Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WAI-304 ~oc. , 8 34-
THE ACQUISITION OF PARAHIRAHI 0 BlOCK BY TIiE CROWN
Evidence of Dr. Donald M. Loveridge
Dec. 6. 1992
(refer WAI-304 #B24 and 'B34A)
WAI-304 #C4
THE ACQUISITION Of PARAHIRAHI 0 BLOCK BY THE CROWN
Part I: Ngawha Springs and the Parahirahi Block to 1885
Ngawha Mercury 5
The Native Land Court, 1873-1874 8
The February 1885 Hearing and Division 14
The October 1885 Hearing and Division 20
Part II: The Crown and the Parahirahi Block. 1885-1894
Offers of Sale, 1885-1886 24
The Parahirahl Deeds 33
The Purchase of Shares, 1886-1887 40
Talwhanga, the Purchase and the Crown, 1887-1889 S4
Certifications 61
PurchaSing Suspended? (1889-1893) 65
The Ngawha Springs Mercury Boom 71
III. The Acquisition of Parahirahi D by the Crown. 1894-1895
Purchasing Renewed, 1893-1894
The 1894 Native Land Court Hearings
Further Offers to Sell Shares
Surveys and Crown Grants
Protests and Inquiries
IV Conclusions
119
R~ferences Cited
Supp I ementary Documents
7S
88
106
108
, '4
125
WAI-304 #C4A
2
\"iAI-304 #C4
Introduction
f'1y narne is Donald 1"'lerwin Loveridge. I am a professional
tii stori an, and tiave worked as an hi stori cal researcher and consultant in
Canada and New Zeal arlit I received a Doctorate in History from the
Uni versi ty of Toronto in 1986, and have been employed on contract as
Senior Historian with the Treaty Unit of the Crown Law Office since
January of 1988. I have been i nvo 1 ved in vari ous ways with many of Hie
Treaty matters dealt 'vvith by the Unit over this period .. but have been
pr-i nci pall y concerned with the Ngai T ahu, Taranaki Raupatu and
r"1uri whenua Land c 1 ai rns.
Thi s submi ssi on deal s pri rnat-i 1 y with the acqui sit i on of the
Parat-Ii rahi D 6lock by Hie Crown in the peri od 1886-1894. I have not
addressed the clairnants' proposition that the Native Land Court and the
Par1 i arnentary 1 egi s 1st ion behi nd it vv'ere a breach of the Treaty of
'w'aitarllji .. nOt- ha'·/e I dealt witt"1 t~leir assertions as to Treaty status of
the Pub 1 i c \to/arks and related Acts urlljer wt-Ii ch further Crown
acquisitions were rnade after 1894. The time available for historical
research and analysis simply has not been sufficient to examine these
issues in any real depth.
As for the matters which I will be discussing here, it is necessary
to say, to being with, that ttie analyses and conclusions which I have put
f orwar-d must in all instances be consi dered as provi si onal. I have done
as much new research as tirne permitted., focusing on source-materials
vv'hic~1 apparently had not been consulted by Hie Claimants .. but it has not
been possitde to cover all the ground w~lich I would consider necessary.
Nor has it been possi b 1 e to go back to the m-i gi na 1 s of sume of the
3
~r'lAI-304 #(4
materi ali n the document banks whi ch I woul d 1 i ke to have re-8xarni ned.
The time left for analysing the evidence uncovered, and writing up the
results, has also been less than adequate. In short, I do not consider this
submission to be a finished work, Bnd would both apologize to the
Tribunal for this and ask it to bear the circumstances in mind.
While accepting the responsibility for any and all shortcomings in
thi s study, I wou1 d also 1 i ke to take the oppor-tunity to thank Mr. Bruce
Stirling and Sister Joseptiine Bamao, from the Crown La..,..?' Office, for
thei r assi stance wi HI archi va 1 research, and t'1s. Rose Daamen of the
Tr-itlunals Division for het- cooperation in Hie collection of evidence.
4
\"lAI-304 #CA
Port I: Ngawha Spri ngs and the Parahi rahi 610cle to 1885
Ngawha Mercury
The Tribunal has heanj a goolj deal of evidence from the claimants
concerning the traljitional history of the Sprin~~s} and their continuing
use since pret-listoric times by the tangata whenua. It has also heard
several general descriptions by Europeans, beginning wiUI those of
t'1arsljen (ca. 1820) flnlj Wade (l ate 1830s)1. I wi 11 concentrate here on
information relating to metTury (Quicksilver and cinnabar) in the vicinity
of Hie SprinQs, and European interest in Hils rnineral. I would also note,
hOW8\ler, witt-lOut put-suing this particular facet of the claim hereafter-,
that '· ... irtuall~d every European comrnent on the Springs wrlicl"l I l"Ia ... ·'e seen
mentions t"'1aori use of the hot · ... vaters for battiing for meljicinal purposes.
As t"'larsden's account attests, the "Ohaeawai Hot Springs" (as they
were cornrnonly known before the 20trl century), carne to Hie attention of
European~; at an een-lld Ijate. The fit-st published description by arlldone
oU-iet- than a rni ssi onarq appeat-s to t-Iave been Hlat of an Austri an
IJeo 1 Og1 st, F enji nand von Hochstetter .. in 18592 . "A few t-Iot spri rll]5 and
solfataras"} rle v-It-ote
lie a fe,,'\" rniles SOUtJl of \.Iiaimate .. in a remarkable crater-like Ijepression in the ground on the shores of two srnall lakes in t.he Otaua distnct ... SulptilJr incrustations and efflorescences of alurn and salarnrnoniac (amrnoniurn chloride] here cover the soil. twt stearYl gushes forHI frorn the earth at many pOints, and rnarild 'y'y'arrn spri ngs ariij rnud pools of t 30* to 165* F surrourjlj the stlor8 of Ko-huta-kino [Tuwhakino?L the smaller of the two 1 flkes. The natives have made use of these spri ngs wi th good results for many ki nds of i 11 ness} and a lthough the neartty slltTourliji ngs off er no crli:lrm at all as landscape} yet pertlaps in time to come the hea ling properti es of thi s Wai ari ki (as the natives call natural warm baths) will bring it a reputation tlrnong Hie European colonists as well.
1 See Evidence of P. Hohepa V1AI-304 (unnumbered) .. pp. 37-38 .. and Evidence of R.P. Boast VofAI- 304 #A34 p.ll 2 f. von Hochstetter (C.A. fleming, trans. and edJ. Geology of Ne'w' 7ealand: Contributions to the Geoloqq of the Provinces of Auckland and Nelson (Wellington: GO-·iernment Printer._ 1959 [1st ed. in German .. 1859]) J p.4S. [5upplementanJ Documents]
5
'WAI-304 #C4
Uiil~hc>t Cit t Clt- doClC> r"it nr·,I:'- t~t i'-It; merl-'ut-I' I t'llt l·t \Mo=IC> c>o'"'n r-n lj-l1' 7ed t h;:.t t ,'_'1.--11,_"_'_, _ 1.'_"1 I ,_.-....J ..... 1'_ .I I oj i '.11_'11 • _" l,:t} I...... .1 ' ..... _1 • ..} lJ c;: &-. .IIU
various forms of thi s metal \~/ere pt-esent there.
It appears that metallic mercur~d -- Quicksilver -- was t.he first t.o
be noticed, as globules floating in still water. (Maori Visitors must have
noticed this phenomenon much earlier, but I have not seen any record of
or cornments to that effect). Accordi ng to one 1 oca 1 hi story, Judge F .E.
f1aning related how he had 'discovered' the Ohaeawal Springs quicksilver
bq chance, in postholes1.
The first publ ished account to mention Ngawha mercury seems to
have corne In an art i c 1 e wt-ti ch a Captai n Hutton read to to the Auckland
Institute in 18702 He statelj that the presence of mercury at the springs
"a f 8\N mil es south of Omapere Lake" had been notelj by others "As 1 ong
Cii~O as 1 fi66". On a visit in 1 fi69 he had found veins containing both
qUl CkS11 ver and cinnabar (mercury ore). He notelj that when panning ore
much of the merCl.Jr'd ... escape1j me ... for the particles \,vere so rni nute that much of it f1 oated on the surf ace of tt-Ie v'/ater, and refused to run together. Even U-Ie larger particles arnalgarnated 'f/itt'l difficulty, o\,ving either to Hie sulptiur, CW
to a black greasy hydro-carbon, which is found at all the :3prings where rnercury occurs ....
The carbon element wf-lich eventuall!-l defeated all effor-ts for cornmetTlal
e:w 1 oitati on of the Ngavv'ha mercury, was HiUS i dent ifi elj as soon as H1e
rnineral itself. Hutton., inci,jentally; elso produced a rnap of the springs
along the Tuwhakino Strearn3.
1 See K. Boese, Tides of History: Bay of Islands County (n.p.: Tides of History: Bay of Island;:; County Council, 1977), p.368. 2 Captai n F.¥1. Hutton, "On the Oc(:urence of Native t-1ercury near Pakaraka, BalJ of Islands.", Transactions of the Ne'w' Zealand I nstitute. Vol. 3 ( 1870) , Art. XLVI pp.252- 253; "Sketch of ~;ome Hot Springs near the Bay of Island:3" facing p.24S. [Supplementary Documents] '3 I t3r.:e it to be the $ame stream as that shovtn on the map in Bell and Clarke., shovln as 110vi fig into "Tu'w'hakino Lake". See Bell, J.t'1. and Clarke, E. de C. The Geology of the V'lhangaroa '3ubdhli~don I Hokianga DivisionWelli ngton: Government Pri nter, 1909 (Department of t-1ines, Ne'w' Zealand GeolclI~i(:al SurvelJ Bulletin NO.8 NeW' Series) .. "t'1ap of Ngava Lake Basin, Omapere 3urvey District." (n.d.) 'w'H" inset "Plan sho'w'inlJ Mercury W'orkings." [SupplementarlJ Documents]
6
V·,IAI-304 #[4
f1ercury was a I so f ounlj by vi sitors in about 18701, and in 1872
samp I es of qui cksil ver and ci nnabar were taken2. I n any case, there was
a great deal of interest in the mineral by this time -- I assume because
dernand for it was ri S1 ng due to its use i ti refi tii ng go 1 d3 -- and the
commerci al potenti al of the Ngawha-Tuwhakino deposits was thought in
sorne QUat-ters to be 8i gnifi cont. On 16 December of 18724 , on ogreernent
concerning Hie "Te Ngaw~IiJ Tuhakino" 610ck, was signed between John
'w'hite J.P. and the f 0 11 oy.li ng ten i ndi vi dual s:
\;\/iremu Hongi (Kingi) [\·viremu Kingi Te Ripi] Sidney Davld Taiwhanga [Hirini] Renata Pure W'aikato Wt-Iakaita [Kato] Umu V1hakai ta It'/hai Te Hoka ~1atenga Taiy·,''!"lemga Hi ra 'w'ahapu ~'ukia Koao Tein'J Raumati
n-tey agreed U-tat V·ihite shoul d recei \Ie a 1 OO-year 1 ease on the block as
soon as Hie title to ''Te Nga"Nha Tuhakino" was secured by them from the
Nat.i ve Land Court.
",Ion-Ii te 'wou! d Ulen have an exc 1 usi ve ri g~lt to exploit tt"le resources
of the til lick -- inc I Ulji ng rni nend sand ti mtler -- anlj in return the owners
'Noul d reCE'lVe 25% of any profits (i ne 1 udi ng those ft-orn any to\·vnsite
estattl i shelj). vltiite was also requi red to make provi si on for "Some place
.. _ for the t-1aori at T e Ngawtia ... to bathe themselves about about twenty
feet long and tVv'enty feet wide" (Sec.12). If the translation which I arn
1 See Eioe::;e, Tides of History, p.368 2 See the comment by P. Cheal, referrl ng to \\I(trk 1 n 1 872, 1 n the "Discussion" section of Andre P. Griffiths, "The OhaeaW'ai Quicksilver Deposits.", Transactions, New' Zealand Institute of 1·'li ni ng Engi neers. Vol. II No.a (31 May 1898), NI. 58- 59. Cheal did not remember if there .... lere many hot spri ngs in the area at the ti me. [Supplementary Documents] 3 Boese, Tides of History, p. 368 notes that gold \A1aS \v'orth £22 "per flask" in 1873) fall; ng to £.6/1 010 soon after. 4 Not 1873,;B 8tated by Lee and quoted blJ Boast; n V1AI- 304 #A34 p.p.23. The origi nal t'1:jori contract is on the record as WAI- 304 #823. All quotations from the contract given Iler-e are from it (rather hurried) translation supplied to me by the Cro'wTI LaW' Office., the complete accurac1J of 'which cannot be guaranteed.
7
vt'AI-304 #C4
usi ng is correct, however, no particular sect i on of the block was to be
e>~cluded from ttle lease arrangement.
The Noli ve Land Court, 1873-1874
Preparations for putting the land tn thts area before the Land
COut-t .. then, were already underway in December of 18721. Early in 1873
"Te Ngawha Tuhakino" was surveye1j by one P. Cheal. His plan, of the
"Ngav'iha Tuakino" Block, would be produced in the Land Court in July.
(Tt'le narne \/\"as c~langed to Parat-lirah( which I will use hereafter, at some
point after the Plan was prepared). In a signed certification on this Plan
(No 2730)., datelj 8 April 1873, Cheal declarelj that all of the required
:3urvey lines heJlj been cut, anlj angles pegged2 . Tvventy years later,
U-lou!Jh, 'vvt-Ien sut-I· ... eyot- R. Neurnann \iy'as at work sut,dtvidtng tJle
Pewahi ratl1 Block .. he reported that
I t appears thet r·lr. Cheal had to surve~d the Parahi rahi B10ck: under great difficulties [in 1873], being obstructed in his work tly Natives, arllj if I can tlelteve "Nhat they esset-t, never put any P8!J~3 tn. 3
I have not tleen able to find an~d fur-trier infonnation about this
obst.r-uction of the sun,ley, tlut it is not surpr-ising in light of subsequent
Ijeve 1 oprnents.
At arourllj the sarne time, R. Fatrburn was surveying the Tuwhakino
Block to the north. Hts Pltm (No. 26244 ) was also produced in the Land
Court tn ,.July, wt-Ien trle application of Heta Te Haara, a prominent
Ohaeewal chi ef, for so 1 e ownershi p of thi s block was heard and granted5 .
There clearly was some kind of interaction between Te Haara anlj the
1 The sppliestion by Wi remu Hongi Te Ri pi "and others" 'vias reeeived by the Court on 28 Jan 1873.; National Archives (Auckland) MLC-A 1/10 p.55. 2 See Plan No. 2730; \·VAI- 304 #A45. :3 Letter of 14 t1slJ 1895 from R. Neumann to G. Mueller (Chief Surveyor); National Archive2; (Auekland) BABN .. 1108, Box 92 f.2215 Parahi rahi Block file 1885-1898 [WAI-304 #B 19 p.27]. See also his letter of 11 .jullJ 1894 [WAI- 304 #819 pp.20- 22J. 4 v\,'AI-304 #A45. 5 Hi::; application 'w'as received by the Court on 23 Oct. 1872.; National Archives (Auckland) r"'lLC-A 1/10 p.51.
8
I
i'
WAI-304 #CA
group interested in Parahi rahi, concerni ng the boundari es of the two
blocks. This would seem -- especially if Tuwhakino was surveyed first
-- to be the only way to account for the trian!~le of land stickin!~ up out
of Hie centre of thei r comrnon boundary 1 i ne, whi cl-, 1 ater became
Parahirahi C tllock. Given the presence of the springs within the triangle,
it looks very rnuch as if the Parahi rahi group demanded and recei ved thi s
area of springs as their 'share' in a division of the geotrlermal t-esources
of the Nqawha area between themselves and Heta Te Haara. It would
appear that the larger portion of these resources were nonetheless
within the Tuwhakino Block.
Tuwhakino went through the Court on July 1SHI .. 18731. A large
piece of lanlj rrtarkelj "wahi tapu" within the western end was excludelj
from the block. Judge t·1aning noted on Plan No. 2624 that "The area of
trle \t·lat·1i Tapu called Oraroviharo [sic], is not included in the Tuwhakino
claim, nor is it referred to by the order of court made on the Tuwhakino
Claim." Parahirahi went through the Court the following day, July 16U-1.
No porti on of thi s block 'Nas exc 1 Uljed or reserved, although there is a
'vvat-Ii tapu rnarkelj just outsi de its :;outrl-western boundary ViI-Ii ch mayor
tTl;:!!:! not t-Iave tleen left out deliberately when the boundat-ies were first
Ijeten-ni nelj.
In short, no land vy'as set aside in either block to ensure that twt
spri ngs (or any other ki nd of U-Ienrla I resource) rernai ned in Maori hands,
under t-"1aori controL Due to the loss of the relevant mi nutes, however, we
Ijo not knov't wl-Iether any suct-, requests were made at the t1earings. Tt1e
only restriction on trle alienatlility of the Parahirahi Block ordered t'~d
JUljge t1aning was tt1at "the right to make and maintain a public road" was
"reserved to the Government "2.
Onlw eiqht of the ten individuals named in the 1872 aqreement 0- .... ...
with White appeared on Judge Mani ng's order of 16 Jul Y 1873 for 8
Certificate of Title for the Parahirahi 8lock3. And there were 27 people
named on hi s attached 1 i st of "Names of persons havi ng interests of
ownerst-lip in Hie Parahirarli [Block? with?] pat-ticulars of Interest of
1 The Native Land Court t'1i flutes for these heari figs are missi fig. 2 Order of 16 Ju11d 1873.; WAI-304 #A50A ca. p.2. :3 A:?3umi fl9 that "Hira Kauaea" 'Was the same person as "Hira Wahapu".
9
WAI-304 #(4
each ownet-. N. L. Act 1867 Section 17 .... The latter included (the fit-st
ten being the Title nominees)1:
No. Interest Name 01 30/100 T e Ri pi, Wi remu Hongi * 02 8/100 T ai yvhanga .. Hi ri ni * 03 10/100 Pure, Renata * 04 10/100 \·vhakalta, Umu * 05 6/100 Te Hoka, Whai * 06 1/100 langa, f1arara 0' ~ ( 3/100 Kauaea, Hira * 0° u 8/100 Koao, Rukia * 09 4/100 Raumati .. Te Teit-a * 1 (:1 2/100 Te AV'la, Katarina 1 1 4/100 w'hakai ta, Kato * 12 1/100 Whakalta, Tamati 13 3/100 Taiwhanqa, ~1atenqa * ~ '-14 1/100 Te Ripi .. Nopere 15 1/100 Ngakau .. V,/llare 16 1/100 Haratua .. Tane 17 1/100 Hau, Wiremu 18 1/200 Kairau, Tiopira 19 1/100 Tara, Hot-,ai a 20 1/100 Te Uaua, Kirll 21 l/}(ln Tete, Ri vv'hi ;-1"-, 1/100 Tuhi rangi, Hone LL ··-i7 1.l100 Ururoa, Paora £...,:..
24 1/400 Whakapeke .. Arama 25 1/400 Wharepapa, T ohu 26 1/400 Toti .. Hemi "-)f LI 1./4(H) Poakatahi, Kornene
TI-18 ten would-be lessors [marked *] came out of the Land Court in
control only 67% of the interest in the Block.
' ..... lhi1e it is not known 1f this result had been allowed for in the
1872 plan, it rnay explain why Wtiite apparently did not get his lease.
But it rnay a 1 so be that he di d not pt-oceed because an appeal was
1 aunc:t-Ied agai nst Ule Court's deci si on, b~J persons c 1 ai rni ng to have an
interest in the b 1 ock2. A re-heari ng was granted, and the Court sat to
1 Order of 16 Jul y 1873 in WAI- 304 #A50A C8. pp.l- 2. 2 On 25 Nov. 1873; see WAI- 304 #A50A C8. ~1.5.
10
consider ttle case on 10 No'· .... 1874. At some paint between the 1873 and
1874 t-Iearings, a slightly-revise1j version of Plan 2730 was pt-epared b~d
[t·18a1. This w'as registered as Plan 2730A, anlj was producelj before the
Court in November.
Again .. the Minutes of the hearing have been lost, but the names on
nevy' ~1emori a 1 of Ownershi p whi ch JUljge Henry t10nro ordered to be
"inscribed on a separate volume in the COut-t Rolls" differed in several
respects from those on the 1873 Certificate1:
No. 01 02 1:)3
04 05 (:16
07 OEi 09 i () 1 1 12 13 14 1 C I ~l
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ..... -L,)
24 25 26 '·)7 -, 28 29 30
Narne Te Ri pi., 'v°li remu Hongi '* Pure, Renata '* Tah ...... hanga .. Hirini * 'v'l'hakait8, Urnuktwi * T e Hoka, Whai * lanl~a, t'1arara Kauea, Hi ra :0:-
Koao, Ruk:ia '"' Raumati, Te Teira '* Te Avo/a., Katarina Tupe, Hemar-a Hikun:mgi Hiku t"1oetuturu, Ri ri a Hita V·lbakaita, Kato * t~larupo
Karu, T e Hornana Hau .. v·n remu Hau, Harni ora Puotaota, Hare Re\ovet i Taiwhanga .. Te Matenga * Te Popata Te Uau8, Kihi Neho .. Hara Te Ao, Ka \N'hakaita, Tarnati T e Ri pi, Nopere Ngakau, Volhare Haratua. T e T ane
1 Native Land Court Order for Pat'ahi rahi of 10 Nov. 18740 reproduced in WAI- 304 #A50A ca. p6 I have numbered the names beloW' in in order of their appearanee on the Order.
1 1
\-"lAI-304 #(A
31 Kairau, Tiopira 32 Tara, Hot-Iai a 33 Tete .. Rivvhl 34 Tuhi ranqi) Hone 35 Ururoa, Paora 36 Whakapeke 1 Ararna 37 Poakatahi) Komene
I ndi vi dual s party to the 1872 agreement with White [marked * I nm,v
comprised onll-! 27% of the owners of the Parahit-ahi1.
During the mid-1870s Heta Te Haara leased a portion of the
TLl".,yhakino Block to William EarP. Earl had plans to extract mercury
frorn U-Ie land, but as far as is knov'ln noHling came of U-Iern for a decaije.
One 10c:a1 historian attributes this to a drop in mercury prices3. If
correct, tt-lis ......... ould probatdy e>,~plain the lack of any leasing in the
Parahi rahi Block dlJri ng the next decade. The app 1 i cat i on to subdi vi de
Parat-lirat-li wt-licJl v· ... as filed vy'iHI Hie Land Court in 1875 by Renata Pure,
"',Ii rernu Hongi te Ri pi arllj Hi ri ni T ahvhanga may have been intended to
furthet- a plan to lease Hie 1and4. If so, it does not seem to have produce,j
ani~ resul t.
Scientific interest in Hie Springs continued. During 1874 Dr.
,-'arne~; Hector, the Director of the Geological Survey, ei<amined the
NI]av·,.tia area during a visit to NorU-l1arlit He descritled the "Ohaeawai
f"'1ercuri a 1 Spri ngs" ina N.Z.GS. Report5 , as hayi ng formed deposi ts of
sandstone in \'vhi ch ·· ...... ·ere found "fragments of the surroundi ng Yegetati on ..
and thi n 1 al~ers of ci nnabar sand and gl obul es of meta 11 i c mercury".
Hector also noted .. hO .... \lever. that
1 The order does not speciflJ any divisions of interest) This '\\"as the pri nci pal issue debated at the February 1885 hearings, belo',d. 2 Boast, V'/AI- 304 #A34 p.p.23 says the lease 'w'as made in 1874, but the earliest agreement I have seen (reproduced aPNAI- 304 #A44 pp. 80- 82) is dated 1876. 3 Boese) Tides of History, p.368) citi ng an 1865 newspaper article 'vlhich I have not been ;~ble to exami ne. 4 The a~lpli(:;Jtion can be seen in National Archives (Auckland) Parahi rahi Block file MA BI 4 i 4 (applications).: WAI- 304 #B 14 pp. 79- 80. 5 "Ohaea .... 'ai t··1ercurial Spri ngs.", Reports of Geological Exploration Duri ng 1873 - 74, \-lith ""laps and Sections. (Wellington: James Hughes, 1877») "Progress Reports", p. v. Hector stated in his 1878 paper (belo'w) that he made a "re-exami nation" of the distt-jct in 1874, i mpl'Ji n9 an earlier visit. [Sup~'lementary Documents]
12
V·/AI-304 #(4
The layer of the sandstone containing mercury is only 4 inches tJlick, arflj is confined to a v8r-y limited area, and the atternpts made to collect mercury have not hitherto been profitable.
He produced a longer report on the Springs for the Wellington
Phi I osophi cal Soci ety in 1878.
Tt-Ie ori gi na 1 of Hii s paper has not tleen located, but an abstract
shO\·vs that Hector halj made a close i nspecti on of the geology of the
area1. Of particular note was his conclusion that
the thermal and mercurial qualities of the springs ewe not due to any active volcanic influence .. tlut to the chemical decornposit ion whi ch is taki ng pI ace in the unljer part of Hie la'.'8 floe .. tJlrough which the v· ... aters are infiltratelj.
Thi s woul d seem to indicate that the volcani c features of the Springs
"/'/ere qui eter in Hie rni d-1870~; HIi:1t"I tt-Ield had tleen duri ng f""1arsden's vi sit
a ha 1f -centund earl i er. I suspect; by the "liay; that the report on the
Paratlirat"ti Block \Altlict"t Hector produced in 1886 .. had more or less the
:;ame contents as trle missing paper2. If this is in fact the case., then his
opi ni on in 1876 vI"as HIM Hie concentrati on of rnercury at Hie Spri ngs
V'l8'; insufficient to warrant commercial mining. Scientific opinion
v· ... ou] d thus have comtli ned wi th market pressures to reduce interest in
the mineral resources of the Parahirahi and Tuwhakino 610cl::s.
1 "On the t1ercurial Springs ofthe Bay of Islands: Abstract."; Transactions and Proceedings of the Ne'w' Zealand I nstitute. Vol. X 1877; p.585 (Proceedi ngs of Eighth Meeti ng of Welli ngton Philosophical Society .. 12 ,January 1878). The original paper is not among the draft copies of the Transactions held at the Hector LibrartJ at the National r1useum in Wellington. A footnote in the Abstract, incidentally, identifies anallJsis #3 in W. Skey, "On certain of the t'lineral ''{Vaters of Ne\\,' Zealand.", Transactions and Proceedi ngs of the Ne'w' Zealand I nstitute. Vol. :x: ( 1877) .. Art. L>~V pp.423- 448 a::. deali ng V/lth a ::.ample of Ngavlha V/ater. (It is de::.cri bed onl y as "from the hot spri ngs of the Bay of Islands.") [Supplemenhry Documents] 2 Portion:, of the 15c;6 report, cited below'., are verbati m re~lroductions of the 1875 Abstract.
13
... ·'lAI-304 #(4
The February 1885 Heari ng and Oi vi si on
Bet ween 1574 and 1585 a number of the owners of the Parahi rahi
Block died, Included were 'Wi Hongi te Ripi, Renata Marupo, Te Popata,
Renata Pure, 'Wirer-flu Hau and Riria Moetuturu. Successors were named
b4 the Land Court for each of them before the end of 18851. Other
tlusiness put to the Court during this period included two applications for
the subdivision of Parahirahi. The first was filed by Hiku in 15802 . I
ha' ... 'e found no further i nf ormati on about it. The second was fil ed by Kato
¥lhakaita in 18833 . This led to the hearing which opened at 'Waimate on 7
Feb. 155S to heat- w'tiakaita's application "for Hie subdivision of nle
hereditaments" in Parat-Ii t-ahi4 . Judge E. 'W. Puckey pr-esi ded.
Trle principal issue at the February hearings was the question of
v· ... !ietlier each of the 37 OWTlers listed on Hie t'1ernorial of Ownership in
1574 had an equal share .. or whetrler a portion of trlern shaul d be
Ijesi gnated as "1 esser" owners ho ltji ng a srna 11 er i literest. The Court, "I n
onjer to cornrnence proceedi ngs ... assumed that the interests of all the
O\.'·lners narnelj in Hie instrurnent of Title were equal "unless arllj until
pro' ... 'en othen·vise5 . A group of 26 owners, including arllj led by Hirini
Tfll"Nt-langa., sought to do Hiis. The opposition seems to have been led by
Hiku. Evidence ~Nas heard on Februan.t 7tt-1 and 9th6.
Hirini Taiwhanga7 ¥ias born about 1840. His father was Rawiri
Taiv'I't-langa, a prominent Nga Puhi chief and eat-l!J convert to Christianity,
1 See National Archives (Auckland) 1'"1LC-A 2/10 pp. 27, 50, 129 and 130, and 1'"1LC-A 2/ 11 pp. 1 g .. 27, respectivellJ. 2 National Archives (Auckland) Parahi rahi Block file MA BI 414 (applications) ; \I'/AI- 304 #B14p.78 3 National Archives (Auckland) Parahi rahi Block file 1'"1A BI 414 (applications) ; WAI- 304 #B14pp.76-77. 4 The Notice of 28 Nov. 1884called the hearing for Ohaea'w'ai on 28 Jan. 1885 (New' Zealand Gazette 1884 # 132 18 Dec. 1884 pp.1721- 22) .. but a postponement and a change of venue must have been ordered at a later date. See N.L.C. Northern 1'"1i nute Book 6 p.283 for the openi ng of the heari ng and the "Division call" of o\y'ners' names. [Supplementary Documents] 5 N.L.C. Northern 1'"11 nute Book 6 p.296 "Parahi rahi Judgement (I nteri m)". [Supplementary Documents] 6 N.L.C. Northern t"1i nute Book 6 pp. 283- 289 and pp.292- 295, respedh.'el y. [Supplementary Documents] 7 Although his name is given in the Dictionary of Nev..' Zealand Biography ( 1990) Vo1.1 p. 413 a::; "Tamati Hi ri ni" (Thomas Sydney) "[sic], Tai'v/hanga hi mself used the signature "S.D. Tai'w'hangs" on the April 1886 voucher referred to above, and on many other occasions. These
14
\vAI-304 #C4
who signed the Treaty of WaitangP. Hirini was educated at St. John's
Co 11 ege in Auckl and, and went on to become an expert carpenter, arllj a
licenced surveyor. In 1877, he founded a school in Kaikorle but according
to Professor Ward, Taiwhanga "neglected it for political agitation" after
becoming "aggrieved over a land dispute"2. Active in public affairs
thereafter, and particularly in the Treaty movement, he led a delegation
England in 1862 to demand redress of grievances relating to the Treaty3 .
In 1667 (after seven'!l attempts to gai n a seat), he woul d be elected to
Parliament as the Member for Northern Maori. He held this seat until his
death in 16904 . His time in Parliament was notable for Taiwhanga's
campaign for the restoration of tribal control over Maori land. As Prof.
'w'anj puts i t5,
Hi ri ni T ahvhanga ... i ntroljuced a successi on of a lternat i ve Bill s 'vvhi crl embodi ed tt-Ie Kotahitarll~a dernands f ot- an end to Hie insi dious encroachments of the Lanlj Court, and Hie restor-ati on of contr-o lover lands to tt-Ie lineages pri rnaril!d interested in them so that individual o .... vners could not sell thei r comrnuni ty's patri many on the open market.
I have not) unfortunate1~d, halj the oppor-tunity to pursue this aspect of his
career in any Ijetai 1.
I n the Paralii rat-Ii case, T ai whanga's group argued "tt-Iat Hie
ancestor to vvtlose descendants the 1 and was awarded by the Court was
Ki ore". Judge Puckey 1 aier noted6 that
initials stood for "SIJdney (or Sidney) David" (see Notice of 17 1'1ay 1873 in the Ne'w' Zealand Gazette 1873 p.315licenci ng "Sidney David TalY/hanga" as a surveyor under "The Native Land Act.. 1865". 1 See Dictionary of Ne'w' Zealand Biography ( 1990) Vo1.1 pp. 417- 418, and Schofield., DictionarJJ of Ne'w' Zealand Biography Vol.2 p.360. 2 Alan 'yl,iard .. A ShoW' of ,.JlJstice: Racial "Amalgamation" in Nineteenth Century NeW' Zealand. (Toronto: University ofToronto Press, 1973), p.290-291. 3 His role is discussed at length in Chapter 10 in Dr. Orange's The Treaty of \,hiaitangi (Welli ngton: Allen & UnW'i n .. 1987) J pp. 205- 225. 4 See "Hirini Tai'w'hanga" in Sc:holefield, Dictionary of NeW' Zealand Biographlj, Vol. 2 pp.359- 360. 5 V'lard, ShO",'l of Justice, p.298. 6 The follovinq Quotations are all taken from plJ(:key's "Parahirahi .Judgement (interim) of 10 feb. 1885; Northern ~'1inlJte Book 6 .. pp295-297. The transcription is my OW'fI. [Supplementary Documents]
15
A good deal of evidence was taken \'vhieJI stl0\'ved Hlat 25 of the so ca 11 elj pri nci pal owners f orrned themselves into a Committee to decide upon the respective merits of their own claims &. so were judges in their own cases[?]. ~1r. Taiwhanga tried to prove that the interests of the 11 persons whom he did not represent were less than the interests of the persons represented by hi m.
Puckey di d not fi nd the proof very convi nci ng. He woul d conclude that
the evidence of his [Taiwrlanga's] own witnesses on cross e~:amination show'ed that in nearly every case either there was a di spute about other 1 and, or that such & such a person was opposed to dealing with the land in sucrl a 'vvay as the majority wishelj -- in short it was clear that a personal animus actuatelj the 26 in their deliberations. [underlining in original}
Also, ::;everctl anomalies \'vere detected in the "principal owners'"
evidence. Trie ,Judge gave tt"lree ei<:arnples of B-llS:
[I t Vv'as sBi d that] Hohai a T Bra di d not descend frorn the original o\'vner, yet tlis agent clairned for him 8 full share. Rhvt-Ii Tete vy'as said not to t-18'.,.'e descended from the owner, and that his share V'las a gift to him for services and was not to be equa 1 to Hohai a T iJre's shiJre, V-tho does not seem to have had any ngt-It at all: yet in one case., one 'was to have a full st"tClre, arllj in tt-Ie other a smB 11 er interest. The interest of T ane Haratua \'vas sai d to be on 1 y a sma 11 one., but one of tvlr. Taiwt-Ianga's witnesses admitted that it was made less tlecause rle \Noul d not attend[7] the Committee.
In his "Interim" judgement, delivered on 10 Feb. 1885., Puckey concluded
that
The reasons given appear to Hie Court not to be such as to V'larrant it in awardi ng di ff erent proporti ons to the respect i ve owners.
Tt-Ie fi ndi ng of the Court therefore is that the interests of each of the 37 ownet-s narned in HIe t"lernori al of Ownershi pare equal.
16
\,-"lAI-304 #C4
Two days later, the Court issuelj its decision on Whaka1ta's
app 1 i cat ion 1. Puckey di vi ded the Parahi rahi 610ck bet ween two groups.
The first included 24 owners, and was awarded "Parat1irat"ii A" containinq 24/37ths of the 1 and. Ali st of the 24 names was gi ven2 , as f 0 11 oWS:
Parahirahi A
A 24/37ths H
Wi Hongi te Ri pi [01] succession Renata Pure [02] succession Hirim Taiw'hanga [03] Umukuri Wtiakaita [04] ~\Ihai te Hoke [05] r··1arara langa (06] Rukia Koao [08] Te Teira Raurnati [09] Kato Whakaita [ 16] T e t··1af.enga T ai whanga [22] Nopere Te Ripi [28] Hanj Puataata [21] Honi ana Kaura [Karu] [ 18} HirE! f(au(e]a [07] succession Tamat i \t,lhakai ta [27] Ririe t·1oetuturu [ 14J Hita I<oao [ 15] Paora Ururoa 135] Hemara Tupe [ 111 Hot"iaia Tara [32] I<atarina Te AV1a [10] V·1i Hau ( 19] succession Henare Harniora Hau [20] Ararna V'I't-lakapeke [36]
"Parahirahi 6", encompassing "13/37ths" of the 6lock, was allotted to
"thi rteen pet-sons bei ng the rest of the owners". They were not 1 i sted,
but by a process of eli rni nati on can be i dent ifi ed from the 1874 Hemori a 1 as:
1 N.L.C. Northern Mi nute Book 6 pp. 316- 317. A geneologic:al table for Parahi rahi follo'w'3 on pp.318- 319. This \\'as presumabl y the one submitted to the Court on February 7th. [5IJpplementarlJ Documents] 2 The f\IJmber-s in square brackets give the order of listi ng in the 1874 t1emorial .: name alterations 30 sho'w'n i ndieate the form used in the October 1885 Orders (see belo'w').
