TOITU TE WHENUA E Only the land remains, constant and enduring Muriwhenua Land Claim (Wai-45) A Preliminary Report on the Historical Evidence Barry Rigby and John Koning Waitangi Tribunal Division 4 December 1989 ").;, - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS page List of Maps 3 INTRODUCTION 4 I EARLY MAORljPAKEHA CONTACT 11 II THE IMPACT OF THE CMS MISSION 1832-1840 17 III LAND PURCHASES IN THE 1830s 33 IV THE SIGNING OF THE TREATY OF WAITANGI 52 AT KAITAIA v THE 1840 MANGONUI PURCHASE AND THE 61 ORIGINS OF THE ORURU DISPUTE VI THE OLD LAND CLAIMS COMMISSIONS 1840-1860 76 VII THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT 103 1848-1865 VIII CROWN LAND PURCHASES 1850-1865 110 IX MURIWHENUA AS A MODEL "NATIVE DISTRICT" 144 1861-1865 X ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 1865-1900 159 CONCLUSION 189 BIBLIOGRAPHY 194 - 3 - List of Maps page 1. Muriwhenua Claim Area 1988 5 2. Muriwhenua Land Tenure 1864 8 3. Muriwhenua Land Tenure 1905 9 4. Muriwhenua Land Tenure 1978 10 5. Boundaries of Taylor's 1840 Claim 43 to Muriwhenua North 6. PanakareaojPororua Mangonui Claim 1840-1841 63 7. Old Land Claims 1840-1860 90 8. Muriwhenua Crown Purchases and 135 Maori Reserves 1850-1865 - 4 - INTRODUCTION By direction of the Chairman, Chief Judge Edward Taikahurei Durie, the Waitangi Tribunal commissioned a report on the historical aspects of the Muriwhenua Land Claim on 13 May 1987. On 15 May 1987 he commissioned a related enquiry into Peter Pangari's claim on behalf of Ngati Kahu people over Taemaro land. In both cases Chief Judge Durie commissioned Dr Michael Belgrave to prepare a historical report. Dr Belgrave commenced, but did not complete this report because he became heavily involved in research into the Ngai Tahu claim. On 3 July 1989, Chief Judge Durie transferred the original commission to Dr Barry Rigby and John Koning, the authors of this preliminary report. They gratefully acknowledge Dr Belgrave's assistance in the preparation of this report. The purpose of this preliminary report is to provide the Waitangi Tribunal, Muriwhenua claimants and the Crown with a coherent presentation of the most significant evidence on the Crown's policies in Muriwhenua during the 19th century. As historians, the authors have consciously selected and interpreted the evidence which they believe is crucial to any understanding of what happened to Muriwhenua land. In rendering the voluminous evidence understandable, historians must select and interpret it. The authors emphasize, however, that this report, and their interpretations presented in it, are preliminary, not final interpretations. The 19th century is the historical focus of this report because the larger part of Muriwhenua land (probably 75 percent) passed from Maori to Pakeha hands during the 19th century (see Maps 2 & 3, "Muriwhenua Land Tenure" 1864 & 1905, pp. 8-9). The available land evidence suggests that the proportion of Maori land that passed into Pakeha hands during the 20th century was quite small (see Maps 3 & 4, "Muriwhenua Land Tenure" 1905 & 19 7 8 pp. 9 -10) . - 5 - The research embodied in this report has focussed on the Muriwhenua claim area as defined in the 1988 Muriwhenua Fishing Report (Wai-22). This area extends north from Whangape harbour in the west, and from Mangonui in the east. Nonetheless, the authors have crossed the boundaries of that claim area in one important respect. They believe that the area to the south and east of Mangonui and north and west of whangaroa Harbour (see Map 1, "Muriwhenua Claim Area" 1988 below) shares a common history with Muriwhenua proper. The 19th century "Mangonui Native District" included most of this area, and it is the ancestral homeland of important NgatiKahu, as well as Ngapuhi, hapu. Map 1 MURIWHENUA CLAIM AREA 1988 K[Y --- MuriwhetluaC/aim Bouoda'J ..... MQ'230f1ui-\v'hq~qroQ ort::Q I ;.I ...... / / / / / / /' /' /" Source: Norman in Kawharu ed, Waitangi, p. 180 - 6 - In tracing the main lines of Crown policy towards . ~.. <Muriwhenua during the 19th century 1 this preliminary report will examine the early history of Maori/pakeha trading contact, the missionary impact on Muriwhenua, and the land sales of the 1830s. Even though this history preceded the establishment of the direct authority of the British Crown in New Zealand, it greatly influ~nced subsequent Crown policies. The report ,then examines the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi at Kaitaia in 1840. The treaty connects Muriwhenua history with both colonial New Zealand history, and with British imperial history, especially with regard to land policies. Crown land policies embodied in the Land Claims Commissions 1840-1860, are the subject of Chapter VI, and crown land purchase policies and practices from 1850 to 1865 are the subject of Chapter VIII. Included in this presentation is some treatment of the statutory basis