Report Commissioned on Behalf of Ngati Toa Rangatira
Table of Contents
..
Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................
11
Introduction ....................................................................................................................
1
The Author ............................................................................................................
1
The Scope and Purpose of This Report .................................................................... 2
Section One: Ngati Toa's Over-Riding Authority and Non-Exclusive Alienation
Rights .........................................................................................................................
5
The Ngati Toa Empire ................................................................................................
5
Occupation, Possession and Influence ....................................................................... 7
Possession and Influence ....................................................................................... 7
Which Groups were Influenced? ..............................................................................
16
The Size of Ngati Toa .............................................................................................. 20
Section Two: The East Coast: Wairau to Kuiapoi ......................................................23
...
Acqumt~onof Rangitane Rights .............................................................................. 24
..
Reliance on Crown Officials' Opinions ...................................................................28
The Invasion of the East Coast ................................................................................ 30
Lack of Ngati Toa Response to Ngai Tahu's Revival .............................................
32
Ngai Tahu Re-Occupation to Kaikoura ................................................................... 36
Ngati Toa's Control and Use of the Northern East Coast ........................................ 39
The Wairau Purchase and the Southern Boundary .................................................. 42
Crown Recognition of Ngai Tahu Interests .............................................................
47
Maori Appellate Court, 1990 ...................................................................................
58
Section Three: Arahura and Interests to the West ....................................................... 61
The Invasion to Tai Tapuwhanganui ..................................................................... 61
The Invasion to Arahura ..........................................................................................
65
Ongoing Occupation with Ngati Toa Connections .................................................. 68
..
Heaphy's Expedition 1846 .......................................................................................
69
Evidence from Later Nineteenth-Century Sources ..................................................
73
Maori Appellate Court 1990 ....................................................................................
SO
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................
84
Bibliography .................................................................................................................
91
Introduction
The Author
My name is Bryan Dudley Gilling. I am Senior Research Associate at the Treaty of
Waitangi Research Unit, Victoria University of Wellington, and an Associate
Member, Centre for the Interdisciplinary Study of Property Rights, University of
Newcastle, New South Wales. I hold a MA (Hons) in History from the University of
Canterbury, a BTh (Hons) in Church History from the Australian College of
Theology, and a DPhil in New Zealand History from the University of Waikato.
Within the Victoria University of Wellington, I have also been a post-doctoral
research fellow in the Faculty of Law, and a temporary lecturer in Maori-Pakeha
relations in the Department of History. In 1995/96 I was Senior Historian and
Historical Team Manager at the Office of Treaty Settlements and my previous
research has been undertaken under commission from all parties in the Treaty claims
process, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Crown Law Office, the Office of Treaty
Settlements, the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, and numerous claimant groups. I have
given evidence before the Waitangi Tribunal previously in a number of claims,
including Ahuriri, the Chathams, Mohaka-Waikare, Wniohiki, Pakakohi, several
Poverty Bay groups, Ngati Koheriki in South Auckland, and Ngati Rangitihi in the
Bay of Plenty. I have also appeared once before this Te Tau Ihu Tribunal, giving
evidence in the Te Kotua Whannu claim.
The Scope and Purpose of This Reporf
The present report has been prepared under commission on behalf of the Ngati
Toa claimants in the ?Nai 785 claim before the Waitangi Tribunal. The commission,
which due to the requirements of the Tribunal's hearing schedule could be for only
four weeks, included principally focus on evidence relating to the extent of Ngati
Toa's rights and influence to the south of Te Tau Ihu. This included reviewing key
published works and research reports relating to this topic and where practicable
additional primary material also. The present author claims no particular expertise in
the field of traditional Maori custom and so has included material relating to this only
as necessary, on the understanding that there will be additional evidence led for Ngati
Toa to address customary issues specifically.
The statement of claim for Ngati Toa ~angatira'sets out a number of clzims to
which the present report is relevant:
*
Concerning the tribal rohe for Ngati Toa Rangatira, it is claimed that this
reaches 'across the Cook Strait to Kaikoura and west to the Arahura and
back to Whangaehu' (on the west coast of the North Island). [para 5.11
*
In the South Island, Ngati Toa's occupation and cultivation was centred
on 'the core areas of Cloudy Bay-Port Underwood, the Wairau area
(including the lower Wairau valley and especially the flood-plain near
the coast) and Te Hoiere (Pelorus Sound). [para 5.21
*
'As well as these core areas of interest, Ngati Toa Rangatira also held
non-exclusive alienation rights over the whole of the Northern South
Island, which derive from Ngati Toa (in particular Te Rauparaha) having
led the conquering iwi groups'. [para 5.31
*
'All descent groups of the Cook Strait region were subject to the
overriding mana and authority of Ngati Toa as first conquerors.' [para
5.41
I
'Amended Statement of Claim for Ngati Toa Rangatira Dated 28 February 2003'. Wai
207fiWai 785.
2
'Ngati Toa also asserted customary rights on the eastern coast of the
South Island well to the south of the Wairau Valley', which was shown
after 1840 by Ngati Toa attempting to exchange with the government
land at the Wairau for land where their dead lay at Kaiapoi, and their
lease to Pakeha settlers of 200,000 acres of land from Blind River to
Kekerengu Cpara 5.71.
'Ngati Toa also asserted interests in the West Coast of the South Island
as far as the Arahura River' as stated explicitly in the wording of the
1853 Te Wai Pounamu deed [para 5.81 and their statements in 1843,
1851 and 1852 asserting rights at Taitapu, Whakatu, Waimea and
Arahura [para 5.61.
*
This rohe was won in a series of conflicts and expeditions under Te
Rauparaha's overall generalship that amounted to a conquest followed
by occupation of those core areas at least. These included [para 4.91: (a)
a reconnaissance after the battle of Waiorua, (b) a revenge attack on
Wairau following the patu aruhe curse, (c) a revenge attack on Kaikoura
in 1829/30 following the barracuda tooth insult, by a force comprising
Ngati Toa, Ngati Awa and Tuhourangi, led by Te Rauparaha and on
which Te Pehi of Ngati Toa was killed at Kaiapoi, (d) a sea-borne attack
in 1830 on Ngai Tahu at Bank's Peninsula, (e) also in 1530 an attack on
Te Hoiere, Rangitoto, Whakapuaka and places further west, again led by
Te Rauparaha and Ngati Toa and including warriors from Ngati
Raukawa, Ngati Koata, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Awa, Ngati Tama and other
groups, (f) another campaign against Kaiapoi in 1331132 planned by Te
Rauparaha and comprising three taua led by Te Rauparaha, Ropata
Hurumutu of Ngati Toa and Te Whetu of Ngati Koata, and (g) a
'mopping-up expedition by Ngati Ranta to the Tasmau and Golden Bay
areas carried out at the same time as the attack on Kaiapoi'.
*
While much of this activity was directed against Ngai Tahu, Rangitane,
Ngati Apa and Ngati Kuia were principally defeated during the
expedition ranging through Te Tau Ihu in 1830. [para 4.101
*
Subsequent to this military activity, the lands thus won 'were allocated
to the various member groups of the coalition by Te Rauparaha'. [para
4.111
The evidence compiled in this report addresses the various elements in the Ngati
Toa statement of claim in a variety of ways:
*
Issues relating to the authority deriving from the northern conquest are
discussed, especially questions as to the need for occupation to confer
rights over people and land.
*
The extent of the northern conquest and occupation down both coasts is
investigated.
The authority of the opinions of early Crown purchasing agents on the
extent of Ngai Tahu interests on both coasts is analysed.
*
The alleged re-occupation by Ngai Tahu of lands up both coasts north of
Mawhera and Kaikoura and re-assertion of their traditional rights there
is investigated.
ority and
on-Exclusive Alienati
This section addresses the issues relating to whether Ngati Toa did indeed
possess over-riding authority and non-exclusive alienation rights to lands in the
northern South Island. It considers general issues relating to the kinds of interests
Ngati Toa may have enjoyed in Te Tau Ihu. Initially, there is the question of rights
derived from direct occupation and possession and their relation to rights derived
from the exercise of some kind of authority, power or influence. Then there is the
matter of the groups over which such authority, power or influence may have been
exercised by the Ngati Toa leadership, especially Te Rauparaha. A third issue is the
practical one of just what must he expected of Ngati Toa in terms of evaluating their
occupation and influence; was it physically possible for them to occupy large tracts
after conquest as if they were homelands in which the group had dwelt for
generations?
The Ngafi Toa Empire
A modern historian, Chris Maclean, discusses at some length how. under the
Ngati Toa leadership, Kapiti was the centre of 'an Island Empire', an empire, what is
more, that was both carefully constructed and ultimately 'the largest Maori had
known'.%e
observes how the annual campaigns southwards brought back 'numerous
slaves and quantities of greenstone', but also 'left behind relatives, such as Te
Rauparaha's brother, Nohorua, and allies such as Ngati Koata, who settled in Te Wai
Pounamu to ensure Ngati Toa's d ~ m i n a n c e . 'Kapiti
~
was deliberately developed as a
trading centre with, Maclean records, prominent exports being flax gathered and
dressed by slaves and dried heads harvested from moko'd slaves. Subjugation of other
1
3
Maclean, Kapifi, 136.
Maclean, Kapifi, 115.
territories was therefore intrinsic to the development and maintenance of the Kapitibased Ngati Toa empire.
One example of this is given by Tamihana te Rauparaha, discussing his father's
regular practice, conducted with a specific strategic vision related to supplying his
people, to trade, and to military needs:
Te Rauparaha was busy working at Otaki when they assembled [for the raid on
Putiki at Whanganui]. It was his custom to go among his various vilfages to
cultivate food for the war parties. Having started his gardens at Kapiti he would
cross over to Otaki, and having cultivated some food there he would hurry away
to Pukerua; when he had finished there he would go over to Mana Island and
then across to Karauripe and Wairau; when he had finished his cultivations there
he would return to Kapiti. This was a fixed rule of his, so that he could always
provide food for war parties or when groups of people gathered?
Other evidence has also argued for the existence of a Ngati Toa seaborne empire
using Cook Strait as a highway, not a barrier. Such a concept has implicit in it an
expansive rather than narrow view of the influence exercised by Ngati Toa, extending
it far beyond the mere acres they lived on and cultivated. Alan Ward and Ann
Parsonson have identified this imperial and extensive nature of Te Rauparaha's area
of influence. Writing in several places of Te Rauparaha's trading empire based on
several key nodal points, Ward states:
It must be recognised (as Dr Parsonson has recognised) that Te Rauparaha's
empire was largely a trading empire, a maritime empire.5
An empire, too, by its very nature does not require and intensive occupation by
the imperial power-Alexander
the Great had very few Ivlacedonians to spread
between Greece and India, yet exercised considerable influence throughout the vast
region. Rather, it requires that in some way the imperial power exercise control,
through fear of retribution against rebels, exaction of tribute from vassals, even the
overwhelming personality and reputation of the leader.
By the time of the signing of the Treaty, European influences through
missionaries, land purchasing and the impending imposition of European control had
altered the balance. But the Europeans arriving relied on the Ngati Toa Empire to
extend British rule in central New Zealand. As James Belich comments:
British power on the shores of Cook Strait was inherited from Wgati Toa through
the conquest of the conqueror. Such occurrences were not uncommon in the
history of European imperialism. An intensification of European contact upsets
4
5
Butler, Tumihann. 54.
Ward, 'Port Nicholson'. 185.
the delicate balance of a fragile preexisting empire. Europe then inherits its
earth, with the help of its own subject^.^
Occupation, Possession and Influence
The concepts and terms relating to the issues of occupation, possession and
influence require more detailed examination. Professor Alan Ward has discussed
different views of such matters at some length in his Port Nicholson overview and
notes that the concept of 'ownership' is in many respects 'too hard and Eurocentric'
when applied to the complex, inter-related and multi-layered relationships and rights
governing Maori society and their occupation and use of land and
resource^.^ I have in
this report preferred to speak of 'rights'or 'interests', rather than ownership, as being
more flexible terms; it is also what Ngati Toa have claimed in their statement of claim
to have possessed.
Possession and Influence
Ward suggests: "%xclusive possession" by any one individual or group of all
the rights in a given area was rare... ." How much more so in a region where there
were a number of tribal groups traditionally on the land, and where they and their
lands were taken over by not just one group but an alliance of several. Further, given
the historical contest in which the conquest took place, there was not time for
relationships and rights to shake themselves out, to be worn in by custom and usage,
before an entirely new culture superimposed itself on the country and its people. Ward
continues: 'To revert to common law terminology ... it was possible for various
individuals and groups to have interests in the same land, corresponding both to their
occupation and usage and to their mana as leaders of conquering groups (who could
not, of course, be occupying and using all the land at once).' [Emphasis in original]
6
7
X
Belich, Making Peoples, 206
Ward, 'Port Nicholson', 9.
Ward, 'Port Nicholson; 9.
Ngati Toa themselves, in their early dealings with the Crown, claimed to have
this sort of mana and authority, not actual 'ownership'. In 1851, they wrote to
Governor Grey saying:
Listen to the reason we hold ourselves superior to these people and say that we
have the authority?
They then went on to emphasise the initiative and leadership of Te Rauparaha in the
conquest process from the first moves southwards with Nga Puhi. One point tending
in favour of their current claims must he that the claims are not, in fact, novel. They
date back to their words and deeds in dealings with the Crown and other iwi from the
first arrival of Pakeha land purchasers and settlers.
They also made the point that challenges to their claims of authority were
coming in the new climate created by the irruption of European religion and political
control, that such challenges were not made twenty years before when Maori groups
were free to do as they would and could:
By my strength, by my persistence in sweeping clear the land, not a thing of
today but of yore, an inheritance of my ancestors. His (their) work was taking
land. Accordingly when I grew up the land which lies here was empty, not
buzzed over by this swarm of flies, which gathers before you.''
That 'swarm of flies'was not just Ngati Rarua, about whose negotiations over land
the letter was primarily written, but also the Ngai Tahu. The Ngati Toa chiefs said the
southerners were complaining now as they could not have done two decades earlier
when Ngati Toa were free to act, swarming all over the governor with their
challenges, whereas they would have been of no consequence in former times:
In a year of plenty each bird's voice is heard, such is the case in a fruitful year.
Now, you [Governor Grey] are the fruit, swarmed over by each bird. But in the
year of Tuu-mata-uenga [the god of war], no there was me alone. Then my word
would have had weight with you there being no one else to repress it. Even
though my word went throughout the land there would be none to gainsay it,
none indeed. In this tribe or that, none. Even Taiaroa himself could not. Taiaroa
has opposed it because peace came apace. But if we were still in the time of war
it would not be said that there was a Taiaroa here to say anything. He \vould
have been blown like dust into the sea."
9
Ill
11
031410131
Letter of 11 December 1851. Biggs, 'Two Letters'. 268.
Letter of 29 September 1852. Biggs, 'Two Letters', 264.
Letter of 29 September 1852. Biggs. 'Two Letters', 264.
SB
Since at least the time of Commissioner William Spain's investigation in the
mid-1840s of the New Zealand Company's purchases the rights of Ngati Toa to at
least some land in the South Island have been clearly recognised by the Crown.
Richard Boast observes:
Even Commissioner Spain, who was inclined to take a dim-if sometimes
contradictory-view of Ngati Toa claims based on conquest unsupported by
occupation, was nevertheless in no doubt that Ngati Toa had clear rights in at
least parts of the South Island:
The various districts, then, in the real and bonafide possession of the
Ngatitoa Tribe are, on the North Island, from Wainui to Porirua, inclusive
of both places: on the Middle Island, in Cloudy Bay, comprising the
Wairau, a part of Queen Charlotte's Sound; and in the Strait, the Islands of
Kapiti and Mana: and in each and all of these places has the tribe both
residences and cultivated lands."
Commissioner Spain adopted, in principle at least, the requirement of actual
residence before he would recognise any rights in land:
I have set it down as a principle in sales of land in this country by the aborigines,
that the rights of the actual occupants must be acknowledged and extinguished
before any title can be fairly obtained upon the strength of the mere satisfaction
of the claims of the self-styled conquerors, who do not reside on nor cultivate
the soil. In short, the possession confers upon the Natives of one tribe the only
and real title to land as against any of their own countrymen; and that the
residents, whether they be the original unsubdued proprietors, the conquerors
who have retained their possession acquired in war, or captives who have been
permitted to re-occupy their land on sufferance-in all cases the residents, and
they alone, have the power of alienating any land.I3
While this sounds fair enough on its face, in fact this test comes very close to
the waste lands doctrine, with the stress on a static lifestyle and the denial of rights
other than over land actually lived on and cultivated. In fact, of course, Maori did not
simply exercise rights over lands they actually occupied and cultivated, and the
seasonal peregrinations of South Island Maori, for example, or their travels to access
particular resources, are well known and documented. That is not at ail to suggest that
Ngai Tahu's rights relating to pounamu, say, are the same as Ngati Toa's to the
Kaikoura Coast. Rather, it is to point out that Spain's test, and that of those who
follow it too closely, is inadequate. For various reasons, Maori did not just claim
rights over land on the sole bases of occupation and cultivation; they claimed rights to
control and use much larger districts as well.
12
13
Boast, 'Upper South Island', 8. Quoting Spain's report lo Governor FitzRoy
Spain to FitzRoy, S Nov 1845. Quoted in Ngni Tnhic Report, 392.
Spain did acknowledge Ngati Toa's 'frequent efforts to subjugate the tribes
along the eastern coast as far as Banks Peninsula" but, even when admitting Ngati
Toa as the owners of the Wairau under his criteria, he did not attempt to define the
southern or inland limits of those rights.
The substantial and probably pre-eminent right of Ngati Toa in the eastern
Sounds region down to Parinui-o-Whiti is for present purposes taken for granted.
However, as Boast says, picking up on Spain's criteria:
The issue is, however, what, if any, are the rights of Ngati Toa in the Upper
South Island apart from those areas in the 'real and bonnfide possession' or
'occupation' of Ngati ~ 0 a . l ~
In his Wellington evidence, Iwi Nicholson testified that 'a non-Maori mindset"
in the late 1800s led to an inappropriate use of proof of occupation and cultivation.
This is; he said,
an absolute nonsense in our opinion and according to Maori custom. The notion
that if you didn't occupy or use your land you didn't need it or own it is a
nonsense."
Key Crown officials in the early colonial period argued publicly that Ngati Toa
had over-arching interests throughout the northern South Island. Chief Land Purchase
Commissioner Donald McLean reported at the time of his negotiating the Te Wai
Pounamu purchase in 1853 those who were involved:
In addition to the Ngati Toa chiefs, who are acknowledged by the Natives
generally to have the principal claim to these districts, several other influential
chiefs from the Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, Rangitane, and Ngati Awa tribes were
present, and took part with the Ngati Toa at severat conferences heard [sic] with
his Excellency Sir George Grey respecting the sale of the
Ngati Toa were thus present throughout the Te Wai Pounarnu negotiations and
he stated clearly that their right to be thus involved was acknowledged. It is noted that
this did not equate to a claim to exclusive rights through 'these districts', but a
'principal'one, overarching but clearly shared with other groups who had primary
occupation rights in more localised areas.
McLean again reported in 1856 his opinion that Ngati Toa had pre-eminentnot exclusive-rights
throughout 'the district':
14
Boast, 'Upper South Island', 9.
Nicholson, 'Evidence', 19.
16
Donald McLean, report, 11 August 1853. MA 13117, WNA. Quored in Boast, 'Upper South
Island', 252 11548.
ii
10
v]he Ngati Toa tribe of Porirua ... had unquestionably as the earliest invaders a
prior right to the disposal of the district. This they had never relinquished
although after the conquest their leading Chiefs partitioned out to the
subordinate branches of their own tribe as well as to the Ngati Awa. ...
The latter Natives did not assume to themselves a power of sale except over the
lands they actually occupied yet some of them when not confronted by the
leading Ngati Toa Chiefs professed to have independent and exclusive rights
while the majority, and even the parties making such assertions (when closely
examined) always acknowledged that the general rights of alienation vested in
the Ngati Toa Chiefs of the Northern ~sland."
