Biography, vol. 1, 1940, P 372 32 grants had been prepared. 102 Heale said the draft grants went to the Native Minister and the Secretary for Crown Lands for approval.103 Prendergast was the Attorney General. l04 He said the Crown Lands Department, in the absence of any direction from the Poverty Bay Commission, had no option but to issue grants establishing equality of shares. lOS. The real problem, according to John Cumin, Crown Law Office, was the Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869. This legislation did not define the nature of the grants to be issued. 106 One of the difficulties in dealing with the situation, from the Government's point of view, was that some of the land concerned had been sold. Indeed, the Poverty Bay Grants Amendment Act, 1871, was passed to validate the transactions that had occurred between 1869, when the Poverty Bay Commission made its awards, and 1871, when the Crown grants for the land were issued. Retrospective legislation, establishing unequal shares in the granted lands, would cut across the property rights of those who had purchased any of the land in question. 107 Tucker was well aware of this. He believed that where a sale had been made, the buyer must receive the equal share of the block he or she had purchased. But the' balance of the land remaining should be divided among the non-sellers according to 'hereditary right'. 108 In other words, the owners should be tenants in common, with defined and, if necessary, unequal rights. This had been the standard practice in other parts of New Zealand since 1869. 102 Monro to Fenton, 10 September 1872, NA file MA 6217. RDB, vol 129, p 49837 103 Heale to Fenton, 10 September 1872, NA file MA 6217. RDB, vol 129, pp 49837-49838 104 A Dictional)' o/New Zealand Biography, vol 2, 1940, P 184 105 Prendergast to Under Secretary of Native Affairs, 17 March 1873, NA file MA 6217. RDB, vol 129, p 49803 ( lOG Curnin to McLean, 18 December 1872, NA file MA 6217. RDB, vol 129, P 49829. At this time, John Curnin was in the Crown Law Office. AJHR, 1891, G-l, P 170 107 Ormond to Colonial Secretary, ? NA file MA 6217. RDB, vol 129, p 49811 108 Tucker to Native Minister, 30 July 1872, NA file MA 6217. RDB, vol 129, pp 49833-49834 I I The Government may have intended to deal with the joint tenancy problem at a sitting of 1 the Poverty Bay Commission.109 When this sitting finally got underway in August 1873, Commissioner Monro reputedly promised that any orders made during that session would describe the grantees as tenants in common, and not as joint tenants. Moreover, grants imposing joint tenancy could be surrendered, and new ones, creating common tenancy, issued. 110 But Maori were no longer prepared, for a number of reasons, to sit silently while the Commission carried on. Within a day or so the session collapsed in disarray. The courtroom had to be cleared and the doors locked. III The Commission did sit again later that year. It made little progress. By the end of 1873, the policy of investigating and returning the ceded lands block by block, claimant by claimant, had been abandoned. Instead, the remaining land was simply handed back, in several large blocks, to iwi. Legislation passed in 1874 placed this land within the jurisdiction of the Land COurt. 112 From that year, the Native Land Act, 1873, was the law that applied to Poverty Bay land. In 1873, the Government had also adopted the course advocated by Tucker and others. The Native Grantees Act, 1873, replaced joint tenancy with conunon tenancy in the grants that had been made in Poverty Bay. 113 Land that had been already leased, sold or mortgaged was, however, excepted, and so were grants that had been expressly made as joint tenancies. These exceptions may mean that the legislation, in practice, had little effect. This was celiainly the case with the Ngai Tamanuhiri land awarded by the Poveliy Bay Commission. By 1873 it was either leased or sold. It fell outside the ambit of the Native Grantees Act, 1873. 109 Memo by Locke, 2 December 1872, NA file MA 62/7. RDB, vol 129, p 49836 110 Poverty Bay Standard, 16 August 1873 111 Poverty Bay Standard, 16 August 1873 112 Poverty Bay Land Titles Act, 1874. 113 The act did not apply to grants made under the 1865 Native Land Act or its amendments, or the 1873 Native Land Act, or in certain other circllmstances. 34 Chapter 4 Maraetaha 1869-1880 In 1869 James Woodbine Johnson leased MaraetahaY4 Johnson was born in 1833, and educated in England. He arrived in New Zealand via Australia in 1867, and almost immediately' moved to Poverty Bay. The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography shows that Johnson became a man of some importance in the district. A JP, a chairman of the county council, a captain of militia, a member of the Auckland Provincial Council (1873- 1 1875) and, among other things, president of the Poverty Bay Turf Club. 15 His entry in the Dictionary is linked to that of Sir Maui Pomare. Pomare's entry records that Lady Pomare was a daughter of James Woodbine Johnson and Mere Hape. Mere Hape is described as a chieftainess of N gati Kahlillgunu. 116 Halbert's genealogies indicate that Mere Hape was of Rongowhakaata descent on her father's side and a descendant of Tamanuhiri on her ) mother's side.1I7 This does not, of course, exclude a link to Ngati KahunglillU as well. The entree into Maori society that James Woodbine obtained via Mere Hape was probably an asset when it came to buying land. On the other hand, it may also have placed him under an obligation to deal fairly with people who were, after all, his relations as well as his neighbours. James had a younger brother, George Randall Johnson. George arrived in New Zealand either with James, or soon after. The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography notes that George was, in his younger days, a fine cricket player. Trained as a lawyer he became, so 114 The Johnson deed is Deed no 6057, Deed Book 4D, p 468, LINZ, Gisbome. This deed, dated 1 September 1869, is between James Woodbine Johnson and Mita Hamuera and a long list of other Maraetaha owners. The deed was registered in June 1871. 115 A DiclionCIIY ofNew Zealand Biography, vall, 1940, p 438 116 A DictioncllY ofNew Zealand Biography, vol 2, 1940, P 176 117 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistolY of the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 265 35 it would appear, the minor partner in the Johnson family's Maraetaha pastoral enterprise. He did not, for example, co-sign the 1869 lease, but he was recorded as the purchaser, usually with his brother, of some of the Maori interests that formed the foundation of the Maraetaha estate. II8 He held some leases elsewhere in Poverty Bay in his own right as welL In 1872 he became a member of the Legislative Council, where he was well placed to promote the interests of Poverty Bay Pakeha if he was inclined to do so. He remained a member lmtil1892, when he retired to live in Norfolk, England. He died in 1919. 119 According to evidence given by Hemi Waaka to the Native Affairs Committee in 1891, James leased most of the Ngai Tamanuhiri lands awarded by the Poverty Bay Commission. 12o Johnson and his brother George, together with Charles Westrup, had also began to purchase interests in these leased blocks. We do not know a great deal about these purchases - usually little more than the vendor's name, the date of the purchase, and ) possibly the amount that was paid - and almost nothing about the motivations of the Maori vendors in particular cases. We do know that all of the land in question had been granted under the Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869. While there was no provision under this legislation for the partitioning of land, grants under this legislation were for a lmown area, and granted equally to a lmown list of grantees or owners. This amounted to a defacto definition of interest, and it was enough to allow a market for these lands to develop. We also lmow that the 1869 Poveliy Bay Grants Act gave grantees only a life interest in the land. If one of them wished to make some provision for his or her children, the only 118 Pohatu Petition, 1928, NA file MA I ND 5/13/93 119 A DictionCllJ' o/New Zealand Biography, vol 1, 1940, P 438 36 obvious way was to sell their interest. This was in fact part of the advice that the 1 Government passed on to Poverty Bay Maori in 1873. 121 No doubt some had already followed this course of action before 1873, and others probably did so after that date. We also lmow that the lists of owners for each block were inflated, in order to create a better appearance when land was taken through the Commission. W H Tucker said this had been done, and for that reason. 122 G R Jolmson said the same. 123 But there was no opportunity to adjust lists or shares subsequently. The result was that some individuals who had little or no claim to land emerged with the same share as men and women who had important customary rights. 124 This is probably what Tucker was talking about when he said Poverty Bay Maori regarded the grants that had been made as 'malting a present of our lands to our slaves'. I25 Those who had received a windfall benefit of this ltind would have cashed it in as soon as they possibly could. There are letters extant that indicate that this is precisely what happened. 126 4.1 Early Sales The bare details of some of the post-1869 sales of Ngai Tamanuhiri land have been located. \27 The Native Lands Act, 1865, was the operative legislation in Poverty Bay at the 120 AJHR, 1891, Session 2, 1-3A, P 6 121 Lewis to Cooper, 19 March 1873, NA file MA 62/7, RDB, vol 129, p 49802 122 William Henry Tucker took part in the Poverty Bay campaign's against Te Kooti, up to the action at Ngatapa in 1969. Thereafter he worked as a licensed interpreter in the Land Court. He was active in local government: a JP, member of the first Gisborne borough council, mayor for a two years, and a member of the harbour board. He was a member of the Legislative Council 1907-1914. A Dictiol7aJ)' of Ne"w Zealand Biography, vol 2, 1940, P 397 123 Johnson to Secretary for Crown Lands, 3 September, 1872, AJLC, 1872, no 9, p 1 124 Riperata Kahutia to Native Minister, 12 December 1872, NA file MA 62/7. RDB, vol 129, p 49820 125 Tucker to Native Minister, 30 July 1872, NA file MA 62/7. RDB, vol 129, pp 49833-49834 126 Petera Honotapu and others to McLean, 12 December 1872, NA file MA 62/7. RDB, vol 129, p 49821; Eparaima Te Angahiku and others to McLean, 30 November 1872, NA file MA 62/7. RDB, vol 129, p 49825 127 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, 1871-1878,20 May 1872, p 274; Gisborne Trust Commission MB, 1871-1878, 31 October 1871, P 280; Gisborne Trust Commission MB, 1871-1878, 31 May 1872, p 288; Pohatu Petition, 1928, NA file MAl ND 5/13/93 37 time. This legislation provided that land could be leased or sold, but without specifying exactly how it could be purchased, or what constituted a valid lease. But section 75 of the ( I 1865 Act explicitly warned that there should be no dealing in land before a certificate of title had been issued. This meant that Poverty Bay land purchases between 1869, when the Commission awarded the land, and 1871, when certificates of title were finally issued, were 'absolutely void' .128 While none of the identified Jolmson Ngai Tamanuhiri purchases seem to fall into tIns category, some must have and there were plenty of others elsewhere in Poverty Bay that did. These purchases were validated by the Poverty Bay Grants Amendment Act, 1871. After the issue of title documents in 1871, dealing in Ngai Tamanuhiri land was legal in as far as it conformed to the requirements of the 1865 Native Lands Act. There were some safeguards in this legislation. For example, land sales had to take place before a judge or a justice of the peace. 129 After 1867, an interpreter, or any 'male adult', could attest to the bonafide nature of a conveyance. l3O This was a less rigorous test. Inevitably, illegal and doubtful sales occurred more easily after 1867 than before. While the 1867 Native Lands Act did not apply to Poverty Bay, this aspect of it may have been implemented in practice. But even if the 1867 legislation was not in force in Poverty Bay, it was in other parts of New Zealand. This had a flow-on effect, the Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1870. This last piece oflegislation did apply in Poverty Bay. 4.2 Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1870 The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1870, was passed because, quoting from its preamble, there was 'reason to believe that frauds and abuses are practiced in cOlmection 128 Native Lands Acts, 1865, section 75 129 Native Lands Acts, 1865, section 74 38 with the alienation of land'. 131 According to this legislation, no alienation of land to a private party was valid if it was contrary to equity and good conscience, or to the terms of any trust covering the land. Nor were transactions valid if alcohol or arms and ammunition were part of the consideration. 132 The Commissioners appointed under this Act had to inquire into the validity of alienations. They had to determine if the various parties understood the nature of the transaction, satisfy themselves that any consideration paid was of a legal kind, and that it had actually been paid. They also had to be satisfied that the Maori making the sale retained sufficient land for their support. I33 The 1870 legislation did protect the interests of Maori, but it was protection with a small 'p'. The instructions issued to the commissioners appointed to administer the act told them not to let any 'scmpulous anxiety' about preventing inequitable bargains interfere with the object of the legislation, which was to endorse legitimate transactions. 134 This seems to mean that the Tmst Commissioners were to reject only the most blatantly fraudulent alienations. Johnson used the frauds prevention legislation to validate some of his pre-1873 purchases of interests in Maraetaha, Pakowhai, Te Kuri and Tangotete. 135 He continued to buy interests after 1873. 136 These later purchases were sanctioned by the 1873 Native Land Act, and were also subject to the approval of the Trust Commissioners. There is no evidence that Jolmson's purchases, either before or after 1873, involved fraud. He did attempt to get the land at the lowest price possible, and he was almost celiainly able to take advantage of the situation created by the joint tenancy grants, but there was nothing unusual in this behaviour. 130 Native Lands Act, 1869, section 32 131 Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1870, preamble 132 Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1870, section 5 ) 133 Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1870, section 5 134 AII-JR, 1871, G-7A. 135 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, 1871-1878, pp 274, 280, 288 136 Petition 256/28 John Pohatu and others, 1928. NA file MA I ND 5/13/93 39 4.3 Native Land Act, 1873 From 1874 the Native Land Act, 1873, applied in Poverty Bay. This legislation permitted land sales, provided all of the owners agreed, and the Court was satisfied as to the 'justice and fairness', of the transaction. 137 There was also provision for partition of land between sellers and non-sellers if there was evidence of dissent or disagreement among the owners about a sale. 138 In practice, it was always very difficult to get the consent of every owner, and even to get the consents of a majority of the owners, which was the threshold for partition, could take far more time than the legislation seems to have anticipated. Few private purchasers tried to obtain the consent of every owner. Nor did they generally attempt to complete a purchase in a timely fashion. Instead, they bought interests as and when they could, sometimes protecting their investment by squatting on the land. If a would-be purchaser could acquire a lease over the land first, as Johnson did, then this gave them a considerable advantage. First, their status as the leaseholder legitimated their ) occupation and use of the land. Second, any other would-be purchaser would have to acquire not only the remaining Maori interests, but also buyout the leaseholder as well. In fact, Johnson did not have to rely simply on his status as leaseholder to give him an edge in the competition for the land. He built an overwhelming advantage into his 1869 lease: those who signed it were obliged to give Johnson the first option if they wanted to sell their interest. Moreover, they had to sell at the lowest price they were prepared to accept. 139 4.4 Maraetaha Lease 1869 Jolmson's 1869 lease gave him more than the right to run stock on the land. For example, it said Johnson or his agents could take timber from the land, for fences and buildings. They also had the right to shoot pigs and dogs when necessary. Nor did the lease entirely 137 Section 59, Native Land Act, 1873 138 Section 59, Native Land Act, 1873 40 exclude Ngai Tamanuhiri from the land, at least at fIrst. They were entitled to maintain cultivations within the leased area, but once these were abandoned, Johnson had the right to sow pasture over them. These cultivation sites could not then be re-occupied by N gai Tamanuhiri. IfNgai Tamanuhiri were following the normal pattern of cropping particular places for a few years, and then letting the land recover for a few more years before they resumed cultivation, this provision meant that they would eventually have no cultivations within the leased area. The fIrst option right granted to Johnson allowed him to effectively set the price for the land. And once a portion was sold, there was provision for a reduction in the rent. There were so many advantages for Johnson built into this lease that one wonders why Ngai Tamanuhiri signed it. But sign it they did: there are possibly more than 100 signatures on the lease agreement. 140 Despite these advantages Johnson was not able to buy all of the interests in Maraetaha or ) the sUTI"ounding blocks. But he did acquire a substantial interest. His objective, according to Hemi Waaka, was to consolidate the various interests he had acquired in the four blocks concerned (Maraetaha, Pakowhai, Te Kuri and Tangotete) into a single holding, preferably on Maraetaha. To obtain this result he was prepared to return the interests acquired in the other three blocks. 139 Deed 6057, Deeds Book 4D, p 468f, LlNZ, Gisborne 140 The names of those who signed the deed were recorded without punctation. Nor are the names easy to decipher. The names appear to be as follows: Mita Hamuera Te Waka te Waituhi Paora Tongara MaIm Ngaranginui Rutene Kiwa Matu Hoohai Tikiherine Tukine Wiremu Paehoki Maire Pani Rawena Ropaike Maora Hinetuhia Nopera Rangitahuia Hepeu Wa Miriama Waihi Ema Morm"o Te Matenga IwaKareaho Hakaraia Rangituhi Raharuhi Rukupo Hirini Kurari Hoera Ngaung Hireni Te Kani Paera te Apata Mata Newenga Tamati Pooka Wiremu Pere Himiona Hape Wiremu Hiko Marara te Kahuk Mara Mohanga Kaipau Hemi Taka Wiremu Paretipua Motu Tuamahi Ema Kino Karonema te Horotai Wiremu Tarapato Raihana te Aopapa Hare Wahia Tauahu te Amoko Heni Tuoruinanu Hana te Wharekeu Paora Reweti Haraita Tepapa Rip Wharepuro Panuera Ropihana Riria te Apu Mere Tepuna Herewini te Ngahere Wiremu te Whatawake Eruere Hareti Ruhi Matauhi Matenga Reweti Rehara Katikati Hohua Oaiki Korouria te Pei Harapeta Tutarawaewae Maraea te Aowhakatere Arapera te Wharetukua Harata Patiki Hane Nohotaha Pateremu Ngarangi Tatana Matahi Hariata Parateti Ruka Tupouria te Mania Ahenata te Whaihiuhiu Te Turia Toheriri and Hariata Toietori 41 In July 1880, the Court heard an application from Johnson for a subdivision of the Maraetaha and Te Kuri blocks. 141 While partition proceedings were often forced on ( Maori, the details of the 1880 MaraetahaiTe Kuri partition had largely been agreed before 1 hand. W L Rees and his associate Wi Pere were the key players on the Maori side when these details were worked out. 4.5 W L Rees and Wi Pere Maraetaha was one of a number of Ngai Tamanuhiri blocks that became entangled in arrangements set in place by W L Rees and Wi Pere. The activities of these two men, the failure of their various schemes, and the consequential advent of the East Coast Native Trust Lands Commission, have been covered by the research of Dr Katherine Orr- Nimmo. 142 It is not proposed to repeat that work in this report. But a brief outline of developments, to give a context to the histories of the Ngai Tamanuhiri blocks concerned, ) will be provided. Because of geographical isolation, and because tribal authority remained effective, very little land was sold in Poverty Bay before the 1870s. For example, the only land in the Muriwai district sold before 1870 seemes to have been the Wherowhero and Wharetlmoa blocks and the small prui of Tangotete originally sold to Halbert. This amounted to about 25 acres. The Tangotete land (about 5 acres) was re-purchased by Ngai Tamanuhiri interests during the 1850s. The individualisation of interests that followed on from the passing of land through the Commission and, later, the Land Court made it possible, however, for one owner to sell or lease his or her interest independently of all other owners. Poverty Bay Maori were not opposed, at least initially, to all sales or leasing 141 Gisborne MB, 110 6, 26 July 1880, P 134 142 Orr-Nimmo, Katherine W. Report/or the Crown ForestlJl Rental Trust on the East Coast Maori Trust. 42 arrangements. They did seem to prefer to lease rather than sell outright, but the individualisation of interests after 1869 robbed them of the right to malce a· collective ( ! choice about their land. If one of the owners in a particular block could be persuaded or pushed into a sale, the almost inevitable long term result was that more and more of the interests in that block would be alienated. Eventually, all or part of the block would pass out of Maori hands. In the process the costs incurred for surveying, for court fees, for appealing decisions of the Court or for any other purpose to do with the Court and the operation of the land laws, would put the remaining tribal estate at risk. 4.6 Land Trusts Rees and Pere's solution was to have the land conveyed to them in trust. A tribe or hapu vesting its land in this way would elect a committee, who would act as their representatives. The committee and trustees would jointly malce all decisions about leasing or selling. But only the trustees would have executive powers. In this way, a management fi'amework would be put in place that obliged anyone wishing to buy or lease land to deal with the one or two people who had authority to act on behalf of the tribe or hapu as a whole. Elsewhere in Poverty Bay, Rees and Pere would try to totally control and manage the alienation of Maori land. In the case of Maraetaha, Pakowhai, Te Kuri and Tangotete however, interests had been sold before Rees and Pere becmne involved. All they could do was try to sort out the situation. Eventually, they reached agreement with 10hnson about the land. Both pm1ies then proceeded to the Land Court to obtain the necessary orders. CFRT,1997 43 4.7 Partition of Maraetaha and Te Kuri 1880 When the partition application was heard, Rees appeared on behalf of the majority of the I owners. 143 Ema Moraro's trustees were separately represented, and Maora Pani represented herself. There was a long discussion, the details of which were not recorded. TIns discussion may have concerned, at least in part, the interest of Maora Pani, since the Court adjourned so Rees and Pani could discuss matters outside. However, Pani apparently declined to talk to Rees. When the Court resumed, the judge informed her that the case would proceed. Jolmson's case was presented, and then the Court heard Rees and Pere, described as trustees for the grantees other than Maora Pani and Ema Moraro. 144 The Court also examined, and read out, a trust deed dated 11 February 1879 and an agreement dated 22 April 1879. The 11 February 1879 document was a conveyance, by a munber of Maori, of their undivided interests in the land. The land went to Rees and Pere as trustees. 145 The 22 April 1879 document was between the trustees (Rees and Pere) and Jolmson. It was an agreement concerning the partition of Maraetaha and other blocks. It was noted in the minute book that this agreement had the consent of the committee (of owners). Under this agreement Jolmson was to receive 10,700 acres of Maraetaha. This was ordered. 146 4.8 The Trust Commission The 1880 pmiition of Maraetaha and Te Kuri involved an exchange of interests between Jolmson and Rees and Pere, the latter acting for the Maori owners of Maraetaha, Pakowhai, Te Kuri and Tangotete. Johnson also made a payment of £3,000 to Rees and Pere, the 143 Described as 'certain natives'. Gisborne MB, no 6,26 July 1880, p 134 144 Gisborne MB, no 6, 26 July 1880, p 134 145 This trust deed is dated 1870 in the MB, but more plausibly 1879 in later documents. Coleman to Under Secretary Native Department, 3 November 1909. NA file LE 1/]909120 Box 382A 1'16 Gisborne MB, no 6, 26 July 1880, P 134 44 I I trustees for the owners. On both counts, an alienation of Maori land, of the kind covered 1 by the Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1870 occurred. 147 ( 1 In due course the Trust Commissioner investigated the transaction. The Commission's !j minute book contains full details of the arrangements made with Johnson over the land. He was given all of Maraetaha except Te Kopua. The hilly part of Te Kuri also went to Johnson, along with any stock currently on either block. In exchange, Johnson made a payment of £3,000, and gave up any interests he had acquired in Te Kopua, Palcowhai, Tangotete 1 and 2 and the flat part of Te Kuri. 148 After hearing evidence, the Commissioner was satisfied that a valid alienation had occurred. 149 Rees and Pere appeared as trustees for the owners before the Trust Commission. There is no reason to think that they did not have, at the time of the partition, or at the later Trust Commission hearing, the consent of the owners to the deal they had worked out with Jolmson. Many of the owners were present on both occasions, when the details of the agreement were described. They made no objection. ISO There was provision in the Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1870 for appeal to be made to the Supreme Court.l5l These is nothing in the documents to suggest that anyone contemplated such a step following the decision of the Trust COlmnissioner to sign off on the arrangements laid before him. Within two years, however, some of the owners involved were trying to take Rees and Pere to Court, not specifically over the Maraetaha pmiition but generally, to recover control over the lands they had transferred to Rees and Pere in trust. 152 147 Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1870, section 4 148 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, no 1,28 February 1881, P 414 149 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, no I, 3 March 1881, P 423 150 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, no 1,28 February 1881, P 414 151 Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1870, section 7 I-?)- AJBR, 1891, Session 2, 1-3A, P 7 45 I I There was a suggestion made around the time that Maraetaha was partitioned, possibly by 1 Rees, that money could be raised to buy the land back from Johnson. I53 Wi Pere gave evidence to the Trust Commissioner about this plan in 1881. 154 Several payments, totalling £40,000, were to be made over a period of two years. Hemi Waaka mentioned this buy- back plan while giving evidence before the Native Affairs Committee in 1891. 155 He said everyone was very anxious to get Maraetaha back fi'om Johnson, including those who had sold their share. According to Hemi, it was this proposal, and others of similar land, that encouraged the Maori owners to place their trust in Rees and Pere, and persuaded them to go along with the various arrangements made about the land by Rees and Pere. I56 By 1882, however, the plan to buy back Maraetaha had fallen through, there was growing disaffection with the Rees/Pere schemes in general, and the Maori who had signed over their lands to Rees and Pere were now trying to get them back. Several decades later, in a petition fOlwarded to the Native Affairs Committee in 1928, Ngai Tamanuhiri took a more favourable view of the Johnson settlement, one that was probably very similar to one they had held when the settlement was first formulated. Your petitioners (that is, Ngai Tamanuhiri) support the anangements and basis of settlement laid down by our elders and entered into by them at the time .,. because we know that they were arrived at honestly. IS? Looking back, with perhaps more of the facts available, it is not entirely clear that Ngai Tamanuhiri did lmow, at the time, all of the details, or enough of them to be able to give informed consent to what was being done on their behalf. There was, for example, the issue of the £3,000. There was also the question of the missing acres, which suggested that the settlement as it finally emerged was not exactly the settlement agreed. 153 AlBR, 1891, Session 2, 1-3A, P 14 154 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, no 1, 3 March 1881, pp 422- 423 155 AlHR, 1891, Session 2, 1-3A, pp 7,14 156 A.fHR, 1891, Session 2, 1-3A, pp 6-7 46 4.9 The £3,000 Part of the arrangement made between Rees and Johnson was that Johnson would pay a consideration of £3,000. In 1890 and 1891 the Native Affairs Committee considered two petitions concerning Rees, Pere and the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company.IS8 Hemi Waaka gave evidence on a number of matters relating to the arrangement made with Jolmson in 1880, including the £3,000. Rees also gave evidence. According to Hemi, no Maori had seen a penny of the £3,000. Rees said the money had been used, as intended at the time, on the management of the various blocks signed over to the tlUstees, and in preparing them for sale. It was clear from the conflicting evidence given about the £3,000 that the Maori owners and their h'ustees had very different ideas not only about how the tlUsteeship had been operated, but about how it had been intended to operate, and what its purposes were. 4.10 The Lost Acres In 1909 the East Coast Commissioner asked the Land Court to determine the beneficial ownership of Te Kmi 1. 159 According to the Commissioner, the block vested in the Commission in 1902 contained about 200 acres. The Deed of Release issued when the land was retmned from the Bartle of New Zealand around 1900 mentioned 400 acres. 160 The Commissioner's explanation of the discrepancy was that the Land Court had cut out 'several sub-divisions ... from time to time for various Native owners' .161 In fact, as the minute books show, there were no partitions of Te Kmi between 1880, when Jolmson 157 Petition 256/28 John Pohatu and others, 1928. NA file MA 1 ND 5113/93 158 AJHR, 1891, Session 2, 13, pp 28-29 159 East Coast Commissioner to Under-Secretary Native Department, 2 December 1909, NA file LE III 909/20 Box 383B 160 East Coast Commissioner to Under-Secretary Native Department, 2 December 1909, NA file LE 111 909/20 Box 383B. The Stout-Ngata Commission also believed that Te Kuri contained 400 acres, and they valued the land at £6,000. AJHR, 1908, G-III, P 10 161 East Coast Commissioner to Under-Secretary Native Department, 2 December 1909, NA file LE 111909/20 Box 383B 47 received his portion and 1917, when the Court partitioned the 58Y2 acres Johnson sold to Hemi Mahuki into Te Kuri 2A, 2B and 2C. Hamiora Mangakahia petitioned Parliament in ( 1914, seeking an investigation into the missing land. 162 It amounted, he said, to more than 1 267 acres. 163 The registrar of the Tairawhiti Native Land Court was asked to provide a report to the Native Affairs Committee. He began his report by questioning Hamiora Mangakahia's right to petition on this matter, since he was neither an original owner nor a beneficial owner of the remaining Te Kuri land. 164 Then he suggested that the only explanation was that the land had gone to Johnson.165 Hamiora Mangakahia's petition was held over in 1914. 166 In 1915 the Native Affairs Committee reported that it had no recommendation to make on the petition. 167 Hamiora Mangakahia, by this date in his mid 70s, and in failing health, did not pursue the lost acres any further, and no one else seems to have done so either. Examination of the relevant certificates of title shows that the registrar's explanation of where the missing acres had gone was correct. The sale to Hemi Mahuki in 1892 of part of lolmson's Te Kuri land required the issuing of new title documents. One was for Hemi covering the area of his purchase. The second was for Johnson, redefining the area of Te Kuri remaining in his hands. Hemi's title was for an area of 58Y2 acres. 168 Jolmson's new title was for an area of 500 acres 1 rood 20 perch. 169 lolmson had been awarded 300 acres 162 Hamiora Mangakahia was born on the Coromandel Peninsula. He had links through his father to Ngati Kahungunu, and spend some time in Poverty Bay in the 1860s, probably at Whareongaonga. He may have been acting on behalf of his Poverty Bay relatives when he petitioned Parliament in 1914. The Dictional)) of New Zealand Biography, vol 2, 1993, P 307ff. Hamiora Mangakahia was one of the owners of a number of Ngai Tamanuhiri blocks. 163 Petition 377114 Hamiora Mangakahia 1914. NA file LE 111914/9/ Box 459E 164 Registrar Tairawhiti Native Land Court to Under-Secretary Native Department, 21 September 1914, NA file LE 111914/9/ Box 459E 165 Registrar Tairawhiti Native Land Court to Under-Secretary Native Department, 21 September 1914, NA file LE 1/1914/9/ Box 459E 166 AJHR, 1914,1-3, P 21 167 AJHR, 1915,1-3, P 21, no 377 168 CT 30114 169 CT 30/15 48 ( Wal814 - n.hal1ls nov2000 1 Norlh L\ Te K LI ri 4-95 : lS : 10 .,.;' Seel 4'2:0+ fi.""", / AI! ' ...... ~.