17
WAI-304 #(4
Hi kurangi Hiku Te Tane rvlarupo Te Popata Ki I'd T 13 Uaua HanJ Neho Ka Te Ao Whare Ngakau Te Tane Haratua Tiopira Kairau Rhvhi Tete Hone Tuhirangi Komene Poakatahi
[21] [22] [26] 131] [Popeta, Pene Pikinui] (32] [33] [34] [37] [38J [39J [41] [42J [45)
If a plan for ttlis division w'as dravin up, it is not present in or mentioned
in the ~'li nutes 1.
Trle "Committee" v·/tlich tried to gain control of the lion's share of
Para~-li n!hi in F etiruary of 1685, and \·vt"ii eJI carne awa~d from trle Court
v'fiUl Parahirehi A, looks very mucrl like a revised version of the 1872
les~;or's group, '·,·vhich had incorporated allies from among other o·· .... mers
named on the 1873 Certi fi cate. The 'opposi ti on' apparently deri ved from
Hie IJroup ·\'\·tlict-l ~-Ialj appealed against Hie 1873 decision,. arllj \'v~wse
names fi rst appeared on the 1874 t'1emori a 1 of Ownershi p. Trlere vvere
t\·velve such names .. and they included si:x: of the eleven o\·vners put into
Parahi rahi 62 :
Hikunjngi Hiku Te Tane Marupo Te Popata Hera Neho Ka Te Ao
[21] [22] [26] [31] [Popata, Pene Pikinuil [33J [34]
1 See.' however. the curious map reproduced at WAI- 304 #B24 p.l1 from MA- MLP 1 1906/63 [941372]. This map of Parahirahi .. supposedly produced in or about 1894 .. shov/s an A block of 3452 ac. and a B of onl y 1595 ac with C shown outside the coloured bound;jry line. The :3ub-division titles are struck out. and the sub-divisions "ordered bl.j the Court" in 1894 have been dra'yin on. Althouah the AlB acreaae aiven on the oriai nal (3452-1595 = about 69%- 31 %) vlould not be a correct breakdo ..... ;n for a 24-13 split among 37 equal o'w'ners (about E81&- 35%) .. it would be al most exactl y right for the 26-11 split (about 70'~- 30%) W'hieh one vlould have antici pated from Puckey'::; de::;cri ption of the Committee ond it:~ opponents in his i nteri m judgement. 2 The other ~;i:x: individuals 'w'ho::;e name::; first appeared on the 18741ist · .... tere Hemanl Tupe,. Pi ria MoetlJturu, Hits Koao, Honiana Karu, Hamiora Hau and Hare Puata8ta.
18
"dAI-304 #C4
The impression given by the evidence put before the Court early in
Februant is that Taiv'lhanqa's Comrnittee were -- or wantelj to be --~ ~
"seller-s", anlj that Hiku's party opposed some or- all of their plans.
Tt-Ie February di vi si on physi call y separated the two groups'
interests. Hi ku, however, was opposed to it. He appeat-ed before the
Court on 24 Apri 1 18941 and
painted out to the Cow-t that trle division of Parahiratli was unfair to hirn ex several others; that at the time of the di vi si on .. he and others kneY'i nothi ng about it.
Tt-Ie latter- seems odlj, given Hiku's Vigorous involvement in the hearin!~ of
evi dence precedi ng the j u1jgement. I n any case,
He askelj the Court to amend the orders or to veW4 them in such a manner as not to do hi m (x the others a wrong.
I t appeared to the Court ljesi rab 1 e to do so and aljvi sed the App 1 i cant to send 'y'y'ord to H. Tah·vhanga to be at the Court on t10nda!d morn; ng when the cElse woul d be cons; dered.
Taiv.,lhanga did not put in an appearance as requested on Monday .. the 27th
of April. The Court accordingly issued a summons for Hirini Taiwhanga,
"V.,'haka Toho" (V·ihai te Hoka?) .. Kato 'v1hakaita and H.E. Puataata to appear
the next dEl!d "and give eviljence in the rnatter of tile Division of t~le
Paratlirarti Block"2. There is nothing in the the Court t1inutes, hO'vvever,
to shov· ... 'yvhat happened ne:x:t. It 'v"lould seem that the February division
order '"vas suspended, as requested by Hi ku, and that the Parahi rahi case
YOias ad j ourned3 .
1 N.L.C. Northern Minute Book 7 p. 138. [Supplementary Documents] 2 N.L.C. Northern Ivlinute Book 7 p. 149 [not copied]. :3 I have not IJet had the opportlJnitlJ to exami ne these Hi nute Books Hl'Jself.. or to pursue other li nes of i nqlJi ry relati ng to ttlese development::;. These comments are based solel yon the evidence in front of me at the present ti me .. as identified here.
19
\-"/AI-304 #C4
The October 1885 Heari ng and Di vi si on
Tt-Ie t-Iear-i nQ of Kato Whakaita's app I i cat ion for a di vi si on of the
Pamhi t-ahi 610ck reopened on t 5 Oct. t 885. Judge Puckey
remi nded those present of the proposa I made at the former si tt i ng, for the di vi Sl on of the 610ck into two equal par-tit ions; one for sale only and one to be retained; the Ownership of those two parce 1 s to be i dent i cal. 1
There is no record of such a proposal in any of the Court records whi ch I
ha'·ie had the opportunity to e>~amine. Whenever it was made, though, it
seerns to t-Iflve corne frorn U-Ie "Committee" group. This conclusion arises
frorn the fact that it was opposed by "some of the owners;- Hik:u
ot!Jecting thereto".
Puckeld was pr-epared to allow time for further discussions
"provi ded it appeared probab I e that such di scussi on woul d I ead to an
agreement". He presurnatd y waul d have ad j ournelj or Iji srni sselj the case
if Hils did not seem likelw -- and the tt-ack record of the owners to date
''''las not prornising. TIle Court recessed for an hour vv'hile the parties
confen-ed. Hiku seems to have acted, again .. as the leader of and
spokesrnan for Hie rni nori ty group. It is not known who represente1j the
rnajority !~roup, but there is no mention of Hirini Tellwhanga ha ..... ing been
present at O-Ie t-lefwinQ.
On starting again .. Puckey asked whether an agt-eernent had been
reached. Hiku replied in the affirmative. The plan now was for
a small parcel of some 6 acres near the N[orth]. E[ast]. angle contai ni ng some hot spri ngs to be cut off, and vested in the v· ... hole of the ov'mers:- the remainder of the block to be divided equally by a line from N[orth]. Wrest]. to SOUUi]. E[ast].; such t V-lO 1 ast named blocks, a I so to be vested in the who I e of the owners named in the Mernori a I, & the vari ous Successi on Orders that have tleen made from time to time.:- [Hie oVvTlers] bei nq 43 in nurntler.
1 Land Court ~1i nutes for- n,e 15 Oet. 1885 heari ng have been reproduc:ed in WAI- 304 #A50A (:8. pp. 7-10.
20
But it di Ij not seem to Puc key "trlat the owners were unani mous in thei r
acceptance of thi s scheme": why he thought thi s J the Mi nutes do not say.
The si tuat i on changed over the lunch break. When the Cow-t
resumelj in Hie afternoon, it was "announced" in some manner that the
scheme outllned earlier by Hiku "had been adopted and agreed to by all".
Judge Puckey accepted it "as a Voluntary Arrangement", and made the
necessary Orders. The southwestern half of the block was designated as
"Parahirahi A", and Hie northeastern half as "Parahirahi B". The "a small
parcel ... containing some hot springs" became "Parahirat"1i C",
Hi ku, in the versi on of hi s aljdress gi'v'en in the Court ~1i nutes, halj
not mentioned that the restri ct ions on al i enati on p 1 acelj on one of the
larger blocks in the origintll scheme -- \'vhich he halj opposed -- were
meant to be carri ed over into tlie ne'vv one, Nor had he rnenti oned that C
v'/as to be sub j ect to any such restri cti ons, I n the section of the r"li nutes
(at the end of the record of proceedi ngs) whi ch repr-01juces Puckey's
Orders, ho\,vever, entr-i es stated that both A fH1lj C \.yere to "be ina 1 i enatll e
E:x:cept t'1d Lease for a terrn not exceeding 21 yetlrs", The official order
for a Crown Gr-ant for A has a separate sl"leet attached to it beari ng a
pri ntelj statement HiM "the 1 anlj my be 1 eased for any term not e:x:ceedi ng
t ',.'venty-one years but srlij 11 be otherwi S8 i nal i enab 1 e except with Hie
assent of Hie GO',lemor", No suct"1 restriction, twwever, is vvTitten on or
atttlct"ied to the official order for a Crown Grtlnt for C (as reproduced in
the Clairnants' docurnent bank:)1.
It seer-ns odd that U"le restri ct ions were not wri tten di rectl W on Hie
main Orders for A find C, and odder st111 that there is no surviving record
of a C restri ct i on other than the note in the Mi nute Book:. There is al so an
apparent discrepancy between the kind of restriction referred to in the
ltJttet- -- one based on a "Voluntary Arrangernent" -- and that described
on the sheet attached to the A Order -- a statutory restriction SUbject to
rernoval or alteration "with the assent of UIB Governor". Given the
si gni fi cance of the 1885 restr-i cti ons in thi s c 1 ai tn, I feel that these
matters need to be '~iven closer scrutiny, I would suggest, for example,
tt-Iat steps should be taken (if H"ley have not already been) to ascertain if
1 See V .... AI- 304 #A5011 ca. pp.11-17 for the official orders for Crown Granb. These seem to have been provided by Ms. Butler from "Block Order File No.2"
21
V'/AI-304 #C4
the r-estr-j ct ions on A arllj C were actuall y recorded on the Cro'y'v'n Grants
for these blocks ond, if so, in Vdl0t form.
Several other features of the 1885 restri ct ions are worth not i no. ~,
The first is that the owners apparently chose to put a "VOluntary"
restri ct i on on Hie Spri ngs, rather than seeki ng a permanent reservati on
of the land. This would surely have been appropriate, given the cultural
arllj medicinal significance which the claim attributes to this area. The
second is the fact that B, rattler than A, was selected as the
'unrestricted' block. It meont, in essence, thot 011 of the owners ",'(ere
prepared to sell all of the land in Parahirahi which lay closest to the hot
springs area defined as C. Given that this portion of the original block
probab 1 y contai ned rnore geothermal features than A, thi s coul d easil y tie
i nter-pr-eted as alack: of interest in retai ni ng control of any part of H-Ie
resource other than Hie prirne bathing area itself.
As specified by the Court, the ownership of A, B anlj C was based on 1674 ownershi p (as rnodifi elj by Hie i nter-pretM ion p 1 Elced on it in the
10 Februand 18B5 Judgernent). For-t!d-f1ve individuals were named as OV1ners for eact-I of the blocks, ho 1 di ng the same shares or POt-t ions of
sf-lares in eac:t-I, as follows1:
No. Stlar-es Name 01 1/6 Te Ripi., Paki 2
02 1/6 T e Ri pi, 'w'i rernu (the elder) 1)3 1/6 Te Ripi, Herni 04 1/6 Te Ripi, MaUu ~t:"
U~I 1/6 Te Ri pi} I"li kara 06 1,/6 Te Ripi, w'irernu (the younger-) 07 1/3 Pure, Mere Renata3 08 1/3 Pure, Herepeta 09 1/3 Pure, Hori 10 1 Taiwhanqa, Hirini 1 1 1 V1hakai ta, Urnukuri 12 1 T e Hoka, V1hai 13 1 I anga, Marara 14 1,/3 Kauea, r1ereana4
1 From V'lAI-304 #A50A ca. pp.11-17. 2 ~iix successors of Hongo te Ripi; see National Archive::; (Auckland) ~1LC-A 2/10 p. 27. 3 Three successors of Renata Pure: see National Archives (Auckland) t-1LC-A 2/10 p. 130 4 Three successors of Hi ra Kauea? (no record of succession found).
.. t·.,... LL
15 1/3 16 t l-:t:
I' .... r'
l' " 1 lS 1 19 1 20 1 21 1 0,'1 L.L. 1 23 1 24 1 ... C L_' 26 ... , Li
"-Ie, -1 Lt.l L.
29 30 31 32 33 34 7C _J._t
36 37 7-=-~;.u
39 40 41 42 47 . "-)
44 4c . ~I
Kauea, Henare Kauea, Watene Koao, Ruki e Raurnati, Te Teira Te Avva, Katarina Tupe, Hemara Hikirangi Hiku ~1oetuturu .. Ri ri a Koao, Hita Whakai te, Kato t'1ar-upo, Te Tane 1 Karu, T e Honi ana Hau, Henare Harniora2
Puataata .. Hare Revvat i T ai wt-It'Ifi!~a, T e 1-1atenga Popata, Pene Pi ki nui 3 Te Uaua, Kihi Neho .. Hera Te Ao, Ka V1hak:aita, Tarnat i T e Ri pi .. Nopere N'Jakau .. '\,\q-Itwe Haratua, Te Tane Kai reu, Ti opi ra Toni, Hotv:!la Tete,. Rhvhi Tuhirangi, Hone Ururoa, Paora 'w'hakapeke, ArBrna Poakatarli .. Kornene
The interests of Hie rna j ori ty and rni nori ty groups were thus
intermingled by the Court. This, on the face of it .. wes the result of a negoti ated cornprorni se bet ween the two parties -- 8 lthougr-I there is 8
di st i net i rnpressi on that Hi ku and hi s supporters had the better of
T 8i ··,..· ... hanga and hi s peop 1 e, in thei r deal i ngs \·vith the Nat i ve Land Court
generally .. and c.ludge Puckey specifically.
1 Su(:ces::;or of Renata Marupo; see National Archives (Au(:~:land) MLC-A 2/10 p. 50. 2 One share as sIJc~cessor of \.\Ii remIJ HalJ.: see National Archives (Auckland) MLC-A 2/10 p. 130. :3 3u(:ce::;::;or of "Popata K8pe (Te Popata) ",: see National Archive~; (Auckland) r"1LC-A 2/10 p. 1·:. .. ~
'- - .
23
V-lAI-304 #[:4
Part II: The Crown and the Porohirahi Block, 1665-1694
Offers of Sale, 1665-1666
The Crown's i nvo 1 vement wi HI the Paratii rahi B10ck began 1 ate in
1885. Soon Mter the Native Land Court hearing in October, the Native
Land Purctlase Office was contacted on behalf of certain owners who
allegedly wished to sell their interests in the Block. The first overture
was tYlalje by W.A. Carruth, a Whangarei solicitor1, who wrote on
No ... .'ember14th. According to a summary of his letter, Carruth inquit-elj
"if Govt. is prepared to purchase interests of Kataeo &. Pokai in Te
Ngawha or Parahi rahi Bl oCk"2 .. proposi ng that, if so, the Crown coul d
acquire the interests of these individuals for the surn of one pourllj per
acre. Tt-Ie solicitor also lnformed Hie Office Hlat "negotiations" of some
kirllj relating to Parat-lirat-Ii 'Ner-e in pr-ogress3 .
"Kataeo", of course .. was Ka te Ao (owner No.34 on the 1885 list).
It is seems likely that "Pobjl" was Komene POElkatahi (No.45). It is
raU-ler surprising that these tVy'O they srlould t-Iave taken the initiative in
offering their shares for sale., given their apparent identification with
Hi ku's 'non-se 11 i ng' group the previ ous F ebruar~d.
Tt-18 Larllj Purchase Departrnent's response to CarTuth's 1 etter does
not suggest Hiat it rlad taken a great deal of interest in the Parahi rahi
Block before. On No ... .'. 25th the Urfljer-~;ecretary, T.W. Lewis, wrote to
Assistant Surveyor-General S. Percy Smith about the letter asking, fit-st,
vy't·,eU-,er t·,e t·,fllj any knowledge of "the alleged negotiations", and second,
1 Carruth., interestingly enough, aho represented G.W.S. Patterson in matters relating to the Parahi rahi Block duri ng the mid-1890s. 2 This h ho'w' his question was paraphrased in what appears to be a Lands & Survey copy of a N.L.P.D. summarJJ of the origi nalletter., which is reproduced in WAI- 304 #B 19 p.47 from National Archives (Auckland) BABN .. 1108 .. Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block File 1885-1898. I have not been able to find the original letter., or the original N.L.P.D. summary. 3 See the summaries of the 25 Nov. ~1emo on Carruth's letter from the Under-Secretary of the N.L.P. De~'artment to ttle Asslstant Surveyor-General, and of the latter's repl y of 30 Nov., 'w'hich mention these poi nts: WAI- 304 #B 19 p.47 from National Archives (Auckland) BABN, 1108., Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block file 1885-1898. Agai n., I have not been able to locate the orilJi nals.
24
\.I/AI-304 #(4
whether he thougt-tt, the land "should for any specla1 reasons be acquired
by Gov[ernmen]t"l,
The Assistant Surveyor-General's reply} written on Nov, 30th}
apparently made no reference to negotiations} one way or the other2. His
comments on the Block itself were quite unfavourable. It was described
as "sterile in the extreme c-<. the gum which gave it a value fOtTOet-ly is
about exhausted". As far as any 'speci a 1 reasons' were concerned} Smith
had
never heard of mercury havi ng been found on thi s Block} though it has been found on ttlat i mmelji ate 1 y to the North} where the hot springs are [i.e. Tuwhakino]. I think it would be running too great a ri sk to purchase for £ 1 an acre on the chance of rnercury bei ng on Hie unsubdi vi ded portion off ered.
He trlerefore concluded that "The Block hes no value er.:cept for chance
mineral~; [sic]". Smith} incidentally} later claimed to "f::novv the district
... ·vel1 .. 3 .
Another three monUls passed before a reply to Carruth's proposal
emerged from the Land Purchase Department. On March 12th .. 1886 .. he
\·vas lnforrnM by T.V\". Lev\"is U'lat
Ref erri ng to your 1 etter of the 14th of Novernbe!- last respect i nq Hie Parahi rat-Ii til ock} I have the t-,onour b'-l the
~ ~
Ijirection of the Honourable Hie Native Minister to inform you that the Government cannot entertain the idea of purchasing at the price named by you (20/- per acre) and does not care to negot i ate. 4
1 Summary of 25 Nov. Memo on Carruth's letter from the linder-Secretary of the N.l.P. Department [T.W. Le'w'is] to the Assistant Surveyor-General: WAI-304 #B19 p.47 from National Archives (Auckland) BABH} 1108 .. Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block file 1885-1898. S.P. Smith 'w'as the Assistant Surveyor-General at this ti me (see W.R. JOlJrdai n} History of Land Legislation and Settlement in He· ... l Zealand. p.237). 2 SlJmmary of r··1emo 30 Nov. 1885 from the Assistant SlJrveyor-General [S.P.Smith] to the Under-Secretar'J of the N.L.P. Department [T:W. Le'w'isj: WAI- 304 #819 p.47 from National Arctlive~; (AlJckland) BABN} 11 08} Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block Flle 1885-1898. 3 See t'1emo. of 2 Nov. 1895 from Smith to Sheridan.: National Archives LS 1/1910/1080 [· ... VAI- 304 #B24 p.751 4 National Archi .... ·es MA- ~1LP 3/5 out· ... iilrds Letterboot 1883- 88} ~,.365 NLP ci5/339 [Supplementary DoclJments]
25
VlAI-304 #C4
The principal reason for botti the delay in answering Carruth, and for the
re J ect i on of hi s proposa l, may have been that the Crown had si nce
recei ved a bet ter offer-.
Tt1e first solid evidence of this dates from a month afterwards,
near the end of Apri 1. On Apri 1 29th, 1886, t wenty-fi ve pounds was
received frorn the Cmwn by Hirini Taiwhanga as an "Advance on account
of interest in Parahi rahi b 1 ocks A B & C at si x shi 11 i ngs per acre". All of
the or-iginal Parahirahi Block, in other words, was involved. The money
was paid by T.W. Lewis of the Land Purchase Office, and its receipt was
v'/itnesselj by "E. ''1'1'. Puckey, J.P"l. It should be noted that the latter was
.Judge Edward Walter Pucke!J of the Native Land Court, who had presided
o'· ... er the Parahirah1 hearings in 1885, and who only six months earlier
had i s5ued the di vi 51 on orders f or A, Band C \·vith a 11 enati on re5tri ct ions
on A and C2. Puckey's involvement makes 1t probable that Hie payrnent
V'ias rnade sornev'I'here in the nor-th -- pet-haps at Taiwhanga's residence in
Val kohe -- rather than in We 11 i nqton.
For a pa!Jrnent based on a specifiC price of six shillings per acre to
['Iave been rnade in April, negotiations between Taiwhanga and the Crown
are 1 i ke 1 y to rlave cornmencelj some rnonths earl i er. Asilje from the
',/Oucher itself, no information concerning the timing or progress of these
negoti at ions has corne to 11 !~t'lt but e'· ... i dence from another SOUtTe
indicates that Cmvv'n interest in the Block was becorning stronger in
rni Ij-l ci86.
On ,July 7U'1 T.Y'/'. Lewis wrote to Dr. James Hector, the director of
the Geolo~~ical Survey (who, as noted, had studied and written about the
1 Treasury Voucher No. 11791; reproduced in WAI- 304 #A50A ca. p. 46, from DOSLI AudJand Deed #1886 file. This ap~lears to be the original voucher 'w'hich 'w'as submitted in evidence to the Native Land Court in 1892 (see belo'w'). See also National Archives t-1A-I'1LP 7/10 Accounts Journal 1885-1890, voucher 86127.
There is some confusion about the payment in that an undated departmental report in AJH~~ 1337 C. - 3 (\ .... hich one assumes covered the fiscal year of 1 April 1385 - 31 t-1arctt 1886) lists the expenditure of £25 for the Parahi rahi blOCK, 'vlhereas a report in A.JHR 1888 C.2A correctl y states that no expenditures 'w'ere made made up to 31 t'1arch 1886 [see Supplementary Documents]. I have not been able in the ti me available to resolve this discrepancy (if it is one). It should be noted that Le'w'is's letter of 19 Aug. 1886> cited belo'w' .. confirms that Tai'w'hanga had received an advance payment on the Parahirahi Block before this date. 2 See the origi nal 1885 Orders reproduced in WAI- 304 #A50A ca. pp.1 0-17, 'y,lhich bear Pu(:kel{s signature.
26
V-lAI-304 "T4
"Ohaeawai nereuri al Spri ngs" a decalje earl i er). Lewi s stated that
Parahi rahi 610ck "has been offered for sa 1 e to the the Gover-nment .. , and
passed on Hie Native Minister's request that Hector "inform him [Jot-m
6a 11 anee] whether suffi ci ent is known of the mi nera 1 deposits to enable
you to make any recommendation on the subject"l.
Hector did feel able to make a recommendation about Parahirahi2.
The reply which he sent to Lewis on the 12th of the same month, included
a lengthy dissertation on the geology of the Kaikohe area in general, and
the spri ngs in part i cul ar. Thi s was 1 arge 1 y deri '.led from hi s 1878
artic1e3 , and reactied U-Ie same conclusion about the nature of U-Ie
Spn ngs. I twas, that
T~le then-nal and mercurial[?] Qualities of the springs are not due to any active volcanic influence, but to chemical decornposition '\'vt-lict"t is taking place in the under part of Hie 1 ava fl oe[si cL througt-I vy't"d ch Ule 'vvaters are i nfil trated.
Tt-Ie onl y mi nera 1 of interest 'l'vhi ch occurs in the di stri ct is the metal ~1ercury whict-I escapes with stearn at the place marked "Hot Spri ngs" [on Hie sketch-map ene 1 oselj v,,'ith the 1 etterl .... The spri ngs form a deposi t of brown decornposi ng sandstone \'vith 1 ignite and carboni zed vegetati on contai ni ng depo~;its of mercury.
Corni ng to the rnai n poi nt of tJle report, the Di rector conc 1 uded:
Except for their powerful medicina1[?] properties, these spri ngs have no part i eul ar va 1 ue. Endeavors have been made I be 11 eve to co 11 ect the mercury, but the quantity present is too srnall to pay for working.
1 Letter of 7 ,Jul u 1886. from Levlis to Hec:tor: National Archives tv1A- t1LP 3/5 Outwards Letterboot 1883-=- 88._ p.438 NLP 86/230 [Supplementary Documents]. The stetch- map referred to in the report is not in this source. 2 Letter of 12.July 1886; National ~1useum) \>'1ellington. James Hec:tor Papers, General Letter-book (Outward::.) 12.Jan. 1883 - Dec. 1885, pp.566-S72 [SupplementanJ Doc u file n t:3 ] 3 See "On the Mercurial Springs ofthe Ba'J of Islands: Abstract. .... Transactions &.Proceedings of the Ne'.,.,.. Zealand I f!stitlJte Vol. X 1377 J p.S3S (Proceedi ngs of Eighth tvleeti ng of 'Welli ngton Philosophical 3oc:ietYJ 12 January 1378) [Supplementary Do(:umenhl. Several passages in the 1886 letter are taken verbati m from the Abstract.
27
V'/AI-304 #[:4
In oHler respects Hie "block" has no especial value as far as I am aware ...
Hector had planned "to be in the vicinity [of Parahirahi] shortly"
and offered to "reexamine the district & report further on the matter to
the t'linister if necessary". Acknowledging the receipt of his "interesting
report on the rni net-a I productions and capabi 1 i ti es of the Parahi rahi
Block" on July 31 st} Lewis passed on Ballance's request for "a further
communi cat i on" after Hector's vi sit to the area. (There is no record of
such a report havi ng been made or recei ved1 ).
Pressure of some ki nd v,"as apparentl y exerted in thi s pen od to get
the T ai wtil:mga proposition rnovi ng along. \-\/here., e::.:act 1 Y., it mi ght have
been coming from is difficult to say on present evidence. The Assistant
Surveyor General and the Director of the Geological Survey held muc!"1 the
same opi ni on about the potent i a 1 val ue of the Parahi rarli Block: that the
land V'ias \'vorthless., and the mercury deposits in the vicinity were
unlikely to be of any commercial value. Despite this professional advice.,
Hie CrO\'vn in .. July of 1866 went ahead \'ViUI plans for the acquisition of
the .... vt-IO I e of the Block. There are grounds for thi nki ng that ,John
Ba 11 ance, the Nati ve fv1i ni ster., took a personal interest in the matter .. but
nottli ng specifi c can tie sai d on thi s poi nt2
Negotlations with Hirini Taiwhanga evidently continued \'vrl11e
Hector's opinion V'ias sought and -- even though it hardly constituted an
encouragement -- hi s ,.Jul ~d 12th report may have sparked further
Ijeveloprnents. Sornetirne during the latter half of July (it seerns) the
Crov'm i nf ormed T ai 'vvhanga that it was prepared to enter into an
arrangement with him for the purchase of the Block. His answer was
sent to the Land Purchase Offi ce on August 7th.
Nei ther a letter tleari ng the Crow'n's off er (if thi s was the medi urn
employed) .. nor Taiwhanga's reply seem} unfortunately} to be extant. The
1 There is no sign of it in Hector's OutW'ard Letterbook for 1887-1891 <: National t'1useum), nor is there any acknoW'ledgement of the recei pt of3uch a report in the N.L.P.D. OutW'ards LeHerbook for 1883-1888 (National Archives t'1A- HLP 315). 2 This comment is based on the eomplai nts made by Hi ri ni TaiW'han98 in 1888} W'hish seem to ::otlO"1l that tie 'y/a~; in di reet contact 'w'iUI the t'1i ni~;ter in the course of the Par-a hi rat,i negotiations in 1886. See belo'w'.
28
-! I
V/AI-304 #[:4
fi rst Ijocumentary evi dence re 1 ati ng to thi s stage of the proceedi ngs
comes in T.W. Lewis's letter to S.D. Taiwhanga of August 19th, 1886. It
reads1 :
Sir, In reply to your letter of the 7th instant [August] in which
you intimate your acceptance of the offer made by the Government of three shilli ngs per acre for the Pararli n:Jhi Block, and ask for certain advances thereon, I have the honor by direction of the Han. the Native Minister to inform you that the severa I owners 'vvi 11 be pai d for thei r shares separately, and that a deduction will .. if agreed to} be made from each to meet Hie expenses to wt-Ii cti you refer-.
'·1eanvvtlil e no further advances can be author-i sed. I have ... [etc]
A good Ijea1 of information can tie ei<tracted from this brief note.
Firstl!d .. Ule price of si:o<: shillings per acre initially offered by the
Cro .... vn -- as erntl(lIjielj in Hie April payment -- t-Iad tleen tialved trlree
months later. It seems a reasonable speculation that this waf: a result
of Hector's unf avorab 1 e report. T ai whang a, in any case .. had accepted Hli s
offer. It is not knoy·m if he consulted any of the other Parahirahi o·wners.
Secondlq .. TahvtJanga was acting (or clairnelj to be acting) on behalf
of all of the aforementioned ov-mers. At least} he \·vas promising to
deliver the vvtlole of the ov·mers· interests in the Parahirahi Block to the
Cro .... vn at a fixed price per acre. It vvould appear that tie \,vantelj Hie total
payment of seven tJundred si xty-f our poun1js and eleven shi 11 i ngs (for
5097 acres at 3s. per acre) to be given to him as a lump sum. This \·vould
have constituted a payment of £20-13-3 for each of the 37 full shares.
Before passing the payment on to the ParahiratJi ov·mers} however}
T ahvtianga proposed to deduct a certai n sum f or "expenses". Another
letter 'y .... Titten by Levds the follo\Ning day casts light on this part of the
proposal. On August 20HI nle Under-Secretary \;vrote .James S. Clendon --
1 National Arehives rv1A-r··1LP 3/5 Out'w'ard3 Letterbook 1883-8:::, ~I. 490 NLP :::6/321 [SuN,lementanJ Documents]
29
\·vAI-304 #[A
a Resident t1agistrate in Whangarei employed by the Land Purchase Office
on an "occasi ona 1 '" and unremunerated" basi s 1 -- the f 0 11 owi ng note2:
Conti dent i a 1. NLP 86/321
Sir,
Nat i ve Land Purchase Offi ce Wellington 20th August 1886.
I tiave nle tionor to forward you herev-lith a file of papers bearing on H-Ie Parahirahi block and by direction of Hie Honorable the Native Minister to request that you will be good enougt-, to report upon any private claims (legal or equitable) no\·v exi st i ng over the block .. and upon Sydney T ai whanga's proposal of a stoppage, of ten pence per acre [" 1 Od" in margin] from each share, for the purpose of sett 11 ng them.
I ~Iave ... [etc]
T ai ... ·y~ltmga '",vas thus proposi ng to retal n more than a Quarter of the sum
pai d by the Crov\,'n for the 610ck (£.212-7-6 out of £.764-11-0) in hi s oV'm
~Ianijs, wtiic:t"1 v'/ould allegedly tie LJselj to settle certain existing "private
clairns" against the property.
I am not able .. at this point., to say whose claims these may have
been. In an~d case .. the Croy·,tn Vias not prepared to accept this 'collective'
approach to pa~dment. Levy'] s stated on the 19th that the Cro .... vn woul d pay
the agreed purctlase money di rect to "the several OV"'Tters", and thei r
permission 'vyould be required before any deductions could be made for
Taiv,'~langa. He then proceeded to instigate an investigation of the
situati on on the ground. Cl endon was J in essence, ordered to f1 nd out if
any such "private claims" existed, and if the other Parahirahi owners had
agreed to go along y,,'ith this scheme. Lewis presumably had it in mind, as
1 See A,JH~: 1886 C. - 5 p.8 No.2 "Return of Persons Employed ... in the Purchase of Native Land:::' (Supplementary Documents]. Clendon is descri bed as one of the offic:ers "paid by other departments to 'Which they belong; thei r duties 'With respect to land purchases are occasional on1 Y .. and unremunerated". No date of appoi ntment is given. He is listed at this ti me (mid-1886) as having purchased 8272 acre$ of land over the previou~ year., and 0$ being involved 'With ongoing negotiations for another 16}39 acre:,. 2 National Archives t"1A- t'1LP 3/5 Out'words Letterbook 1883- 88, p. 491 NLP 86/321 "Confidential" [Supplementary Documents]
30
\A/AI-304 #C4
well, that Clendon could act for the Crown in any ensuing purchase of
shares.
V~hatever doubts Land Purchase Offi ce offi ci 131 s may have had
about Hi ri ni T ai whanga's b0l18 fides, if any, these di d not stop them
frorn pr-oceedi ng with the ornmgements necessory for 0 purchose. The
Office's knowledge of the Parahirahi Block seems not to have increased a
great deal S1 nce November of 1885. I t appears that, in the process of
assernb 1i ng documentat i on, someone got around to a close scruti ny of a
map of the Block -- obviously one showing the Land Court divisions of
H355 -- and not iced the" i\" protrudi ng frorn the northern boundary
y.d"\i ch constituted Parahi rahi C.
The following telegrarn was sent by Potrick Sher1deln, 0 senior
Land Purchase Department offi ci a 1 J to the Assi stant Surveyor Genera 1 on
Sept. 2, 1886. Sher-idan asked1:
Parar-lirahi C block contains 5 acres only. Is it a burial ground or kainga intended to be reserved frorn sale[.J Entire[?] til (Iek:[?] is to tie purer-lased at three st"li 11 i ngs per acre. Do you thi nk the fi ve acres shoul d be reserved.
The Land Purchase Offi ce, then, was Quite prepare1j to exclude C from the
planned purchase if thi s land had been separated from the rest of the
Block for r-esidential purposes or as a 'y'v'ahi tapu. Tt-Ie Surveys
Depar-tment took alrnost three weeks to reply, presurnably while
i nQui ri es were rnade. The Land Court tii nute Books f or the 1885 heari ng
may have been consulted. The tel egrarn whi ch the Land Purchase Offi ce
recei '.led on Sept. 21 st stated that:
Parar-li rati] Cis a 1 it t1 e tlend in boundary 11 ne -- evi dent 1 y purposely rnalje but is not a Kainga or wahi tapu. I think very probably is a hot or Mineral spring. It is restricted -- would advi 5e purchase. 2
1 National Archives (Auckland) BABN .. 11 08 .. Box 921.2215 PRR Block file 1885-1 898: V'lAI-304 #819 p.46. The photoc:oPIJ in #819 is very diffic:ult to read., and I gather the ori'Ji f1al ihelf i3 not much better. The transcri pt given here .. hO'w'ever .. appeat"3 to be accurate and complete. 2 National Arc:hives (Auckland) BABN .. 1108 J Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block File 1885-1898: V'lAI-304 #819 p.45.
31
V-lA!-304 #C4
Tt-18 Assi stant Surveyor Genera 1's assurnpti on that the restri cti ons on
al i enat ion i rnposed by the Land Court 1885 di d not app 1 y to the Crown
cornes tht-ough clearly.
It is also clear that the Land Purchase Department offi C1 a1 s shared
the same assumption. The Deed which was drawn up late in September
called for the Crown's acquisition of the whole of the Paratiit-arli Block,
including sub-blocks A, Band C. So too did the notice which appeared in
the New Zealand Gazette on 7 Oct. 1886, which declared that
"negotiations by or on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen" had been "entered
into for the purchase or acquisition" of the whole of the Parat1irahi Block:
"contai ni ng by adrneasurernent 5,097 acres"l. Under the terms of "The
GoVetTlrnent Native Lanlj Pw-chases Act, 187T, once such a noti ce fiEld
been dul y pub 1 i stied, it became illegal for anyone other than the Crown
"to purct-ICise or acquire frorn the Native owners any right, title, estate,
or inter-est in any such land or any part thereof, or in any manner to
contract for any suct-I purchase or negotiation"2.
1 "Notification of the Entry into Negotiations for the Purchase of Native Lands in the North 1:3land.", dated 6 Oct. 1886; Ne'w' Zealand Gazette 1886 No.53 7 Oct. 1886 ~1.1281 [copy in 'WAf - 304 #115011 fI.p.] 2 Statutes of Ne ....... Zealand 41 Vic. No.30, Sec.2.
32
'wAI-304 #(4
The Porohirohi Deeds
It is useful to begi n a di scussi on of the Ct-own's purctiase of
interests in the Panjhi rahi Block with an exarni nati on of the Deed drawn
up in 1886. And the first point which needs to be malje here is that
there are t vola such Deeds I not one. There are references to "dup 1 i cate
deeds" in contemporary correspondence1 and I in any case, two "official"
copies are still in existence. The version produced by t1s. Butler for the
claimants at WAI-304 #A50A -- an enlarged reproduction of which was
distributee! by t1r. Irlilliams during the October heat-ing -- is in fact a
rni :x:ture of pages frorn U-Iese two offi ci a1 copi es.
! e:~:arni nelj the ori 9i na 1 Parat-li ratli Deeljs at the DOSLI Healj Offi ce
in ' ..... ,"ellington. They are contained in a single file , Auckland Deed # 1886)
the full contents of whicl-I have in fact been reproljucelj in full in V'lAI-
304 #_.. I have arranged for cornp 1 ete copi es of the two Deeds to be
rncllje avail at!] e at H-ti s heari ng} and rny own parU a 1 transcri pt will be
f ouruj iJrnorll~ rny supporting docurnent::;;.