This indicates that McLean did not treat with Ngati Toa for lands throughout Te
Tau Ihu simply from convenience, or heedless of other tribes'cclims. He was
prepared, and believed it necessary, to advance a cogent justification for such
dealings. He drew a picture of tribal groups that are operating freely on their lands,
until the question of alienation arose, when they deferred to the Ngati Toa chiefs; even
if they initially blustered through an exclusive claim the mere presence of a senior
Ngati Toa chief would cause them to be less ambitions, as would close questioning by
an ofticial. The other tribes certainly esercised rights-probably
practice-of
unfettered in
use and occupation over these lands, but 'the general rights of alienation'
were, said McLean, ultimately acknowledged to be 'vested in the Ngati Toa Chiefs'.'"
Much evidence has been adduced in historical scholarship of the unreliability of
the outcomes of Crown purchases of land as information about the actual traditional
owners of the lands. In her discussion of the official Crown recognition of Maori
rights to land ownership, Ballara places considerable emphasis on officials taking
what they perceived to be the lines of least resistance, such as pretending problems
simply did not exist, or negotiating problems out of esistence-or at least into such a
state that they would not interfere with the land purchasing activities. And then:
Another tendency was to favour the status quo; the rights of recent conquerors,
especially when they were perceived as potential threats to the nascent,
militarily weak colony, were expediently recognised by many officials in the
face of known, former Maori custom. Obvious examples were the payment of
Te Wherowhero for his rights in Taranaki and payment of Ngati Toa for land as
far south as ~ a i a ~ o i . "
17
McLean to Gore Browne,7 April 1856, CO 2091135. Quoted in Boast, 'Upper South Island',
50.
18
Boast ('Upper South Island",51) notes that McLcan's opinion differed markedly from those of
William Spain and Alexander Mackay, but those oificials were talking about the Nelson area
particularly undcr differentcircumstances and with different evidence than informed McLean's
o inion.
'"
Bsllara, hi,SO.
This statement, which relegates Crown payments to Ngati Toa to mere
'expedience', makes several presuppositions that are not addressed in Ballara's text,
such as that Ngati Toa by the time of the Wairau, Kaikoura and other purchases were
conducted in the late 1840s, or even later, posed a military threat to the colony.
Perhaps more applicable in the early 1840s, this might be regarded as hard to sustain
after the events in 1846-47. It also implies that the 'recent conquerors' had no
substantial rights, saying nothing about the nature and duration of the conquest or any
subsequent occupation and use, and yet the fact that it was the 'status quo' at the time
of the payment suggests that they had some demonstrable presence. The parallel
between T e Wherowhero and Waikato in a small part of Taranaki for several months
before returning home is hardly the same as Ngati Toa and their continued occupation
and use of conquered land in and south of the Narlborough Sounds. It also says
nothing about additional payments also made to those whose rights were longer
standing; Ngati Toa were not the only group paid for land as far south as Kaiapoi.
Or the Crown might also pay out money in this way when powerful chiefs were
regarded as particularly troublesome, and Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata would
certainly have fallen into that category in the 1840s (although Ballara does not give
them as examples).
In evidence given before the Waitangi Tribunal in the Ngai Tahu and Te Tau
Ihu inquiries, much has been made of the questionable motives and methodologies of
Governor Grey and Chief Land Purchase Commissioner McLean, particularly in
regard to the Wairau and Te Wai Pounamu purchases in which Ngati Toa were given
pre-eminence, the 'expedience'to which Ballara refers. At this point of the present
report, it suffices to say that this general point cuts both ways and, as will be
discussed below concerning particular men and purchases, the purchase activities and
reports of these and other Crown agents cannot, for similar reasons, necessarily be
taken as authoritative concerning Ngai Tahu interests either. If payment was made to
Ngati Toa simply to quieten their claims, so were the purchases made from Ngai Tahu
made simply to buy out their interests in the blocks concerned and quieten their
claims-but
the actual extent of those interests seems not ever to have been fully or
formally investigated and the experience and competence of the Crown purchase
agents involved was not as laudable as some recent commentaries have assumed and
suggested.
12
Another issue, which there has not been time to explore further, is the problem
of relating all of these concepts just to land and how that may in fact distort the
complexity of the reality. Ballara herself also writes of a chief's mana in relation to
both people and land:
The basis of such a [hapu] community was the mana of its chief over land and
people ... . If they [the chiefs] were the descendants of conquering chiefs they
had mama over the people, but in order to inherit mana over the land as well such
conquering chiefs almost invariably sought to marry women of the conquered
people; that way their successors as chiefs inherited the rights of both groups.
The mana of the chief was thought to 'rest' or 'lie' on or over his territory; this
usually included his own ancestral lands, but also the lands and use-rights of the
several hapu living 'under' his mana. He did not own everything in his territory,
but while he was accepted by his people as the proper bearer of the mana he had
the right to make decisions about both the land and the various hapu living under
his mana or authority. Mana could thus be of several degrees: higher-ranking,
ruling chiefs were recognised as having greater mana; lesser chiefs, perhaps the
hereditary leaders of one small hapu which formed part of the community, had
lesser mana.20
This can be applied to the present situation if one thinks of Te Rauparaha as the
chief concerned. He did not 'own' all the lands under discussion, but he clearly
claimed a right to dispose of them, for example being the person who aiIocated where
each group was located after the conquest of the Nelson-West Coast area.
A further caveat to this discussion, which 1 have not seen explored in other
materials, is the question of the extent to which it can be said there was effectively a
single Maori 'law' on such matters. The issue was thrown into stark relief in the
Chatharns where Taranaki Maori custom involving conquering and killing was
contrasted with that of the pacifism of Rekohu Moriori. It would be strange if there
were not similar, of less dramatic, subtleties and nuances between the various Maori
groups involved in this present imbroglio. It seems to the present writer inherently
unlikely that each of the conquering tribes, from Taranaki and Tainui, viewed such
matters in entirely the s a n ~ elight, let alone the various South Island tribal groups
(some with Manawatu connections) with whom they collided.
This leads to the question-which
the present writer is not qualified to
explore--of whether the approach adopted by such authorities as the Maori Appellate
Court and Dr Ballara of stating more or less absolute requirements and rules fits the
situation well enough for a detailed discussion of intra-Maori matters. To go to the
20
Ballara, hi,204.
13
iliiJ18133 KI1
heart of the matter, was it, for example, always the case that occupation was required
before any rights or interests were acquired under Maori custom in relation to land?
Apart from the philosophically dangerous absolute nature of such an assertion, did
each of the tribal groups involved actually view the matter in this way? If not, were
they operating under a different set of customary assumptions? Did, say, Ngai Tahu
and Rangitane and Ngati Toa all hold to exactly the same understanding?
The Nature of Ratcpatu
At the core of Ngati Toa claims in the South Island is the conquest, the raupatu
of the southern tribes by the northern groups in an alliance under Ngati Toa
leadership. The Native Land Court placed great store on whether or not the land's
original inhabitants had been totally annihilated or utterly driven from the land
concerned, for example in the Himatangi and other cases through the RangitikeiManawatu-Horowhenua area in the late 1860s that resulted in Toa's allies, Ngati
Raukawa having their claimed lands pruned back very severely. The present writer
claims no expertise to comment on the fidelity of this insistence to actual Maori
custom. However, Mr Iwi Nicholson explained before the Wellington Tenths Tribunal
that Ngati Toa found such a suggestion 'insulting'and 'offensive'. He stated:
The customs (tikanga) simply did not require that as an end result to any
engagement. To actually make such a statement or surmise such to have been
the case is to offer offence and affront to the chivalry and intelligence of the
whole race.
They were not stupid, but by their actions and customs can be proven to have
been of great intellect and intelligence ....
They knew that total annihilation of one's opposit~onparticularly when invadmg
strange territory meant the destruction of in some instances hundreds of years of
local knowled~e.
Hence their customs (tikanga) did not require it.
Regarding total annihilation of a people or tribe, we know of no examples.
Captive men and women, particularly those of lesser standing or status, were
kept to join the victors'hbour force. Some of these men are even known to have
fought in battles that followed in the interests of their captors.
Others of a more prominent status would be retained as a means to begin, or to
sue for a truce or a more permanent peace arrangement, to end, or, at the
conclusion of a battle.
The most influential and widely claimed or recognised persons, High Chiefs and
Chieftainesses were able to move about the country with little more than their
status to protect them. And even when they found themselves on the losing side
in battle no one would be foolish enough to willingly kill them."
21
Nicholson, 'Evidence', 12.
An obvious example is the way in which Ngati Toa pressed captives from the
South Island into service on Kapiti to process flax for the trade that was being
developed with Pakeha during the 1830s. They also required the conquered tribes in
Te Tau Ihu to provide dressed flax for them for the same purpose. The captivity of the
Ngai Tahu chief Te Ataotu is an example of the point Nicholson makes in the last
paragraph quoted, and he gives several others in his evidence. A meaningful conquest
had taken place, but it did not require the extermination of all southern Maori above
Banks Peninsula.
Raupatu, furthermore, went beyond occupation to maintenance of your claimed
rights in the face of potential opposition. Nicholson states:
You have to prove you have had the ability to defend that status [or right] from
those who may encroach, squat, or challenge your right of ownership through
war or any other possible means.
Being unable to do this meant you lost all rights ... .
Your rights were extinguished by anyone able to suppress and dominate ail
forceful resistance you may have been able to muster.
The dominant oppressors as a matter of custom (tikanga) would acquire by their
actions all of those rights under the same conditions until those who have been
oppressed are able to or have the power to reverse such a ~ituation.~'
Thus, the territory and possessions \liere lost to the invader once they could not
be defended. Nicholson observes: 'Like almost all other customs, the basic
requirement was the physical ability of a tribe to protect and maintain control. One
Maori descriptive term is strong hand (ringa kaha).'13
Ngati Toa maintained from early times that the migration south was engineered
by Te Rauparaha and that he had an eye for the riches in pounamu sourced from the
South Island-'he
considered how he might see it'. This led to him summoning aid
from Nga Puhi for an expedition south, which duly eventuated as the protracted raid
to Te Whanganui-a-Tam Patuone suggested to Te Rauparaha that he occupy the
southern North Island land and develop a relationship with Pakeha, leading to the
migration of the whole of Ngati ~ o a . ~ ~
Phillipson notes that despite dicta of the Maori Land Court regarding the
absolute requirement for occupation to established rights over land, the historical
22
~i
24
Nicholson, 'Evidence', 27.
Nicholson, 'Evidence', 34.
Letter OF 11 December 1851. Bisgs, 'Two Letters', 265-272.
evidence is rather more ambiguous."j The Te Tau Ihu iwi for the rest of the nineteenth
century disagreed over what rights Te Rauparaha might have had and retained and for
how long, many agreeing that the Ngati Toa leaders did have rights through the
Nelson region. The argument continues to the present day and is related to many
matters beyond simple occupation, with some historians even drawing an analogy
with the Anglo-Saxon kingship. Much turns on matters now very difficult to pin
down, such as the whether gifts were given freely or offered in tribute, whethei
alliance was voluntary or compelled, whether labour was free or resulted from
servitude, and whether Maori custom required only a brief period for rights to be
obtained or they could accrue immediately upon a conquest. These issues are further
complicated by the fact that there are two different types of groups being dealt with:
the conquered peoples and those who were allies in that conquest.
Phillipson concludes:
Toa rights in the district, therefore, depend on one's interpretation of the rights
of conquest, of Te Rauparaha's ultimate right 8s war leader to dispose of the
conquered territory, and of the political relationship between Ngati Toa and their
confederation of allied i \ ~ i . ' ~
Which Groups were influenced?
If it is accepted that influence may be exercised beyond the simple occupation
and possession of tracts of land, two further central questions in determining the
extent of Ngati Toa interests are:
*
which groups con~prisedNgati Toa, and
*
which groups were actually under the authority in some way of the Ngati
Toa leadership. especially Te Rauparaha?
In the context of the present report this has importance for issues surrounding Ngati
Toa interests beyond the Cloudy BayfSounds area especially westwards and down the
West Coast, where non-Ngati Toa tribal groups actually conducted the conquest yet
Ngati Toa leaders claimed authority.
A Ngati Toa source from 1851 divided the iwi into three main subdivisions:
'5
26
Phillipson, 'Northern South Island', 36-40.
Phillipson, 'Northern South Island', 40.
Listen to the names of our sub-tribes: Ngaati-Toa is the first, Ngaati-Koata is the
second, Ngaati-Rarua is the third. In all they form Ngaati-Toa, whose motto is
'Mangoo of the sharp ears'."
This type of connection brings Kwata and Rarua more directly under the influence of
Ngati Toa Rangatira; they are close relatives rather than simply allies, and the
obligations on them, and their susceptibility to control by the senior Toa chiefs, are
correspondingly higher. That is not to say that at all times and in all circumstances
they followed Te Rauparaha and the other Toa chiefs unquestioningly-clearly they
did not. But the degree of influence was high and the connections close enough that in
some accounts the hvo hapu were not distinguished and all were called 'Ngati Toa'.
Edward Jerningham Wakefield recorded an account of a hui at which he was
present at which Te Rauparaha berated Ngati Raukawa. It does not relate directly to
detailed rights issues in the northern South Island, but does show Te Rauparaha's
attitude concerning the lands in which Ngati Toa had been engaged:
All my days have been spent in fighting, and by fighting I have got my name.
Since I seized by war all this land, from Taranaki to Port Nicholson, and from
Blind Bay to Cloudy Bay beyond the water, I have been spoken of as a king. I
am the king of all this land. I have lived a king, and I will die a king, with my
meri [sic] in m y hand."
As to the reference to Blind Bay to Cloudy Bay, I suggest this is not to be taken as an
exact territorial description, just as the reference to Taranaki is not exaci, hut as more
of a reference to the tribal groups whom Te Rauparaha controlled to some degree,
here Toa to Rarua, just as he controlled elements of Taranaki groups such as Te Ati
Awa, Tams and hlutunga. The important point is his self-conception as a 'king', as
somehow ruler of this great region (and the implicit point that this could only be by
connections through the sea links). He was asserting an authority overarching all these
groups. The Ngati Raukawa response as recorded-admittedly
whakapapa as well as alliance-was
from a group linked hy
an admission that indeed he was their 'father'
and 'ariki', and indeed 'king of the Maori'.
Angela Baitara argues that when a tribal group was away from its home territory
it was much more likely to act as a cohesive group than when at home. During the
upheavals of the Musket Wars, this was particularly apparent and she states:
27
28
Letter dated 11 December 1851. Biggs (ed), 'Two Letters', 276.
Wakefieid, Advt.rrrwe, ~012,375-379.
In these circumstances of conquest, displacement or adjustment to previously
established territorial claims, both invaders and tangata whenua had become
sharply conscious of group identity at the widest possible ~imits.'~
She gives Ngati Toa as a specific example as they moved south:
At home in Kawhia, Te Rauparaha might have identified his descent group as
Ngati Kimihia, and Te Pehi Kupe his as Ngati Te Mannu; at Kapiti both chiefs
were usually known as Ngati Toa (or Ngati Toarangatira). Identification with the
larger group was essential when all of those on a heke (migration) would suffer
together the retaliation of the enraged tangata whenua, or when the invaders
moved to punish different groups for adverse reactions to their presence.30
Once the conquests had taken place, the relationships would have changed
somewhat. Te Rauparaha apparently offered them a different model of influence from
merely being the conquering general and allocator of conquered lands. He told the
groups leaving Kapiti:
Go and settle in your homes and grow food. Leave Raiwhiti and Kapiti to the
immigrant parties. If you hear of any warfare, paddle over to me immediately,
and if any messenger brings word that I am needed I will also come
immediately.?'
He may have been offering to come and help if his relations were threatened. But it is
wider than that and it appears more that he was still giving them instructions; as the
senior in the relationship thus far, he was still maintaining his assumed responsibility
to them. The groups concerned-Ngati
Koata and Ngati Rarua especially-settled
all
across Te Tau ihu and were not simply the Ngati Toa of Cloudy Bay.
The groups influenced by Ngati Toa will have been influenced in different ways
and for different reasons.
*
Those within the kin group will have had all the connections and
obligations that went with such a relationships. This did not just include
those within Te Rauparaha's immediate descent group, but more broadly
to Ngati Toa inclusively defined, and even to other Tainui groups such
as Ngati Raukawa, when they joined the southward heke.
*
There were the other northern tribes, principally Ngati Tama and Te Ati
Awa of Taranaki. who joined Ngati Toa as allies yet under the
generalship of Te Rauparaha. The influence was through the claims of
2'1
30
31
Ballara, Iwi, 64.
Ballara, Iwi, 64.
Butler, Tarniiranc~,52.
i l 3 l i l O l i i KU
leadership and also the promise of what such an alliance could offer
them in terms of such matters and lands and trade.
*
There were the tribes of Te Tau Ihu who were not only invaded, but had
their lands occupied in whole or in part by the northerners. The influence
was direct, forceful and overwhelming as they were killed, subjugated
and often enslaved.
And there were the different Ngai Tahu groups who were invaded,
whose lands and pa were devastated, and who lost large numbers into
slavery, but for whom the experience of occupation was minimal at
most. The influence exerted on the last group was largely through the
fear of Te Rauparaha descending like the wolf on the fold yet again and
resulted in their abandonment of extensive territories.
Te Rauparaha may have been initially motivated by a desire for utu (and
intentions to develop trade and such), but extending that influence, manifesting his
power, over the land and people of Te Wai Pounamu was clearly on his agenda as a
central aini. For example, once he had exacted his revenge on the Kaiapoi pa, and
massacred the inhabitants of various Banks Peninsula pa, he gave a speech to his
victorious warriors "promising then1 that he would return one day to conquer the
balance of Te Waipounamu, and further more, Rakiura (Stewart Island), so that he
would control all of the southern territories'."
As an aside, an unexpected indication of the breadth of the general influence of
Te Rauparaha amongst Maori appears in Dr John Johnson's account of travelling in
the central North Island in January 1847. The travellers fell in with a Ngati Raukawa
(or possibly Ngati Whakaue) chief and his family journeying from Rotorua to
Patetere. This chief warned them against going on to Ohinemutu as another chief
there had vowed to kill the first Pakeha he encountered as revenge for the death of
'his father, ~ a u ~ a r a h aTe
' . ~Rauparaha
~
had not been killed, of course, but had been
captured and taken to Auckland by Governor Grey and there was a rumour that he
was to be killed, wakapapaku (dried) and sent to London for exhibition. Johnson had
already encountered Raukawa who seriously believed this rumour and were very
upset by it, especially given the Raukawa-Toa connection. This was, though, an
32
33
Crosby, Wars, 241.
Johnson, 'Notes from a Journal'. Taylor (ed), Eurly Travellers, 151
Arawa chief reportedly so upset about such treatment of the Ngati Toa leader. In fact,
by the time they reached Ohinemutu, a messenger had arrived at Rotorua to confirm
that Te Rauparaha had not been killed and humiliated in this way. The chief
concerned now regretted his -harsh words', but his 'heart was very dark at hearing
that my Father Rauparaha was ki~led'.~"he missionary at Ruakareo, Tarawera, told
him that Te Rauparaha's 'great popularity in these parts' had arisen %ss from his
talents than from the presents he was enabled to make' from the 'very large share' he
had acquired of Colonel Wakefield's New Zealand Company
Unfortunately, the account does not itself explain why Te Rauparaha would have been
expending wealth acquired around Cook Strait amongst Te Arawa in ~ o t o r u a . ~ ~
Johnson uses it as an example of the Maori desire of 'being noted for liberality and
thereby acquiring importance': 'We accumulate and retain to increase our importance
in the eyes of our fellows, they on the other hand accumulate to give away for the
same rea~on.'~'If Te Rauparaha had done this. it appeared that he had succeeded.
The Size of Ngati To8
Ngati Toa when they left Kawhia were not a large group; Tamihana te
Rauparaha later testified that they numbered 340 men plus women (and presumably
children)." This issue of numerical size would later have implications for tbe process
of settlement, as opposed to conquest per se. It is simply impossible to spread a small
number of people over a large area as settlers. However, it is possible for a small
number of warriors under a successful leader, using a variety of techniques not the
least which being simple fear, to exercise a considerable degree of influence over a
much larger area. As Boast observes, 'Ngati Toa was a tribe which was small and
.%
Johnson, 'Notes from a Journal'. Taylor (ed), Early traveller.^, 159.
Johnson, 'Notes from a Journal'. Taylor (ed), Eurly Travellers, 167.