~.. a.~ ~. () q "e e tCf/ . ~ 7 C{ j " .. - ~ . 1km 1I2mile Figure 5 : Johnson's Te Kuri partition 1892 Source: CT 30115 49 ofTe Kuri in 1880. There appear to be no title documents predating the two certificates of title issued in 1892, and it is possible that Johnson's Te Kuri award was not surveyed until ( 1892. Evidently, the boundaries made for Johnson in 1880 contained far more land that ordered by the Court, but no adjustments were made when the land was surveyed and title issued. The result was that Johnson received not the 300 acres he had been awarded by the Court, but more than 550 acres. ( ) 50 Chapter 5 ( Maraetaha Partitions 1880-1988 I When Maraetaha was partitioned in 1880, and the bulk of the block awarded to Johnson, three smaller partitions were made on the same day. 5.1 Maraetaha lA 1880 - 1904 Maraetaha 1A (250 acres) was awarded to Maora PaniYo Maora Pani was Mere Hape's mother, and James Woodbine Johnson's mother-in-law. She was the 6th wife of Thomas Halbert. 17l The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography identifies Maora Pani as Rongowhakaata. l72 Halbert's genealogies indicate that Maora Pani was of Tamanuhiri descent, the granddaughter of a brother of Tawheo Pohatu. 173 This is confirmed by evidence from the Poverty Bay Commission and Land Court awards. She is identified as Ngai Tahupo on the Maraetaha and Te Kuri lists of grantees and as Ngati Rangiwaho on the Whareongaonga list of owners. These different iwi identifications are not, of course, incompatible. Maraetaha 1A remained in the hands of Maora Pani and her descendants until 1904, when a Thomas Halbert sold the block to Humphrey Bayley.174 TIns Halbert was Maora Pani's son, or possibly her grandson. 175 170 Gisborne MB, no 6, 26 July 1880, p 135 171 The Dictional), ofNew Zealand Biography, vol I, ]990, P ]7] 172 The Dictional)) o.fNew Zealand Biography, vol I, 1990, P 171 173 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistOJ)l o.fthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, pp 265, 286,297 174 CT 40/221 175 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistOJ), of the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 297 51 Graphical Representation Only / War 814 - n.hanis nov2000 1 North' Li TAREWAURU MARAETAHA2 6 ~ "~Wh'~t' F",,,t~ L ,r..-J '!4.,~''''''''./ )~S' '":l .\ (' .~ , I .-' '( ~--- I ,I r , ( Figure 6 52 5.2 Maraetaha IB 1880 -1902 Maraetaha IB (250 acres) was awarded to Samuel Locke and George Walker as trustees 1 for Ema Whalcamoraro. 176 Ema was one of the owners listed by Eru Pohatu during the Poverty Bay Commission hearing on Maraetaha. 177 The spelling is given as Ema Morato, and the iwi identification, from the context, is Ngai Talmpo.178 On the list of grantees for Maraetaha, there is no listing for an Ema Morato, but there is an Ema te Whalcamoraro. She also appears on the Ngai Tahupo list for Te Kuri. She was also originally listed as one of the Rongowhalcaata grantees for Te Kuri, but her name was subsequently struck out before the award was issued. Ema was a granddaughter of Tawheo Pohatu. 179 That may be why she was given 250 acres of the Maraetaha block. George Walker was Ema's husband. He was one of the pioneer settlers in the Mahia district, and held leasehold and freehold lands there from the mid-l 860s. George and Ema had two sons, George and William, both born at Tawapata. Ema died at Whangawehi, on Mahia Peninsula, and was buried near the family homestead. 180 The other trustee, Samuel Locke, was a surveyor by profession. Locke was at various stages a member of the Hawkes Bay provincial council, the Government agent in charge of Maori affairs on the East Coast, a resident magistrate at Taupo, and, fl.·om 1878 till 1887, the MP for the East Coast parliamentary electorate. Locke died in 1890. 181 176 There were are various spelling ofWhakamoraro in the records, and sometimes the name is given as Morm·o. Gisborne MB, no 6, 26 July 1880, p 135 177 Maraetaha IB and the other blocks and interests awarded to Ema Whakamoraro are the subject of Wai 163 178 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 9 July 1869, p 96 179 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistoJ)' of the Horouta Canoe, ,Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 286 180 MacGregor, M. Early Station's of Hawke's Bay. Reed, 1970, p 109 181 II Dictiol1({J)I of New Zealand Biography, vol 1, 1940, P 501 53 The trust in question was established in 1873. 182 Ema transferred her interest in Maraetaha 1 and Te Kuri blocks to Locke and Walker, to be held in trust for her during her lifetime and I. i l thereafter in equal shares for her young sons George and William. In the event that one son should die before he reached the age of 21, and left no will, the surviving son was to 1 receive all of the land. The tmstees had no power to sell or otherwise dispose of the land. Nor did the trust deed confer any rights to the land on Ema's husband, George Wall<:er senior. He was simply given the responsibility, shared with Locke, to manage the land, use the revenue from it for the education and maintenance of Ema's children, and then in due course convey the land to them. When the tmstees claimed Ema's share of the land in 1880 Rees, Pere and the Maraetaha (Maori owners) committee made no objection or comment. It is not known why Ema felt it was necessary to deal with her land in this way. Possibly she was in poor health. The year of Ema's death has not been located. It seems unlikely that she was dead in 1880, when Maraetaha IB was given into the hands of her tmstees. Had she been, one would have expected this to be mentioned. On the other hand, she may have died in the mid 1870s, perhaps not long after the tmst deed was executed. Information on George Walker's death celiificate indicates that he had children by Heni Paraka Sturley in the late 1870s.1 83 When Maraetaha 2 was investigated in 1882, Ema's two sons were listed among the owners. 184 This suggests that Ema died before 1882. Whatever the date of Ema' s death, her lands then passed in effect to her two sons, George and William, while remaining under the administration of the tmstees. A formal succession order does not seem to have been made, but it is clear from later evidence that this is what OCCUlTed. 182 Deed Register 4D, p 487, LINZ, Gisborne 183 Certified Copy of Entry in the Register Book of Death, no 0228428, Wairoa 54 1 George Walker senior died in 1895. 185 His executor honoured the terms of the 1873 deed, ( and George senior's will, and conveyed Ema's lands, in equal shares, to George junior and 1 his brother William in 1896.186 Both men were then in their late 20s, well past the age (21) at which the tmst deed had specified the land was to be transferred to them. William Walker married a daughter of Ihaka Whaanga, a chief of Ral<:aipaal<:a, a Ngati Kahungunu hapu closely related to Ngai Tamanuhiri, in 1896. This relationship had started some years earlier, because when William Walker died in 1897, he left a widow and four children, the eldest of these children being around 4 or 5 years of age. In 1898 his father- in-law, Ihaka Whaanga, made applications to the Land Court on behalf of his four grandchildren. This application concerned William's share of Maraetaha 2. Ihalca noted that William had not sold his land in this block. That information, the date of William's death, the fact that he had made no will, and the names and ages of his four children, were all recorded in the minutes. The Court ordered that the land be awarded to the children in equal shares, and appointed their mother, Kara Walker, as trustee. 187 In 1902 a second application was made on behalf of William's children. On this occasion, the Court was asked to ma1ce orders concerning Maraeta11a lB. The minute book contains the same information given in 1898: the date of William's death, the fact that he died intestate, and the names and ages of his four children. Additionally, it was recorded that William had been an owner, from Ema Morm·o, mld that no previous order had been made. This particular minute probably meant that when Ema died, no one had applied to the 184 Hori and Wiremu Moral·o, or George and William Walker 185 A copy of his will can be found in Deed Register 8D, p 903, LINZ, Gisborne 186 The document of conveyance is in Deed Register 7D, p 401, LINZ, Gisborne 187 Wairoa MB, no 10, 7 July 1898, P 181 55 Court on behalf of William and his brother George to have their .succession to their 1 mother's land fonnally recorded. Some evidence was taken about William's widow as ( well. She was identified as Kara Walker, and said to have ample land: 60 acres ofNuhaka 1 2, and land elsewhere as well. The Court made the same orders as before: awarding the land to the children, and appointing their mother, Kara Walker, as their trustee. 188 A month later, Ema's other son, George Walker, sold 125 acres of Maraetaha IB, his half share of the block. The buyer was Mary Jane Bayley, the wife of Humphrey May Bayley. 189 Humphrey Bayley had been awarded an adjacent block, Maraetaha 1C, in 1901. Later, in 1904, he purchased Maraetaha 1A. 190 Mary Jane Bayley paid £156.5s. for this half share of Maraetaha lB. In due course this transaction came before the Court. 191 Mary Jane was asked to malce a declaration concerning the extent of the land she already held. This was a requirement imposed by the clause 5 of the Native Land Laws ) Amendment Act, 1895. This section of the act prohibited anyone from owning more than a certain acreage of land. George Walker, of course, had to affirm that the consideration (£156) had been paid, and lodge a declaration as to the other land he held. According to the minute book, George was regarded as a man 'well able to manage his own business'. 192 The Court was clearly satisfied with what it could see and what it heard. The necessary confirmation was granted. In December 1902, Kara Waaka sold the other half share of Maraetaha 1B to Mary Jane Bayley for £156.5s. 193 Kara was William Walker's widow; the land sold was the land held 188 Gisborne MB, no 29, 3 October 1902, p 169 189 Deed Register 8D, p 455, LINZ, Gisborne 190 CT 40/221; East Coast Commissioner to Under-Secretary, 3 November 1909, NA file LE 1/1909/20 Box 382A 191 Gisborne MB, no 29, 16 March 1903, pp 273-274 192 Gisborne MB, no 29, 16 March 1903, pp 273-274 193 Deed Register 8D, p 457, L1NZ, Gisborne 56 in trust for William's four children. The relevant legislation was the Maori Real Estate I Management Act, 1888, as amended in 1893. Section 5 of this act allowed trustees to sell ( 1 land, provided a judge of the Supreme Court endorsed the transaction. Section 6 provided that the purchase money must be deposited with the Public Trustee, and this is what was done. The necessary endorsement was obtained because a few years later Mary Jane sold all of Maraetaha 1B to Henry White. 194 Mary Jane paid £312.10s. for the block in 1902: , she sold it to White in 1906 for £1,500. The first certificate of title for Maraetaha 1B was issued to Henry White in 1921. 195 After Johnson's portion had been deducted, and the Maraetaha 1A and Maraetaha 1B partitions made, the balance of Maraetaha remaining, an area of around 2,598 acres, sometimes refened to as Te Kopua, was conveyed in trust to Rees and Pere. 5.3 Maraetaha 1 C When Jolmson, Rees and Pere arranged the partition of Maraetaha in 1880, they assumed that they had accounted for all of the shares in the block. It was later discovered that one of the owners, Paora Tongara, had previously sold his interest, in or about 1873. 196 Humplu'ey Bayley eventually acquired this interest. In 1901 Bayley applied to have Pam'a's share cut out. Everyone agreed that Pam'a's interest existed, and that it amolmted to 250 acres. The only issue was whether it should now be cut out from Jolmson's share of Maraetaha, or from the Te Kopua section, which was held in trust by Rees and Pere. The Court decided that it should be taken from Te Kopua. 197 An order was made in favour of 194 Deed Register 8D, p 912, LINZ, Gisborne 195 CT 721111 196 Gisborne MB, no 28, 8 March 1901, p 173 197 Gisborne MB, no 28, 8 March 1901, P 175 57 Bayley, for an area of 250 acres, called Maraetaha IC. The balance of Te Kopua, Maraetaha ID, went, as before, to Rees and Pere. 198 ( 1 I There were later objections by Ngai Tamanuhiri that the new partition had not been smveyed along the lines determined by the Court. The Court interpreted these protests as not being about the smvey but about the original decision to award the land to Bayley.199 The Court observed that the time for appeal against that decision had lapsed. Moreover, the obligation to protect Maori rights to Te Kopua belonged to the trustees, Rees and Pere. The Court then proceeded to issue its decision on the survey. It could see no reason to vary the smvey lines that had been made, and it confirmed the existing plan. The minute book records that the Court delayed giving its decision, waiting for Rees to appear. After 'fully a quarter of an hom', Rees still not being present, the Court read out its decision.2oo 5.4 Maraetaha 1D (Te Kopua) 1908 - 1988 Maraetaha 1D, 2,314 acres, was vested in the East Coast Commissioner in 1908. Over the years, parts ofMaraetaha ID, totalling nearly 25 acres were taken for public works, while a bit more than 3 acres was re-vested in the owners. Dr Katherine Orr-Nimmo has dealt with the circumstances surrounding the vesting of . Maraetaha ID in the East Coast Commissioner.201 The petitions and counterpetitions that the Commissioner's administration of Maraetaha 1D gave rise to have also been dealt with · 202 b Y 0 IT-N1111mo. 198 Gisborne MB, no 28, 8 March 1901, P 176 199 Gisborne MB, no 29, 2 September 1902, P 108 200 Gisborne MB, no 29, 2 September 1902, p 108 201 Orr-Nimmo, Katherine W. Report/or the Crown Forestl)' Rental Trust on the East Coast Maori Trust. CFRT, 1997, P 183 202 Orr-Nimmo, Katherine W. Report/or the Crown Forestl)' Rental Trust 011 the East Coast Maori Trust. CFRT, 1997, pp 180- 182 58 Maraetaha ID was returned to an incorporation of owners in 1954. In the late 1980s the incorporation got into debt to the tune of $100,000. The Rural Banlc and Finance Corporation had lent money on the land, and decided to cut its losses. A date was set for a mortgagee sale: 12 May 1988. The incorporation approached the Board of Maori Affairs for advice and assistance. Reports were prepared. One showed that the farming performance of Maraetaha ID (Kopua Station), owned and operated by the Proprietors of ------... __ ._--_.. _-- ---_._---- Maraetaha 1D, had been less than satisfactory for some time.203 The result was increasing debt, and this was why the Rural Banlc had decided to sell. There were some mitigating circumstances: Maraetaha ID was describes as 'hard and steep hill country' .z04 But the bottom line was that the incorporation was in debt, there was no prospect that the proprietors would be able to farm their way to solvency, and the Banlc, in any case, had already decided to exercise its right to sell the property. The Maraetaha ID proprietors lmew that refinancing their debt was not a viable option. They were nonetheless reluctant to see the land pass out of Maori ownership. So were the Maori owners of Patemaru Station, an adjacent incorporation. According to the other report prepared, Patemaru Station (Maraetaha 2, sections 3 and 6) was in a relatively strong farming position?05 Some of the land owned by Patemam was in fact leased to Kopua. This leased area was pmi of Maraetaha 2, section 3, later designated section 9. There was some overlap between the ownership of the two incorporations, and the Patemmu owners were proposing to buy Kopua, so that the land could remain in Maori hands. But they , D could not do this by themselves. They needed assistance, and it was estimated that a cash injection of at least $150,000 would be required, to both acquire the lmld and then farm it nI , ___ ') !J 203 Warren, A. Kopua Station, Muriwai, May 1988. NA file ABJZ, 869, W4644, 48/2/6 204 Warren, A. Kopua Station, Muriwai, May 1988. NA file ABJZ, 869, W4644, 48/2/6 j 59 successfully. Without the money, the rescue plan wasn't viable. Even with it, given the nature of the land, now reverting to scmb and blackberry, it was still not an attractive ( proposition. When the matter was considered by the Board early in May 1988, it was recommended that the 'simplest and probably the cheapest course of action' was to let the Patemam owners bid for Kopua at the auction, with finance from the Rural Bank.206 Kopua was not a viable unit on its own, so if the Patemaru owners decided not to proceed with a rescue, it was recommended that the Department of Maori Affairs let the land be sold.207 These recommendations were accepted. The auction took place. The Rural BanIe offered $187,000. TIns was accepted. The Patemam owners, either at the auction or subsequently, offered $150,000. This offer was rejected?08 In December of that year there were further developments. The Rural BanIe wanted to sell Kopua to Hikurangi Forest Farms Limited. The selling price was $180,000, which meant that the BanIe was taldng a small loss of $7,000. The Minister of Lands, Peter Tapsell, had to consent to this sale.209 Tapsell wrote a personal note to Koro Wetere, the Minister of Maori Affairs?lO Might it be possible for the former owners to do a deal with the BanIe? Could they get 'one last go at managing the property properly and retain[ing] their ancestral lands'? Could Maori Affairs find $170,000? This amount might be enough to persuade the BanIe to sell the land back to its former owners. The matter was urgent, 205 Warren, A. Report ofMaraetaha 2 Section 9 Block, May 1988. NA file ABJZ, 869, W4644, 48/2/6 206 Little to Board of Maori Affairs, 3 May 1988. NA file ABJZ, 869, W4644, 48/2/6 207 Little to Board of Maori Affairs, 3 May 1988. NA file ABJZ, 869, W4644, 48/2/6 208 Tapsell to Wetere, 5 December 1988. NA file ABJZ, 869, W4644, 48/2/6 " (~) 209 Probably because of the provisions of the Land Settlement Promotion and Land Acquisition Act, 1952, amended 1968 . 210 Tapsell to Wetere, 5 December 1988. NA file ABJZ, 869, W4644, 48/2/6 60 because Tapsell 'could only delay signing the document [consenting to the sale] for a short Wetere's reply recorded what had happened since the May sale?12 There had been some discussions between the Patemam owners and Hikurangi Forest Farms Limited after the forestry company had indicated an interest in Kopua. Agreement in principle had been reached: Hikurangi Forest Farms Limited would give the Patemaru owners money to buy the land. Kopua would then be leased to Hikurangi Forest Farms Limited. The money provided by Hikurangi Forest Farms Limited would be rent in advance, so the Patemaru owners would get no benefit from the land during the term of the lease. But they would own the land, and they would be able to deal with it again once the lease expired. This agreement had fallen over, because of potential taxation problems and difficulties to do with the pre-sale ownership of the block. For reasons that were not explained by the Minister, some of the previous owners would have been excluded from any new register of owners. Hikurangi Forest Farms Limited then proceeded to direct negotiations with the Rural Banlc However, the company had not entirely shut the door on Maori ownership. According to the Minister, Hikurangi Forest Farms Limited had indicated that it might be prepared to sell Kopua to the Patemaru owners at some date in the future?13 Under these circumstances, the Department of Maori Affairs could see nothing to be gained by buying Kopua. Nor could the purchase be justified on commercial grounds: Kopua was not economically viable. It is evident that the minister's advisors were relying 2ll Tapsell to Wetere, 5 December 1988. NA file ABJZ, 869, W4644, 48/2/6 212 Wetere to Tapsell, 7 December 1988. NA file ABJZ, 869, W4644, 48/2/6 213 Hikurangi Forest Farms Limited was acquired in 1996 by Glenealy Plantation Berhad, a member of the (Malaysian) Samling group. 61 on the original report on Kopua, which had looked at the economics of using the land as pasture. That report did not canvas the possibility that Kopua might be used for some other plU-pose. The letter from the Minister of Land did not raise tIus possibility either, although he was clearly aware that trees might be a viable alternative to sheep and cattle. The Department of Maori Affairs did realise in December 1988, belatedly, that Kopua might be forest land, and that a development of this sort might produce jobs in the district. Apparently, there was some discussion inside tile Department about this, musing on the possibility that Ngati Porou Forest Ltd. might be a suitable vehicle for developing forestry in the Poverty Bay district. Department officers did see some fish hooks in this idea, but the main problem, from the Department's point of view, was that Ngati Porou wanted to concentrate on developing their own forests?14 The Department's final position was that there was no time to consider this option. The ~ ) Rmal Bank and Hikmangi Forest Farms Limited had already reached agreement on the pmchase. There were no reasonable grounds for the Minister of Lands to withhold Ius consent. The Department concluded its advice to the Minister of Maori Affairs as follows: What this situation does, however, is highlight the difference in corporate attitudes between the Rural Bank and the department, where the Rural Banlc is prepared to realise on the security of land held by an incorporation.215 Strange words. It was the Department that allowed Kopua, the only large area of the original Maraetaha block remaining in Maori hands, to be alienated. Nor was it any part of the Rmal Banlc's brief to preserve Maori land, or see that it was developed in a creative way. 214 Little to Minister of Maori Affairs, 8 December 1988. NA file ABJZ, 869, W4644, 48/2/6 215 Little to Minister of Maori Affairs, 8 December 1988. NA file ABJZ, 869, W4644, 48/2/6 62 5.5 Part Maraetaha, DP 795 In 1892 Johnson sold nearly 45 acres of Maraetaha to Pene and Tarita Mataora. This area, adjoining Te Kuri and Tangotete was described, somewhat confusingly, as Maraetaha no 2 on the certificate oftitle?16 It was later designated Part Maraetaha, DP 795, and under this description it was eventually incorporated into the Manutuke consolidation scheme as part of the newly created Pakowhai 2 block. ------ 216 CT 29/251 63 500 metres 440 yards Norlh L\ lYherowherd {r-P, >-,;:2.) ;, J ) 7e /1u/-/ AI·C?i Cr.P. }C , . /Jlk I X . ~;::5~:~:: 4.D.:1;~1~k·~··· "' ... [:":\'~;,;i(~'<~'r:,: :~\::.. .. !11.;,I:'#.r: .... f3.~t:!. ... tte~ .... _.. _/~ ::', "," .;;:' ...... 6'.I1'(u!r~i? nhZ. . C;' .. '.' (#.p..;:.r~ Figure 7 . Te Kuri 1A 1927 28/276 64 Chapter 6 Te Kuri Te Kuri was the other block partitioned in July 1880, to enable Johnson to consolidate his holdings. The text of the order made by the Court is quite legible: Johnson was entitled to 300 acres of Te Kuri more or less. The sea and part of Maraetaha formed the southern boundary of tIns area. On the northwest, the bOlmdary was a line from Maraetaha to the sea one-chain northwest of the drain that ran from Maraetaha through Te Kuri to the sea. The sea formed the northern boundary.217 In simple terms, Jolmson acquired the Te Kuri headland, extending inland more or less to the Tangotete blocks. The balance of Te Kuri, designated Te Kuri 1, was left in Maori hands. So were the two Tangotete blocks, Two Te Kuri 1 pruiitions were created in July 1880 as well. Te Kuri lA (10 acres) was conveyed to Maora Pani?18 Te Kuri IB (10 acres) went to Samuel Locke ruld George Walker as tmstees for Ema Moraro?19 Te Kuri IB was situated on the coastline, on the boundary between Te Kuri and Pakowhai blocks. Te Kuri lA was inland, on the western side of the Wherowhero block. 6.1 Te Kuri lA Te Kuri lA (10 acres) was sold some time after 1916, by the three successors of Maora Pani.220 The purchaser was A F Saunders. He paid £170. In 1928 the Tairawhiti District Maori Land Boru"d purchased the land back. Wherowhero was re-purchased at the same 217 Native Land Court order, 26 July 1880, Te Kuri block file 271A, Gisbome MLC 218 Gisbome MB, no 6, 26 July 1880, p 135 219 Gisbome MB, no 6, 26 July 1880, p 135 220 Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board files, Gisbome MLC 65 time?21 The Board paid £800 for the nearly 32 acres contained in the two parcels of 222 land. Some years later, in 1943, title was transferred to the East Coast Commission.223 In 1954 the East Coast Commissioner transferred Te Kuri 1A to the Proprietors of 224 Pakowhai. The block was subsequently included in the Manutuke consolidation scheme as part of the newly created Pakowhai 2 block. 6.2 Te Kuri IB Te Kuri 1B was given to Samuel Locke and George Walker in 1880 as trustees for Ema Maororo.225 It was part of the land transferred to Ema's two sons in 1896, under the terms of the trust set up in 1873. In the year of its transfer, 1896, Hori and Wiremu Waaka sold the land to James Fitzgerald?26 There is a small puzzle to do with Te Kuri lB. The block was meant to contain 10 acres. The plan produced by the trustees in 1880 shows 10 acres. The plan on the certificate of title issued for tins block in 1930 gives the area as a bit more than 26 acres, more than double the area awarded in 1880. It is not clear where this extra land came from, but a possible explanation is that part of the adjacent Wherowhero lagoon had been drained, and taken into Te Kuri lB. 6.3 Te Kuri 1 The balance ofTe Kuri 1, the flat area left after Johnson's portion had been removed, and the two small partitions made, remained in the hands of Rees and Pere, passed to the Ban1<: 221 Under Secretary Native Department to Native Minister, 22 June 1928. NA file MA 111928/259 222 Under Secretary Native Department to Native Minister, 22 June 1928. NA file MA 111928/259 223 Under Secretary Native Department to East Coast Commissioner, 8 March 1943, NA file MA 111928/259 224 CT 111/64 225 Gisbome ME, no 6, 26 July 1880, P 135 226 Gisbome Trust Commission ME, no 11,22 December 1896, p 257; 11 January 1897, p 258 66 of New Zealand, then back to Rees and Pere?27 In 1902 this land was vested in the East Coast Native Trust Lands Board.228 In 1954 the remaining area of Te Kuri 1 and Tangotete 1 and 2 were transfelTed to an incorporation of owners, the Proprietors ofTe Kuri and Tangotete.229 The area transfelTed contained a bit more than 232 acres. The two Tangotete blocks covered about 77 acres. Te Kuri 1, at that date, contained about 157 acres. It should have contained more than 400 acres. It is not proposed to cover the post-1954 history of this land (Te Kuri 1 and Tangotete 1 and 2), except to note that the Muriwai township area was excluded from the Manutuke consolidation scheme and divided into numerous sections which were then vested in their Maori owners.230 The remaining area of Te Kuri 1 was eventually designated Te Kuri X71. This section, around 109 acres, lying mainly between the township and the coast, and along the south side of Tangotete, was rural land. The Proprietors of Palcowhai infonnally used Te Kuri X71 as grazing land for some years before 1966. In that year the situation was put on a proper footing, and the land leased to them.23\ Te Kuri X71 was included in the consolidation scheme, as part of the new Palcowhai 2 block, which sUlTounds the Muriwai settlement on all sides. 227 Gisbome ME, no 28, 26 September 1900, pp 85- 86 228 Section 11, East Coast Native Trust Lands Act, 1902 229 CT 111192 230 Gisbome ME, no 79, 10 February 1956, pp 35-47; Gisbome ME, no 80, 30 October 1958, p 364 67 6.4 Te Kuri 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D Johnson sold a bit more than 58Yz acres of his Te Kuri estate to Hemi Mahuki in 1892.232 This area was designated Te Kuri lot 2, and lay along the southern edge of Tangotete 2?33 In 1916 the Land Court determined the succession to this block, vesting the land in four individuals.234 Apparently the Land Court considered the land sold by Johnson to Hemi Mahuki in 1892 to be land under its jurisdiction, for having determined succession in 1916 it proceeded, in 1917, to prutition Te Kuri 2 into Te Kuri 2A, Te Kuri 2B and Te Kuri 2C. There was some adjacent seashore accretion. The Land Court decided this was the property ofthe Maori owners, and it was awarded to them as Te Kuri 2D?35 Te Kuri 2B, about 19Y2 acres, was sold in 1916 to Elizabeth Bowen?36 At this stage, Te Kuri 2B had not been defined. What was sold was the undivided interest of Hemi Makarini, one of Hemi Mahuld's successors. In 1926, Te Kuri 2A was divided into three ) sections: 2Al, 2A2 and 2A3. The first two both contained 3 acres. Te Kuri 2A3, on the other hand, contained a bit more than 13Yz acres. These sections remain Maori lruld, as do Te Kuri 2C (about 19Yz acres) and the 8Yz acres of seashore accretion designed Te Kuri 231 Gisborne MB, no 91, 12 August 1966, P 360 232 Te Kuri Block file, Gisbome MLC 233 CT 30/14 234 CT 30/14 235 Gisbome MB, no 43, 17 January 1917, p 44 236 CT 60177 237 Printout of Maori land in the Gisbome district, Gisborne MLC, 1999 68 Chapter 7 ( The Advent of the Maori Land Court The Poveliy Bay Commission adjourned in August 1869. There was a sitting of the Land Court in 1870, intended to progress matters. These proceedings had to be validated by later legislation. The Commission did not sit again until August 1873. The outcome of this session made it clear that the Poveliy Bay Commission had outlived its usefulness.238 -'- 7.1 The End of the Poverty Bay Commission Locke, the Crown Agent, arrived at the Commission on 18 November 1873, with the intention of getting the land remaining to be adjudicated returned in large tribal blocks, and placed under the jurisdiction of the Land Court. He sought an adjournment, so that discussion about this plan could take place?39 The next day, Wi Pere asked the ir 1 Commission to return the land to the three tribes. Pere wanted the land to be given to trustees?40 SOlne discussion between Locke and the Commissioners OCCUlTed, and Maori present were invited to discuss the idea of returning the land in large blocks after the Commission had adjourned for the day. Very quicldy, these out-of-court discussions moved from acceptance of the proposal in principle to debate about where tribal boundaries might be drawn?41 By 22 November 1873, agreement had been reached. Locke appeared before the Commission and asked that the remaining land be returned to the three tribes who had signed the deed of cession. There had been talks with these tribes, boundaries had been agreed, and Locke was now spealcing on behalf, and at the 'express 238 O'Malley, V. "An Entangled Web. " Te Aitanga-a- Mahaki Land and Politics, 1840-1873, and their Aftermath. CFRT, 1998, P 439ff. 239 W L Williams Journal, 20 November 1873, ATL 240 Poverty Bay Commission MB, 19 November 1873, p 31 241 W L Williams J oumal, 18 November 1873, ATL 69 wish', of these tribes.242 The arrangement proposed was explained to Maori and the boundaries of the several blocks read out. No objections were received, so the order was 243 made. According to a newspaper report, many leading chiefs were present when the matter was raised, and they assured the Commission that all of the interested parties agreed with the proposa1. 244 The evidence to this point suggests that three tribal blocks would be defined by this order. In fact, there were four blocks, the third of these being shared between Rongowhakaata and Ngati KahungunU. 245 It is puzzling that part of the ceded land was returned to Ngati Kahungunu. They had not been one of the iwi who had ceded the land in 1868. 7.2 The Ngai Tahupo Block The fourth block, estimated to contain 51,600 acres, was returned to 'Ngatitahapu'. The boundaries of tIns block were described in the Commission's minute book, and then in the second schedule of the Poverty Bay Lands Titles Act, 1874?46 The boundaries ran from Paritu along the confiscation line to Tokiahaeringaarangi, to Te Arai, down the stream to the upper corner of the Patutahi block, then by the boundary of Te Arai block to the mouth of the Waipawa Stream, then along the coast to Paritu?47 Halbert gives no listing for a Waipawa Stream?48 But a line along the boundary ofTe Arai to the coast would end near the mouth of the Waipaoa River, a traditional boundary between Ngai Tamanuhiri and Rongowhakaata. The southern point, Paritu, was also a traditional boundary. Paritu had 242 Poverty Bay Commission ME, 22 November 1873, p 39 243 Poverty Bay Commission ME, 22 November 1873, p 41 244 Poverty Bay Standard, 29 November 1873 245 Poverty Bay Commission ME, 22 November 1873, pp 40-41 246 The boundaries of the Ngai Tahupo block were entered at the bottom of a page in the MB, after the notation 'order made'. Poverty Bay Commission ME, 22 November 1873, pp 40-41 r ( ) 247 Poverty Bay Lands Title Act, 1874, second schedule. It is expected that the CFRT mapping project will map these boundaries. 