Each of HIe Deeds consi sts of three 1 arge pages of parchrnent,
which are fastened together at the upper left hand corners. One set has
tialj nle i,jentifying marks "AUCK A", "AUCK B"} and "AUCK C" added in
pencil in HIe upper right-I-land ccn-ners of U-Ie pages (on HIe five sides
v'lh! ch have been wri t ten on). n-Ie other set of pages I-las been si mi 1 ar1 y
latlellelj 8S "AUCI< t'r , "AUCK N" and "AUCI< 0". The reverse silje of pages
"B" and "N" are blank, and hiJve not been numbered or marked in any way.
I will refer to these two documents} to avoid confusion, as the
"ABC" and "~1NO" Deeds , respectively. The page markings described above
ha· .... e been added si nee 1990 } for mi crofil mi ng purposes2. It is ttiought by
DOSLI staff U-Iat Uie ABC and tiNO Deeds represent the original form of
the documents inquest ion: ttlat is I that the pages of the two sets have
1 See undatelj note (Cil 20 ,Jy 1892) from Sheriljan to Bishop, from DOSLI Welli nqton Auckland Deed # 1886 file [' ........ AI- 304 #A50A n.p.) stat; nq that .. I enclose under separate cover deed in duplicate and vouchers in case any further signatures should offer ...... [empl18sis added]. See also letter of 23 Oct. 1894 from G. ~1ai r to P. Sheridan., enclosi nq "Deeds in (jlJplic:ate".; ~1A-tY1LP 1 1906163 (94l343) [V-lAI-304 .#B24 p. 18] 2 Personal communication, t1r. Steven Sch'w'arz, Senior Land I nformation Officer) DOSLI Auckl:and. It :?-hould be noted th:at there are pre- microfil mi n9 copies in ci reu1atiofl.
33
WAI-304 #C4
not been intermi>~ed since 1894. There seems to be no way of being
absolutely certain of this, however, and a possibility remains that the
two Deeds we have today contain a mixture of pages from the two
originals. In any case .. I will be identifying the individual pages of these
docurnents as A 1, A2. B, C 1 and C2 and M 1 , M2, N, Oland 02.
The MNO Deed (as it stands) can be consi dered the defi ni ti '.Ie
versi on f or present purposes , for ita lone bears the foIl owi ng
hanljwrit ten cert ifi cat i on on the page 02:
Produced by Capt. t-"lair in support of Crown Claim this 19th day of October at Kawakawa. [si!Jne,j] RS. Bush Recorder.l
Althouqt-I it is certain Hlat Hie ABC Deed was also taken to the Octotler
19th hearing b~J Captain Gilbert Mair2, its presence seems not to have
been offi ci all y recorded by the Court in any way.
Tti8 t\·\,o copies of Hie Deed are not at,solutel~d identical. n-Ie ABC
Deed, for example, has "NLP 94/314" 'written in pencil at the top centre
of the front page (p.A 1): t-"lNO does not have this notation6. Also .. 'rvhile
trle plan on page C 1 of Hie ABC Deed is 1 abe 11 ed as "No. 2730A
Parahirarli", the oHlerv\"ise-iljentical map on the r--1NO Deed is labelleij "No.
2730 Parahi rahi "4. Most of the other vari at ions I though .. pertai n to
matters such as the e1~act positioning of the components on a particular
pages. As far as I have been able to determine .. the components
U-Iernselves are trle same. None of the differences between Hie two Deeds
could be described as significant: the content of each page of the t-"H~O
1 PalJe 02 of MNO Deed, under the Maori text of the Deed. 2 It bears the origi nal signatures or marks of three o'w'ners (l'"li kara Te Ri pi .. Te Tane Haratue and Hone Tuhi rangi) 'w'ho sold portions of thei r interests to the Cro'w'n on Oct. 19th .. along 'w'ith the slgnatures of 'w'itnesses (Gil bert ~1ai rand W.F. Goffe) 'w'ho 'w'ere defi nite1 y present at the he:)ring th:)t d:)y. See be1o .... l. 3 "NLP 94/314" is the number of the Native Land Purchase Department's file on the Parahi rahi Block purcha:3e coveri fig the period 1886- 94 (approxi mate1 y). Unfortunatel y .. it does not seem to have reached the National Archives. The purchase-file covering the ~Ieriod 1894-1906, t·1A- t1LP 1 1906/63. is available and has been submitted as part of V'lAI- 304 #824).
4 As noted previousl y .. Plan No.2730 'w'as the origi nal 1873 plan.: 2730A 'w'as the modified .. re-tit1ed version produced blJ the same surveyor (P. Cheal) during the same IJear. 5 The most obvious bei ng the layout of pages C 1 and (11 ('w'hich bear the plan and Sc:hedule.
34
V",IAI-304 #(4
Deed i s e>~act1 y the sarne as that of its counterpart in the ABC Deed, anlj
vice versa.
The only clue on Ule Deeds as to thei r specifi c ti me of ori gi n, is
the date located on pages C 1 and 01. The notations to the left of the
plans on both copi es (the si gnatw-e bei ng clearer on ABC than MNO) read,
"E.d.['?] H.A.R. Farquhar [siQnature] 22.9.86 .... It seems certain from Ulis
that the plans were added to the copies of the Deeds on 22 Sept. 1886, by
a Survey Department draftsman. Si nce thi s waul d probably have been one
of the lost steps in the process of preporing the Deeds, it seems sole to
conclude UVlt they were avai1atlle in a completed form around the end of
Septernber in 1886. This dating accords 'vve11 with the scant
Ijocurnentation availatde about the Crown's deciSion to purchase
Parahirohi, and the date of publicotion of the negotiation notice (Oct.
7th). nOte latter presumabl!d viould not ~Iave been done until the Crown
was r-eadq ina 11 respects to proceed.
TIle Deeds probab 1 y consi stelj of only two sheets of parcllrnent
eacJt at nils paint, ratt-Ier Ulan three. The rnidljle sheets on both copies
(both of which bear the handwritten label "Intermediate Sheet" at top
ri gt"lt of pages Band N) seern to have been aitachelj 1 ater. They were uselj
sol ely for the si gnatw-es of successor-s to ttle 1885 oVv'ners. ,Judgi ng by
payrnent vouchers, U-Iese signatures were collectelj in and after 1890
(see belov(l.
On cornp let i on, the two Deeds (tclljay's pages A ond C, and t'1 anlj 0)
would [-lave been constituted as fol1ovv's:
til! A 1 , top:
1'11/ A 1, bottom:
01/ C 1. top:
o 1,l C 1, bottom:
02/ C2. top:
02/ C2, bot torn:
English text of sale agreement;
nomes of owners;
blank ruled space;
Plon and Schedule
t1aori text of sale agreement;
b lank space (used as cover sheet).
n-Ie most irnportant components were of course the sale agreements., the
names of owners arllj Ule cartograpt-ti ca 1 materi a 1.
35
WAi-304 #C4
1) The Sale Agreements
Tt18 Englist-, te:o<t of a standat-d Deed for the purchase of Maori land
by the Crown was printed at the top of the front page of the first sheet
of the f arms used f or the Paratii ratii Deed (pages A 1 and M 1) _ 1 tread:
This Deed, made ttie __ day of __ , 188_, bet ween Her Majesty Queen Victoria, of the one part, and the Aboriginal Natives of ttie Colony of New Zealand ¥I"hose names and sl gnatures are hereunto subscri bed (herei nafter ca 11 ed "the Vendors") .. of the oHler part, witnesseUI that .. in consideration of the surn of by Her t-1a Jesty pai d to the Vendors on the execution hereof (the recei pt whereof is hereby acknowl edge,j) J the Vendors do, and each of them doth, hereby surrender .. convey .. and assure unto Her Ma j esty the Queen All thot block or parcel of land in ttie Provincial District of __ containing by admeasurement more or less .. knov'ln or called __ As Hie sarne is more particularly described in ttie ScJledule hereto, and delineated on the plan drav·n, on this Deelj and coloured red; togett1er with all rights and appurtenances trlereto belonging or appertaining:
Eielo\·v this is a tdank space .. vyith a printed marginal note in round
bracket~; readi ng "I nsert here excepti ons or reservat ions, if any .... then a
line for the signature of a Crm·vn representative. The concluding
staternent .. tlelow Ute latter .. reads:
To t"tCllij the sailj land and premises with the appw-tenances unto Her MaJesty the Queen .. her heirs and successors, for ever. In Jtlitness 'y'ytlereof U,e Vendors have hereunto set thei r hands the day and year fi rst above writ ten_
Blank spaces 'yvere thus left for insertion of:
j) the date of the transaction,
iO O-,e "consideration" paid by trle Crown,
iii) the location (in a Provincial Land District), acreage and name of
the til ock of 1 and concerned ..
iv) a description of "e;<;ceptions .. or reservations .. if any .... and
v) the siqnature of the Crm·vn·s rept-esentative.
36
V·lAI-304 "'T4
Neither the MNO flnlj ABC Deeds have an~thi nq wri tten into the blank ~ '-
spaces for Hie date (1), the "e>~cept1ons" (iv) or the signatur-e (v).
The land is identified (iii) by handwritten entry as the "Parahirahi
A} Band C" blocks in the District of Aucklan1j, containing 5097 acres1. It
shoul d be notelj here that the plans presented on the thi rd page of the
Deeds did not show the three subdivisions which had been ordered by the
Nat]Ve Land Court in 1885 (see below).
The amount paid to the vendors (ii) is given by handwritten entry
as .. Se'· ... en hundred and sixty four pounds, eleven srlillings (£764.11.0)".
This is pr-ecisely the surn which the Crown had agr-eed with Hirini
Taiwhanga to pay for tt-Ie Block} representing three shillings per- acre for
5097 acr-es (5097 X 3 s. = 15291 s. = £764.11.0). The presence of this
entrw on the Deeds tends to confir-m that the entries in the "blanks" in nle
En!]] i sh sal e agreernent (all of whi crl are in the same I-land and ink) were
rnade in cw about Septemt1er of 1886, before any payments were made. It
const i tutes a si rnp 1 e statement of the Crown's intent ions and
e:;::pectations at tt-Iat tirne. It rnust be emphasiz8,j, however-, that this
'~urn narned bears no re 1 at i on to the amount of money actua 11 y pai d out by
nle CrovvTI in respect of H-Ie Pat-ahir-ahi block during 1886-18942.
A r"1aori text of Ule agreement for the purchase of the Paratli rahi
Block by the Ct-own is located on the last page of the Deeds. A printed
headin!], "A clear staternent in the ~1aori Language of the contents of this
Deed", tops the page. Irnnle,jiately underneath is the handwritten
contract. The on1w space left open is for the date of the transaction, and
this has not been filled in. Unllke the English version} the consideration
("E whitu rau e ano te kau ni a wha pauna te kau ma tahi Hi ri ni3") I the
District location ("Porowinitanga 0 Akarana") and the name of the block
of land concerned ("Parahirahi AI B me e") are embodied in the Maori text
1 The hand'wTiting for the English Deed entries is different on MNO and ABC. The latter has the Deed entries and the fi rst name in the owners list below' it in one hand .. and the rest of the names in in another hand. This is the same hand'w'riti ng used for the Deed entries and all of the o· ..... ·ners· names on MNO. 2 Given in AJHR 1895 G.-2 "Lands Purchased and Leased from Natives in North Island" [to 31 March 1895 .. p.2 "Part I. - Lands Fi nall 'J Acqui red. North of Auckland NO.7: Parahi rahi D.", as a grand total oft716-6-4 [Supplementary Documents]. But see my comments on thi::. matter belo\\I. 3 "pene" struck out and replaced b'J "hi ri ni" on both c:opie:j.
37
WAI-304 #C4
rather than being written into a space which has been left blank. This
tends to suggest that the translator was worki ng from the Engl i sh
versi on of the agreement fi 11 ed in as we see it now: that is, with the the
"consiljeraUon" and Hie name of the Block alread!d written in. The Maori
version of the agreement also differs from the English in incorporating a
translation of the Schedule which describes the boundaries of the block.
Below the translation is the Signature of J.H. Greenwayl, a
Licensed Interpreter, who certified that "the above is a true and clear
statement in the maori language of the withi n wri tten deed of transfer".
I have been told informally that this is in fact a reasonably goolj
renljit i on of tt-Ie Eng1 i sh te>~t. The Tri buna 1 will of course reach its own
conc 1 usi ons on thi s poi nt.
2) The Narnes
The 1 o'v'v'er half of page M 1 of the ~"1ND Deed is a form dhli ded into
thr-ee columns, as is a 11 of the reverse si de of the sheet. The centra lone
tia:3 a pri nted headi ng "Names of the 'v'endors". Bel OY,/' it have been
wntten forty-five (45) narnes, eighteen (18) on the front arllj (27) on the
back:. These ar-e not in fact the narnes of "vendors" at all: they inclwje
all of the indi"liduals who were listed on the ot-ders for Crown Grants for
Parahin:tt-li A, B arllj C Blocks which were issued by the Native Land Court
on October 15th, 18852 . Indeed} the names are listed on the Deed in
e:Y.:act 1 y Hie sarne sequence in whi ch they were 1 i sted on the Orders.
It rnust be emphasi zed that the presence of a name in tt-Ii s centra 1
co 1 urnn Ijoes not in an!J way i ndi cate that the person in questi on sold any
of his or her interest in Parahirahi to the Crown, nor does the sequence
of presentation have any bearing upon when a vendor sold any part of his
or t-Ier interest to tt-Ie Crown. It seerns certain that Hie names in the
central col urnn were so placed on the Deed in September of 1886, in the
e:x:pectation that all of these people were prepared to sell their interest
in Para~-lirahi. It v'/ould also have offered the Crov'lti agent or agents
1 Green'w'alJ seems to have been a mi nor official of some ki nd \ .... ho 'w'as familiar ""itt. Kai kohe area and people; see Boese} Tides of Historq , pp.171 and 173. 2 See WAI- 304 #A50A ea.pp. 11-17.
38
involved a means, as the process proceeded, of readlly determining what
proport ions of the shar-es in the Block had been accounted f or-.
The left column on pages til and A 1 has EI printed 11eElding .. "Signed
tty the sEli d" lsi cl. Thi s has at some poi nt been struck out in pencil on
page ~11 (but not on A 1), and the col umn was used f or the si gnatures of
the European witnesses. Trle left column on the reverse (pages ~12 and
A2), which l'las no heading, has been employed in the same way. The right
co 1 umn on both si des of the fi rst page has a pri nted rleadi ng "Si gnatures
of the Vendors", and has been used for this purpose. I would note here
Ulat all of Ule signatures of owners and witnesses on batt-I copies of the
Deed appear to be originals. It would seem thEltJ on any occasion when
one Deed 'was signed, exactly the same entries were made on the other.
3) Pl an arllj Schedul e
The bottom half of pages Oland C 1 bears a plan and ,jescri pt i on of
tJ-le PamrlirElhi Block. The texts of the Englist-I-language Schedules are
iljentical on bott-I Deeds. Tt-Ie plans (vvttich have felj outlining as specified
in Hie sale agreement) are also identical .. wiUI one exception -- the
titles. On pa~;1e 01 it is jrjentified as No. 2730; on page C 1 as NO.2730A.
It is difficult to understand WIly one plan should bear the number of the
i nit i a 1 1i:373 plan, and U'le ott-Ier Hlat of tt-Ie revi sed 1573 plan, when no
other di ff erences can be detected. I n any case J
1) neitlier of t.hese Plans shows t.he 1555 division of the Block into
Parflhimhi A, B Clnlj C. This presumably was beciJuse no plan of these
divisions was ever registered witti the DepElrtrnent of Land and Surveys.
Neither the original nor the modern Registers hEls Eln entry for such a
plan1.
1 See WAI- 304 #A46 for copies of the Parahi rahi pages from the origi nal Maori Land Plan Register. I examined the current register(l"laori Block Index No.19) mlJse1f. It lists the follow; ng on11J: Block Parahi rah;
A3} B1 C1 Al,A2})Cl Al.A2.Cl.D [v;:!ri':'!J:d
Plan 2730 2730A 27308 2730C 2730D 2730E 12957
By P. Cheal P. Cheal R. Neumann R. Neumann R. Neumann Compiled Compiled
Date 1873 1c:73 1895 1895 1895 1906 [sic] 1936
39
WAI-304 #C4
2) both Plans show the lands meant to be 'surrendered, conveyed, and
tlssured unto Her- t1tljesty the Queen' as including the whole of the
original Parat-drat'li Bloc~~, Again, U-lis was an accurate pot-trayal of ttle
Crown's i ntenti ons and expect at ions in Septernber of 1886,
The absence of any subdivision-markings on the Deed-plans may be
significant. It meant that 01ere were no extraneous markings or internal
boundaries on the Deed-plans which migt-It have lead a person looking at
these Ijocuments to mistak:enly conclude that the Crown was only
interested in purchasi ng a port i on of the Block,
As it stood in its two copi es at the end of September in 1886, the
Parahirahi Deed was a Ijocurnent tailor-made for a speCific sequence of
events, The Cmvvn was act i ng on the premi se that Hi ri ni T ai whanga
could and would deliver all of ttle shareholders in the three Blocks, readw
arllj 'yvi 11 i ng to si gn over- thei r- interests in return for a fi xed payment
equivalent to 20 pounds, 13 shillinqs and 3 pence per full share. This, in
the event, \hltlS not quite hovv thi nqs worked out.
The Purchase of Shares l 1886-1887
Relatively few of the Native Land Pur-chase Department's records
pertalmng to the PaFshirahi Block for the period before 1894 seem to
t-18'· ... 8 surviV8!j to tt-18 pr-es8nt. One exception, however, are financial
records relating the Cro\'vn's purchase of interests in the Block:, Using
tj-Ie vat-ious lists arllj ledgers I-ield by the National Archives, it has been
possible to reconstruct the history of its payments in relation to the
Block f or the peri od 1886-18941. Due to time restri ct i ons for thi s
resesrct'IJ it htls not been f easi b 1 e to locate the ori g1 ntl 1 vouchers
thernse 1 'lies (assurni ng, as rnay or may not be the case J that they are st ill
in existence).
1 The materiah exami ned at National Archives 'vIere AM·1K 999/9 List of O'vlners and Payment::;, t'1':lOri Land Sold to the Croyal, 1890s .. "Parattirahi A .. B & C 5097 acres"., and t'1At··1LP 7/3 Account::; Ledger Folio 5, to identify the voucher-numbers of payments made in res~iec:t of the Parahi rahi Blo(:k. A searctl 'vias then made of t'1A- MLP 7/10 Ac(:ounh .Journal 1885-1890, and t'1A- MLP 7/11 Accounts ,Journal 1890-1895, for summaries of the vouchers (:oncerned [Supplementary Do(:umenb]. The next step in research 'w'ould be to find the TreasunJ Vouchers 'vIhose nljmbers are given in 7/10 and 7/11.
40
V·l A 1-3(J4 #[4
A lthough records of thi s ki nd are better than none at all; they must
be used wi th a certai n degree of caution. All that the Accounts Ledgers
really show, fot- certain, is that Crown agents claimed on trle basis of
signed receipts to have paid over specified amounts of money to
specified people on the dates given; for the purposes stated. In my
opinion we can be fairly confident that the money was paid out as
c 1 ai rned: i nterna 1 accounti ng procedures woul d have ensured that the
paperwork was correct; and I have seen no evidence whatsoever to
suggest that the Parahirahi owners whose Signatures are on the Deeds
did not receive money from the Crown in respect of the Parahirahi Block.
The central issue I-Iere is what they thought the Crown was gett ing for
its rnoney.
! Hii nk we can also assume that the dates of tile vouchers bear a
close relationship to Hie dates on wI-lie:!", the recipients of the monew
in'·lo1\"elj placed their Signatures or marks on the Deeds. I would in fact
tie sur-pri sed if the Cro'y'y'n agent ,ji ,j not i nsi st inmost or all cases that
payrnent and ::;; gni ng take p 1 ace tit the same time. A possi bil ity remtii ns;
twwe'·ier, HIM sorne of the owners placed tllei r si ~~natures or rnarks on
Hie Deed on Ei di ff er-ent day than that on whi ch they si gned a voucher to
acknov,"l e1jge the recei pt of payment fr-om the Crown. One i ndi vi due 1; as
I/,ie sha 11 see; took tI-le rnoney but di d not si gn the Deed. I n any ctise .. I
ha'.,.'e prTlceedelj on the assumpt i on that the dates qi ven on recei pts
usua 11 y correspond to the dates on whi ch the Deeds were si gned.
Possi b le excepti ons have of course been notelt
Tt·le Crown's acquisition of interests in tile Parahirahi Block got
underway in earnest on December 10th, 1886. Six individual s received
sums of money as "Payment in full for interest in Parahirahi Block" -
thi s; at 1 east; thi s WtiS the e~<p 1 tintiti on recorded when the vouchers were
entered into Hie Native Land Purchase Department's Accounts JournaP.
The details are as follows (with the inforrnation in "Notes" being added
from the 1885 Land Court Orders; C1 ted elsewhere):
1 National Arctlives f"-1A- MLP 7/10 Accounts .Journal 1885-1890} vouchers 1886- 2076-20;:::2 (TreasunJ VO!Jehers Nos. 64648- 64654) [Supplementary Documents].
41
WAI-304 #(4
Name: \loucher: Payment: Notes:
Name: \.-'oucher: Payment: Notes:
Name: 'v'oucher: Payment: Notes:
Name: Voucher: Payrnent: Notes:
Narne: Vouct-Ier: Pa'dment: Notes:
Name: 'v'ouc/ler: Pa~dment: Notes:
Name: \/oucher: Payment: Notes:
Paki Te Ripi [ 1886-87/] 2076 £3/8/10 1885 list # 1; 1/6 share.
Te Teira Raumati [1886-871] 2077 £20/13/3 18851ist #18; 1 share.
Kateri na T e Av,ta [ 1886-87/] 2078 £20/13/3 1885 11 st # 19; 1 share.
Ki rti T e Uaua [1886-87/J 2079 £,20/13/3 1685 1 i st #32; 1 shar-e.
Ti opi ra I<ai v'taU
[ 1 c,ob- -'-'7 /] '-"no'-'n uu 0, "-v v
£. ·")tJ/ 1-:<: 1-:<: L... ....11 "_,£
1685 1 i st #39; 1 share.
Hohaia Tara [1886-67,/] 2061 £ ")r)/17/~ .""",t. * ... ).j
l8Ci5 1 i st # 40; 1 share.
Riy. ... hi Tete [ 1886-87 IJ 2082 £20/13/3 1865 1 i st # 41; 1 share.
An examination of the Deeds shows that all of these individuals had
signed tt"leir O'y'vTI names at the appropriate places on pages M 1 and A 1 of
t.he two co pi es. All had the same witnesses J whi cti tends to suppor-t trle
iljea that the si gnatures wer-e made at one meet. i ng.
42
V/AI-304 #(:4
The first witness in each instance, was James S. Clendon, the
(:ro'vvn's pWTtiasing agent -- the Accounts Ledgers shoy,,, him to have been
tt-Ie person making H-Ie payment for the Crown in all these cases1.
C1 enljon si gne1j in hi s capacity as "Resi dent 1'1agi strate, Whangarei". Tt-Ie
second witness was George F. Dickeson "Storekeeper, Kaikohe". The
i nvo 1 vernent of Di ckeson, a pr-omi nent Kai kohe merchent, tends to suggest
that this first transaction took place in this town. Given the wide ranqe
of his cornrnercial inter-ests, and the fact that he had lived in the area
since at least 1876, it seerns likely that Dickeson would have known
most or Ij 11 of the vendors persona 11 y2.
Tv'l'o other features of these i ni t i al transactions shoul d be noted.
The fi rst are the speci fi c sums i nvo 1 ved. C1 endon pai rj out £20/13/3
each to the si>~ inrjividuals V'/t-IO held a full share in Perahiratii, and
£3,/13,/10 to one person wi tti one-si >~th of a share. These v'/ere wa::; preci se 1 y the amounts specifi ed in the agreement reached by the Crown
with Hi ri ni T ai wflanga in August of 11366, by whi ct-I a tot a 1 of £764/1 1/0
\'voullj be pai d for all of Hie shares in the Block: -- v"/fli ch works out to
£20/13/3 for eact'l of Hie 37 shares. Tt-Ie second featw-e is the
correspondence of the sequence of voucher nurnbers to the sequence of
1665 owners. Cl enljon apparently pai d the owners off in stri ct order of
thei r place on the 1 atter -- v"it'li ch is the sequence in wtii ch the narnes had
been placed on Hie Deerjs H-Ie previous September,
Three more si gnatures were aljded to the Deed bef ore the end of
1666. On December 26tJI the followinq received "Pa~ment in full for-~ ~
interest in Parahirat'li Block":
Narne: Voucher: Pal~ment:
Notes:
Whai Te Hoke [ 1666-67 /J 2105 £,20/13/3 113651ist #12; 1 share.
1 Clendon is listed as the negotiati ng agent for Parahi rahi in the A,.JHR reports coveri ng the period 1886- Jul y 1888 [Supplementary Documents]. 2 Dickeson, among other things, o\,/ned general stores in Kaikohe and Nga .... /ha, did "a large trade" in gum, ran a public hall acted as a \ .... 001 broker, and vlas reckoned to be "the pri nGi pal ::;tock auctioneer of the north" with his monttll y ~;ales at Ohaea\\,'ai; see The Cyclope,jia of Nev Zea18nd. Volume 2.-- Auckland Provincial Di~trict, V.2 (1902) p.571 and p.576. Hi~ presence in 1876 is noted in Boese, Tides of History, p.170.
43
WAI-304 #C4
Narne: Voucl-Ier: Payment: Notes:
Name: 'y'oucher: Payment: Notes:
Kato V'lhakaita [ 1666-67/1 2106 £,20/13/3 1885 list #25; 1 share.
Ka Te Ao [1866-67/] 2107 £.20/13/3 1885 1 i st #34; 1 share.
The first two people listed signed trle Deed themselves, wrlile Ka Te Ao
made her mark. The witnesses, again, were Clendon and Dickeson and,
agai n, the payrnents f 0 11 owe,j the T ai whanga f orrnul a and were rnalje in
order of the 1685 list of o'vvners.
Nothi ng rnore seems to have happened for a month. Tt-Ien, on 5
February 1687} ten rnore sharerll) 1 ders accepted payments from the
Crown. Tt-Iey included:
Name: \loucher: Payment: Notes:
Name: 'v'oucher: Payment: Notes:
Name: Voucher: Payment: Notes:
Name: Voucher: Payment: Notes:
Narne: \/ouctier: Payment: Notes:
Hemi Te Ripi [1886-87/] 2558 £.3/8/10 1885 list #3; 1/6 share.
Mere Renata Pure (1886-87lj 2559 £.6/17/9 1885 list #7; 1/3 share.
Hori Pure [ 1886-87/1 2560 £.6/17/9 1885 list #9; 1/3 st-Iare.
Umukuri Whakai tf! [ 1886-87/1 2561 £,20/13/3 1885 list # 11; 1 shat-e.
Mereama Kauea [1886-87/J 2562 £.6/17/9 188511st #14; 1/3 share.
44
\"'lAI-304 #[:4
Name: Voucher: Payment: Notes:
Name: \."oucher: Payment: Notes:
Name: Voucher: Pa~Jment: Notes:
Name: Voucher: Payrnent: Notes:
Narne: \!ouct-Ier: Payment: Notes:
Henare Kauea [ 1666-67 /J 2563 £6/17/9 1665 list # 15; 1/3 share.
Watene Kauea [ 1866-87/] 2564 £6/17/9 1885 list # 16; 1/3 stiat-e.
Henare Hamiora Hau [ 1886-67,1] 2565 £,41/6/6 1665 li st #26; 2 shares.
Nopere Te k~ipi [1886-87./] 2566 £ .'"1 ~ /17 1-.LV .jl.)
1665 list #36; 1 stHlre.
''I\irlare Ngakau [1666-87/] 2567 £'"' .~/ 17 / 7 LI.) ~:.~)
1885 list #37; 1 stiat-e.
F our of U-Iese people si gned the Deed thernse 1 ves and three made thei r
mar-ks ne:>{t to Hlei r names, whil e Ratahi Kauea si gned the Deed as
Trustee for the three rernaining ownersl. Clendon and Dickeson acted as
v· ... itnesses for all ten siqnatures, and the amounts and sequence of
payment f 0 11 owed the same pat terns as the Decernber payrnents.
\,1·/111 i arn P. Kemp seems to have been present on thi s occasi on.
Kernp had interpreted for Judge Puckey dW-ing the Native Land Court
hearing on the subdivision of Parahit-ahi during October of 18852 , and on
Fet'n~ary 5HI he received 8 guinea (21 shillings, or £ 1/1/0) from Clendon
on this date for "Services as interpreter natives signing Parahirahi 8-;c"3.
This was apparently the standard fee for one day's work of
1 I have not, in the ti me available, been able to fi nd any information pertai ni ng to the source of Ratahi Kauea'a powers as Trustee. 2 t'1inutes for 15 Oct. 1885.; WAI-304 #A50A (:a.p.7. 3 National Archives t1A-f1LP 7/10 Accounts .Journal 1885-1890, voucher No. [1887/] 2568 [SlJpplementary [)o(:lJmentsl.
45
VlAI-304 #C4
interpretation. In this instance, 1t tends to indicate that all of the
persons recei vi ng payrnent on February 5th si gned the Deeds the same
day.
By the time the February payments had been camp 1 ete1j, twenty of
the f orty-fi '.,.'e owners named in the 1885 Nat i ve Umd Court Orders for
Parahirahi A, Band C had signed the Deeds, or had had the Deeds signed
on thei r behalf, withi n the space of two months. Hi ri ni T ai whanga, of
course, had also been paid £25 "on account" for Parahirahi in April of
1886. Although he had not si gned the Deed at that time -- it not yet
being in e:x:istence -- and had not done so by early 1887, the Crown
consi dered that hi s share had been properl y purchased1. These 21
irlljlviduals halj held the equivalent of 17 full shares out of the 37 extant
-- sante 46.0% of the total interest -- lnclwjing one person with two
shares, i 3 (including Taiwhanga) yo/ith one, five with one-thinj, and two
v ... ·ith one-si xth of a share.
Ttlese developments seern to represent the imp 1 ementat i on of
Hirini Taiv·thanga·s scheme for U-Ie sale of the Parahirarli Block to the
Ct-OV·/n. He had offered to deliver all of the shares for EI fixed pr-ice.
'w'i tJ-1i n the space of two months a si gnifi cant pr-oport i on of Uie
srIi3ret-lI) 1 ders ti8d indeed made contact wi th the Crown's representat i 'ole,
received tJ-leir a~;si~~ned share of that price and signed two copies of a
Deed wt-licl-I laid out H-lis agreernent quite clearly in both English and
t'1aori.
I t then took anoUler ei ght monUls for Ule Crown to accomp 1i St-I as
rnuch again as had just been done in two. This may have been due, in part
at least, to problems associated with finding and making arrangements
with owners who did not live in the Kaikohe area.
I f the twenty peop 1 e pai din December of 1886 and February of
1887 Ijid not li"le in and around Kaikohe, they had been willing and/ot
able to travel to this point. The Crown had to ~o further afield
thereafter. ~'1arch of 1887 saV1 four more owners recei vi ng payments.
Tv .... o were rnade on t"1arch 9th:
1 See bel 01,-/ .
46
V'/AI-304 #(4
Narne: 'v'ouctier: Payment: Notes:
Name: '''/oucher: Payment: Notes:
Paora Ururoa [ 1666-67 I] 2777 £20/13/3 1685 list #43; 1 share.
Arama Whakapeke [ 1886-67/1 2778 £20/13/3 1865 list #44; 1 share.
Paora Ururoa's siQnature on the Deed was witnessed b!-l T.W. Lewis, the ~ ~
Under-Secretary of the Land Purchase Offi ce, and by [1 endon. y.,.'hakapeke's was witnessed b~J (1 endonJ and by a Russell constable (the
8i gnature appears to be 'A 1 e>~ander ~1cSi 1 p'). The di ff eri ng sets of
witnesses for these two signatures may indicateJ date notwithstanding,
thM these two payrnents and si gni ngs were done separate 1 YJ perhaps in
Russell.
Two rnore payrnents were rnade in ~1arct-IJ one on nle 16th to Hirini
Taivv'hanga's broUler:
Name: 'v'oucrler: Payrnent: Notes:
Name: \,.'OLJct-ler: Payment: Notes:
T e Matenga T ai whang a [1886-87/] 2776 £ .'),~, '1 7 / 7 .L\.I/ ~) ~)
i 865 1 i st #30; 1 shat-e.
Herepata Pure [1886-87/] 2775 £.6/17/9 1685 1 i st #44.: 1/3 share.
Te ~1atenga Taiwhanga's Signature was witnessed by (lendonJ and by
Douglas Gordon, a 'w'tlangerei constable. Pure's was witnessed by [lendon, and by G.'w'.S. Patterson of Kaikohe. These addresses of the witnesses suggest that the pawnents were made in Whangerei anlj
f<a1 kohe, respect i vel y, /j lthough other evi dence i nlji c/jtes that Pure rn/jY t-la\,Ie been pai d at Vv'a1 mate 1.
1 A payment for t 1/17/6 'Was made by Clendon on 26 Mareh to H. Cheeseman for "Horsehi re .JS Clendon Waimate and back t-1arch 21-25."(Voucher No.2779). It should be noted here that
47
'wAi-304 #[:4
There was a ~1i Mus in the payments between t1arch and August,
broken only by one tn:ltlsact ion. Thi s took place on t'1ay 20th:
Name: \,.-'oucher: Payment: Notes:
Rukia Koao [1887-88/] 298 £,20/13/3 1885 list # 17; 1 share.
Thi s payrnent was made by J.S. [1 endon. He was assi sted by an
interpreter S .. J. Edrnonds, who explained the Deed to Koao1, and also by
Hi r-i ni T ai whanga, who a month 1 ater was rei mbursed by [1 endon for
"E::{penses [i ncurred in] obtai ni ng si gnature of nati ve to Parahi rahi deed
21 l"1ay"2. (This voucher-, by the way, seems to be the only direct evidence
of Taiv'lhan~ja's involvernent in the sale process during this period). Ruf(ia
Koao's Signature rnay have been placed on the Deeds in Aucklarllt It was
\'vitnessed bid "J. Macfarlane, J.P." anlj "S.R. Ta\Nton Accountant".
1'1acfarlane was an Auckland r-1erchant"3.
August and September of 1887 saw brought three mot-e payments
to Parahi rahi OV·iners. The fi rst of these was made by [1 endon on August
22rliJ
Narne: 'v'ouct'ler: Payment: Notes:
Hita Koao [1887-681] 425 £ .'if',/17/~ .L.I...J/ .).)
1885 list #24; 1 share.
the sequence of voucher-numbers for the t1arch payments is the reverse of the date sequence. The fact that all of these palJments had to be put into the accounts for the 1877- 78 fiscal year (rather than those for the one in 'v,lhich they 'vlere made) may explain this anomaly: see the entries for these payments in MA- t1LP 7/10, all of 'w'hich have the notation "Payment in full for interest in Parahi rahi Block. 1 fIcl. by Treasury in 1887 Accounts, see fIOS. 7-10 p.114." [SlJpplementanJ Documents]. As noted belo'w', this also explai ns a major discrepanc1J in the A . ..IH~: palJment reports. 1 Edmonds 'w'as paid £.1/1/0 by Clendon on t'1ay 20th for "I nterpreti ng Parahi rahi deed to RlJkia Koao a seller"[sic:]; see National Archives MA- t'1LP 7/10 Accounts • .Journal 1885-1890.. voucher No.[ 1887- 88/] 280 [Supplementary Documents]. 2 See National Archive~ MA- t-1LP 7/10 Accounts Journal 1885-1890. voucher No.[ 1887-8eil 330 of 17 June 18a7, for £.3/0/0 [Supplementary Do(:uments} .. :3 See t'1acf;jrlane'~;affidavitof 11 June .. 1889 .. inWAI-304#A50Aca.p.p.28 (the original is in D03L1 Wellin9ton, Deed #1886 file). This is discussed further beloW'.
48
Koao S1 qne1j hi s own name on the Deeljs 1. The si qnatures of hi s witnesses - ~
are not '.,.'erq readable, but one \h,'as a Darqaville storekeeper (John ~ ~
t'1itchelson). An interpr-eter, '.,.villiam A. r··1afTiner, was also involved. in
this payrnent2.
The next payment carne four days 1 ater, on August 26th:
Name: \/oucher: Payment: Notes:
Neho Koao 11887-88/] 426 £20/1313 1885 1 i st #"33; 1 share.