36
The answcr may be two-fold: first, that Te &au, Te Rauparaha's senior wife, was of
Tuhourangi. Secondly, members of Tnhouran~iparticipated in Te Rauparaha's original invasions,
especially in using their waka-building skills to create a number of the large waka that transported Te
Rauparaha's armies. Crosby, Wars, 142, 233.
37
Johnson, 'Notes from a Journal< Taylor fed), Early Traveliers, 167-168.
:3
(1868) IC Otaki MB 372. Quoted in Boast, 'Upper South Island', 221.
35
20
imperilled, but with an ambitious and very talented leadership.'" Did that talented
and ambitious leadership have strategies for asserting their mana and exercising
control over larger areas of land than simply where their crops grew?
By 1843, the numbers of Ngati Toa had shrunk still further due to fighting and
disease. Sub-protector of Aborigines George Clarke jnr at Port Nicholson bemoaned
the human cost of their imperialism, even to themselves, even if he did significantly
overstate the numbers from which they had decreased:
Where are the thousands that migrated here more than twenty years ago with
Rauparaha-they are gone-all gone with the exception of about hvo hundred
50 fighting men. It is true that disease has carried off some but the many have
died in conquering and retaining possession of their lands.J0
Again, Iwi Nicholson comments that the requirement to have people occupying
the entirety of the district a group claimed is simply unreasonable, and in the case of
the are of Ngati Toa inthence, impossible for a group of that size.
To position people all over one's territory, for most, was impossible. In the case
of Ngati Toa who we know claimed Raupatu from the Whangaehu river to Nelson and
beyond in fact to the Arahura area, for a small group such as they were-even
if one
was to include their Taranaki and Raukawa kinsmen (whanauF\vould have put those
chosen at considerable risk not only to those chosen to fill the role, but more
importantly risk for the security of the whole of the allied whenau group ...
Raupatu and the rights acquired through it or as a consequence of it, was [sic]
simply dependent on your ability to hold and defend whatever you may consider
that to be. Be it land or other spoils as a result of such ~ u u ~ a t u . "
Ngati Toa were able to achieve the military results attributed to them because
they used others to fight with them. The various Tainui and Taranaki allies are well
documented, but they also used those whom they had previously conquered. In the
first major attack on Kaikoura, Tamihana te Rauparaha that although there were
enormous casualties on the Ngai Tahu side, only four men were killed by Ngai Tahu:
... and they were not Te Rauparaha's men but slaves from tribes conquered in
Taranaki, only one of whom belonged to Te Rauparaha. There were 250 slaves
in the war party besides the [200] Ngati Toa warriors, and 100 more slaves were
captured in battle."
39
Boas, 'Uppcr South Island', 26.
George Clarke jnr to George Clarke snr, 24 May 1843. qkiS 0469. ATL. Quoted in Boast,
'Upper South Island', 661.
41
Nicholson, 'Evidence', 19.
42
Butler, Tarnrhana,35.
ZU
21
The motives for the slaves fighting can only be surmised. They were probably
fighting from fear of Te Rauparaha if they refused, although this is a dangerous ploy
as History is full of examples of disaffected allies changing sides in the midst of
battle. Men may have been compelled by threats to their families left behind in
custody. They may have been offered other rewards, even their freedom in exchange
for the military service. In the case of Rangitane, they were probably reasonably
willing to assist Ngati Toa against their own traditional rivals, and this is the more
likely if their servitude was as light as Mr Armstrong has conjectured.
Te Rauparaha could call on the allies, those related by both blood and strategy.
When planning his raid on Whanganui to exact revenge on behalf of Ngati Raukawa,
he was able to call on warriors from the South Island, who had no direct connection
with the affair, but who came nevertheless when he summoned them:
He sent messengers to Te Waipounamu to fetch the Ngati Toa who had gone to
live there. Seventy warriors at once set out from Rangitoio, Te Hoiere, Taitapu,
Karauripe and Wairau. They were not worried about leaving their women and
children behind, because there was no one left in that island to cause trouble.
They all assembled at Otaki ...."
The list of locations suggests that here 'Ngati T o a m a y not have all been Ngati Toa
Rangatira, but may have included Ngati Koata and Ngati Rarua under the Toa
umbrella as already discussed. Either that, or Ngati Toa Rangatira were indeed spread
across the whole of Te Tau Ihu.
43
Butler. Tarnilza~ra,51,
"3i4,iiiiS Kc,
Section Two: The
T h e northernmost marker of lands claimed by Ngai Tahu is T e Parinuiowhiti,
White Bluffs, located at the southern end of Cloudy Bay between the mouths of the
Wairau and Awatere Rivers. Evison describes the bluffs and their importance beyond
more or less arbitrary human ownership claims as a marker of a major agricultural and
thus cultural divide in traditional Maori society:
The prominent landmark Te Parinuiowliiti-'the great cliff of Whit?-is a long,
striated, whitish-grey cliff Fronting the broad promontory dividing the estuaries
of the Awatere and Wairau Rivers. It rises to an angled summit 270 metres
above the sea, and faces north-east across Raukawa Evfoana towards Tera Whiti
and Kapiti at [sic] the North Island. South of Te Parinuiowhiti the usually cooler
climate made cultivation of the kumara often difficult, and south of Taumutu
[near WaihoraiEllesmerc] the kumara could not be grown at all. Thus southern
New Zealand (i.e. the territory south of Te Parinuiowhiti) differed markedly, as
a Maori habitat, from the territory to the north where milder conditions allowed
the widespread, regular cultivation of the kumara as a staple crop supplementing
food-gathering. In southern New Zealand the Maori economy was chiefly or
entirely one of hunting and food gathering. Since these activities required much
more territory than cultivatio~idid, the Maori population of southern New
Zealand was more dispersed, more mobile, and less numerous, than that of the
territory to the north.@
Apart from its direct conflict with Ngai Tahu, Ngati Toa's other claims south of
the Ngai Tahu Takiwa rely largely on conquest of other iwi--especially Ngati Apa
and Rangitane-and
assumption of thcir interests. In his overview report, Dr Grant
Phillipson tentatively expressed the extent of those other iwis'traditional interests
immediately prior to the northerners' invasion thus:
By 1820 ... Ngati Apa had established a primary position in Golden Bay and Te
Tai Poutini, possibly as far south as the Mawhera Valley ... . Rangitane were preeminent in Totaranui, the Wairau, and the Kaikoura coast, possibly as far south
as the Waiau-toa.45
Ballara cites Edward Shortland as indicating that by 1844 Ngai Tahu were only
then returning to their traditional lands at Kaiapoi and AkaroaiHakaroa, after having
44
45
Evison, Dispate. 19-20.
Phillipson, 'Northern South Island: 19.
been for some time the guests of Ngati Mamoe south of Waihora/Ellesnlerd6 By the
time he published his book in 1851, though, Shortland had changed his opinion about
Ngati Mamoe and concluded that originally Ngati Namoe land had extended up to
Waipapa Bay, only several kilometres south of the Clarence River and that it took
some time for Ngai Tahu to extent their own boundaries south to Taumutu near
~aihora/~llesmere?'
Evison explains the confused situation concerning Ngai Tahu and Ngati Mamoe
rights in the area south of Taumutu as first deriving from the Ngai Tahu driven from
Kaiapoi by Te Rauparaha swamping their hosts. The situation was then confused still
further by Governor Grey's purchase practices. He needed to 'contain' Ngati Toa in
the Hutt Valley, Porirua and Poroutawhao, and one of his chosen methods, was 'to
conciliate Ngati Toa by paying them for land they claimed was conquered from Ngai
Tahu'. Ballara summarises:
[Grey] then had to extricate himself from the outrage of Ngai Tahu at his
meeting wit11 them at Banks Peninsula late in January 1848. Kemp was then
instructed to conciliate Ngai Tahu by recognising them exclusively in his next
purchase. This move, aimed at Ngati Toa, also excluded Ngati i v l a m ~ e . ~
This theory requires Grey to be still concerned about Ngati Toa as a military
threat in 1847, after they had been beaten in the field and Te Rauparaha had been
calculatedly imprisoned and broken as a leader. It implies that Ngati Toa had no rights
in the Wairau purchase, which must be the 'claimed' conquered land referred to. It
also seems to imply that Grey and perhaps Kemp thought that Ngati Toa had some
rights, or could at least make a good case for some, within the Kemp Purchase areaotherwise there would have been no need to arbitrarily exclude them on policy
grounds.
Acquisition of Rangitane Rights
W.J.W. Hamilton in 1857 in dealing with reserves for Ngai Tahu gained
information concerning the Kaikoura area from several Ngai Tahu chiefs. From them,
i(,
17
28
Ballars, Iwi, 71. Citing 1844 correspondence in Shortland. Southern Districts,281-91.
Ballara, h i , 71. Citing Shortland, Soriihern Districfs, 101-102.
Ballara, h i , 73. Citing Evison, TIVP. 223-242.
"3iii"Lii h"
he was given to understand that Kaikoura Whakatau was the chief of the Kaikoura
Maori, who were 'members in common' of 'the Ngaitahu Tribe'. Further, these Banks
Peninsula Ngai Tahu chiefs informed Hamilton that Ngai Tahu claimed 'all of the
land of the South Island south of Pari-nui-o-whitu or the White Bluffs (south of
Blenheini and the Wairau Bar, and north of the Awatere River mouth).' Within that
region, the Kaikoura Ngai Tahu claimed 'special ownership' of the area as far south
as the Waiawha ~ i v e r . ~Such
'
a northern boundary, of course, would exclude Ngati
Toa (and anyone else) from rights anywhere south of lower Cloudy Bay.
Hamilton also learned of the continued existence of Rangitane, who were now
crushed between Ngati Toa and Ngai Tahu and his mention of them perhaps forms a
caveat on his main opinion. He wrote to McLean on 8 January 1857 regarding the
area over which Rangitane might have had rights:
The Rangitane, now almost extinct appears [sic] to have been the original
occupants of the northern portion of the middle island and might possibly
maintain some kind of claim as far south as Waipapa or Waiau-toa (Clarence
River). They seem, however to have been hemmed in on both sides by Ngati
Toa and Ngai Tahu, and I am not able in this part of the Country to learn much
about them. South of Waipapa however, I am of opinion, as I have stated before
that the Ngai Tahu title is incontrovertib~e.~~
This raises the two-stage question: first, in their conquest of Rangitane had Ngati Toa
had gained rights over them and their lands; and, secondly, would those rights,
possibly extending past Kaikoura and the Ciarence River to Waipapa in Hamilton's
perception, then also have passed in part or in whole to Ngati Toa. Despite the claims
of the Ngai Tahu chiefs to lands up to Parinui-o-Whitu, even Hamilton was convinced
of their having an incontrovertible title to only the lands south of ~ a i ~ a ~ a . "
Rangitane themselves have claimed before the Waitangi Tribunal in Te Tau Ihu
that indeed their traditional lands extended well south of Parinui. For example, Mr
Graeme Norton testified that:
Significant occupation and Pa sites for Rangitane include.
5.1 Matariki
5.1.1 This pa was on the North bank of Wai-o-Toa (Clarence River). The pa
faces the river to the South to protect the Rangitane from any southern
threat. Tile pa was occupied until the late 1820s.
49
it)
Ballara, hi,74. Citing AJHR 1858, C-4.
Hamilton to McLean, S January 1857. Quoted in (1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,682. Repeated at
690.
51
Ballara's citation of Hamilton does not address this question.
25
5.2 Karaka
5.2.1 Te Karaka or Oruamoa was situated along the eastern coastline past the
Lighthouse at Cape Campbell, and was the pa of blahitu ... .
5.2.2 On one such occasion, however, their luck deserted them. They watched as
the pa was entered and then the Karaka trees nearby were set on fire
causing the grove of Karaka trees to be destroyed along with the pa. It was
becoming intolerable to Ngati Toa to be continued to be frustrated in their
goal of annihilating Rangitane. The burning took place so that Rangitane
could not return. This was the last time Rangitane occupied the Karaka
pa.52
Mr Richard Bradley testified that Rangitane had important connections with the
central Kaikoura mountain Tapuae o Uenuku, and also that the term Wairau should
properly refer to the entire network of the catchment area through the wider
Marlborough area.53 David Armstrong used pictorial language to convey that tribe's
traditional interests:
If one were to use a mechanical analogy, it could be said that the hub of the
Rangitane wheel was located in the WairauKe HoiereiKaituna area, and its
various spokes radiated south to the Waiau-toa (Clarence River), and westward
to the Nelson Lakes, Maruia, Arahura, Whakatu, and Te ~ a i t a ~ u . ~
Armstrong has also considered documentary evidence for Rangitane's claims.
In 1543, Ngai Tahu chief Tuhawaiki told Edward Shortland that Rangitane ancestor
Te Huataki and his people some ten generations previously had controlled the land
north of ~ a i p a ~ a .Armstrong
"
concludes that:
By around 1800 Rangitane were in secure occupation [of their Te Tau Ihu
lands] ... by their own account having after a period of warfare established a
southern boundary between themselves and Ngati Kuri (a hapu of Ngai Tahu
who had previously been permitted to move through Rangitane territory) at the
Waiau-toa (Clarence) ~ i v e r . ~ "
This boundary had been established by the winning of a bloody battle-Kai-kakoroat Matariki pa, near the mouth of the Clarence.
The Maori Appellate Court considered that Ngai Tahu's assertion that they
never lost title up to Parinuiowhiti 'holds good against the adverse claim by Rangitane
who were in no position to assert customary title to the disputed lands following their
52
57
s4
53
56
Norton, 'Brief of Evidence', 20-21.
Bradley, 'Brief of Evidence', 18-19
Armstrong, 'Brief', 1.
Shortland, Soutliern Districts,98.
Armstrong, 'Right', 5.
decisive defeat by the northern a l ~ i e s ' ?Armstrong
~
also describes that decisive defeat
in detail, making the point that some Rangitane escaped inland to the lakes and
various river headwaters, maintained some resistance against the newcomers who
were principally interested in coastal flax, whaling and trading sites, and thereby kept
their fires burning on the land. Over the years, as the fortunes of the whaling and flax
industries changed and then the European settlements were created at Nelson and Port
Nicholson, Ngati Toa interest declined to some extent and Rangitane were able to
retrieve some of their former situation. Particularly, they are likely to have been
viewed by Toa as economic assets, as were the slaves taken to Kapiti, and valued for
their productive ability more than as targets for repression per se."
There are examples for some time that the close Ngari Toa control over
Rangitane endured. When Te Rauparaha's first expedition was heading south from
Kapiti against Kaikoura, the canoes first staged at Wairau, where the subjugated
Rangitane had stockpiled supplies for them:
They paddled along the coast until they came to Wairau, where the Rangitane
survivors had been collecting stores of food-huahua, preserved ducks, teal
ducks, paradise ducks and eels. When they had satisfied their needs they paddled
. ....)'5
on again
But what of the question of Ngati Toa taking over any such rights from
Rangitane by virtue of that defeat? Apart from the statement just quoted, the court did
not address any residual Rangitane rights, or the possibility of their transference to
Ngati Toa. It quoted at some length the later evidence from the 1840s and 1850s of
Mantell, Mackay and Hamilton regarding Ngai Tahu's claims at that time. It set great
store in the opinions of those three gentlemen, who were 'all experienced in Maori
land dealings', 'ail accepted the validity of the Ngai Tahu claim' and 'were probably
in a better position to reach a fair result than we are today; we are heavily influenced
by their
"
5x
5')
conclusion^'.'^
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,682.
See Armstrong's discussion, 'Right', 22tf.
Butler, Tarnihuna, 34.
(1990) 4 SlAppMB 673,691.
Reliance on Crown Officials' Opinions
Yet it may not be that the opinions of these three officials can bear the weight
the court placed on them. Of the three, Mantell at this time had probably the most
detailed knowledge of South Island Maori and their lands, and yet for the purposes we
are presently considering, even that was extremely limited. Arriving as a New
Zealand Company settler in 1839 he became a government clerk and postmaster in
Wellington, was then unemployed, was rebuffed by the Native Protectorate and
finally gained a job in charge of Maori building the road from Wellington to ~orirua.6'
His qualifications for being given the responsibility for tidying up Kemp's Purchase
in August 1848 were that he had developed both some knowledge of the Maori
language from his road-builders and 'an intimacy'with some Maori women, and that
he appears to have the personality for the job: 'audacious, resourceful, cynical, and
not tainted by any former association with the hated FitzRoy, the Protectorate
department, or the Church Missionary ~ociet~'.6%iswork on those reserves has been
widely shown hardly to reflect great credit on him, his integrity, or his perspicacity
regarding customary interests. His report of 5 September 1848 giving his opinions on
Ngai TahuiNgati Toa interests, so heavily relied on later by Hamilton, was written
within five weeks of his first being given the commission while he was still in
Wellington and so was hardly an authoritative statement of an experienced 'old hand',
nor the fruits of a detailed and lengthy investigation.
Likewise, Hamilton and Mackay were at the time they became involved in
Maori land purchasing relative newcomers to the whole business, regardless of the
reputation Mackay later developed in the North Island.
William John Warburton Hamilton had been private secretary to Governors
FitzRoy and Grey when a teenager, then survey officer on the survey paddle-steamer
XMSAchel-on in 1849, and in 1856 was still only aged 31, although now collector of
customs, a JP, and possibly resident magistrate in Lyttelton and 'widely respected in
Canterbury'as a pillar of the settler community.h3 Even in the passage the Maori
61
Evison, Pouna~nu,113, 159, 199,228.
Evison, Pounamrr, 283.
63
Evison, Poarmr~tir,300; Evison, Dispute, 251. As the Achcron was used to overawe Fractious
Maori, he had been an observer of Mantell's payment to Nzai Tahu at Akaroa in 1849. In 1856 he did
not, for example, speak Maori and required an interpreter. Evison says he was a resident magistrate, a
position specifically at the interface between Maori and Pakeha, however the contemporary
h?
28
Appellate Court quoted from Hamilton's report, Hamilton relied on his discussion
with a single Ngai Tahu chief, Kaikoura Whakatau of Ngati Kuri, a discussion which
appears to have resulted from Hamilton paying money to the Akaroa chiefs;
otherwise, he deferred entirely to Mantell's report of 5 September 1 8 4 5 . ~There
~ is no
report of him having consulted with Ngati Toa--or Rangitane, or even more widely
amongst Ngai Tahu-to
hear their side of matters, just as Grey failed earlier to consult
with Ngai Tahu.
The third official upon whose opinion much reliance has been placed was James
Mackay jnr. Mackay was a young Nelson settler on his father's holding, and who
could speak Maori. In Evison's account, his first dealings with land came only in
1857 when on a youthful exploration down the West Coast he was told that Ngati Toa
were thieves who had no right to sell land down there. He was only given a
government post by McLean in November 1558, and that was to go and 'settle' Ngai
Tahu claims in the Kaikoura area, including the Wairau Purchase Block, offering
them some money and some small
reserve^.^ He reported on 25 February 1559 to
McLean on the area 'claimed'by Ngai Tabu from the Hurunui up to Parinui-0Whiti." This was a matter of quieting complaints about what had gone on before and,
negotiating especially with Whakatau's Ngati Kuri, settling down Maori opposition to
the Crown having already leased out virtually the entire 2.5 million acres of what
became Mackay's Kaikoura Purchase. He was not, therefore, investigating the Ngai
Tahu claims cle tzovo, and neither did he seek Ngati Toa (or Rangitane) input in these
negotiations.
None of this is to assert that Ngai Tahu were fairly treated by the Crown in
these purchases, and in the approaches taken by Mantell, Hamilton and Mackay. The
point is rather that the reliance by Maori Appellate Court and others on these men as
authorities in the matter of the relative traditional interests of Ngati Toa and Ngai
Tahu is rather less well-founded than it might appear. Certainly, they were not then
'all experienced in Maori land dealings', or necessarily in 'a better position to reach a
correspondence merely entitles him Collector of Cusioms, Justice of the Peace. or later, once he is
given the MarodKaiapoi job, Native Land Purchase Commissioner.
,,J
Evison, Poiinan~rr,373-375; Evison, Dispute, 256; (1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,690.
65
Evison, Dispute, 261-264.
66
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,690. The court did not cite any assessment by him of thevalidity of
those claims, but the present author understands they do comprise the boundaries of the Kaikoura
Purchase. Wlhat is unclear is precisely why he did accept them beyond the bare assertion by the staunch
group with whom he was faced.