248 Halbert, R. Horouta: The History a/the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 494 70 been the southern boundary of the land ceded In 1868, so it had to be the southern boundary in 1873 as well. The inland point, Toldahaeringaarangi, may be the place mentioned by Wi Paetarewa during the hearing on Maraetaha 2: Haeringaarangi was a carved tree and done by my ancestor as a mark of division between himself and Wairuangaroa his grandchildren Te Awhi and Hauraki had the land on one side called Ruangarehu and Wairuangaroa the other side called Torotorokura 249 Paora Hald provided further detail about the location: Haeringaarangi is almost midway between trig station and Huruhurunui. It is a tawai tree and the shape of an axe is marked on it ... Tawarai was the name of another tree also marked. They are some distance apart about 3 chains?50 The sketch plan before the Court in 1882 did not locate Haeringaarangi.251 But when the survey plan was produced in 1886, Haerenga a rangi was a marked location. It was to the north of Nuhalca 2, inland and a little to the south of Pukehoe, on or very close to the I •,.,', , \ eventual boundary between Maraetaha 2A, section 1, and Maraetaha 2, section 1.252 7.3 The Poverty Bay Lands Titles Act, 1874 The Commission had returned the remaining land. It was now held under tribal ownership, as before 1868. But native title had been extinguished by the 1868 cession. The returned lands were thus outside the jurisdiction of the Land Court. Consequently, there was no way to ascertain individual interests. The land could not be partitioned. Crown titles could not be issued. Leases could not be entered into legally. The land could not be validly sold. 249 Gisborne MB, no 8, 22 March 1882, p 18. The ancestor was probably Rangiwahipu. Gisborne MB, no 8, 22 March 1882, p 17 250 Gisborne MB, no 8, 22 March 1882, p 22 251 ML287 252 ML 287/A3 71 If the Government was not immediately aware of the implications of what the Commission had done, it soon had the situation explained to it. 253 The Poverty Bay Lands Titles Act, 1874 was the Government's response. This legislation placed all of the land retumed, including the land returned to Ngai Tahupo, under the jurisdiction of the Land COU1i, 'notwithstanding that the Native title had been extinguished' .254 This was in line with Locke's original intentions. But while the 1873 boundaries of the tribal blocks were recorded in a schedule to the act, there was no requirement that the Land Court must observe them or even be guided by them. In 1873 Poverty Bay iwi had agreed among themselves where their respective tribal b0U11daries would lie: in 1874 the Poverty Bay Lands Titles Act made these boundaries, and the ownership of any of the land inside them, contestable. If the descendants of Tamanuhiri, for example, wished to gain the security of a Crown title, or defend their right to a title against others, they would be obliged, after 1874, to attend on the Land Court. 7.4 The Native Land Court By 1874, the Land Court had been formally in existence since 1862, but in practice only from 1865. It is an institution that needs no introduction. Nor do we need to spend much time on the philosophy underlying the land acts administered by the Court. There is a good deal of evidence that the Court and particularly the legislation were in general terms a disaster for the Maori people.255 This was apparent by the late 1860s, and on many occasions over the next 30 years provisions designed to deal with particular defects or to provide more protection for Maori land were put into place. In 1888, for example, eight 253 Johnson to McLean, 30 July 1874, NA file ND 74/3980 254 Poverty Bay Lands Title Act, 1874, section 2 255 Ward, A. National Overview. Waitangi Tribunal, 1997, vol 2, p 219. See additional research reports on this page as well. 72 Graphical Representation Only ~/ Wa1814· n.harris nov2000 I==~=====kr======;:;===~===r==~,l~km 6mlles r r c-' . I'tNe North ..J ~7>\ ( ( /.!!!'t' '. L\ 'I) l PAKOWHAI MARAETAHA2 ..li )" .' 73 pieces of Maori land legislation passed: in 1889 there were nine?56 But this was just tink:ering with the system, with the intention of providing only a very limited degree of ( protection. No government that attempted in any whole hearted way to police and regulate land alienation to the advantage of Maori would have commanded a majority for very long. Rather than assist, these frequent changes to the law simply created extra confusion and uncertainty. When the Government commissioned an inquiry into the land legislation and the court in 1891, there were few with anything good to say about either. 257 Yet it was to this demanding, expensive, inefficient and capricious institution that Poverty Bay Maori were compelled to bring their claims. Whareongaonga was the first Ngai Tamanuhiri block taken to the Land Court. 7.5 Whareongaonga Whareongaonga lay to the north of Paritu, on the coastline. In 1877, when title Was •il investigated, it was said to contain 3,100 acres. There was mention during the hearing that the Government wanted to ma1ce Whareongaonga a native reserve, and on the last day of the hearing an application of this kind was made?58 The Court must have turned this application down, since it issued a memorial of ownership the next day.259 With two exceptions, the claimants all belonged to Ngati Rangiwaho?60 The exceptions were Keita Wyllie (Kate Wyllie) and Wi Pataerewa. 261 They claimed part of the block on 256 AJHR 1891 GI P xi 257 AJHR: 1891: GI' 258 Gisbome MB, no 3, 15 February 1877, p 245 259 Gisbome MB, no 3, 16 February 1877, pp 247-250 260 Hoera Ngaunga also identified himself as Ngati Kaea. Gisbome MB, no 3, 12 February 1877, P 208 261 Kate Wyllie was one of Thomas Halbert's children. She became the wife of James Wyllie, and then subsequently, Michael Gannon. She is frequently mentioned in the Gisbome minute books as a witness, claimant or conductor. Sometimes she was referred to by the Maori names of Keita Waere or (later) Keita }." Kenana, with some variation in spellings in both cases. The Dictionary ofNew Zealand Biography, vol 2, 1993, p 592 identifies her as Rongowhakaata. She claimed in some blocks as a descendant of Tamanuhiri. Halbert's tables suggest a line of descent from Rakaipaaka. Halbert, R. Horouta: The Histo/y ofthe 74 the basis of conquest by Te Rangiwahipu, a descendant of Tamanuhiri and the father of Kahutia?62 Neither of these claimants lived at Whareongaonga: Keita lived at Gisbome and Wi Pataerewa at Mahia. The Court accepted that this conquest had taken place, but the necessary occupation had not been proven. For this reason these two claims were rejected?63 The other applicants all based their claim on descent either from Hine Te Whatu or Hine Te Whatu's descendant Rangiwaho. Hine Te Whatu, like Tamanuhiri, was a descendant of Tahupotild. 264 According to Wi Kaipuke, Hine Te Whatu had lived on the Paritu-Whareongaonga boundary. She had given Paritu to one of her children, and Whareongaonga to another, Te Rangialeawa?65 It was from Te Rangialcawa that Wi Kaipuke traced his descent, but he also provided another whalcapapa. TIns one showed a line of descent from Melee, identified as Ngai Te Rakato?66 Hoera Ngalmgau agreed that Hine Te Whatu had been the original owner, but he claimed ) from Rangiwaho, who had come after Hine?67 The whalcapapa linldng Hine Te Whatu and Rangiwallo was produced on 13 February 1877?68 From bits and pieces of evidence given by various witnesses, it seems that the Ngai Tahu people who had originally lived at Whareongaonga, Hine Te Whatu's descendants, had been absorbed by another, related, group who moved into the Whareongaonga area from the north. Rangiwaho may have led these later arrivals, or he may have emerged as a Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 274 . None of these affiliations are incompatible. 262 Gisbome MB, no 3, 13 February 1877, pp 231-234. Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistOlY of the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 296 263 Gisbome MB, no 3,15 February 1877;p 246 264 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistOlY ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 264 265 Gisbome MB, no 3, 9 February 1877, p 203 266 Gisbome MB, no 3, 9 February 1877, p 205 267 Gisbome MB, no 3, 12 February 1877, p 217 268 Gisbome MB, no 3, 13 February 1877, p 237 75 leader subsequently. In any event, it was Rangiwaho's name that had been adopted by the merged people. The Court could see nothing in the evidence that gave anyone a better or superior right to the land than anyone else, so the block was awarded equally to the various Ngati Rangiwaho claimants?69 There were 140 grantees altogether, and each of them had an interest equivalent to 22Y2 acres?70 In 1883, by agreement among the owners, Whareongaonga was divided into three sections: A, Band C. Whareongaonga A was an area of around 133 acres in the north east corner of the block, awarded to a list of 5 owners. Whareongaonga B was an area of about 200 acres surrounding the harbour at Whareongaonga, where Te Kooti landed in 1869. A burial ground was contained within its boundaries. Whareongaonga B was a general reserve, ) excluding only those who were included in the Whareongaonga A award.271 At the request of the owners, Whareongaonga B was made inalienable 'absolutely', either by lease or sale?72 The balance of the block, Whareongaonga C, was awarded to the same list of owners determined for Whareongaonga B. Whareongaonga C was made inalienable by sale but it could be leased. , "I 7.5.1 Whareongaonga A Whareongaonga A was never subdivided. In 1944, an area of 3a. 21'. 34.2p. was taken for construction of the East Coast Main Trunlc railway.273 Compensation of £10 plus a house 269 Gisbome MB, no 3, 16 February 1877, pp 248-250 270 Gisbome MB, no 9, 17 October 1883, p 147 271 Gisbome MB, no 9, 18 October 1883, pp 151-152 272 Gisbome MB, no 9,17 October 1883, p 148 273 New Zealand Gazette, 17 August 1944, P 986 76 was ordered. 274 WhaTeongaonga A eventually became part of the Manutuke consolidation scheme.275 7.5.2 Whareongaonga B Whareongaonga B contained over 200 acres. In 1925 the bulk of land was sold to the Gisborne Harbour Board. The Harbour Board wanted stone for harbour works. It had investigated several sites to the north and south of Gisborne harbour: Whareongaonga, Paritu, Mahanga and Whangara. Whareongaonga and Whangara were the most suitable sites but the County Council was already taldng stone from Whangara. That district was also known to be a place of special significance to Maori.276 By March 1925, the board had decided in principle on WhaTeongaonga, and investigatio~s of the site had been put in hand.277 It had also . / I if received a letter from the Whareongaonga B owners, offering to sell the land.278 The asldng price was £30,000, and the owners wanted protection for the urupa and their occupation and fishing rights over the block protected, other than in the area of the quarry itself. In April 1924 the board asked the Tairawhiti District Maori Land BoaTd to call a meeting of the owners, to confirm both the offer to sell and the price mentioned in March.279 Negotiations over the purchase were still going on towaTds the end of JUne, but the Harbour Board must have felt confident, because the letting of tenders for the harbour work was being discussed.28o In September 1925 the board discussed and approved work 274 Gisbome MB, no 68, 27 June 1945, pp 327-328 275 Along with a number of other smaller sections, the aggregation being called Whareongaonga 5 276 Gisborne Times, 26 February 1924 277 Poverty Bay Herald, 23 March 1925 ) 278 Gisbome Habour Board MB, 23 March 1925, p 37 279 Gisbome Habour Board MB, 27 April 1925, P 52 280 Poverty Bay Herald, 29 June 1925 77 needed at Whareongaonga to get the quarry going?81 In November 1925 the Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, as the agent for the Maori owners, transfelTed almost all of ( Whareongaonga B, an area of around 195 acres, designated lot 5, to the Gisborne Harbour Board?82 There is very little in the files about this purchase, extraordinary in as far as the Harbour Board only needed, and originally seemed only interested in buying, the quarry site, an area of a few acres near the shoreline. It appears that the owners offered the whole block, with certain conditions. One condition related to the urupa. The owners wanted this protected. The second condition was that occupation and fishing rights would be maintained. Only the condition relating to the urupa was formally recognised: that area was excluded from the sale. There may have been informal agreement that Maori occupation and fishing rights would continue after the sale, or these conditions may have I ~ been abandoned during the negotiations. There is evidence of some Maori discontent with the sale, or with some aspects of it. A dissenter, Tere Te Apu, applied to the Court for a partition of the block, apparently to provide protection for the urupa. Karauria Te Pei appeared. He argued that a large number of the owners were agreeable to the Harbour Board taking the land?83 Certain areas, containing umpa, were excluded from the sale. There was no need to partition the land and the majority of the owners opposed Tere's application?84 Tere Te Apu may have withdrawn his application, or it may simply have been rejected by the Court. No further proceedings regarding it were minuted. 281 Poverty Bay Herald, 22 September 1925 282 CT 76/111 283 Given in minutes book as Wi Karauria. No Wi Karauria appears on the list of owners on CT 761111. No Tere Te Apu either. 284 Gisborne MB, no 53, p 244 78 The urupa were on lot 1, a small area near the harbour. This lot, and lots 2, 3 and 4, a bit more than 5 acres in total, were retained by Maori.285 Lot 2, a small area of 14 perches near the harbour, was sold or talcen in late 1925 for road access to the urupa.286 In 1957 the area remaining in Maori hands was just a bit more than 4 acres. In that year these few acres had 288 owners?87 This small remnant of Whareongaonga B was eventually included in the Manutuke consolidation scheme. In 1991, it was gazetted as a urupa for the use ofNgati Rangiwallo?88 There is a postscript to the story of Whareongaonga B. The quany started to operate, but then a major dispute developed between the quarry manager and the board's engineer?89 The manager resigned. The suitability of the stone for the harbour development was questioned. The board eventually decided not to persevere with the quarry, apart from taldng a small amount of stone for trial purposes?90 The machinery at the quarry was removed, and the site abandoned. As for the rest of the block, the board asked for a report on the possibility of using it for forestry?91 The history of Whareongaonga B has not been followed beyond this point. 7.5.3 Whareongaonga C Whareongaonga C, an area of 2821 acres, was subdivided into 12 parts, C1 to C12, in 1891. In 1877, the Whareongaonga owners had identified themselves as Ngati Rangiwaho, although Mita Puku had said at that hearing that several Ngati Rangiwaho sub-hapu lived 285 DP 2925 286 CT 76/112 287 Whareongaonga B block file, Gisbome MLC ) 288 New Zealand Gazette, 1991, p 2116 289 Poverty Bay Herald, 27 September 1926 290 Poverty Bay Herald, 30 June 1927 291 Poverty Bay Herald, 25 October 1926 79 at Whareongaonga as well?92. Part of the evidence given during the 1891 partition hearing was a list of all the Whareongaonga owners, by hapu.293 On this occasion, no one was identified as Ngati Rangiwaho: the hapu mentioned were Ngati Hinekino, Ngati Tuteuruao, Ngati Meke, Ngati Waipapa, Ngati Tauanui, Ngati Tuheke, Ngati Puhanga, Ngati Hinepuia, Ngai Te Urangatoka, Ngati Kahuterua and Ngati Umupapa?94 Most of these names were derived from descendants of Rangiwaho?95 During the course of the hearing another hapu, N gati Ruakomutumutu, emerged. This hapu may be a sub-division of N gati Puhanga, since Ruihi Matauhi identified Ruakomutumutu as a son ofPuhanga?96 Finally, a handful of the Whareongaonga C owners were simply identified by the telID 'aroha'. After some initial dispute, and the intervention of Wi Pere, the parties agreed on a plan for sub-division of the southern end of Whareongaonga C. 297 The land would be divided on a hapu by hapu basis. During November 1891 the boundaries of these southern divisions ) (Whareongaonga C 1-C 11) were settled by agreement among the parties, and the owners of each sub-division listed?98 Some of the Whareongaonga owners belonged to more than one hapu, and received shares in more than one of the sub-divisions.299 At the same time, the Court heard evidence about the disputed northern part of Whareongaonga C. On 27 November 1891, this northern section, Whareongaonga C12, was awarded to Ngati Kahuterua.300 292 Gisborne ME, no 3, 12 February 1877, p 222 293 Gisborne ME, no 22, 2 November 1891, pp 254- 258 294 When the list of owners and hapu was completed it was noted that Ngati Meke were included with Ngati Hinekino, and that Ngati Kahuterua should be described as Ngati Whakarua. Gisborne MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, p 258 295 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistOlY o/the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 265 296 Gisborne ME, no 22, 25 November 1891, p 339. Five of the six owners of this section ofWhareongaonga were identified as Ngati Puhanga during the hearing. The sixth owner, Eru Rike, was one of the handful of the owners identified by the term 'aroha'. 297 Gisborne ME, no 22, 10 November 1891, p 263 298 Gisborne ME, no 22, 18 - 27 November 1891, pp 312-349,351,362-375 80 Several of these sections were subsequently divided again. The original Whareongaonga C1 block, for example, was eventually divided into seven sections: C1A1A, C1A1B, C1A2, C1A3, C1A4, C1A5 and C1B. C1A4 seems to have been the only part of Whareongaonga C alienated. Another section, Whareongaonga C 1OA2, was one of several areas assessed for pmchase as a forestry campsite in the early 1960s. It contained a bit more than 8 acres, and was described as uneconomic because of its size, remoteness and the poor quality of the soi1.301 The valuation was £25. 302 The Crown was willing to buy at that price, but for reasons unlmown the sale did not proceed. Apart from around 150 acres talcen for public works, mainly for railway construction and roads, all of it dming the 20th centmy and most of it in the 1940s and 1950s, most of the Whareongaonga C sections smvived more or else intact. In the late 1930s, parts of Whareongaonga C12 (about 450 acres fmally) were included in a land development , ir1 scheme.303 TIns scheme may have been a failme: the blocks concerned were eventually included, along with other Whareongaonga sections, in the Manutuke consolidation scheme. 304 It was usual, when land was talcen for public works, for compensation, in amounts determined by the Maori Land Court, to be paid. One exception to thls rule was noted. A small part of Whareongaonga C12/4B was talcen for public works in 1937.305 Thls land was apparently intended for railway pmposes, but it was used instead for a school. The 299 Gisbome MB, no 28, 20 February 1901, p 169 300 Gisbome MB, no 22, 27 November 1891, p 351 301 District Officer, Gisbome to Secretary, Maori Affairs, 18 April 1963, NA file MA 1/5/5/177 302 Commissioner Crown Lands, Gisbome, to Director-General of Lands, 19 August 1963, NA file MA 1/5/5/177 303 New Zealand Gazette, 27 January 1938, p 121 304 New Zealand Gazette, 18 March 1971, p 497 305 New Zealand Gazette, 19 August 1939, p 1837 81 Court ordered that when the area was no longer used for that purpose, it was to be returned to the former owners. From the early 20th century, the land was under control of the Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, and at least some of it was leased out. For example, Whareongaonga C4 was leased in 1935 for a term of21 years, without right of renewal, for an annual rental of £54. 9s.4d.306 Whareongaonga C5 (115 acres) was leased in 1936 for a term of21 years, without right of renewal, at an annual rental of £13.12s.307 There is useful work to be done collecting and analysing data on the leasing of Whareongaonga and other Ngai Tamanuhiri lands, in the context of 20th century development, and Maori use of Maori land ) 306 Gisbome MLC, 9 April 1953, Whareongaonga Block files, Gisbome MLC 307 Gisbome MLC, 9 April 1953, Whareongaonga Block files, Gisbome MLC 82 Chapter 8 Takararoa and Paritu Talcararoa and Paritu were coastal blocks to the south of Whareongaonga.308 Paritu was the larger block, containing about 12,142 acres. Talcararoa, the southern-most and smaller of the two blocks, contained about 2,707 acres. Talcararoa lay on the coastline, and was bound on the north and west by the Paritu block. The Waiau River formed the western, inland, bOlmdary of Talcararoa. Talcararoa seems to have been originally part of Pru:itu. Eru Pohatu said that Talcararoa had been separated off, so that the contest for it would not affect Paritu.309 This seems to indicate some awareness on Eru's part that Talcararoa and Paritu did not necessarily belong to the srune people. 8.1 Takararoa. ;, I :J The investigation of Talcararoa started on 16 May 1879, in Gisborne. The Court heard evidence until 21 May. It then decided that it would hear the evidence relating to Paritu, the larger block, before issuing ajudgement on Talcararoa.310 Eru Pohatu's evidence in the case of Talcararoa was that the local people, Ngati Kurawea, had been threaten by Hauralci. They had gone to Meke, who lived on the northern boundary of Paritu, that is, on or near Whareongaonga, for assistance. 311 On several occasions Meke or his descendants had intervened on behalf of N gati Kurawea, to show 308 The southern boundary of the Gisborne inquiry district has been tentatively set along the Whareongaonga Paritu boundary. The research does indicate a Ngai Tamanuhiri interest to the south of this line. However, the main Ngai Tamanuhiri interests do seem to lie in the blocks to the nOlth of the proposed boundary, and the research has focussed on these blocks in particular. This chapter on the ownership of Paritu and Takararoa, blocks outside the interim boundary, has been left in the report in the meantime, pending a fmal decision on where the southern boundary of the Gisborne inquiry district will be drawn. 309 Gisborne ME, no 4, 16 May 1879, p 184 310 Gisborne ME, no 4,21 May 1879, p 229 311 Gisborne ME, no 4, 16 May 1879, p 183 83 intruders from the south off the block.312 In the process, Ngati Meke had established rights on Takararoa, but had not displaced Ngati Kurawea. The Ngati Kurawea witnesses generally supported Em Pohatu's version of events.313 Wi Paetarewa was the counter-claimant. He claimed descent from Rakaipaaka, Rangiwahipu, Hauraki and Rakato. 314 His evidence was of an invasion into the district by Rongowhakaata and other northern hapu, which was eventually defeated by Te Tahinga, Ralcaipaalca's grandson. Tlus victory had established the ascendancy of the southern hapu at Talcararoa, and others who lived on the block (including Ngati Kurawea) had done so in a state of subjection.315 Two quite opposite cases had been made for Talcararoa. This may be why the Court decided to hear the evidence for Paritu before maldng a decision. 8.2 Paritu • ) Paritu was contested between Ngati Ralcato and Ngati Rangiwahipu claimants. According to Ngati Ralcato, the land had belonged to Te Tahinga, Rakaipaalca's grandson. From him it had passed to Te Rakato and then to Meke. Kate Wyllie was the Ngati Rangiwhipu claimant. She claimed on the basis of conquest. Ihalca Ngarangioue, Te Walca Te Waituhi and Mita Puku delued her evidence.316 According to them, Rangiwahipu had lived principally in the south at Mahia and Nuhaka. He may have fought on the land, or passed across it in order to fight, but that was all. Halbert says that Rangiwahipu lived at Talcararoa for a period before moving to Whareongaonga. He records no period of residence on Paritu.317 312 Kurawea was a grandson ofHine Te Whatu. Gisbome MB, no 4, 19 May 1879, p 206. See also Halbert, R. Horouta: The History o/the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 264 313 Gisbome MB, no 4,20 May 1879, pp 208-213 314 Gisbome MB, no 4, 16 May 1879, p 185 315 Gisbome MB, no 4, 16 May 1879, pp 187-188, 193 316 Gisbome MB, no 4,23 May 1879, pp 244-249; 27 May 1879, p 251 317 Halbert, R. Horouta: The History o/the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 72 84 Nearly all of those who gave evidence during these investigations identified themselves as belonging to hapu of Ngati Kahungunu. For example, Eru Pohatu identifying himself, at the beginning of the Takararoa hearing, as belonging to Ngai Te Rakato, a hapu that others (for example, Ihaka Ngarangioue and Wai Kaipuke) identified as Ngati KahungunU. 318 Eru Pohatu claimed from Meke.319 He also said that he belonged to the Ngati Kahupo tribe, or perhaps to the Ngati Tahupo tribe. The minute book is hard to decipher, but since Eru Pohatu identified himself as Ngai Tahupo in other settings, Ngai Tahupo may be the better reading. TIns seems, however, to have been a slip of the tongue. At the beginning of the Paritu hearing, a short time later, Eru identified himself as belonging to the 'Ngaiterakato hapu of N' Kahungunu' .320 There were several witnesses from Ngati Haurald, another Ngati Kahungunu hapu: Wi Te Paetarewa, Hami Te Hau, Otene Pomare and Pimia Aata. 321 Hori Poipoi identified lnmself as Ngati Kurawea of Ngati ) KallunglU1U. 322 His brother, Hori Puihi, identified himself as Ngati Kurawea and Ngati KahlUlgunU. 323 One of the interesting things about the Talcararoa hearing was that none of the witnesses or claimants lived there. Eru Pohatu, Ihalca Ngarangioue and Wi Kaipuke lived at Muriwai.324 Wi Te Paetarewa lived on the Mahanga 2 block, to the south of Paritu.325 So did Hami Te Rarere. 326 Hami Te Hau lived at Nuhalca. 327 So did Otene Pomare.328 Hori Poipoi and 318 Gisborne MB, no 4, 16 May 1879, p 183; 21 May 1879, pp 221, 227 319 Gisborne MB, no 4, 16 May 1879, p 183; 320 Gisborne MB, no 4, 22 May 1879, p 230 32! Gisborne MB, no 4, 16 May 1879, pp 185, 194; 19 May 1879, p 196; 22 May 1879, p 232 322 Gisborne MB, no 4, 20 May 1879, p 209 323 Gisborne MB, no 4, 20 May 1879, p 215 324 Gisborne MB, no 4, 16 May 1879, p 183; 20 May 1879, p 221; 21 May 1879, p 227 325 Gisborne MB, no 4, 16 May 1879, p 185 326 Gisborne MB, no 4, 16 May 1879, p 201 327 Gisborne MB, no 4, 17 May 1879, p 194 328 Gisborne MB, no 4, 17 May 1879, p 196 85 Hori Puihi both lived at Mahanga.329 So did Ihaka Teriaki.33o The Court was sitting in Gisborne, so many of the claimants and their witnesses had to travel a good distance to attend the hearing. During the Paritu hearing it was again evident that none of the claimants or witnesses lived there. Em Pohatu now claimed he lived at Whareongaonga.331 Pimia Aata lived at Turanga, and so did Kate Wyllie.332 Te Waka Te Waituhi and Mita Puka both lived at Muriwai.333 The only Ngai Tahupo claimants were Kate Wyllie and Mita Puku. Kate claimed Paritu as Ngai Te Rangiwahipu of Ngai TahupO.334 Mita Puku said he was Ngai Te Hau of Ngai TahupO?35 Puku made his claim through the same ancestor, Paritu, as Ihaka Ngarangioue.336 He also said that he had nothing t6 add to the case that Ihaka had presented.337 8.3 The Ownership of Takararoa and Paritu The Court's judgement on Takararoa and Paritu was delivered on 28 May 1879.338 Takararoa was awarded to Ngati Meke, Ngati Hauraki and Ngati Kurawea. Paritu was given to Ngai Te Ao Tera, Ngai Te Inaina, Ngai Te Pou, Ngai Te Umupapa, Ngai Te Aomaru, Ngai Te Rakato, Ngai Tama and Ngai Tahaotera. The Ngai Tahupo claimant Kate Wyllie was also admitted into both Paritu and Takararoa. But she was listed as Ngati 329 Gisborne ME, no 4, 20 May 1879, pp 208, 215 330 Gisborne ME, no 4,21 May 1879, p 227 331 Gisborne ME, 110 4, 21 May 1879, p 227 332 Gisborne ME, 110 4, 21 May 1879, pp 232, 237 333 Gisborne ME, 1104,23 May 1879, p 248; 27 May 1897, p 251 334 Gisborne ME, no 4, 22 May 1879, p 237 ) 335 Gisborne ME, no 4, 27 May 1879, p 251 336 Gisborne ME, 110 4, 22 May 1879, p230; Gisborne ME, no 4,27 May 1879, p 251 337 Gisborne ME, 110 4, 27 May 1879, p 251 86 Hauraki on the Takararoa list and as Ngati Te Rakato on the Paritu list. The other Ngai Tahupo claimant, Mita Puku, who had claimed from the same ancestor as Ihaka ( N garangioue, was admitted into neither block.. Ihaka, on the other hand, was accepted as one of the owners of both blocks. The La11d Court characterised the TakararoalParitu investigation as a dispute 'between hapu of N gati Kahungunu'. 339 The· ways in which many of the witnesses identified themselves during the hearing supported the Court's contention. When the lists of names for the blocks were handed in these were arranged hapu by hapu with, in most cases, the words 'Ngati Kahungunu tribe' following the hapu name. On the Takararoa list, for example, Ngati Meke and Ngati Hauraki were both described as hapu of N gati Kahungunu.340 N gati Kurawea, on the other hand, was not described in this ) way. The Paritu list was set out in much the same way.341 Ngai Te Ralcato, Ngai Te Umupapa, Ngai Tahaotera and Ngai Te Aomaru were all tagged as Ngati Kahungunu. The Ngai Te Pou, Ngai Te Ao Tera and Ngai Tama owners were separately identified as well, but in a way that indicated they were considered hapu of Ngai Te Ralcato. The Ngai Te Inaina owners were not separately identified at all. The ancestors claimed were Te Ralcato, Meke, Kurawea, Haurala and Rangiwampu. Te Ralcato was a son ofTe Hula, an important chief in the Wairoa district, and a descendant of Ralcaipaalca. 342 Meke was a grandson of Te Hula. According to Halbert, Te Hula, Te 338 Gisbome ME, no 4, 28 May 1879, pp 252-253 339 Gisbome ME, no 4, 28 May 1879, p 252 340 Gisbome ME, no 6, 4 August 1880, pp 172-174 ( ) 341 Gisbome ME, no 6, 12 August 1880, pp 205-208 342 Halbert, R. Horouta: The History ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, pp 266, 294 87 Rakato and Meke could also trace lines of descent from Tamanuhiri.343 Kurawea was a descendant of Talmpotiki, and of Hine Te Whatu, so Ngati Kurawea were related to Tamanuhiri as well.344 Hori Puihi, in fact, said that Ngati Kurawea belonged to Ngai TahupO.345 Haurala was a grandson of Rangiwahipu, and belonged to the same generation as Meke. 346 Rangiwahipu was a brother-in-law of Te Hula.347 According to Halbert, Rangiwahipu was Ngati Ralcaipaaka: his mother, Haerengaarangi, was Ngati Paea.348 Halbert dates Kurawea and Te Hula around 1700, and Te Ralcato, Haurala and Meke as early to mid-18th century.349 Rangiwahipu was Hauraki's grandfather, so he belongs around 1700 as welL Whether these ancestors would have used or recognised a corporate identification like Ngati Kahungunu or Ngai Tamanuhiri is unlmown. What is clear is that during the Talcararoa and Pru:itu investigations, their descendants chose to stress their Ngati Kallungunu heritage, to the exclusion of their Ngai Tamanuluri links. It is difficult to say ( that this was solely a response to the requirements of the Land Court. It may have been a normal expression of ancestral variability: Ngati Meke, for example, could plausibly claim to be descendants of KallungunU or Tamanuhiri or Rongowhalcaata or even Ruapani.350 While none of the Paritu or Takararoa owners identified themselves as descendants of Tamanuhiri, there were among these owners people who, in other districts, had chosen to 343 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistDlY ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 268 344 Halbert, R. Horouta: The History ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 264 345 Gisborne MB, no 4, 20 May 1879, p 220 346 Halbert, R. Horouta: The History ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 314 347 Halbert, R. Horouta: The History ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 72 348 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistDlY ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, pp 75, 268 349 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistDlY of the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, pp 264, 266,268,294 350 Halbert, R. Horouta: The History ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, pp 266, 279 88 whakapapa back to Tamanuhiri or one of his descendants.351 Wi Te Paetarewa, for example, had identified himself as Ngati Rangiwaho during the Whareongaonga 352 hearing. Ihaka Ngarangione, one of the principal claimants to Takararoa and Paritu, had identified himself as Ngai Tahupo before the Poverty Bay Commission. Though Eru Pohatu had conducted the Ngai Te Rakato case, he did not appear on the list for either Takararoa or Paritu. But he had identified himself as Ngai Te Rakato and a descendant of Meke. At a later date, when Takararoa was sub-divided, a memorial of ownership was issued for one of the divisions, to allow an orderly transfer of the land to the Crown. Eru was one of the owners listed on this memorial: his hapu was identified as Ngatirangiwaho, his tribe as Ngaihutapo.353 There is nothing unusual about this. Many Maori belonged to more than one hapu and to more than one iwi. But iwi were political constructs: the tenitorial entities were the hapu, and it was to hapu that Paritu and Talcararoa were awarded. ) There were 102 owners listed on the Paritu list, and 64 on the Takararoa lise54 The Paritu owners were divided into four principal groups: Ngai Te Ralcato, Ngai Te Umupapa, Ngai Tahaotera and Ngai Te Aomaru. The Ngai Te Pou, Ngai Te Ao Tera and Ngai Tama owners were all separately identified, but they appear to have been considered hapu of Ngai Te Ralcato. The Ngai Te Inaina owners were not separately identified at all. They may also have been considered Ngai Te Rakato. The 64 Takararoa owners were divided as follows: 22 Ngati Hauralci (34 per cent), 34 Ngati Kurawea (53 per cent) and 8 Ngati Meke (12.5 per cent). This brealcdown, which 351 See appendix A. 352 Gisbome MB, no 3, 13 February 1877, p 226 353 Memorial of Ownership, Takararoa, March 1883. Talcararoa block file, Gisbome MLC 89 was the result of the way the owners prepared their list, does not suggest that Meke had ( been the dominant player on Takararoa. Nor did it support the Raleaipaalea thesis that Ngati Kurawea had been a subject people. But it did reflect a belief that Rakaipaalea's descendants had faJ: more rights in Takararoa than did Melee's descendants. In fact, the Ngati Meke on the Paritu list, while they had some links to Tamanuhiri hapu to the north, seemed to have stronger links to the south. There were eight individuals who appeared as Ngati Meke on the Takararoa list. Two of them also claimed in WhaJ:eongaonga as Ngati Rangiwaho, and five in Paritu as Ngai Te Rakato. Terina Paeroa appears to be the only Takararoa Ngati Meke owner who did not also appear among the owners of either Paritu or Whareongaonga. The largest single contingent on the Takararoa list was the group of 34 Ngati Kurawea. Twelve of them appeared only on this list. Another 14 appeared on both the Takararoa and Paritu lists: on the Paritu list as Ngai Te Rakato. Six of the 34 Ngati Kurawea also appeared on the Whareongaonga list as Ngati Rangiwaho. So while Ngati Kurawea also had links with Ngai Tamanuhlri hapu to the north they, like Ngati Meke, seem to have much stronger links to the south. At the same time, nearly a third of the Ngati Kmawea owners appeared only on the Takararoa list. Tllis suggests some substance to their claim to have been the original owners of the Takararoa district. Their descent from Hine Te Whatu also suggests this was the case. The breakdown of the Paritu list by hapu: 57 Ngai Te Rakato (56 per cent), 21 Ngai Te Umupapa (21 per cent), 7 Ngai Tahaotera (7 per cent) and 17 Ngai Te Aomaru (18 per 354 Shares in each of these blocks were awarded equally: 26 acres in Takararoa and 100 acres in Paritu. Gisbome MB, no 8, 3 March 1883, pp 225,228 90 cent), shows that on tIns block as well the concerned Maori agreed that the southern Ngai Te Rakato hapu was entitled to the dominant interest. ( Closer analysis of the ownersIllp list tends to support tIlls view. For example, the largest contingent on the Paritu list was the group of 57 Ngai Te Rakato. Twenty-nine of these individuals appeared only on the Paritu list. Twelve appeared on both the Paritu and Takararoa lists, as Ngai Te Ralcato in the case of Paritu and as Ngati Kurawea in Talcararoa. Six of the Paritu Ngai Te Ralcato names appeared on the Talcararoa owners' list as Ngati Meke: five appeared as Ngati Hauralci. Finally, six of the Paritu Ngai Te Ralcato appeared on the "Whareongaonga list as Ngati Rangiwaho. The southward tendency is evident. This tendency is also apparent among the 17 Ngai Te Aomaru owners: 11 appeared only on the Paritu list. Three were on the Talcararoa list as Ngati Hauralci. Another two were on the Talcararoa list as Ngati Kurawea. One appeared on the "Whareongaonga list as Ngati Rangiwaho. The only Paritu owners who showed a strong affiliation to the north were the 21 Ngai Te Umupapa. 