of crown land policies, and the Maori and Pakeha political context which determined how these policies were put into practice. Chapter IX, Muriwhenua as a Model "Native District" 1861-1865 includes this kind of political analysis. Chapters VII and X attempt to explain the demographic and socioeconomic context of Muriwhenua land transfers. The authors believe that the process by which approximately 75 percent of Muriwhenua land passed from Maori into Pakeha hands cannot be understood without a prior understanding of the extent to which depopulation and impoverishment transformed Muriwhenua society during the 19th century. In this preliminary report, the authors will examine both the intentions behind, and the results of, Crown policies towards Muriwhenua land. The authors fully understand that frequently Crown intentions were not reflected in the results of policies. For example, some of the evidence suggests that Crown officers responsible for implementing Crown policies in Muriwhenua during the 19th century did not intentionally - 7 - contribute to the dispossession its Maori inhabitants. Crown officers were also not alone in contributing to the dispossession of Maori. CMS missionaries supported the Crown purchase policies during the 1850s and 60s (though their parent organisation opposed the Crown surplus land policies as being unjust to Maori). In some instances, Pakeha gumtraders appear to have contributed to dispossession by driving Maori into debt. The Maori who signed or witnessed deeds of sale transfering land to private or Crown purchasers may bear some responsibility for their own dispossession. These deeds of sale, however, can be understood only within the Maori and the social and economic context of the mid 19th century. It is only within that context that a historian can answer the question: were these deeds of sale binding contracts freely entered into and fully understood by Maori? Whatever the case, in 1901, when Maori were 47 percent of the population of Mangonui County, they controlled less than 25 percent of the land, and less than 5 percent of the most economically valuable land. The extent of their dispossession is illustrated by the following sequence of land tenure maps. - 8 - Map 2 MURIWHENUA LAND TENURE 1864 , KEY _ MQoriLond o General Lond Source: Charles Heaphy, A-J, 1864 E-9, p.2. - 9 - Map 3 MURIWHENUA LAND TENURE 1905 KEY - MQori Land o General Lond ( I I I . • / I / / / / / / / / / / / Source: Dept. of Lands & SurveYr A-J r 1905 r C-1, p. 82 - 10 - Map 4 MURIWHENUA LAND TENURE 1978 KEY -MQoriLand o General Land • / • / .. / ./ / ./ . / ./ / ./ ./ ./ , Source, Dept of Lands & Survey, NZMS 187, 1979. - 11 - I. EARLY MAORI/PAKEHA CONTACT The first Pakeha to contact Maori in the Muriwhenua area were the crews of the ships commanded by Abel Tasman and James Cook. In January 1643 two Dutch ships, the Heemskerck and the Zeehaenr under the command of Abel Tasman, anchored near Three Kings Islands. The Dutch failed in their attempt to obtain water at Great Island, the main island of the Three Kings grouPr but did notice kumara fields, canoes, and some 30 to 35 inhabitants. 1 In December 1769 James Cook charted the coast line of the Far North. When the Endeavour was becalmed at Doubtless Bay, local Maori sold a considerable quantity of fish to Cook and his crew. 2 The first overt Maori/Pakeha conflict in Muriwhenua occurred shortly after Coo~'s visit, when the St Jean Baptiste, commanded by Jean de Surviller anchored in Doubtless Bay. Crew members went ashore to cut firewood, fill water casks, and gather vegetables. Maori traded fish for linen and other goods. This amicable trading ceased, however, when De'Surville captured Ranginui, a local chief, in reprisal for the "theft" of a small landing craft or yawl. This acquisition of what had arrived on their shores was not theft to Maori. They believed that anything within their tribal domain should be shared with them. Since the local people failed to return the craft, the French refused to return their hostage. Later, on the passage to Peru aboard de Surville's ship, Ranginui died of scurvy.3 Polynesian "theft" of what they believed should be shared with them led not just to the tragic death of Ranginui in 1770 and to the death of James Cook at Kealakekua, Hawaii in 1779 r but also to a whole series of property transactions in Muriwhenua in which the Maori and Pakeha views of what had been exchanged were radically different. Fortunately, the tragedy of Ranginui was not repeated when other French explorers visited Muriwhenua before 1800. In April 1772, the two ships of Marion du Fresner the Mascarin and the - 12 - Marquis de Castries, sailed around the North Cape in search of fresh water. At Tom Bowling Bay the French went ashore and purchased fish from local Maori. Antoine d'Entrecasteaux visited the Far North in March 1793 with the Recherche and the Esperance.