29
fair result than we are today '. Furthermore, as will he seen in the discussion below,
their task was not to investigate those relative traditional tribal interests, but simply to
strike deals that would quieten Ngai Tahu complaints by buying out their interests in
areas where they claimed to have rights. It was essentially a political task, rather than
an investigative or judicial one.
In the Crown dealings with land in the South Island, Ballara points out that there
was not a linear, progressive accumulation of institutional knowledge about the tribal
relationships; rather, she says, each successive officer 'went on a personal voyage of
discovery'about the Maori people with whom he had to deal." Initially, she ascribes
to the New Zealand Company through its purchases and the Wairau conflict, the
origin of the official conviction that Ngati Toa, Te Ati Awa and their allies had the
north of the South Island as 'their domain' with only a few remnants of the conquered
tangata whenua. 68
The Invasion of the East Coast
The rights of Ngati Toa in Te Wai Pounamu derive from the invasion by the
northern alliance under the leadership of Te Rauparaha from the North Island
beginning in 1828, arriving first in the Marlborough Sounds region where they
above, they then overcame
defeated Ngati Kuia in Pelorus ~ o u n dAS
. ~discussed
~
Rangitane in the Wairau district in short order, and turned their attention towards Ngai
Tahu and other groups further to the south. Using the term of the Maori Appellate
Court, Rangitane's defeat appears to have been 'comprehensive' and they took no
further part in major warfare with the northern alliance or any other i ~ i . ~ '
Elvy describes a number of incidents in the overpowering of Rangitane,
concluding:
The few remaining Rangitane retreated to the hinterland, to the bush fastnesses
and the heads of the valleys, where they were relentlessly hunted and killed or
enslaved if caught. Nevertheless, a few survived and in Maori parlance 'kept
67
Ballara, IWI,
71.
Ballarn, Iwi, 71.
Walzl is of the opinion that the raids down the West Coast began as early as 1525, and that
there were three of them, not just one as most others have assumed. Walzl, .Rarua', 6ff.
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,651.
bK
"
''
30
their fires burning' on their ancestral lands, thus giving them a just claim for
compensation later when the land was purchased by the Crown for settlement?'
Phillipson comments:
There was no settlement in the conquered areas at this time, although the
majority of Rangitane survivors were taken to Kapiti as slaves, or left in the
Wairau as 'vassal' communities living under their own traditional rangatira."
The third Ngati Toa expedition to the South Island was that which went down
the east coast, culminating in the deaths of T e Pehi and other Ngati Toa chiefs. The
Ngati Toa chiefs in 1851described it thus:
When Ngai-Tahu heard that Wai-mu had been defeated [on the second
expedition], they coursed [sic] Te Rau-paraha like this, saying 'His belly will be
slit with a baracouta's tooth.' We avenged this in the expedition called Tile
Barracouta's Tooth, when Kai-kooura was overcome, with a thousand
casualties. On this occasion three other tribes helped us, Tuuhourangi [a group
from Te Arawa], Ngaati-rarua and Ngaati-Awa. Te Rauparaha was in charge of
the expedition. We went on to Kaiapoi where our chiefs Te Pehi, Te Pookai-tara,
and Te Ara-tangata were massacred. Then we came back here?3
Then there was the attack made directly on Kaiapoi, when Te Rauparaha's force
were transported on the Eliznbetlz and the Ngai Tabu chief Tamaiharanui was
captured, tortured and executed. The chiefs said tersely:
We went and Tama-I-hara-nui died. Then we came back to this place [Kapiti
and ~orirua].~'
Following that, attention was turned to expansion and consolidation westwards
across Te Tau Ihu to the West Coast, as discussed b e ~ o w . ~ "
An important early Ngati Toa source, the Wiremu Neera te Kanae Manuscript,
was written in 1888 by a participant in events, and covers events from T e Pehi's
return from England in 1825; it has been analysed in detail by ~ o a s t . 'It~ explained
the reasons-vr at least the excuses-for
the series of contlicts leading to the conquest
by the Toa-led alliance. After the various killings and insults, Te Rauparaha bided his
time until sufficiently reinforced to ensure victory, then launched three attacks in
1830: on Akaroa using the Elizabeth, on Ngati Tuteahanga of Kaikoura, and on the
71
72
71
71
7i
76
Elvy, Hmory, 74.
Phillipson, 'Northern South Island', 22.
Letter of 11 December 1851. Biggs, 'Two Letters', 272-274.
Letter of I 1 December 1851. Biggs, .Two Letters', 274.
Letter of 11 December 1851. Biggs, 'Two Letters', 273-274.
Te Kanae, TS. Boast, 'Upper South Island', 32-37.
tribes of the northern South Island. By 1831, then, 'the land on the Eastern side of Te
Waipounamu lay in peace in the hands of the Ngati-Toa and those other tribes closely
related to
Te Kanae wrote that after the sack of Kaiapoi, and the rapid subsequent capture
of the various Banks Peninsula pa:
The greater number of their people were utterly destroyed, some were spared as
staves. The survivors of all these pas fled away to Murihiku (Southland) and the
land laid empty. The very seas were taken possession of by Te Rauparaha and
his tribes."
In 1827 there were three or four thousand Ngai Tahu in the Kaikoura region;
thirty years later there were a mere 78 between the Clarence and Conway
river^.'^
Ngati Toa had killed hundreds and driven the remainder south to safety. In the first
assault alone, the battle of Niho Manga, the Barracuda's Tooth, Sherrard states that
1400 Ngai Tahu were killed or enslaved and taken back to Kapiti to work for Ngati
Toa. The few survivors fled into the nearby swamp, then carried the news south. Te
Rauparaha's force was not then strong enough to carry the battle to Kaiapoi. A year
later. they returned, but the small number of remaining inhabitants fled to Omihi,
which was also destroyed as the northerners took revenge for Kekerengu's insult to Te
Rangihaeata on those sheltering him. After this, 'the survivors were no longer even a
shadow of a threat to Te Rauparaha's movements against Akaroa and Kaiapoi'.so
Tamihana te Rauparaha gives similar figures, too. Although the specifics may
well be arguable, the overall effect of the devastation and depopulation of the
Kaikoura Coast and North Canterbury is not.
Lack o f Ngati Toa Response to Ngai Tahu's Revival
Sherrard states that, due to the raid by Tuhawaiki and Taiaroa on Lake
Grassmere, and unspecified 'bloody encounters'in Cloudy Bay in 1833 and 1836, Te
Rauparaha never occupied Kaikoura. Rather, he says, 'During this period, Kaikoura
77
78
79
$0
Te Kanae TS, 14.
Te Kanae TS, IS.
Sherrard,Kaikorira, 31.
Sherrard, Kaikoura, 34.
became a no-man's-land separating Ngai-tahu and Ngati-toa desmesnes."' However,
even in his account it was not as simple as that. He also states that the advent of the
European halted Ngati Toa's conquest at 'the second stage', before 'consolidation of
territorial gains froin Ngai-tahu', presumably meaning with occupation. So that now
'a new pattern of life was imposed on Maori, which altered their traditional
relationships and allegiances to chiefs. Thirdly, the advent of Christianity, too,
dissuaded Ngati Toa from pursuing their warlike waysdemonstrated most
dramatically in the missionary journey undertaken by both Tamihana te Rauparaha
and Matene te Whiwhi in 1843, which must have been in peril of their lives from their
recent enemies.
The occasion when Te Rauparaha was ambushed at Lake Grassmere by Ngai
Tahu's Taua-iti expedition in 1833 was not just a skirmish when the chief and a few
men went duck-shooting there; it came back to the Ngati Toa settlements in the
Wairau. Six Ngati Toa men of importance were killed there, but also 'many Rangitane
and Ngai Tahu sIaves were killed' who were presumably in Te Rauparaha's party.
Before a decisive confIict could he forced at Karauripe, Ngai Tahu, aware that Te
Rauparaha had now already been reinforced from the North Island, slipped away to
sea during the night.
The expedition had been sent out with an 'exploratory' intention, reconnoitring
the Kaikoura Coast. Its encounter with Te Rauparaha was purely opportunistic, not
planned, especially as regards its actions against the chief and Ngati Toa, and the
there was no conclusive outcome. Croshy says its homecoming 'must have been
triumphant" but gives no evidence." Overall, this conflict had no meaningful impact
on Te Rauparaha, though; he returned to Kapiti and celebrated his escape from both
Ngai Tahu and the ocean with a feast so extravagant Ngdti Raukawa were never able
to match it.S3
Elvy comments, concerning Te Rauparaha's duck-shooting visit to Grassmere:
Te Rauparaha, although claiming all the land by conquest right down to
Kaiapohia, must have recognized that this was debatable territory and likely to
be disputed by the still powerful southern Ngaitahu tribesw
Sherrard,Kaikouru, 34.
Crosby, Wars, 263-267.
83
Butler, Tanrihona, 63. The raiders' leader, Te Hounuku. son of Tamaiharanui, was drowned in
the sea having come to avenge his father's death.
M
Elvy, History,75.
33
81
82
In context, this is not a generic statement about Te Rauparaha's attitudes to the land,
but an explanation for his taking precautions prior to entering the lake area. The raid
itself seems to have been fairly ineffectual, and certainly not one which can be
thought to have established any rights in the area. Indeed, if its main motivation was
revenge for the death of Tamaiharanui, then it had little or nothing to do with land
questions.
The second expedition, Taua-iti in 1834, achieved even less, sitting for two
months at Port Underwood without any meaningful encounter, beyond persecuting the
whalers and exacting revenge for Kaiapoi by massacring some nearby ~angitane." A
third planned expedition was called off when an epidemic of measles swept through
southern Ngai Tahu, devastating their fighting manpower. 86
Crosby expressly views these two taua as re-kindling Ngai Tabu's fires and
rights in Te Tau ~hu." This presupposes that they had had prior rights in the region,
which, as already discussed, is highly debatable. In any case, other issues must be
addressed to reach such a conclusion. For example, how could they have done so
when there was no substantial encounter between the two sides? To say this ignores
entirely the pre-existing rights in anyone other than Ngai Tahu, setting aside
Rangitane and Ngati Apa, particularly. Would a raid in itself, unsupported by
occupation, confer or rekindle rights? As a purely hypothetical analogy, if Te Puoho
had managed to conduct his raid, including some skirmishing, inflicting some deaths
and looting, and then withdrawn successfully, could that have been seen as lighting
any fires or establishing any rights? It would seem highly unlikely; surely something
more substantial would have been necessary.
It may also be noted that the lack of a Ngati Toa retaliation to such a Nzai Tahu
revival as there may have been was affected by external factors. McLintock reports
that in 1836 Ngati Toa did indeed plan another expedition south to respond to the
provocations, but that they were thwarted by an unnamed epidemic, which Crosby
identifies as the same or another outbreak of measles as had hit Ngai Tahu earlier.'"
Given Ngati Toa's relatively small numbers, such an outbreak of disease, now
becoming disastrously frequent throughout Maoridom, would have debilitated them to
85
86
87
88
Iii-LiiOlii
Crosby, Wars, 287-289.
Crosby, Wars, 300.
Crosby, Wars, 267,289.
McLintock, Hkrory of Otago, 92; Crosby, Wars, 300
KF!
an extent that prevented them from undertaking major expeditions, certainly
unilaterally without other coalition members.
Secondly, Ngati Toa's military energies after Kaiapoi were heavily focused on
the North Island with fighting amongst the northern allies, and against Putiki at
Whanganui. They could not be in more than one place at a time.
Thirdly, Phillipson notes that a Ngati Rarua expedition did indeed set out from
Motueka but got no further than the Wairau because Te Rauparaha, rather than
joining, had returned to the North Island after a feud with Te Atiawa in Queen
Charlotte ~ o u n d . ~This
' was presumably the abortive expedition described by
Tamihana te Rauparaha as having been planned by Te Rauparaha in revenge for Te
Puoho's demise (although Tamihana did not mention the tribal origin of the taua).
When Te Rauparaha reached the Wairau with his own warriors, he found that the
graves of his people killed by Ngai Tahu in the Grassmere raid had been desecrated
by his Te Ati Awa allies travelling ahead on the expedition-they
had eaten the sow
thistles growing on the graves. Unable now to sustain an expedition since he could no
longer remain in alliance with these Te Ati Awa, Te Rauparaha abandoned the raid,
confiscated the Te Ati A m guns and clothing, and returned to Karauripe. The two
groups clashed at Te Awaiti, but other Te Ati Awa sued for peace before serous harm
was done.90
Some time later. Te Rauparaha again decided to head south to Otakou 'to kill
the men in that part of Te Waipounamu'. The Ngai Tahu chiefs Te Whakatau Punga
and Taiaroa heard of this decision and pre-empted it by sending another chief, Te Ihu,
to Te Rauparaha, asking him not to come at all, or if he did come to offer him the
greenstone patu-mere called Paewhenua, also another called Kaoreore and other
weapons.91 Te Rauparaha apparently responded by saying that the words were good,
and that a11 was well as he predicted there would be no more warfare against the Ngai
Tahu. However, to his own people, Te Rauparaha gave instructions to prepare at
Wairau supplies for a war party, and for some time he retained the idea of killing all
89
Pli~llipson,'Northern South Island', 35.
Butler, Tastilznno, 69-70.
91
That would appear in contest to be the meaning of the words, although on the face of it saying
that these weapons would be 'waiting for him' seems more like a threat of staunch resistance by the
wielders of the weapons.
90
35
the men of that part of Te Wai Pounamu. What ultimately prevented him, his son
remembered, was the arrival of the Christian gospel of peace.92
Tamihana also reported that the mission he and Matene te Whiwhi conducted in
the far south, spreading the Christian gospel, made Te Rauparaha 'very angry'as they
had gone before he had obtained revenge for Te Puoho's death. This indicates that the
matter was still fresh in Te Rauparaha's mind and still rankled; it was not the case that
he had either dismissed it of little importance or had relinquished the idea of exacting
a punishment. Of course, even a decade was not a long time in such matters and this
was still only half a dozen years after the event.
Confirming the importance of the intervention of the new culture in braking
inter-tribal conflict, one major visible effect of the spread of Christianity was that
Ngati Toa permitted the enslaved Ngai Tahu to return to the south in 1839. Some
returned to their former homes in Kaikoura. Sherrard describes them as 'pitifully few
even in 1849" and 'numerically weak'. He quotes a note by W.J.W. Hamilton aboard
the Acherotz as it surveyed the coast in 1849, a decade on from their release:
The only natives resident in, or making use of this district, live chiefly at Amuri,
Omihi and Kaikoura Peninsula. Their numbers, stated by some at 40, by others
at 60, are constantly varying. Being all relatives of the Kaiapoi, Port Cooper and
Port Levy tribes, they will be living for as much as one or two years, or even
more in any of these places?3
Ngai Tahu Re-Occupation to Kaikoura
In the three decades after the Ngati Toa invasion, the Ngai Tahu re-occupation
of the lands north of Kaiapoi was very hesitant and sparse, and seems not to have
reached north of Kaikoura.
The Mikonui settlement where most returned Ngai Tahu were congregated
under Kaikoura Whakatau was two miles north of Amuri Bluff. At Waipapa,
Hamilton found a community which consisted of:
an African and Australian Black with three or four oid Maori women [who
received] a few stray shillings for taking persons across the Waiau-toa ....9.4
92
91
94
Butler, Tantihuna, 72.
Hamilton to Fox, 24 July 1819. Quotcd in Sherrard, Kaikurrm, 35.
Quoted in Slterrard, Kaikoura, 46.
03111UL33 KII
This, though, rather than being an outlying Ngai Tahu group, was probably the
Maungamaunu community of Ngati Toa referred to in evidence given before the
Maori Appellate Court. One of the women was probably Granny Meg, to whom the
court's judpment later made a reference, as noted below.
So well into the European era now, when the Pax Britannica had protected them
for years from any further threat from Ngati Toa, Hamilton observed that Ngai Tahu
had never re-occupied the area, or made use of it, with between just three and five
dozen people, only through North Canterbury and not past Kaikoura. Even then this
minimal occupation was not continuous but was interspersed with lengthy sojourns
southward around Banks Peninsula. The Wairau Purchase had taken place, but the
Crown was not enforcing an evacuation of the region. Kaikoura Whakatau remained
their unifying leader, and Sherrard comments that the very lack of Maori in the district
was an attraction to Pakeha settlers wishing to set up sheep runs and who would not
have to negotiate through various cross-claiming groups.
Sherrard narrates an odd incident, shortly after the Wairau Affray, when some
Maori travelling south arrived at the whaling station at Kaikoura and 'boasted of how
they had humbled the white men at Tuamarina and how they were going to instigate a
general rising throughout the South Island', alarming the whaler so much that they
fled to Banks Peninsula where the whole little European community stood guard for
days against the impending threat-which
never materialised." This sounds like a
group of Ngati Toa, if they had indeed been at Tuamarina, who were travelling freely
southwards and were confident enough to make threats, perhaps merely mischiefmaking, perhaps confidently serious.
In August 1847 Clifford and Weld got the lease for their run from Ngati Toa
chief Rawiri te Puaha. This run contained 'all the land from the White Bluff down the
east coast, round Cape Campbell to Kekerenga [sic]', for which they paid £24 per
annum rent.96 This has Ngati Toa not only transacting the Wairau Purchase with Grey
around this time, but also entering unopposed into private commercial dealings
specifically with the land south of Parinui. The men like whaler Robert Fyffe at
Kaikoura, who set themselves up further south again, felt no need to negotiate with
Maori and expected to deal with the Crown alone, not with Ngai Tahu, although
95
96
Sherrard, Kaikoura, 37.
Quoted in Sherrard, Kaikoura, 91
admittedly the Wairau Purchase changed the legal situation if not that on the ground.
In light of reports such as Hamilton's in 1849, Sherrard comments:
Small wonder that European settlers shelved the question of the native title to
the land which they had taken over as one that would very soon be solved by the
total disappearance of the few remaining ~ g a i - t a h u . ~ ~
Sherrard cites a number of instances where Maori were running stock or
working on the various runs for Europeans through the 1850s, but he does not identify
the tribal affiliations of these anonymous 'Natives'. Probably, they were mostly the
Kaikoura Ngai Tahu, but there may well have been others of different iwi involved as
Maori were already by then moving around the country as itinerant agricultural
labourers. We can deduce little from this information without knowing the identity of
the specific people concerned.
In 1843, Edward Shortland found that the area even in the south around Kaiapoi
was still relatively uninhabited, compared with pre-Ngati Toa times. On Banks
Peninsula:
Hakaroa [sic] had once been a favourite residence of the natives; but was
partially abandoned after their principal chief, Tamaiharanui, had been
kidnapped by the aid of the captain of the Elizabeth, an English tradingvesse~.~~
As elsewhere, he took particular note of the numbers of Maori in the places he
visited and lived in, their age and gender. While at Akaroa he made a count, but it is
not clear whether he was referring to just the Akaroa Harbour or to much more of
Banks Peninsula as he soon after mentions people from other peninsula places:
From a census which I took, I found the entire native population to he only
forty-nine males-inclusive of six belonging to tribes of !he Northern Island,
who had come here in whaling vessels, and had settled after marrying natives of
the place-and forty females. They did not live in one settlement. but were
separated into four different bodies, each inhabiting its own village. The above
numbers were obtained by writing down the names of every individual in each
familYyJ
Further south, down to Rakiura and Ruapuke, Shortland noted coming across
various Ngai Tahu who were still in exile, having fled the northern area from fear of
the northern alliance. Kaiapoi itself was still not repopulated, a decade after the
devastating raids. Describing the area north of Banks Peninsula, Shortland reported:
97
98
911
Sherrard, Kaikcura, 106.
Shortland,Southern Districts, 3-4.
Shortland, Southern Districts, 6-7.
In that direction was the famed district of Kaiapoi, where-the land being of
better quality-great numbers of natives formerly resided. Very few, however,
now remained there-some having left in order to be nearer the whaling vessels,
which resorted to Kokourarata-while others had gone to places as far south as
Otakou, for the same reason, or because they dreaded to be attacked by the
natives of Cook's Straits in that exposed position.'"
Such descriptions do not, of course, provide direct information about the Ngati
Toa rights between Cloudy Bay and Kaiapoi. They do, though, indicate that there was
not a vigorous reassertion of Ngai Tahu's former occupation, even around Banks
Peninsula, let alone further north, nor after Ngati Toa's re-concentration on trade with
Europeans and the colonial government's establishment of the Pax Britannica.