Net-,o Koao's signature was witnessed tly a 'w'aimate J.P. namelj Davis, and
by Chat-] es A. Fa 1 k1 ner., and Ohaeawai settler.
Clendon e"iidently returned to Dargaville a month later. On Sept.
19th, again with the assistance of VrA. ~·1arTiner as inter-preter3 , he rnade
Hie f 0 11 0 ......... 1 nq pa4rnent:
Name: 'v'ouct·ler: Payrnent: Notes:
Pene Ti ki nui Popata [ 18Ci7 -CiEI/] 507 £,20/13/3 1335 list #31.: 1 share.
Popata's mark on tt-Ie Deeds was "lv'itnesselj by Frederic Horton[?L J.P., and
,John r···li tct-Ie 1 son, boHI of Dargavi 1184 .
1 A letter 'Written in 1895 states that a former Parahi rahi shareholder named "Hita"1ived at t-1aropi u (near Dargaville); see letter of June 13, 1895, HA- HLP 1 1906/63 [95/274], in WAI- 304 #"824 p.7. 2 See National Archives t·1A- HLP 7/10 Accounts ,Journal 1885- 1890, voucher No.[ 1887-88/] 427 of 22 Aug, 1887, for £ 1 1110 for "I nterpreti ng etc re Parahi rahi sale to Govt." [Sup~llementary Documents]. :3 See National Archives MA-t-1LP 7/10 Accounts ,Journal 1885-1890, voucher No.[ 1887-88/J 51 I) of 19 Sept. 1887, for £. 1/110 for "Interpreting re sale of interest of Pene Tikinui Papfltfl in Parahi rahi block" [Supplementary Documents], 4 A leHer written in 1895 states that a former Parahi rahi shareholder named "Pene Ropata" hie] lived fIt f'1aropiu (near Dargavi1le); see letter of June 13, 1895, ,'1A-,'1LP 1 1906/63 [95/274], in WAI- 304 #"824 p.7.
49
A month after this purchase was made, an event took place in
Waimate North which had a bearing on subsequent developments. It appears tt-Iat two of tt-Ie owners narned on the Parahirahi subdivision Order-s -- Ri ri a Moetuturu and T amat i Whakai ta -- rlad di ed before the
Orders were issued on 15 Oct. 1885. Appllcations for Succession Orders
had in fact already been filed for both of their shares, by Erueti Hone Kingi "anlj otl"lers"l. Then, in March of 1886, Hirini Taiwrlanga also app 11 elj for Successi on Orders f or these two owners2 , as, on 14 May
1886, did Umukuri Whakaita3.
All of these cases were heard by the Native Land Court at Waimate
North on 19 October-.. 1887. Judge Puckey presided once again. He
disrnissed the application of Erueti Hone Kinqi and Ere r"1atiu to succeelj
Ti:lmati t1akaita. However, he aWElrded them succession to RiriEl
t-1oetuturu's shtwe in Parahirahi A, Band C. Urnu~~uri Whak:aita, on the other tvmd .. lost on hi SEIPP 1 i cati on to succeed Ri ri a t"10etuturu, but WEIS Elvv'anjelj t-Ialf of Tarnati t1akaita's shar-e (the other half going to Te Hutana
Epar-aima and t"'larElra Eparaima). The only one left out entirely was Hirini
Taiwhanga, boU-1 of whose claims were dismissed.
Bare 1 Y a week after the new Successi on Orders had been made, on
28 Oct. 1887, most of the shElres involved were pur-ctlE1sed by the Crov'n"!.
TV10 oHler pUf-cflase:; were also made b~ James Clendon on October 26U-1. Tt-Iey involved original 1885 owners:
Name: \/oucher: Payrnent: Notes:
Name: Voucher: Payment: Notes:
MarfJra langa [ 1887 -88/1 647 £20/13/3 1885 list # 13; 1 share.
Hare Rewet i Puatata [ 1887 -88/1 646 £,20/13/3 1885 list #29; 1 share.
1 See National Archives (Auckland) MLC-A 2/11 #$ 85/2219 and 8512221 .. p. 1 and p. 27. Both applications 'oj/ere received blJ the Native Land Court on 21 Sept. 1885 2 See National Archives (Auckland) MLC-A 2/11 #$ 86/437 and 86/439., p. 8. Both a~,plications 'were rec:eived by the Native Land Court on 12 March 1886. :3 See National Archives (Au(:kland) MLC-A 2/11 #$ 86/1163 and 86/1165, p. 12 and p. 26. Both appli(:ations 'Were received b'J the Native Land Court on 14 M81J 1886.
50
VlAI-304 #[:4
The other two purchases were:
Name: Voucher: Payment: Notes:
Name: Voucher: Payment: Notes:
Umukuri Whakai ta [ 1887 -88l] 649 £10/6/7 1885 list #35 (succession); 1/2 share.
Erueti Hone I<i ngi and "another" [Ere Mati u] [ 1887 -88/] 650 £20/13/3 1885 list #23 (succession); 1 share.
The Signatures of langa, Kingi and t'1atiu on the Deeds were witnessed by
EI V ... 'ai mate R~si dent ~1a!~i strate (possi b 1 Y "Davi s") and by J.R. Ree1j, a
Kawaka'",va sol i ci tor. The 8i gnatures of Puatata and 'v,lhakai ta were
'vvi tnessed by Cl endon and by Geot-ge Di ckeson of Kai kohe. They had also
wi tnessed Urnukuri Whakai ta's si !;}nature when he had si gned the Deeljs
for his own share on or about 5 Febr-uary 1887 (see above).
By the erllj of the day on October 28th, 1887, the CrovvTI had
e>::pended 588 pounds, six stiillinqs and flvepence on the acquisition of
interests in the Parahi rahi Block. It c 1 Eli med (or v,toul d have, if askelj) to
t·ia\,'8 pun:t-!ased all of the i nter-ests or 31 of Hie 45 o'Yvners narned in Hie
1885 Orders (i nc 1 udi ng Hi ri ni T ai whanga), plus ha 1f of the interest of one
of those owners. Tl1i s arnounte!j to the equi val ent of 27 5,/6 of the 37
st-Iares in the Block -- some 75.2% in alP. The following list outlines the
status of individual owners at this tirne (numbering follows the 1885
Onjers.: B dash [--] i ndi cates that no payrnent had been recei ved fr-orn the
Crown):
No. Narne & Shares Status
01 Te Ripi., Paki [1/6] Sale 10 Dec. 1 BB6 02 Te Ri pi, Wi rernu (SrJ [1/6] 03 Te Ripi, Herni [1/6] Sale 5 Feb. 1887 04 Te Ripi, Matiu [1/6] 05 TeRipi,Mikara [1/6] 06 T e Ri pi, y./i rernu (JrJ [ 1 /6]
1 Included in thi~i figure is one double ::illare.; 21 sinqle shares.: one 1/2 share.; seven 1/3 :3h~re::.; ~nd h/o 1/6 :::hilre::..
51
V-lAI-304 #(4
07 08 09 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
24 ··,e L·.J
26
.. j.-. ~CI
29 30 31 7---, ·.)L
33 34 35
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Pure, f1ere Renata [1/3] Pure, Herepeta [1/3] Pure .. Hori [1/3] Tahvhanga, Hirini [1] \Alhakaita, Umukuri [1] T e Hoka, Whai [1] langa .. t'larara [1] Kauea, t'1ereana [1/3] Kauea, Henare [1/31 Kauea, w'atene [ 1/3] Koao, Ruki a [1/3] Raurnati, T e T ei ra [ 1] Te A \·va, Katari na [1] Tupe, Hernara [11 Hikirangi [1] Hi ku [1] t1oetuturu, Riria [11 Koao, Hita [1] V,lhakaita .. Kato [11 Marupo, Te Tane [1] f<aru, Te Honi ana [ 1] Hau, Henare Harniora [2] Puataata .. Hare Re'vvati [1] Taiwhanga .. Te f1atenga [11 Popata .. Pene Pi ki nUl [1] Te Uaua, l<it"ti [1] NerIO, Hera [11 Te Ao, Ka [1] \.\lhakaita .. Tar-nat i [11
T e Pi pi, Nopere [1] Ngakau, Vv'hare [ 11 Har-atua, Te T ane [1] Kairau, Tiopira [11 Tara .. Hohaia [11 Tete, Riwhi [11 Tuhi rangi .. Hone [1] Ururoa, Paora [1] Whakapeke, Arama [11 Poakatahi, Komene [11
Sale 5 Feb. 1887 Sale 23 Maret-I 1887 Sale 5 Feb. 1887 Pyrnt. "on account" 29 April 1886 Sale 5 Feb. 1887 Sale 28 Dec. 1886 Sale 28 Oct. 1887 Sale 5 Feb. 1887 (Trustee) Sale 5 Fetl. 1887 (Trustee) Sale 5 Feb. 1887 (Trustee) Sale 20 May 1887 Sale 10 Dec. 1886 Sale 10 Dec. 1886
r-1- ·')0 O-·t 18°' tty cuc·-·-C'r·c·-,..·'j ;:It! I:! L.LI L.. ILl { \ I. _, .L.I:!~.,:. If ~.
Sale 22 Aug. 1887 Sale 28 Dec. 1886
Sale 5 Feb. 1887 Sale 28 Oct. 1887 Sale 16 t·1arct-1 1887 Sale 19 Sept. 1887 Sale 10 Dec. 1886 Sale 26 Aug. 1887 Sale 28 Dec. 1886 Sale of 1/2 .. 28 Oct.1887 (by Successor) Sale 5 Feb. 1887 Sale 5 Feb. 1887
Sale 10 Dec. 1886 Sale 10 Dec. 1886 Sale 10 Dec. 1886
Sale 9 March 1887 Sal e 9 f1arch 1887
52
All of the purchases rnade between February and October of 1887
f1 tted the same pattern as those bef ore in one respect. Without
e:,::ception, all conformed with the Crown's earlier arrangement v-lith
Hi ri ni T ai'vvhanga w~lereby it agreed to pay a fi xed pri ce for the
Parahi ratii 610ck, one whi ch translated into £20/ 13/3 for a full share.
E ..... en persons who had succeeded to shares after the deal had been struck}
who would not have had any reason to consider trlemselves bound by it,
had accepted payment at the same rate. The results} however} were not
conc 1 usi ve. As far as can be judged from the 11 mi ted evi dence avail ab 1 e}
the CroV'tn expected to have purchased all of the interests in the 610ck
within a t-elatively short space of tirne. Ten months after the payments
had begun it was still well short of this goal.
Nor was it to get much closer for sorne time to come. Ttie
£,20/13/3 paitj to Erueti Kingi and Ere t·1atiu proved to be nle last rnoney
'vvhich anq Parahirahi owner would accept from nle Crown for his or her
shares for Shi monnlS. In fact} the rrlOney pa1 1j out on the 28th of Octotler
iii 1887 alone, woul d prove to be 'y·ve 11 i n e~<cess of tiie total pai d out o· ... 'er
the \-"1["1018 of Hie n8>~t six ~ears. Tt"18 Crown's purchase of U"le Para["lirat"1i
Block ground to a halt Elt this point in tirnB.
WAI-304 #[4
Taiwhanga, the Purchase and the Crown, 1887-1869
'wllY Hlis should t-Iave happened is not at all clear. An obvious
possibility would be that the 1886-87 sales represented the adherents
of the "Committee" selling out their interests without informing the
'opposition' of what was going on, and that the Crown had simply run out
of people who had previously agreed to sell their shares. An analysis of
the "non-sellers" at the end of October 1887, however, shows that only
si:~ of the thirteen people listed for block "B" in February of 1885 (see
above) were part of this groupl. In other words, more than half of them
rlad participated in the Taiwhanga arrangement. While the remainder
made up a significant portion of the 1887 non-sellers, they were not the
on14 ones.
It seems certain, on Hie other- hand, that Hirini Taiwhanga tlimself
had EI si gnifi cant part to pI Ely in the tetTni nail on of sal es to the Crown.
As noted previously, Taiwhanga had been paid £25 "on account" for the
Paratliratli Block: in Apr-n of 1886. The question is, what was Hlis
payment understood to be for? By the middle of 1867 Taiwhanga and trle
Crown t-Iad adopted different opinions on this point. On July 13th,
Taiwhanga apparently wrote a letter to the ~1inister of Justice,
cornp I ai ni n!~ that he was owed money by the Crown "on account of Ule
Parat-lirat-Ii Block". Tt-iis letter ......... as forwarded to Hie Nattve Minister,
Jot-In Ba 11 ance., to be deBit with, and on Jul y 23rd T.'w'. Lewi s of the Land
PUtTt-lfr3e Departrnent wrote to T ai whanga. He stated:
I arn di rected by t"lr. Ba 11 anee to i nf orm you in reply that there is no rnoney ,jue to you on account of the Parat"li rahi block:. Tl"le value of your interest in the land was twenty pounds trlirteen shi 11 i n!~s and three pence, the amount bei ng pai d to you bei ng twenty-five pounds. 2
In short., the Land Purchase Department was argUing that Taiwhanga's
status was the same as that of any other shareholder} emd that its only
obligation to him in respect of the Crown's acquisition of the Parahirahi
1 Hikurangi, Hiku} Te Tane t1arlJpo} Te Tane HaratlJa., Hone Tuhirangi and Komene Poakatahi. 2 I pttpr of ?J; .111111 1 '::R7 frtlrf' T W 11>'.,/1<>; til C; f) T>'Ih,/h>'lM):\' N):\t1.-.n$!l al-,'hhIP<>; I'1t.- HI D
~""";-~'I .... J _ .......... ''':' __ '-"', •• vrt' 1 ....... • ... " ...... • ...... _ ... •• , ..... U """"":1"".1 .,· ............ ,· .... 1, ...... 1, •• '10"" ....... 1 .,~'
3lS0ut'w'sraS LetterbooK i883-88., p. 678 NLP 87/24i [Supplementary Documents]. The 'w'ritten sums are reproduced in numerical form in the left margin8.
54
VlAI-304.tT4
Block was to pay the agreed fi xed rate f or one share. Lewi s poi nted out
ttlat Uie Apr-il 1886 payment more that covered this amount.
This was not the end of the matter, by any means. Taiwhanga
wrote another complaint on January 25th,1888. In the interim, in the
general election held in September of 1887, he had become the M.H.R. for
Not-trlern Maori. The election had also resulted in Ballance, who had been
Native Minister since 1884, being replaced by Edwin Mitchelson. Once
again, we do not have Taiwhanga's letter. Mltctlelson's reply, written on
28 January, 1888, stated1:
I have the honor to ackno'vvl edge the recei pt of your 1 etter of the 25th instant with regard to your claims connected with the Paralii rahi Block.
In repl~d I have to infor-m you that the Governrnent having considerelj the SUbject and after having received a cornmuni cati on frorn the 1 ate Native Mi ni ster [Ball emce] derlldl n!~ certal n all egat ions you t"lave made I cannot re-open t~le question of your claims, nor admit any liabil1ty respecting them. I have a1 so to add that the negoti at ions for the pl~rchase of tt"le 1 and cannot be re 1 i nqui shed nor can the Crown forego any of U-Ie interests vvhicrl it has acquired.
I have [etc.]
Tai'vvhanga's allegations had thus been consiljer-ed sufficiently serious to
have been considered by "Government" (presumably the Cabinet), but had
been jUtjged to be without substance.
Going by the evidence available, such as it is, one might speculate
that Taiwhanga was claiming that Ballance had given him a verbal go
ahead to ext i ngui sh those mysteri ous "pri vate c lai ms" hangi ng over the
Parahirahi Block in mid-1886 1 and that he now insisted on being
rei mtlursed for hi s all eged expenditures. The new M.H.R. apparent 1 y argued that the Government's fail ure to meet its ob 1 i gail ons in thi s
respect shoul d be Ijeemed suffi ci ent cause to negate the purchasi ng
operat ions v'Itii ch had taken place to date.
1 Letter of 28 ,Jart. 1888. from E. ~"1itche1son to S.D. Tai'w'hanQa; National Archives t"lA- t1LP 3/5 Ouhlards Letterbook j 883-88 .. p. 748 HLP 88/24 [Supplementary Documenb}.
55
Tt-Ie Government did not accept Taiwhanga's interpretation of
events, emd was not pr-epared to abemdon its investment of nearly £600 in
Ule Par-ahi rat"ti Block. Thi s rather uncompromi si ng at t i tude may have
been due .. in part, to a draft bill which Hirini Taiwhanga was in the
process of circulating -- a copy of which had apparently reachelj the Land
Purchase Department in or before December of 18871. I have not been
ab 1 e to di scover much about thi s "Sydney T ai whanga and 15 others
Compensation Bill". It appears that the bill itself was never formally
1 ai d before the House, and none of the extensi ve Nati ve Department
correspondence relating to it seems to have survived. One gathers thot it
related to the 'Tunapohepohe" Block as well as with Paratilrahl -- the
connection apparently being that many of the same people had interests
in the two blocks -- and that the c 1 ai m for cornpensati on arose frorn
some ki nd of transaction in tt/e earl y 1870s.
Trtis matter requires furttler investigation, since it obviously htllj
an irnportant beari n!;\ upon the re 1 at i onshi p between the Crown atilj the
Parat-drahi owners in the late 1880s. For the mornent, 011 thot con be
said is that the Government refused to compromise wiUI Hirini
Taivv'hanga. On 6 June, 1888, the Native ~1inister wrote to him stating2 :
! t-IClve tJ"le t-,onor to return t-lerewitt"1 the accompanying draft of a Bi 11 respecting the Parahi rahi block and to i nf orm you that Hie Governrnent is uneb 1 e to consent to the propose 1 s therei n contained.
Thi s response probetd!-l kill ed on!-l prospect thot the Crown wou1 d be ob 1 e ~ ~
to cornplete its purcrlase of the Paratiirarli Block in tt-Ie foreseeable
future.
Bet ween October of 1887 and the date of this letter} James
C1endon had been able to make only one acquisition. A payment was made
on Apri 1 13th, 1888:
1 Re'~i3ter entry for t-1A 1/1887/3038 i ndicate3 that Le'w'i3 3ent a copy of the Bill to the Native t-1inhter on 2 Dec. 1887. TalY/hanga 3ent a copy direct on 28 ,Jan. 1888 (Register entry for MA 1/1888/157). 2 National Archives MA- MLP 3/6 Out'wards Letterbook 1888- 93} p. 63 [no Reg. #] [Suppiementary Document3]. This letter does not have an NLP registration number., and 'vias probabllJ a COPIJ supplied by the Native Mi nister's office for the Department's information.
56
WAI-304 #[:4
Name: Voucher: Payment:
Matiu Te Ripi [1888-89.1] 30 £3/8/10
Notes: 1885 list #4; 1/6 share.
Te Ripi's signature was witnessed by Clendon, and by Constable Charles
Hughes of Kawakawa. The next payment for Parahirahi shares did not
take pI ace unt i I September of 1890.
The "non-sellers" in mid-1888 (Hirini Taiwhanga apparently
acknowledge,j having sold his share, but claimed that he had not been
pai d for it accordi ng to hi s ogreement with the Crown) were:
02 T e ~~i pi .. Wi remu (Sr.) [ 1/6J 05 Te Ripi, ~1ik8ra [1/6J 06 Te Pi pi, V·li t-ernu (.Jr.) [1/6]
20 Tupe, Hernanl [1]
21 Hikirangi [ 1 ] •• ,) "~I Hiku [1] ~.i-
26 fv1erupo .. Te Tane [1]
27 Karu. Te Honiana [1] 35 ~;uccessors to \io/hakaita.. Tamati r 1 I· ..... ] l ,.:..
38 Haratua, Te Tane [1] 4·-' "L. Turli ran!~i .. Hone [ 1J 45 Poakatat"ti, Komene [1]
Their total interest amounted to the equivalent of nine full shares.
Tt-Ie fact that James Clendon was not able to persuade any of Ule
peop 1 eli sted above to se 11 thei r interests to the Crown after October of
1888 may i ndi cate one of three thi ngs:
1) that some or all of them did not want to sell any or all of their
interests in Parahirahi to the Crown, for any price; or
2) that some or a 11 of them di d not want to sell any or a 11 of thei r
inter-ests in Parahirahi to the Crown for the fixed sum on offer; or
3) that they suppot-ted T ai whanga in thi s matter, and \".'ere not prepared
to CatTY out Ule rest of Ule 1686 atTangement ''(viUI trle Crown unless and
until he gave the go-ahead.
The Land Purchase Department thought trl8 1 est to be the case.
57
\-,.,1 A 1-304 #C4
\t·lriting in 1693, Patrick Sheridan would inform R.M. Houston (MHR
f or the Bay of Islands) that 1
Mr. Clendon .... vas engaged during the years 1666 to 1669 in the purchase on beha 1f of the Government of the 1 and in questi on [Parahirahi] and out of a total of 37 shares succeeded in acquiring 29 112 -- the owners of the remaining 7 112 shares acting under the influence of the late Sydney Taiwhanga have always persistently declined to dispose of their interests. Tai whanga nevertheless sol d hi s o'vvn share.
(It should be noted here that Sheridan must have included the share
purchased in 1690 in the "1666-69" total by mi stake. The question of
Hie oHler rlajf-st-Iare v'li11 tie addressed at an appropriate point below.) In
short .. the Land Purchase Department, and probab 1 y the Nat i ve r'1i ni ster as
..,ve 11 .. thought that Tahvhanga ..,vas b 1 ocki ng the purchase for hi sown
persona 1 reasons.
It may have been a coincidence that on 9 June 1666 -- only three
days after the Nati ve r·li ni ster's 1 etter to Hirini Tai\-vhanga re j ecti ng rli s
Compensation Bill Y'/as y-,:ritten -- T.~{ Le\'vi~; write the Assistant
Surv81dor General asking for a tracing of ttle Parat-lirarli Block "showing
Ijj 'y'i :31 on 11 nes apprOX1 mate 1 y as 1 ai d down by Nat i ve Land Court."2. I t is
more 1 i ke 1 y that the Land Purchase Department was assemb 1 i ng
information about Parahirahi in order to consider ways of dealing Y-lith
Hir-ini Tahvhanga. And .. several monHls later, a nevv' approach was taken.
[In 16 October, 1866, Native Mi ni ster Edwi n Mitchel son fi 1 ed an
application with the Native Land Court to have it
cause the Interest acquired by or on behalf of Her ~1ajesty in the Block of Land noted in the margi n ["Parahi rahi"] ond more part i cul arl y descri bed in the memori a 1 of ownerstii p ttiereof to
1 Letter of 2 Sept. 1893.; National Archives MA-1'1LP 317 Outwards Letterbook 1893-1903._ pp. 20- 21 NLP 93/153 [Supplementary Documents]. 2 National Archives (Auckland) BABN, 1108, Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block File 1885-1898 [V'/AI- 304 #B19 p.441. This request 'w'as received on the 11th, and on the 18th of ,June VV.C. Ken:?i ngton sent Lew'i:? "8 traci ng she'w'i ng the subdivision of this block accordi ng to the orders of the N.L. Court"; see National Archives (Auckland) BABN, 1108._ Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block File 1885- 1898 [WAI- 304 #B 19 p.43]
58
\-'lAI-304 #C4
be ascertained at the next sitting of the Native Land Court at 'w't"lanqat-ei. 1
Tliis application was malje under Section 7 of "The Native Land Court Act
1886 Amendment Act, 1888"2, which stipulated that
A Minister of the Crown may at any time cause application to be mElde to the Court to ascertElin the interest, if any, ElcQuit-ed by Her Majesty in any land .. and in respect of such an app 1 i cat i on the Cour-t ... may make such order thereon as it may deem fit.
The app 1 i cat ion .... vas regi stered by the Court as No. 88/2677.
, have not been ab 1 e to determi ne for certai n \·vhether H-Ie CrOV'lrJ's
app 1 i CElt ion Y'ias heard in 1888 or 1889, but it does not seem so. Assuming that the Native Land Court Y'..-auld not have taken the initiative, it app8ar~; Cro'vvn deci ded not to press the matter f or the time bei ng. One
reason for thi s may have tleen trlat an accommodation was reachelj \~ii HI
Hi ri ni Tai 'h'hanga. Perhap~; rle opened negoti ati ons ¥,'ith the Land
Purchase Department after the application vvas filed. In anld case., on 21
f"""larcJI., 1889 .. in V'lellington, Tai'vvhanga v\las paid the sum of £,16/6/6 as the "Ba 1 ance Ijue on share in Parahi rahi Block". As can be seen from the
ori gi na 1 vouct-ier .. the payment was made by T. Vol. Le'vvi s., and T ai Yv'hanga's Signature on the receipt was \'Yitnessed by the Native I'"linister himself3.
Hi ri ni Tahvhanga di ed in Novemtler of 1890., on the day of hi s re
elect i on as r1ember for Northern t·1aori. Hi s brother Matenga T ai whanga
sought a successi on order for Hi ri ni 's interests in the Parahi rahi Block.
The [rOllin di sputed the aDP 1 i caU on, argui ng that, by vi rtue of its payments in 1886 flnd 1889, the Crown now o\·vned all of Hirini's intet-est
in the Block. The original vouchers for the two payments were put forward flS evidence of this. Before they were sent to the Land Court ..
Patrick Sheridan (T.W. Lewis's successor in the Land Purchase Departrnent4) sent the 1889 voucher to the former Nat i ve Mi ni ster.
1 See National Archives (Auckland) Parahirahi Block File MA BI 414 (applications) [WAI-304 #814 p. 751. This letter was a form 'w'ith notes and alteration blJ hand. 2 Statutes of Ne'w' Zealand 52 Vic. NO.37. :; The origi nal voucher i:3 in WAI- 304 #A50A C8. p.47- 48 4 Le'w'i~; died in 1891.
59
\"iAI-304 #(4
Sh9r-idan had not bfl9n prflsflnt at thfl paymflnt, and sou~3ht both
i nf otTnat i on and assi stance from t'1itctie 1 son:
Vou will remember the condit ions under whi ch thi s payment was made to Hirini Taiwhanga, The late Mr, Lewis informed me that they \-vere ["1 st" crossed out] that Taiwhanga would sign the deed whenever call ed upon to do so and that thi s payment was in full and final satisfaction of all his claims to the freehold of the land.
\-\/ill you please make a note of your recollections of the facts of the case hereon as Hie claim of his brother to succeed comes before the N.LL at Kawaka\-va on the 27 inst.
Beneath this t1itche1son YlTote:
I autrll=wizelj tJle Payment upon tt'le late r1r, Tai\-vhanW:l giving rne a rnost di st i nct promi se to si gn the deed when ca 11 ed upon,
It is f ai r1 y easy to see hovy the sum of £ 16/6/6 was eHTi \led at: addelj to U'le £25 pailj in 15ti6, it pro1juced a total of £41/6,/6 -- nle agreed price
of t'vvo full shares in the Parahirahi Block under the tet-ms of Hie 1556
agreernenL Or, 100kelj at anottier way, a total of £41/6/6 amounted to a
paldrnent to Hirini Taiwrlanga of six stii11ings per acre -- which was tt'le
price specifie1j in U-Ie receipt fot- tJle April 1556 payment In an~d case,
accordi ng to Lev'."i s, he had accepted thi s surn as "full and fi na 1
satisfaction of all t-lis claims to the freehold" of Parahiratii.
Hirini Taiwhanga did not sign the Deeds in t'1arch of 1559. Presumably they vv'ere still up North, with Clendon. Arranger-nents ""","ere
made for the docurnents to be sent to v1ellington, and in July t'1itct-lelson
hi mse 1 f wrote to T ai whanga from the Land Purchase Department to infotTn himl
that the deed of the Parahirahi block is now in this office, and I shall feel obliged by your- calling in at your earliest conveni ence for the purpose of affi xi ng your si gnature to it in accordance wi tt"1 the arrangements made on the 21 st day of r"!arch 1 est.
1 ; r I .~ .... ... " .~.-•• -' ." ...... I I" ,'-' I"'\. ~. I I.. I' .. I I' .... I .... ,_
I Lener OT I I -JUlY, I titi'j nom t. r'lHCnelSOft ~o ~,LJ, 181'YlftSngs,: N8~lOnal Arc:mves f"IA-r"ILI-' 3/6 Out'w'ardB Letterbook 1888- 93} p, 211 NLP 89/169 [Supplementar'J DOClJmentB],
60
WAI-304 #(4
But H,e t'1ernber for Northern Maori .. however .. di d not keep H,i s elPPointrnent .. or elny others which mey heve been elrrelnged before his untirnely demise a year latet-. As can be seen .. his signature was never
p I aced on ei ther of the Deeds.
Another reason why the Crown probably decided not to press for an
immediate definition of its interests in the block .. was the possibility
that it waul d not get all of the port 1 ons whi ch it wanted. I t waul d .. 1 n the final analysis, be up to the jUdge presiding over the Native Land Court hearing to decide \-vhich portions of land should be retained by the nonselling o\·vners .. and which would go to the Crov-m. As Sheridan 'v"iould put
it to Houston in 1893 .. the Parahi rahi 610ck
is described as being of little or no value except as to some qui eksil ver spri ngs situated in one parti eul ar local ity .. whi eh on partition rnight be awarded to H,e non-sellers .. otherwise Hie Government waul d at once take steps to have the i nteresis acqui retj b~d the Crown defi ned.
n-Ie ScHone considerations would I-lave applietj (if anything, witt"1 even greater force) in 1888.
C e rt i fie 6 t Ion s
This is an appropriate point at VV't"tiC:r1 to consiljer the "Ijeclarations" which appeelr on pel~es 01 elnlj C 1 of the Deeds. There eire e I even staternents here, three of whi ch are concerned wi tt, two or rnore
individuals .. and eight with a single person. These statements .. all
t-landwr1 tten in Engl ish .. re late to S1 gnatures of vendors on the pages M 1
and t·12 and A 1 and A2 of the Deeds. Each has been signed (with one
parti a 1 except 1 on) by Hie two i ndi vi dual s who witnessed the si gnature or mark of the vendor or vendors named in the statement. The witnesses
thereby at tested that .. before si gni ng the Deed .. the person or persons nelmed held had its contents explelined to them in Melori "by an Interpreterof Hie Court", and that they had appeared to understand the "purpose" or
"rneani ng" of trle Deed1 .
1 Nine (9) of the eleven statements on the ~1NO Deed p.3 refer to "purpose" of the Deed._ and h'iO (2) to the "me;jn1ng". ABC i::. the ::.ame.
61
WAI-304 ·C4
It would not be unreesoneble to assume that these statements
were p 1 oced on the Deed ot the some time that the S1 qnotures or morks of
U-Ie vendors to .... Vllicrl they relate. Trlere is certainly nothing in Ulem to
suggest otherwise. I have dealt with the matter here, however, rather
than earl i er, in the context of the payments and si gni ngs, because I am
f ai rl!-l certai n that none of these statements wet-e put on the Deeds at the
same time as the ownet-s' signatures. Some may have been added as long
as three years after the event whicl-I they describe. This is not to
suggest that the dec 1 arati ons are incorrect, or that the si gnatures of Hie
witnesses (wtli ch appear to be the same as those elsewhere on the
Deeds) are felse, but nonetheless they ere not quite what they seem to
be.
Ttwee features of the declarations support this interpretation.
Tt'le first is that Hie long statement in the upper left hand corner of tiott'l
pages (Oland C 1), named indi' ... 'jrjuals who receivelj payment from the
Cn:I\"'tn -- arllj prot1atrl y si ~~ned the Deeds -- on at 1 east four dirf erent
Ijates. Seven recei '.led payment on 10 Dec. 1886, ei ght on 5 Feb. 1887, emd
one each on 23 l'1arch and 26 Oct 1667. Urnukuri y.lhaK:eita's name is
1 i sted t """li ce -- the second rney represent Hie payment whi ch he recei ved
on 26 Oct 1667 as a successor. All of thei r S1 gnatures and marks on the
Deeds \'v'ere witnessed by Clendon and Dickeson, who witnessed the
stijternent, but we can be absolutel~d cet-tain tt-Iat it was not put on nle
Deeds until after 26 October 1867 -- which means, after the largest
portion of the Crown purchasing of Pfwahirahi interests was over.
n-Ie second feature is the leyout of the statements on Ule Deed
pages. If they were put on as the Signatures were collected, one would
expect to see some kind of chronological order in their sequence. In the
MNO Deed the statements are distributed on page 01 as follows (the date
ref ers to that on whi ch H-Ie pet-son or persons named recei ved payment
from the Crown):
62
V/AI-304 #(:4
Ri gtit Col umn # 1
10 Dec. 1886, 5 Feb. 1687
23 t"1arch c~. 28 Oct. 1667
R. Col. #2 26 Oct. 1687
R. Col. #3 26 Dec. 1866
R. Col. #4 [on plan space]
1 3 A P ri 1 1 Em 8
Left Col. # 1 26 Aug. 1667
L. Col. #2 9 ~1arct-f 1667
L. Col. #3 9 ~1orch 1887
L. Col. #4 22 Aug. 1887
L. Col. #5 16 March 1887
L. Col. #6 [below Schedule]
20 11 a \.I 1867
L. Col. #7 [below Schedule]
1 Q c:--rt 1807 -' ._,t!t-I _. ,_, r
',,","hate\ier ttle order of i nscri pti on maw have been, it 'yvas not
ct-tronologica1. I would sug!~est Ulat it Ilad principa11!~ to do 'f/itll assernbling 'witnesses: trlere is one declaration for eact-I MiL of
wi tnesses to the si gnatures on the Deed sheets.
The Ulird feature concerns nle partial exception as to signatures
¥/hich I rnentioned above. Ten of the eleven staternents are signed by
boHI of the i ndi vi dual s who witnessed the si gnature or mark. The
e::<ception is tt-Ie Sl>;ttl one in Uie rigtit-hand column on both Deeds,
r-elating to Rukia Koao. Koao received payment from the Crown on 20 nay 1887. Hi S si gnature on the Deeds was witnessed by J. Macf 8r1 ane, J.P., arllj S.P. Tawton. The statement, however, has only been witnessed by Macfarlane. It can hardly be 8 coincidence that the package of documents
kept with the original Deeds in 'w'e11ington includes tt-Ie following
affida' ... 'it, dated 11 June, 1889, by James r1acfarlane "of Fort Street in the City of Auckland 11erchant"1. It states:
1 In W'AI-304 #A50A ea. p.28. The original i3 in DOSLI Wellington, Deed #1886 file.
63
V'lAI-304 #C4
1. That I \'vas in conjunction with "S.R. Tawton" an attesting witness to a certain deed of Conveyance of land known as "Parahi rahi" made bet ween Ruki a Koao and others of the one part and Her ~1a j esty the Queen of the other part. 2. That after the said Rukie Koeo had subscribed his name to the said Deed of Conveyance I saw the said "S.R. Tawton" set and subscri be hi s neme as an at test i ng wi tness to the sai d deed addi ng thereto at the same time hi s occupat ion. 3. That the said "S.R. Tawton" is now dead and the Signature "SR. Tawton" sti 11 appear; ng on the sa; d deed of Conveyance is hi s proper name and handwrit i ng ....
Thi sis the only document of its ki nd to be found in the Parahi rahi Deed
fil e. I t seems certa; n that it \·vas prepared in order to provi de an
8;.::planation as to vvh~d Tav'/ton's Signature was not on the Koao statement.,
anlj equal1 y certai n tt"lat its date tells us \'v~len Hie statements were put on the Deeds.
In my opinion tt"lese statements 'flere not written on the P8r8~-lIr8r-li
Deeds until after the "Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1 BB 1
Amendment Act, 1866" \,vas passed on 30 Aug., 1888)1. Section 3 of this
Act imposed several ne",'v requi rements f or the purchase of Maori 1 and .. including:
Sec. 3 A deed e:,~ecuted by a Nati"ie shall have no effect as 8 conveyance or lease by such Native of land, or of any estate therei n, to a person not a Nati ve un 1 ess --(a.) A statement in the Maori 1 anguage of the eff eet of such a deed, cert ifi ed as correct bq a 1; censed interpreter, she 11} bef are the document is si gned by any Nat i '.Ie J be indorsed on or f or-m part of the document; (td The effect of such statement s~lall be explained to eact) Native before signing the same;
The staternents addelj to the Parahirahi Deeds attested that the requi rement ; n (b.) hellj been sat i sfi ed J shaul d such be requi r-ed at a 1 ater
date.
1 Statutes of New' Zealand 52 Vic. NO.38.
64
\·vAI-304 #(4
An examineUon of the statements shows that they covered all of the si gnatures and marks of the vendors whi ch were placed on the Deed
up to and including 13 April 1858. Signatures placed on the "Intet-mediate SI-Ieet" in 1890 and 1894 have the require1j staternents
a 1 ongsi de them. Certai n si gnatures added to the Deelj in 1894 are not supported by such statements. I have i dent ifi ed these in the section
dealing winl the transacUons in question.