355 Ten of them appeared only on the Paritu list: 11 others appeared on the "Whareongaonga list as Ngati Rangiwaho. None of the Ngai Te Umupapa individuals appears anywhere as Ngai Te Ralcato, or under any other hapu name that linked them to the south. TIlls is understandable, given their origins. Umupapa was a descendant of Mahalci. 356 Umupapa's descendants intermarried with Tamanuhiri's descendants, but the merged group continued to revere Umupapa as their eponymous ancestor. 355 The Ngai Te Umupapa owners ofParitu seem to have given no evidence. 356 Halbert, R. Horouta: The History o/the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 267 91 To the north of Paritu lay Whareongaonga, where everyone had claimed they were Ngati Rangiwaho in 1877. Whareongaonga had 139 owners. Of these 18, or about 13 percent ( \ of the Whareongaonga list, were also among the owners of Paritu. The overlap between the ownership of Whareongaonga and Takararoa was much smaller: only 3, about 2 per cent, of the Whareongaonga owners were also owners of Talcararoa. These three, in fact, were on the ownership lists of all three blocks. But none of the Ngati RangiwallO Whareongaonga owners claimed to the south as Ngati Rangiwallo. The only Ngai Tamanuhh'i affiliated group that did claim in the south as a Ngai Tamanuhiri affiliated group was Ngai Te Umupapa. They made up about 20 per cent of the Paritu owners. There were several applications made for a re-hearing of Paritu and Talcararoa, with the objective of admitting various people to the lists. One of these came from Ngai Te Pou individuals. Others were from individuals who claimed to have been mistalcenly struck off ! ! the original list presented to the COurt. 357 N one of these applications were accepted, and on one of them the reasons for the refusal were noted. The lists had been prepared with considerable care and with great difficulty by the Maori concerned. Nor had there been any obvious discontent when the Court's judgement was announced.358 The implication was that the Court would not go behind the decisions that had been made by the owners and their conductors about who should or should not be on the lists. It was because the lists in question were produced by Maori, and not imposed by the Court, that some credence can be attached to them. But the Court had another reason for declining to re-open the Paritu and Talcararoa investigation. The Crown was negotiating the alienation of parts of both blocks. The implication here was that if the 357 Paritu Block file, Gisborne MLC 358 RaIse memo, 1880, Paritu Block file, Gisborne MLC 92 list of owners was further investigated, the Crown's efforts to date, and the advances made on the land, would be placed at risk. () Neither Paritu nor Takararoa have been followed beyond the original investigation of ownership. ( ) \ . 93 Graphical Representation Only Wal814 - n.harris nov2000 J F=~~====~=====?====~====~=*~6~m~:; ~ \<.W er Norlh j':::' "(-\'1>\ d \, ~ (i )/ PAKOWHAI Young TAREWAURU .II ) f) f .~'"r \ Figure 9 . Rahokapua, Okahu and Umuhaku blocks 94 Chapter 9 Rahokapua and Umuhaku The Rahokapua block lay to the south of Puninga, on the western side of the Paritu block. In May 1879, Eru Pohatu and 12 others requested that the Government purchase Rahokapua. They asked 4/6 an acre. The offer was declined. The Crown could only 1882 Eru Pohatu, identifying himself as Ngati Meke hapu of Ngati Kahungunu, claimed the whole of Rahokapua, an area of 811 acres, on the basis of occupation and descendant from Meke.360 When he gave his genealogy he began with Tamanuhiri.361 Others claimed on behalf of Ngati Umupapa, Ngati Awhi, Ngai Te Huki and Ngati Kaia.362 The Ngati Awhi and Ngai Te Huld claimants joined forces, as did Ngati Umupapa and Ngati Kaia. According to evidence given during the Whareongaonga hearing, Ngati Umupapa was a hapu ofNgati Rangiwaho, and that is how Karauria Te Pei described them on this occasion.363 Ngati Kaia was identified in the same way.364 Kaia seems to have been the ancestor identified by Halbert as Kaiarike, the father of Hineldno and the father- in-law of Kotihei.365 Ngati Umupapa claimed a portion at the north east comer of the block. Ngati Kaia claimed the north west comer. 359 A-MLP 1118791164 360 Gisbome ME, no 8, 30 March 1882, p 37 361 Gisbome ME, no 8, 17 April 1882, p 77 362 Appears to be Ngai Te lnd (Gisborne ME, no 8,30 March 1882, p 37), Ngai Te Huke (Gisborne MB, no 8, 14 April 1882, p 70) Ngai Te Hald (Gisbome ME, no 8, ? April 1882, p 104) and then Ngai Te Hulce (Gisbome ME, no 8, ? April 1882, p 105). The ancestor was given as Huld, and Halbert agrees with this spelling. According to Gudgeon, Ngai Te Huld was an alternative name for Ngati Rakaipaalca. Gudgeon, W. E. The Maori Tribes ofthe East Coast. Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol. 6, 1897, P 185 363 Gisbome ME, No 8, 30 March 1882, p 37 364 Gisbome ME, No 8, 30 March 1882, p 40 95 The Court found the evidence presented to it extremely contradictory and confusing.366 It decided, however, that N gati Awhi and N gati Kaia had established their claim to that part 1( of the block lying to the west of the Uriroa River. Another portion, defined as lying east of a line from Aihimanawa to a point on the Uriroa stream known as Te Takanga 0 Kawhiri, belonged to Ngati Umupapa. 367 The balance of the block belonged to Ngati MeIce. 368 9.1 The Owners ofRahokapua The names for the main block (awarded to Ngati Meke) and the northeastern comer (Ngati Umupapa's portion), an area of 691 acres in total, were handed in to the Court on 8 May 1882. There were six names on this list: Eru Pohatu, Wi Kaipuke, Rawinia Apatu, Mere Pohatu, Karauria Te Pei and Keita Pongarau. There may have been only five intended owners originally, since Keita Pongarau's name was added at the last minute, after she appealed to the Court and then only after 'much discussion' .369 Karauria Te Pei and Keita Pongarau were the Ngati Umupapa owners of the nOliheastern comer of Rahokapua, an area that at tlns stage was still part of the main Rahokapua block. The other four owners: Eru Pohatu, Wi Kaipuke, Rawinia Apatu and Mere Pohatu belonged to Ngati Meke. There was only a small overlap between the Takararoa Ngati Meke and the Rahokapua N gati Meke, Rawinia Apatu being the only person to appear on both lists. There was a slightly larger overlap between the Rahokapua Ngati Meke and the Ngati Meke among the Whareongaonga owners, two names (Eru Pohatu and Rawinia Apatu) being common to both lists. Several of the Whareongaonga Ngati Meke were also 365 Halbert, R. Horouta: The History o/the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 265 366 Gisbome MB, No 8, 24 April 1882, p 105 367 Gisbome MB, No 8, 24 April 1882, p 105 368 Gisbome MB, No 8, 24 April 882, p 105 96 members of other Whareongaonga hapu: Ngai Tauanui, Ngati Hineldno and Ngati Tuteuruao. Others seemed to belong, on that block, only to Ngati Meke. ( The principal Ngati Meke witness during the TakararoaiParitu hearing, Eru Pohatu, had identified himselfto the Court as Ngati Kahungunu.370 At the same time, he also claimed descent fl.-om Tamanuhiri. Given that Ngati Meke was a hapu able to trace descent from Tamanuhiri as well as Kahungunu some significance has to be attached to the fact that Ngati Meke chose to define themselves, during the Rahokapua inquiry, and in other inquiries, as Ngati Kahungunu. At the same time, Ngati Meke was comfortable with the fact that their Rahokapua award, and the award made to Ngati Umupapa, would be held undivided, by a single list of owners. 371 The history of the Ngati Meke portion of Rahokapua has not been followed beyond the year of the original investigation.372 9.2 Rahokapua IB The names for Rahokapua 1, the land awarded to Ngati Awhi and Ngati Kaia, an area of 120 acres west of the Uriroa River, were handed in on 8 May 1882 as well.373 Rahokapua 1 was awarded on the same basis as Rahokapua: that is, as an undivided block, held by a single list of owners. However, Ngati Awhi and Ngati Kaia asked almost immediately for their interests to be separated. On 16 May 1882, the block was divided into two equal halves of about 60 acres each by a line running east to west.374 The southern sub-division (Rahokapua 1A) went to Ngati Awhi without restrictions.375 The history of this block has 369 Gisborne MB, No 8, 8 May 1882, p 151 370 Gisborne MB, No 8, 17 April 1882, p 77 371 Probably because they were already anticipating a quick sale. 372 Note that once lands awarded to Ngati Meke were sold, the hapu may not have been able to maintain a separate identify. 373 Gisborne MB, No 8, 8 May 1882, p 151 374 Gisborne MB, No 8,16 May 1882, p 188 375 Otene Pomare, who had presented the Ngati Awhi case to the Court, headed the list of owners for Rahokapua 1A. 97 not been followed beyond this point. The northern portion (Rahokapua 1B) was given to Ngati Kaia, and made inalienable.376 This restriction must have been lifted at some stage since Ngati Kaia's section, Rahokapua 1B, was sold in 1911 to Ellen May Loyllis.377 Very little is lmown about this sale. The block was taken in 1971 for forestry purposes, and now forms part ofthe Wharerata forest. 378 9.3 Rahokapua 2 The northeast comer of Rahokapua had been awarded to Ngai Umupapa in 1882. The rest of the block had been given to Ngati Meke. The block had not been partitioned. Rather, it was held tmdivided, by a single list of owners. By the late 1880s all but one of the interests in the block had been sold. The remaining owner, Keita Pongarau, wanted her share of the block cut out, and tIns was eventually done. The title to Rahokapua 2, containing around 113 acres, was issued without restriction to Keita Pongarau on 27 ) February 1889.379 Rahokapua 2 was the land awarded to Ngati Umupapa in 1882, probably less the interest of Karauria Te Pei, who had sold his share by tIns time. Rahokapua 2 was sold in 1908 by Keita Pongarau's successors.380 Very little is lmown about this sale. 9.40kahu The nearby Okahu block was awarded to Ngati Hauraki claimants after the briefest of hearing.381 376 Gisbome MB, No 8, 16 May 1882, p 188 377 Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board MB, 4, P 77. CT 51/45 378 New Zealand Gazette, 13 May 1971, p 1075 379 Tairawhiti Validation Court MB, no 3, 20 June 195, p 157 380 CT 40/56 ·381 Gisbome MB, no 8, 28 March 1882, p 35 98 9.5Umuhaku Umuhaku is located to the north of the Paritu block, and to the east of Plminga. The Court investigated Umuhaku (422 acres) in April 1881. Wi Kaipuke, of Ngati Ral1giwaho, claimed by descent from Kotihei.382 He admitted all of the descendants of this ancestor. According to Wi Kaipuke one of these owners, Karauria Te Pei, had sold to the Government but he, Wi Kaipuke, had repaid the money.383 There was no opposition to Wi Kaipuke' s claim, and the Court asked for the list of names to be handed in the following morning. The next day, 29 April 1881, Wi Kaipuke produced a list of 19 owners, the result, he said, of consultation with his people.384 Wi Kaipulce was not on this list, but he was the husband of one of the owners listed.385 The Court accepted the list and an order was made.386 A second order, covering the cost of the survey, was made later. This order, in favour ofE O'Meara, was a lien amounting to £35.13s.387 9.6 Sale ofUmuhalm Umuhaku had been offered to the Government in 1879. Inquiries were made, and it was decided that a purchase could be safely made, because the men making the offer had 'the right to do so' .388 At this stage, the block was thought to contain 3,000 acres. It was agreed that the Government would buy Umuhaku, once it had cleared the Land Court. The price was to be 4 shillings an acre, and an advance of £1 0 was paid.389 The Government also agreed to pay survey costs and Land Court charges.39o . Twelve Maori signed the agreement to sell on 3 June 1879. Ten of those signing were on the list of 19 owners 382 The ME gives Kotehe. Halbert gives Kotihei, and other links that support Wi Kaipuke's evidence. Halbert, R. Horouta: The History o/the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 265 383 Gisbome ME, no 7, 28 April 1881, p 256 384 Gisbome MB, no 7, 28 April 1881, p 257 385 Brooking to Under Secretary Land Purchase Department, 31 July 1882, NA file MA-MLP 1/188/139 386 Gisbome ME, no 7, 28 April 1881, p 257 387 Gisbome ME, no 7,28 Apri11881, p 257 388 Re Te Umuhaku minute, Gill, May 1879. NA file MA-MLP 111885/139 389 Agreement re Umuhaku 3 June 1879. NA file MA-MLP 111885/139 99 handed into the Comi in 1881. In July 1879 the Government gazetted the fact that negotiations for the purchase of Umuhaku had begun, and that a payment had been made.391 But once the land had been awarded, the owners became reluctant to sell. In May 1882, Brooldng reported that he was having difficulty obtaining signatmes, particularly from a group of six old women among the owners. These women wished to retain their portions of the block.392 By July 1882, Brooking had obtained all but three of the necessary signatmes. He expected to get two more in the near futme, but he was doubtful if the rema1l11l1gowner, KeitaPongarua, would sign. Keita, he noted, was the wife of a European. Brooldng repOlied that in dealing with the situation he had incurred unauthorised ( \. expenditme, by way of small payments to the husbands of three of the owners. This included £1 to Wi Kaipuke, who had give 'valuable assistance'. Brooldng had used his own money to make these payments, and he was anxious to lmow if he would be reimbursed.393 In August 1882 Brooking told the Department that he had still not obtained the signatmes required. Woodbine Johnson, who was assisting with the purchase, had been unavailable and the weather had prevented travel. It had been raining, Brooking said, 'almost 390 MA-MLP 111885/139 ) 391 New Zealand Gazette, 25 July 1879, p 1028 ) 392 Brooking to Under Secretary Land Purchase Department, 10 May 1882. NA file MA-MLP 111885/139 393 Brooking to Under Secretary Land Purchase Department, 31 July 1882. NA file MA-MLP 1118851139 100. continuously here for the last three weeks . . . very few natives coming onto town on account of the weather.' 394 By 1884,17 of the 19 owners had sold their interest to the Government. In that year the land wasp81iitioned, 26 acres (Umuhaku No 1) being set aside for the two non-sellers, Keita Pong81'au 81ld Hera Wharepa, and 396 acres going to the Crown. 395 A bit less than 2 acres ofUmuhaku 1 was taken up by roading, leaving a balance of about 24 acres. 9.7 Umuhaku lA and IB By 1902 Umuhalcu 1 was the property of Hera Wharepa and the two successors of Keita Pongarau: Hemi Kite Mokena and Hemi Te Whatu. In that year W R N Jones applied to the Comi for confirmation of a lease he had 81Tanged with the owners, on behalf of an Angus Wright. Evidence was presented that the rent was a fair one, that the owners were well able to earn their own living and that they had ample interests in other blocks.396 Jones got his confirmation. It is not clear if the lease was actually taken up. A few days later, Hemi Kite Mokena applied for a partition ofthe block. He said he was a descendant of Keita Pongarau, but there seems to have been some lmcertainty on the Court's part that this was in fact the case. Hera Wharepa appeared as well. She was one of the non-sellers who had had land set aside in 1884. She knew about the proposed partition, and wanted a variation in the survey line, to improve access to the road. At this stage, the case was adjoumed.397 394 Brooking to Under Secretary Land Purchase Department, 4 August 1882. NA file MA-MLP 1/1885/139; Brooking to Under Secretary Land Purchase Department, 14 August 1882. NA file MA-MLP 111885/139 395 Waiapu MB, no 6, 17 March 1884, p 397; New Zealand Gazette, 7 August 1884, P 1215 396 Gisbome MB, no 29, 8 August 1902, P 49 101 Later in the month, the matter was considered again. Hemi Kite Mokena asked for the block to be divided into two equal portions by a line running east to west. He said that the parties had agreed to a partition of tIns kind in 1890, and the application now being made was in accordance with this 1890 agreement. Hemi produced evidence that over £500 had been spent on the part of the block that, according to the 1890 agreement, belong to him and Ins kin. Originally, both of the projected partitions had a road frontage, but now a new road had been cut through that part of the block claimed by Hemi. The other owner, Hera Wharepa, now wanted the partition to be along a line north to south, to give her access to this new road. Hemi's objection was that a new partition would deprive lnm of some of the benefits of the improvements that had been made on the land since 1890.398 Other witnesses gave evidence on behalf of Hera Wharepa. The Court's decision was that r' the land was to be partitioned along the lines decided in 1890, that is, into northern (Umuhaku lA, vested in Hemi Kite Morena and Hemi Ngarangikatuku) and southern .(Umuhaku 1B, vested in Hera Wharepa) portions. However, provision was also made for the southern section to have access to the Mahia Road. 399 These two partitions were described as having a gross area of 13 acres each, each party losing whatever land had been taken up for roading. Umuhaku 1B was sold to J B King in 1914.400 It passed through the hands of several European owners before it was acquired by the Crown, and became State Forest in 1964.401 397 Gisbome MB, no 29, 11 August 1902, P 52 398 Gisbome MB, no 29, 17 August 1902, pp 71-72 399 Gisbome MB, no 29,17 August 1902, P 73 400 CT 53/88 401 New Zealand Gazette, 16 July 1964, p 1153 102 In 1916 the two owners of Umuhaku 1A mortgaged their land. They sought the approval of the Tairawhiti Maori Land Board. The Board's minute shows that Umuhalcu lA covered just over 11 acres. The unimproved value was £55: the improved value £391. The land was leased out to a Mr Easterbrock for £78 a year. The mortgage money, £100, was needed to improve the accommodation house on the land. This, and other buildings, were apparently in a state of disrepair and unattractive to the travelling public. If something were not done, Easterbrock would have to give up his lease. He and the owners had agreed to work together on the improvements. Easterbrock would supply the labour, the owners the material. The consent of the Governor-in-Council was required, and the Tairawhiti Maori Land Board recommended that this be given. In Februruy 1917 the necessary consent was obtained. Part of Umuhalcu 1A was talcen for roading in 1924, leaving a net area of nearly 11 acres. 402 In 1926 the owners ofUmuhaku lA sought a loan of £100 from the Tairawhiti Maori Land Board, using the land as security. The money was needed to discharge an overdue mortgage, and prevent foreclosure. By now the improved value of the lruld was £453. The owners would agree to assign £35 of the annual rent to repay the loan. The consent of the Minister was required, and this was forthcoming. In the early 1960s the New Zealand Forest Service purchased nearly 7,000 acres in the Paritu-Nuhalca district. 403 Land for a village and crunpsite was wanted as well. The Department of Maori Affairs was approached, with the objective of purchasing Umuhalcu lA, Umuhalcu 1B and prui of Whareongaonga C10A2. Umuhaku 1B was European land. It had been sold, as the Gisborne District Office soon advised, in 1914. 402 New Zealand Gazette, 31 July 1924, P 1767 403 New Zealand Gazette, 30 November 1961, p 1841 103 The owners ofUmuhaku 1A wanted to sell only the southern portion of the block, an area of just over 7 acres. This land was covered with manuka, fern and blackberry. It was suitable for a forest camp, but unsuited, because of size, remoteness and soil quality, for anything else. The government valuation of the 7-acre sub-section was £25. The Forest Service, however, wanted the entire block. The government valuation for the whole of Umuhalcu 1A (an area of just over 10 acres) was £100, £75 more than the valuation of the 7 acre portion that had been originally offered for sale. The owners wanted £200 for the block and the Forest Service was willing to pay that amount. The sale was made. Umuhalcu 1A was declared Crown land in March 1965.404 404 New Zealand Gazette, 4 March 1965, p 277; 29 April 1965, p 579 104 Chapter 10 ( Maraetaha 2 Claims made before the Poverty Bay Commission in 1869, and to the Land Court in the 1870s, suggested that Ngai Tamanuhiri were mainly a coastal people. But they also had claims to land in the interior. Ngati Paea and Ngati Kahutia had both occupied land there. One of Kahutia's sons, in fact, married Hinehau, the ancestor for whom the Rangaiohinehau block was named. 405 On early maps this interior land, the district inland of Maraetaha, is unnamed. When it came before the Court the various localities included were wrapped up in a parcel called Maraetaha 2. 406 10.1 The Investigation of Maraetaha 2 The Maraetaha 2 hearing began on I March 1882. The block contained al"Ound 23,705 acres. 407 The Ngai Tamanuhiri claimant was Hemi Waalca, who described himself, according to the minute book, as Nga Teri of Ngai Tamanuhiri. It is possible he actually said Ngati Paea, since Paeaterangi, Tamanuhiri's son, was the ancestor claimed.408 Waalca claimed for himself and his hapu on the basis of ancestry and occupation.409 There were a number of counter-claimants, around 25 in number from a variety of iwi and hapu: Ngai Tamanuhiri, Ngati Aweawe, Ngati Ngameiterangi, Rongowhalcaata, Ngati Ruapani, Ngai Tupatu, Ngati Pakirehe, Ngati Kahutia, Ngai Tahu, Ngati Rangiwaho, Ngati Rangituanui, Ngati Kahungunu, Ngati Talcitahi, Ngati Hauralci, Ngati Tawhi and Ngati 405 Halbert, R. Horouta: The Histo/y o/the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 72 406 ML 287 407 Jones to Native Minister, 5 June 1896, J1/1896/1207 408 Gisborne MB, no 7, 1 March 1882, p 430; Halbert, R. Horouta: The History o/the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 71 409 Gisborne MB, no 7, 1 March 1882, p 430 105 Hineteao. Some arranging and grouping of these counter-claimants took place, apparently at the instigation of the COurt. 410 This grouping may have been on the basis of who i ( represented or conducted the respective cases of the counter-claimants. Some of the original counter-claimants seemed to have dropped out at an early stage. The fInal list of counter-claimants and their representatives was set out in the judgement delivered on 24 April 1882.411 • Ngai Tamanuhiri, Ngati Kahutia, Ngati Aweawe, Ngati Ngarueiterangi: Keita Kanana The Court heard evidence through March and April 1882. Although the inquiry was entitled Maraetaha 2, it also covered Tarewauru, Te Rangaiohinehau, Tiraotane, Ranginui, Puninga, and parts ofNuhalca, Whakapanaki and Whalcaongaonga. 412 The titles eventually issued covered all of these blocks except Nuhaka and Whalcapanald. 410 Gisborne ME, no 7, 1 March 1882, pp 431-432 411 Gisborne ME, no 8, 24 April 1882, p 106 412 Gisborne ME, no 8, 24 April 1882, p 106 106 The evidence put before the Court for the Rongowhakaata hapu Ngati Pakirehe, Ngati Aweawe, Ngati Ngarueiterangi and Ngai Tupatu was of a Rongowhakaata conquest by Pakirehe but principally by Te Aweawe and his nephew Ngarue.413 Te Aweawe and Ngarue had driven out the original owners, who had been Ngati KallUngunu. 414 Kahutia had become connected with the Rongowhalcaata conquerors, and it was from this connection that his descendants had rights on the lands.415 The Ngai Tahu claimant Raniera Turoa also claimed a connection with Te Aweawe and Ngarue.416 So did Hemaima of Ngati Tawhi.417 Theses two claims were more particularly for Tal"ewauru, rather than Maraetalla 2. The Ngati Kahtmgtmu claimants, and claimants to the west, did not malce claims to all of Maraetalla 2. 418 Rather, they claimed areas to the south and west, on the margins of the block.419 ( The Ngai Tamanuhiri witnesses denied that any Rongowhalcaata conquest had occUlTed. Maraetaha 2 and the associated blocks had always been Ngai Tamanuhiri.420 They, not N gati Kahtmgunu, had been the original owners, and they had never been conquered by 413 Hirini Tipare, Gisbome MB, no 8, 23 March 1882, pp 23-24 414 There may have been no united Rongowhakaata front however. Hirini Tipare, for example, claimed never to have heard that Ngati Kahungunu had been the original owners. Gisbome MB, no 8, 24 March 1882, p 26. Her evidence was also that Tamanuhiri had held all the land. Gisbome MB, no 8,24 March 1882, p 27 415 Keita Kennan (Kate Wyllie), Gisbome MB, no 7, 7 March 1882, p 451 416 Raniera Turoa, Gisbome MB, no 7, 6 March 1882, p 449 417 Gisbome MB, no 8, 24 March 1882, pp 28-29, 27 March 1882, pp 32-33 418 Wi Paetarewa for Ngati Hauraki 419 Wi Paetarewa: 'I have a claim over part.' Gisbome MB, no 8,22 March 1882, p 17; 'I don't claim over Tarewauru.' Gisbome MB, no 8,22 March 1882, p 18; 'Descendants of Manuhiri have interests over all the land'. Gisbome MB, no 8, 22 March 1882, p 19. See also Paora Haki's evidence in Gisbome MB, no 8,22 March 1882, p 20. Petera Honatapu 'I have a claim over part ofthis land.' Gisbome MB, no 8,24 March 1882, p 27. 'I only claim the small portion I have pointed [out].' ' Gisbome MB, no 8,24 March 1882, p 28. See also Paora Pere, Gisborne MB, no 7, 8 March 1882, p 457 420 Gisbome MB, no 8, 3 April 1882, pp 49-51; Gisbome MB, no 8,6 April 1882, p 61; Gisbome MB, no 8, 11 April 1882, p 65; Gisborne MB, no 8, 11 April 1882, p 66; Gisbome MB, no 8, 12 April 1882, p 67 107 421 anyone. Some non-Ngai Tamanuhiri claimants had individual occupation rights at various places, but these were not derived from ancestral rights let alone conquest rights. 422 ( Those who claimed places on the southern and western sides of the block were simply mistaken as to boundaries. They did have rights but these lay outside the block.423 IfNgati Kahutia had any special rights on the land, these derived primarily from Tamanuhiri, not from Kahutia's Rongowhakaata wives.424 Ngati Paea had occupied with Ngati Kahutia, and they had rights that were just as important as any claimed by Ngati Kahutia.425 According to Halbert, Ngati Paea was the name adopted by the descendants of Kahutia's son, Kalmgaunga, when they moved in the Poverty Bay interior.426 Paea was a distant ancestor relative to Kahutia: Halbert dates Paea at around 1600, and Kahutia at around 1725.427 Ngati Paea and Ngati Kahutia, nonetheless, were related hapu. The Court fOlmd that Petera Honotapu, Ngai Tane, had proved his case to land westward of the Whakaongaonga mOlmtains. So had Ropitini Terito, Ngati Rangituanui.428 TIlls was the section initially called Maraetaha 2B, but awarded as Whakaongaonga. The history of Whakaongaonga has not been followed beyond 1883.429 Raniera Turoa, Ngai Tahu, and Paora Pere (Ngati Ruaprull) had established their claim to a block of land (Maraetaha 2A)430 at the southern western corner of Maraetaha 2. 431 The history of Mru·aetaha 2A, an 421 Gisborne ME, no 8, 3 April 1882, p 52; Gisborne ME, no 8, 6 April 1882, p 60; Gisborne ME, no 8, 12 April 1882, p 68 422 Gisborne ME, no 8, 3 April 1882, p 51 423 Gisborne ME, no 8, 4 April 1882, p54 424 Gisborne ME, no 8, 4 April 1882, pp 56-57; Gisborne MB, no 8, 12 April 1882, p 68 425 Gisborne ME, no 8, 11 April 1882, p 66 426 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistOlY of the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed,1999, p 72 427 Halbert, R. Horouta: The Hist01Y of the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 260 428 Gisborne ME, no 8, 24 April 1882, p 106. Ropitini had claimed under two ancestors, one of these being Tamanuhiri. Gisborne ME, no 7, 9 March 1882, p 461 429 Brooking to Sheridan, 20 November 1893, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898178 ) 430 Gisborne ME, no 25, 13 August 1896, P 324 431 Gisborne MB, no 8,24 April 1882, p 106 108 area of 6,730 acres, has not been followed beyond 1883.432 Ngati Hauralci, a hapu of Ngati Kahungunu, had also proved their claim.433 The Ngati Hauralci land was called Maraetaha () 2C.434 The history of this block, an area of 477 acres north of the Nuhaka block, extending along the southern boundary of Maraetaha 2, has not been followed beyond 1883.435 Hemaima ofNgati Tawhi, a Rongowhalcaata hapu, had no ancestral claim, but was entitled nonetheless to a small piece of Tiraotane, where she had cultivated.436 Riperata Kahutia's claim, on behalf of Ngai Tupatu, Rongowhalcaata, was rejected.437 The Court believed that while N gai Tupatu had occupied the land at some stage, this occupation had cease~ well before 1840. Hirini Tipare, of the Rongowhalcaata hapu Ngati Palcirehe and Ngati Hineteao, had a valid interest in Puninga, but not anywhere else. 438 Excluding those areas otherwise decided, Maraetaha 2 was awarded to Hemi Walca's Ngai Tamanuhiri list and to Keita Kanana's Ngati Kahutia clients.439 ) The Court had accepted the evidence of those who claimed areas in and around the western and southern edges of the block. It had also accepted that some claimants, from a variety of hapu, had what amounted to individual rights here and there on the various blocks. It did not accept that a general Rongowhalcaata conquest, followed by occupation, had occuned. It accepted the evidence that Tamanuhiri had held the mana over Maraetaha 2 and its associated blocks, and had passed this down to his descendants, pruiicularly Paea and Kahutia. Otene Pomare was the only witness identified as Ngati Kahutia, and he was 432 Brooking to Sheridan, 20 November 1893, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898178 433 Gisborne MB, no 8, 24 April 1882, pp 106-107 434 Gisborne MB, no 8, 24 April 1882, p 106 435 Barnard to Chief Surveyor, 23 June 1891, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898178 436 Gisborne MB, no 8, 24 April 1882, p 107 437 Gisborne MB, no 8,24 April 1882, p 107 438 Gisborne MB, no 8, 24 April 1882, p 107 109 adamant that his rights came from Tamanuhlri.440 In accepting that Ngati Kahutia had rights and that some Rongowhakaata individuals, but no hapu, had rights, the Court very () evidently accepted that Ngati Kahutia belonged to Ngai Tamanuhiri rather than Rongowhakaata. Kahutia was a son of Rangiwahipu. According to Halbert, Rangiwahipu was Ngati Rakaipaaka: his mother, Haerengaarangi, was Ngati Paea.441 Kahutia had several wives and many descendants. Halbert's tables indicated that Kahutia's wives were all descendants of Rongowhakaata.442 By the 1840s some of Kahutia's descendants, people like Raharuhi Rukupo, fell mainly to the Rongowhakaata side. 443 Others, like Tawheo Pohatu, traced their descent to Kahutia, and then back to Tamanuhlri himself. Some had acquired linlcs to other ancestors as well. Wi Pere's mother, for example, belonged to Te Aitangi -a-Mahaki. 