Shortland's writing style also aims to he factual and direct, without dramatically
embellishing the many stories he could have told about the region.
Ngati Toa's Control and Use of the Northern East Coast
Commissioner Spain did not investigate the Wairau district. Wakefield pointed
out later that Grey's subsequent purcltase of the Wairau was 'tantamount to a
declaration of the invalidity of that [New Zealand Company purchase] claim without
investigating it'.'" Spain's investigation has therefore no more than general
applicability to the arcas under consideration in the present report.
Ngati Toa seem to have had ongoing access to inland food resources. One
example was noted by Thomas Brunner during his expedition inland to investigate the
middle of the South Island in 1846147. At Lake Rotoroa, he pondered access and
settlement possibilities and commented:
There is a fresb-water mussel abounding in the Roturoa called the kniehars,
which, boiled with the roots of the raupo, or bulrush, makes a palatable dish, and
was the favourite meal of the celebrated savage Rauparaha.""
Charles Ligar, the Surveyor-General, investigated the situation in the Cloudy
Bay area in February 1847, and reported just a week prior to the signing of the Wairau
liM
101
Shortland, Sourltcrn Districts,261-262.
W. Wakefield to Richmond, 25 March 1847. CO 209i52. Quoted 1n Boast, 'Upper South
island', 231.
In2
Brunner, 'Expedition to the Middle of the Middle Island', 24 December 1836. In Taylor fed),
Early Travellers, 262. Taylor notes that this mussel was called the kakahi in other places.
39
Deed. Upon arrival, he met a party of Maori, apparently Ngati Toa, who had just
returned to Port Underwood from the Wairau. They 'were not in the habit' of residing
at the Wairau, but about 20 of them had recently planted 3-4 acres of potatoes there.
They told Ligar that, apart from 9 fugitive Rangitane scattered around the district, noone had resided permanently in the Wairau since the conquest of Rangitane (which
they, however, dated as only 10 years previously, rather than the nearly 20 it had
been). They also said it had been intended to cultivate at Wairau at the time of the
'massacre', but the area had since been considered tapu. To undertake this present
cultivation, they had considered it necessary to get Te Rauparaha's permission, but
since he had been imprisoned they got it from Rawiri Puaha instead. A local
Wesleyan settler, Jenkins, told Ligar that it was generally believed that the aim of the
cultivation was to reassert occupation of the area in the face of growing European
interest, as it had been prior to the 'massacre'. Ligar formed the understanding that
'the Wairau has been very little used since the expulsion of the Rangitane tribe'.Io3
At Port Underwood was a settlement of about 20 men and 20 women of Ngati
Toa and with them as slaves were 9 Rangitane men and 1woman. One Rangitane,
Ihaia Kaikoura was, though, deferred to such that he was the settlement's effective
leader, and together with the Port Undenvood Ngati Toa provided Ligar with a
detailed description of the Wairau coastal boundaries. However, the region's Ml
extent remained unclear:
I endeavoured to obtain the inland boundaries, or limits; but the Natives and
Kaikora [sic] seemed never to have given them a thought, and looked upon my
inquisitiveness on this point as useless and troub~esome.'~
As Armstrong notes, 'This was because the inland extent of Rangitane interests
was not capable of depiction in this way. Instead it was based on the subtle nuances of
interlinking rights developed over time through custom and whakapapa.""
To this we
may add that Ngati Toa would have been similarly placed, both because of the nature
of these interlinking rights throughout the hinterland being difficult to define so
precisely with hard and fast boundaries, and because of the fact that many of their
rights had been gained through the conquest of Rangitane and to that degree depended
on those prior rights.
101
ItU
Ins
Ligar to Eyre, 8 March 1847. AJHR, 1858, C-3,2.
Ligar to Eyre, S March 1847. MHR, 1858, C-3,2.
Armstrong, 'Brief", 3.
The 'limits of the Wairau district' as described by the New Zealand Company's
Agent, were the same as those given by the Ngati Toa and Rangitane informantsalthough Ligar never set those out-but
he added that 'it was not intended to use the
great mass of mountains included within these boundaries'. This statement shows that
the district was taken to be far more extensive than just the Wairau Valley itself.
Further, 'great mass of mountains' hardly applies to the hills and few southern
mountains between the Waimea and Wairau, but must have applied to at least some of
the district inland to the south and west. Ligar estimated that the agricultural land
available within the district included a total of 128,000 acres:'06
Great Plain
80,000 acres agriculture, draining needed near sea
Wairau Valley 28,000 acres chiefly pasture
Kaiparatehau
20,000 acres chiefly pasture
In addition to this, he estimated there were 240,000 acres of hill pasture and another
quarter of a million acres of mountain ranges, making a total of 600-700,000 acres.
This couid not be more precise as it was unsurveyed although Ligar was an
experienced evaluator in such matters and there was another surveyor, Budge,
working in the area. There was also information and opinions available from the
various Maori in the region, and settler sources from the New Zealand Company staff
down.
As to ownership, the same two sources provided Ligar with a list of principal
owners whose consent for any alienation must be obtained. Ligar stated that they were
all Ngati ~oa:'"
Puaka
Nohorua
Martin
Thompson
Puaha
Rauparaha
Nohoroa (Waterhouse)
Te Kanae
Rangihaeata
Tamaihangia
Pukeko
Pukekowhatu
Pikiwau {or Te Wawhanua, a rebel)
Several of the names (PuakaRuaha, Nohoroa) appear to be repetitions. Ngati
Toa had also been actively asserting their rights within the Wairau. Ligar reported that
recently Te Ati Awa from Waitohi had come over the hills to Tuamarina and begun to
"'
""
Ligar to Eye, 8 March 1847. AJWR. 1858. C-;,3.
Ligar to Eyre, 8 March 1847. AIHR, 1858, C-3,2.
cultivate, but they had been expelled and their cultivations destroyed by the Port
Underwood Ngati Toa."OS Ligar failed to observe any sign of Maori occupation in the
Wairau, but admitted that his own Maori guides were strangers too, and that he failed
to get a local guide.
This account indicates that Ngati Toa had taken over the interests of Rangitane
in that iwi's district. The Rangitane-related evidence here confirms that; 'Kaikora's'
statements show that he regarded Ngati Toa as the undisputed owners of the district.
What is unclear is both the geographical extent of those interests and the nature of the
interests. Certainly, they went beyond the Wairau Valley itself and well into the
mountains; so far into the mountains, in fact, that no-one from either iwi had really
been interested enough to define the limits of those interests in the relatively useless
mountain country. This presumably also means that they-again
both iwi-had
been
able to access unchallenged as far inland south-west as they had wanted to go; we just
do not know from Ligar's investigation how far that had been.
The Wairau Purchase and the Southern Boundary
The Wairau Purcbase came in the historical aftermath of the wars of 1845-46,
the defeat of the 'rebels' in the Wellington region, the manhandling and kidnapping of
Te Raupxaha, and the enforced exile of Te Rangihaeata. 'The effect of Grey's actions
was to deprive Ngati Toa of its two great and powerful chiefs at a crucial moment,
and who had led and indeed almost personified the tribe for as long as anyone could
remember."0" This left Rawiri Puaha as the senior Ngati Toa chief still with his
people, heading a triumvirate also including the younger men Matene te Whiwhi and
Tamihana te Rauparaha. Boast and Phillipson have both written detailed analyses of
the Wairau transaction extracted from these three men in this context in 1847. As well
as the pressure exerted by the immediate history and treatment of their rangatira, the
accounts of both Wiremu te Kanae and H.T. Kemp make it clear that Grey played on
the fittingness of Ngati Toa surrendering some of the Wairau Plains in recompense for
the Pakeha deaths in 1843. Other contemporaries stress Grey making it the price of Te
103
IW
Ligar to Eyre, 8 March 1847. ATHR, 1858, C-3,2.
Boast, 'Upper Sourh Island', 218.
Rauparahak release from his illegal imprisonment. Boast asks questions about
whether the transaction can even be said to have been one made with Ngati Toa per
se, and refers to the Ligar report discussed above."o
As Boast observes, the description of the Wairau Block's boundaries was 'quite
brief and vague to the point of in~orn~rehensibility"."~
The eastern boundary was the
sea coast from the Wairau to Kaiapoi:
beginning at Wairau, running along to Kaiparatehau [sic] Te Karaka or Cape
Campbell, running along to Kaikoura until you come to Kaiapoi ... .
It transpires that the location of 'Kaiapoi' is much less certain than it at first
appears. Considerable argument took place on this issue before the Tribunal during
the Ngai Tahu inquiry. There were Crown suggestions that the Kaiapoi concerned was
not the famous pa located at modern Kaiapoi, but another pa, which has since passed
out of knowledge, located near Hurunui. The Tribunal decided that it was difficult to
accept that this could have happened. However, another issue is Crown understanding
of the location of Kaiapoi relative to other geographical features, especially the 43rd
parallel. The Tribunal noted that in neither the Kemp nor Wairau purchase did an
official actually visit Kaiapoi, while 'For Ngai Tahu and Ngati Toa the boundary issue
had little to do with parallels, but with places indelibly etched in memory because of
their significance in the tribes' recent hi~tories."'~
Grey's motivations for the purchase seem both largely political and complex. To
Colonel Wakefield, he explained that he was doing his best to provide for the New
Zealand Company's settlers-which
is not quite the same as the Company itself-and
the Colony generally. To Earl Grey, he claimed a purely political reason, that it would
effectively buy off the troublesome Ngati Toa:
The fact of the Ngttitoa Tribe receiving for several years an annual payment
from Government, will give us an almost unlimited influence over a powerful
and hitherto a very treacherous and dangerous tribe.'"
He also told Earl Grey that it would provide well for large amount of settlement, with
80,000 acres of the finest agricultural land and 240,000 acres of the finest pastoral
land, indicating that he had an eye to the general settlement of the Colony. This
"'
'I'
112
Boast, 'Upper South Island', 227-229.
Boast, 'Upper South Island', 232.
Ngai Tahri Reporr, 394-395.
Grey to Earl Grey, 26 March 1847. Quoted iniVgai Taluc Report, 393.
extended to 'the whole tract of country claimed by the Ngatitoa Tribe, and extending
about 100 miles to the southward of that [Wairau] valley ....'
In its Ngai Tahu Report, the Tribunal concludes that "rey
made no attempt to
determine if tribes other than Ngati Toa held rights within the block'. It also states
that 'Grey therefore saw himself as buying Maori rights to the Wairau and an
additional area of land running to about 100 miles south of the ~ a i r a u ' . ' " The
present writer is not quite so sure that Grey did, in fact, view the situation in just that
way. If he made no effort to determine other tribes' rights, how could he have been s o
sure that the rights he was purchasing were all of the Maori rights? Also, in the
various sources viewed during the compilation of this report, Grey writes of acquiring
Ngati Toa's rights, not of the entirety of Maori rights. It may have been that he
genuinely believed-on whatever basis--that Ngati Toa alone had rights, or it may
quite likely have been that he did not really care. His motivations do not explicitly
include that of ascertaining Ngati Toa's particular rights and compensating them for
their alienation; those motivations recorded are focused on the interests of the settlers
and the colonial government. Grey was generally interested in what achieved his own
immediate ends and the apparent acquisition of this huge tract from a tribe in a
vulnerable position would have been very appealing, with potential counterclaimants,
if any, being far less influential-or threatening-than
Ngati Toa.
In fact, it appears that the issues of the southern boundary and the Crown's
political motivations are connected. Lieutenant W.F.G. Servantes prepared a report in
1850 which stated:
The Natives were in the first place asked to dispose of the Wairau valley only,
but they themselves proposed to cede all their lands as far as Kaiapoi to which
point they stated that the property to which they had a sole title extended.
Doubts were at that time entertained of the Ngatitoa Tribe having an undisputed
title to the land further south than Kaikoura, but at thesame time it was known
that they had a claim to a certain extent as far as Kaiapoi, the point mentioned
by them in consequence of several of their principal chiefs having been
murdered there, and their having in revenge nearly exterminated the original
tribe, the few that escaped having sought safety by flying to the Southward.
[marginal note: 'From Kaikoura to Kaiapoi']
On this account it was thought advisable to include the land on question in the
Deed of Sale in order to extinguish whatever claim the Ngatitoas had to it[,] for
if excluded and the boundary fixed at Kaikoura, it was certain that they would
dispute the right of any tribe or persons who might afterwards wish to dispose of
it, and would moreover if their title was found to be valid, demand as much for
""
Ngai Tnhu Report, 393.
iiii4iOl3l KB
the alienation of their portion, as they received for the whole Block including the
Wairau.
Although the right of the above named Tribe was considered doubtful. I beg to
add that I believe it is very questionable whether according to Native customs
the Ngaitahu people have a better one."'
Setting aside the question of 'being askedbnd 'proposing to cede', this makes
it clear that Ngati Toa in the 1840s were asserting their right to lands far to the south
of Cloudy Bay, in this account sole rights right down to Kaiapoi. This claim was not a
later ambitious innovation.
Whoever was then dealing with them-presumably
at least Kemp and Grey-
had doubts about the exclusivity of Ngati Toa rights south of Kaikoura. However, this
implies that exclusive rights were more or less accepted for north of Kaikoura and
non-exclusive rights for the southern portion. It was thought that their conquest,
although not followed by occupation, gave them some rights there, while the deaths of
Te Pehi and others strengthened those rights and provided the link with Kaiapoi. The
Ngai Tahu inhabitants of the Kaikoura Coast-those
who survived the encounter-
had fled before them to Kaiapoi.
The Crown representatives involved, who must have included Grey, deemed it
advisable to include the Kaikoura to Kaiapoi land within the block boundaries, as
Ngati Toa's insistence on their rights there was not tentative but rather so convinced
and vehement that they would dispute with any counterclaimants and demand yet
more payment. That this would equal most of the £3000 they were being paid for
Wairau Purchase n~akesan interesting comparison with the mere few hundreds Ngai
Tahu were later paid for their rights in the same area.
Finally, Servantes believed--on what basis is unclear from this text, presumably
the flight and then lack of ongoing occupation-that
Ngai Tahu had no better claim to
the region than did Ngati Toa. He did not make clear whether he meant everything
below Wairau, or from Kaikoura south, however in Grey" response the Governor
agreed that Ngai Tahu should also be paid for their rights to land 'South of the
Kaikouras', indicating that that was the meaning Grey took from it."'
'"
116
011410113
Servantes to Grey, 4 September 1850. Quoted in Ngai T t h Report, 396
Grey to Eyre, 17 October 1850. Quoted in Ngai Tahu Report, 396.
K1>
During the Wairau negotiations, Grey asked for Wairau at least in part because
of the deaths of Pakeha there, saying: G v e me the land where my dead died.'
However, this had a corresponding response from Ngati Toa:
In that same year the chiefs of Ngati-Toa bethought them of their dead who died
at Kaiapoi. They announced their desire to buy that land. Sir George Grey
agreed. He gave the settlement over to a European to complete. Ngati-Toa
handed over £200 for that area at Kaiapoi."'
Te Kanae does not record whether this transaction was ever completed and the present
author has seen no reference to a corresponding reserve being set aside for Ngati Toa
at Kaiapoi.
The Ngati Toa claim to land at Kaiapoi because of the death there of T e Pehi
and others was advanced on different occasions. It does not follow that they were
claiming all the land down to Kaiapoi, as Servantes' report might perhaps be read, but
just to some land at Kaiapoi itself. This was not an outrageously novel or unique
claim, though. For example, in 1574, before the Native Land Court Tamihana te
Rauparaha made a claim for land at Kukutauaki, Waikanae, on the basis that Te
Rauparaha had conquered it, whereas Wi Parata based his counter claim on the basis
that Te Pehi had been wounded there and the blood of this higb-ranking had flowed
upon the land.II8 The loss of life upon the land was a recognised take in
argumentation by Maori before the Native Land Court.
Given the misunderstanding about the location of Kaiapoi v i s - 8 4 s the 431d
parallel, the Tribunal concludes that the Crown did not intend the Wairau Purchase to
come as far south as where Kaiapoi really is:
It is clear that the Crown's understanding of the limits of the Wairau purchase
stopped at about the Hurunui. There was no intention on the part of Grey or any
other of the Crown's agents to purchase from Ngati Toa as far down as the
Ashley River, where Kaiapoi pa was located.'19
This is confirmed for the Tribunal by Dr Don Loveridge's Crown evidence arguing
for a distinction made in some sources between the Kaiapoi clistrict and the Kaiapoi
pa, and then by Professor Alan Ward, who explained possible differences in meaning:
It was entirely realistic to purchase one block from Ngati Toa and another from
Ngai Tahu. placing the dividing line at the heart of Kaiapoi pa. In Maori terms
this was inconceivable. Either Ngati Toa got the money for Kaiapoi or Ngai
Tahu got the money for it. Ngai Tabu's claim to Kaiapoi involved not just the
'I7
118
119
Te Kanae TS, 18.
Cited in Ward, 'Port Nicholson', 157-158
Ngai Tdnt Report, 397.
0311111111 KB
pa. Kaiapoi was the hub from which a network of rights radiated. An offer to
purchasefrom Kaiapoi could only be interpreted as recognition of Tuahuriri's
right to that place and all that went with it.'"
On this understanding, then, the Wairau Purchase, followed by the Kemp
Purchase, was only intended by the Crown to recognise Ngati Toa's claims down to
the Kaiapoi district, beginning probably about Hurunui. The Tribunal seems to accept
this. Even if this is so, discussion of the Crown understanding-admitted
to have been poorly informed-is
by all sides
but one strand of evidence for what those Ngati Toa
rights actually were under Maori custom.
Crown Recognition of Ngai Tahu Interests
After Grey's Wairau Purchase, Ngai Tahu complained vociferously about the
blanket recognition of Ngati Toa and Crown officials began to concede that Ngai
Tahu may indeed have had interests in at least part of the enormous Wairau Block.
When Lieutenant-Governor Eyre and Mantell arrived at Akaroa to 'complete'
Kemp's Purchase, the Ngai Tahu demands were initially only that they retain the land
between the Waimakariri River and Kaiapoi. Only some sought a larger area, with the
northern boundary at the Kowai River. and Tiramorehu alone had the temerity to
suggest the Waipara. No-one at this time advanced claims to Kaikoura, let alone
Parinui. That may have been because of previous Crown refusals to alter Kemp's
boundary, but even these more modest claims would have done that by a not
inconsiderable 30 kilometres or so, so additional demands would not have been out of
the question.
Mantell reported in January 1849 that he had listened at Kaiapoi to many Ngai
Tahu speeches complaining, amongst other matters, about the boundary, 'which, they
said, should be north of Kaikoura'-but
nothing more specific. He concluded that
Kaiapoi, 'prior to its destruction by the Ngatitoa and their allies'had been the
headquarters of Ngai Tahu and densely populated.'2'
1%)
12'
Quoted in Ngai Tahii Report, 400.
Mantell to Colonial Secretary, 50 January 1849. AJHR, 1858, C-3.3.
011118133 KlI
Shortly afterwards, Matiaha Tiramorehu complained to Eyre about Manteli's
work, but mainly over the minuscule reserves allowed. He stated that the principal
cause of 'all the disputes in this Island is that of your having given the payment of a
part of our Island to the ~gatitoas'.'" As it stands, this is an objection to Ngati Toa
receiving any payment for land in Te Wai Pounamu, not a challenge to a particular
boundary. He reminded Eyre that Ngai Tuahuriri had complained to Grey about the
payments to Ngati Toa for Kaikoura and Kaiapoi and that Grey had told them that the
payment for Kaikoura had gone to Ngati Toa but that Ngai Tahu would receive that
for Kaiapoi. Subsequently, he said, the payment for Kaiapoi too had gone to Ngati
Toa when Kemp had fixed the boundary as far south as Kaiapoi. Eyre's response was
to say that Grey had told them tbat the arrangement with Ngati Toa could not be
disturbed or reopened.'23
Another report in 1850 came from W.J.W. Hamilton to William Fox, reporting
on Ngai Tahu reaction to the Wairau Purchase:
... it is probable the natives of Kaiapoi, hmuri, Kaikoura and Port Levy will
offer objections to the occupancy [by Pakeha] of the country lying north of the
Kowai River as far as Kaikoura ... . In support of their argument against [Rawiri
te] Puaha's right, they adduce, amusingly enough, Buonaparte's imprisonment
by the English, which was not followed by the taking of his property.