Purchasing Suspended? (1889-1893)
One woul d thi nk that the Crown's pri nci pa 1 reason for reachi ng its
settlernent with Hirini Taiwhanga in 1859 would tiave been to open the way f or the purcl-Iase of the remai nder of the shares in the 610ck. It
appears, t-loweVet-, that interest in the Parat-lirahi Block was on the wane. Clendon was still working on the purchase early in 18891 .. but if he was
not taken the case off cornpletely that year (as the dates given by Shet-idan in 1593 imply) his activities continued at a very 10\l'llevel
U"lereafter, until 1893-94. Only one set of purchases 'v"las malje in trle
i nteri rn .. duri ng the 1 est four months of 1590 .. and (1 endon's i nvo 1 vernent appears to have been rni ni rna 1.
The records I-elating to U-Iese purcl-Iases, all of wt-licl-I involved the share of Te Honiana Karu2 .. tiave certain discr-epancies. Te Honiana Karu
tielj Iji ed before the begi nni ng of 1557. On ,January 11th of that !dear an application for a succession order for his Paratiirat;i interests was filed V,ti HI nle Nati ve Land Court by Hone Peti and other-so Trle case was one of
those heard at Waimate Nor-th on 19 October 1557. Judge Puckey directed
O-Iat orders be made di vi di ng one-half of Karu's share among T e T aonui t1akoare T e T aonui J Henare Tuporo and Hi ra \A/ahapu in equa 1 shares, with
1 On 15 February and 26 April he paid out small sums (£,1 .. total) for expenses for horse hi re and for messenger services relati ng to the Parahi rahi Block. Both payments had somethi fig to do with busi ness i n Rua~,eka~,eka.: MA- t·1LP 7/10 Accounts .Journal 1885-1890 .. vouchers [ 1888-89/] 206 and [ 1889- 90/] 89 [Supplementary Documents]. 2 Identified on one of Gil bert Mai r's 1894 reference lists as "Honiana Kauea otherwise Honiana Karu"; National Archives MA- ~·1LP 1 1906/63 [94/285] .. in WAI- 304 #824 p.31 ].
65
the other ha 1f bei ng di vi ded equally bet ween Ratahi kauea and 'w'i remu
l<oueo1.
On 17 Sept. 1690 tvvo payments vv'ere made for interests in nle Par-arlirarli Block. They included2 :
Name: Voucher: Pa~ment: Notes:
Name: Vouctler: Pawrnent: Notes:
Hira Wakapu [ 1 690-91 /] 259 £3/8/10 18B5 1 i st #27 (successor); 1/6 share.
Honore Tuporo [ 1890-91 /] 260 £3/6/10 1665 1 i st #27 (successor).: 1/6 share.
According to one set of records .. trle three following payments were all made on the same Ijate -- September 17th. The Native Land Department.
Accounts Ledgers .. ho\·vever .. gi ve diff erent ones3. The sequence of the
voucher numbers .. together V-lith the names of 'witnesses on the Deeds
tends to support trle latter source, and I have followed it here.
According to ttlis chronology .. Novemtler 12tti sav .... another payment:
Name: Voucher: Payment: Notes:
Te Ratat-li Kauao4
[1 B90-9 1 /J 374 £5/3/3 1885 1 i st #27 (successor); 1! 4 share.
1 National Archive~ (Auckland) MLC-A 2/11 p. 20 &. 26. The name of the decea~ed is given here 8S Te Hoaniana Kauea. 2 The information from these two payments is taken solel y from a summary list - - National Archives, AA~1K 999/9 L1st of Owners and Payments; t1aori Land Sold to the Cro'w'n, 1890s. "Parahl raili A, 6 &. C 5097 acres". These two vouchers do not appear to have been recorded in the more-detailed ~1A- MLP 7 Accounts .Journals [it wOlJld be desi rable to re-(:heck the originals]. There is further discrepan(:y in that the AAi1K 999/9 List gives the date of all five of the 1890 payments as 17 September. 3 Compare National Archives} AM1K 999/9 List of O'w'ners and Payments; r··1aori Land Sold to the Cro'w'n, 1 890s. uPa ra hi rahi A, B 8:. C 5097 acres" \·,i t h r'1A - ~1L P 7/11 Aceo unts ...Jou rna 1 1890-1895 (relevant voucher numbers below') [Supplementary Documents1-A"...· ""11"'1' ,.. II ...... I •• ... I' I ..... • •• II
... ::'1(:. I rt1S 'w'as appareml y Ute same Katam t\8uea w'rtO slgneo as 8 I rus~ee Tor Utree owners on 5 Feb. 1887 (see above).
66
'tlAI-304 #(4
W.P. Kemp again assisted with a Parahirahi transaction as an interpreter-1. Two further payments were made in Decernber -- one on tt-Ie 17ttt
Name: Voucher: Payment: Notes:
Te Tao r'1akoere [ 1890-91 I] 260 £3/8/10 1885 1 i st #27 (successor); 1/6 share.
and the 1 ast on December 30th:
Name: Voucher: Pawment: Notes:
Wiremu Kauaea (paid to Public Trustee2)
[ 1890-9 1 I] 411 £5/3/3 1885 1 i st #27 (successor); t/ 4 share.
The Novernber and Decemtler payments were all made by T.v-/. Lewis ratJler than C1 endon. Thi S v\lou]!j tend to suggest a \·ve 11 i ngton venue for
the pe!ljrnents) e::<cept Hlat the Signatures on the Deed '.-vere v",·itnessed bid 1 ocal people -- that of Ratahi Kauea and the mork of Te Tao Mokoere being 'vvitnessed tly .Jrt[?] Davis) ,J.P,) and Joseph Lomas of Waimate) and
those of Henare Tuporo and Hira V.,.'akapu by Davis, and by George F.
Di cke::;on of Vai kohe. The latter two also vv'itnessed the si gnatures of
Hone Pet i and Hare Napi a as Trustees for \t\'i rernu Kauaeu3 .
It \·vas at this stage, incidentally that the "Intermediate Sheets" of
the Deeljs (N and B) were attached. These are pri nted parchments sheets like the others, in this case having the same columns and headings as the
reverse side of Hie first page (t12 and B2). Next to Te Honiana Karu's
name on page r12 of the MNO Deed is noted, in pencil, "dead U successors
have si gned page 3". The fi rst entri es on the "I ntermedi ate Sheets .... at
the toP .. are the names and signatures or marks of the five people named
above) and the si gnatures of the wltnesses. These sheets woul d be used agBi n in 1894 for the S1 gnatures of other successors.
1 National Archives MA- t'1LP 7/11 Accounts Journal 1890- 1895. [ 1890- 91/J 375 oj 12 Nov. 1890.; £,1/1/0 for "Servic:es 8slicensed inter-preter." [Supplementary Documents]. 2 Abo .. on 20 ,Jan .. 1891 one shilling was paid out 8S "Comrnhsion charged by Public Trustee on sale of share of mi nor."; National Archives MA- t'1LP 7/11 Account3 Journal 1890-1895 .. [ 1890- 91/] 432 [Supplementary Documents]. :3 Note that it 'w'as Hord Peti 'who had applied for the Succession Order for the share of Karu ' .... hich led to these five bei 0lJ a"/arded interests.
67
WAI-304 #C4
A fter these fi ve payrnents had been made, the Crown's only act] ons
in re lat i on the Porohi rohi Block for more thon three yeors seem to hove
been Hlose connected with the Taiwtlanga succession case referred to
obove1 . As noted, Hirini Taiwhanga died suddenly in November of 1890.
On 6 February 1891 his brother ~1atenga Taiwhanga (who had sold his own
srlare in Parahi rahi on 16 March 1887) app lied to the Nat i ve Land Court
for a succession order for Hirini's interests in the Parahirahi Block2.
The Crown's position was that (although he had not signed the
Deeds), it owned 011 of Hi ri ni T ai Whanga's interest in Parohi rohi by
virtue Hie 1886 and 1889 payments. Although Matenga Taiwhanga's
application probebly hed little chance of success in the fece of this
evi denee, it seems that the Land Purchase Department deci ded to rnake
doubly sure that that the Crolf-m's position was protected. On 24 June
1892 notice was given of a Land Court sitting at Kawakawa on 27 July
1892. The T ai wrlanga case was to be heard et thi s si tt i ng, but its
pri nei pa 1 busi ness -- as ennounced in the Gazette -- was to hear an
application for definition of the interest of the Crown in Pararlirotif~.
Tt-Ie app 1 i cati on in Questi on was No. 88/2677, whi ch had been fi 1 ed b!-i tt-Ie
Nat i ve r·ii ni ster on 16 Oct. 1888 (see above). Presurnab 1 y the purpose of
tril s aeti on was to serve not ice that ttle Crown waul d toke oct i on if its
e?~i st i ng i ntere~;ts in the 610ck wer-e ttlreatened in any way.
As the date of the heari nq appt-oaehe1j} the Larllj Purc:rli:tse
Department made speci fi c preparations to deal with the T ai whanqa case.
On ,Jul y 15tti Patri ck: Srleri dan made a note on a pri nted list of the cases
vv-rlicl-I were to be t-Ieard at Kav· ... akerwa. Three of tt"lese involved
applications by r1atenga Taiwhanga to succeed to Hirini's interests in
particular blocks, #91-349 being Parahirahi. Sheridan drew 8 line from
this to the margin} v'there he wrote:
1 The onl yother evidence of activity I have seen is a note dated 21 Sept. 1891 in 'which T.W. Le'v.l1s ackno\ .... ledged the receipt of HW. Bishop's memorandum of 11 Sept. 1891, "returning uncompleted the deed of sale of Parahi rahi block". Thi~ may have had somethi ng to do ·w·ith an abortive attempt to purchase more shares, but it may a1$o have related to the addition of translation certifications (discussed belo\~/). 2 See National Archives (Auckland) MLC-A 2/11 p. 74 3 Ne'w' Zealand Gazette June 24,1892 V.l p.899.
68
VlAI-304 #(4
t1r Bishop Hirini Taiwhanga sold his interest to the Crown in
Parahi rahi. Pl ease arrange that case may not be heard unt il you are present. Documents Elnd further instt-uctions[?] will follow. P. Sheridan 15.7.92 1
(H.Y{ Bishop 'yvas a Land Purchase Department officer in the Auckland District).
Sheridan then, as noted above, sent the 1669 payment voucher to
ttle forTner Native Minister asking for his comments on the circumstances under which the money had been paid. I have already
reproduced in full Ule note of 20 July 1692 which he wrote on the back of the ori gi nal voucher., along Y'lith Mitchel son's repl y2 \to/hen Sheri dan had
recovered the document rle immediately sent it off to Bishop ',h{'ith a cover-ing note3 , Reminding Bishop of the date of the Kawakawa sitting ..
he asked:
\,Ili 11 you please produce the accompanyi ng 'v'ouctlet-S in Court and ask to have succession claim 27 dismissed (submit vouchers as docurnents under secti on 66 N.L.C. Act 1886).
I enclose under separate cover deelj in dup 1 i cate and vouchers incase any further si gnatures shoul d offer. [rnargi na 1 note "vouc:t"lers for eactl unsold interest U]
TI-Ie application of the Crown for definition of interest rnay be ad j ourned unt i 1 a future si tt i ng of the Court unless you consi der it flljvi sab 1 e to proceed wi th it at once.
P. Sheridan f or Under Secretary
Bisll0P, in sl-Iort, was to submit the evidence, and see what happened. He was authori sed to purchase any interests in Parahi rahi whi cit mi ght come
his way, but was not teke any other action respecting this Block unless the Tai wtlanga case got out of hand.
1 WAI-304 #A50A (:a. pp. 31-32; original in DOSLI Wellington .. Auckland Deed #1886 file. 2 WAI- 304 6A50A ca. p. 48; origi nsl in DOSLI \'Velli ngton .. Auckland Deed #' 1886 file. 3 The note i~; not dated but 'w'a::; clearly 'wTitten after July 20th and before ,July 27th; Vv'AI-304 #A50A ea. p. 29 (original in DOSLI Wellington, Auckland Deed 61886 file).
69
The Court sat at k:awakawa as p 1 armed on 27 Ju1 y 1892. Sheri dan
soon tialj Bi shop's report bef are hi m. It read1:
I at tended the sitting of the N.L.C. here today & at my request the Court di smi ssed the app 1 i caU on of ~1atengo Tai whanga to succeed to interest of Hirini Taiwhanga in Parahirahi. I noi'V return the vouchers showing payments to Hirini2. Would it not be advisatde for the Crown to apply for succession order in this case, as Hirini has not signed the Deed. I retain the Deed so that I rnay make a further effort to complete it.
The Court adjourned partition application. H.vv. Bishop 27.7.92. Kawaka ... .ya
The Cro\·vn di Ij not, in the event, pursue the questi on of successi on to
Hi ri ni Tai vihanga's interest in Parahi rahi any further. Nor, if Bi shop in
fact made any effort to "compete" the Deeds, did this came to anything3 .
It must tie noted here that r·1s. Butler's discussion of the 1892
rleari ng at 1'.,1 A 1-304 # A50 pant 25 (p. 10) is not over1 y useful. There is
no evi denee in the correspondence \'vhi ch she cites4 of a CroYv'n desi re to
place "pre!3SLWe" U",e owner-so No effort was apparently made before the
heari nlj to persua1je any o'vvners to se 11, and no further act ion v· ... as taken
tly the Cro\·yn once the matter of the successi on to Hi ri ni T ahvhanga's
share had been resolved in its favour The Croy·m 'vVeJS definitely
i ntere!:;ted in acqui ri ng Hie outstandi ng shares in the Paratli ratii Block ..
but it 'j'lla::; still prepared to \·vait and see if the remai ni ng o\'vners wou1 d
change thei r mi nds.
1 WAI- 304 :lItASOA ca. p. 30 (origi nal in DOSLI Welli ngton, Auckland Deed :lit 1886 file) .. Note on origi nal application confi rms that appl1cation for defi nitlon of; nterest 'vias "Adjourned to a future Sitting".: National Archives (Auckland) Parahirahi Block File ~1A BI 414 (applic:ations) [WAI- 304 #B 14 p.7S]. 2 These presumabl Y 'vIere re-submitted to the Court in 1894, si nee the origi na1s are now; n the DOSLI 'v'-Ielli ogtoo file for Auckland Deed # 1886. 3 There is no sign of any payments for expenses to Bishop duri ng this period .. which might indicate that he 'vias actively pursuing the remaining Parshirahi o'vlners. 4 The "Correspondence bet'vleen Sheridan and Bishop 2717/92 and 2917/92" to 'vIhich she refers actuall y i flel udes Sheridan's undated note of ,..Iul y 21/26 and Bishop's letter of 27 .Jul y, as quoted above.
70
V/AI-304 #(:4
The Ngawha Springs Mercury Boom
Trle interest taken in Ngawrla's mercury deposits duri ng the 1860s and 1870s i'"lad not produced any large-scale mining around the Springs -or any mining at all, as far as I am aware. Things began to warm up during the late 1880s. At some point during the decade Willlam Earl had succeeded in purchasing part of the Tuwhakino Block from Heta Te Haara -- presumably including all or part of the section he had been leasing. According to a local historian, he sold this land in 1888 to "a company of gentlemen from Sydney who intended to mine the cinnabar" for £ 1 0 per acre. The company planned to start operations in 1889, but nothing actuallq carne of this venture1.
V·lith Earl gone, the focus of eJttention shifted to George Warren St·lfi'.,.'· ... Patterson. Patterson, an Irishman, had corne to New Zealand in 1879. He soon j oi ned L.C. Goff e C"<. Co., and gai nelj a good dea 1 of experi ence in the kauri gum tralje. On Goff e's death in 1886 he set himself up in business in Kaikohe, and soon became one of the town's leading general rnerct-,ants arllj gurn trader2.
One account of Patterson's i nvo 1 vernent v'lith the Ng8vd-la Spri ngs states that he purchased lanlj frorn Heta Te Haara which had been the SUbJect of a lawsuit between Te Haara and Earl, and that he also acquire1j "oHler pieces to the westwards"3. The first acquisition mentioned was
probab 1 y the purchase of 621 acres on 8 Aug. 1893 wtli crl was investigated by the Tt-ust Commissioner the SElty,eyear4: the latter ones,
going by the map of his holdings wtlich Patterson drew in 1894, rnust have included all of Earls' former holdings5 . It is fairly obvious that, by the earl y 1890s, he was invest i ng a good deal of money in hi s Ngawha pro ject.
1 Boese, Tides of History, p.368. Boast, WAI-304 #A34 p.23 says Earl purchased the land in 1885. 2 See Cyclopedia \/.2 pp. 393- 394 and Boese, Tidesof History, p.pp.l 73 ff. 3 Boe::;e, Tides of History, p.p.368. 4 See National Archives (Auckland) MLC-A A52/228:. .123, Trust Commissioner., Auckland, I n\y';jrds Correspondence 1893 .. items 93/86 and 93/1 29. These file~; do not record 'When the Commissioner's approval 'Was given. 5 See National Archives MA- t'1LP 1 1906/63.; V1AI- 304 #824 pp. 53- 54. The accompanlJi rig note of 27 June 1894 indicates that by this ti me Patterson o'w'ned the ' ...... hole of the eastern end of TU'w'haki no.
71
V-IAI-304 #C4
In 1892 Patterson hired a professional miner to prospect on his
land, offering a large bonus for the discovery of commercially-viable
deposits. The miner, by Ule name of Allen, reportedly discovered sucrl a
lode in February of 18931. The "reef" of ore was described by Patterson's
engi neer in 1'1ay 1893 newspaper report as "ri ch"2: "if it prove to be a
large one", he continued
it "vi 11 , and must, become of immense value. This lode occurs at a depth of 15 feet from the surf ace in the gUll y, near the foot of the hill adjacent to some Crown lands. The cap of the lode has been stri pped for [ore] ... over a di stance of full y 30 feet. The speci mens obtai ned therefrom are ri ch in ci nnabar.
The "CroY'in 1 ands" · ... vere either to the north or east of the Tuvv'hakino
Block or .. (as is more likely) Hie engineer was mistaken, and the find v· ... as
situated on the border of the Parahirahi Block.
An 1893 Mines Department report confirms that an ore deposit had
tleen found at thi s time "i n the si de of the range adjacent to ttle riot
pools .. v','"rlere quicksilver in its metallic state is seen distributelj in
mi nute gl obul es amongst a fi ne black sedi ment in the vall ey"3. AnoUler
of the same date .. hov ... ·ever4 .. states trlat "The lode ... is broken uP .. and has
rnot-e the appearance of rutlble than a solid lode. A good deal more 'yvork
\·vi11 have to be done tlefore anyone can say whether this discovery .... vi11
prove e valuable one or not." A report the following year described nl8
Ohaecrvvai ore os bei ng "of 0 very poor quol ity"s.
1 Boe:~e .. Tides of History. p.368. The report in AJHR 1893 C.-3 "The Goldfields of NeY! Zealand" by H.A. Gordon '" nspecti ng Engi neer", p.18? "Quicksilver.", however, suggests that the lode 'Was found earlier by "a syndicate of NeW' South Wales gentlemen." 2 Statement blJ T.W. t1oodlJ, quoted in Boese, Tides of History. p.368 from Ka\\·'aka'w'a Northern Luminaru. 20 May 1893. The issues of this neY!spaper for this period are, unfortunatel y, not available for inspection at the Auckland Institute Li brary at present (Nov. 1992). 11icrofil mi ng \ .... ill be done in the near future. 3 AJHR 1893 C. - 2 "11i nes Statement", p.17 "Metalliferous Mi ni fig." [Supplementary Doc Ij me fit:; J . 4 A.JHR 1893 C - 3 "The Goldfields (If NeY! Zealand" blJ H.A. Gordon .. , nspecti fig En9i fleer .... p.187 "Ouicksilver." [SupplementanJ Do(:ument~o]. '5 AJHR i894C.-2 "'·1ifle~Statefilent .. ) p.i! 'l1et&l1iferou:') ,··iiflirllj: Cinnabar." [~;upplementary [)o(:uments].
Despi te cont i nui ng doubts as to the Quality and extent of the
cinnIJbIJr deposits IJt NgIJwhIJ, Patterson was able to lelJse the mining
rigt-Its on his land to the "Colonial Exploitation Company" of London. By
early 1895 this syndicate was employing 20 men in their Ngawha
operat i on, and had had some success. The Mi nes Department reported
that the English syndicate spent a good deal of money prospecting and
"some fairly rict-I ore has been found", but also noted:
the large emissions of gas which is seen bubbling and hissing out of ttle surface of the ground in the vicinity of the workings, together with hot springs, will render the working of an lode in this locality a difficult and hazardous undertaking .... No doubt a consi derab 1 equant ity of Qui cksil ver exi sts in this locality, but it seems questionable whether it can be profitably vv'orkelj 'vvithout plenty of capital. 1
The syndicate's resources 'vvere considerable .. but were not sufficient for
niB task:. As its spokesman told a reporter in March of 1895 ..
that there is ever-y prob8bil ity of our bei ng cornpe 11 ed to atlemdon our ~Nork:i ngs. It v'li 11 tie a thousand pities if we rlave to do so, for we are prepared to spend about £70,000 in the district in labour and plant, and nle benefit of cheap quicksilver to the whole gol,jfields of the colony woullj be enormous.
TI-Ie editor of the Not-Ulern Luminary proposed that "These people wM are
srilJt t i ng Ijo\·vn because of the rleavy expenses" shoul d be gi ven a 1 arge
Government subsi dy to keep the pro j ect ali vel.
According to Kay Boese, in 1895 the syndicate's mine manager A.P.
Gnffiths \·vent to Wellington, and persuaded A.J. Cadman, the Minister of
Mines .. to have the Government offer a bonus of fourpence per pound for
the first 100,000 pounds of mercury produced in New Zealand3. I have
not been able to find further details on these developments as yet (but
v ... ·ould note that the same Quicksilver bonus was offered by the
1 AJHR 1895 C. - 2 "r1i nes Statement"', p.l 7 "Metalliferous r··1i ni ng." (Supplementary Documents] . 2 Boese, Tides of History, p.369. :3 Rnp.<;p. Tirlp.<; rtf Hi~;tnrll n :z.t=.q Nil rtAtP.<; Arp. nivp.n hilt thp. r:ilntp.yt nnint<; tn 1 fN~ - .... -} .. -~ .............. " r'- _ ..... - -_ ..... _ ... ':1" .... J - - ...... -_ ........ r .. ···· ...... _ .. _.
7~ . .)
WAI-304 "'C4
Governrnent later in the decade)l. These rneasures were not sufficient)
for the syndicate decided to cut its losses ond give up the Ngowho leose
in 1595. n'ley wouW be replaced by a ne'vv group of English investors on 31 Dec. 18952 . A.P. Griffiths remained on as manager.
1 See NeVI Zealand ~1ines Record 16 ~'1arch 1898) p. 371 (article) and p.386 (Notice of 17 Feb. 1898). Reference is made on p.371 to this bonus being paid "as formerllJ". 2 Boese) Tides of History. p.369.
74
WAI-304 #(4
II L The Acqui sit i on of Porohi rohi D by the Crown. 1894-1895
Purchosi ng Renewed. 1893-1894
TIle initiative for the renewal of the Crown's efforts to purchase
the remaining shares in the Parahirahi Block from outside Government -specifically, frorn G.'W.S. Patterson. He approached the Land Purctlase
Depart.ment through RJt Houston, t.he M.H.R. for Bay of Islands. Houst.on
probably wrote to Patrick Sheridan in August. of 1893. We do not. have thi s 1 etter, unfortunately, and a cruci a 1 part of the copy of Sheri dan's reply in ttle Land Purcrlase Department lettet-book has been rendered i 11 egi b 1 e by an o',/erl y-generous app 1 i cat i on of ink to a subsequent entry on the other side of the thin page. Nonetheless, 1t appears that Houston (or Patter-son) 11ad been talk:inq to J.5. Clendon about Paral-liralii, and tW"(\,
~woposelj Hmt UII? latter be allowed to cornplete Ule purct-Iase of Hie
block1.
I n I-Ii s reply, v'irit ten on 2 Sept. 18932, Sheri dan i nf orrned Houston
.... Ulat Mr. Clendon was engaged during the years 1 BB6 to 1889 in the purchase on belio If of the Govemrnent of the 1 cmd in question and out of a total of 37 shares succeeded in acquiring 29 1/2 -- the owners of the remai ni ng 7 1/2 shares acting under t.he influence of the late ~;ydney Taiwhanga have ahvays perSistently declined to dispose of their inter-ests. Tai'\,'v'l"langa nevertheless sold flis o ... .yn share.
(As notelj bef ore) these share cal cuI ati ons are not accurate). He \Nent on
to state that
The land is descri bed as bei ng of 1 i ttl e or no va lue except as t.o some qui cksi 1 ver spri ngs situated inane part i cul ar localit.y, which on partition might be awarded to the non-se 11 ers} otherwi se the Government woul d at once take steps to have tfle interests acquired by the Crown defined.
1 Aside from the contents of Sheridan's reply, this is indicated by the descri ption of this letter in the Letterbook's index: "Houston} R.M. ~1.H.R. Re purchase of Parahirahi block by Mr. Clendon." 2 National Archives ~1A- t1LP 3/7 Ouh .... ards Letterbook 1893-1903 J pp. 20- 21 NLP 93/153 [Supplementary Documents].
Sheri dan then concluded that
I f Mr. C1 endon thi nks that he can now obtai n the outstandi ng Signatures I shall only be too glad to authorize him to do so. Hone Heke has however promi sed on hi s return to secure them, and it may be as well._ perhaps, to allow him to do so without any interference.
Hone Heke was not at thi s it me the M.H.R. for Northern Maori, but woul d
go into the House in the general election held three months later.
According to a letter written by Sheridan seven months afterwards (4
May 1894, below), Heke ~Iad "promised t1r. Cadman that he would endeavor
to arrange Hie sale of these [Parahirahl] shares." A.J. Cadman had been
Nat i ve t'1i ni ster unt 11 June of 1893, and -- perhaps si gnifi canU y -becarne t'1i ni ster- of t'1i nes four da~s after thi s 1 etter was writ ten 1.
Like t-il s predecessor in Hie Northern t'180ri seat, Hone Heke had 8
per-sona 1 interest in the Pan:lt1i rat"ti 610ck:. Hi s father V-las Hone Ngapua
Tullirangi -- one of the people who had retained their share in t~le 1and2.
Ho'vY Heke propose1j to "obtain the outstanding Signatures", is not knov .... n,
but it v'/ould appear that t-Ie did not activel!-l pursue the matter for some
consideratde tirne. The aforementionelj election doubtless had something
to do with ttli s.
By nay of 1894 J.S. Cl endon had been gi ven penni ssi on to renew
hi s eff orts to purchase the remai ni ng Parat,i rat-Ii shares. A new Land
Purchase Departrnent officer tlad just been appointed to the Auckland
District, "but as you putT~lased all the other shares in Parahirahi",
Sheridan told Clendon in his May 4th letter, "it is only right that you
should be allowed to finish it if you can see your way to do 80"3.
1 See J.D. V-filson, New Zealand Parliamentary Record I 1840-1984 (Welli ngton: Government Printer, 1985), ~,.72., and Scholefield, Dictionary of NeW' Zealand Biography Yol. I p.131. 2 See Scholefield, Dictionary of Nev.I Zealand Biography Vol. I p.378. Hone Tuhirangi ''lias a nephev of Hone Heke. 3 N3tion:jl Archives MA- MLP 317 Outwards Letterbook 1893-1903, p. 83 NLP 94/99 [SupplementanJ Docurnenbl. Sheridan's comment W'as not enti rel y correct, of course, si nce some of the palJments had been made by T.W. Lewis.
76
VlAI-304 *C4
Nonethe 1 ess, Sheri dan was reluctant to have Clendon actua 114
proceed. Informing the latter of Heke's promise to Cadman, he
cornmented Hlat
On my offering to detail an officer to assist him [Hone Hekel he threatened to wi thdraw from the arrangement if any other person interfered. You had better therefore proceed to work cautiously if at all. It was my intention to wait until Hone Heke arrives in Wellington and then if it is found that he V-las unsuccessful, move the Native Land Court to partHion between Crown and non-sellers.
Shoul d opportunit i es to make purchases ari se J though, C1 endon was
supplied with an accurate "list of unsold stlares showing the price which
the Govemrnent has agreed to pay for each" (see belm'v), and "A"as
informed that "Funds v'Ii11 be placed to your credit if at any time you
not ify that you are likel y to requi re them".
Trle absence of any evi dence of acti vity by C1 endon over the
follo\,ving three months probably indicates trlat the Cro\'vn vvaited for
Hone Heke to make a progress report to Sheri dan. Trle pressure from
Houston on Patterson's tler-Ialf doutltless continued -- as the presence of
the f (I 11 oV'ii ng 1 etter in the Land Purct-Iase Department's fil e on Parahi rahi
i rllji cates 1. On 27 June 1894 Pat terson 'to'Tote hi s Par1 i amentary all y
enclosing a plan to illustrate for Houston "exactly 'Y'that I vvant" at
Parat-Ii rarli., stat i ng that
I am confi dent that if you can get me the pi ece app 11 elj for that I \"'1'ill get a large company floated to thorougt-tly test the place, thi s wi 11 mean a bi 9 thi ng for the di stri ct, and as you know something is much wanted to liven things up.
The fi rst Engl i sh syndi cate's problems I as noted above I were reachi ng a
cri si s-poi nt at thi s ti me.
Trle plan srlowed Patterson as owner of all of the portion of the
Tuvv'haki no 610ck adjacent to the northeastern boundar~J of Parahi rahi
around "[U. He stated in his letter that
1 Letter of 27 ,June.' 1894, from Patter-son to Houston; National Archive~; t1A- ~1LP 1 1906/63; letter at WAI- 304 #824 pp. 51- 52, "Explanation" and plan at pp. 53- 54 ..
7' ! (
WAI-304 #C4
The /\ I poi nted out to you on the map at the land offi ce [C block] cuts right into my block and tends to damage[?] the sale or floating of a company as long as it is in the native hands. I would like to get this piece, also about fifty or a hundred acres adjoining it.
These comments are refiected on the plan. Patterson noted in the
wri tten key to it that C "i s the part of Parahi rahi that I want
particularly" and that "the bigger area adjoining I want to purchase also
to make my position secure."1. He continued:
I am prepared to give ttie Government a reasonable price for it and will help them in every way to get the balance of the native signatures[?]. I am confident that if you can get me the piece applied for that I 1'o"i11 get a large company floated to Hiorougti1y test tlie place, this will mean a big thing for the district, and as you know something is much wantelj to liven thi ngs up. I have went[sic) to great e:wense in prospecting &c on my O ........ TI tllock, and !'Iope the Government will put the oHler block: [Parat-dn:lt-li] tt-Irough at once, and assist rne in H-Ie matter. Your kind attention to this will confer a great favor on
Yours tru1 y Geo.\'llS. Patterson
Houston's "ki nd attention" may we 11 have contt-i butelj to H-Ie
acceleration of events wtlieti took place a montl'l later. Hone Heke
apparently returned to the Land Purchase Department empty-handed. In
May, Sheriljan halj stated that, if Heke was "unsuccessful", he intended to
"move the Nat hie Land Court. to pat-t i ti on bet ween Crown and non-se 11 ers".
Tt·1i sis exactl y 'htlat happene1j around tt"le end of Jul y 1894.
The Crown applied to the Land Court to have its adjourned
application for the Crown's interest in Parahirahi to be ascertained, to
be t-Iecwd again. Before the 6tti of August Sheridan was able to tell
C1endon that a Court sitting to "cut out lnterests of the nonsellers"
wou1 d be held on October 5th (actua 11 y the 15th), and the case wou1 d be
heard b!-l Clendon's fellow Land Court Recorder R.S. Bush2 -- Clendon
1 Underl; ni ng in origi nal. 2 j;~e(:orders were Resident t1agistrates 'vlho were empo-.,.lered to hear certain tlJpes of Niltive Land Court cases (suct. as succession &pplications and) appareirtl y, certai n types of partltioi!S) in order to relieve the load on the full N.L.L judges; see Ward} A Sho'v/ of Justice, p.300.
78
vlAI-304 #(4
himself being unable to hear it "as you are ineligible in consequence of
hElvi ng purchased the 1 and". The possi bn ity that some or 011 of the
rernaining srlares might be purchased before the Court sat was still to be
explored) however. The "Postmistress" at Russell t-Iad been "instr-ucted to
make payments on vouchers certified by you"1.
Clendon replied by telegram on August 6th. He was not ver-y happy
with the Government's deci si on "to cut out interests of nonse 11 ers"} for
he was
persuaded from my intimate knowledge of this locality & of these returns [Sic: natives?1 that the vet-y positions [sic: portions?] of the block most desirable & valuable to trle gov[ernrnen]t wi 11 tie the excised parts. 2
Tt-ti s} of course., was probab l!d the reason why Ule Crown had not put
Pat-ahimhi thr-ougrl the Court since the application was first made in
1888. It seerns Ulat Hone Heke's fai1ur-e convinced the Land Purchase
Department that there was little hope of acquiring the rest of the shElres
as rnatters stOOd. Clendon was more optirnistic. He planned to visit
!<aikohe at once .,& get all inter-ests I can in Paratiiratli"., and would "wire
you of an!d interests' otrtain frorn ttlence".
Ttie Noti ce that the Nati ve Land Court woul d sit at 'w'hanqarei on
October 15HI .. to t-Iear Hie Native r1inister's application "for the definition
of the interest of the Crown" in the Parahirahi Block, was issued on
Auqust 22nrj3. The applicotion in question Iflas #88/2677} whicti had
ori lJinal1y been filed in 1886.
1 Undated telegram (probabl y earl y August 1894) from Sheridan to C1endon; MA- MLP 1 1906/63 [94/187) [WAI- 304 #B24 p.49). It should be noted here that Bush .. 1i ke C1endon} acted at time as a Land Purchase Department representative in the North. He 'w'83 nominally the agent-i n-charge of the Parahi rahi negotiations in 1892- 93 (see AJHR 1893 G. - 4 [Supplementary Documents]) , but seems never to have been activel y involved 'With the case. His name is not mentioned in any of the survivi ng correspondence relat; ng to purchas; ng act; vi t; es . 2 Telegram of 6 Aug. 1894, from Clendon to Sheridan; National Archives f"lA- MLP 1 1906/63 [94/187] [WAI- 304 #B24} p.48] 3 Ne'yi Zealand Gazette 1894 v.2 pp.1404- 05 (notice dated Auckland, 22 Aug. 1894). A CO~IIJ of the bili ngu;:s] version of the announcement issued as is handout by the Court can be seen in f"1A- MLP 1 1906/63 [94/1871 ['WAI- 304 #B24 p.50].
79
VlAI-304 #C4
Bef ore pmceedi ng with a di scussi on of the developments 1 eadi ng up to the hearing, it is useful to review the shore situation os of the end of Ju1 y ; n 1594. The 1; st of unpurc~lased shares and approved pr; ces whi ch Sheri dan had sent to C1 endon in r1ay was f ai r1 y accurate, as f 8r 8S
it went. It read1:
Wirernu Te Rip; Snr-. Mik8r8 Te Ripi Y·liremu Te Ripi Jr. Hem8re Tupe Hikiremgi (dead) Te Tene Merupo Te Tane Haratua t'larara Eparai ma T8 Hutana Epst-airna Hone Tut-Ii rang; Kornene Poakatat'li (dealj) Hiku
[£1 3-8-10 3-8-10 3-8-10 20-13-3 20-13-3 20-13-3 20-13-3 5-3-4 5-3-4 20-13-3 20-13-3 20-13-3
T e Hutana Eparai rna and t"larara Epara; me \ .... ··ere successors to T amat i
V.,Ihakaita, and held one-quarter share each. As Sheri dan noted, Hi kurangi and Komene Poakatahi ·...vere both dead: so too wos Hernoro Tupe. The
Court I-lad t':eard applications relating to all three Parahirahi shares, and halj recently di vi ded trlem among successors.
Going in cJlronological order .. on 24 Aug. 1893 the Court divided Komene Poakatarli's share in A, 5 and C into four equal portions. These \-vere awardelj to Wi remu Poakatarli, Eparai ma Poakatahi, Makareta
Poakatahi and Hane MH(aera Poakatahi. \.vi remu Poakatahi was appoi nted Trustee for the latter .. a young wornon of sixteen2 . On 13 April 1594, the
Court brougrlt down as decision in the case of Hemara Tupe. Orders were made for Parehi rahi A .. 5 and C in favour of Aki ni hi Wi. te Hi ra and four
others3. The following day, 14 April 1894 .. the case of Hikurengi yvas
resolved, when Orders were made for Parahirahi A .. Band C. Once again ..