444 It is not entirely clear why Ngati Kahutia chose to malce a separate claim to Maraetaha 2 and its associated blocks in 1882. Other Ngai Tamanuhlri hapu apparently consolidated their claims, in order to present a united case. The disagreement over respective rights on this and other blocks evident in 1882 lingered on into the 1920s, and was expressed in a number of Ngai Tamanuhlri petitions. Some of the evidence from these petitions suggests that during the early pmi of the 20th century Ngati Kahutia was regarded by Ngai Tamanuhiri as a separate tribe and as a tribe closely linlced to Rongowhalcaata. 439 Gisbome ME, no 8,24 April 1882, p 107; Gisbome MB, no 8, 9 May 1882, pp 165-165 440 Gisbome ME, no 8, 12 April 1882, p 67 441 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistOlY of the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, pp 75, 268 442 Halbert, R. Horouta: The History ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, pp 285, 287 443 Halbert, R. Horouta: The Hist01Y ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 287 444 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistOlY ofthe Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 276 110 Considering who Kahutia's wives had been, this was not a strange or odd association for N gati Kahutia to have developed. 10.2 Maraetaha 2 Petitions In 1912 the beneficial ownership of the remaining portions of Maraetaha 2 was determined afresh by the Land Court. In the 1920s, after appeals had been made against tlns decision, a series of petitions were forwarded to the Native Affairs Committee. The first, in 1922, was from Iopata Te Hau and 12 others. The grievance was that the descendants of some of the 1882 grantees had been excluded from the new list of owners. 445 The usual report fi'om the Land Court was requested. This simply listed the dates on wInch the ownership of the various blocks mentioned had been determined, and the dates on which any appeals had been dismissed.446 Mametaha 2 was not included on this list, although it was one of the blocks mentioned in the petition. The petition was not reported on until 1924. The Native Affairs Committee made no recommendation.447 In 1924 another petition, by Rakai Tamihana and 18 others, again asked that the beneficial ownerslnp of Te Kuri, Tangotete 1 and 2, Pakowhai and Maraetaha 1D be re-investigated. This petition did not mention Maraetaha or Maraetaha 2, but it is evident that the grievances included these blocks as well. The report from the Native Department on this petition noted that the Land Court had jurisdiction to settle ownership and shares. While a Maori committee may have assisted the Court with it deliberations, the Court made the decisions. According to the Native Depmiment, the fact 'that no appeals of any consequence were lodged' was evidence that the decision had been acCeptable to the 445 lopa te Hau petition, 1922, NA file MA 5/13/93 446 Deputy Registrar Gisborne Native Land Court to Under Secretary Native Department, 25 May 1922, NA file MA 5/13/93 ) " ( 447 AJHR, 1924,1-3, P 38 111 various patiies.448 The Native Affairs Committee had no recommendation to make on this petition either.449 A third petition, filed by Rangi Tuanui Tamihana and a number of others, arrived in 1926. Like the others, tIns covered several blocks, including Maraetaha 2. But this petition had more to say about Maraetaha 2 than eat"lier petitions. According to Tamihana, in 1882 Ngai Tamatmhiri hapu had consolidated their claims to MaIaetaha 2 and associated blocks, to 'create a better front against [the] case set up by the Rongowhalcaatas'. 450 Hemi Waalm had been chosen to act on behalf of Ngai Tamanuhiri. He, however, had argued his own claim. In 1902, Tamihana repOlied, a committee had re-investigated the ownerslnp of Maraetaha 2. TIns committee had more or less followed the procedures of the Land Court. People who Tamihana called the 'Ngatikahutia tribe' had objected to the findings of this ) committee. These people set up their own investigation in 1906. In 1912 they submitted their decisions to the Court. According to Tamihana, the Court had approved this list of owners. But the work of the Ngati Kahutia committee was, allegedly, 'haphazardly done'. Ancestral rights, atld rights based on occupation had not been properly ascertained. Some who had sold their interests had been re-admitted into the block. In a large number of cases, parents, children atld grandchildren had all been included on the list.451 According to Tamihana, the whole of the land had been awarded to Ngati Kalmtia, and the 'Ngaitamanuwhiri tribe' excluded. TIns was an injustice. Tamihana and his supporters wanted the Land Court to re-investigate the ownership of Maraetaha 2 and other blocks as 448 Under Secretary Native Department to Chairman Native Affairs Committee, 28 October 1924, NA file MA 5/13/93 449 AJHR, 1924, I-3, P 43 ) 450 Rangi Tuanui Tamihana petition, 1926, NA file MA 5/13/93 112 well. Tamihana's petition contained a list of individuals who had been wrongly included ( among the owners, or excluded, or who had received too big or too small a share of the land. These were only examples. It would be impossible, he said, 'to enumerate '" all of the shOli comings ... so numerous are they' .452 There was an application for definition of the remaining Maori-owned pOliion of Maraetaha 2 before the Comi in 1912. The minutes are illegible, so the evidence, if there was any, is inaccessible.453 An order was made on 29 Jmle 1912, determining the beneficial ownership of the remaining sections. It was this list that Tamihana and his suppOliers wanted oveliurned. According to Tamihana, several appeals against the 1912 decisions had been made, to no avai1.454 The Native Affairs Committee asked for a repOli from the Native Department. This was furnished in August 1926. This said that the Land Court had indeed determined the beneficial ownership, ilTespective of the rights of the original grantees. However, whether a grantee had sold his or her share had been talcen into account in fixing the shares of the descendants. The repOli went on: Most of these matters were fixed up during the lifetime and under the auspices of Wi Pere who had great influence over these people. Since his death the younger generation have endeavoured to disturb the alTangements of their elders. Probably there were cases of individual injustice but I do not think they were of such a nature as to justify re-opening all of these titles.455 In September 1926 the Native Affairs Committee repOlied on Tamihana's petition, which had raised issues to do with the beneficial ownership ofTe Kuri, Tangotete No 2, 451 Rangi Tuanui Tamihana petition, 1926, NA file MA 5/13/93 452 Rangi Tuanui Tamihana petition, 1926, NA file MA 5/13/93 453 Gisborne MB, no 38, June 1912 454 Rangi Tuanui Tamihana petition, 1926, NA file MA 5/13/93 455 Under Secretary Native Department to Chairman Native Affairs Committee, 13 August 1926, NA file MA 5/13/93 113 Pakowhai, Maraetaha and MaTaetaha 1D as well as Maraetaha 2. No recOlmnendation was .( made. 456 What seems to have been the last petition in this particular series was presented in 1928. TIns one came from John Pohatu and others. The blocks of concem were the same as before, and tIns petition, like the 1926 petition, contained a list of individuals wrongly included among the owners, or excluded, or who had received too big or too small a share of the land. The Pohatu petition had a bit more to say about the cOlmnittee that had prepared the lists allegedly accepted by the Court in 1912, and about the Waaka list handled into the comi in 1882. Hemi had been chosen to present a united Ngai Tamanuhiri case. But he had argued the claims of his own hapu. Because the other Ngai Tamanuhiri hapu had understood that a common defence was to be mounted against Rongowhakaata, they had made no separate arrangements to present their own claims. Because the 1882 ownership list was suspect, a committee had been set up in 1902 to investigate. The Ngati Kahutia owners rejected the [mdings of this committee, and they set up a second committee. According to Jolm Pohatu, this second committee contained Rongowhalcaata as well as Ngati Kahutia members, it had used dishonest methods in the way it determined ownership and relative interests and it had inflicted injustice on Ngai Tamanulnri.457 The report from the Land Comi on this petition simply listed the dates on wInch ownership of the various blocks mentioned had been determined, and the dates on which any appeals 456 AJHR, 1926,1-3, p 13 457 John Pohatu petition, 1928, NA file MA 5/13/93 114 had been dismissed. 458 There are no other relevant documents on the file. The petition was held over tmtill932. No recommendation was made.459 The 1922 petition had 12 signatures. Rakai Tamihana's 1924 petition had 18 suppporters. There was a small falling away between 1924 and 1926: Rangi Tuanui Tamihana's petition in that last year had 14 supporters. But 30 Ngai Tamanuhiri supported John Pohatu's 1928 petition. The long-running dispute between Ngai Tamanuhiri and Ngati Kahutia over Maraetaha 2 and other blocks may have had it origins in the decision of a Maori Komiti that considered the ownership of the Tarewauru blocks in the mid-1870s. Several witnesses referred to this committee during the Maraetaha 2 hearing. Raniera Turoa said he had been one of the members, and that the meetings had been held at Muriwai.46o Apiata said the committee had decided for Rongowhakaata because Ngai Tamanuhiri were unable to demonstrate any knowledge about places on Tarewauru.461 He also provided more information about this committee. It had taken several weeks to reach a decision, and had gone out to Tarewauru to inspect the grotmd. The committee had been made of up 'strangers, disinterested persons' .462 Hirini Tipare said she had been at Muriwai while the committee was m~eting, but it had been arranged that she not put forward a claim because 'if I did so, it would support N gaitamanuhiri. ,463 458 Registrar Gisbome Native Land Court to Under Secretary Native Department, 22 October 1929, NA file MA 5/13/93 459 AJHR, 1932,1-3, p 5 460 Gisbome MB, no 7, 2 March 1882, pp 449-450 461 Gisbome MB, no 7, 2 March 1882, p 454 462 Gisbome MB, no 7, 2 March 1882, p 454 463 GisbomeMB, no 8, 23 March 1882, p 24 115 This committee seems to have taken the same kind of evidence that was normally presented to the Land Court. It was clearly intended as an alternative to the Land Court, (I but it fell almost iImnediately into one of the pitfalls that sUlTolmded that Comt, namely the tendency for evidence to be suppressed, or tailored in a way that suited the iIlterests of particular claimants. The fundamental defect, however, was that while the Court could impose its decision on the parties, the committee could not. Its decisions had to be acceptable to everyone. Even if that were the case, the committee could not by-pass or sideline the Comt completely. The parties would still need to approach the Court, since only the Comt could issue the necessary orders. There is little doubt that had all the parties agreed on a solution to the Tarewauru dispute the Land Court would have been very happy to issue any orders required. But Ngai Tamanuhiri were clearly not happy with what the Muriwai committee had decided, and they took the matter to the Court in 1882. In effect, they appealed the decision of a Maori komiti to a Palceha Court. Discontent with the 1882 ) Land Court result was still evident 20 years later. A second attempt was made to use a Maori committee to settle outstanding grievances. The results of this attempt were Ullacceptable to one of the parties, and they set up their own committee. Then they took their results to the Court, and had them sanctioned. This produced the series of appeals and petitions described above. The Land Court was adversarial in natme: it pitted tribe against tribe, hapu against hapu. The result of an original investigation into the ownership of a particular block might produce closme. It could just as easily start an expensive and debilitating struggle, by those who felt they had been dispossessed, to secme an interest, or a bigger interest, in the disputed land. 464 Conflict between iwi, or among hapu, over land could weaken any 464 The Native Affairs Committee regularly dealt with petitions of this kind. For example, the Meremana Konui petition re interests in Puninga, AJHR, 1877,1-3, P 13. See also the series of petitions re Maraetaha 2 116 general resistance there might be to land sales. It might even encourage alienation, either by those anxious to prove their titles, or by those who had to find the money to pay lawyers, court fees or the costs of petitioning Parliament. Even when the decisions about the ownership of lands reached by the Court were uncontroversial, they were often always the first steps of a legal and financial tarantella that left Maori, at the end, both exhausted and landless. The tribal committees set up in the early 20th century to investigate the ownership of Maraetaha 2 and other blocks were unable to resolve the disputes over ownership to the satisfaction of all concerned. But neither had the Tarewauru committee in the 1870s. In the end, the matter ended up before the Land Court. There was no other alternative. and other blocks. 117 118 Chapter 11 Maraetaha 2 1883 - 1954 In December 1883, Bryce, the Native Minister, received a letter from Hami Te Hou and a number of others. Could the restrictions on Maraetaha 2 be lifted? Hami and his co- signatories wished to be able to lease or sell Maraetaha 2. 465 Inquiries were made. It was found that because the survey had not been completed, no certificate of title had been issued. According to the interlocutory order, however, the land was inalienable. The Minister was advised that it was not desirable to remove this restriction. He accepted this advice and Te Hou was informed accordingly.466 A surveyor's report dated 1891 exists.467 This described Maraetaha 2 as hilly land, divided by a range of 'considerable elevation' running north and south across the block. The ) higher, rougher and less valuable land, about a third of the block, was to the south, and was worth about 5 shillings an acre. The better land was in the nOlih, and was worth about 7/6 an acre. The block was covered with bush, including bitch and rata on the higher ranges. The lower lying areas would, if cleared, be suitable for sheep. Grass would grow readily. There was (in 1891) no access to the area other than by tracks, but a road being surveyed in the Nuhaka Block would cross Maraetaha 2C and enter Maraetaha 2. This road could be extended fmiher, if rights to go across the land could be obtained, and this would give the district a linle with Gisbome. When tIns report was received in Wellington, the Surveyor- General suggested that 2 shillings an acre be offered for the land.468 465 Hami Te Hau and others to Bryce, 6 December 1883, 84/54, NA file MA 13/25 466 Minutes, 84/54, NA file MA 13/25 467 Barnard to Chief Surveyor, 23 June 1891, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 468 Minute, 2 July 1891, on Napier District Survey Office to Surveyor General, 25 June 1891, NA file MA- 119 In November 1893, Jolm Brooldng reported that he had been offered several shares in Maraetaha 2. He noted that there were 153 original owners, holding 108 shares. A survey lien of £517.1.9 in favour of C W Readon existed. The eastern boundary of Maraetaha 2 was within a few miles of the Mahia-Gisborne road, and Gisborne itself was 17 to 18 miles away. It was, he said, 'fairly good country'. Could he start to purchase the block and if so what price should he offer? 469 The Surveyor-General recommended that the Crown pay no more than 2/6 an acre. Sheridan, Chief Land Purchase Officer, recommended to the Minister for Lands 3/6 an acre, less the cost of the survey.470 TIns was about half the value, per acre, that had been placed on the better parts of the block in 1891. It was, per acre, 116 less than the figure placed on the less value sections of the block in that year. The Minister approved the figure of 3/6. Sheridan passed this on to Brooking, but asked him to be sure that the title was 471 ) clear before he purchased any of the interests in the block. As it happened, there was a title complication. Booking repOlied that a Mr M J Gannon had leased the interests of some of the Maraetaha 2 owners. Sheridan instructed him not to proceed with the purchase until the lease question had been sorted out.472 One of the owners protested about the delay. According to him, only a minority of the owners had signed the lease, and the Trust Commissioner had never validated it. Moreover, many of the owners who had not signed the lease wanted to sell. He urged the Government to begin negotiations.473 It was later discovered that this owner, Tuehu Pomare, was one of those MLP 1 1898/78 469 Brooking to Sheridan, 20 November 1893, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 470 Sheridan minute, 20 December 1893, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78,93/27 471 Minutes, 93/257, NA file MA-MLP 11898/78 L ( 472 Minute, Brooking to Sheridan, 17 January 1894,93/257, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 473 Tuehu Pomare to Government, 3 April 1894, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 120 who had signed the GmIDon lease, and that the lease was to Mrs GaIIDon (Kate Wyllie) and not to her husband. 474 Sheridan decided that the way forwm'd was to advise the GaIIDons to take the lease to the Validation Court, give them time to do so, and then to start the purchase.475 Mr GaIIDon offered to sell the lease rights to the Government for £250. Sheridml refused. The Government would have 'nothing to do with the alleged lease' .476 GaIIDon withdraw the offer, claiming that his lease pre-dated the passage of the relevant legislation, and that there was no need to seek a certificate from the Validation Court.477 Sheridan minuted this letter, with the opinion that the lease was invalid unless signed by all of the owners.478 Brooking tried to get pmiiculars of the lease, but all he could obtain was a list, supplied by Mrs GaIIDon, of those who had signed.479 Early in September 1894, Brooldng forwarded particulm"s about the block for the proposed proclamation.48o He wanted to lmow if he • could start purchase.481 Sheridan said he could buy the shares of those who had not signed the GmIDon lease.482 Brooldng then wanted to lmow if he could purchase Mrs GaIIDon's shm'e of the block.483 Sheridan said yes, provided she understood clearly that she was conveying all of her right, title and interest in the block.484 Within a few days, Brooking reported that he had stmied to purchase Maraetaha 2. 485 474 Brooking to Sheridan, 28 August 1894, 94/265, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898178 475 Minute, Brooking to Sheridan, 3 May 1894,94/97, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898178 476 Minute, Brooking to Sheridan, 19 June 1894,94/142, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 477 Gannon to Brooking, 15 June 1894,94/265, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 478 Minute, Brooking to Sheridan, 4 June 1894,94/265, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 479 Brooking to Sheridan, 28 August 1894, 94/265, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 480 New Zealand Gazette, 13 September 1894, p 1422 481 Brooking to Sheridan, 13 July 1894,94/265, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 482 Sheridan to Brooking, 3 September 1894, 94/265, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 483 Brooking to Sheridan, 3 September 1894, 94/265, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898178 484 Sheridan to Brooking, 4 September 1894, 94/265, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898178 485 Brooking to Sheridan, 6 September 1894, 94/265, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 121 In October 1894, some of the owners who did not want to sell raised an issue about how the shares to Maraetaha 2 had been originally determined. They contended that the wrong piece of legislation had been used and they were threatening to take their case to Comi. Brooking was told to proceed with the plU'chase as the title stood.486 By November 1894, Sheridan was starting to have second thoughts about the Gannon lease. It was 'probably invalid' but the Government needed to settle that question before it proceeded with the plU'chase. 487 What action he took, if any, is unclear. By August 1895, the Government had acquired some 30 shares of Maraetaha 2, amounting to 4759 acres.488 But by then a new problem had emerged. In May 1882, after the ownership of Maraetaha 2 had been established, the Maori owners had signed a contract transfening the whole of the block in trust to the New Zealand Native Land Settlement ) Company. In 1895 an application was forwarded to the Validation COurt.489 The trustees, by this time Canoll and Pere, wanted the contract made in 1882 validated.49o 11.1 The Carroll Pere Trusteeship In the early 1890s James Carroll and Pere had taken over the control and management of the Poveliy Bay blocks originally vested in Rees and Pere, and then subsequently mortgaged. The intention was that they would manage these blocks, and repay from them the money that was owed. These blocks were liable for the whole of the debt that had been incuned, and they became known as the Principal SeclU'ity blocks.491 With the possible 486 Sheridan to Brooking, 15 October 1894,94/265, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 487 Sheridan to Thom, 5 November 1894, 95/56, NA file MA-MLP 1 1898/78 488 Wheeler to Sheridan, 5 August 1895,95/396, NA file MA-MLP 1/1898/78 489 New Zealand Gazette, 18 July 1895, P 1110 490 NA file MA-MLP 111898/78 491 AJHR, 1904, G-6, P 2 122 exception of Pakowhai, none of the blocks in this category belonged to Ngai Tamanuhiri. In the same year, 1893, a Validation Court has been established. Carroll and Pere used the ( new corui to bring more and more land under their control, with the intention of spreading the debt and decreasing the risk that land would have to be sold. The blocks that came into the trustees' hands via the Validation Court were generally required only to bear a defined part of the overall debt, and they became known as the Specific Security blocks. Maraetal1a 2, Section 4, was the only Ngai Tamanuhiri block that fell into category.492 However, Carroll and Pere held several other Ngai Tamanuhiri blocks in trust: Tangotete 1 and 2, Te Kuri, Maraetaha 2, section 4, Maraetaha 2, section 6, and Te Kopua, and these blocks were also at risk, should it ever become necessary to sell any of the trust lands.493 As soon as the Government became aware of the application to the Validation Court the purchase of Maraetal1a 2 was stopped.494 There was conespondence between Rees, acting •I " ) for CalToll and Pere, and Sheridan. Rees told Sheridan that the intention was to cut the block up for settlement. 495 As part of this partition, the shares purchased by the Government would, by arrangement among the parties, be consolidated on one part of the block. Sheridan said the Government would not have commenced purchase if it had been aware of the 1882 contract. However, if the interests of the Government were properly protected, and the Crown's share of the block suitably located, he had no further concerns.496 492 AJHR, 1904, 0-6, P 2 493 AJHR, 1904,0-6, P 3. Te Kopua seems to have been held on a different basis from the other blocks. 494 Sheridan to Wheeler, 19 August 1895,95/396, NA file MA-MLP 111898/78 495 Rees to Native Land Purchase Department, 7 August 1895, 95/396, NA file MA-MLP 111898/78 123 11.2 The Partition of Maraetaha 2 In April 1896, the Validation Court awarded 4,760 acres of Maraetaha 2 to the Crown. ! ( According to the agreement with Rees, this land (Maraetaha 2, section 1) was to be of a 'fair average value' as determined by the District Surveyor.497 The Maori owners objected, however, to the land originally selected: it was, they said, the 'best portion of [the block].,498 Gill, the Crown agent, believed the owners had a good case, and he asked if he could change the position of the Crown block onto land acceptable to both sides. Sheridan telegraphed his permission.499 . Gill read out the boundaries of the Crown block in the Court the following morning. He said fIrst that the location had been' arranged'. 500 A 50- acre reserve, additional to the 4,760 acres awarded to the Crown, was enclosed within the boundaries of the Crown block. Maraetaha 2, section 1, was declared Crown land in 1896. 501 ) The Court went on to make various orders concerning survey charges. Then, on 6 May 1896, Rees announced that the Maori owners had arranged the membership of the committees for the portions of Maraetaha 2 that were to be vested in the trustees, James CalToll and Wi Pere. 502 At this stage, three partitions of the Maori-held area of Maraetaha 2 were proposed, two of 4,000 acres each and one of 3,000 acres. One of these partitions, called Te Pum, was to bear the whole of the debt, and be vested in Carroll and Pere only. The other blocks were to have Hemi Waaka as a third trustee. 503 The Court dealt with two other applications on the day. One was from a group of owners who wanted their shares cut out. Another was from Hori Awarau, who wanted the 50-acre reserve on section one 496 Sheridan to Rees, 12 September 1895,95/396, NA file MA-MLP 111898/78 497 Sheridan to Rees, 12 September 1895, 95/396, NA file MA-MLP 111898/78 498 Gill to Sheridan, 20 Apri11896, 96/113, NA file MA-MLP 1/1898/78 499 Sheridan to Gill, 21 Apri11896, 98/8, NA file MA-MLP 111898/78 500 Tairawhiti District Validation Court MB, no 2, 22 April 1896, p 11 501 New Zealand Gazette, 9 July 1896, P 1076 502 Tairawhiti District Validation Court MB, no 2,6 May 1896, p 42 124 conveyed to Rihara Pakuau, and 50 acres deducted from Rihara Pakuau's share elsewhere. 504 l( Next day, the Court defined the boundaries of six Maraetaha 2 partitions. Section 1 was the Crown's block. Section 2 was an area of 50 acres awarded to Rihara Pakuau, enclosed within section 1. Section 3 was a section of 3,000 acres. Section 4 was a section of 4,000 acres less the 857Yz acres cut out for the group of owners led by Tame Arapeta. Section 5 was the 857Yz acres cut out for Tame Arapeta and his followers. Section 6 was the remaining portion ofthe block, containing around 4,000 acres. 505 11.3 The Validation Court One of the keys needed to unlock the history of land alienation in Poverty Bay is the idea of validation. For various reasons many of the land transactions between Maori and private individuals during the 1870s and 1880s were invalid. In some cases, this was because of technical defects of one kind or another. These were the result, so it was said, of the complexity of the land laws. 506 In other cases, it was alleged that the procedural defects were overshadowed by degrees of fraud or sharp dealing. 507 In the early 1890s, legislation was passed to allow for the investigation and validation of transactions of the first land, that is to say, those that were technically deficient. 508 The Native Land (Validation of Titles) Act, 1892, provided for validation orders to be issued by judges of the Land Court. The Native Land (Validation of Titles) Act, 1893, set up a separate 503 Tairawhiti District Validatio.n Co.urt MB, no. 2,6 May 1896, p 42 504 Tairawhiti District Validatio.n Co.urt MB, no. 2,6 May 1896, p 43 505 Tairawhiti District Validatio.n Co.urt MB, no. 2, 7 May 1896, p 44 506 AJHR, 1891, G-l, P 4, paragraphs 67,70,72 507 AJHR, 1891, G-l, P 4, pp 11-12 508 Fer co.mment en so.me earlier validation pro.visio.ns see Orr-Nimmo., Katherine w. Reportfor the Crown ForestlY Rental Trust on the East Coast Maori Trust. CFRT, 1997, P 63f 125 Graphical Representation Only Wal 814 - n.harris nov2000 ( PAKOWHAI MARAETAHA , ~..-f. -' MARAETAHA2 6 ) Figure 10 . Maraetaha 2 partitions "( ) 126 Validation Comt. 509 No one ever argued that transactions of a grossly fraudulent or very unfair kind ought to be sanctioned, but the 1893 legislation did allowed the Court, if it wished, to validate contracts which were not fair and reasonable. It could even validate contracts which were 'tainted with actual fraud and improper dealings,.sIo It was to this Court that Carroll and Pere applied in 1895.511 11.4 The Validation Court and Maraetaha 2 The hearing of the application to validate the 1882 Maraetaha 2 contract began on 16 September 1895 before Judge Barton. S12 It was found that the Governor's consent was required before the case could proceed.S13 The matter was adjomned. In December 1895, Rees applied to Judge Gudgeon to have Maraetaha 2A, 2B, 2C and Pmunga added to the original application. This was done. SI4 It was April 1896 before the case finally . commenced. By May 1896, all of the relevant matters pertaining to Maraetalla 2 had been agreed. Later that month, an objector appeared. His objection was overruled.sIs The Maraetaha 2 Validation Court decision produced two petitions. One, dated 9 September 1896, was from Tiemi Wirihana and 22 others, asldng that part of Maraetaha 2, an area of 7,000 acres held by trustees, be withdrawn from the trust. The petitioners did not identify where this land was located, but it was almost certainly Maraetalla 2, sections 3 and 6. Nor did they say what should be done with the land, but the only alternative to the trusteeship would have been to vest the land in the owners. 516 There is no mention of this 509 For COlmnent on the 1892 and 1893 legislation see Orr-Nimmo, Katherine W. Report/or the Crown Forestry Rental Trust on the East Coast Maori Trust. CFRT, 1997, P 65f 510 Section 10, Native Land (Validation of Titles) Act, 1893 511 New Zealand Gazette, 18 July 1895, p 1110 512 Jones to Native Minister, 24 June 1896, NA file MA-MLP 111898/78 513 The Native Land (Validation of Titles) Act, 1893, sections 11 and 12 514 Tairawhiti District Validation Court MB, no 4, 21 December 1895, p 98 515 Tairawhiti District Validation Court MB, no 5,27 May 1896, p 88 516 Tiemi Wirihana petition, NA file Jl/189611364 127 petition in the reports of the Native Affairs Committee for 1896 or 1897. Nor are there any other documents referring to tIns petition in the file where it was discovered. 517 Even if not prosecuted, tills petition is evidence of some N gai Tamanuhiri opposition, after the event, to the validation of the 1882 contract, and the consequential removal of the bulk of Maraetaha 2 from the control of its Maori owners. The second petition was from Hirini Nui and 11 others. They had a different grievance. They complained about the way the Government's interest in Maraetaha 2 had been calculated, and how individual interests had been allocated. Hirini also complained that they had not been properly notified about the case, although tIle petition does say, somewhat contradictorily, that had they Imown about the case they 'might have attended the Court' and also that 'we went to the Court to object'. 518 •I ) '- Judge Gudgeon provided some comments on the Hirini Nui petition in October 1896. By tills time the Native Affairs Committee had considered the petition, and recommended that the Court should be asked to re-visit the partitioning of Maraetaha 2, and re-adjust the interests awarded. 519 Gudgeon did not want to comment on the Native Affairs Committee recommendation. He did say that usually the committee would hear only one side of the case, and that Maori appearing before the committee were 'as a lUle' such 'artistic liars' that it was almost impossible to get to the bottom of tillngs. 520 Turning to the particulars of Hirini's petition, he agreed that the Government's share of Maraetaha 2 was too large, relative to the interests purchased. But the Government's share had been settled outside the Court, between the Maori owners and the Crown agents. Maori then agreed to this 517 NA file Jl/1896/1364 518 Hirini Hui petition, NA file J1/1896/1364 519 AJHR, 1896,1-3, P 20 520 Gudgeon to Secretary of Justice, 7 October 1896, NA file Jl/1896/1364 128 arrangement inside the Court. According to Gudgeon, about 40 or 50 of the owners had been present at the time: no one made any objection. Gudgeon believed that the principal petitioner, Hirini Nui, had been among those owners who were present when the Government's share was defined.521 Gudgeon said it had taken more than a week to settle the individual share of each of the owners of Maraetaha 2. The Court had been adjourned several times, to allow discussion outside. When the orders were made, no one had objected. There was an objection several weeks later. But 'I absolutely refused to reopen a case concerning which he [the objector] had had due notice.'522 Gudgeon added that Wi Pere had told him that this objector had 'pmposely absented himself .523 Lysnar, who was acting for the Bank of New Zealand, suggested that the objector be referred to the trustees and the committees of owners, to see if some arrangement could be made for him.524 In Gudgeon's opinion, 'nearly all of the petitioners agreed to the arrangement which they now condemn.'525 He also denied that the petitioners had received no notification of the hearing. While the Land Court issued a general notification, simply proclaiming that a certain case would be heard on a particular date, it was the practice of the Validation Court to notify everyone individually. 526 The Native Affairs Committee had recommended that the definition of interests 111 Maraetalla should be done again, and some adjustments made. But nothing was done 521 Gudgeon to Secretary of Justice, 7 October 1896, NA file Jl/1896/1364 522 Gudgeon to Secretary of Justice, 7 October 1896, NA file Jl/1896/1364 523 Gudgeon to Secretary of Justice, 7 October 1896, NA file JlI1896/1364 524 Tairawhiti District Validation Court MB, no 5, 27 May 1896, p 88 525 Gudgeon to Secretary of Justice, 7 October 1896, NA file Jl/1896/1364 526 New Zealand Gazette, 1 March 1894, pp 334-335 129 about this. Possibly the Government was influenced by Gudgeon's opinion that 'nearly all of the petitioners agreed to the arTangement which they now conderml.' 