Rauparaha's taking away of several of their chiefs without taking any further
steps they consider a parallel case. They mention that it is the intention of the
Part Levy people to go to live at Amuri and Kaikoura before long.'z'
The area about which Ngai Tahu were raising objections, then, was only from
Kaiapoi (or the Kowai River) up to Kaikoura. Perhaps this was because they regarded
it as a lost cause to complain about any losses any further north, or perhaps it was
because they admitted their rights ended somewhere not Ear beyond Kaikoura. It
seems arguable that, despite the discussion of the loss of chiefs, the point was that
Ngati Toa really did exercise authority over the more northerly district from about
Kaikoura up to Cloudy Bay, which would fit with that iwi's assumption of
Rangitane's traditional rights down to Waipapa. The possibility certainly does exist of
a distinction between the claimed rights of the Canterbury Ngai Tahu and of Kaikoura
Whakatau's more northerly group, yet Whakatau's base seems to have been not up in
that area, but down at Mikonui, near the Amuri Bluff and still well within the claim
122
123
1%
Matiaha to Eyre, 22 October 1549. AJHR, 1858, C-3,9-10.
Eyre to Kemp, 13 June 1550. MHR, 1858, C-3,11.
Hamilton to Fox, 11January 1550. Quoted in Sherrard, Kaikotira, 107
O?liiOiil KT!
reaching north to Kaikoura alone. Occasional disruption of surveying and farming
activities did occur around Kaikoura and once in 1851-2 at Hawkswood, but these
activities were all still in the southern region, none being north of ~ a i ~ a ~ a . ' ~ '
In addition to those of Sewantes and Hamilton, a third report on the issue was
made in 1850, this time by Mantell. He informed his superiors that the Kaikoura coast
was:
waste, unoccupied; and belonged neither to the tribes who, in an expedition for
revenge and pounamu (not land) abandoned it after destroying the inhabitants;
nor to the small and scattered remnants of those inhabitants who, but for the
arrival of Europeans would not for many generations have had land, or been able
to occupy it.''"
Mantell here seems to have changed his position as to the ownership of the
region, from his earlier view that Ngai Tahu had rights, to saying that it belonged to
neither the northerners nor Ngai Tahu. The northerners had simply raided for revenge
and pounamu and been merely destructive; Ngai Tahu in the region had been
destroyed or driven out in the process and only the presence of Europeans gave them
an opportunity to reoccupy any land at all. His two opinions may be reconciled if his
initial one supporting Ngai Tahu rights-upon
which Hamilton relied in 1856157-
referred solely to the district immediately to the north of Kaiapoi, and perhaps up as
far as Kaikoura, while this second one refers to the land north of an intermediate point
such as Mikonui, Kaikoura or Waipapa.
Mantell's opinion concerning Ngati Toa motives may be accurate concerning
the more southerly districts; it is clear though that they certainly were interested in
land for themselves in Te Tau Ihu and control over others' lands for an indeterminate
distance south on both coasts.
The question also arises of why Ngai Tahu could not re-occupy the Kaikoura
Coast without the presence of Europeans, who must have provided some kind of
protection-from
whom? Could it be that until virtually IS50 they were still afraid of
Ngati Toa forcibly reasserting their claimed control (and 'influence') over the region?
Phillipson seems to think so although his comments seem somewhat selfcontradictory. On one hand he says that the raids northward in the mid-1830s indicate
that 'Ngai Tahu had certainly regained the initiative on the military front [sic] by the
I25
126
Sherrard, Kaikoura, 108.
W. Manteil, report, IS November 1850. Quoted in Phillipson, 'Northern South Island', 34.
49
late iS30s, while the northern iwi failed to avenge the defeat of Te Puoho in
Murihiku'. On the other, however, he states that:
Ngai Tahu had not recovered sufficiently to risk the exposure of actual
resettlement, however, and they did not resume occupation of their old sites at
the mouth of the Kaikoura under the late 1850s. The coast between Kaikoura
and the White Bluffs remained unoccupied at this time.lZ7
The military initiative cannot have been very meaningful if it did not permit reoccupation even up to Kaikoura until two decades after the captives had been
gratuitously released from Kapiti and allowed to return home.
The Te Wai Pounamu negotiations and purchase in 1553 have been discussed at
length by various historians. It is not proposed to re-traverse those matters here; for
the present it suffices to sat that the present author agrees substantially with the
conclusion reached by Richard Boast that the land fully occupied and utilised by
Ngati Toa was alienated at this time, while for the districts beyond that they sold their
rights. Those rights remained undefined and, frankly, through this era the Crown
purchasers were seldom very interested in the close detail of such rights and their
limits, particularly in such a situation as this where the negotiations related to the top
quarter of the South Island. Boast's observation suminarises the situation:
The deed of 1853 should basically be read as a purported extinguishment of
undefined claims rather than a 'sale'as such. McLean's approach to land-buying
was essentially to keep talking and keep paying out money to give quiet title,
without troubling too much over detailed bo~ndaries.'~
For the eastern coast, this did not matter much to the participants; the Ngati Toa
rights there had largely been bought out in the earlier Wairau Purchase. It is of more
relevance across Te Tau Ihu and on the West Coast, and across that region the issues
are of some areas to which Ngati Toa claimed exclusive rights and of the remainder of
the region to which they claimed a non-exclusive primacy.
Again, Boast comments that this did not rule out separate negotiations with
other tribes, with the acknowledgement in the 1853 purchase of overarching Ngati
Toa rights requiring following up with other groups in localised situations:
The 1853 Te Waipounamu deed was not intended to be an extinguishment of
only Ngati Toa rights; rather it was an extinguishment of all rights conducted via
the medium of negotiations with Ngati Toa as having the 'principal claim', [and]
with representatives of other groups participating in the discussions and who
would receive a portion of the moneyfront Ngati Ton. The payment of £5000
127
13%
Phillipson, 'Northern South Island', 34.
Boast, 'Upper South Island', 256.
i i i i < l f t i i l hll
was intended, as McLean put it, to 'extinguish the whole of the claims of the
different tribes concerned'. Although McLean had no doubt that Ngati Toa 'had
unquestionably as the earliest invaders a prior right to the disposal of the
district' which they had 'never relinquished' in practice he found it necessary to
carry out separate negotiations with the other groups. McLean believed that the
situation in terms of customary right was clear: there were overlapping rights
and Ngati Toa held the general right of alienation except over lands in actual
occupation.'Z9
There was a tangible government response to Ngai Tahu agitation in IS56 when
Land Purchase Commissioner John Grant Johnson was sent down to investigate.
Provincial authorities were concerned that his visit would only stir up additional
difficulties, and so it proved with Kaikoura Whakatau now claiming all the way up to
the Waiau River.
In May 1856, Johnson in Lyttelton fonvarded to McLean a Ngai Tahu letter
revisiting the boundary issue.'30 He noted that Mantel1 had earlier 'expressed his
opinion that the Ngatitoa had no right to sell the land so far South as Kaiapoi'.
Johnson gave as his own opinion that 'As far as I can learn, the claim of Ngaitahu to
compensation for their land sold by Ngatitoa to the North of Kaiapoi is a just one7,
and sought permission both to investigate it further and, if the claim proved justified,
to pay Ngai Tabu not more than £150 to settle their claims. He noted that the
Canterbury-Nelson provincial boundary was at Kaiapoi and that the Ngai Tahu claims
were within the Nelson Province, 'in the block from the Wairau to Kaiapoi'. Johnson
had thus reached his preliminary view on the basis of information from Ngai Tahu
and a little from Mantell. There is no indication of where he now understood the
proper boundary should have been, merely that it was somewhere between Wairau
and Kaiapoi. Further, the fact that he thought that the appropriate compensation
should not be more than £150 suggests that he did not anticipate the area concerned
being huge, almost certainly not the entire Wairau-Kaiapoi block, but rather some
portion ' i d it. It should also be noted that he was motivated to make such a payment
as only then would he be able to use the influence of those Ngai Tahu for the
settlement of the Akaroa issue, which was the pressing matter at the time for officials.
McLean recommended this amount be made available for Johnson as the issue 'has
always been a source of discontent with the Natives there'.Ii1
129
'"
'''
his was approved on
Boast, 'Upper South Island', 260-261.
Johnson to M c k a n , 11 May 1556. AJHR, 1855, C-3, 19.
McLcan to Eyre's Private Secretary, 27 May 1856. AJHR, 1858, C-3, 19
the explicit understanding that it would settle the outstanding Ngai Tahu claims to the
north of ~ a i a ~ o i . ' ~ '
McLean then drafted a memorandum, perhaps for Canterbury Superintendent
James Fitzgerald, in which the sum o f f 150 was to be paid concerning the
unextinguished claims at Kaiapoi but 'conditionally, that they first settle the Akaroa
On 16 August 1556, W.J.W. Hamilton was instructed to undertake a settlement
of the Akaroa and Kaiapoi "unextinguished claims to land'. McLean explained that:
The principal object in view is to effect a final and complete adjustment of these
claims, so as to prevent any future revival of them by the Natives, taking
especial care that a clause is inserted in any conveyances they may sign
involving an undertaking that they themselves shall settle any claims that may
for the future be add~ced.'~'
It was to be done in terms of Johnson's prior memorandum and the other official
information readily available; Hamilton was not required or expected to undertake his
own investigation.
Hamilton reported, in a passage that now appears foundational in terms of the
Crown acceptance of Ngai Tahu rights in the Kaiapoi Purchase and thereafter:'"
The Rongitona [sic], now almost extinct, appears [sic] to have been the original
occupants of the Northern portion of Middle Island, and might possibly maintain
some kind of claim as far South as Waipapa or Wdiau Toa (Clarence river).
They seem, however, to have been hemmed in on both sides by Ngatitoa and
Ngaitahu, and I am not able in this part of the country to learn much about them.
South of Waipapa. however, I am of opinion, as I have before stated, that the
Ngaitahu Title is incontrovertible.
Mr Commissioner Mantell writes on the 51hSeptember, 1848, at the time the
Ngaitahu were first treated with by Government for any of their land within the
boundaries of the present Canterbury and Nelson Provinces:
' .... Froni the account given by this tribe [Le. Ngai Tahu] 1 am much inclined to
doubt the right of the Ngatitoa to sell the land in question ....'
Again, the same gentleman writing to Lieutenant Governor Eyre, from Akaroa,
21" September, 1848, says
'At my late conference with the Ngaitahu Natives at Kaiapoi, I found them
much excited at the cession of land North of that place by the Ngatitoa .... Notes
of their assertions on that occasion. Firstly, that the land was never occupied by
the Ngatitoa: secondly, that the Ngaitahu have never ceased to dwell at or near
the disputed land: and thirdly, that subsequently to the last inroad of the Ngatitoa
the Ngaitahu successfully conducted an expedition against that tribe which has
not been avenged.'
1C
McLean to Johnson, 30 May 1856. AJHR, 1855, C-3,20.
McLean, memorandum. 13 August 1856. AJHR, 1558, C-3,23.
McLean to Hamilton, 16 August 1856. AJHR, 1858, C-3,21.
135
Hamliton to McLcan, 8 January 1857. AJHR, 1858, C-3,28. See also slightly altered versions
quoted m (1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,682,690.
'"
52
This evidence seems to me conclusive in favour of Ngaitahu, for Mr Mantell's
knowledge of the Cook's Strait Maories was so complete, that he could hardly
be misled on noted facts in their history, or drawn to express an opinion where
he had not sifted his evidence. The very farthest point to which it seems possible
to assert that the Kaiapoi purchase extended is Waipara (about 10 miles North of
Kaiapoi). But from thence to Waipapa, or Waiau Toa, the distance is 80 mites,
and to Pari-nui-owhiti (the extreme Northern boundary of the Ngaitahn claim)
40 miles more!
... . [this question] becomes narrowed to the enquiry whether Ngatitoa only
made an inroad instead of a conquest as far as Kaiapoi, and whether at the very
farthest, they could claim possession South of Waiau Toa or Waipapa.
I have felt it my duty to supply all the information that has reached me on this
subject, believing that aprima facie case of great injustice done them is already
established by the Ngaitahu, and that the Government will no longer allow it to
remain unadjudicated upon.'36
It is difficult to comment on the Ngai Tahu assertions upon which Hamilton
reports without knowing exactly the area to which they were referring. The first, the
lack of Ngati Toa occupation, obviously has more force the further south one is
talking of, but being so baldly stated it ignores the other ways in which a group might
exercise influence or authority. The second, the continuous Ngai Tahu occupation,
can only apply in the south, if anywhere. By the late 1840s Ngai Tahu may have
resettled to some extent back up around Kaikoura, but for most of the area through
most of the period after 1828, there appears to have been little evidence of Ngai Tahu
occupation. The third, of the unrevenged raid, needs qualification in terms of issues
like the Ngati Toa acceptance of Christianity and the arrival in I840 of the Pax
Britannica.
As has been discussed elsewhere in this report, the proposition that in
September 1848 Mantell's knowledge of Cook Strait Maori was so complete that he
could hardly be mistaken is open to serious question. By the time Hamilton was
writing, no doubt Mantel1 knew a great deal more and was regarded as something of
an authority, but at the time of writing the report upon which Hamilton relied he could
hardly have been such. Hamilton's reliance on him, then, is equally suspect. Even
here, in a passage that is not quoted nearly as often as the paragraphs preceding it,
Hamilton concedes a possibility that Ngati Toa did have an interest as far south as
Waipara, and a stronger possibility that they did to Waipapa or the Clarence River. He
also concedes a lack of other information, including anything about the basis on
1%
He recommended further searching in the records of Kemp's Purchase, the Kemp Purchase
to which Ngai Tahu had agreed, and the account of the New Munster Government's negotiations
with Ngati Toa. There was no mention of a proposal to consult Further with Ngati Toa or Rangitane.
Deed
53
031J10133 KU
which Kemp formed his boundaries, or even the written record of government
discussions with Ngati Toa.
The prima facie case that Hamilton was convinced was made out was thus his
own discussions with a few Ngai Tahu, and especially one from Kaikoura, and two
quotes from Mantell, who was after all dealing with other matters at the time. Further,
as has been shown, Mantell's own opinion was formed after a bare five weeks on the
job, much of that spent in Wellington and then consultation only with Ngai Tahu.
Nevertheless, Hamilton was rewarded with Mclean's commendation for the
trouble he had taken in enquiring so fully into the claim of Whakatau and the
Kaikoura Ngai Tahu. McLean said he was having the New Munster records searched
for the full documentation and regretted the lack of an officer with institutional
knowledge and the ability to do such research.
In all of this process is it increasingly difficult to see any official recognition of
particular Ngai Tahu rights far to the north of Kaiapoi. The offer of compensation
appears to be principally a negotiating tool, enabling officials to apply pressure for the
achievement of their immediate objectives concerning other matters, especially the
Akaroa lands. No actual investigation was conducted, no discussions included anyone
other than the disgruntled Ngai Tahu, and no reference was made to any precise
boundaries, merely to the general extinguishmei~tof Ngai Tahu claims north of
Kaiapoi. The sum of money concerned bears no relation to the potentially huge area
of land concerned. It becomes, therefore, increasingly difficult to rely on this activity
as supporting particular Ngai Tahu claims regarding any given northern boundary.
On 5 February 1857, Hamilton succeeded in gaining the cession by Ngai Tahu
of Port Levy (Kokorarala), Rapaki and Kaiapoi of 'their remaining lands northward of
Kaiapoi for the sum of £200'. He estimated that this tract contained about 1,140,000
acres. It extended from Kaiapoi some 50 miles north to the Waiau-Ua (i.e. Waiau)
River and then some 60 miles inland to the sources of the Ashley, Hurunui and Waiau
~ i v e r s . ' ~It' did not include the claims of the Ngai Tahu based at Kaikoura, nor those
to the west in the Arahura district.
He added:
The whole of the foregoing observations [on the adequacy of the amount being
paid, of which even he himself remained unconvinced] are necessarily based
upon the assumption that the Ngaitahu titles to the country in question is
--
117
Hamllton to McLean, 5 February 1857. ATHR, 1858, C-3,32
thoroughly sound. I am in no position to enquire into the Ngatitoa side of the
case. And, as the Government have undertaken to treat for the Sand with
Ngaitahu I must proceed on the belief that their title is reeognized.lX
This is further confirmation that just as accusations have been levelled at the
Crown by Ngai Tahu for making the Wairau Purchase from Ngati Toa without
considering their interests, so the later purchases were made from Ngai Tahu by the
Crown without considering the Ngati Toa interests. It appears that this was a policy
decision to simply quiet Maori opposition to the passage of the title of land into the
Crown's hands and then on to settlers as there was no rigour to any investigation of
exact entitlements and interests. It seems comparable to the activities of McLean in
the Te Wai Pounamu purchases further north where the specifics of land ownership
seem often to have been overlooked in what are apparently overlapping purchases,
and the ultimate object is not so much explicit recognition of detaited land ownership
so much as spending a few extra pounds here and there to gain general Maori
acquiescence in the title transfer process.
This system was very much affordable and a good financial and political
investment. As he was musing over the ethics of paying of such a paltry sum to
Kaiapoi Ngai Tahu for the North Canterhury Purchase, Hamilton was noting that the
Crown had within the previous two years made f 15,000 from the sale of just one
30,000-acre block between the Waipaoa [sic, Waipara?] and Hurunui Rivers. Another
couple of hundred pounds under the circumstances was inconsequential if it permitted
the smooth transfer of such a valuable asset, which on that scale would have been
worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
At the time of this purchase, there were apparently no Maori, or virtually no
Maori, living within the area of the North Canterhury Purchase, including members of
Ngai Tahu. Hamilton observed that for 'several years past [the block had been] almost
entirely occupied by ourselves as freehold or sheepwalk'. He did not say whether
some coastal settlements, for example, would now have to be vacated, so this provides
no indication of what 'almost entirely occupied'entaits, whether Europeans almost
entirely occupied leaving only a few Maori, or whether only Europeans occupied but
they did so over not quite the whole purchase block.
1%
Hamilton to M e k a n , 5 February 1857. AJHR, 1858, C-3.35.
O j l J I U 1 3 3 Sl3
James Mackay's Kaikoura Purchase may also be regarded in a similar light to
Hamilton's, as a quieting of Maori claims to an area, rather than a detailed and
principled investigation into the competing rights of different Maori groups in the
area. His immediately previous activity with Arahura is discussed below, and his
Kaikoura activities were but a continuation of them, buying out Maori claims for the
cheapest possible combination of cash and reserves. Mackay met and negotiated with
Ngai Tahu only; he was simply buying out their rights, the Crown having now agreed
to recognise them as having some. The reserves negotiated were all in the southern or
Kaikoura areas, none extending up into the northern area now more in dispute with
Ngati Toa (or Rangitane), which might have been expected were the places there
inhabited by them or otherwise of particular importance to them."'
A Select Committee was appointed in 1872 to inquire into problems with Ngai
Tahu lands in the South Island. It was, though, directed to consider only "he
unfulfilled promises to Natives in the Middle Island t .140 Mantell gave evidence, but
this was limited to those questions of reserves, tenths and other unfulfilled promises.
A copy of an 1862 statement made by Taiaroa 'To all my Tribe, to my Hapu and to
my Son' was entered into evidence, but it, too, was silent on any of the specific land
dealings other than those of Kemp and Mantell, and the reserves and such within
them. The particular focus of the other evidence was the goings on in Otago with the
New Zealand Company and especially the Princes Street reserves. Thus, this
committee's investigation sheds no light on the issues north of Kaiapoi.
Another attempt by Ngai Tahu to have their grievances heard began from an
1874 petition by a large hui at Kaiapoi and resulted in a report by Chief Judge
ent ton.'" The large bulk of the petition related to the impoverishment of Ngai Tahu
as a result of the terms of the Kemp Purchase and the subsequent Crown failure to
observe the promises of reserves and services. Kemp's bullying of the tribe at Akaroa
was remembered, though, and they claimed he stated:
If you do not consent to this £2000, I shall hand over the money to Ngatitoa
(Rauparaha's tribe); and if you still delay to consent, then soldiers will be sent to
clear the land for the pakehas.'i"
139
140
141
142
Sherrard, Kaikorrra, 113.
'Orders of Reference'. AJHR, 1872. H-9,3.
AJHR, 1876, G-7.