1 List in margi n of letter pf 4 Ma'J, 1894) from Sheridan to Clendon; National Archives MAj'1LP 317 Outwards Letterbook 1893-1903) p. 83 NLP 94/99 [Supplementary Documents], 2 See the v6riou$ Orders of 23 Aug. 1893 reproduced in National Archives t1A-MlP 1 1906/63 [94/285] [WAI- 304 #824 pp. 33- 38.1.: and also National Archives .. Auckland .. MLC-A 2/11 p. 111 &. p.l 06. 3 National Archives, Auckland) MLC-A 2/11 p. 122.
80
V-lAI-304 #C4
Uiey were in favour of Akinihi Wi. te Hira and four others1. I have not
been able, in the time available, to find a source giving individual narnes
for Uie successors of Hemara Tupe and Hikurangi, but will note t-Iere
1) that t'1atiu Perepe and Hapeta Erika .' who sold their interests in
Parahirahi to the Crown on 8 Oct. 1894 (see below), were identified on
the Deeds as successors of Hi kurangi 2; and
2) that in 1945 Whautere V .... itehi ra stated that the hei rs of Hi kurangi
who acquired an interest in Parahirahi C 1 in 1894 included "t1anihera
Eriku, Akinihi ..... 1'itehira, and Hemi Tuwhei"3.
I think this probably accounts for Hikurangi's successors, but it does not
necessat-ily follow that the same five people were also t~le successors of
Tupe
A rnore-comp1ete version of Sheridan's list would have looked like
U-18 f 0 11 o·.,.vi ng:
02 T e Ri pi .. V .... i remu (SrJ [116 st-Iare] 05 Te Ripi, t1ikara [1/6] 06 Te Ripi, Wiremu ( . .JrJ [ 1/6] 20 5 Successors of Hernanj Tupe [1]
21 5 Successors of Hikirenqi [ 1] ")'~I Hiku [11 £...~
26 Merupo .. T e T ane [ 1 ] 35 T e Hutana Eparai rna [1/4] 35 r"1aran:1 Epara; rna [1/4]
(successors to T. V1t-1l3k:ai ta) 36 Haratua .. T e T ane [ 1 ] 42 Tut-Ii rangi .. Hone [1]
45 \·\li remu Poakatahi [1/4] 45 Eparai rna Poakata~1i [ 1/4] 45 Makareta Poakatahi [1/4] 45 Hana Mi kaera Poakatahi [1! 4 in trust]
(successors to K. Poakatahi)
The total interest involved amounted to the equivalent of eight full
shares in the Perehi rehi 61ock.
1 National Archives .. Auckland; t1LC-A 2111 p. 62. This case had first been heard at the 27 ,...Ivl y 1892 heari n9, but \y'a:~ adjourned. 2 And also in the National Archive~ AAt'1K 999/91ist. This information, hO'w'ever, h not recorded in the r'1A- t"1LP 7/11 Ledger entry for this payment. 3 Transcript of evidence given to M.L.C. hearin9 3 MalJ 1945.: Tairau Research Papers WAI-304 #A26 Appendix T.
81
"'lAI-304 #C4
James CI endon's vi sit to Kai kohe earl yin August resulted in the purchase of QUF.wter-shares fl-om two successors of Komene PoakF.ltahi on
Auqust 6th. These were:
Name: Voucher: Poyment: Notes:
Name: Voucher: Pawment: Notes:
Wi remu Poakatat-li [1694-95/J 1178 £.5/3/3 18651ist #45 (successor); 1/4 share.
Hara Mikeara Poakatahi [1894-95/J 1 179 £.5/3/3 1665 list #45 (successor); 1'/4 share_
Wirernu Poakatat-li siqned the "Intermediate Sheet" of Ule Deeljs boU-j fOt
t-li mse If and for Hat-a r"1i keara Poakatahi as t-Ier trustee. The witnesses
~Nere Clendon and M.J. Hargrea',les, an Ohaeawai "Storeman". The contents of the Deed \Nere e~<plained to V·liremu Poakatarti by William E. Goffe, a 1 i cet"tCelj interpreter. It-Ie payments t-ecorded on tt-Ie two vouct-Iers (and
on Hie ne:>=:t two as we 11) are descri bed as havi ng been pai d by "Post
Office". Pt-esurnably this vv'as Ule result of Clenljon using the special penni s3i on gi ven hi m by Sheri dan for cashi ng vouchers.
On August 9th Clendon informed Sherid~n by telegroph th~t:
I sectlred hvo Quarter interests in Parabi rahi yesterday. Expect two or three more on the 20th i nst. [20 Aug.] my ne>;t vi si t to ~\/ai mate. 1
Only four "Quarter interests" remained unsold at this time2. The were those of:
35 Te Hutana Eparai ma [1/4] 35 Mararcl Eparai rna [ 1/4]
(successors to T. Whakaita) 45 Eparai rna Poakatarli [ 1/4] 45 t1akareta Poakatahi [1/4]
(successors to K. Poakatahi)
1 r"1A-t1LP 1 1906/63 [94/187]; WAI-304 #B24 p.47. 2 A::;suming Hlat heirs ofTupe and Hikurangi held one-fifth shares, or some fraction ormultiple thereof.
82
WAI-304 #C4
Clendon apparently did not have any luck on his trip to Waimate -- if he
made it -- but on Sept. 4th he made one of the predicted purchases. It
yvas:
Name: Voucher: Payment: Notes:
Eparai ma Poakatahi 1
[1894-95/] 1907 £5/3/3 1885 list #45 (successor); 114 share.
Eparaima Poakatahi signed the "'ntermediate Sheet" of the Deeds. The
witnesses were G. Greatbach, the Postmaster at Ohaeawa·i, and, again,
M.J. Hargreaves of Ohaeav ... ·ai. The contents of the Deed were again
e~;plained by ~\'illiam E. Goffe.
Tt-Ie three August and Septemtler payments \overe all in accordance
yvith Sheri dan's tv1ay list of approved off et-s.. whi ch itse 11 was based on
the 1886 Tai\N~(i:mga formula. T~le Crovvn \lv'as still offering and paying a
set price for Parahirahi shares. It seems clear that no individual
ne!~otiation as to price could have tleen involved in these transactions.
Tt"li s cJlanged in October of 1894.
The fact that Clendon only succeeded in purchasing one quarter
st-Iare when ~Ie hoped to get as many as trwee i ndi cates that he was t-Iavi ng
trouble persuading trle owners to sell their remaining shares. In his
opinion .. the remedy \ ..... ·as Simple: raise the prices offered. On September
28th he telegraphed Sheri dan, stati ng that2
Several of the owners in PaurahHsicl wbuld sell trleir interests but they require Better pri ceo Wi 11 han The Mi nr lSi c: the Mi ni ster] authori se more Ulan the 3/ per acre agreed on by Late Hirini Taiwhanga?
Sheridan replied immediately. He say.,.. "no objection to a moderate
increase in price of outstanding shares", but v·tanted Clendon to make a
1 The National Archives AAMK 999/9list names both Eparaima t. MaKarets Poakatahi as being involved in this payment. This is clearly an error, for ttle ~··lA-MLP 7.111 Ledger entry name':; onllJ Eparaima as the recipient ofthe money [Supplementary Documents]. In any case, £5/3/3 'vias payment for only one Quarter-share, under the 1886 rates. 2 Tele,~r8m date-stamped 23 Sept. 1894; MA- MLP 1 1906/63 [94/235].; V1AI- 304 #B24 p.4S.
83
WAI-304 #C4
specific proposal "for consideration of Minister"l. The was supplied the
sarne day. Cl end on answered Hiat he
Vv'ould beg to suggest that an increase be auU-,orised for parahrahi shares varying from 2i- to 5/- per acre as may be found necessary. 2
This proposal went to the t1inister. After three days of waiting Clendon
gave into i mpati ence and asked Sheri dan to3
Kindly let me know ministerial decision early as convenient re parahi rahi. Expect i ng meet nati ves on Thursday at Wei mete.
Some time after this he Vy'as informed that4
Vou can increase price of outstarlljing stiares to ttiirty pounds. Deed v..,..i11 be required at Whangarei on 15th inst. for partition if necessan.j. Ad ... ·'i se rne bq tel eqreph of iJti!-l proqress. .... "- '"' ........
The standard rate paid since 1886 V1as £20/13/3 for a full share, which
cotTesponded to a rate of 3 s. per acre. The authoriselj increase to £30
per full share \'\/as trlerefor-e atll)ut a fifty percent rise, bringing Hie
Crovv'n's offer to the equivalent of atll)ut 4 s. 6 It per acre.
C1 erlljon apparentl y took thi s offer to w'ai trli:'jte on October 7th.
n-,ere seems to be no record of how rnony o'v"lners assernbled there to
meet rlirn, or who Uley were. On Octotler (iUI, tl0weVet-, two more
payments were rnade. Tt-,ey included:
Name: Voucher: Payment: Notes:
Perepe, Matiu and Erika, Hapeta [1894-95i] 1908 £.12/0/0 1885 1 i st #21 (successor)5; 2/5 sharer?]
1 Telegram dated 28 Sept. 1894; MA- t'1LP 1 1906/63 [94/2851; WAI- 304 #824 p.44. 2 Telegram date-stamped 28 Sept. 1894.: t"lA- t'1LP 1 1906/63 [94/285J.: ~\"Ai - 304 #824 p.43 3 Telegram dated 1 Oct. 1894; MA-MLP 11906/63[94/285]; WAI-304#B24p.42. 4 Undated telegram; t'1A-I'1LP 1 1906/63 [94/2851.; W'AI-304 #824 p.4l. 5 The National Archi ..... es AAi'''W 999/91ist identifies these h'l'o a::; hei n of Hi kut'angi., and states that three of the five hei rs did not sell thei r interests in Psrshi rshi.
84
vt'AI-304 #C4
Narne: Vouct-Ier: Pa\.jment:
Notes:
Hiku [1894-951] 1909 £ 15/0/0 for "half full interest in Parahirahi Block" 1885 list #22; 1 share.
One-fifth share waul d have been worth about £4/10/0 under the old rate.
Perepe and Eri ka theref are recei '.led about one-thi rd more than previ ous 1 y given for interests of the same size. For selling half of his interests, on the other hand .. Hiku received (approximately) the maximum increase approved by the r1i ni ster.
t'lati u Perepe and Hapeta Eri ka si gned the '" ntermedi ate Sheets" of
H!e Deeds. Both their Signatures were witnessed bid G.Vo/. \ivoods .. a
Nga"ivtla storek:eeper1, and t'!d G. Greattlacti .. the mlaea\·vai Postmaster. For some unkrlo\,vn reason, their Signatures i·vere not accompanied t!!d the
usual statement that U·le meaning of the Deed tiad been explained to them 1 n t-"1aori tly ali cenced interpreter. Hi ku si gned the Deeds agai nst tii s narne on page~; rv11 and A 1. Besi de rli s si gnature is wri Hen in anoUler harllj, "1/2 sr-lare"2. The \'vitnesses were Greatbacrl and H .. J. Kelly, "Store
Keeper Rakautao Kai kohe". Once agai n, the Deeds do not contai n a
certification that Hie Deed had been explained to Hiku in Maori tly a 1 i cenced interpreter.
The r-elatively poor results whicrl Clendon had obtained during
August and September .. set against his confident forecasts .. may have tleen seen in Wellington as a evidence UI13t he was not quite up to Ule potentially-difficult job of wrapping up the Parahirahi business, and
present i ng the Crown's case to the Land Court. I t may be, however, that the Land Purchase Department had already decided to use someone else
for thi s task. On October 1 st, Patri ck Sheridan tel egraphed ttle Chi ef
Surve~dor aski ng hi m to
1 See the Cyclopedia Vol. 2 (1902) p.572 (Ohaea\\.'ai) for a brief biographical sketch. 2 Captai n Mai r told the Court on Oct. 19th that "Hi ku has onl y sold his interests in Band C still retaining that in A", and his lists of non-sellers in A,B and C reflected this. \"/hen the Orders 'w'ere dra'w'n up bl~ the Court, hO'w'ever, Hiku received shares in both A3 and C 1. t'1i flutes for 19 Oct. 1894, ~1aori Lafld Court Whangarei .. Mi nute Book 4 pp.52- 59 [WAI- 304 #A50A ca. pp.49-55].
85
telegraprl estimated areas of Pararlirarli A Band C respectively and post rougtl sketch tracing shewing division lines for information of officer who is to conduct Crown claim in N.L.C. 1
S1 nce [1 endon woul d have known a 11 thi s, the request probab 1 y i nlji cfltes
that Gllbert Mair had already been notified that he was to take over the
Pflrflhi rahi cflse f or the Crown.
Captain Gilbert Mair was the son of merchant who had settled in
the Bay of Is 1 ands 1 n 1824. Gil bert was born near 'w'hangarei in 1843, and
was raised in that area. He assisted in the family kauri gum business
before entering Governrnent ser ..... ice in 1860 as 8 surveyor, and later took:
up a position as clerk of the court and interpreter for the Resident
1"lagi strate's Court at T aurenga. Mai r j oi nelj the \&lei kato Regi ment as a
vo 1 unteer when f i ghti ng broke out in the Ba!d of Pl enty in 1865, and
gained national pr-ominence 8S a dynamic lealjer of An3W'E! contingents
o' ... 'er the follovv'ing yeat-s. He was later awarded the New Zealand Cross
for I-lis e:wloits. After nle wars, as f:I recent biographer puts it2 ,
He maintained his unique association \'vith Te Aravia} enjoying close personal frienljshi ps WitJI rnany of the chiefs he halj f ought a 1 ongsi de. Hi s intuitive understandi ng of Maori culture and val ues and I-Ii s command of HIe Maori language earned rli m the rnana of a ranget ire. In 1922 Te Arawa voted 1"1ai r an annuit~ of £ 100 for hi s 1 ifeti me from the Arawa Lakes Fund.
After his deaHI in 1923, Mair was "received and ferewelled by Te Arawa
on Hlei r merae et Maketu, T aheke, Oheu end Otli nemutu" end is sai Ij to be
"one of Hie few Pakeha to be buried in the cemetery of Te Arawa at
Ohi nemutu". It is frequently stated that he "accepted" or was "admi tted"
to "full chi eftai nstli p" of T e Arawa.
1 Telegram of 1 Oct. 1894 from Sheridan to W.C. Kensi ngton; National Arctlives (Auckland) BABN, 1108, Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block File 1885-1898 [WAI- 304 #B 19 pA2]. The rep1 y, received the same day, steted,"Re Parahirahi area of A 2546 acres B also 2546 acres and of C onllJ 5 acres \-lil1 send sketch."; ibid, pAl. 2 Paula Savage., "Gil bert Mai r"! in Dictionary of NeW' Zealand Biography( 1990) V.1 p.260-261. This article, pl us the biographies in A.H. Mcli ntock, ed., An Encyclopedia of New' Zealand V.2 (Wellington: Government Printer., 1966), pp.378- 379 and Schofield} Dictionary of Ne'w' Zealand Biography, Vol.2 pp.4S- 46 have been draw'n upon for the precedi ng paragraph.
86
WA!-304 #C4
~1air held a variety of government appointments in the 1880s arllj
1890s. Many of them had to do wi th 1 and purchasi ng (a 1 though he was
also a Pat-liarnentary interpreter in the late 1880s and early 1890s). He
was later very critical of the way the Government had treated Te Arawa
in its land dealings. His older brother, Major w'illiam Gilbert ~1air, was a
Native Land Court Judge from 1882 to 1891, and again from 1894 until
1909. According to one family biography, the Major had been "retired"
for pol i tical reasons in 1891. Hi s re-appoi ntment in January of 1894 by
the new Seddon governrnent hints at good connections with the Liberals,
whi ch Gi 1 bert may t1ave shared'.
I n any case, Gil bert t1ai r was brought in by the Land Purchase
Departrnent to deal with Paralii rahi. It is not clear whether hi s
f arni 1 i ari ty wi th geothermal matters (deri '.led from hi s V'lOt-k: in the Bay
of Plenty and Rotorua over the previous ttiirty years) influenced Hlis
Ijecision. I am inclined to think that 1'1air's Whangereii Bay of Islands
background, his language skills and his great expet-tise in ~1aori land
rnatters were probably the dominant factors in rlis selection. 'w'e do not
kno·· .. v if r'1air receivelj any wt-Hten instructions, but it seerns fairly
certai n that tOte was told that the Crown's pref erred strategy was to
purcJ,ase any and ell shares whi ch caul d be acqui red wi thi n the new pri ce
guidelines.
A dian~ t-,eld blj the Alexander Turnbull Librarlj shows that tvlair's .... '- "-
work: on Pan:lt1i rahi started on October 12th, when he 1 eft Auckl and for
vv'hangerei by train2. (All this notebook proviljes, unfortunately, is a bare
itinerary, 'V'/ith notes on travel e:x:penses. There are no comments
whatsoever on the nature of his activities). Arriving on the 13th, he had
two days to prepere before the Court was due to sit. He would have used
the time to f amil i ari ze hi mse If notes and maps supp 1 i ed by the Land
Purchase Department (and pet-haps by Clendon). I have seen nottling to
indicate that Clendon was present in Whangerei during this period) or
i tWO 1 velj with the subsequent Court proceedi ngs in any way.
1 See . .J.C. Andersen and G.C. Petersen, The Hair Family (V ... ·ellington: A.H. & AW. Reed, 1956) .. pp.255- 256. 2 Alexander Turnbull Library ~1S Papers 92 Gilbert t1air f.S8 "Notebook 5", "Notes -- N. Lands 1891- 94." n.~I. Hereafter "~'lai r Notebook".
87
\I'lAI-304.#C4
The 1894 Native land Court Hearings
The Court opened on October 15th) 1894) in 'w'hangerei) to rlear the Crown's application for the definition of its interests in the Pararlirahi
Block. Recorder R.s. Bush presi ded. He was assi sted by Reha Aper-ahama) a Nat i ve Assessor. Although the Court mi nutes do not menU on it, Gil bert Mair was present for trle Crown. According to the Court Minutes1
J one "Hone Ngapua"
handed in 1 eiter from T ane Haratua aski ng that thi s case be adjourned either to Kawakav·ta or Waimate as the old people could corne here being infirrn.
"Hone Ngapua" 'Nas Hone Ngapua Tuhi rangi .. a Parahi rarli o\,vner and U-,e father of Hone Heke2 . A person by the name of "Ritete Poi") who Yvas also present seconded ntis proposa13 . Bush informed the petitioners trlat U-Ieq
must understand in event of Hie adjournment bei ng acceded to they must appear or the Case waul d be entered upon and completed.
The Court then a!jjourne1j fOt- a day "to enable it to communicate vvith
Uti ef ,Jud~Je".
Tt-· ... ,-. illlt-t r-ee-! 't-r~ ... ·,j t i)p' r-,-]l'-"hI]' ~- , ,../""" tho 1 ~ti-I It: ,_U.AI '. "_'.-1 Ie .. i 1_" U lUll f f I~ Ui.J~_b '.' I~· I r..J I . '- ~
offerelj any opposition to an a,jjournment. As tie later inforrned Hie Lanlj
Purchase Departrnent4 :
Immediately the Court opened, an adjournment to Kawakawa . was applied for by the NaUves on the Grounds that several of the nonsellers were unable through age or sickness to travel a distance of fifty miles. I deemed it advisable not to oppose
1 Native Land Court Mi nutes for 15 Oct. 1894 .. Maori Land Court Whangarei) t'1i nute Book 4 p.51 ; WAI- 304 .#A50A ca. p. 33. 2 Hone Tuhi ranQi 'Was .#42 on the 1885 Orders. In 1945 Whautere Witehira told the Court th;~t "Hoani (hor;e) NapIJ3 ... 'Was a non seller 'Who appeared before the (:ourt on partition" (V'lAI- 304 .#A50A ca. p.l 06). :3 Ritete Poi 'was not an Parahi rahi o· ... lner., as far ;~s I have been able to determi ne .. and does not ;~ppe3r any'Where else in the record. 4 Letter- of 22 October 1894 from Mai r to St,eridan; National Archives t'1A- t'1LP 1 1906/63 [9412851.. in 'WAI- 304 .#B24 pp.28- 29. Hereafte'r "t'1ai r Re~,ort 22.10.94".
88
WAI-304 #C4
this adjournment .. for had I done so, the natives v'lould certainly have t-Iad reasonable ground:; for applying for a rehearing.
Hone Ngapua (Tuhirangi) was informed by Bush that the case would be adjourned to K8\~J8k8 .... va on the 19th
in compliemce with the request of the natives to enable those who expressed 8n i nabil ity to attend at Whangarei through infirmities to be present. 1
As i ndi cated on Hie 15th, however, he was also warned "that the case woul d go on 'yvhether Hie natives appeared or not and there[?] woul d tie no further alj J ournrnents".
~1air uselj the extra time to contact the remaining non-sellers. Presumably he hoped either to make a final effort to persuade them to sell Uleir shares or, failing that, to persuade them to accept a sub-,ji vi si on of the Bloef< · ........ hi ct-I 'y'y'as aceeptab le to Ule Cr-awn. He left for
Kawakav·/a as soon as Ule Court adjourned and, as he later told Sheridan,
On the 17UI and 18th I visited the naUves at their settlement and sent urgent nati ces to the nati ves i nformi ng them of tt"le ad j ournment and date of heari ng. 2
t1ai (to 1 d the Court on Hie 19th Hlat
On arriving at Kavv·aka· ..... ia on the 16th Oct. I telegraphed to the non sellers at their respective addresses Kaikohe and Ngawha, and I have been assured that the te 1 egrams were deli vered. I rode mwself to to Orumahare[?] to ~ive te Tane3 [Haratua?]
~ ~
notice. The only person [i11eg.: to whom?] I could not give notice was Makarita4 who lives at Dargaville, her brother was informed.
1 NLC t1i nutes for 16 Oct. 1894, Maori Land Court ¥lhan9arei, Mi nute Book 4 pp.51- 52. [Vy'AI- 304 #A50A ca. pp. 33- 34. 2 Mair Report 22.10.94.; WAI-304#B24pp.28-29. 3 Probably lane HaratlJa .. who had written to the Court 8skin9 for the adjournment. 4 Probabl y ~1akareta Poakatahi, a successor of Komene Pakatahi.
89
't/ A /-304 ·(4
Mair was assisted in these efforts by William E. Goffe, the licenced
interpreter V'lho hod helped Cl endon with the earl y Octobet- purchases.
Goffe stated on ttle 19ttl that
'w'hen Captaln Mair- and I arrived here [I<a'vv'akavv'a] Vy'8 sent telegrams, I went on in the evening when I sa"\,, te Manihera1.,
and asked him if he rlad received telegrams from Capt. t1air on the adjournment of the Court from Whangarei to Kawakawa at request of Tane and Ngapua [Tuhirongil. Manihera said he had received trle telegrams, I also told Manihera trlat if they did not attend the land would be dealt with.
Gaffe informed the Court of his previous involvement with Parahirahi,
specifically v,'ith "Te Hiku who said he was willing to sell a part of it not
Hie \,yhole of his interests" he sold a pan of it"[sic]. He stated, in
conclusion, that "All the natives concerned were well aware of the Court
Sit t i ngs at \l\lrlangarei J and \,,'tlen reporti ng[?] to trlem 1 suggested trley
shou]lj attenlj at 'vv'hangarei because if they di d not do so the Court woul d
proceed v'lith Hie subdi vi si on in thei r absence",
Tt'lese ei<planations seem to rlave tleen given to the Court because
on 1 y t'v\'o of the non-se 11 i ng ov\,'ners made presentat ions to it on the 19UI.
The statement "Hoani Ngapua and Tane Haratua appeared on behalf of the
Natives" V'las "NTitten in, but "on behalf of the Natives" 'was then struck
out in a differ-ent hand and "no[?] appearance of the other non-sellers"
\'\o'888ubstitutelj. (The alteration was initialled by Bush, and may have
been made by rlim), But does Hie sentence "Hoani Ngapua and Tane
Haratua appeared nor?] appearance of the other non-sellers", mean that
none of Hie oHler non-sellers '","ere prlysically present at the Court at any
time during the hearing, or only that none of them formally addressed the
Court?
I suspect Hie latter was the case because
1) one other non-5e 11 er 011 kere T e Ri pi) recei ved a payment from the
Crm-vn on Oct. 19th, during the course of the hearing;
2) ttle Court Mi nutes at one poi nt menti on that a person or persons (the
narne cw narnes., unf ortunate 1 y._ are i 11 egi td e) made a suggest ion \'vhi eh
1 Prot~bly t'1anih",ra EriK::!, a non-seller.
90
V'lAI-304 #C4
was re j ectelj by "T ane and Ngapua), who made the counter-proposal whi ch
led to thei r shtjt-i ng 6lock A 1 ;
3) t·'1al r's i ni ti a 1 confusi on about what portions of the block Hi ku had sold
to the Crown wer-e somehow c 1 arifi ed in the course of the heari ng., and
the record corrected; and
4) One of the sub-blocks divided out (Parahirahi A No.2) went to Akinihi
Wi Te Hira alone. It seems unlikely that this would have been done
without her request and/or consent.
The interpreter, Goffe, may have had an agreement with some of the non
sellers to watch over their interests at the hearing, which might account
fot- Hie latter two developments1, but nonetheless there is reason to
suspect that more than two of the "non-sellers" participated to some
Ijegree in the October 19th hearing. It seems certain, on the other han1j,
Hli3t not one of the individuals whom the Crown claimed had sold the
v .... tKrle of tlieit- interest in the Panlrlirahi Block, tw-ned up to contest this
allegation,
I n tier e'y'i dence (p. 11 <U 31) Ms. But 1 er states that "at 1 east two Ijtilj
pert·laps four owners wtl0 t-Iad earlier signed nle deed alienating all of
thei r interests [i n Parat-li rahil appeared at Court [Oti Oct. 19th] and
iljentifielj tt",ernselves as non-sellers". This statement is completely
erroneous, as is the analysis which follows (pp. 11-13 <U 32-36). All of
the people identified by the Crown and V,ttlo "appeared in Court" as non
se 11 ers 'vvere exactly that at the t i rne of thei r i dent ifi cat i on and
appearance. There are indeed problems with the identification of sellers
anij non-sellers J but they are not the ones pt-esented by ~1s. Butl er.
My own analysis of the payment-records and related evidence
shows the f 0 11 owi ng to have been the situati on wi th the Parahi rahi B10ck
when the Court opened at Kawakawa on 19 October 1894:
1 Mair stated at one ~,oint in the hearili9 "that Mr Goffe 'Who had assisted in negotiating a part of the purchase had been requested blJ some ofthe natives to have their interests c:ut off (:ommer~::i ng at Te Treania[ ??] and then to Stream Tuku'w'henua aOlj along its bank". Goffe, \l/ho lived in K;ji kohe., later a~lpr(tached the Land Purchase Department on behalf of certai n Pan,hi rahi lj1ilnerS \'iho allegedl lJ \.'/ished to sell thei r i nteresb to the Crov/n.
91
'dAI-304 #[4
"Non-sellers": 02 Te Ripe Wirernu (Sr.) 05 Te Ripi, f"likara 06 Te Ripi, Wirernu (Jr.) 20 5 Successors of Hemanl Tupe 21 3 Successors of Hi ki rangi 22 Hiku 26 r1arupo, T e T ane 35 Te Hutana Eparaima 35 t·1en-ara Eparaima
(successors to T. Whakaita) 38 Haratua, T e T ane 42 Tuhi rangi J Hone 45 ~18kareta Poakatatii
(successors to K. Poakatahi)
[ 1 /6 st-18re] [ 1/6] [1/6] [11 !ll [1/2-- "one-half" sold 10.941 [1]
[ 1/41 [1/41
[ 1 ] [ 1 ] [1'/41
The total of these interests amounted to the equivalent of 6 3/4 shares.
Captain Mair told the Court trlat
t1e appear-ed on berlC! 1 f of Cro\·vn to ask that the Court cut oH the interests [i n Parat-Ii rahi] acqui relj by the Governrnenl .. arllj proceeded to e:>;p 1 ai n Hie posit i on .. stating the interests sti 11 remaininq to the non sellers.
He then presented the Court wi th three 1 i sts of non-se 11 ers -- one eacr:
for A .. Band C. All three lists had the first ten entries in common .. a~;
fol1ov· ... ~;:
non se 11 ers ...
1. Wiremu Te Ripi Senior M 2. Mlkare Te Ripi F 3. Wiremu Te Ripi M Jr 4. Hemara Tupe t'l 5. Aki nit-Ii Wi Te Hi ra F 6. t'lani rlera Eri ka 1'1 7. Hemi Tu¥it-,ai F B. Makareta Poakatahi F 9. Tane Mar-upo aliasTeTaneHaratua M 10. Hone Tuhirangi M
Relative Int[erests]
1/6 share 1/6 " 1/6 n
1 share 1/5 .. 1/5 .. 1/5 .. 1/4 " 2 shares 1 share
92
WAI-304 #(4
On the lists for A and B (only) the words "subsequently sold" tlave been
'vvritten beside Hie name of ~1lkara Te Ripi.
The 1 i st gi '.len for Parahi rahi A had one rnore entry, as f 0 11 ows:
11. Hiku M 1 "[share]
Mair explained this difference to the Court by noting that "Hiku has only
sold his interests in Band C still retaining that in A". He added that, in
Parahirarli C, "the Crov·m has purchased little OYer four acres, but are[?]
will i ng to take only f our acres, 1 eavi ng one acre f or the nati "Ie non
sellers".
t'"lai r's 1 i sts had one orni ssi on .. and one possi b 1 e error of
commi ssi on. The fi rst concerned the absence of the two successors of
Tamati V·/hakaita -- Te Hutana Eparai ma and ~1arara Eparai rna -- who he 1 d
one-quarter srlare eact-1. BoUt of these people had been correctl~d named
a::: Pararli rarli 'non-se 11 ers' on the 1 i st ......... hi crl Sheri dan had sent to C1 endon
only five months earlier (4 May 1894 .. see above). I have seen no evidence
·\,v·hatsoever to indicate that either of these persons had sold their
inter-est::: to Hie Cro\·vn in H-Ie intervening period. Trley may rlave been Hie
quarter-share owners who Clendon thought in late August were atlout to
se 11 .. but there are no vouchers or any other ki nd of record \·vhi crt so much
a::· [-lint trlat they Ijid S01. Counsel representing the Crown during the
Native Land Court hearings in 1945 .. tlefore Judge Pritchard, stated that
tJ"iflt "V'le r,ave accounted for all interests except t··larara Eparaima and Te
Hutene Eperei ma \A,··ho succeeded to [a] quarter share each"2.
Tt-,e possible error relates to the entry -·Tane Marupo alias Te Tane
Haratua". Two people listed separately in the 1885 Orders (#s 26 and
38) are thus identified as a single person holding t .... vo full shares -- the
person himself being present at the hearing in his persona as Tane
Haratua. The Court accepted Hils identification .. for the new Orders
1 I 'vlould note here that Hie total Parahi rahi payments accounted for by vouchers for August, September and October 1894, amount to exactly the same total (£.57/9;9) as is reported in A.JHR 1895 G.-2 "Lands Purchased and Leased from Natives in North Island" [1 April 1894 to 31 Marc~1 18951, p.2 "Part I. - Lands Fi nall lJ Acqui red. North of Auckland No.7: Parahirahi D." [Supplementary DocumenbJ. Ther-e seem to be no 'missing' expenditures for the relevant period (no palJments at all \ .... ere recorded bet'vleen .Jan .. 1891 and Aug .. 1894). 2 Transcri pt of t1i flutes in W'AI- 304 #A50A C8. p.114.
93
subsequently issued deal with Marupo-Haratua as a single individual. The
s~lares for A 1, for example, were credited to "Tane Marupo alias Te Tane Haratua". 'w'tiil e the ori gi na 1 Order for C 1 read
8. Tane Marupo M.A. 6 .. [shares1. 9. Tane Haratua M.A. 6 .. [stiares1.
the entry for Haratua was struck out by Bush himself, with a line leading to a note readi ng, "wrong", and the "6" for Marupo was altered to "12"1.
The prob1ern is, that Tane Marupo and Tane Haratua were two
lji ff erent peop 1 e. Tt"Je ori gi n of thei r 'merger' can be found in 1879. At sorne point before October of Hils year, Renata r1arupo died. This person 'v'y'as presurnably the "Marupo" narned as a Parahirahi ov'/tier on the 1874
Cet-Uficate of Tit1e2 . On 7 October 1879, Te Tane Haratua (named as an
owner on the sarne Certificate) applied for a succession order. The case
was heard on 14 January 1880 at Ohaeavy'ai by Judge r1unro, wi th the resul t Ulat Renata !'1arupo's Parat-tirahi st-Itire was awarded to Te Tane t"1arupo .. with Te Tane Haratua being appointed his Trustee3 . Neither
f"len-upo nor Haratua's share halj been sollj to the Crown before Octotler of
1694. They were then j oi ned together- by t1ai r and the Court, and rernained so until 1935. In Hlat year, at a Land Court sitting at Kaikot-Ie, Judge Acheson -- Hie trust si tuati on bet ween the two havi ng been poi nted out -- onjered an arnenljrnent to to the 1894 Order for C 1 wt-Ii ch
separated Marupo's si x shares ft-orn Haratua's4.
In addition to the above, t1air's lists of non-sellers failed to take
note of the fact that Heman~ Tupe's share was now divided among five successors.
1 See Native Land Court Orders for ~rahi rahi A 1, A2., A3 .. B 1 $:. C 1 (If 19 Oct. 1894, reproduced in WAI- 304 #A50A ca. pp.48- 59. It should be noted that the transcri pts of these in t'13. Butler's evidence #A50 pp.l 5- 1 6 .. are not enti rel y accurate 2 Native land Court Order for Parahirahi of 10 Nov. 1874.; see above. :3 Natii)n;~l Archive::. (Auckland) MLC-A 2/10 p. 50 #79/4217. The appointment 'w'a::. notified in "Gazette No.24" in 1 a80. 4 National Archives, Native Land Court ~1i nute Book, Bay of Islands t'1B 14 (~1i(:r(t Z - 388A Reel 233)., p.268.
94
VlAI-304 #C4
The flaws in these lists contt-ibuted to the omission of at least
two owners, representing the the equivalent of 1/2 of a full share's
interest in the block, from the subsequent an-angernents. These
arrangernents were set in motion when Bus~1 asked Captain Mair "where it
was intended to cut off the land for non sellers". His reply seems to have
been rather vague -- to the effect that Gaffe had discussed the matter
with "some of the natives", who had asked to have a particular area set
aside for them. Mair stated that "he was Quite willing to meet the
wishes of the natives as far as possible".
These wi shes are not descri bed in the Court Mi nutes but, accordi nq
to nair's final report, he discovered at the t1eewing (althoug~i t1e had
Ijoubtless been bt-iefed to expect it) "that the nonsellers wanted the best
of the block including all tt1e Cinnabar workings". The result was "a
!~t-eat deal of disputing and delay" outside the Cour-t before an agreement
was react1elt The Court t'1inutes reconj only one recess during Hie day:
r-"liji r ment ions trlat the t-Ieari ng "was adjourned from time to t i rne to
enatd erne to arnjnlJe outsi de"l .
~;orne of Hie ·arrangin~t. at least, was done in front of tJI8 Court. A
pen::on or persons
proposed to cut off the area to whicrl the non sellers haver?} i nterests[?] in Pararli rahi B at the far end of the Block, but as T ane [Haratua] and [Hoani] Ngapua consi dered that [it] \·vas of inferior quality, and asked to hElve it be near Hie acre in C, and Ulat their own stiares be separated from the others. Eventually it WElS agreed between Capt. Mair, Tane and Ngapua [illegible word] Court, that Tane and Ngapua should receive 412 acres 3 roods 14 perches in Parahirahi A and nothing in Parahirahi B, the interests in the 1 fitter Block to be conveyed by them to the Crown in consi derati on of thi s concessi on.
A block identified as A No.1, encompassing 412 ac 3 r. 14 p., was set
aside in the northwestern corner of Parahirahi. Two-thit-ds of it went to
"Tene t'"larupo alias Te Tene Haratua", and the rernaininq third to Hone
Tut-Ii rangi [Hone Ngapua Tutii rangil. It shoul d be noted tt1at one-thi rty
seventh of 5092 acres (A & B combined) is 137.6 acres, and Hlat Uu-ee
1 t··13i r ~Ieport 22.10.94.; V1AI- 304 #824 pp.28- 29.
95
\·'lAI-304 #C4
times 137.6 acres equals 412.8 acres. In other words, the A 1 block
rept-esented the exact acrea~e for Un-ee full shares in the Parahi rahi
Block.
As agreed, Mat-upo/Haratua and Tuhirangi's interests in B were
Ulen conveyed to the Crown. The following payments are recorded for
October 19th, 1694:
Name: Voucher: Payment: Notes:
Name: \/oucher: Payment: Notes:
Te Tane r1arupol [1694-95/] 2572 £5/0/0 1885 1 i st #38 1 share
Tuhi rangi, Hone [1694-95/J 2573 £5/0/0 1685 1 i st # 42 1 sl"lare
Copi es of Hie vouchers for Ulese two payrnents ¥lere fil ed 'vvi Hi the Court
by t··1air2 .