527 In any event, ( the various partitions of Mar'aetaha 2 remained as they were decided in April and May" 1896. 11.5 Maraetaha 2 Alienations One can skim quickly across the subsequent history of the Maraetaha 2 partitions. The rescue plan put in place in the early 1890s by Rees, Canoll and Pere was a failure. 528 The debt secured by the land continued to grow. The Bank of New Zealand moved to recover its money, The Government intervened. The East Coast Native Trust Lands Act, 1902, was passed. The larld was placed under the control of a Boar'd and then, from 1906, under an East Coast COlmnissioner. ) . 11.5.1 Trust Alienations The East Coast Native Trust Lands Board felt obliged to sell some ofthe land it controlled, in order to repay debt. It disposed of: • Mar'aetaha 2, Section 4. TIns section lay on the eastem side of Maraetaha 2, Section 4, adjacent to Maraetaha block. An ar'ea of 3,991 acres, section 4 was sold in 1904 to A B Carmichael for £15,967. 529 Most of this money went to the Bank. 53o Carmichael, witlnn a year', sold the land to Henry White,53! Originally, it had been intended that Maraetaha 2, Section 4, sometime refened to as Te Puru, should bear the whole of the debt relating to Maraetaha 2. That seems to have been the understanding in 1896, when 527 Gudgeon to Secretary of Justice, 7 October 1896, NA file J1/1896/1364 528 Orr-Nimmo, Katherine W. Reportfor the Crown Forestly Rental Trust on the East Coast Maori Trust. CFRT, 1997, P 83 529 AJHR, 1905, G-9, P 4 530 AJHR, 1905, G-9, P 4 531 CT 37/195. White was the owner ofMaraetaha 1B, and he may have owned other land as well. 130 the Validation Comi had considered the matter. In the end, however, far more land was sold than had been contemplated in 1896. • Maraetaha 2, Section 3. 532 This section lay on the southern side of Maraetaha 2, to the north of Puninga. Part of this section, the central portion, 950 acres in total, was sold to the Gisborne Borough Council in 1905.533 This left a balance of around 2,050 acres, divided into two pOliions lying east and west of the land sold to the council. 534 These two sections were returned to an incorporation of owners in 1954. 535 As prui of the Manutuke consolidation scheme, these original sections of Maraetaha 2, section 3 were renruned. The western portion, an area of about 885 acres, was joined with re- purchased parts of Puninga, and designated section 8. 536 The eastern portion was designated section 9. Section 9, an area of about 1,178 acres, was sold in 1991. 537 TIns seems to have been the last major alienation ofNgai Tamanuhiri land. • Mru"aetaha 2, Section 6. This section extended across the Maraetaha 2 block north to south, adjacent to section 4. At the south end it had an extension towards the west. 538 The Boru"d sold 1,349 acres of Mru"aetaha 2, Section 6, in 1905, leaving some 2,600 acres altogether in the northern portion and the western toe. 539 A small ru"ea of the northern pOliion (59a.r.25p., lot 2, plan 2194) was transferred to Tiemi Wirihana in 1917.540 This conveyance was not mentioned in the CFRT document bank used as the basis for this report, and nothing further is known about this small area of land. 532 CT 371194 533 CT 42/3 534 CT 42/4 535 CT 42/4· CT 111162 536 CT 4CI1' 184 537 CT 4C/1185 538 CT 411278 539 CT 411278 540 CT 41/278 131 Another small area, around 76 acres, (lot 1, plan 4217) was transferred to four named owners in 1953. 541 The remaining land, around 2,460 acres, was returned to an incorporation in 1954.542 The northern-most part of the original section 6 partition, an area of about 1,840 acres, was later designated section 7. 543 The southern toe, an area of about 620 acres, appears to have become part of the new Maraetaha 2, Section 8 block.544 The external debt, the money owed to the BanI( of New Zealand, was paid off within a few years. But some blocks had contributed more to the repayment of the debt than others had, and there was a need to adjust accounts between various blocks, so that all paid their fair share. It was this balancing of accounts which kept Ngai Tamanuhiri land tmder the control of the East Coast Commission for half a century. The ground covered in a few paragraphs above has been covered by Katherine Orr-Nimmo's report in some detail. If further information is required, it can be found in that report. 11.5.2 Private Alienations Maraetaha 2, Section 5, an area of 857 acres, was awarded to Tame Arapeta and three others in 1896. In 1905, one of the owners, Mere Hape, better known as Mrs Woodbine Jolmston, asked that the restriction on the sale of Maraetaha 2, section 5 be lifted. The application was co-signed by Tame Arapeta, on his own behalf and as the trustee for Mereana Nohotakere. 545 541 CT 57/68 542 CT 111162 543 CT 4C/1183 544 CT 4CI1184 th ) 545 Application re Maraetaha 2, section 5, 29 April 1905, NA fileMA1I1907/690.The4 owner.Hil.imiTe Ratu, was dead, and apparently no successors had been appointed, or one of the other owners was his successor. Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board MB, no 2, 18 December 1905, p 11 132 According to Mere, the owners could not afford to develop the land. The block had no road access, and could only be reached by crossing section 4, which was owned by Henry White. It was Henry's wife, Alice, who was the intended purchaser. The Department of Justice wanted to know what price Alice White proposed to pay for the land. The Department also pointed out to T A Coleman, the lawyer acting for the owners, that the Tairawhiti Maori Land Council had to suppOli the lifting of restrictions. 546 Coleman replied towards the end of May 1905 that the proposed purchased price was £2,350. 547 The Department obtained a valuation report. Tlus showed the section was worth £655. 548 The Tairawluti Maori Land Council made its recommendation in December 1905, but the original document was lost and a duplicate had to be obtained. 549 The order removing restrictions was finally gazetted on 31 May 1906.550 Mru:aetaha 2, Section 2 was a 50-acre block on the Te Arai River, to the south of the Titakonui stream, on the nOlihern border of Maraetaha 2. This was Rihara Pahaua's lruld, awarded to lum in 1896. The 50 acres were included within the Crown's partition, and the intention was to convey the land to Rihara when it was surveyed. But while the files recorded that section 2 was Maori land, and who the owner was, a separate title to section 2 was not issued until 1971.551 By then Rihara had been dead for more than 50 years. The land had passed to his successors in 1912. In 1914 they had sold to H R Shrull(s, a sale approved by the Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board. 552 Shanks died in 1953, and the block passed to his wife and then his son L R Shanks. In April 1970, the Court heard an 546 Waldengrave to Coleman, 17 May 1905, NA file MA 111907/690 547 Coleman to Waldengrave, 23 May 1905, NA file MA 111907/690 548 Valuation report, 2 June 1905, NA file MA 111907/690 549 Coleman to Waldengrave, 9 May 1906, NA file MA 111907/690 550 New Zealand Gazette, 31 May 1906, pp 1388-13 89 551 CT 38/1068 552 Gisborne MB, no 99, 15 Apri11970, p 58 133 application under section 437 of the Maori Affairs Act, 1953. The purpose was to determine who had been the beneficial owner of the Crown land (section 2, Maraetaha 2) set aside in 1896. Once the Court had confirmed that Rihara Pahaua was that person, it was possible to vest the land in him.553 Then his successors could be recognised, the sale of their interests to H R Shanks, and the transfer of these interests to his son, L R Shanks, recorded. Finally, a certificate oftitle was issued to the existing owner.554 11.6 Summary of Alienations Maraetaha 2 contained 16,615 acres. Of this area 4,760 acres (about 29 per cent) was cut out as the Government's interest. The Native Affairs Committee believed that the Government had gained a larger share of Maraetaha 2 that it was entitled to receive, and the presiding judge agreed that this was the case. But nothing was done about this, probably because Maori had, at the time, consented both to the amount and location of the land awarded to the Crown. The East Coast Native Trust Lands Board had 10,991 acres of Maraetaha 2 placed under its control. 555 The Board sold several sections, containing 6,290 acres. These 6,290 acres represented about 38 percent of Maraetaha 2, and about 57 per cent of the Maraetaha 2 land transfelTed to the board. These 6,290 acres were part of the price the Maori owners of Maraetaha 2 paid for their involvement with Rees and Pere. Altogether, the Board sold 51,870 acres ofthe Poverty Bay land under its control, recouping £124,805.556 This Maori land was sacrificed to preserve other Maori land. The Maraetaha 2 sections contained 12 553 Oisborne MB, no 99, 15 April 1970, p 58 554 CT 3811 068 ) 555 AJHR, 1905,0-9, pp 4-6. Maraetaha 2, section 3 (3,000 acres), Maraetaha 2, section 4 (3,991 acres) and Maraetaha 2, section 6 (4,000 acres) 556 AJHR, 1905,0-9, p 9; AJHR, 1906,0-8, P 3 134 Figure 11 : Maori Portion of Maraetaha 21882·1991 18000 16615 r- 16000 14000 11855 12000 ....- 10000 UJ rn VI Q) ~ 7864 8000 5565 6000 4708 4658 I 3480 4000 I 2000 0 1882 1896 1904 1905 1906 1914 1991 per cent of the land sold, and produced nearly 17 per cent of the total sale price. TIns suggests that the Maraetaha 2 sections sold were of betier than average quality.557 About 907 acres of Maraetaha 2 (about 6 per cent) had been vested in Maori owners in 1896. All oftlns land was sold before the 1920s, the bulk of it in 1906, when Maraetaha 2, section 5, was sold for what appears to have been an excellent price. The Maraetaha 2 owners had no control over what was done with the great bulk of their land between 1896, when it passed into the hands of trustees, and 1902, when the East Coast Native Trust Lands Act, 1902, was passed. They had no control over their land between 1902 and 1954, when the remaining land was retumed as part of the winding-up of the East Coast Commission. During all of this time, they were effectively a landless people. TIns was the other prui of the price the Maori owners of Maraetaha 2 paid for their involvement with Rees and Pere. The land retumed in 1954, two portions of section 3, and parts of section 6, were subsequently included in the Manutuke consolidation scheme. These sections contained about 4,523 acres, about 27 per cent of the 16,615 acres awru'ded in 1882. Part of this land, Maraetaha 2, Section 9, an area of about 1,178 acres, was sold in 1991.558 In 1997 Hikurangi Forest Farms Limited obtained a forestry right over this area ofland.559 557 Maraetaha 2, section 4 (3,991 acres), retnrned £15,967. AJHR, 1905,0-9, P 4. Maraetaha 2, part section 3 and 6 (2,299 acres) retnrned £4,598. AJHR, 1906,0-9, P 3 558 CT 4C/1185 559 CT 4C/1185 136 Katherine OtT-Nimmo has explored the ground covered in a few sentences above in some detail in her report on the East Coast Maori Trust. If further information is required, it can be found in that report. ------:------._-_•... 137 Graphical Representation Only r / ( Wal 814 - n.hanis nov2000 10km r ~( ~==:!=;=d===;====!:="'*'====;====*===~65,;;j'm;les ~ ( 1 ~ y~" .N" 1.1 \ j PAKOWHAI TAREWAURU Figure 12 . Puninga blo~:~ :.!~. 138 Chapter 12 Puninga Puninga was investigated iIi 1882, as part of the investigation of the large inland Maraetaha 2 block. A certificate of ownership, provisional until a proper survey was made, was issued on 16 May 1882.560 The certificate contained a list of some 126 owners, most of Ngai Tamanuhiri affiliation, all of whom had an undefined interest in the 8,000 acre block. 12.1 The Herbert Interest In 1886 J F Herbert wrote to Ballance about Puninga. 561 Herbert and his brother claimed they held a lease of 21 years over the block, dated September 1882. They also said they had purchased one third of the interests. Because of impending legislation relating to Maori land, they now felt compelled to offer their lease and freehold to the Government. They wanted only £4,000. It sounded like a bargain. Puninga, according to the Herbert, was 'choice land', 'well watered and excellently suited for Dairy Farms'. The soil was rich and there was 'no better sheep or cattle country in the district'. There may have been some slight exaggeration here: a good portion of Puninga, including the district eventually awarded to Herbert, ended up as forest land. Nothing happened about this 1886 offer. In 1891 Herbert again offered the land for sale. 562 Inquiries were made. The Gisborne Land Court lmew nothing about any Puninga leases or purchases. 563 Nothing had been registered. Moreover, Herbert had been sued for rates in 560 Gisborne MB, no 8,24 April 1882, pp 108-109; ( 561 Herbert to Balance, 12 June 1886, NA file MA-MLP1, 1895/336 562 Herbert to Native Minister, 13 July 1891, NA file MA-MLP1, 1895/336 563 Gisborne Land Court to Under Secretary Native Department, 14 July 1891, NA file MA-MLP1, 1895/336 139 1889 and he had denied at the time that he had any liability for Puninga.564 Herbert was told that the Native Department had no authority to purchase land from a European.565 , ( Herbert suggested in reply that the Government should purchase the remaining interests, 'making it a condition that the natives should repay me the money I have already advanced to them with a fair interest. In this way the purchase would be direct from the natives and not from a European. ,566 The Government wanted to know if Herbert could, on behalf of the owners, offer the whole block.567 He could not: only the lease and 27 (out of 76) interests.568 The Government decided that these latter transactions were probably void, and that Herbert had in reality nothing to sell. He was informed accordingly.569 Despite the opinion of officials and the minister that Herbert had no valid rights to Puninga land, the Maori owners, and hence the Land Comi, took a different view. 12.2 Partition 1891 In 1891 Puninga was divided into seven divisions and awarded to Ngai Tamanuhiri hapu: Ngati Tauanui, Ngati Tuteuruao, Ngati Hinepuia, Ngai Koau and Ngai Tuheke. The award to Ngai Tuheke included Ngati Waipapa, Ngati Puhanga, Ngati Te Unmgatoka and Ngati Hinekino.57o Two portions, one of 55 acres, and another of 95 acres, were set aside as well. The 55 acres went to a list of 13 persons who, while they were listed as owners in 1882, were found by the Comi to have no claim other than one based on aroha. 571 A group of 8 living at or near Wharerata was given the 95 acres. Four of these eight were also 564 Sheridan minute, July 1891, NA file MA-MLP1, 1895/336,911188 565 Lewis minute, 21 July 1891, NA file MA-MLPl, 1895/336,911188 566 Herbert to Under Secretary Native Affairs, 13 August 1891, NA file MA-MLPl, 1895/336 567 Cadman minute, 18 August 1891, NA file MA-MLPl, 1895/336,911246 568 Herbert to Native Minister, nd, NA file MA-MLPl, 1895/336 569 Cadman minute, 11 September 1891, NA file MA-MLPl, 1895/336,911277 570 Gisborne MB, no 22, 3 October 1891, pp 213-214 140 among the aroha owners. Three of the eight shared in the awards given to named hapu. Only one of the Wharerata group was without an interest somewhere else on Puninga. There is no discemible pattem here, other than the fact of residence on the land in question. The lists of names to be attached to each of the Puninga awards were arranged by the Maori concemed. Subsequently there were some objections to particular names in particular lists, as well as applications for additions to be made to some of the lists. In these cases the Court took evidence, and decided the questions. The shares of each of the owners were also determined, sometimes by consensus among the Maori concemed, sometimes by decision of the Comi. The Court had made a multi-hapu award to Ngai Tuheke. The fom constituent hapu could not agree on how this award should be divided, so the Court decided how much land Ngati Waipapa, Ngati Puhanga, Ngati Te Urungatoka and Ngati Hinekino would receive. An application was made on behalf of Herbeli, who was described as the pmchaser of 30 interests in the block. 572 Herbert wanted a portion representing the sold interests to be cut off before the various hapu awards were finalised. His lawyer believed that some land of arrangement could be made with the owners. He asked for an adjomnment, to enable the matter to be discussed outside the Comi. This adjomnment was granted, with 'the consent of all parties'. 573 When Herbert's lawyer retmned, the details of the agreement reached were allnOlUlced. Herbert would return 344 acres of the land he had pmchased. He would be given around 1,585 acres on the south side of the block. 571 Gisborne MB, no 22,3 October 1891, p 213 572 Gisborne MB, no 22, 14 October 1891, p 227 573 Gisborne MB, no 22, 14 October 1891, p 227 141 By 19 October 1891 the Court had finished its work. 574 The boundaries and areas of the eight parcels had been determined, the relative share of each owner settled and, in , ( applicable cases, what pOliion of an individual's share would be declared inalienable.575 A list of sellers had been prepared. This showed, hapu by hapu, who had sold land, how much they had sold, and what land they had received back from Herbert. 576 Herbert's partition had been decided. Smvey charges were also settled at this hearing, in favom of C W Reardon, to the amount of £251.7.6. 577 ------ Having obtained an award, Herbert's agent passed the new deed of sale through the Trust Commission.578 The old deed was described as bad, but the evidence, accepted by the Commission, was that Herbert had agreed to accept certain areas of Puninga in exchange for any claims he had under the old deed. The certificate, validating all that had been done, was issued on 24 November 1891. 579 There was no objection, and the transfer to • "( ) Herbert became effective on 1 December 1891.580 12.3 Appeal 1895 The 1891 partition decision was appealed. The ground was that Ngati Hinekino had been wrongly included in the award made to Ngai Tuheke. 581 When the appeal was heard in 1895, the COUli relied in the main, and with the consent of the patiies, on the evidence presented in 1891.582 The COUli decided that Ngati Hinekino had obtained 'very large interests as members of other hapus' compared to Ngai Tuheke, a 'considerable pOliion of 574 Gisbome MB, no 22, 3-19 October 1891, pp 214-231 575 Gisbome MB, no 22, 19 October 1891, pp 233-244 576 Gisbome MB, no 22,19 October 1891, pp 233-234 577 Gisbome MB, no 22, 19 October 1891, P 231 578 Gisbome Trust Commission MB, no 6, 16 November 1891, p 16 579 Gisbome Trust Commission MB, no 6, 16 November 1891, p 17 580 Gisbome Trust Commission MB, no 6,1 December 1891, p 41 581 Gisbome MB, no 23, 26 April 1895, p 133 582 Gisbome MB, no 23, 26 April 1895, p 133 142 which hapu obtained no interest other than as Ngai Tuheke' .583 Accordingly, the distribution of the 3,000 acres allocated in 1891 was amended: 450 acres was given to Ngati Hinekino, and 2550 acres to Ngai Tuheke, to be divided among the 'sub-hapus of Ngati Waipapa, Ngati Puhanga and Ngati Te Urungatoka.'584 The other hapu awards made in 1891 were unchanged. 585 Because the amount of land awarded to N gati Hinekino was being reduced, the Court had to revisit the arrangements made for Herbert in 1891. In that year, the various parties had agreed that one paliition, containing 1,585 acres, would be awarded to Matutaera Tamuku, who would then convey it to Herbert. This arrangement was re-affirmed in principle in 1896.586 However, because of the adjustments made in individual shares, some of those who had sold to Herbeli were found to have sold more land than they were entitled to sell. The consequence was that Herbert's portion was reduced by about 40 acres, to 1,548 acres. This excess was taken from the western end of the partition set aside for him in 1891, the other bOlU1daries remaining the same. When this adjustment was made, the COUli awarded the balance of the block to the members of the hapu interested, listing the 'shares allocated to each individual in each hapu, also the total shares sold by and the unsold area remaining to each person. ' 587 The Court had made one undivided award but in doing so said that if one or more groups of individuals wished their interests cut out, the Court would oblige. 588 The first application of tIns kind was filed three days later. 589 Two days later 11 more applications 583 Gisborne MB, no 23, 26 April 1895, p 133 584 Gisborne MB, no 23, 26 April 1895, p 133 585 Gisborne MB, no 23, 26 April 1895, p 133 586 Gisborne MB, no 23, 26 April 1895, p 134 587 Gisborne MB, no 23, 26 April 1895, pp 135-144 588 Gisborne MB, no 23, 26 April 1895, p 134 589 Gisborne MB, no 23, 29 April 1895, p 151 143 for partition were made. 59o On May 1895, the Court divided Puninga into 12 portions, 8,009 acres in a11. 591 Less Plminga 2, which was the land set aside for Herbert, 6,461 acres remained in Maori hands. All of the titles were issued without restrictions. 592 12.4 Puninga Purchase Declined In August 1895, the land pm'chase officer in Gisborne wrote to Wellington. All of the Pmnnga partitions had been offered for sale 'by a munber of owners' . 593 Sheridan decided to let this offer alone. By August 1895 the Government was aware that its efforts to purchase Maraetaha 2 had become entangled with the efforts of CalToll and Pere to bring that block, for the reason discussed above, under their control. It may have been general government policy to acquire Maori land but Sheridan thought that in this case 'the object ... is evidently to land us in the Validation Comi as in the case of Maraetaha' .594 Tins view was conveyed to Gisborne. It is not clear why Sheridan thought that if the Government purchased interests in Puninga, that would lead to the Validation Court. Nor is it clear why he seemed to think that the owners of Plminga, if they are the party he had in mind, wanted to lure the Government into the Validation COUli. In 1895 the Government had no interest in PUlllnga. The only area alienated was section 2, to Herbert, on the basis of interests acquired in the early 1880s. The extent of this purchase had been agreed by the Puninga owners after discussions with Herbert's lawyer, and then defined by the Court in 1891 and redefined during the 1895 PUlnnga re-hearing. Nor was it evident in early August 1895 that Puninga - 590 Gisborne MB, no 23, 1 May 1895, p 161 ii 591 Gisborne MB, no 23,12 May 1895, pp173-177 592 Wheeler to ChiefLand Purchase Officer, 7 August 1895, NA file MA-MLP 1/1895/336: Gisborne MB, no 23,12 May 1895, pp 173-174 593 Wheeler to ChiefLand Purchase Officer, 7 August 1895, NA file MA-MLP 1/1895/336 594 Sheridan to Wheeler, 14? August 1895, NA file MA-MLP 111895/336 144 would become involved in the Maraetaha 2 Validation Court case. Whatever the reason for the Government's reluctance to buy interests in Puninga, it meant that the block had a degree of protection from the Crown land purchase agents it might not have otherwise obtained. 12.5 Puninga and the Validation Court In mid 1895 Pere and Carroll had started proceedings in the Validation Court. At issue was the legitimacy of an 1882 contract with the Maori owners of Maraetaha 2. In December 1895 Judge Gudgeon agreed that Puninga could be added to the original application.595 Puninga came up in May 1896. R N Jones appeared for the Puninga owners. According to him, the May 1882 contract upon which Rees (acting for Canoll and Pere) relied could not be extended to cover Puninga. In May 1882 Puninga was a separate block under its own title. Secondly, the evidence relating to Maraetaha 2 was not sufficient proof that Carroll and Pere had a claim to Puninga as well. Jones refused to examine Hemi Waaka and another witness put up by the applicants. This was because both of them had given evidence about Puninga on a previous occasion 'when Counsel were not present and the owners of Pllllinga not represented,.596 In June 1896, Barton ordered the owners of Puninga to pay survey charges of £227 and part of the cost of the negotiations between Maori who had entered in the 1882 agreement and the other party involved, the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company. 595 Tairawhiti District Validation Court MB, no 4, 21 December 1895, p 98 596 Transcript of Validation Court proceedings, 27 May 1896, Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 24 June 1896, NA file 11/1896/1364 145 Jones wrote to the Native Minister about this affair. 597 The case had been decided against the owners of Puninga, on the assumption that Puninga was part of Maraetaha 2 on the relevant date, and despite a lack of evidence that they had any kind of contract with the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company. Moreover, the case been decided solely on the basis of evidence from the applicants, some of which had not been 'legally given' .598 Those objecting had not been given a chance to make their case. As for the £227 smvey charge, Jones contended that the leaseholder at the time paid most of tins, which he had deducted from the rent. If any money were outstanding, it would be a very small amount indeed. 599 Jones thought the Puninga owners had good grounds for an appeal. But they needed financial assistance to do this since they could not borrow against their land. Jones also pointed out that they 'had against them two members of Parliament including a mhnster of the Crown. ,600 They did not want charity: they would pledge their land as secmity for a 6 1 loan, and repay tIns as quicldy as possible. 0 By 22 June Jones had received no reply. He sent a telegram to Wellington. He got no reply to this either. On 24 June 1896 he wrote again to the Minister. By now Jones had obtained more details of the Validation Court hearing. He knew that the Crown had been a party to the proceedings, and been awarded Maraetaha 2, section 1. But, according to Jones, 'no evidence of pmchase by [the] crown appears to have been given' to the COurt. 602 He recited what else had been done before early May 1896, all of wInch, he said, 'seems to 597 Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 5 June 1896, NA file 11/1896/1364 598 Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 5 June 1896, NA file 11/1896/1364 599 Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 5 June 1896, NA file 1111896/1364 600 Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 5 June 1896, NA file 11/1896/1364 601 Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 5 June 1896, NA file 11/189611364 602 Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 24 June 1896, NA file 11/1896/1364 146 have been done simply on statements by counsel'. 603 On 7 May Puninga had been mentioned. It was while this sitting was going on that Jones had arrived at the court. The case was adjourned until 11 May. On that day the owners of 9 of the 11 Puninga sub- divisions objected to their land being placed in the hands of Carroll and Pere. On 13 May some kind of impromptu activity concerning Ptminga occurred in the judge's chambers. On 14 May Rees produced various documents in support of the claim to Puninga. Hemi Waaka and Hemi Wirihana gave evidence as well. This was the evidence that Jones had complained about before: 'when Counsel were not present and the owners of Puninga not represented' .604 More evidence had been given at a later sitting, and then Barton had made his decision. According to Jones, if the Court had acted illegally with respect to Puninga, it must have done so with regard to Maraetaha 2 as well. The Crown's title to Maraetalla 2, section 1, in short, was invalid. The reasoning behind this last point was hard to follow. Jones admitted that the Govemor's consent to deal with Mametaha 2 had been obtained, so there was no irregularity there. He seemed to think that the Crown had acquired its Maraetaha 2 interests from the Bank of New Zealand, and not directly from the owners. Nor had he been present in the Court, or outside it, when the various matters to do with the definition of the Crown's interest in Maraetaha 2 had been hammered out. No evidence of Crown purchase may have been given. On the other hand, no one disputed that the Crown had purchased interests in the block. 603 Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 24 June 1896, NA file Jl/1896/1364 604 Transcript of Validation Court proceedings, 27 May 1896, Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 24 June 1896, NA file Jl/1896/1364 147 This time, Jones did get a reply from the minister. The Government would not assist with the cost of an appeal. If they wished, the Puninga owners could petition parliament. 605 ( Jones wrote back to the minister. 606 They would do tllis. They had no choice. The Court had decided that before the Plminga owners could appeal they had to deposit £200 with the Court, as security for costs. This was far more than they could ever hope to raise. A petition was the only option. But there was a potential cost associated with this at well. One judge of the Validation Court took the view that if Maori petitioned Parliament, this amounted to an appeal against a decision of the Court. Accordingly, the other party ought to be allowed to recover any costs they incurred while defending themselves before the Native Affairs Committee. According to this judge, Maori needed to learn 'that litigious opposition is expensive' .607 Jones said it was the 'right of every subject to have full and free access to Parliament for all classes of grievance.' But in Poverty Bay' a person can be punished by the Validation Court for approaching Parliament ... such a principle seems . ) untenable and entirely subversive of the liberties of the subject.,608 The Native Department forwarded the Jones conespondence to the Premier for his instructions.609 There is nothing further on the files. The Puninga owners appear not to have proceeded with their petition. They may have decided to cut their losses, simply pay the survey charges, and not risk incuning the wrath of the Validation Court. They had, after aU, managed to win a greater victory. Maraetalla 2 passed into the hands of trustees: Puningaremained in the hands of its owners. 605 Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 8 July 1896, NA file 11/189611364 606 Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 8 July 1896, NA file 1111896/1364 607 Newspaper clipping, Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 8 July 1896, NA file 11/1896/1364 608 Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 8 July 1896, NA file 11/1896/1364 609 Waldengrave to Hamer, 2 July 1896, NA file 11/1896/1364 148 Judge Gudgeon provided some comments on the Jones correspondence in October 1896. He accused Jones of 'ingenuous misstatements' and of trying to go behind the Court in 'a singular and unprofessional' way.610 Jones did not think very highly of Gudgeon either. In August ofthat year (1896), Jones had asked that a judge other than Gudgeon hear a matter relating to Maraetaha ID. Jones wanted a judge 'qualified as a lawyer who will be able to deal with the jmisdiction points and the various legal points that will be celiain to arise' y1 It was Gudgeon who had argued that Maori needed to learn 'that litigious opposition [to the Validation COUli] is expensive' .612 Gudgeon had also been responsible for some of the alleged irregularities dming the Maraetaha 2/Puninga hearing. Jones had brought these matters to the attention of the Government. There is no doubt Gudgeon had strong feelings about this behaviom. 12.6 Puninga Alienations When the Stout Ngata Commission reported on Poveliy Bay land in 1907, it recommended that Pmringa 3, 4,5,8,9, 10 and 11 be set aside for Maori use or occupation.613 Pmringa 1 and 12 were still in Maori ownership in 1908 as well, but because they were leased out, the Stout Ngata Commission did not malce any recommendations concerning these two blocks. At this stage section 2 was still the only Puninga partition that had been alienated. Some of the Plminga blocks recommended for Maori occupation or use by Stout and Ngata were in fact leased to Emopeans.614 When this fact was brought to the Government's attention inquires were made. 615 The Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board was asked to 610 Gudgeon to Under Secretary for Justice, 7 October 1896, NA file 11/189611364 611 Jones to Native Minister, 29 August 1896, NA file 1111896/1207 612 Newspaper clipping, Jones to Minister of Maori Affairs, 8 July 1896, NA file 1111896/1364 613 AJHR, 1908, G-III, P 16 614 Rees Brothers and Bright to Carroll, 7 January 1909, NA file 1111909114 615 Carroll to Rees Brothers and Bright, 14 January 1909, NA file 11/1909/14 149 check the list of blocks prepared by the Stout Ngata Commission against its own records. The Board reported that Puninga 3, 4, 5 and 11 were leased. 616 These blocks were then excluded from the order in council reserving various Poverty Bay blocks for the use or occupation ofMaori.617 Puninga had been subdivided in 1895 without provision for road access. TIns may have been a problem elsewhere in Poverty Bay as well. One of the reasons for the sale of Maraetaha 2, Section 5, in 1906 was that the block was landlocked: access was only possible with the consent of the adjacent landowners. In 1910 a sketch map showing a proposed new road across Puninga was produced. TIns map shows the section (no 2) granted to Herbert in 1891/95, and all of the other partitions made in 1895. The area of each partition is given, and the name of the leaseholder, except in the case of section 11, and the three sections (Plminga 8, 9 and 10) set apart under part 2 of the Native Land • Settlement Act, 1907. Section 11 was leased out in 3 parcels. In 1910 Matena and Rewiri leased one of these parcels.618 Section 12 was also leased to a Maori. 