.4JHR, 1876, G-7, 1.
This can hardly be taken as indicative of much more than that Kemp was using a scale
of threats to overcome Ngai Tahu resistance to his unreasonable demands; it was
rhetoric associated with a bullying negotiating technique. Kemp can not reasonably be
understood to himself have believed that Ngati Toa had rights over the entire area
covered in the Kemp Purchase Block and his threat to pay the money to Ngati Toa
and call it a legitimate transfer of title to the Crown had no more validity than military
clearance and occupation would have bad-which
in 1848 was totally impracticable
anyway. The only point of interest is that Ngati Toa were the group he identified as
the alternative, rather than any other group in the South Island. This presumably
reflects Ngati Toa's status as the group who could most realistically challenge any of
Ngai Tahu's rights and also the proximity of their interests to the block he was
currently treating for. Nevertheless, little can be made of this.
Chief Judge Fenton in his report actually stated that he did not believe Kemp
had intimidated them at all. Rather, he said, they assumed too much from his allusion
to recent history:
I quite think that they had a feeling of insecurity, resulting from Te Rauparaha's
then recent inroads, and the dread of his return: and it is only natural to suppose
that they readily alienated territory to a peaceable and powerful third party, who
was able and willing to protect them. It is very probable that Mr Kemp used this
y
quite rightly. They are wrong in now
argument with them, and in n ~ judgment
complaining. They have had the benefit as well as the disadvantage.""
Apart from the fact that they had not complained of Kemp threatening them with the
return of Te Rauparaha, and Fenton's argument falls flat at that initial point, it is of
interest that Fenton believed that there was an ongoing fear of Ngati T o t even into the
1840s.
Mantell's evidence at this time included a statement that there were some Ngai
Tahu absent from his dealings in 1848-49 because they were "prisoners in the North',
presumably meaning Ngai Tahu who remained prisoners of Ngati Toa from the
Kaiapoi and Banks Peninsuia expeditions in the early 1 8 3 0 s . ' ~
The Smith-Nairn Commission of 1880-8 1 seems not to have considered the
question of the relative interests of Ngai Tahu and other tribal groups in the region
under consideration in the present report. The Commission's terms of reference asked
them to determine only whether promises made by Kemp and Mantell remained yet to
143
MHR, 1876, G-7,4.
AJHR, 1876, G-7,7.
be fulfilled or reserves allocated remained unmade, and not whether the purchases
themselves were flawed.'" Further, the northernmost purchase to be considered was
the 'Ngaitahu' Block, that is, the Kemp Purchase, and others such as the Wairau,
Arahura, Te Wai Pounamu and Kaikoura purchases remained outside their scope.
Thus, the Commission's report accordingly fails to address such issues and restricts
itself to matters such as tenths, other reserves and medical facilities in the southern
areas.
Overall, the conclusion must be that the various Crown concessions of Ngai
Tahu interests and payments made for them-insultingly
meagre though they were-
were politically driven. As Hamilton himself stated, he was purchasing on the basis of
a prior political commitment and with the assumption that Ngai Tahu's interests were
legitimate, though uninvestigated. There was no input into the process from anyone
other than Ngai Tahu. Where the Crown officials seem to have been personally
convinced of an unequivocal Ngai Tahu right, it was only to the region south of the
Clarence/Waipapa. Taken with the widespread evidence that north of Kaikoura
remained effectively uninhabited, this does not seem to constitute a strong rebuttal of
Ngati Toa's claims of interests and influence extending down from the north.
Maori Appellate Court, 1990
The Maori Appellate Court in 1990 was in no doubt about Ngati Toa's rights
over the northern portion of the region they claimed:
We are satisfied, however, that Ngati Toa had established their ahi kaa in the 12
years following their invasion in the area of 'the Wairau' and as far south as
~arinui-O- hi ti.'^
Further, the court said:
There can be no doubt that Ngati Toa as at 1840, were in occupation of the area
known as Cloudy Bay, North of Parinui-O-Whiti (White Bluff). They are
claiming, however, that their 'sphere of influence" extended south of
~aikoura."~
$45
I46
147
'Appointment of Commission', 15 February 1879. AJHR, 1881, G-6, 1-2
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,682,
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,682.
The court's conclusion, though, was against Ngati Toa's broader claims. It
found that, despite evidence from 1849 of 'a number of Maori' in the area of the
Waiau-toa River'who were apparently of Ngati Toa descent, that it was 'unable to
find evidence that Ngati Toa exercised ahi kaa south of 'the Wairau', and that 'there is
no evidence to support the claim that Ngati Toa people exercised ahi kaa in that
area'.ld8
The court noted that there was no direct indication of the tribal origin of that
Clarence River group in 1849, nor was there other evidence that Ngati Toa had
exercised other manifestations of ahi kaa, such as naming geographical features. They
dismissed the evidence of that group, even if they were in fact Ngati Toa, as in itself
proving nothing:
In our view, the existence of an isolated handful of people on its own is
insufficient to establish ahi kaa-there is nothing to suggest in the evidence that
these people kept in touch with their tribe and were in turn held out as being its
representative^.'^"
The court did not say what evidence, if any, was presented on the point of connections
between the group and the larger tribe, nor whether there was positive evidence that
they were cut off from any such communication, or disavowed by their relatives
Presumably if there had been such evidence it would have been noted. As it stands,
however, although a court must rely on evidence presented directly to it, this is simply
an argument from silence, which in matters of History is a very weak one. If we
simply do not know, we cannot then reach positive conclusions on the basis of that
silence.
The Maori Appellate Court made a distinction between conquest and occupation
and the respective rights conferred by each:
Accordingly, although it is clear that the Ngati Toa and their allies had
effectively conquered the East Coast as far as Kaiapoi, (or possibly to Akaroa)
they nevertheless did not follow up their military success by exercising ahi kaa
over the territory south of Parinui-0-Whiti to such an extent as to establish a
cultural tradition in the area. North of Parinui-0-Whiti, however, it is clear they
established themselves in cultivating land there and established a mixed
settlement with the European settlers ... . Accordingly apart from possibly
Granny Mag's [sic] forebears, there was very little evidence of the Ngati Toa
'"
119
(1990) 1 SIAppMB 673,682.
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,682. It may also be observed that apparently neither was there
anythmg in the evidence to indicate that the group were Ngai Tahu or from another tribal group, and
thus providing evidence of ahi kaa for any non-Ngaii Toa group.
59
exercising any presence south of Parinui-O-Whiti on either a seasonal or
permanent basis.'"'
Counsel for Ngati Toa, Mr J.V. Williams, had argued that rather than fully
possessing an occupied territory, Ngati Toa had enjoyed a 'sphere of influence' south
of Kaikoura. He suggested that rather than looking simply to fixed occupation and
cultivation, ahi kaa might be regarded as maintained, and connections with land
continued by the recollection of 'the battles that were fought, the defeats, the
victories, [reciting] whakapapa, ... [and recalling] the names of places, the burials of
the dead and wahi tapu which relate to its history', and by 'traditional stories, the
maintenance of whakapapa, the remembrance of wahi tapu [and] battles won and
lost". The court accepted the thrust of Williams's argument, but then concluded that it
had been unabIe to find evidence of Ngati Toa satisfying those criteria anywhere
south of Parinui-0-whiti.'"
The court found it to be clear that Te Rauparaha's force 'devastated' Takdhanga
Pa at Kaikoura and Omihi Pa, both Ngai Tahu strongholds, in his first campaign, but
initially failed before Kaiapoi. However, in his second southern campaign, he
captured and sacked Kaiapoi and reached Akaroa. They added:
It is also clear that Ngai Tahu were decisively defeated and the northern
invaders if they had remained in occupation of the lands from the Wairau Valley
to Kaiapoi would have, by reason of take raupatu, the 'ownership' of the
lands.152
For the court, therefore, the issue was largely reduced to the issue of ongoing
Ngati Toa occupation south of Parinui. In this respect, they found that the evidence
placed before them by all parties yielded 'a dearth of clear evidence of physical
occupation either by the Northern Iwi, Rangitane or Ngai Tahu of the lands between
Kaikoura and Parinui-O-Whiti post the northern invasion'. The lands south of Parinui
to Kaikoura were therefore somewhat of a no man's land in terns of occupation.
liu
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673.683. Granny Megk forebears may well have been the group
encountered at Waipapa by Hamilton, referred to above.
151
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,681.
'52
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,686.
Three: Arahura and Interests
On the western side of Te Tau Ihu and onto the West Coast, Ngati Toa makes
claims of an interest based on influence gained from the conquest.
Rangitane evidence before the Waitangi Tribunal has placed that group as the
traditional occupiers in the northern West Coast. Specifically Mr Graeme Norton
testified that Rangitane were at Taitapu prior to the Ngati Toa-led invasion, and
remained through the Musket Wars period.'43
Historical evidence led for the Crown during the Ngai Tahu inquiry indicated
that Ngati Apa's traditional lands may have stretched down south of the
KawatiriIBuller district, and that this was recognised by Ngai Tahu and Te Tau Ihu
chiefs in the Arahura Purchase in 1560.
The Invasion to Tai TapuWanganui
After the initial attacks down the eastern coast, the Marlborough Sounds were
cleared of opposition to the northern coalition and the invasion rolled westwards and
onto the West Coast. The Ngati Toa chiefs, in the letter to Grey of 11 December 1851
disputing the exclusivity of Ngati Rarua claims, described the virtual annihilation of
the leadership of the occupants of the northern South Island-'And
so the descendants
of man were destroyed. Tuhuru escaped. And so the expedition returned.' They wrote
that Te Hoiere came first, then Rangitoto, then Kaiaua and Whakapuaka with their
chiefs:
These chiefs were from Whaka-tuu, Wai-mea and Motu-eka. Whakamarama and
Tiki-auaau were from Ao-rere, Tamatea and Puu-ponga. The chiefs Kootuku,
Hioi, Komako-rau were from Mata-rua, Te Whanga-nui, Patu-reu, Awa-rua and
Te lwi-tuaroa. Weka was from Toro-pihi. And so the descendants of man were
destroyed. Tuhuru escaped. And so the expedition returned.'"
lS3
13.4
Norton, .Brief of Evidence', 28.
Letter of 11 December 1851. Biggs, 'Two Letters', 274.
Except that some remained:
Te Whata-rauhi arranged for Piki-whara, Niho, Te Whare-aitu, Te Neko, Te
Rakaputa, Te Maungakino, fourteen in all, to remain at Te Whanga-nui. Before
long Pikiwhara, Te Itu, Te Neko, and Te Raka-puta came back to Karauripo.
After a year there Piki-whara, Te Itu, Hotu, Te Rewa, Manaia, Toto, Pukekoowhatu, Te Ahi-manawa and Te Taua returned to Motu-eka. These are all the
people who are settled at Motu-eka now, which place is also settled by NgaatiRarua. One of our chiefs, Te Whiro, younger brother of Raawiri Puaha, went
and died there."'
Boast concludes: ' ... the notion that Ngati Toa did not have a settlement
presence in the Whakatu-Motueka region is quite ~ n t r u e ' . " ~&so, we can get much
further west from this account-there
are several chiefs mentioned who are from
West Coast locations: 'Whakamarama and Tiki-auau were from Ao-rere, Tamatea and
Puuponga. The chiefs Kootuku, Hioi, Komako-rau were from Mata-ma, Te Whanganui, Patu-rau, Awa-ma and Te Iwi-tuaroa. Weka was from Toro-pihi.' Aorere to
Puponga takes in the Collingwood-Cape Farewell region. Te Whanganui, Paturau and
down to Te Iwituaroa were, of course, on the north of the western coast down the
Heaphy River, hut there is no indication of the ongoing relationship between the
victors and the people there, or of their exploits further down that coast. Unfortunately
for present purposes, the letter makes no additional comment on the region to the
west.
The Ngati Toa chiefs then went on to make explicit their claims that the preeminent authority over the affected area was with Ngati Toa. They did not simply
recount the battles, but made explicit what they understood the effect of their actions
to have been in relation not simply to the conquered South Islanders, but also with
regard to their allies:
The reason we speak is because all the tribes fought to take our lands. We fought
and they were defeated by us. There was one battle at Kapiti, another at Te Waiiti; those battles were Ngaati-Awa's. Then ended the argument over the lands
and the authority was taken by us. Consider our giving up lands to you. No tribe
came forward to disagree with us, because it was correct. Moreover, i£ we give
up to you the parts which remain, even unto &a-hura, there is no one to
disagree. Not one. The only disagreement has been expressed by people going
secretly to you and saying that our rights are not valid.'"
155
Letter of 11 December IMI. Biggs, 'Two Letters', 274.
Boast, 'Upper South Island', 31. He also notes that Whakatu itself was released for Pakeha
occupation as being tapu due to a gunpowder explosion in which Te Rauparaha himseliand a number
of his children and whanau were injured.
157
Letter of 11 December 1851. Biggs, 'Two Letters', 274.
156
62
This was, therefore, an assertion of Ngati Toa rights--explicitly including rights
to alienate conquered lands-against
all corners. In this letter, the northerners'
conquest of the southern tribes and their lands had already been described. This
passage explained why Ngati Toa further claimed pre-eminence over the other
northerners: apart from any moral authority Te Rauparaha might have exerted a a war
leader, the various battles they had taken part in, including those amongst themselves,
had given Ngati Toa rightful authority over the others. If Ngati Toa chose to alienate
land, 'even unto Ara-hura, there is no one to disagree'.
Ngati Toa stated that unlike those who now subverted them in a secretive way,
if they were brought face to face in public with those who challenged their rights,
'they would have no word of disagreement concerning us, whether they be NgaatiAwa, Ngaati-Raukawa or Ngaati-Rarua'
The second Ngati Toa Setter to Grey, in 29 September 1852, elaborating on the
comments of the first, explicitly described Ngati Toa leadership of the conquest of the
northern West Coast.
We set tbrth, one hundred and seven. We went to Whakapuaka. Its chiefs Ihenga
and Tahakura fell. Going on to Motueka its chief Pakipaki was killed, and the
greenstone club called Kokopu was taken. Going on to Te Whanganui its chief
Kootuku was killed and a cloak called Tc Rarawa was taken. At Te iwitnaroa
Kootuku's son Komakorau was killed. At Koropihi, Te Whatapakoko and
Pootau were killed. At Karamea, Te Weka the chief was killed. At Kawatiri a
chief named Te Whare Kiore was killed. So we kept on killing, travelling by
night and by day for two months. There was no food; the food was the pith of
tree ferns.
Then Arahura was reached. Inland a fort was attacked and taken. Tuhuru was
the chief and Kahuai. Accordingly then I thought the lines of men were
extinguished and that the land and Te Waipounamu had fallen to me.
Accordingly I came back."'
It continued, explaining the consolidation of the northern alliance's control with
Niho's force in yet another expedition:
Then I sent my braves Niho and Taztkerei-te-wliare-aitu, Maaka Huematamata
and Hikaka, three hundred of them. They quite equalled my bravery, in warfare,
in harrying fugitives, for ten seasons. Then they were indeed warriors even as I.
The survivors escaped because of Christianity, and sought sanctuary at Raki-ura.
All was laid open and the land was empty, cicadas being the only denizens who
remained there. One atone was the party which desolated the land, the three
hundred of Niho. The son of Tuhuru who came to you [Grey] was enslaved by
Niho as were many others, even to a hundred ... .
When Niho had achieved this, indeed the whole land had been seized ... .
"'
Lettcr of 29 September 1852. Biggs, 'Two Letters', 264-266.
0ilJ111131 RIJ
And so I strenuously press (my case) concerning the land to you. My boundary
is at Oo-tara, at the place where Te Puoho died.'j9
Tamihana te Rauparaha described the expedition that moved across Te Tau Ihu
to Taitapu as being led by Te Rauparaha, still seeking revenge for Te Pehi and the
rumoured desecration of his body, although it is not clear whether this was the
motivation at the start only, or continued throughout the expedition. He recorded that
'the killing continued' right across to Taitapu:
The people were decimated, with the remnants being left as slaves; they were
not brought to Kapiti. When the war party returned some of the Npti Toa
remained behind, having seen what good places there were to Iive in.'"
The Wiremu Neera te Kanae manuscript is analysed by Boast as noted above.
The attack on the tribes of the northern South Island in 1830 is described, with the
conquest of the whole top of the island, beginning with Ngati Kuia and Rangitane but
moving westwards past Whakatu to Taitapu. Te Kanae concludes:
The land was taken possession of by Te Rauparaha and his people. Those, who
of that people who were spared, were left as slaves and food growers for NgatiToa and their other sub-tribes.
By 1831, the land on the Eastern side of Te Waipounamu lay in peace in the
hands of the Ngati-Toa and those other tribes closely related to it.I6'
The campaign was presented as being under the generalship of Te Rauparaha, and
those who fought for the northern coalition were 'his people', the beneficiaries being
Ngati Toa 'and their other sub-tribes', 'those other tribes closely related to it',
presumably meaning particularly Ngati Koata and Ngati Rarua.
Like Tamihana, Te Kanae thus took a broad view of Ngati Toa and who was
under the overall leadership of Te Rauparaha. Ngati Rarua took the lead role in
conquering the West Coast, but they were, in his view, one of Te Rauparaha's tribes,
and in that West Coast Maori were enslaved to grow food for Ngati Toa, he must have
been considering Ngati Rarua as part of Ngati Toa broadly conceived.
Crosby has also presented these attacks as being the western leg of a twopronged attack on Te Tau Ihu, deputing the task of subduing the west to some of his
159
Letter of 29 September 1Si2. Biggs, 'Two Letters'. 266. Walzl comments that since Takerel is
often referred to as being Ngati Tama, this expedition is frequently credited to Ngaii Tama as well as
Ngati Rarua, hut that nineteenth-centurysources identi@ him as Ngati Rarua only. Walzl, 'Rarua', 11.
If this is the case it diminishes the Taranaki component of the conquest.
'"
162
Butler, Tamiharra, 44.
Te Kanae TS, 14.
64
force, while personally commanding the eastern prong.'66"He describes those western
attacks as 'like a series of sledgehammer blows' on Ngati Apa, with the end result
being that 'the few surviving Ngati Tumatakokiri were wiped out, while Ngati Apa
were either totally destroyed or pushed out of all these areas'. In his account, the
conquest was complete, the inhabitants being totally annihilated or displaced:
The pitifully few survivors pulled back to live a wretched existence in their
refuges inland in the Butler River areas behind Westport and in the inland arees
of the Nelson Lakes-Rotoiti and Rotoroa. The pa at Whakatu, Waimea,
Motueka and in the Taitapu area were all totally destroyed by the invaders. At
Taitapu, the taua killed the principal Ngati Apa rangatira, Te Rato or Te
~otuku?'~
Following that initial assault, the western force divided further with T e Puoho
and Ngati Tama remaining in Taitapu to 'mop up', 'which completed the utter
devastation of Ngati Apa and Ngati Tumatakokiri in those areas r .1 6 4
The lnvasion to Arahura
More was to come than just the conquest and occupation of Te Tau Ihu. Walzl
describes several movements across the top of the South Island such that by 1830
there was already Ngati Rarua settlement on the western coast at ~ ' a i t a ~ u . ' ~ '
Following the several campaigns on the eastern seaboard, and at much the same
time in 1832 as the final successful assault on Kaiapoi, a separate expedition (the third
in Walzl's opinion), principally made up of Ngati Rarua, invaded the West Coast. Te
Kanae stated:
In that year in which were thus destroyed the tribes of the Eastern part of the
Island of Waipounamu, there went off others of the tribe of Te Rauparaha to
Poutini (Westland). The name of that tribe was the N~ati-Rarua.Poutini was
taken by them. The tribes of that district were kept as slaves to grow food for
Ngati-Twa. The head chief of that district was Tuhuru. The extreme limits of the
Island of Waipounamu, thus fell to the conquest of Te Rauparaha and his tribes,
from Nawe even unto the west-coast at Maitnhi, northward hither of Aornngi
162
161
165
O3i.,:ili;;
Crosby, Wars, 235.
Crosby. Wars, 235.
Crosby, Wars, 236.