As can be seen, both wer-e pai d bW ~1ai r, who cerU fi ed that in both
cases "the payee t"las si gned Ule Deed of Conveldance". I n both cases Bust",
witnesselj the payrnents and the si gnatures J and Goff e attested that
"payees" were who they purpor-te1j to be. Both vouct1ers descri bed the
£5,/0/0 in'· ... ol\··elj as "Payment in full for all right, title and interest in ...
Parat"firat"1i B Block". In fact, this £5 was simply a nominal surn to
sldrnbolize the surrender of any interest in B, for the two (or three)
oVvners Ijirj not actually lose any of the acreage accruing to a full share
as a result of the payment by the Crown (all became shareho 1 ders inC 1).
Severa 1 other features of the f1arupo voucher are noteworthy.
Although signed by "Tane Marupo", who was certified to be Tane ~1arupo
by Goffe, the payee was identified as "Te Tane Marupo alias Te Tane
Haratua". Also, under "Number denoting place in 1ist of owners" is given
both 26 (f1arupo's number on the 1885 1 i st and the Deeds) and 38
1 Name of recipient as recorded in tvlA-t1LP 7/11 Accounts Journal 1890-1895 [Supplement;jrrJ Documents]. 2 'WAI- 304 #A50A (:8. p.43 &. p. 44.; from [lOSLI Welli ngton file for Au(:kland Deed # 1886.
96
\,-lAI-304 #(:4
(Haratua's). Tane ~1arupo's S1 gnature on the Deeds was W1 tnessed by
G.W.5. Patterson., in his capacity as ,J.P., and by Goffe. The same pair
witnessed Tane Haratua's (and Hone Tuhirangi's). There is nothing on the
Deeds to indicate if Hie same person signed beside the first two names
at the same time, but to my untutored eye the handwriting looks very
similar.
A 11 of thi s rai ses the questi on of whether the confusi on over
Marupo-Haratua was apparent or rea 1. A 11 of the arrangements i nvo 1 \led
seem to have made due all owance for two full shares in Parahi rahi, but it
is not at all clear if one person or two was reapi ng the benet"i t.
None of the si gnatures put on the Deeds at Hli~; t i rne is
accornpartie1j by a statement that the contents were e>~plained in Maori to
fJle signatories. The sarne is true of Hie third payrnent V'las made in the
course of the hearing:
Name: Voucher: Pawrnent: Notes:
til kara Te Pipi I 1894-95/1 2571 £.5/0/0 1555 l1St #05 1./6 st-Iare
A copy of ttli ::; voucher ......... as also fil ed \NitJI the Court by ,18i rl. Ttie
Ijetai 1 s are a 11 the same as for the other two Oct. 19fti vouchers, except
Hlat Te Rl ~Ii 's £.5,/0/0 V1a8 Ije8cri bed as "Paldment in full for all rigt"tt,
title and interest in ... Being 1/6 of a share in Parat-lirahi A and B blocks".
This £.5 was not nominal payment like the others: it represented
appt-oximatelya fifty percent increase on the amounts paid earlier to
tiolljers of a one-sixtti share (i.e. £.3/8/10), in line wiHI Hie increases
approved ear-liet- in the month. Mikara Te Ripi retained her interest in C,
and became a shareholder in 1 n C 1. Her S1 gnature on the Deeds was
witnessed by J.R. Reed, a Kawakawa solicltor2 , and by Gilbert Mair.
i \·I/AI- 304 #ASOA ca. p.42.: from DOSLI V'lelli ngton file for Auckland Deed # 1886. 2 Reed had ~,o/it nessed three other signatures on the Parahi rahi Deeds on 28 Octo ber 1 887.
q7 - I
ViAI-304 #[:4
Fa 11 owi ng these payments} the list of "non-sellers" waul d ha'· ... e
read:
02 Te Ripi} Wiremu (Sr.) [1/6 share] 06 Te Ri pi} Wi rernu (Jr.) [1/6] 20 5 Successors of Hemara Tupe [1] 21 3 Successors of Hi ki rangi [3/5] ··-1· .... ' LL Hiku [1/2-- "one-half" sold 10.941 26 Marupo} T e T ane [1: interest in Ei surrendered] 35 Te Hutana Eparaima [ 1/4] 35 Maran:! Eparai rna [ 1/4]
(successors to T. WrH:Jkaita) 36 Haratua} T e T ane [1: interest in B surrendered} 4'') .<... Tuhi ranqi. Hone [ 1 : interest in B surrendered] 45 tv1i:lkareta Poakatahi [1/4]
(successors to K. Poakatahi)
,'lai (s arrangements 'vvi HI t-1arupo/Haratua and Turli rangi left tt-tern
·,,·vinl joint oy\'ner~Jlip of A 1 anlj an interest in C, but nothing in Ei.
AnotJler ttl oCk .. i dent ifi ed as A No.2 and consi st i ng of 13 ac. 3 r. 2 p ... 'vv a f.;
set asi de to the south of A 1. The Y'o'ho 1 e of thi s was "to vest in Aki ni hi
\",,Ii Te Hire F alone". This looks ver4 much like the product of a deal
SI rni 1 ar to that Vvtli ct·1 created A 1 .. a lthougr-I noH-Ii ng of the sort is
ment i oned in the t"'1inutes. T e Hi ra's interests in A as a successor of
Hi kurangi (1/5 ~;hare) ',,·vere apparently part it i oned off from those of the
other ov'mer-s .. si nce srle di d not recei ve a share of A3. It 'v'>/oul d seem
reasonatil e to suppose that Hii s V'las done at t-Ier o\·vn request, and
therefore Hlat she \'VfIS either present at or 'vvas represented at the
hearing.
Parahirahi A No.3} with 225 ac. 1 r. 16 p.} was created in the south
of A. Seventeen and nine-tenths shares were created by the Court and
divided among seven owners. The Court Minutes show' that Mn~ara Te Ripi
and Akinihi Wi Te Hire were also named on the original list} but their
names '"vere struc~~ out. Bush i nit i a 11 ed these alterations. Hemi TUWrHli'S
name was inserted at some poi nt The resulting owners and shares on
the final Or-der \·,"ere:
96
VlAI-304 #"C4
No. 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Shares 1 1/5 6 1 1/2 1 1/5 6 1 1
Name Tu .... vhai, Hemi FA [F ema 1 e Adult] Hiku MA [tvlale Adult] Poakatat-li .. riakareta FA Erika, Manihera MA Tupe, Te Heman~ MA Te Ripi, Wiremu (Senior) MA Te Ripi, Wiremu (.Junior) MA
Several weeks 1 ater, when Mai r reca 1 cul ated Hie interests g1 ven to the
non-se 11 ers by Bush, he di scovered that "they had been awarded about 20
eeres too much in Parehirehi A NO.3" (Le. 225-1-6 ecres insteed of 205-
1-6). He ttwught that "Hlis excess of area is not of much importance,
seeing that H-Ie Cro .... vn otltained Hie portion it ·vvanted"l.
Sheri dan di rected that Bush be asked to correct "any di sparity"
bef ore nle survey proceeded .. so that the Department woul d "be able to
v ... ·cwk nle results out in an intelliqittle rnanner" if questions .... vere esked
tlld a F'arliementar!d Comrnittee2. r·1eir .. ho\·vever, did not think that this
Vy'as the tlest course of act i on. Imp 1 yi ng that the error had been made by
Bu:;:JI .. he asked
'w'ould it not be tlest. to let. it St.i:Jr!lj? It is a mistake in H-Ie right direction for the Natives and they are not likely to cornph:lin.
He off erelj to write to Bush if Sheri den UIIJUgt-lt "it out to be done .... tllJt
Hils S8ems to ha'·ie been Hie end of the rnatter3. The only alteration to A3
on the fi na 1 Order was that sorneone --presumably Bush -- rounded Hie
size off upwards, to 226 acres4
The number of owners retai ni ng thei r interests iii B was 1 ess than
f or A, and the acreage allotted to them was correspondi ngl y smaller. The
new B No.1 block amounted to only 150 ac. 2 r. 0 p., on the southern tip of
1 t··1emo.of 11 Nov. 1894from MairtoSheridan.: ~1A-MLP 11906/63 [941314] [WAI-304 #"B24 D.22. His lists follow on DP.23- 24. 2 '1emo. of 27 Nov. 1894 from Sheridan to Mai r; ,'1A- 1"'1LP 1 1906/63 [94/314] [V1AI-304 #"B24 p.2S. ::; t···lemo. of 27 Nov. 1894 from Sheridan to Mai r} and of 4 Dec:. 1894 from ~1ai r to Sheridan: MA- t'1LP 1 1906/63 [94/314] in \.llAI- 304 #B24 p.2S. . 4 See Order for A3.: WAI- 304 #"A50A ca. p.S2.
99
V-iAI-304 ·C4
Hie original B. This was dividelj among thirteen anlj one-tenth st1ar-es,
allottelj as fo11oY',IS1
No. Shares Name 01 1 1/5 Te Hira, Akinihi Wi FA 02 1 1/5 Tuwhai, Herli FA 03 1 1/5 Erika .. Manihera MA 04 1 1/2 Poakatat1i, Makareta ~1A
05 6 TUDe .. Hemara MA 06 1 Te Ripi, 'w'iremu (Senior) MA 07 1 Te Ripi, Y~iremu (Junior) riA
100
It should tie noted that, v·,.-hile Hikurangl's share in Parahirahi vv'as divided
among her three non-s811 i ng successors (Aki ni rli \¥i T 8 Hi t-a, Hemi Tuvvtlai and t"lE1nihera Erika) .. Hemara Tupe's share in these ne'vv blocks were
aV'lelrded in rli s own name. The Court seems to have been unaware of hi s
death and the Succession Order subsequently issued .. or for some unkno'",yn
rea::;on deciljed to ignore it.
The size of all of these ne\'v blocks Ii\"as determined by converting
U'le srlareholdings of the oy·mers concerned into acreage totals2.
Eiow-njewies containin!J the total acreage require1j ,,·vere Hlen identified. Thi:=: 'yYElS not done arbitrarily. t1air later reported to Sheridan that "The
Ei grIt t1undred and odd acres cut off for the Natives includes the; r houses
stores and cultivations, many of the natives being resident on the land"3.
It 'y","oul!j appear that a fairly good jotl of ascertaining the location of
these assets .... vas done., for only one complaint atlout the results is on
record. A year 1 at8r, Sheri dan was approached by Hone Heke on behalf of
the owners of A 1 (one of v· ... hom, Hone Tuhirangi .. Y'las his father). He
mentioned .. , that one or two small Kaingas were, through some mi sunderstandi n9 .. included in the portion of the Parahi rahi Block awarded to the Crown. 4
1 Mlkara Te Ripi l.1as included on the original list, in the 1'1inutes .. but her name:~ \\'as struck out. Bush i nitl all ed these alterations. 2 3ee the 'conversion tables' used blJ Clendon in 1'1A- ~'1LP 1 1906/63 [94/285] in WAI- 304 #B24 pp. 39- 40. 3 t1ai r Report 22.10 94 .. : \.llAI- 304 #B24 pp.28- 29. 4 ~·1erno. #134.17 of 22 Au'j. 1895 from Sheridan to 3IJrve lJor General (S.P. Smith).: National Archives LS 1/1910/1080 WAI-304 #B24 p.?9.
VlAI-304 #C4
Surveyor-Genera 1 1 ater descri bed thi s 'mi sunderstandi ng' as the result of
"the natives maki ng a mi stake". (He also ref erred to the 1 and in thi s area
as "the most worthless norH-1 of Auckland")l .. In any case, with furtt-Ier
input from Heke2 the error was soon rectifielt It was found to be less
expensive in terms of survey costs to alter the boundaries of A 1 to
encompass these kaingas than to cut small pieces out of D. In 1896 the
Crown and trle owners of A 1 exchanged some 206 acres3 .
I n the case of C block, although the Crown c 1 ai med to have
pure/iased interests equivalent to "[a] little over four acres", Hair
declar-ed early on in the proceedings that it was "willing to tal(e only
four acres, leavin!~ one acre for the native non sellers". The fact that
Hikli~3 interest in C hellj not been sold on October 8th was subsequentl~d
recoqnized -- his name was added to the originel list of C 1 o\·vners
-written in Uie r1inutes -- but this did not reduce Ule Crown interest
be 1 ow four acres (nor, for that matter, would the adljit ion of the rni ssi n:~
ha 1f -t:hare he ltj by the successors of Tamati y./hakaita have done so). It
appears nldt, at one stage, the interests of ~1arupo/Haratua and Tutiirangi
in C "olvere nlougl-It to I-lave been extinguist-Ied, tlut Uleir narnes -were also
tllj,jed to the ori gi na 1 1 i st b!d nle Court.
101
Ov-mership in nle one-acr-e C 1 block was divided into trlirt~d-eigt-It
arllJ one-tenHI srlares. As initially drafted, Hie Ot-der ,jivide,j these arnon!J
t-Helve ov-mers, as follows:
1 t1emo. of 23 Sept. 1895 from S.P.Smith to Chief Surveyor (G. Mueller); National Archive:s LS 1/1910/1080 WAI- 304 #B24 p.82. A fe'W months earlier surveyor R. Neumann had de$cribed Bl as "nothing but 'Worthless Kauri gum land, venJ broken, and utterly unfitted for cultivation in any part" He 'Was under the impression that the partitioned blOCKS 'Were residential reservations, and stated that Bl 'Was "not suited for the purpose it 'Was intended. The land N. of A NO.3 'Would be better adapted for a ~1aori reserve". See letter of 14 May 1895 Neumann to t1lJeller; National Archives (Auckland) BABN, 1108, Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block File 1885-1898 [WAI- 304 #B19 p.27]. 2 See t1emo. of 30 April 1896 from S.P.Smith to Chief Surveyor (G. ~1ueller).; National Archive~. LS 1/1910/1080 WAI- 304 #824 p.73. Heke stepped into hurry thi ngs along 'When the o\ .... ners reported to him that the portion of D proposed to be exchanged \Vas "bei ng surveyed for lease to some Europeans." 3 Documentation relati ng to the exchange can be found in National Archives LS 1/1910/1080 WAI- 304 #B24 pp.62- 82. The exchange 'was effected in October of 1896.
VlA!-304 #C4
No. St-Iares Name 1. 1 1/5 Te Hira, Akinirli \lli FA
..... 1 1/5 Tuwhai, Heni FA L. 7 . ..). 6 Hiku MA 4. 6 Tuhi rangi, Hone MA 5. 1 1/2 Poakatahi, Makareta FA 6. 1 1/5 Erika, Manihera MA 7. 1 Te Ripi, f11kara FA 8. 6 T ane Marupo MA 9. 6 Tane Haratua MA 10. 6 Tupe, Te Hemara MA 11. 1 Te Ripi, Wiremu (Senior) MA 12. 1 Te Ripi, Wiremu (..Junior) MA
9. 12 r"1arupo f T ane t'1A Tupe .. Te HetTlewa r--1A 1 () 6
11. 12.
Te Ri pi, Wi rernu (Seni or) ~1A Te Ripi, V·iiremu (.Junior) tiA
C 1 610ek V'las to be located at Hie norHletTI tip of Uie ot-i gi na I C block.
,-'ud,~e Pri tct-iard comrnented in I-Ii s 1945 report that
in the 1894 partition Ule non-sellers were treated on an area basis only alttiough the acre with almost all the springs on [it] V'las a\'varded to Uiern and Hie 4 acres [which went to the Cro'vvnl contains only two springs. The non-sellers wet-e tJlUS ei.:,ceedingly generously treated as regards value. 1
The balance of the Parahi rahi B10ck remai ni ng after these fi ve new
blocks tlad been SD 1 it off, was desi gnated the Parahi rahi D B1ock) and
awat-ded to trle Crown. The Order issued by Bush on 19 October gave the acreage of D 8S 4292 8C 0 r. 10 p.2 .
1 n.,~.,v+ "" I ...... ~., 1 n.-a~,,~.v ... r.-.~.+ 1'-'.~~1. \,.,HI 7U-"~ 3!th~['D ~ .• , ~ ..11 . 1".'='1-")1 '. L'',I '_'UW::I'=' I. r 1 1 "_·!la1 U lLII_·t. 1 :::''"t.'J, Ht1I-.' '"t .. t1., IU t·a. 1-'.'1" I.
2 See ~'1AI- 304 #A50A ca. pp.56- 57.
102
\,',1AI-304 #C4
In his October 22ncl report on the Parahirahi hearing, Captain ~1air
stoted thut
I am informed by Mr. Goffe and oUlers "Nho have an intimate kno'vv1edge of the block that Hie 4290 acres [sic] a'yvarded to the Crown, contai n all the Qui cksil ver deposits and are therefore, the most valuable portion of the estate.
Ttle Crown had paid a total of £665-2-6 to srlareholders (in some cases
to ttleir trustees) between 26 Aprll 1886, and the end of the day on 19
Oct. 1894, in order to aCQuir-e 32 1/3 of the 37 shares in the Parahirahi
A, B and C blocks (87.32%)1. The final payment for Parahirahi D thus
arnounted to sorne tt-wee st'll11 i ngs arllj t'vvopence per 8cre2.
~1ai r c 1 oselj t'li s report '.flith the cornrnent that
1 (J3
The Natives Vv'ere paid t 1. per acre fot- the adjoining blocks by trle Ew-opean purchaser-s3 and had an exa 1 telj idea of the val ue of this land. This has been an exceptionally difficult matter to sett 1 e and I t'lope that trle arrangements arri ved at Vii 11 be consi dered sat isfactory.
This tends to support the idea that he rleld been directed -- and had
rlirm:elf e:>::pected -- to sort out the Parahirahi protdem by purchasing all
of trle rernainin!] shares in Hie Block. He thus felt compelled to explain
1 32 1 /3 i~; my o'w'n approximation. The case \\,'hich the Cro\,o'n put before the Land Court in October of 1894 'I\'as that it had purchased the equivalent of all but 4.85 of the 37 shares in the Parahi rahi A, 8 and C blocks ( 13.11 %), Another 1 t'6th of a share 'ylas purchased in the course of the heari ng, and the interests of two (or three) owners in B 'Were voided by a token pa y me nt. 0 n the ot he r tis nd, 0 ne selle r \\/as recog ni zed as not havi ng sold his i nte rest inC (Hi ku) 2 These calculations are based on totals derived from palJment vouchers, as detailed elsewhere. I have not included the £ 10-3-6 in expenses which 'ylere incurred by the Crown in the course of purchasing interests (for interpreters etc.). The vouchers sho'y,l a total expenditure on Parahi ratli of £695- 6- O. The 'official' total for Parahi rahi, ho'w'ever, as reported to Parliament and published in the AJHR , \>las £ 716- 6- 4 (AJHR 1895 G. - 2 p.2 [Supplernentary Documents]). I have not been able to account for the extra £21- 0- 4, but at present thi nk it was a computational or recordi ng error. Some £68- 12- 6 of the funds expended on Parahirahi in 1886-87 \>las (for reasons unkno\>ln) put onto the 1887-88 ;jccounts by Treasury. The total Parahi rahi expenditure to the end of the 1887- 88 fiscal year \>las subsequentl y reported to be £.611 -19- 1 } some £.20 more than ean be aec:ounted for from payment vouchers. A similar diserepancy was ~,erpetuated until the final report in 10::95. See Table on follo'vling page. 3 Note that this 'w'as the price for \>Ihil~h Ka Te Ao and Komene Poakatahi had offered thei t' interest in Perehi rahi to the Cro'v/n in November of 1885 (see above).
ViAI-304 #C4
..... v'hy these complex "arrangements" had been necessary -- that the
remaining shareholders would not sell their interest at the price the
Crown was prepared to paq. Mair did not think that thel~ would refuse to ~ ~
sell for any pri ce: he noted that "Very probab 1 y several of the nonse 11 er-s
will now want to dispose of their small[?] inter-ests".
104
w'AI-304 #C4
TobIe: CROWN PAYMENTS FOR THE PARAHIRAHI BLOCK: BY MONTHS, 1666-1694 (£ -so -dJ
Month
FY 1886-87 1886 April 1886 Dec. 1887 Fetl. 1887 t1arch
FY 1887-88 1887 May 1887 June 1887 Aug. 1887 Sept. 1887 Oct. 1838 April
FY 1888-89 1889 Feb. 1889 t'1arch 1 B89 April
FY t 890- 91 1890 Sept. 1890 No'. .... 1890 Dec. 1 e91 .Jan.
FY 1894- 95 1894 Aug. 1894 Sept. 18940ct.
Totals
Patjment 1
25-0-0 189-5-1 142-4-10 70-15-0
21-14-3 3-0-0 42-7-6 21-14- 3 72-6-4 3-3-10
0-10-0 16-6-6 0-10- 0
17- 4- 26
6-4-3
0-1-0
10-6-6 I:' '2' '2' .J-,J- .J
42- 0- 0
£695-6-0
(expenses21 Cumulative
[1-1-0] [1-17-6]
[1-1-0] [3-0-0] [1-1-0] (1-1-0]
[0-10-0]
[0-10-0J
[1-1-0J
[0-1-0J
[£10-3-6]
214-5-1 356-9-11 427-4-11
448-19-2 451-19-2 494-6-8 516- 1- 11 588-8-3 591-17-1
592-7-1 60e-13-7
609-3-7
626-7-9 632-12-0 637-15-3 637-16-3
648-2-9 653-6-0 695-6-0
AJHR
356-12-113
611-19-1 4
~'-'q I:' .,c: to.:.. -:;)- I'J
658-16-77
716-6-48
£716-6-4
1 Calculated from payment vouchers: see text. [see Supplementary Documents for AJHR] 2 Al ready i nel uded in "Payments". These funds 'w'ere not paid to Maori o'w'ners.
105
3 A . .JHR 1 ae7 C. - 3 pA (1 Aprll 1886- 31 t1arc:h 1887). Accordi ng to Vouchers in MA- t'1LP t1A- MLP 7/10 Accounts Journal 1885-1890 for March 1887 J a total expenditure of £68-12- 6 \\·'as placed on the F'y' 1887- 88 total: £356-12-11 + £68-12- 6 = £425- 5- 5. 4 AJH~~ 1883 G. - 2a p.5 (1 April t 887- 31 Jul Y t 888).
5 AJHR 18i39C.-6 p.3 (1 Aug. 1888- 31 July 1889). AJHR 1890G.-4p.3 (1 April 1889- 31 t"larch 1889) gives the same total. 6 Includes £6-17-8 of payments sho\v'rl only in AAt1K 999/9. 7 A.JHR 1892G.-4p.3 (1 Apri11890- 31 July 1892). A . .JHR 1893G.-4p.3and 1894 G. - 3 pA( 1 April 1893 - 31 March 1894) J give the same total. 8 A.JHR 1895 G. - 2 p.2 "Lands Fi nalllJ Aequi red"( 1 April 1894- 31 t"1arch 1895).
V-/AI-304 #[4
Further Offers to Sell Shares
Tt-lis prediction proved to be accurate_ Barely a monHI after Hie
hearing, the Land PurctH~se Department was approached by y.iF Goffe -
the interpreter who had assi sted t1ai r_ Writing to Patri ck Sheri dan on
Dec, 1 st, he stated1:
I have the honor to i nf orm you that I have been requested by several of the remaining owners in the Parahirahi Quick Silver block to let you know that they are willing to sell their rernaining interests in the said tllock of Land at once.
I wi 11 be pleased to act in the case shaul d you do me Hie honour of a 11 o .... vi ng me to complete any purchases. I di d most of tt1e \'York re H-ds purctHlse not 10nq aqo. I \">.'i11 refer- !-lOU to J.::;. - ~ "" Cl endon ... for any ref erences[?] you may requi re 81 so to PJl Houston .. .
::;[-Ieri dan 'flas interested enouqt-I to consult with H-Ie Cornmi ssi oner of
Cn)· ....... TI Lands:'
Notinq Hlat "Tt-Ie shares alreadq acquired t-Iave cost about 4/ per ~ ~
acre all rounij [::;ic]", anlj tJlat "Apar-t ft-orn the quicksilver tJle land is
Ijescri tlelj as value 1 ess" .. he wantelj to know "vvtlett"ier fr-om a "qui cksil ver"
point of 1 ... lie l!\" it is advisable to acquire anq further interests". "1ueller's
reply 1/'ti3S ambiguous3 . It was, he thought,
Iji ffi cult to sall 'y'y'hetrler- anll qui cksil vet- is like III to be f ourllj .- """ ""
on trle lands offered. I am inclined to think that the lodes \'vi11 not touch them; still Uley may and my recommendat ion U)erefore is: purcrlase the srlares if you can get thern at any price not exceeding two shillings per acre. The land is miserably poor and apart from mining good for nothing.
Sheridan was not interested in remote possibilities. He lnformed Gaffe
on 22 Dec. 1894 that until the part it i on surveys were completed and the
ne·· ... ·,.. ti tl es 'were i sSlJed
1 t"'JA- t··1LP 1 1906/63 [94/3491.: ~VAI- 304 #B24 p.16 2 t·1emo. of 5 Dec. 1 E:94 from Sheridan to G. 1'1ueller: 1'1A-1'1LP 1 1906/63 [94/349] (cover3heet).: WAt - 304 #B24 p.14. . 3 j·1erno. of 19 Dec:. 1 E:94ft-om G.1'1ueller to Sheridan.; t'1A-t1LP 1 1906/63 [941349] (. covers heet) .: \I·/AI- 304 #824 p.l 4.
106
\-'lAI-304 #C4
Hie balance of Hie Parat-l1rat-li block cannot conveniently be Ijealt WiUl, and as Hie land is entirely valueless U-Iere does not appear to be any necessity for, under ordi nary ci rcumstances.. pr-emature action in the matter.
(He closelj with a rather pOinted reminder to Goffe that all land purchase
agents acting for the Crown had to be "duly appointed by the Governor").
It-Ie interpreter had presurnably been representing owners residing
in the Kaikohe area, where he himself lived. The following year the Land
Purchase Department received an approach from further afield. On 13
.June 1895 a pet-son narned Gaze, from ~1aropi u near Dargavi 11 e, wrote to
.J. t'la::<v·ie1l1. He statelj U-IM "A Native narnelj 'w'irernu Hongi" -- probably
elther 'wir-ernu Te Ripi senior or junior -- clairned an interest in
Parahi rahi. Accordi ng to Gaze
This he \·vist-Ies to sell .... T\·vo other natives (Hita tx Pene Ropata2) also residin!~ here have already disposed of their shares arllj have recei velj thei r money through t·'1r. Vi. HarTison['?] & 'w'i Hongi would now like to ascertain if his shar-e .... ··/i 11 tie tiOUgtit ['>:. for v...tlat amount. I shall be great1 y otd i ged if you wi 11 i 8t rne knoy·/ if you are prepared to purchase Vii Hongi's share in Parahi rahi c~ for 'yvhat sum .. as ~Ie is an::.::i ous to kTIO\h/ rlO\h/ he stands with reqanj to the 1 and.
A copq of tJli s letter was sent to St-Ieri dan for hi s inf ormat i on on June
17ttl ,1a>;we 11 rep 1 i elj to Gaze without 'tiEIi ti nq for i nstructi ons J wtii ct-I
sugge:3ts that a policy for dealing with further Parahratii offers had been
laid down after Goffe's overtures. w'irernu Hongi and Ule oHler non-
se 11 ers, he ststed3
halj an opportuni ty to di spose of thei r interest to the Cro\·vn before the purchase of the block was closed some months ago, tlut did not do so.
1 t'1A- t'1LP 1 1906/63 [951274].; WAI- 304 #B24 p. 7. Max'w'ell 'w'as J as Sheridan had told Goffe on 22 Dec., 1394, Hie alJent "in charge of all Native land purcha::le rnattet-s North of Auckland" . 2 Hita Koao and Pene Pikinui Popata, 'w'horn received payment from the Cro'w'n in August and Se pte m be r of 1 887 .. res pecti ve 1 y. T hi s see nB to i ndic:ate that these t .... lO i ndi vi d ua 13 'w'e re a'w'are in 1895 that they had sold the 'w'hole of thei r interests in Parahi rahi seven years before. 3 ~1A- MLP 1 1906/63 [95/2741.; WAI- 304 #824 pA
107
V'lAl-304 #(:4
Tt-Ie Land Purchase Departrnent) he concluded} halj no authority for "The
purchase of shares in the port ion ... cut off by the N.L.C.... Nor} ob'v'i ous 1 y, did it have any inclination to do so.
I f the proposal s put forward through Goff e and Gaze were genui ne}
it woul d seem that at 1 east three or four of the thi rteen people who had
been assigned shares in the five new Parahirat-Ii blocks in Octobet- of
1894 were prepare,j to sell some or all of their interests within the year
following the Land Court decision. It is unfortunate (from an historical
poi nt of vi ew) that the Land Purchase Department di d not explore the
rnatter furHler -- with Gaffe's "clients" in particular. n-lis migrlt t-Iave
pro .... '] delj E! bet ter i deE! of what the owners -- and f orrner owners -- of
Parat1irahi kne¥l about the Land Court's Ijecision and its implications.
Surveys and Crown Grants
lOB
On 27 Octotler 1 B94 St-Ier-idan halj passed Mair's lettet- of 22
Octotler atlout Parahirat-ti to HIe Surveyor Genet-aI, describing it as a
.. sat 1 sf flctory t-eport", and cornrnent i ng
The land should not tie dealt 'vvith until periolj for appeal ha~:;
e::<pirelj but all preliminand arrangements for its disposal can if necessary tlY rnade in tt1e meantirne. 1
The prinCipal taSk .. if the land was to tie sold or leased} ... ·vas to have tbe
CrOV','TI Grants issued for all six ttlocks. And before the grants could be
issued} the partitions would have to be surveyed.
One thi ng whi ch 'was not on the Cro'wn's agenda} it shoul d be noted
t-Iere, was a validation of the purchase by the Trust Commissioner. As
noted earl i er J the MNO Deed had been produced 1 n Court '1 n support of the
Crovm's Claim'. This Deed bore an agreement written on it in English Elnd
naori vv'hie:rl specified that Ule 'yvhole of Ule block had been purchased for
a 'Jiven sur-no Tt-Ie transElction described, t-Io\'vever. had not taken place,
and the c 1 8i rn whi ch Ule Deed supported 'vV8S more 1 i mi tefj in scope --
1 t·1erno of 27 Oct. 1 B94; t'1A- t··1LP 1 1906/63 [94/285] (coversheet) in V'/AI- 304 #B24 ~! 26 :3 Percy Smith agreed 'w'ith Sheridan's appraisal.
V·/AI-304 #[4
that the Crown had purchased the shares of the owners who halj si f,lned
the document. Thi scI ai rn was accepted by the Cour-t.
On the bac\< page of the Deeds was a space for the si gnElture of a
Trust Commissioner. Under the "The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act
1870" and its successors, all alienati ons of Native Land had to be
approved by sucti a Cornmi ssi oner before they coul d be consi dered va 11 d
(the criteria of approval var4inQ over time). The duties of these
Commissioners was hanljed over to the Native Land Court by "The NEltive
Land Court Act, 1894", whi ch recei ved Royal assent a week after the
Paral-drat-,i sitting in October of 18941. By n,e time U,e Parat-,irat-t1
purchase was rea!jy to have its validity appraised, therefore, the Trust
Cor-nrni 8::;i oner s!dstern was no I onger operating. But even if Parahi rahi
halj been put tt-It-ough Hie Court a year earl i er, tt-,e case woul d not have
been put before a Cornrnissioner.
When T.W. Lewis of the Latilj Purchase Department appeared tlefore
the [ornmis::;ion on Native Lanlj Lav'/s in t'1aq of 1891, he was askelj if
transactions invol''1'in'~ tt-,e Cro'vvn 'vvere "sutltr,itted to H-Ie scrutiny of Hie
Trust Cornrnissioner". His reply was., "No: the law does not require it "2.
Thi s excJlange led to a Iji scussi on of the Native Lands Fr-auds Preventi on
Acts, anfj the 'law' Le\Nis We!::; r-eferring to was presumably "Tt-Ie Nati',,Ie
Lanljs Fn:II.lljs Prevention Act 1881 Arnendrnent Act, 1888"3. Ttiis Act
109
1 ntn)ljuced rnore stri n!jent requi rements whi ch purchasers halj to rneet
tlefore Hleir acquisition cou11j be declared valid by the Commissioner.
~3ection 8, however, specified that "Nothing in this or the said Act shall
affect or- appl~~ to the Crown, or to any pet-son acting fOt- or on belialf of
Hie Crown under the authori ty of a 1'1i ni ster of the Crown." As far as I
have been able to di scover., the Crown took the acceptance of its
Parahirahi claim b4 the Native Land Court as ttie final step in acquisition.
I t was not consi dered necessary to seek further approva 1 of any ki nd
frorn the Court or any other agency.
1 Statute:; of Ne,,\,' Zealand 58 Vic. No.43 (23 October 1894).
2 A,JH~~ 1891 Sess. II G. - 1 "Report of the Commis:~ion Appoi nted to I nqui toe into the Subject of Hie Nati ve La nd La .... is, .... £"11 n utes of Evi de flce"! p. 1 56. ::; "An Act to amend 'The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1881'" (30 Aug. 1888); Statutes of NeW' Zealand 52 Vic. (1888) NO.38.
\"lAI-304 ~T4
As soon as tt"le 1 ast of ~1ai r's r-ecords ~Iad been reeei ved in the Larllj
Purchase Department 1, Sl1er-i dan made a formal request to the Chi ef
Surveyor for a survey of the "awards to Natives in Paral-lirah1" or-dered tly
Hie Cour-t to be authorized and arranged2. The Chief Surveyor then
authorizelj a survey of Parahirahi D, but Sheridan protested, arguing thl3t
a 11 that was requi red was for the "subdi vi si ons" to be "cut out" of the
original block (the outline of which had been surveyed by Cheal in 1873).
t"'1ue 11 er eventua11 y agreed that that under the ci rcumstances there was
"no occl3ssion[sic] to include the 4293 acres awarded to the Crown in the
authority for survey"3. Authorization to survey A 1, A2, A3, 61 and C1
'yvas 'Jiven at Hie erllj of December, with a surveyor by the name of R. New-nann bei ng aSS1 gned to the j ob4 .
Pressure for the work to be done as quickly as possible cerne frorn
a familiar sow-ce. G.vo/.S. Patterson t-Ialj applied for a mining lease on par-t
of Parahirat"il D soon after the Court had made its decision.
He l"Ia(l ,jisco'.,.'erelj that liis application could go no further until the
Cro'yvn's oV'inersl-lip of the 810ck I-Itllj been qazette1t Patterson appeale1j to
Hou:3ton to help hirn "purer-lase sa~d fift!d acres to secure mid position, we
r-I;j'·.ie now startelj "iy'ork and it v,,..i11 be very awkward for us if anyone else
can step in.", 'v'y'hile his solicitor vv'.A. Carruth contacted the Lanlj
Purchase Depewtment asking for the survey to be expedited5 . Houston in
tutTI appealed to A .. J. Caljrnan, the ,'1inister of ~1ines, on Patterson's
behalf, noting that "Uley are spending a large sum of money there [i.e. at
Ngawha] and it w[oulllj be a great pity if anything happens to stop the
worldnQs"';
1 See letter of 11 Nov. 1894from ~1air to Sheridan, enclosing lists of the lands awarded to Parahi rahi non-sellers: t-1A- t1LP 1 1906/63 [94/314], in V'lAI- 304 #B24 p.22. 2 Telegram of 13 Nov. 1894 from Sheridan to Chief Surveyor; MA-t1LP 1 1906/63 [941285], in V1AI-304 #824 p.27. 3 See tv1emo::; of 28 Nov. and 4 Dec. 1894: National Archives (Auckland) BABN, 1108, Box 92 f.221 5 PRR Blon: File 1885- 1898 [\'\/AI- 304 #B 19 p.38- 39. 4 See V'lAI- 304 #B 19 p34, and V'lAI- 304 #B24 P 10. 5 '::lee ietter of 7 Dec. 1894from Carruth to Sheridan -- t"lA-t"'lLP 1 1906/63 (94/372J in \·VAI- 304 #B24 p.13 - - and letter of 11 Dec. 1894 from Patterson to Houston.: ~1D 1 1894/1826. in \'VAI-304 #824 pp.95-96 . .; Letter of 12 Dec. 1894 from Hou:;;ton to Cadman; t'1D 1 1 ci94/1826 .. in \NAI- 304 #624 p.94.
110
\,-"lAI-304 #C4
Sheri dan put Carruth off with a tel egrarn} a lthough the soli citor
continued to press for- action1. The Mines Depertrnent sought further
inforrnation frorn tt-Ie Land Depar-trnent about Patterson's invol'v'ement2 .