619 Excluding the leaseholders of Puninga 8,9 and 10, who had to be Maori, all of the other Puninga leaseholders in 1910 appear to have been Europeans. More work needed to be done, in the context of 20th .U century economic development, on Maori who were buying or leasing land, and N gai r Tamanuhiri land in particular, in the Poverty Bay district, during the early part of the J; 616 Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board to Under-Secretary Native Department, 23 June 1909, NA file MA 111909/392. f ( ) 617 New Zealand Gazette, 9 September 1909, p 2303 I 618 Registrar NLC Gisborne to Ngata, 1 October 1910, NA file MA 111910/4985 " 619 Registrar NLC Gisborne to Ngata, 1 October 1910, NA file MA 111910/4985 150 ~" ~ o 10km , ! ....5! o Smiles ;,.'"., i!j. '"o ~ ~ARAETA HJ,,/~ 8 /~~ ( ...... Vl ~::P~Y' ,~,-,23h-cdC -==== ,:ftlW-=ry' ,. ..&4f7o"d~h..;:Y'~-,~ ____ ," ______fi.~J:J~,~J;r_on.e-..It:rde/.,_. " , _Y'~~' . ~ .. r~ rr Figure 13 : Puninga 1910 Source: NA file MA 1/1901/4985 century. TIns would include the Maori who were leasing Puninga land in 1910, and people like Tiemi Wirihana, who purchased Tarewauru A2A2B2 in 1915.620 In 1912 one of these entrepreneurial Maori, Keepa Wirihana, the leaseholder of Puninga 9 and 10, got into financial difficulties. 621 The Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board investigated and found that Keepa could no longer afford to stay on "the land, and that no other Maori would take over the lease. They recommended that the Minister consent to the transfer of the lease to James Torrie. 622 According to his lawyers, Torrie was an old settler, who would be a far better tenant that Keepa. 623 The boaxd minute suggests that the owners of Puninga 9 and 10 wanted the land returned to their control, because they hoped to get another Maori to take over the lease. If not, they wanted the land to go on the market. 624 This may mean they wanted it sold. It is more likely they wanted a competitive rent. ) 1• The Minister's approval had to be obtained, because ordinarily the legislation provided that blocks like Puninga 9 and 10, set apart by part 2 of the Native Land Settlement Act, 1907, had to be leased to Maori. But the Minister could allow a European to lease land of this kind, and, for the first time, tIns is what the Minister did. 625 He permitted Keepa's lease to be transferred to Torrie. The Puninga owners had successfully eluded capture by Carroll and Pere in 1896. Their land was under the control ofthe Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, not the East Coast Commissioner. Three of the Puninga blocks were set aside in 1909 for the occupation and 620 Tarewauru Block File, Gisbome MLe 621 Rei and Dawson to Native Minister, 6 November 1912, NA file MA 111913/79 622 Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board MB, 20 December 1912, NA file MA 111913/79 623 Rei and Dawson to Native Minister, 15 February 193, NA file MA 111913/79 624 Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board MB, 20 December 1912, NA file MA 111913/79 625 New Zealand Gazette, 22 February 1913, p 705 152 use of Maori. These blocks had a greater degree of protection than most. They survived intact, and were included in the Manutuke consolidation scheme. Puninga contained, according to the areas given on various certificates of title, around 8,000 acres. Apart from the land awarded to Herbert in 1891195, there appear to have been no alienations ofPuninga land until possibly the late 1910s. The document banlc on which tIns study was based does not show all of the dates on which blocks were transferred, but where that information is provided, it is mainly for the early 1920s. In 1900, 19 per cent of the block (1,548 acres) had been alienated. By the 1930s, another 4,000 acres or more had gone. No later alienations have been identified. In total, about 71 per cent of the block (5,705 acres) passed out of Maori hands. Another 200 acres were taken for public works, from blocks that were later alienated. The land remai1nng, about 12 partitions, ranging in size from 10 to over 500 acres, containing around 2,287 acres, about 29 per cent of the total block, was eventually incorporated into the Manutuke consolidation scheme. Several of the Puninga partitions sold during the 19th and early 20th centuries were taken for waterworks for Gisborne city in 1971. These included PU1nnga 1, an area of 549 acres, part of PU1nnga 2, an area of 966 acres, Puninga 6, an area of 1,187 acres, and Puninga 7D1 (65 acres), 7C1 (124 acres), 7B (272 acres) and 7A (152 acres).626 With the exception of a small area retained by the city all of these Puninga sections were transferred to the Crown in 1975 for forestry purposes. 627 They now form part of the northern end of the Wharerata forest. 626 CT 65/201; CT58170; CT 941128; CT 2A/281 627 New Zealand Gazette, 13 May 1976, p 1075 153 Graphical Representation Only Wal 814 - n.harris nov2000 North !l Figure 14 . Rangaiohinehau, Tarewauru, Tiraotane and Ranginui blocks \ t~·~.~ 154 Chapter 13 Rangaiohinehau, Tarewauru, Tiraotane and Ranginni In April 1882, as part of the Maraetaha 2 investigation, the Court awarded Rangaiohinehau, Tarewamu, Tiraotane and Ranginui to sections of Ngai Tamanuhiri and N gati Kahutia. 628 Rangaiohinehau had been partly investigated in 1881. On this occaSIon Rapata Whakapuhia (Ngati Te Aweawe) had claimed for Rongowhakaata. 629 Hemi Waaka (Ngati Paea) appeared for Ngai Tahupo, and Mrs Gannon made a claim through Ngarueiterangi.630 Waaka and two other Ngai Tahupo witness gave evidence, followed by Rapata Whakapuhia and another Rongowhakaata witness. The Court then dismissed the case, because no survey map was available, and the small sketch plan before the Court was considered inadequate.631 A Maori committee had investigated Tarewamu in the mid-1870s. The results of this investigation were not acceptable to Ngai Tamanuhiri, and may have precipitated the lodging of a Land Comt claim not only to Tarewauru, but also to Maraetaha 2 and other interior blocks as well. 632 The fom blocks in question contained a substantial amount of land, over 11,000 acres; most of it in the Tarewamu block (8,781 acres). This block had been hotly contested 628 Gisborne MB, no 8, 24 April 1882, p 108; Gisbome MB, no 8,17 May 1882, pp 173-174 629 Gisborne MB, no 7, 20 April 1881, p 227 630 Gisborne MB, no 7, 20 April 1881, p 228 631 Gisborne MB, no 7, 26 April 1881, p 238 632 New Zealand Gazette, 7 January 1882, pp 20-25 155 dming the Maraetaha 2 hearing. Rangaiohinehau contained 1,233 acres and Ranginui 757 acres. Tiraotane contained 468 acres. Rangaiohinehau, Tarewamu, Tiraotane and Ranginui were successively partitioned, after 1882 and before the 1920s, into some 45 separate sections in total. At the end of the 1880s, there were only 7 partitions. By the mid-1890s, there were around 20. This was almost entirely a result of the buying up of interests in these blocks by James Cattell. In 1894 Cattell was awarded over 1,200 acres, variously located across the blocks. This cutting out of interests resulted in the creation of around 12 new partitions, half of these going to Cattell. 13.1 James Cattell James Cattell is a bit of a mystery. He was around 8 years of age when he arrived in Wellington in 1842. He had the singular misfortune to lose his mother, possibly while he was still quite young, after a boat lifted into the air by the Wellington wind hit her. 633 James was a bootmaker in his earlier years. Later, he became a prominent Wellington hotelkeeper. His connection with Poverty Bay is not obvious. He certainly seems to have some kind of advantage when it came to acquiring interests in Maori land there. No one other than Cattell, for example, acquired any of the interests in Rangaiohinehau, Tarewauru, Tiraotane and Ranginui sold between the early 1880s and the mid 1890s. It is unlmown what that advantage might have been. In total, Cattell acquired close to 9,000 acres of the fom blocks in question, and he had land on other nearby blocks as well, and in other parts of New Zealand to boot. 633 Evening Post, 13 March 1899 156 The largest single Ngai Tamalluhiri Cattell acquisition was the 6,500-acre main Tarewauru block, called Tarewauru. He sold this block in 1892, to a local fanner, C J Parker.634 In 1895 Cattell sold some of his other Poveliy Bay blocks to a John Duff, who was described as a cabinetmaker, of Wellington, on the celiificates of title. 635 Duff sold one of these 636 blocks (Ranginui lA) to a Frederick Hall in June 1897. - Hall lived in Gisborne. His occupation was given on the celiificate of title as being that of a painter.637 Hall sold Ranginui lA to C J Parker a few months later. Parker was the fanner who had purchased the Tarewauru block from Cattell in 1892. This pattern of initial acquisition by men who were not farmers or settlers, and who did not lived in Poveliy Bay, and of successive sales within a ShOli span of time, suggests land speculation. Cattell stopped buying interests in Poverty Bay land in the mid 1890s, after private sale were made illegal by the Native Land Court Act, 1894. He died in 1899. TIns explains why the pace of partitioning, which had slowed during the late 1890s (7 new partitions 1895-1899), fell away to nothing during the first few years of the 20th century. Between 1905 and 1909, however, 7 new partitions were created, and between 1910 and 1914, another 11 new partitions were made. Daniel Joseph Parker and his wife Margaret Anne purchased some of these partitions in the late 1910s and 1920s. Daniel Parker had been awarded Tarewauru A2D, an area of about 100 acres, in 1898. This seems to have been the first transfer of land in the four blocks since 1894, and the first purchase by a Pakeha I I .!l other than Cattell. Daniel may have been C J Parker's son. Margaret Anne later married Herbert Shanks. Herbeli and his brother Frederick were active in the buying of land within the four blocks during the 1920s. The Parkers and the Shanks were not the only buyers, of 634 CT 26/201 635 Tiraotane 3A, CT 33/258; Ranginui 3A, CT 33/241; Ranginui lA, CT 33/264 636 Ranginui 3A, CT 33/241 637 CT 33/264 157 comse. Tieme Wilihana sought and gained the approval of the owners of Tarewauru A2A2 for a pmchase of part (150 acres) of that block in 1915, and he got the necessary ( , confirmation from the Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board as well. The latest conveyance noted was dated 1941, when the 14 acres in Rangaiohinehau 1B was awarded to Jessie Pyke. 13.2 Maori Attitudes to Alienation The minute books suggest that the owners of these blocks were, at least initially, divided about alienation. Dming the hearing of an application to partition Rangaiohinehau in May 1886, Mrs Gannon, who represented the sellers, mentioned the presence of several chiefs, all of whom supported sale. At the same time, the non-sellers numbered 40, and they had interests that amounted to a third of the block In 1886 Tiraotane was partitioned between the sellers, represented by Hemi Waaka, and the non-sellers. There was some disagreement between the two groups over the location and quality of the land to be reserved for the non-sellers. 638 This was settled by agreement between the pruiies outside the Comi. Orders were then issued dividing Tiraotane into Tiraotane 2, an area of303Yz acres, and Tiraotane 3, an ru"ea of 132Y2 acres. Tiraotane 2 was the land acquired by Cattell. 639 13.3 The Trust Commission Most of the titles issued for these blocks were issued without restrictions. Alienations still had to be approved by the Trust Commissioner nonetheless. This seems to have been a rather cmsory business. Dming the mid 1880s the standard pattern was for M J Gannon, (Kyllie Wyllie's husband) to give testimony that he knew the land, had witnessed the 638 Gisborne MB, no 10, 10 May 1886, pp 428-430 639 CT 211152 158 purchase and that the price paid was fair one. 640 Later purchases of Rangaiohinehau interests during the 1880s, and of interests in the other blocks, generally seem to have passed tlu'ough the Trust Commission on the basis of declarations. 641 During the early 1890s, however, oral declarations became the norm again. 13.4 Land Prices It is not always easy to work out what prices were being paid for land, or whether the land .---.•.------. was of good quality. Gannon said in 1885 that land on Tiraotane purchased by Cattell was worth on average about 4 shillings an acre, and that some of it was 'very rough'. 642 We lmow that Cattell paid around a £ 1 an acre for some small parts of Ranginui and Tiraotane in 1894.643 This must have been very good land. When Daniel Parker purchased Tarewauru A2D, an area of about 100 acres, in 1898, evidence was given that only about one third of the parent block, Tarewauru A2, an area on about 1,000 acres, was first class land.644 Similar evidence was given about Tarewauru A2E and TaTewauru generally. Some parts were of good quality, others very inferior. 645 Tarewauru B was apparently one of the inferior aTeas. Cattell paid £6.10s for an interest of about 20 acres in this block in 1894, more than 6 shillings an acre. In the opinion of a lmowledgeable local, this was an excellent price. The land was worth not more than 5 shillings an acre. 646 The bulk of Tarewauru was sold by 1900. We lmow something about the prices that were paid for the last remaining partitions. TaTewalUU 2 contained 307 acres. The valuation in 640 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, no 3, 25 June 1885, pp 337- 340; 29 June 1885, pp 346-347 641 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, no 3, 21 December 1885, 1 June 1886, pp 407-460 642 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, no 3, 25 June 1885, p 337 643 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, no 10,5 March 1894, pp 158-159 644 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, no 12, 19 Februaty 1900, p 68 645 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, no 12,25 April 1900, p 84 646 Matthewson affidavit, 67 April 894, Tarewauru Block File, Gisborne MLC 159 1913 was £465. The land was sold for £108.6.8. 647 Tarewauru A2A1 was an area of 104 acres. It fetched £1,248 when it was sold in 1913.648 Tiemi Wirihana paid £10 an acre for ( the 39 acres of Tarewauru A2A2B2 he purchased in 1915.649 13.5 The Remnants By the 1950s, as faT as one can tell, all of Ranginui and Tiraotane had been long sold. All that remained of Rangaiohinehau were three sections containing in total about 130 acres. One of these sections, of28 acres, part 4B1, was transferred in 1954 to the proprietors of Maraetaha 2 sections 3 ruld 6. 650 The other two Rangaiohinehau sections, 4B2 and 4B3B, were sold in the early 1970s by the Maori Trustee to some of the owners. The only parts of Tru"ewauru that seems to have survived were the Tarewauru 1 block, an ru"ea originally of just over 173 acres, and a tiny fragment of Tarewauru A2A2B2. This fragment was prui of the land transferred in 1954 to the proprietors of Maraetaha 2 sections 3 and 6. 651 647 Tarewauru Block File, Gisborne MLC 648 Tarewauru Block File, Gisborne MLC 649 Tarewauru Block File, Gisborne MLC 650 CT 57/66 651 CT 57/66 160 Chapter 14 Surveys and Rates In 1885, the Native Depaliment asked the Gisborne Land Court for details of ally ftmds expended by the Government on surveys in the district. When he filed his return, the Registrar commented about the possibility that Maori would be able to pay the various sums he had listed. 'I am afraid there is little chance of their being able to do so without ------they deal with the land in one way or another' .652 14.1 Survey Charges Survey charges were an issue for Maori everywhere during the 19th century. This is not a new fmding. Evidence given to the 1891 commission into land laws revealed that survey costs were generally regarded as excessive.653 Some of the testimony indicated that during the 1870s and the first half of the 1880s in particular surveyors routinely inflated their fees, because they often experienced difficulty with payments. TIns practice may have ceased after 1886, when the Government set a scale of fees. 654 No one seems to have disputed the need for surveys, especially when they established the botmdaries between the interests of different hapu. But surveys that split the land into many sub-divisions were another matter. Witnesses before the commission questioned not only the economics of surveys ofthls kind, but also their rationale or purpose. The purpose was to fulfil a long-standing Crown policy: the individualisation of Maori tenure. The ultimate objective of this policy was one Maori, one defined block of land. 652 Registrar NLC Oisborne, to Under Secretary, Native Department, 25 September 1885, NA file MA-MLP 1 1885/278 653 AJHR, 1891, session 2,0-1 654 New Zealand Gazette, 10 May 1886, vol 1, pp 634-642 161 To reach this end land had to be surveyed, not once but many times. When it first passed through the COlUi, when it was divided among hapu or between sellers and non-sellers, when the interests of successors had to be determined, whenever there was, for any reason, a need or opportunity to further define shares in land. In the 19th century, very little could happen to Maori land without a survey. The other constant was that surveying was a chm:ge against the owners and their land. Survey fees were one of the unavoidable costs incurred by Maori when they were obliged or forced to deal with the Land Court. These costs created debt situations and, as the Registrar of the Gisborne Court lmew, Maori might only be able to escape from them if they sold land. 14.2 Whareongaonga C Whareongaonga C was a much pruiitioned and therefore much surveyed Ngai Tamanuhiri block. The original survey in 1895 cost £23.9.8. As the block was successively partitioned, each new pruiition generated its own survey charges. But each new partition also had to bear a proportional share of the survey fee for the parent block. Whareongaonga ClA1A, for example, had to bear its own survey fee, plus a share of the Whareongaonga CIA survey, plus a share of the Whareongaonga Cl survey. Whareongaonga C 1, in turn, possibly had to bear a share of the original Whareongaonga C survey lien. The block file does not say so,. but one would expect that it did. The Whareongaonga block files do show, in many cases, that survey liens had been paid. Sometimes they were paid quite quickly, and in other instances within a few years. However, in some cases, there were quite lengthy periods between the levying of a chru'ge and its discharge. A survey charge of 14 shillings levied against Whareongaonga C11B3B I .1 162 In 1889 was not cleared until 1920. A three shillings charge against Whareongaonga C125C, which seems to be part of the fee for the original Whareongaonga C survey of 1895, was not paid until 1939. The successive apportioning of cost from survey to survey, not to mention additions for interest, mak:es it very difficult to determine what the total cost of the successive surveys of Whareongaonga C might have been. But we can see that a heavy burden had to be carried. In 1920, over £60 of outstanding charges were paid off. Entries on some of the block files indicated that some survey liens eventually had to be written off in the 1960s, possibly as part of the tidying up that preceded the Manutuke Consolidation. The files for other blocks show a similar picture. £147 incurred for surveys on TarewaulU between 1887 and 1917. £49 for Ranginui 1887-1913. £55 for Rangaiohinehau 1887- 1912. Some of the survey charges for Ngai Tamanuhiri land were part of the costs incurred by the Rees-Pere trust scheme, and these need to be examined in the context ofthe East Coast Commission's administration. Even so, these charges were incurred because it was Crown policy that customary tenure be converted as rapidly as possible into European- style titles. Arguably, since individualisation was a Crown policy, the Crown ought to have paid for its implementation on Ngai Tamanuhiri land. Sometimes the Crown did pay for surveys. Umuhaku is a case in point. But Umuhaku was the exception, not the rule. 163 14.3 Rates Rates were levied on Maori land in certain circumstances from 1871. In the mid 1890s, more Maori land became rateable, but there were still many grounds for exemption. However, by the 1910s rates were the rule, not the exception, for Maori land. Generally, when a block file contains many rates charging orders, it is a sign that the block in question is small, lmproductive and probably remote as well. It is simply unable to generate enough money to pay rates. Alternatively, it may be that the process of fragmentation of interest has produced a large number of owners. None of them might be willing, or able, to take sole responsibility for a liability that belonged to all of the owners. Numerous rating orders were noted on the various Whareongaonga block files. The Puninga block files, on the other hand, contained very few. The first implication is that Puninga land could generally produce sufficient income to pay rates. The second implication is that less of Puninga, relative to Whareongaonga, remained in Maori hands. There was provision for Maori land to be sold, if that was the only way to recover overdue rates. No instances ofthis kind were noted on any ofthe Ngai Tamanuhiri block files. Of course, land elsewhere might have been sold, so that outstanding rates on a particular block could be paid. It may not be possible, however, to make this connection from the documents. While rates probably have a general linlc to alienation, they are best considered in the context of 20th century Maori economic development, and as one of the key drivers for the policy of land consolidation. 164 Chapter 15 Overview and 20th Century Alienations The Po,verty Bay Commission and the Land Court awarded Ngai Tamalluhlri around 55,000 acres of land, including all of Maraetaha, Whareongaonga, Puninga and Maraetaha 2. They also received Rangaiohinehau, Tiraotane, Ranginui, Tarewauru and Umukahu entirely, and interests in Pakowhai, Tangotete, Te Kuri and Rahokapua. They may have --_._------interests in other blocks, lying outside the CUlTent inquiry district, as well. By the 1990s, over four fifth of this land had been alienated. Among the losses were virtually all of Maraetaha, substantial areas of Te Kuri, most of Maraetaha 2, most of Puninga, nearly all of Rangaiohinehau and Tarewauru, and all interests in Umuhaku, Tiraotane, Ranginui, Pakowhai and Rahokapua. Some of the lost land was repurchased during the 20th century: Wherowhero, parts of Te Kuri, a piece of Maraetaha and some parts of Puninga. Re-purchased land totalled nearly 1,200 acres, about 2 per cent of the Ngai Tamanuhiri awards. 15.1 Crown and Local Body Alienations The Crown purchased 4,760 acres of Maraetaha 2 and 396 acres of Umuhaku during the 19th century. The only Crown purchase identified during the 20th century was the 10-acre Umuhaku 1A block, purchased in the 1960s . . z; 165 Figure 15: Categories of Ngai Tamanuhiri Land ----1------ Crown Trust Sales PurchaseslPublic 11% Works 10% Land Remaining 17% Private Alienations 62% 166 The Gisb011le Harbour Board purchased Whareongaonga B in 1925; Gisb011le city purchased several parts of Maraetaha 2 around 1905. The latter alienations are noted under the heading Alienation of Trust Lands below. Land taken for roads, railways and other public purposes during the 20th century, based on what is recorded on the block files, amounted to around 178 acres. Additionally, 200 acres were taken for public works from Puninga blocks that were later alienated. . _------.-. The certificates of title issued show that areas of pre-existing road were routinely deducted from the awards made by the Land Court. This represents Maori land taken lmder various provisions during the 19th century, usually without compensation.655 The original certificate of title for Whareongaonga B, based on the award made in 1883, gives the area as 216 acres. 656 The celiificate issued to the Gisb011le Harbour Boards in 1925 shows a road, and a deduction of 15 acres for this road. 657 About 10 acres of Te Kopua seems to th have been talcen for roading during the 19 century as well. 658 It is not possible to work out how much Ngai Tamanuhiri land was taken in this way. But since their coastal lands lay astride the areas roads and railways would necessarily have to cross, they may have suffered more than most. They would also have reaped whatever benefits came from location along the lines of communications. 15.2 Crown Purchases 19 th Century There is not a great deal of information about the Crown's 19th century purchases available. In both cases the initial approach was made, according to the documents extant, 655 Marr, C. Public Works Taking a/Maori Land 1840-1981. Treaty ofWaitangi Policy Unit, 1994 656 CT 76/111 657 CT 76/112 658 CT 42/202 167 by the Maori vendors. It is possible, however, that the local land purchase agent may have encouraged these approaches. Some of the things we know for certain about these purchases do not reflect a great deal of credit on the Crown. For example, the Crown set a price for Maraetaha 2 interests that it knew to be less than the land was really worth. Then it claimed, and retained, more land that it had actually purchased on the block. We also lmow that the Crown purchasing agent, Brooking, spread a little money arolmd, to overcome resistance encountered during the purchase of Umuhaku. 659 But at least in the case of Umuhaku, the Crown picked up the survey and Land COUli charges. Crown officials also responded favourably to complaints by the owners of Mru:aetaha 2 that the proposed location of the Crown's partition would take up some of the best land on the block. It was moved to a location acceptable to both sides. Generally, the Crown did not display a great deal of interest in Ngai Tamanuhiri land . }• ~ ~ l, ) While it did respond to offers to buy interests in Maraetaha 2 and Umuhaku, it declined to buy any pmi of Plminga. Nor did it express any interest in other Ngai Tamanuhiri blocks. 15.3 Alienation of Trust Lands Several portions of Mm'aetaha 2, totalling 6,290 acres, parts of the original Rees - Pere trust lands, were sold around 1905, in circumstances described in the Orr-Nimmo report. 660 These areas amounted to 12 per cent of the lands awarded to Ngai Tamanuhiri. 15.4 Private Purchases: 19th Century In the 19th century, a handful of major private alienations removed aroUlld 20,000 acres from the Ngai Tmnru1Uhiri estate. This was about 35 per cent of the land. Cattell, one of ( I. 659 U Brooking to Under Secretary Land Pm-chase Department, 31 July 1882, NA file MA-MLP 111881139 660 Orr-Nimmo, Katherine W. Reportfor the Crown Forestl)! Rental Trust on the East Coast Maori Trust. 168 the major purchasers, also made a number of minor purchases in and around Tarewauru, which together totalled around 1,200 acres. There may have been other small purchases as well. 15.4.1 Maraetaha and Te Kuri The first of the maj or 19th century alienations was the acquisition by Johnson of large parts of the Maraetaha and Te Kuri blocks. When the Court finished the pru1ition of these two ------_. blocks in 1880, Johnson was left in possession of nearly 20 per cent of all the land that would eventually be awarded to Ngai Tamanuhiri. He was also left in possession of some 250 acres ofTe Kuri that did not belong to him. Maraetaha and Te Kuri were lost during the 1870s, when the Maori owners were first coming to grips with Pakeha land laws, when the joint tenancy awru·ds created a disposition towards alienation, and when protection mechanisms were weak and ineffectual. James Johnson was able to take full advantage of this particular set of circumstances. His Maori connection may have been, in this respect, a considerable business asset. It may also be that he was simply in the right place at the right time. Like everyone else who wanted to buy Maori land, he acquired interests when and as he could. Then he began to work towards a consolidation of his scattered shares, offering to exchrulge interests he had acquired in Tangotete, Te Kuri and Pakowhai for the remaining Ngai Tamanuhiri interests in Mru·aetaha. According to Hemi Waaka, some Ngai Tamanuhiri objected to this proposal, and it had been some time before agreement was reached. 661 The package which CFRT, 1997 661AJHR, 1891, 1-3A, P 6 169 produced this settlement, and the final definition of Johnson's and Ngai Tamanuhiri's respective interests in Mametaha, Palcowhai, Te Kuri and Tangotete, was put together by W L Rees and Wi Pere. If all of the evidence that Hemi Waalca gave to the Native Affairs Committee in 1891 is accepted, then these two men may have poorly served Ngai Tamanuhiri on this occasion.662 At the same time, it is clear they were acting with the best of intentions, and r------in utter good faith. The Crown was the third party involved in 1880, in the person of the Trust Commissioner who examined the details of the settlement. Jolmson might propose, Rees and Pere might agree, the Maori owners might endorse and approve. At the end of the day, however, it was the Trust Commissioner who had either to consent to the settlement, or reject it as •~. ~ I plainly unfair and inequitable. 663 The Commissioner would withhold consent only if there was very clear evidence of fraud. This is what the Crown had instructed the commissioners to do. 664 He was unlikely to withhold consent ifthe Maori owners had no objections. He was very unlikely to do so if they endorsed or supported a sale. When Maraetaha and Te Kuri were passed through the Court and the Trust Commission, tIns is what the Maori owners did. They publicly supported and endorsed what was being done on their behalf by Rees and Pere, in as far as they understood the intentions of their trustees. There are other statements of support for the 1880 settlement as late as the 1920s. 665 662 AJHR 1891 1-3A 663 AJHR' 1871 'G-7A 664 AJHR' 1871' G-7A 665 Petitidn 256128 John Pohatu and others, 1928. NA file MA 1 ND 5/13/93 170 One can note a similarity, and draw a contrast, between this situation and what happened when Maraetaha 2 and Puninga came before the Validation Court in the mid 1890s. The Maraetaha 2 owners made no objection at the time, and indeed, Hemi Waaka gave evidence in support of the application to validate the trust agreement. The Puninga owners, on the other hand, flatly refused to accept would-be trustees, and they hired counsel to al"gue their case. Maraetaha 2 became mostly trust land: Puninga did not. 15.4.2 Tarewauru The second major acquisition of Ngai Tamanuhiri land during the 19th century was the Tarewamu block, of 6,518 acres, conveyed to James Cattell in 1886 .. The title to Tarewauru was issued without restrictions in 1883. Cattell began buying up ) interest in the block almost immediately. Cattell may have been a speculator. In any event, these purchases had to be approved by the Trust Commissioner. The Trust Commissioners operated under instruction from the Crown that predisposed them to take a favourable view of any purchase of Maori land. As a result, the examinations conducted by the Commissioners appeal" quite perfunctory. Obvious frauds excepted, and sales by minors, which were routinely disallowed, the possibility that a transaction might render a vendor landless was the only real ground for denying a certificate. Since the Tarewauru owners also had interests in surrounding blocks, this was not an issue in the 1880s. Indeed, at this early stage, Ngai Tamanuhiri must have appeared land-rich to everyone; possibly even to themselves. 171 15.4.3 Puninga 2 The other large private 19th century acquisition was Puninga 2, an area of 1,548 acres awarded to Herbert in 1891195. Nothing is known about how or when Herbert obtained his interests in this block. The Trust Commissioner examined none of the transactions. The lease he said he had over the block was never registered. The Native Minister did not believe, after examining the files, that Herbert had any legal or valid claims to Puninga. Departmental officials did not believe he had either. But when the block was partitioned, Herbert's lawyer discussed the issue with the owners outside the Court. These were the same people who a few years later would successfully defend their land in the Validation Court. On this earlier occasion, they agreed or were persuaded that Herbert had some rights. They probably did not understand the legal principles that the men in Wellington had applied. They came back into the Court with a done deal. In such situations it was · , usual for the Court to simply accept out-of-court arrangements at face value, and to malce ) the necessary orders forthwith. This is what happened with respect to Puninga 2. During the 19th century, it was common for the Court to act in this way. Ward says that on these occasions the Court was acting 'as umpire and recorder' of an essentially Maori-run process.666 That the alienation of Puninga 2 was a Maori-nm process may be debatable: that the Land Court believed it was following the wishes of the Puninga owners is probably true. It is no accident that the men who dealt directly with Ngai Tamanuhiri for land during the 19th century were all wealthy, well able to afford the lawyers and agents who acted on their behalf. Buying Maori land was a costly and time-consuming business, even for the Crown, and few private individual could afford the expense or cope with the delays and risks involved. 