It was tollj that he
11 1
may own some land adjoining but he has no interest in the Parahi rahi block except in ha'v'i ng kept everyone stirred up with ttie urgent necessity of the cr-ov'ln aCQul rl ng Hie 1 and from the Natives "pro bono publico". He wants to lease or buy tt-Ie portion of the block containing the alleged Quicksilver sprin!~~;.
'3~!eri dan exp 1 ai ned that
The interest of the Crown has recent 1 y been defi ned in Parahi rahi t'~d the N.L.C. K stri ctl y 8peakmg survey of di vi 8i on lines is necessaq-l bef ore Hie Crown award can be proc 1 ai med Crown 1 ands as unt 11 then the Court 'lid 11 not issue tt-Ie orders .
.. Ho ... ·vever .... ~Ie concluded .. "v'le can ~;train a point in tt-lis case and proclaim
the block at once".
A 1 though Hli s suggesti on vvas not adopted3 } it shovvs that the Land
Purc~lase Department itself had no inclination to vvaste any time in
proceedi ng v'lith Parahi rehi. V'/rit i ng to the Chi ef Surveyor on Dec. 13th -
- a "private" note -- Shet-iljan su'~gested that4
This survey sh[oul]d. be pushed ahead befot-e Hone Heke retut-ns off Hie stump oUierwi se there may be obstacles thro\·\,n in the wa!d. He has been he I pi ng us not to get the I and for some considerable time past and as yet I believe knO'l'vs nothing of the wi nlji ng up by the C[our]t.
1 TeleQram of 13 Dec:. 1894 from Sheridan to Carruth; MA- MLP 1 1906/63 [94/372] in V'lAI- 3-04 #B24 p.12.: Telegram of 23 Dec. 1894 from Carruth to Chief Surveyor; National Archives (Auckland) BABN} 1108} Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block File 1885-1898} in \"\/AI- 304 #819 p.35. 2 t'1emos of 20 Dec. 1 Ei94 from Eliott to :3treridan} and of 22 Dec. 1894 from Sheridan to Eliott; t'1D 11894/1Ei26,inWAI-304#B24p.92. 3 T he Co m mi ssi 0 ne r of C ro'W n La nds fo r t he A uc k1 a nd Di st ri ct. ho'Weve r. 'w'as i nst r ucted i n February that Parahirahi D could "be dealt 'With as Cro'Wn Lands"} 'Which presumably meant that Patterson could take his application for a lea:~e to the Land Board even though the block had not been proclaimed. See letter of 16 Feb. 1895 from Eliott to Houston.: t'1[) 1 1894l1826, in WAI-304 #824 p. 91. 4 National Archives (Auckland) BABN .. 11 OEi} Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block File 1885-1 Ei9;:; [V1AI- 304 #B 19 p33].
VlAI-304 #[:4
Sheridan's fears were apparently misplaced, for Heke was personally
i nvo] ..... ed with one of the new Parahi rahi blocks and its owners not lonq
after'vvards1 without rnaking any protests (as far as is known) about O-Ie
Crown acquisition of D. In any case, Neumann was in the field by the
begi nni ng of March of 1895, ready to start work.
The stwveyor i mrnedi ate I y encountered a seri ous prob I em: many of
Hie marking pegs which tiad been placed (or should have been placed) by
Cheal when he di d the outl i ne survey in 1873 were mi ssi ng. Thi s put
Neumann in an awkward position, in that trle amount which he was to be
pailj fot- the work (£53-2-0) t-Iad tleen set on nle assurnption 0-18t rnost of
1t would sirnply involve e>(tensions frorn existing mat-kers2 . Neurnann's
response, 'y'ytlen he fi rst encountered Hli s prottl ern, was the obvi ous one:
to ijSk: Hie 1 OCij I resiljents V,diM hellj t-PJppened to the peq:3.
On 1"lat-ct-, 6th the surve!-jor wmte to Gerhard t'1ue 11 er, asl<i nq a ~ ~
rllJmtlet- of technical questions about the Parahirahi work3. He pointed out
that, in the case of one of Hie i rnportant "di vi si on 1 i nes" wtii eli he had
relied on, "BoU, pegs at Hie end of Hlat line are gone. Natives assert Hle1d
never were put in "4 Neumann a 1 so 'yvanted to know
\,,!t-IO surveyed the 610ck? I cannot fi nd any of the ri ver traverse pegs) and all the others have been dug up by gurndi ggers."
n'le latter information .... vas presumably supplied by local people as \·\"el1.
In his rv1areh 14th letter accompanying the completed plans of the
"Native Reserves" [sic1.. Neumann informed Mueller that5
1 See above, concerni fig the A 1 "exchange" in 1895- 96. 2 See f'1emo. of 27 Nov. 1894 from Sheridan to Barron; lS 1 1910/1080, in WAI- 304 #B24 p.89. The cost estimate on \'v'hich it is 'written \,'8S made before it " ... as decided not to :31Jt"\le IJ D. 3 National Archh"es (Auckland) BABN, 1108, Box 92 f.2215 PRR 810ck Fne 188S-189S} in V'iAI- 304 #819 p.32.
4 Letter of 6 t"larch 1895.; Nationai Archives (Auckiand) BABN, i i 08! Box 92 f.22 i 5 p~~p Block file l8eS-1898 [V'lA! - 304 #B 19 p.3Z .For the rep1 y of 13 March 1895 bId v're. Kensi rllJton .. see ibid. V'lAI- 304 #819 p.31. 5 letter of 14i'1au 1895; National Archives (Auckland) BABN .. 1108, Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block File 1885-1898 [\:VAI- 304 #B 19 p.27.
112
Y'lAI-304 ~T4
as I was unable to find any of tt-Ie original survey pegs to start from, I tiad to layoff the reserves [sic] as well as I could frorn the data 91 'lien me.
I t appears trlat Mr. Chea 1 had to survey the Pararli rahi 610ck under great difficulties, being obstructed in his work by Natives! and if I can believe what they assert! never put any pegs in.
narki ng out the C 1 block had posed part i cul ar protd erns. He reported U-Iat
60tt-1 end pegs of lfne 232-65 32 [?] in C No.1 are in their old places! although the original pegs had gone .. but different Nat i ves agree as to thei r bei ng in thei r ri ght places J and if the former survey was correct .. the di vi si on 1 i ne bet'-. .... ··een Parat-li rahi and Tuwhaki no 610cks as cut by rne, must also be correct."
Neumann put a great deal of re 1 i ance on trlei r i nf on-nat i on. On Hie strernJUI of it I-Ie decidelj not to re-survey Ule t10undary .. tlet ween Parahi rarli and Tuwhaki no 61ocks".
On July 11 trl .. Neumann ··.'vrote to I'lueller to complain atlout the pawnent 'y\,tli ch t-18 t-!8Ij r8cei ',l8Ij for UI8 Paralii rat-Ii ·vvork1. He noted,
among other things, that
C No.1 I t-Ia,j to survey twice, the first survey startin!J frorn \·vt18re I f ourllj an old peg about 2 years ago! but Whl ch 'yvas proved to me afterwards to have been in the wrong place! consequently the connecting lines (4880) I had also to recut, and thi s 1 i ne is near1 y a 11 through tea tree ....
He submittelj a letter from Griffiths! the mine manager! in support of his
claims. On seeing the first set of llnes cut at C 1! Griffith had detected "a great discrepancy between thern and the original ones"2. Neurnann thus cut two different sets of lines through the bush before the external bounljari es of C 1 were suitably marked.
1 Letter of 11 ,Jul y 1895; National Archives (Auckland) BABN, 1108, Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block File 1885-1898 [WAI- 304 #B 19 pp. 20- 22. 2 Letter of 20 t"1arch 1895.; National Archives (Auckland) BABN, 11 OS, Box 92 f.2215 PRR Block File 1885-1898, in 'W'AI- 304 #B 19 p.23.
113
At the 1945 t1eari ngs at 1 east four of Hie c 1 ai ment 'y'·titnesses --Hi ri ni T ai whanga Heremai a, Hat-e Hoori Pi ne, Ri pi wli hongi and y.lheJutere
'w'i tehi ra -- stated that U,ey ~Iad not been aware of the 1895 survey at Parahi rah1. One (Hi ri ni T ai whanga Heremai a) recalled that he "used to
assist him [Neumann] in surveying" but did not "remember surveying into
A, Band C"1. According to Neumann, however, writing at the time, he had
consulted with local Maori residents on a number of occasions about the work he was doing. The extent of this work, which took place over
several weeks, can be seen in the working plans in Neumann's Field Notebook2. All of his survey lines had been properly cut, those around C 1
tV·lice. Vvlllle Ule problerns v'I't"lict", he encountered rnay rlave been e>(sggerate1j s 1 i gt-ftl Y (as the Survey Department thought3 ), there is no
rea':;on to suspect U"fat Neumann's reports were incorrect or that any of
H"Iis V'lork: Vias not. done a:3 specified.
114
As soon as tr!e p] ans were avai 1 ab] e, Par-at"!i rat"1i D was proc] 8i n1ed as Cro'y'v'n LarllJ The Proc 1 amat i on, dated 23 .Jul y, 1895, appeare1j in Hie 25
.Ju1 y 1895 issue of the New ZeEll and Gazette4 . With it the title to four of
nie five acres of land 'y'l'ttich t·lad rna!je up F'arahirat"li C Block since
October of 1885 thus passed out of r1aori hands.
Protests and Inquiries
Ttie only evirjence whict-I I have been able to find of cornp1aints
bei ng rneJde by MElori about the Crown's acqui si ti on of interests in the Parahinjtli Block, wl"lile this acquisition was going on, is trle 18tH correspondence referring to Hirini Taiwhanga's claims. At one stage he
appar-entl y argued that the negot i at i ons for ttie purchase of the land
shoul d be termi nated, and the Crown shou1 d gi ve up the interests whi Cll
1 See t·'11 n Ijte~; 0 f t'18 Y 1 945 he8 ri nlJ; ''11 A 1- 304 # A 5 OA e8 P p. 1 03- 1 1 4 (t y pese ri pt) . 2 DOSLI Aucl~landJ Survey Notebook No. 586 pp.8-l 0 [see Supplementary Evidence]. 3 His claims for extra payments ..... ··ere rejected .. apparently on the grounds that the vegetation ··.·.·'tri(:~1 had to be cut 'yiij:3 onllJ 4 feet liiQh. not 6 as he alleQed. See letter of 18 Julll 1894 by y.l.C. Kensi ngton; National Archives (ArjeUand) BABN, i 108, Box 92 f.2215 PR"R Block file 1885- 1898 , in WAI- 304 #619 p.19. 4 Ne"iI Zealand Gazette 1895 #55 of 25 Jul y 1895 p.ll 22; reproduced in ¥iAI- 304 #A50A (:8 pp. 58.
'rlAI-304 #(4
it fltllj alrearjy acquired1. As far as can be determined, however) these
proposal s arose from hi s April 1 BB6 arrangement with the Government}
rather than from problems wiUI the process of acquisition itself.
There is no record of any ob j ecti on to the Crov-m's acqui sit i on of
interests havi ng been rai sed at the Land Court heari ng in 1894. It
appears ttiat not one of trle 44 individuals2 who had (according to the
Crown) sold Ule whole of their interest in Parahirahi before 19 October}
1894} appeared at the Land Court hearl ng. A lthougt-I it is not entirely
clear how many of the "non-sellers" were personally involved with the
t-Ieewi ng, none of thern suggested to the Court that any of thei r 44 f e 11 0· ........ -
oV',"ners shoul d be i nvo 1 velj wi HI the procee1ji ngs because they halj not
solrj Hie whole of their interest in ttle block. This point was raised by
,Jurjqe Pritct-Itlrd in 1945. He cornmented in his final report on the Ngav·tha
inquind Hiett
I f no nat i 'lies had sold one waul d have e~,:pected the two nonsellers W't"IO appeared at Ka''Ivakav'la on 19tt-1 October, 1894. to have rai sed the question that thei r rel at i ves had not sold. 3
On 1 Y one i ndi vi dual had., \Aitlen the heari ng started.,reeei ved payment
from the Cro"lvn in a transaction which did not involve the whole of his
sr"lare. After some confusion as to specifics .. Hiku was recognized try Hie
Ct-O""'o'T! as r!a'.ling retainelj his interests in A and C. Also .. one of the three
indiviljuals ..... .,..ho sold interests to the Cro\·vn during the course of the
hearin'~ (r"'1ikara te Ripi) was recognized by the Crown as rlaving retained
her- stiare in C. If Hlese people were not present at the hearing in person.,
then one must conclude that someone else had taken it upon themselves
to make sure trlat the Crown only received what the owners had agreed to
sell. If HH:u and Mikara te Ripi were present in person, then they did not
speak out on berlalf of alleged "sell ers" wrlo .. to Uleir kno'yvledge, rlad not
disposed of the whole of their share in Parahirahi. Given Hiku's previous
involvement with Parahirahi} such reticence would have been surprising.
1 5ee above .. di;:;cu:33ing the letter" of 2(; .Jan. lStiS., from E. t"1itchelson to 5.D. Tai'w'hanIJa.: National Archives MA- ~'1LP 3/5 Out'v/ards Letterbook 1883- titi} p. 748 NLP 88/24 [SupplementanJ Documents]. 2 t'1y count. 3 Und;jted report (ca. Oct. 1945) in WAI-304 #A508 ea. pp. 40-42.
115
V-lAI-304 #C4
Five months after the Lanlj Court heari ng, a surveyor spent se"iera 1
weeks on the Paratlirat-Ii Block locating old survey mar-kers, and surveying
out o]!j and new boundar-ies. ~1any or all of the lines marking the e,.:terTlal
boundari es of the fi ve new blocks were cleared of vegetati on. The
surveyor reported numet-ous contacts with the local people, involving
discussions of matters to do with the survey. There is no record of the
work having been opposed ln any way, or of any complalnts having been
ma,je about the sale of the land being separated from the five blocks
(Parahi rahi D).
116
Hone Heke, the ~1.H.R. for Not-thern r·1aot-i, as rnentionelj earlier, had
a per:;onal interest in this land His father Hone Ngapua Turlirengi t-Ied
tll~en a recognize,j sharetioltjer since the 1873 Certificate of Title had
tleen i ssuelt Duri nq 1894 Heke hCld been i n',/o 1 ved V'lith the Crown's
atternpts to purchase Hie remaining st-Iares in Parat-lirat-li, wiUlout result.
In 1895 t-Ie approact-led U-Ie Land Purchase Departrnent on beha 1 f of U"le
OWTlers of A 1 , on a matter relat i ng specifi call y to the way in whi C:t"1 1 arlljs
had been assi gnerj to shareho 1 det-s by the Native Land Court. He made no
rnention of anld clairns that the Cro'vvn t-ltJlj not properly purchased the
lands in Parardrahi D. The onl\.l cornplaint was that certain specific
places, 'which Ule non-sellers had wanted to retain, halj not been inclurjerj
in an~d of the five blocks The Crov'tn acknowledged that an error had been
rna,je, an,j vii tfli n a short space of tirne Ule boundaries of A 1 were altere,j
to correct the pr-oblern.
Heke t-Ia,j furitler invol\lement with the Pat-atiirahi Block in 1908,
ten rnonths before his death at the age of 40. On 14 April, 1908, he gave
evidence to the Stout-Ngata Commission at a public hearing held at
Kaikohe1. According to the Commission's Minute Book} he gave testimony
about A 1} stat i ng that "The owners of thi s subdi vi si on, want it reserved
for r·1[aoriJ. O[ecupationl. My faU-,er arllj Tane Haratua owners." He also
gave evi dence about C 1, that it was "To be incorporated in order that a
commi ttee may manage it. It is a hot sul phur spri ng". Another owner,
t'1ani hera Kauwheta (Eri ka), a 1 so gave evi denee at ttli s heari ng about A2,
A3 arllj B 1. Tt-,e record of thi s rearjs:
1 See National Archives MA 78 (Stout- Ngata Commission)., MA 78/5 North Auckland Hi nute Book .. p.S6 and p.7S, for the Helc:e and Kau'Whata testimony cited. The rough t1inutes referred to are in t-1A 78/3 p.l (11. I have not had the op~lortunity to arrange for copies of this material. The 'Whole of the Parflhi rahi evidenee is cited in full here.
VlAI-304 #C4
Paratlirat-Ii A3 226 acres. To be reserved for r·lO. Parat-iirat"ii B 1 150 acres. To be leased. Parahi rahi A2 13 acres. One o'vvner v .... ho i s occuP~di ng it. Reserve thi s.
He maya 1 so have gi ven evi dence about C 1, for the rough draft of the
~1i nutes reads, under hi s name:
Parahirahi C 1 11 owners. Hot spring. To be incorporflted.
Parahirahi A3/B 1 wish to exchange for Crown lands.
The Commission subsequently included A 1 .. A2 .. A3 and Clan a list of
"Land~; recommended to be reserved for naori Occupation" under the
category of "Pakakaingas. Burial Reserves, Landing-places .. and Family Fat-rns". B 1 \·vas inc1udelj on a list of lands recommended for 1easing1.
C 1 V.,.·cf:; identified on the first of the Stout-Ngata lists as a one
.:Jere ttl oek (contai ni ng j:J "Hot spri ng"). I n the conte;<t of Eri ka and Heke's
testimony .. tt"li::; 'Nould seem to be a clear demonstration UIC!t jn 1908
local ~1aori \·vere · ........ e11 a\·vare that the llot spt-ings' block at Ngavv'ha halj
tleen reduced from five acres to one. There seems .. on Hie other hand, to
be no record of any complaint about the Crown's acquisition of Parahirat-Ii t-lflVi ng tleen put befot-e Hie comm; ss; on ·" .... ·'t"lll e Ulese rnatters were tlei ng discussed_ The Native tvlinister (.James Carroll), it should be noted, halj
a 1 so vi ~;ited I<ai kohe at thi s ti me: the V.,.·[10 1 e of April 13th had been taken
up by a hui ",'vith the local people.
The first hint of such a complaint which I have seen, however,
dates from 1 ess than a year after the Stout -Ngata heari ngs. On 23 Jul y ..
1909., a Kaikohe solicitor named John Webster VvTote to the Native Land Purchase Office asking to be informed "who were the sellers of a block called Parahirahi A, B, C"2. He noted that "The Court files do not show
the names of the sellers or non-sellers". Webster's stated reason for
this inquiry v'/as that
1 A.JHP 190e G.-lj p.32 and p.36. [Supplementary Documents] 2 National Archives LS 1/1901/1080; \1'lAI- 304 #B24 p.S7.
117
",lAI-304 #C4
Some of trle nati ves are di sputi ng now trlat they di d not sell &. we want to find out .... Part of tt1is block is still in the hands of the nat i ves.
The reply sent by the Lands Department on 17 August, 1909, stated that 1
the names cannot be supplied unless stronger reasons are given than those disclosed in your letter, it being unusual to gi ..... e any information of the nature desired.
I f any Native di sputes the Crown's t i t1 e Ulere is the usual rernedy open to hi rn.
I ha' ... 'e not seen anqUli nq to i nlji cate that further act i on of an!-l ki nd was ~ ~ ~
taken. To Hie best of my knovv'le,jge, the Ngawha claim took its modern
fatTn Ijur-inq 1926, in connection witJ, the successful efforts to have C 1
rnade into a reserve.
T\venty year::; of letters and petitions culminated in the inquiry
urpjertaken by the Nati ve Land COl.wt in 1945. Judge Ivor Pritchard heard
evidence from the claimants and the Crown on the tV-/O maJor contentions
nielje in the 1942 Petition etlout the Crown's acquisition of Perat-Iirat'!i D.
These were, as Pritchard put them2 ,
1) That the natives sell i ng trK1ugr-,t that Hley ',;vere S1 gni ng for A elnd 6 onlq arllj not for C which WelS oriqinel1l4 partitionerj for
~ ~ ~
5 acres so that it might be retained by Hie netive race forever. 2) That the sa 1 e is i tv· ... ed i d because the Crown purchas8 1j wt-Ii 18 the perU t i on order wes expressed to lie ina 1 i enab 1 e except tlY 1 ease for a tet-rn not exceedi ng 21 years.
The witnesses included one "seller" (Hori Pure3), who denied sellinq C
and was unsure about A, and one "non-se 11 er" ('wi rernu Hongi T e Ri pi Jr.), wtio sal d that he had been asked by "an offi cer of Government .. to sellA,
but not 6 or C. Te Ripi and a number of ottier witnesses told of various
"se 11 ers" stati ng Elt di ff erent times that ttiey had not been flware of C's
1 National Archive::; LS 1 i1901 11 080.; WAi-304 #824 D.SS. 2 Report of Judge Pritchard .. n.d. (ca. Oct. 1945); 'vVAI-A508 ca. ppAO- 42. A type~;cri pt of the tv1i nutes is given in WAI- 304 #A50A ca. pp.l 03- 114. 3 Given in the ty~,e~;(:ri ~It t··1i nutes as "Hare Hoori Pi ne .... and i n Prit(:h8rd'~; report 8::; "Hare ( Ho ri) P ue " .
118
V.,tAI-304 #C4
inclu~;ion in the sale. The Cour-t heard arguments on the rest.r-iction issue
frorn counsel for the c 1 ai mants and the CroY·ln.
Judge Pritchard rejected both of the c lai mants' content ions. On
the first one, he concluded that
the pet i U oners have not reasonab 1 y estab 1 i shed that the nat i VB
sellers thought they were signing for A or B or alternatively for A only.
On the second .. he accepted the Crown's argument
that prior- to 1693, it was not the custorn, v...tlere Hie Crown v'/as purchasing .. to remove the restrictions though it V'las the cu:3torn wtiere a pri "late i ndi vi dua 1 was the ali enee
He took the vi ew that
Tt-Ie neti ves hevi ng recei "led the purchase money and the Crov'm havi ng been put into a posit i on to have trle restri ct ions removed anlj the 1 and t-Iavi nq 1 eqal1 W become Cro\'vn 1 and it .... ~ '-
cannot no'y'y' be claimed that because as it were of a defect in trleir title trle natives should be granted the land back or paid further purct-1I3se rnonew. If thi s were so most Crown pur-ctlases of trlat period w'ould require to tie re-opened on this techni ea 1 i ty.
"In trl~d opinion, thet-efore", Pritchard concluded, "the natives who sold fwe not enti t1 ed to any re lief under either of the headi ngs c 1 ai med".
119
VlAI-304 #C4
IV Conclusions
I 'vvould first like to repeat. what I said at nle beginning: Hlat HIe research on whi ch thi s di scussi on has been based cannot be consi dered
cornpr-ehensi ve. These cone 1 usi ons may be subject to modifi cat i on if anlj
wt-,en further evi denee comes to 1 i ght.
The two "contentions" addressed by Judge Pritchard provide a
useful focus for my conc 1 udi ng remarks about the Crown's acqui sit i on of the Parahi rahi D block:. I will start with second} then turn back: to the fi r-st.
The Court Orders creating the Parahirahi A 1} A2, A3, Bland C 1
Blocks all carri ed a note si gned by RS Bush 1. Ttii s st i pu1 Med Hiat
Tt-lis land is sutlject to restrictions already imposed by order dated the 15U", day of October 1885, namely, That the 1 and may be 1 eased f or any term not e:~:ceedi ng 21 years but sha 11 be other-wi se ina 11 enatd e except with the assent of the Governor.
It ",'voul!j appear H,at Bust-I baselj Uil s aeti on upon H-,e restri eti ons
recorded in the Land Court 11i nute Books for 1885. I have noted possi b 1 e
problerns with the separate Orders, and with the Crown grants issuelj on
Hie strength of them. I n any case} the restri cti ons thus i mpose1j on B 1
''ivere actua 11 y nev" to H-,i s porti on of HIe Para I-Ii r-ahi Block} S1 nee the
whole of B had been left "open for sale" in 1885.
The imposition} or re-imposition of these restrictions on alienations clearly show H-,at the Court had not forgotten or ignored thern. But the record of the 1894 heari ng eontai ns no other reference to
the si gnifi canee of tt-,ese restri cti ons for the busi ness to hand. That is,
not one of the parties i nvo 1 ved -- not Bush or ~1ai r or anq of the non
s811 ers -- ei H-Ier
1) exp 1 ai ned whq these restri cti ons on the ali enati on of A and C were
being treated by the Crown and the sellers as if they were vOld} suspended} orirrelevont, or 2) cornplaine1j about their being so treated.
I "/,/'AI- 304 #A50A ea. pp. 49 - 55
120
V;lAI-304 #C4
Nor, to the best of my knowl edge, is there any si gn of such exp 1 anati ons
or camp leJi nts at any poi nt ovet- ttle nine years between October of 1885
and October of 1894. It is as if everwone involved assurned that Ule Parahit-atli A and C restrictions did not apply to any arrangements tletween the Crown and the Maori owners. Indeed, as I noted earlier, the
same Judge who put the restrictions in place at tt-Ie 1885 hearing, barely
si x monHls later witnessed the payment of £25 by the Crown to an owner
as it preliminary step in its acquisition of the whole of the block.
Judqe Pritcrlard concluded that the Crown had followed normal procedures for Hie ti rne in deall ng (or not deali ng) wi tti Hie Parat-Ii rat-Ii
re~;tn ct ions. Thi s seen-Is to have the case. \,I·lhether the r··1aori owners of the larpj were Iji s;:lIjvantaged as a result is another matter. t·1uch depet"lIjs
on vvhett"ier tt-Ie Crown and the owners I-lad the sarne understandi nq of
Vyti8n 'yvas t-Iappening Vy't"18n sorne of tt"18 1atter- reeeive,j payrnents frorn
C1 endon and other agents and si gned the Deeds.
The Parahi rat-Ii Deeds stated i n ~1aori and En!~l i sh that the Crown sou,~t-!f_ to buy H-!e v'I'I"I01 e of Ule ori gi na 1 block, i nel uding A, Band C. Tt-18 plan:; on H-Ie Deeds did not show any subdivisions. All of the payments whicr-, were rnalje from the be!;linning of December in 1886, until the end
of October in 1887, wer-e appeu-ently made as part of a 'package deal'
arranged vvi H-I Hi ri ni T ai whanga earl i er in 18i36. A set pri ce per stlare
t-!Cpj been a!~reed upon (a 1 tJ"lou!~h T ai whanga trla~d have had other ideas about
the value of hi s own). Inc 1 udi ng tli s April down-payment, some £588./6/5
f,aJj been pai ,j out by the end of thi s peri od. The Crown thought it had
purctvjsed Hie equi val ent of 27 and 5l6HiS of the 37 shares 1 n the Parahirat-li Block, or about 75.2% of the total interest of the owners. Tt,is constituted the bulk: of the Crown's acquisitions in the block.
In rny opinion, the owners who accepted tt"18se payments would have had the same understandi nq of what had happened as the Crown -
tJ"lat a 11 of the1 r 1 nterests in Parahi ratii hajj been sold. It is quite clear
\'VI-18t the Crown wanted to buy, and wt/at it UIOUgtlt it was buying in
18i36-87. Let us set a~;ilje for H-Ie rnornent Hie e~::planations yvt/iet"! would t-Iave been rnade bid H-Ie Crown agent and the interpreters, the descr-i pt ion of the transaction given on the Deed in ~1aori, tile undivided plan st-Iown
on both Dee,j:3, the statements of the witnesses to the Signatures, and
121
VlAI-304 #C4
Hie lack: of opposition to the Crown's assertions from this large group in
1894. \,I'/hat evi dence is there ttitlt the ov'mers who accepted payment
frorn the Crown t-Iad a different view of what was taking pi ace?
1· .... ..-, LL
Such post-1894 claimant evidence as is available is rather
confused. It certoinly does not seem to be bosed on a clear understonding
of Hie sequence of events reveal ed by the documentary evi dence out 1 i ned
here. I f there is any consi stency to it, however, the proposal whi ch
seems to emerge is that the owners who accepted payment from Hie
Crown thought ttiat they were selling Parahirahi A only. This is what
both of the original owner:; who gave evidence in 1945 say went on.
' ........ irernu Hon~~i 1.e Ripi Jr. stated trlat the "officer of gO"lemrnent" t-\8Ij not
asked him to sell his interest in 6 and '" did not hear anyone say he had
so llj in 6. Even t01jay, I haven't heard of anyone sell i ng in 6"1. Hori Pure
rernernberelj "signing to sell A at .... v'airnate. I got H-Ie rnoney .... I don·t
rernernber si gni ng 8" (Pure t-Iad r-ecei ved hi s payment in February of
It i:; ven.! difficult to reconcile this assertion with Hie arqurnent, ~ -
put fon·vard by claimants on rnany occasions in various forms, that
i) none of the owners ever halj any intention to sell thei r interests
in C, atilj
i i) trlat those who accepted payrnent from the Crown in 1866-94
did not think C could have been included in whatever was taking
p 1 ace, tlec8use
i i 1) C V'las protected from permanent ali enati on by the 1865
restr-i c ti ons.
The problem is, of course, that A had been placed under exactly the same
restrictions as C in 1885. Why, in the absence of a specific arrangement
to the contrary -- for which no evidence seems to exist -- would people
who were ignoring Hie restrictions on A Hlink that trIose on C were still
bei ng app 1 i ed? Wtiy .. if they were payi ng any attenti on whatsoever to the
18Ei5 restri ct i OtiS, woul d they have thought the Crown v·tanted to buy, or
trlought it coul d buy, anyU-ling but 6?
1 ThiBoffet",ofcourse, may have been made in October 1894,'Y/henfortheonlytimethe CWw'n · ... i3:;; prepflred to purchase:3 parts of shares. It 'vlould a130 be i nteresti ng to knO\h' hO'v1 V· ... i rernu Horl'Ji te Ri pi . ..Ir 'Y/3S connected to the non-seller "'Wi remu Hongi" 'Who ijpparentl y offered to 3ell hb 3hare in PlJrohi rahi in 1895 (3ee above). 2 t'1i flutes; WAI- 304 #A50A e8. pp.l 03-114.
\-,·1 A 1-304 #C4
But the Crown di d not want B a1 one, or A alone. None of the
eviljence whicli has tut-ned up so far indicates that at any point in the
proceedi ngs it sougt'lt to put-chase anythi ng other than the whole of the
Parahi rahi 610ck. There are many features of the Crown's i nit i a 1
acquisition of shares in the Parahirahi Block for which clear
exp 1 anat ions are want i n~. ~10st of them, however, relate to the owners
-- and, in particular, to Hirini Taiwhanga. It would be particularly useful
to know
1) who he was speaking for in 1886;
2) v,that happened in 1887 to sour hi s re 1 at i onshi p 'Ttl Hi the Crown; and
3) U-Ie precise nature of liis re1ationst-lip wiHI the small group of owners
v'iho Ijllj not sell U-Ieir Paral-lirat-ii interests to tJ!e Crown in 1 EiEi6-EP.
k:; far as the 1 ast is concerne1j, it woullj be useful to knovy' whether trlese
peop 1 e Ijec 1 i ne:j to take pat-t in H-Ie sal e arrangernent because T Eli whanga
f ell out \'I(i tt-I the Cro'v'yTI, or wl-Iett-Ier trley decl ined to parU cipate because
tJle!d I-lad opposed the transact i on from the begi nni ng? ~1ucl-1 more
information is needelj on all these pOints.
Tt-Ie Larllj Purct-Iase Department tHld relatively little success, after
1 Ei87} in persuadi ng the rernai ni ng owners to sell thei r shares. The
a~~ents in cliarge (Cl enljon arllj r"1ai r) both be 1 i eved Hiat that mone!d was
the prob 1 ern -- that Hie mi ni ng developments in the TuwhEiki no had gi ven
Hie owners an inflated idea of Hie value of Hleir Parahir-atd interests.
Thi s rnay or may not have been true, but the mi ni ng act i vi ty certai n 1 y
affectelj the Crown's actions. It seerns obvious that the decision to tia\·'8
Hie Crown's interests in Parahirahi divided out in 1894 was made in
order to accommodate Patterson's business interests -- that the
Governrnent took this action at this time in order to promote lat-ge-scale
pri vate i nvestrnent in an otherwi se depressed regi on. Neither Patter-son
nor the Crown seem to have consi dered the possi bil ity of some ki nd of a
j 01 nt venture with the Maori owners of the a 11 eged Parat-Ii rahi ci nnabar
deposits. If the owner-s made Elny such proposition, I have not seen any
record of it.
Gilbert t'lair's only involvernent with Parahirahi was 'y'y'ith the 1894
Land Court hearings. He seems to have done a fairly straightforwanj jotl
-- in ttie context of a rather comp 1 ex situat i on. The Crown wanted to
gain control over the at-ea around the Springs where cinnabar deposits
123
\-'iAI-304 #[4
were 1 i ke 1\.1 to be 10cated. t1ai r struck severa 1 dea 1 s with the "non
sellers" \'vt-licti placed most of the lands remaining in ~1aori hands away to
Hie souHI an west of Hie Springs area. ~'1~d own irnpression is Hlat he
traded off what little arable land the Crown might otherwise have been
entitled to in order to achieve this goal. C 1 seems to have been sited for
the specift c purpose of gt vi ng the owners control over part of the hot
spring at-ea. Who, specifically, defined H-Ie boundaries of this block on
the ground is not known.
Questions have been asked about the Crown's acquisition of the
Parar-Ii rat-Ii D b 1 ock for a 1 rnost U-It-ee-quarters of 8 centur-y now. They
t-Iave tended to focus on what happened in 1 Ei94 -- probably because this
has to Ijate tleen the on 1 ~d part of Hie process of acqui sit ion for whi ch an!d
substant i a 1 docurnentat ton I-ias been avai 1 ab 1 e. I n my opt ni on., the key to
w-!Ijerstan;jinq it lies rnuch earlier, in the events of t 885-1887. TI-,e time
I t-la',,18 had to look into thern has not, t-egrettab 1 y, been suffi ci ent to
e:.:haust every possi b 1 e a'·/enue of research. On present evi dence,
t-Iowe ... .'er, tt",ere seems to me to tIe lit t 1 e substance to Hiat pat-t of the
Nqa'y''i/-Ia clairn wl-licJI relates to Hie Crown's acquisition of ParahirarIi D.
In rrJlj opi ni on .. Hie people all ege1j to t-Iave sold the whole of Hlei r
interests in tJI8 Parat-tiral-li block to the Crown in 18Ei6-1Ei941jid in fact
Ijo so., anlj knew and intended that H1eit- interests in C were included in
tJle tn:H"lsaction.
124
References Cited
1) Pub 11 shed
Cyclopedia of New Zealand. Volume 2.-- Auckland Provincial DistriCt. VA 1.2 (1902).
Dictionary of New Zealand Biography: Volume One 1769-1869. Wellington: Allen & Un'vvin/ Department of Internal Affairs, 1990.
,Jourdai n .. W.R. Land Legi s laU on and Sett 1 ement in New Zealand. v.,le 11 i ngton: Governrnent Pri nter (Dept. of Lands and Survey), 1925.
~1cLintock, A.H., elt An Encyclopedie of New Zealand. 3 \,'ols. y.lellinqton: Government Pri nter, 1966.
Nevv Zealand Official Vear-Book (1893-95).
Ot-ange .. Cl audi a. Tt-Ie Treaty of V,{aitangi. \.ye 11 i ngton: A 11 en & Unvvi n NZ Uft, wi tt"! Port Ni cho 1 son Press, 1987.
ScJlolefield" G.H., ed. A Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. 2 vols. Vlellington: Department of Internal Affairs .. 1940.
\.Ilanj, Alan. A Sho'vv of .Justice: Racial "Amalgamation" in Nineteenth Century Nevv Zeel1and. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974.
V·iil son, ,.J.D. New Zealand ParI iarnentary Record, 1840-1984. Wellington: GO\/ernment Pri nter. 1985.
2) Archiyol
Nat i onal Archi ves, Auckland.
t-1LC-A 1/8-9 Native Land Cow-t: Local Registers, Bay of Islands Vol. 2 1869-77 & Vol. 3 1877-83
t'lLC-A 2/10-11 Native Land Court: Succession Registers .. Bay of Islands \/01. 2 1878-85 &. Vol. 3 1885-97
r"'lLC -A A52l21-22 Trust Cornrni ssi oner, Aucklarllt I nwanjs Correspondence Boxes 15-16, Letters and Applications 1693 (93/1-160).
WAI-304 #'[:4
Nat i ona 1 Archi ves, '~'l/e 11 i ngton.
AAt1K 999/9 List of OV'mers and Payrnents.: Maori Land Sold to tJI8 CrO\ ...... n, 1890s. "Parflhi r-ahi A, B & C 5097 acres"
t'1A 78 Stout -Ngatfl Commi ssi on 1) t'"lA 78/5 North Auckland Minute Book 2) MA 78/3 rough mi nutes
126