172 Johnson acquired his interests during the 1870s. He brought a few additional interests around the end of the 1880s, to tidy up his claim to Maraetaha.667 Herbert probably acquired his interests during the early 1880s, after Puninga was passed thought the Land Court. Cattell was the only buyer who seems to have been active during the 1880s and early 1890s, when he was buying extensively in and around Tarewauru and adjacent blocks. ------TIns buying spree was ended by the Native Land Court Act, 1894. TIns legislation made private purchase of land illega1. 668 If Pakeha wanted to buy Maori land after 1894, this had to be done through the Maori Land Councils in each district, and only after the Governor's approval had been obtained. During the 19th century, the land laws were such that if a Maori wanted to sell land, or a ) Pakeha wanted to buy land, there was really nothing to stop them :limn doing so. The successive late 19th century partitioning of Tarewauru and other nearby blocks between sellers and non-sellers suggests that some Maori were very willing sellers, eager to tum at least part of their land into cash, and to live well on the proceeds, or put the money into developing property elsewhere, or pay debts. It is never very clear what the motivation was in particular cases, but the Stout Ngata Commission had no doubt that 'the sight of a ... cheque-book' and the prospect of the good time that would follow were always enough to persuade most Maori to sign a purchase deed. 669 A harsh judgement, given that there 666 Ward, A. National Overview. vol 2, Waitangi tribunal, 1997, p 224 667 Oisborne Trust Commission ME, no 6,18 October 1889, p 152; Oisborne Trust Commission MB, no 7, 22 June 1891, p 280 668 Section 117, Native Land Court Act, 1894. Section 118 allowed up to 18 months for transactions already begun to be completed. 669 AlliR, 1907, 0-1 C, p 8 173 were no funds for land development, and few alternative ways of gaining the entry tickets into the European money-based economy and social order. Those who sold interests in Maraetaha to Johnson earlier in the century, or any of the interests in the other joint tenancy Poverty Bay Commission awards, on the other hand, were persuaded to do so by the very nature of the titles they received. Clearly, these interests were strictly temporary assets. If any benefit were to be obtained, they had to be sold quic1dy. According to Hemi Waaka, many of these owners later regretted selling. In 1880, when Maraetaha was partitioned, they supported a rather ambitious and essentially futile plan by Rees and Pere to buy the block back. 15.5 Private Purchases: 20th Century Crown and private purchases during the 19th century were significant but by no means ) catastrophic in their impact. At the beginning of the 20th century, Ngai Tamanuhiri still retained a sizeable estate: most of Maraetalla 2, most of Puninga, all of Whareongaonga and Te Kopua, and a good share of Rangaiohinehau, Tiraotane, Ranginui, Tarewauru and Rahokapua remained. The interests in Palcowhai, Tangotete, and Te Kuri were also intact. By the end of the century, most of this land had gone. 15.5.1 Private Purchases 1894-1909 Private purchase of land was legal in Poverty Bay from at least 1871, when the titles for land awarded by the Poverty Bay Commission were issued. The period of private transactions, with little or no effective regulation, ended in 1894, with the passage of the Native Land Court Act. 670 174 It was never the intention, after 1894 that Maori would be left in undisturbed possession of their remaining land. New legislation was passed, with the objective of seeing that Maori land was made available for development, either by sale or lease. TIns Maori land legislation had other objectives as well. One was to prevent the unfaimess that had often characterised both Crown and private purchasing during the 19th century. Another was to see that Maori were not rendered landless, not because of any particular concem for the weWll'e of the race, but simply to avoid Maori becoming a burden on society. These various objectives were not necessarily compatible, and frequent changes to the land legislation changed the emphasis between and among them almost on an annual basis. The Native Land Laws Act, 1894, for example, was amended in 1895, 1896, 1897 and 1899. During the first decade ofthe 20th century, there were major enactments in 1900, 1905 and 1907, and amending legislation in 1901, 1902, 1903, 1906, 1907 and 1908.671 •£ ) Transactions begun before the passage of a particular piece of legislation were usually not affected by that legislation, but left to be completed under previous provisions. 672 Sometimes, amending legislation had to be passed to allow this to happen. The Trust Commission, for example, was abolished by the Native Land Court Act, 1894. Section 16 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act, 1896, allowed the Trust Commission to complete any proceedings commenced under the 1881 Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act: it was still issuing celiificates as late as December 1900.673 While there were some general 'rules' between 1894 and 1909, there were exceptions to these rules as well. One of these rules, for example, was that private sales were prohibited. 670 Section 117 , Native Land COUlt Act, 1894 671 Nikora, T and Bennion, T. Maori Land Legislation 1862-1908: Annotations, Waitangi Tribunal, 1993, pp 27-28 672 See, for example, section 118, Native Land Cowt Act, 1894 175 But section 3 ofthe Native Land Laws Amendment Act, 1895, excepted blocks ofless than 500 acres. Section 22 of the Maori Lands Administration Act, 1900, allowed blocks with less than three owners to be dealt with privately as well.674 Most of the Ngai Tamanuhiri blocks sold between 1900 and 1909 were sold under the less than three owners provision. For example, George Walker's half share of Maraetaha 1B, sold in 1901, Maraetaha lA, sold in 1904 and Rahokapua 2 sold in 1908. One exception was William Walker's half share of Maraetaha 1B, held in trust for his four children. The sole trustee, Kara Waaka, sold this land in December 1902. The relevant legislation in this case was the Maori Real Estate Management Act, 1888, as amended in 1893. Section 5 of this act allowed trustees to sell land, provided a judge of the Supreme Court endorsed the transaction. The other exception was Maraetaha 1C. This land was awarded to Bayley in 1901, but it had been purchased well before that date, probably under legalisation ) operative before 1894. The proceedings in 1901 were about partitioning, and fmal conveyance to Bayley, not about alienation, or even the confirmation of alienation. At the same time, there is some evidence that Ngai Tamanuhiri were not aware before 1901 that the 250 acres in question had been sold. The largest single private alienation during this period (1894-1909) was Maraetaha 2, section 5. This area of 857 acres was sold in 1906, after restrictions had been lifted by the procedure described in section 24 of the Maori Lands Administration Act, 1900. The owners would have produced evidence that they would be left with sufficient land for their occupation and support, as defmed in section 21 of the 1900 act. The justification provided by the owners for selling was that they could not afford to develop the land, 673 Gisborne Trust Commission MB, no 12, 17 December 1900, p 102 674 Section 22, Maori Lands Administration Act, 1900; AJHR, 1907, G-1C, P 7 176 which in any case was landlocked. Additionally, the adjacent landowner, the only person who could malce use of the land, was offering a very good price. No doubt tIns alienation seemed very sensible at the time. Maraetaha 2, section 5, however, was the only large axea of Maraetalla 2 vested in its owners. The availability of funds for the development of Maori land might have persuaded the owners to hold onto Maraetaha 2, section 5. This is an issue that needs to be addressed in the context of 20th century development. On the other land, the fact that the section had become landlocked, and could only be fully utilised by one or other of the adjacent landowners, probably tipped the balance in favour of sale. The alienations mentioned above added up to 1,720 acres. There may have been others as well between 1894 and 1909. Ii t ) 15.6 The Stout Ngata Commission In 1906 the Government decided to do an inventory of existing Maori land. It set up a commission to inquire into Maori land and tenure, the objective being to determine exactly what lands were needed by Maori and what land could be considered surplus to Maori needs. Under legalisation passed the following year, surplus land was to be vested in the Land Boards, and divided into two 'approximately equal' portions: one to be leased, one to be sold.675 The commission, generally referred to as the Stout Ngata Commission, reported on Poverty Bay land in 1907. It noted the land administered by the East Coast Commissioner (Te Kuri, the two Tangotete blocks and the unsold areas of Maraetaha 2). It recorded the Ngai , .!: 177 Tamanuhiri land sold by the Trust Lands Board (parts of Maraetaha 2). The Maori Land Administration Act, 1900, provided for land to be voluntarily vested in Maori Land Councils. According to the Stout Ngata Commission, no Ngai Tamanuhiri land had been transferred in this way.676 The 1900 legislation also provided for direct leasing ofland, with the consent of the Land COlIDcil, for periods of up to 50 years. The Commission found that four section of Plminga, and small areas of Rangaiohinehau, Tarewauru, Tiraotane, Whareongonga and Te Kuri 1A had been leased by the Council. Pakeha also leased two sections of Tiraotane, but not, apparently, under the terms of the 1900 legislation. The Commission subsequently recommended that the seven sections of Puninga be set aside for Maori occupation and use. It was later found that some of these sections were already leased to Europeans, so they were excluded from the area set aside for Maori. In the end, only three sections (8, 9 and 10) ofPuninga, totalling 763 acres, were set aside for the occupation and use ofNgai Tamanuhiri. This was less land than the Commission had intended. Excluding land under the control of the East Coast Commissioner, and excluding these reserved Plminga sections, the rest of Ngai Tamruluhiri's land was, according to the 1907 Act, surplus lruld. This was the balance of Puninga, Whareongonga and whatever was left of Rangaiohinehau, Tarewauru, Tiraotrule, Ranginui, Umuhaku and Rahokapua. Te Kopua was probably considered surplus land as well. The trustees transferred this 675 Section 11, Native Land Settlement Act, 1907 676 AJHR, 1907, G-III, P 12 178 block to the East Coast Commissioner in 1908.677 As such, it passed outside the scope of the 1907 legislation. According to this' legislation, surplus land was to be vested in the Land Boards, half to be leased, half to be sold. It appears that a good deal of the surplus Ngai Tamanuhiri land was already leased in 1907, and therefore not at any immediate risk of sale. But the provision for compulsory vesting of land, and then the sale of half of this land, whether the owners .------. ---.------wished to sell or not, was clearly confiscatory in nature. 15.7 Private Purchases 1909-1954 The 1909 Land Act retained the provision that half of the surplus land vested in the Land Boards was to be sold. All restrictions on alienation were removed. The land set aside for occupation and use (part xvi land) could be alienated under certain condition. Even papalcainga land could be alienated. Transactions still had to be fair, and the price paid adequate. Nor could a Maori be rendered landless by the proposed alienation, which was defined not as being totally without land, but as not having enough land for sufficient maintenance. But no minimum level of land sufficient for maintenance was set. Some of the schedules showing land owned by Maori vendors of different Tarewauru blocks can be found on the Tarewauru block files. Matene Kaipau owned the 52-acre Tarewauru A2B 1 block. His other lands amounted to at least 150 acres of Maraetaha 2, ; 678 5 sections 3 and 6. Raiwa Home was one of the owners of Tarewauru 2. He owned 677 AffiR, 1909,0-8, pI 678 Tarewauru Block files, Oisborne MLC 179 another 36 acres in total elsewhere, but spread across 9 blocks. In one of these blocks, he owned 20 perches. In several others, his interest was 5 acres or less. 679 Tarewauru 2 had 10 owners. They all owned other land, but in varying amounts. One had 87 acres, most of it on Puninga 1. Another had 10 acres, spread across 3 separate blocks. All of these holdings, whether great or small, whether scattered or compact, appear to have satisfied the 'sufficient maintenance' test. ------_.. _._ .. __._._._---_ .. __.. _-_.. _.. In 1913 the 'sufficient maintenance' goal posts were moved. Land could be sold if it was considered insufficient for maintenance and/or if other forms of income, like paid work, could be adduced. When two of the owners of Tarewauru A2A2B 1 wanted to sell their share of this very small block (13 acres) in 1916, their applications was held over for further consideration, apparently because they were thought to be otherwise landless. Among the surviving documentation is a declaration from a local farmer, stating that the two men in question 'are both in constant work as station hands, fencers, shearers or bushfallers and earn ample money for their maintenance and suppOli.' 680 TIns was not enough to convince the Land Board. They turned the application down. As it happened, the two vendors did own other land, and after suitable details of these lands were provided, Tarewauru A2A2B 1 was sold by its owners between 1922 and 1924, with the consent of the Land Board. The remaining areas of Tarewaunl were sold off during the 1920s, some of them as leases over them expired. Tarewaunl A2Fl was a block that had became landlocked. It was covered by paJ.i xviii of the 1909 act, wInch meant it could not be sold unless the assembled owners agreed. The block, of 105 acres, was leased by F A Shan1cs. When his ) 679 Tarewauru Block files, Gisborne MLC 680 Shanks declaration, 18 October 1916, Tarewauru Block files, Gisborne MLC 180 lease expired in 1927, he wanted to buy the land. The owners agreed to sell, but left the Land Board to determine the price. Shanks wanted a low price to be set, on the grounds ( that the land had no legal access, and that the owners could do nothing with the land other than give it to him. The Board stood its grOlmd. Rent could be charged, and there were other adjacent owners who might wish to buy the land. Eventually, Shanks agreed to pay about £70 more than he had initially offered. 681 Shanks purchased another block, Tarewalffil A2F2, in 1929, again after the lease expired. Most of Puninga seems to have been leased in the early part of the 20th century, which gave the block some immediate protection. Examination of some of the Puninga certificates of titles suggests, however, that during the 1920s freehold tenure tended to replace leasehold. By the 1930s, most of this block had been sold as well. By the 1950s, the only large areas of Ngai Tamanuhiri land remaining were those locked up in the hands of the East Coast Commissioner (Maraetaha 2, Te Kuri 1, Tangotete, and Maraetaha 1D), and the unsold areas of Puninga and Whareongaonga A and C. Some small areas of Rangaiohinehau and Tarewauru remained as well. It is not clear why Whareongaonga still contained a relatively large area of lmsold land. Possibly the Maori land remaining on this block had been protected by long term leases: possibly the land was simply unattractive to buyers. Most of the land remaining in 1954, excluding part ofTe Kuri 1 and the Tangotete blocks, ended up in the Manutuke consolidation scheme. 680 Tarewauru Block files, Gisborne MLC 681 Tarewauru Block files, Gisborne MLC 181 15.8 Private Purchases 1954 -1991 The last major alienations ofNgai Tamanuhlri land, the sale ofMaraetaha 1D in 1988 and of Section 9, Maraetaha 2, in 1991, occurred well within living memory. 15.9 Final Position The final position for Ngai Tamanuhlri is as follows. Over 80 per cent of the land awarded to them during the 19th century was lost between the 1880s and the 1990s. Most of the ------remainder was taken into the Manutuke consolidation scheme. From some viewpoints, this last development was a loss as well. The Manutuke consolidation scheme, and the incorporations that preceded it, will be dealt with in the report covering 20th century economic development. Land consolidation schemes became necessary, from the Crown's point of view, to solve various problems that began to reach critical proportion in the first quarter of the 20th century: unpaid rates and survey liens, uneconomic interests, fragmentation of titles, under-utilisation of land. 682 None of these problems were Maori in origin. All of them could be traced back, ultimately, to the rules of succession to Maori land developed and imposed by the 19th century Land Court. , p In the case of the Poverty Bay lands included in the Manutuke scheme, there were 550 titles originally, held by 6,000 owners, for an area of 22,010 acres. Of these 550 titles, 241 were unsurveyed. Certificates supported only 146 of the 550 titles. Only a fifth of these titles were individual titles. In many cases, there were more than four owners in the 682 Campbell, S. K. L. National Overview on Land Consolidation Schemes 1909-1931. CFRT,1998; McHugh, P. G. The Fragmentation o/Maori Land Legal Research Foundation, 1981 182 title. 683 The great achievement, from the point of view of the land utilisation officers who worked on the scheme, was that these 550 titles were reduced to 224. TIns result was achieved, moreover, with minimal opposition: only 6 of the 6,000 owners objected.684 Land was consolidated by creating big blocks from many smaller ones. This meant that interests in blocks that were to disappear were re-apportioned into the new blocks created by the scheme. Sometimes, interests were also absorbed into pre-existing incorporations. This happened in the case of the Manutuke scheme. The idea was to create more efficient units of land, better suited to agricultw.'e or pastoral uses, and thereby secure greater production. Whether tIns actually happened is one issue. What is evident, however, is that to achieve a purely economic end cultural considerations, based on affinity to particular areas of land, often had to be sacrificed. Effectively, the ir i swapping and re-arranging of interests in a purely economic framework meant that individuals could end up not only divorced from those blocks which, lnstorically, were associated with their particular iwi but also with interests in blocks where, culturally, they did not belong. The potential for divisiveness and conflict was enormous in theory and, in the case of the Manutuke scheme, very evident in practice. It is no secret that the unfolding of the scheme produced great resentment on the part of Ngai Tamanuhiri, directed at their immediate neighbours to the north, Rongowhakaata. Ngai Tamanu1nri and Rongowhakaata have lived side by side for centuries. There has been intermingling at Muriwai, and some people of both Ngai Tamanu11iri and 683 Report on the Manutuke Consolidation Scheme, 20 November 1968. Gisbome ME, no 97, 20 November 1968, pp 248-250 684 Report on the Manutuke Consolidation Scheme, 20 November 1968. Gisbome ME, no 97, 20 November 1968, p 249 , j, 183 Rongowhakaata affiliation have rights at Muriwai dating back to at least 1869. But Ngai Tamanuhiri believed that the swapping and re-grouping of interests that underpinned the Manutuke consolidation scheme resulted in Rongowhalcaata individuals, with no links to the district, gaining shares in the consolidated land surrounding the Muriwai settlement. Muriwai is a location rich in historical associations for Ngai Tamanuhiri. It is said to be one ~f only three places where the Horouta canoe landed at Poverty Bay.685 Tamanuhiri lived in the Muriwai vicinity at some stage. 686 His son Paea probably did so as well, and Kalmtia almost certainly did. The name Ngai Tahupo originated at Muriwai, from the circumstances of Koroiti's cremation. 687 Apart from its great historical significance, a century of alienations has given the land left at Muriwai huge contemporary importance as well. It is the only place remaining where Ngai Tamanuhiri can still stand on their own land. But there are other complications, some of historical origin, others of more recent vintage. The Poverty Bay Commission awarded the tmderlying blocks, Te Kuri and Tangotete, to Rongowhalcaata as well as Ngai Tamanuhiri grantees. This situation, agreeable enough to both sides in the 1860s, seems to have become less satisfactory with the passage of time. A compounding factor is that the main block at Muriwai, Te Kuri 1, emerged into the 20th century containing less that half of the 400 acres it should have contained. Then, almost two thirds of this land, designated as Te Kuri X71, was included in the consolidation , scheme. This may have resulted in an unwelcome Rongowhakaata intrusion into the 1 Muriwai area. The other result was that great pressure was placed on an area where r i £ t ) f 685 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistOlY ofthe HOl'outa Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed,1999, p 26 ~ 686 Halbert, R. Horouta: The HistOlY ofthe HOl'outa Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 59 687 Halbert, R. Horouta: The History of the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999, p 73 \ .L 184 residential land was already in demand.688 It is very evident from the minute books that in recent decades there has not been enough land at Muriwai to satisfy the needs of those who regard this area as their ancestral heruiland and who have become, otherwise, strangers on their own land. ", /- i J 688 Emmerson to Maori Affairs, Gisbome, 9 December 1980, NA file BBHT 4940/484 a 6/1177 185 186 Appendix A: Statements of Iwi/Hapu Identification This is a list of statements made during Land Court hearings by witnesses identifying their hapu and or iwi. Ngati Paea Ngai Teri Mita Puku: 1 belong to Ngatipaea hapu ... Hemi Waaka: 1 belong to Ngaitamanuhiri Ngaitamanuwhiri owned the whole of tribe. Ngateri is the hapu. (Maraetaha No Maraetaha No 2 and has descendedfr0711 2) Gisbome MB, no 7,1 March 1882, p him (Maraetaha No 2) Gisbome MB, no 430 ------,8,I-I-Afnil-l-8·8~,p-6;§------Ngati Hineltino Hemi Waaka: The hapu is Ngatipaea. (Rangaiohinehau) Gisbome MB, no 7, 20 Karauria Te Pei: My hapus on this block April 1881, p 228 are Ngati Umupapa & Ngati Tuteuruao & Ngati Hinekino. (Whareongaonga C) Mita Puku: 1 belong to Ngatahupo. Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, Ngatipaea is my hapu. (Rangaiohinehau) p 251 Gisbome MB, no 7, 20 April 1881, p 229 Wi Kaipuke: My hapus on this block are Hoera NgatUlgau: 1 belong to Ngatipaea. Ngati Umupapa & Ngati Tuteuruao & (Rangaiohinehau) Gisbome MB, no 7, 25 Ngati Hinekino. (Whareongaonga C) ,i . ) April 1881, p 233 Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, p254 Ngai Tahupo Matutaera Tamuku: 1 claim the division 1 Mita Hamuera: 1 belong to Ngaitahupo want from Hinekino. (Whareongaonga C) (Maraetaha) PBC, 9 July 1869, p94 Gisbome MB, no 22, 10 November 1891, p 271 Ihalca Ngarangione: 1 belong to Ngaitahupo Maraea Te Aowhalcatere: My hapus on (Maraetal1a) PBC, 9 July 1869, p 94 this block are Ngati Umupapa & Ngati Tuteuruao & Ngati Hineldno. Hami Mataora: 1 am ofthe Ngai Tahupo (Whareongaonga C) Gisbome MB, no (Tangotete) PBC, 10 July 1869, p 109 22,2 November 1891, p 251 Ngai Te Hau Keita Pongorau: My hapu is Ngati Hinekino. (Whareongaonga C) Gisbome Mita Puku: 1 belong to Ngaitehau hapu of MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, pp Ngaitahupou tribe. (Paritu) Gisbome 253,255 MB, no 4, 27 May 1879, p 251 187 Ngati Kahutia Hoera Ngaungau: I belong to Ngati Rangiwaho and Ngati Kaea subtribes. Otene Panari: I belong to Ngatikahutia .,. ( (Whareongaonga) Gisborne MB, no 3, 12 Tamaraukura and Paea own Maraetaha Februry 1877, p 208 ... Kahutia got mana through ancestor Tamanuhiri (Maraetaha No 2) Gisborne Maraea Te Aowhakatere: MB, no 8, 12 April 1882, pp 67-68 Ngatirangiwaho is my hapu ... My claim is through ancestry ji'om Hine Te Whatu. NgatiKaia (W11areongaonga) Gisborne MB, no 3, 13 Februry 1877, p 226 Hoera Ngmmgau: I belong to Ngati Rangiwaho and Ngati Kaea subtribes. Irihapeti: It belongs to my tribe (Whareongaonga) Gisborne MB, no 3, 12 Ngatirangiwaho. (Whareongaonga) --Februry-I-8--9--9,p-208------6isborne-MB-;-no-J;--1-3-Febnuy-I-8-9-9-;-p---- 230 Hoera Ngatmgau: I belong to Ngatikaia hapu ofNgatirangiwaho (Rahokapua) Karauria Te Pei: My hapus on this land is Gisborne MB, no 8, 30 March 1882, pp Ngati Rangiwaho. That is my big hapu. 40-41 My small hapu are Ngati Tuteuruao, Ngati Hinekino, Ngati Umupapa and NgatiMeke Ngati Kaia. (Whareongaonga C) Gisborne MB, no Ern Pohatu: I belong to Ngatimeke hapu 22, 17 November 1891, p 307 ofNgatikahungunu. (Rahokapua) Gisborne MB, no 8,30 March 1882, p 37 N gati Tuteuruao .. ) ! Ern Pohatu: I come ji'om Meke. Karauria Te Pei: My hapus on this block Tamanawhiri was the ancestor ofMeke. are Ngati Umupapa,& Ngati Tuteuruao (Rahokapua) Gisborne MB, no 8, 17 & Ngati Hinekino. (Whareongaonga C) April 1882, pp 77,80 Gisborne MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, p251 Ngati Rangiwaho Karauria Te Pei: My hapus on this land is Hirini Tipare: I have an ancestral claim Ngati Rangiwaho. That is my big hapu. ... through Rangiwaho and Hine Te My small hapu are Ngati Tuteuruao, Whatu Ngati Hinekino, Ngati Umupapa and (W11areongaonga) Gisborne MB, no 3, 12 Ngati Kaia. Februry 1877, p 219-220 (Whareongaonga C) Gisborne MB, no 22, 17 November 1891, p 307 Wi Kaipuke: Ngatirangiwaho is my hapu. (Whareongaonga) Gisborne MB, no 3, 9 Wi Kaipuke: My hapus on this block are Februry 1877, p 203 Ngati Umupapa & Ngati Tuteuruao & Ngati Hinekino. (W11areongaonga C) Wi Kaipuke: I belong to Ngatirangiwaho. Gisborne MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, (Umuhaku) Gisborne MB, no 7, 18 April p 254 1881, p 256 188 Maraea Te Aowhakatere: My hapus on Wi Kaipuke: My hapus on this block are this block are Ngati Umupapa & Ngati Ngati Umupapa & Ngati Tuteuruao & Tuteuruao & Ngati Hinekino. Ngati Hineldno. (Whareongaonga C) (Whareongaonga C) Gisbome MB, no Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, 22,2 November 1891, p 251 p254 Ngati Umupapa Maraea Te Aowhakatere: My hapus on this block are Ngati Umupapa & Ngati Kamuria Te Pei: My hapus on this block Tuteuruao & Ngati Hineldno. are Ngati Umupapa & Ngati Tuteuruao (Whareongaonga C) Gisbome MB, no & N gati Hinekino. (Whareongaonga C) 22,2 November 1891, p 251 Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, p 251 Karauria Te Pei: I claim through ------Umupapa a napu 01Ngafff'anglwaho. Kamuria Te Pei: My hapus on this land is (Raholcapua) Gisbome MB, no 8,30 Ngati Rangiwaho. That is my big hapu. March 1882, p 38 My small hapu are Ngati Tuteuruao, Ngati Hinekino, Ngati Umupapa and Panuera Te Aitu: I belong to Umupapa Ngati Kaia. hapu. (Raholcapua) Gisbome MB, no 8, (Whareongaonga C) Gisbome MB, no 30 March 1882, p 42 22, 17 November 1891, p 307 189 .;. I" 190 Appendix B: Ancestors Claimed ( This is a list of statements made during Land Court hearings identifying the ancestors from whom claims to land were being made. Hine Te Whatu Kaia Hirini Tipare (Whareongaonga) Gisbome Mere Moana (Whcu:eongaonga C) MB, no 3, 12 Februry 1877, p 219-220 Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, p 254 Wi Kaipuke (Whareongaonga) Gisbome ----MB, no 3;-YFe15rury f87T,p2U3------.H"0=-=e=ra=-Ngaungau (RrulokaplliirGisOome MB, no 8, 30 March 1882, pp 40-41 Maraea Te Aowhakatere (Whareongaonga) Gisbome MB, no 3, 13 Kotihei Februry 1877, p 226 Wi Kaipuke (Umuhaku) Gisbome MB, Irihapeti (Whareongaonga) Gisbome MB, no 7, 18 April 1881, p 256 no 3, 13 Februry 1877, p 230 Meke Karauria Te Pei (Whareongaonga C) Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, Eru Pohatu (Rahokapua) Gisbome MB, , p 251 no 8, 30 March 1882, p 37 'i' 1 Wi Kaipuke (Whareongaonga C) Eru Pohatu (Paritu) Gisbome MB, no 4, Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, 22 May 1879, p 230 p254 Paeaiterangi Matutaera Tamuku (WhaTeongaonga C) Gisbome MB, no 22, 10 November 1891, Hemi Waaka (Maraetaha No 2) Gisbome p 271 MB, no 7, 1 March 1882, p 430 Karauria Te Pei (Rahokapua) Gisbome Hemi Waaka (Rangaiohinehau) Gisbome MB, no 8, 30 March 1882, p 38 MB, no 7, 20 April 1881, p 228 Hinekino Mita Pulcu (Rangaiohinehau) Gisbome . MB, no 7, 20 April 1881, p 229 Keita Pongorau (Whareongaonga C) Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, Hoera Ngaungau (Rangaiohinehau) pp 253,255 Gisbome MB, no 7, 25 Apri11881, p 233 Mere.Moana (Whareongaonga C) Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, p 254 191 Rangiwaho Tuhel{e Hirini Tipare (Whareongaonga) Gisbome Hoera N gaungau (Whareongaonga C) MB, no 3, 12 Februry 1877, p 219-220 Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, pp 253,255, 271 Hoera Ngaungau (Whareongaonga) Gisbome MB, no 3, 12 Febmry 1877, p Pera Kuhukuhu (Whareongaonga C) 208 Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, pp 253,255 Tahu Mere Moana (Whareongaonga C) Hemi Waaka (Maraetaha No 2) Gisbome Gisborne MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, -----'IvtB, no 8;3-Apri:1-t882, p zJ."9 p25~---- Tamanuhiri Ruiha Matauchi (Whareongaonga C) Gisborne MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, Wi Paetarewa (Maraetaha no 2) Gisbome p254 MB, no 8,22 March 1882, p 17 Tuteuruao . Hoera N gaungau (Whareongaonga C) Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, Keita Pongorau (Whareongaonga C) pp 253,255, 271 Gisborne MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, pp 253,255 Mita Puku (Maraetaha No 2) Gisbome MB, no 8, 11 April 1882, P 65 Mere Moana (Whareongaonga C) Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, Otene Panari (Maraetaha No 2) Gisbome p 254 MB, no 8, 12 April 1882, pp 67-68 Ruiha Matauchi (Whareongaonga C) Em Pohatu (Rahokapua) Gisbome MB, Gisbome MB, no 22, 2 November 1891, no 8,17 April 1882, pp 77,80 p 254 192 Sources This report was based on a document banlc prepared by research assistants employed by the Crown Forest Rental Trust. The document banlc covered the usual primary sources: Native Land Court minute books, Maori Land Court block files, the records of the Trust Commission and Validation Court and files held in the National Archives. This material was supplemented with a limited number of certificates of title, and with a large number of primary and other documents collected by the Ngai Tamanuhiri Whanui Trust. The published official sources: principally the Appendices to the Journal of the House of Representatives (AJHR), the New Zealand Gazette, and the Statutes of New Zealand were -----=co=n=s=ultea as inaiCatea~m me footnotes. ------.-... ----- A number of studies provide background to event in Poverty Bay in the 19th century: O'Malley, V. "An Entangled Web". Te Aitanga-a-Mahald Land and Politics 1840-1873, and Their Aftermath, (Draft), CFRT, 1998; O'Malley, V. Report for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust on the East Coast Confiscation Legislation and its Implementation. CFRT, 1994; Murton, B. Te Aitanga-A-Mahald 1860-1960. The Economic and Social Experience of a People, (Draft), CFRT, 1999; On-Nimmo, Katherine W. Report for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust on the East Coast Maori Trust. CFRT, 1997; Daly, S. Poverty Bay, Waitangi Tribunal, 1997; The Turanga Journals 1840-1850: Letters and Journals of William and Jane Willimns, Missionaries to Poverty Bay, edited F Porter, Victoria University Press, 1974; Binney, J. Redemption Songs: A Life ofTe Kooti Arikirangi Te I 'I' \ 1 \ Turuki, Aucldand University Press, 1995;. Cowan, J. The New Zealand Wars: A History of the Maori Campaign and the Pioneering Period Government Printer, 1983, and Belich, J. The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict, Aucldand University Press, 1986. More general 19 th and 20 th backgrOlmd was provided by Ward, A. National Overview. Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 1997; Nikora, T. and Bennion, T. Maori Land Legislation 1862-1908: Annotations, Waitangi Tribunal, 1993; Campbell, S. K. L. National Overview on Land Consolidation Schemes 1909-1931, CFRT, 1998; McHugh, P. O. The Fragmentation of Maori Land, Legal Research FOlmdation, 1981; Brooking T. 'Busting Up' The Greatest Estate of All. Liberal Maori Land Policy 1819-1911. New Zealand Journal of History, vol 26, no 1, 1992, pp 78-98 and Man:, C. Public Works Taking of Maori Land 1840-1981, Treaty ofWaitangi Policy Unit, 1994. Some details of the pre-European history of Ngai Tamanuhiri were found in Hair, A. Muriwai and Beyond, Gisbome, 1985; Halbert, R. Horouta: The History of the Horouta Canoe, Gisborne and East Coast. Reed, 1999; Gudgeon, W. E. The Maori Tribes of the East Coast. Journal of the Polynesian Society, vols 3-6, 1894-1897 and Jones, K. L. Horticultme and Settlement Chronology of the Waipaoa River Catchment, East Coast, North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal ofArchaelogy, vol 2, pp 19-52. MacGregor, M. Early Station's of Hawke's Bay, Reed, 1970; A Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, 1940, and the various volumes of The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, provided information about various individuals. Halbert's opinions on matters of iwi affiliations, rather than those of The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, were 193 preferred. The Dictionary of Maori Place Names, Reed, 1985 was consulted with respect to the Maori name for Young Nick's Head . • 194