Walzl, ‘Rams', ch 1
hU
(Mt Cook). The tribes of that Island which lived there, within this area, have
been kept as slaves, even until these times.'66
G.G. Mitchell recounts a story of Niho's expedition, that when it reached the
Buller River-Ohikanui Creek junction a lesser chief split off and headed for the
eastern coast, to spy out the strength of Ngai Tahu in North Canterbury. Niho
responded that Te Rauparaha, 'their paramount chief', had given them their
instructions according to his careful planning which included the simultaneous attack
on Kaiapoi, and he himself would not deviate from them. Niho, being a tohunga as
well as a high-ranking chief, then placed a tapu over the area where they would all
join back together, probably from the Ohikanui to the 0hikaiti.I6'
Phillipson comments that after Tuhuru, the pre-eminent chief of Poutini Ngai
Tahu, was captured and forced to make some sort of formal submission to Te
Rauparaha at Rangitoto, he was later 'released as a "vassal" chief after giving over a
mere pounamu and accepting a marriage alliance between his daughter and the Rama
' ~ treatment of such a high-ranking chief must have
rangatira ~ i h o ' . Such
significantly strengthened the northerners'claim to rights on the West Coast through
public submission and marriage into the tangata whenua.
Phillipson is, though, uncertain about the exact relationship thereafter between
the northerners and Poutini Ngai Tahu. He gives an unreferenced opinion that the
military power of the two was 'probably fairly equal between "conquerors"and
"conquered', while the protection afforded to Ngai Tahu by Niho and Takerei against
Te Puoho resulted from 'the complicated arrangement created when Tuhum
surrendered his mere pounamu to them [sic] and created a series of reciprocal
~ b l i ~ a t i o n s ' .The
" ~ equality of military power claim seems inherently unlikely given
the small numbers of Ngai Tahu on the West Coast and the tribal affiliation in the
Nelson/Golden Bay area the northerners could draw on readily. The complex
reciprocal arrangements are further complicated by the fact that the mere pounamu
166
Te Kanae TS, 15-16. Nawe was a pa on Banks Peninsula. The present writer has not managed
to locate Maitahi, but a possibility may be the Waitahi Bluff at the northern end of the Okarito Lagoon,
which is indeed directly north of Aorangi as opposed lo directly coastwards of the mountain. It would
not be unlikely for a transcriber to mistake a handwritten W for an M. George Graham, the transloior,
has identified Maitahi in his endnote as Maitai = the Nelson Valley, but that does not fit with the
references to the West Coast, to Aorangi, or to the fact that this comes at the end of an account of the
raids through Poutini.
167
Quoted in Walzl, 'Rama', 12.
la
Phillipson, 'Northern South Island', 24.
I69
Phillipson, 'Northern South Island', 24.
was not given to Niho and Takerei but to Te Rauparaha, so Phiilipson's observation,
if correct, indicates that Ngati Rarua would have been acting as some kind of agents
of Ngati Toa.
Crosby's much abbreviated account also has the NihoPakerei taua acting as
under Ngati Toa instructions. He comments that as they moved south down the West
Coast, they encountered and again defeated additional elements of Ngati Apa 'down
the Heaphy coast past Karamea and Westport [sic]'. Note that the people there were
not Ngai Tahu, and that these locations are all well south of Kahurangi; only when
they reached Taramakau did they encounter and defeat Ngai Tahu. They continued on
past Hokitika to capture Tuhuru at Kokatahi. Crosby observes:
This [capture of Tuhuru], and the conquest of the Poutini Ngai Tahu, now
placed Niho and Takerei in control of the source of pounamu, thereby fulfilling
one of Te Rauparaha's long-cherished dreams.'"'
Elsewhere, Crosby writes that Te Rauparaba 'knew from Niho that he [Te Rauparaha]
now controlled through his allies on the West Coast the source of pounamu in the
north of Te ~aipounamu'."' Crosby thus is another who writes of Niho and Takerei
as not operating on their own account, but as agents of Te Rauparaha's-unless
it is to
be inferred that Te Rauparaha dreamed of someone other than himself accessing
pounamu! Clearly, like any supreme commander, Te Rauparaha delegated rasks and
responsibilities to trusted lieutenants with the ability to implement those tasks, and
this is the type of operation Niho's conquest of Arahura appears to have been.
Subsequently, as a result of the annihilation of Te Puoho's taua and some threat
of a revival of Ngai Tahu military capability, Niho and Takerei withdrew up the coast
to West Whanganui in 1537. Some Ngati Rarua remained behind, though, in Arahura
and Kararoa just north of Mawhera, 'and although these people may have intermarried
with Ngai Tahu, they maintained their links with Golden Bay', some returning to
Golden Bay in the mid-1540s.'~~
So for about a decade after Niho withdrew some
distance north, there remained a northern occupation presence at Kararoa, while
Phillipson does not mention those at Arahura withdrawing at all.
""
""rosby,
Crosby, Wars, 236.
W w s , 240.
Phillipson, 'Northern South Island', 25.
Ongoing Occupation with Ngati Toa Connections
Tamihana te Rauparaha recalled that 'Many Ngati Toa had gone from Taitapu
to live [at West Whanganuil'and Te Rauparaha would periodically inspect these
western settlements such as Taitapu and ~ n e t a h a . " ~On one occasion, immediately
after the incident with gunpowder at Whakatu when Te Matata and Tamihana and Te
Matata's wife were all burnt, Te Rauparaha went to Whanganui and there received 25
slaves: 'this was not a confiscation, as they were willingly given'.17'" Unfortunately,
Tamihana did not record why they were given, whether purely from aroha or as some
form of tribute. Nevertheless, this number would have comprised a noticeable
proportion of the labour force there.
The 1840 census made by Dieffenbach recorded at that time some 400 people
belonging to Ngati Toa, Puketapu and Ngati Tama living at Massacre Bay, Wanganui
and Blind Bay, that is in the Nelson area and west to Te Whanganui. Concerning these
figures, Boast comments that 'although some of the "Ngati Toa" might have mainly
been Ngati Rarua this could not have been true of all (and in any case the degree of
separateness between "Ngati Rarua" and "Ngati Toa" is an issue in itself).'17i
Before Commissioner Spain, Te Rauparaha agreed over much of the transaction
he had entered into with Wakefield which was, he said, 'for Taitapu alone'. Spain
asked him whether he understood at the time that it purported to convey land to
Colonel Wakefield. Te Rauparaha replied:
Q:
No I did not. Col. Wakefield said at the time, 'Give me a small piece
of ground equal to the property that I have given you.'
Did you at the time of the sale state to Col. Wakefield the boundaries
of the land you claimed?
Yes. On the west coast of the Middle Island, from a little Creek called
Te Wanganui up to a ( 1 mountain which I ageed to sell to Col.
Wakefield.
Did you agree to sell any other Iand to Col. Wakefield?
A:
NO.'"
A:
Q:
A:
Here Te Rauparaha was clearly staking a claim to rights on the West Coast. This was
for an area beginning at Whanganui; unfortunately it does not help us with regard to
coastal areas further southwards. Te Rauparaha was dealing with Wakefield
'"
'"
175
Butler, Tamihnna, 70-71.
Butler, Tafniirana,71.
Boast, 'Upper South Island',292.
OLC 11907. NA Wellington. Quoted in Boast, 'Upper South Island', 69
personally, but the payment, he said, went to 'the Ngati Toas and Waikatos and any
one that came' to the Tory. Perhaps the 'Waikatos' refers to Ngati Rarua.
Heaphy's Expedition $846
In September 1846, Charles Heaphy, with William Fox, Brunner and Maori
guide Kehu headed into south-west Nelson in search o f a path to the West Coast. In
the territory between Lakes Rotoiti and Rotoroa, they found:
the remains of several bark huts which had been built by former natives of Blind
Bay pasman Bay] during the inland excursions they had been in the habit of
making after the now nearly extinct birds, the kiwi and the kakapo. The tribe of
Ngatitumatakokiri, to which those people belonged, was the most powerful on
the north end of the Middle Island; and waq located from the Pelorus River to
the Motuaka [sic], Massacre Bay [Golden Bay], and the western coast, the
principal pas being in the Waimea, on the sandflat near the snapper-fishing
ground at Wakatu, where the trenches are still observable. at the Noutere, and at
Kaiteriteri. From these several places the inhabitants were driven inland by the
Taranaki tribes, assisted by Rauparaha; and at the termination of the war only
three men remained of the tribe; they being E Kehu, our guide, Pikiwati
[Brunner's guide] ... and another, a slave at Motuaka.177
This account indicates that the coastal tribes certainly came inland to take
advantage of the resources, especially birds; Heaphy states that they were 'well
acquainted with the interior of the country'since, then lacking the potato, they
cultivated little and instead searched for birds and eels. It also indicates the extent of
their traditional lands reaching across to 'the western coast'; unfortunately, Heaphy
did not elaborate on how far down that western coast they may have reached. The
totality of the annihilation and subjugation of this particular group, at least, is
indicated by the note that only three now remained, of whom one remained a slave.
The perpetrators were 'the Taranaki tribes, assisted by Rauparaha', as Ngati Toa did
not-he
said-divert
resources and manpower to the western fighting. Still, even
without that commitment their presence was recognised, although 'assisted' is
ambiguous. The information regarding these events was presumably given in large
part to Heaphy by Kehu, the suwivor guide, as he explained his people's former
activities in these inland areas, the relics of which they were presently observing.
Charles Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (ed). Eurly Truvellers, 191.
69
Further on his trip, Heaphy came to Wanganui, an inlet about 10 miles south of
Cape Farewell, where he was accosted and threatened by Niho of Ngati Rarua. Of
Niho, Nancy Taylor comments:
Hungry for greenstone, and armed with guns, he led a raid against the Poutini
Ngai Tahu of the west coast who had no such weapons, in the late 1520s, going
as far as Hokitika and defeating them at each encounter. Thereafter he lived for
some time at Mawhera (~re~mouth).""
By now, though, Niho was back living much further north and for a time
refused to allow the explorers to continue without a substantial money payment. He
had very few people with him, but several more men appeared by canoe so there may
have been others nearby but out of immediate sight. He claimed not only to control
passage south, but that:
He was chief of Wanganui, and the whole of the coast beyond was his, and he
must have much money before he would allow us to pr~ceed."~
Twelve miles further south, near the Outura tide creek, they camped at an old
potato ground of Niho's, being 'the only cultivation between Wanganui and the
Kararoa in the Ara[h]ura country, from which place it is distant 148 miles'."'
However another day 3 march south at Raukaua, there were some more old potato and
taro grounds, where edible crops still grew in some quantity.'R' Further south again,
they passed an old sealing station at Toropuhi near Rocky Point, where Niho had
stove in a sealing boat, killing most of its crew, in retaliation for a child of his who
was taken away, never to return by that boat; he had been at this location collecting
'the kruktr [sic] nut'.'"
At the WhakapoaiiHeaphy River, Niho had also had another
potato ground, overgrown by 1846, and Ngati Apa had had a track going inland to the
Hauriri [Aorere], used when they hunted wekas-presumably
become the Heaphy
pretty much what has
Unfortunately, Heaphy gave no indication of how long
before Niho had ceased to utilise that potato ground; becoming overgrown could have
happened within a single season.
"'
Charles Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (edf, Early Travellers,
20811.
'"
180
181
Charles Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (ed), Early Travellers, 208.
Charles Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (ed), Early Travellers, 210.
Charles Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (ed), Early Travellers, 210,
717
'"
183
Charles Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (ed), Early Travellers, 215.
Charles Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (ed), Eadv Travellers, 216.
70
Heaphy did meet another group of Maori in the area as he travelled south, at
Cape Foulwind, 'yet 75 miles from the settlement of the Ngaitau [sic] tribe'. This was
one Aperahama and his few immediate family, but they did not live there, being on a
long journey north to Nelson to have his children baptised by the Anglican missionary
there. He did have a hut there, but this was probably a fairly temporary bivouac as be
came from Arahura and had taken three weeks to travel that far.''" Heaphy's party
met no other Maori, including Ngai Tahu, as they travelled further south to the
Kawatiri/I3uller River. On the south bank of the Buller River, the Arahura Maori,
presumably Ngai Tahu, had:
a few rods [sic, roods] of land planted with potatoes, for seed for a larger
plantation; their object being to obtain a title to the Kawatiri district by
occupatiort, and they hope to sell such title on the place being required for
settlement, which they have in some way become convinced will shortly be the
case."'
In the mid-1840s, then, the northernmost outpost of Ngai Tahu occupation of
the West Coast was still no further north than the southern bank of the Builer River.
Furthermore, it was not a site of occupation as such, but instead merely a small potato
plantation to grow seed for an intended larger one. That larger one was not intended to
support a Ngai Tahu settlement, but rather to establish their credentials in the
region-Heaphy
says 'obtain a title'. Why would they need to do this if the northern
tribes had no arguable claim in the region? From whom were they obtaining the title,
or more properly, against whom? Heaphy's observation of their motivation for this is
strictly irrelevant to the question of land ownership, but less so to the question of
attachment to the land. He says that they were not trying to regain touch with the
ancestral lands from the northern tribes, but that they were trying to become the
preferred vendors for an anticipated imminent a~ienation.'~%otuntil he reached the
cave Teonumatu. by the PotikohudFox River, did he come across a place he recorded
as regularly used by the Arahura Maori, in this case for drying dogfish which they
caught in summer. Inland up the MawheraiGrey River, they had a plantation at
~ w e k a / ~ n a n ~ a h u aHe
. ' ~explicitly
'
states that between Kararoa and Kahurangi 'there
"
Charles Heaphy, 'Espedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (ed), Early Travellers, 223-
224.
185
Charles Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (ed), Early Travelkrs, 226.
Further south at the Totara River, he did encounter several men coming north to tend the
plantation and to shift there when the plantation was sufficiently productive.
187
Charles Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (ed), Early Tra>aeflers,240.
71
1%
are no cultivations or
settlement^'.'^^ And they nearly starved through lack of such
sites.
The northernmost village of h a h u r a was Kararoa, 14 miles south of
PunakaikiiRazorback Point. It was not large, being inhabited by several men, seven
women and some 20 children.'sg A day further south was the Mawhera Pa, but this
was apparently used as a base for fishing in the river and deserted apart from one old
couple to infirm to leave. The first substantial settlement was another 10 miles further
on at Taramakau. Heaphy stated that these were principally Ngai Tahu, who had:
located themselves at Ara[h]ura after being dispersed in the battle near Port
Cooper in which Te Pehi was killed ... .They were cut off from the main body
and pursued into the interior. On reaching the western coast they located
themselves in this place, where they imagined they would be safe from
molestation, and could work the greenstone, which is brought down the
ka[h]ura river and found in its bed after floods.'*
Niho, though, had heard of them and had come and defeated them again,
'killing many at Karamea'. The two groups had apparently reached some nzodus
vivetdi, 'and several men of Eneho's [i.e. Niho] party settled at the Ara[h]ura with the
subject natives, and are now amalgamated with the tribe. The total population is about
seventy.'""his
of recent-post
account implies that the settlement at this part of the West Coast was
Te Rauparaha-rigin,
although not indicating the level of residence
prior to the flight from the eastern coast. Nor does this explain the precise conditions
under which the northerners were amalgamated into the Ngai Tahu, as equals, leaders,
representatives of Niho's maintaining some link for him, or whatever.
Brunner subsequently confirmed in 1847 that Poutini Ngai Tahu had had a
cultivated area on one side of the Inangahua, that
they formerly had a cabbage garden here, to which they resorted for bird
catching, and that had we known, we should have found plenty of vegetables
had we crossed the river, and also an old canoe. They told me that this valley
was their route from the Roturoa to the Mawern. as also to Port Cooper, in
former times, before they were conquered by Enihu [i.e. ~iho].""
199
Charles Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (ed), Early Travrllers, 241.
Charles Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (ed), Early Travellers, 234236. It was men from here whom Heaphy had met at Totara on their way to Nelson.
lY"harles
Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson*.Taylor (ed), Early Travellers, 237.
191
Charles Heaphy, 'Expedition to the South-west of Nelson'. Taylor (ed), Early Travellers, 237.
192
Thomas Brunner, 'Expedition to the Middle of thc Middle Island', 10 January 1847. Taylor
fed),Early Travellers, 273.
189
72
There was, too, an eel station on the Orikaka River, but Brunner did not identify
its owners.
Evidence from Later Nineteenth-Century Sources
By 1852, Mantel1 was commenting that the Ngai Tabu title to the Arahura
district 'has been extinct for some years'. He referred as proof to the boundary of the
'Ngaitahu Block' which ran from Kaiapoi to Cape Foulwind, and added that even
prior to that purchase, 'Taiawa would not have been the party to treat with for that
. ' ~did
~ not explain further who would then have been.
part of the ~ o u n t r ~ 'He
Also in 185 1/52, Ngati Toa leaders were communicating with the Crown,
writing to Governor Grey asserting their rights in the western districts. Key evidence
are the two letters, written in December 1851 and September 1852 respectively, by a
group of senior Ngati Toa chiefs from which this report has already quoted
extensively. They reveal Ngati Toa opinion in an era when they were not having to
squabble over rights before the Native Land Court and before other Crown purchasing
activity challenged their standing more widely. As Boast notes, they were though
concerned about Ngati Rarua who were apparently asserting exclusive rights over a
region from Whakatu and Waimea west and then south down the West Coast to
Arahura. The Ngati Toa chiefs wrote:
Oh friend, Governor. know you that the reason for this letter being written to
you is our great concern at being encircled by Ngaati-Rarua at Whakatuu. at
Wai-mea and all the places on that coast right down to Ara-hura. But we
ourselves should have the authority over h - h u r t ; if their [Ngati Karua'ss]
interests are included with ours, then it wdl be alnght. On the other hand you
must carefully consider the claims of those from the other side. If you are
making a decision about Whakatuu and Wai-mea. then think of us!""
Boast comments:
The Ngati Toa chiefs are here asserting a kind of pre-eminence, and a right to
have their separate interests on the other side of Cook Strait taken into account
But it is not an aclrisive interest that is bein- asserted ('if their interests are
included with ours, then it will be alright'). 18
19;
h.lantcll to Colonial Secretary, 17 May 1852. AJHR, 18.58,42-3, I4
L t t e r of 11 December 128.51. Bias, 'Two Letters', 276.
Boast. .Upper South Island', 228.
Here, that pre-eminent but non-exclusive interest is being claimed as reaching
through the immediate area of Ngati Toa occupation in the eastern Marlborough
Sounds region, through the Nelson region and then down the West Coast to Arahura.
In the English translation, there is a distinction made between 'authority'and
'interests'; Ngati Toa claim to have the overall authority, apparently exclusively,
while they are prepared to acknowledge shared interests. Boast shows that this
correspondence was written in the context of the negotiations over the Pakawau
Purchase of 15 May 1852. Boast also cites correspondence from the Wesleyan
missionary Ironside to the government on 13 May 1852 drawing their attention to
Ngati Toa's unhappiness about the exclusive dealings with Ngati Rams. Further, the
senior Toa chief at the time, Rawiri Puaha, insisted that he should be paid the entire
purchase price for Pakawau, not for personal gain but because as a matter of
'chieftainship' he claimed the right to then disburse the money to Ngati ~ a r u a . ' ~ ~
Boast discusses the Pakawau purchase of 15 May 1852 in some detail."' The
letter of 11 December 1851 was intended to make explicit for Grey the extent of Ngati
Toa's interests. A letter written by the missionary Samuel Ironside just prior to the
conclusion of the negotiations, for which he was present as translator, advised the
Crown of the 'very insolent and outrageous' conduct of the Rarua spokesman,
Wiremu te Kohua, especially threatening Rawiri Puaha and his people as well as all
Europeans. Rawiri was involved for one thing only, the maintenance of Ngati Toa
mana:
It is not a question of money, but of chieftainship. Rawiri does not purpose on
retaining any of the money, but simply to receive it as a Chief and hand it over
to Te Kohua. He has given the list of names as under, whom he wishes to have
the money paid to, and tiley will take it and hand it over to Wiremu Te Kohua
and his party, and if Wiremu shall still behave kino [i.e. badly], he will take and
return the money to yourself. I would not interfere, but that I have great respect
for Rawiri, and he is particularly anxious for me to write.'''
Presumably Ironside's advice was heeded because the signatories to the
Pakawau deed included a number of Ngati Toa chiefs, including Hohepa
Tamaihengia, Wiremu te Kanae and possibly Rawiri Puaha. Boast observes:
The deed is therefore essentially a joint alienation of the area by Ngati Toa and
Ngati Rarua. Rawiri Puaha made no claim to the money, but he did insist on the
196
198
Ironside [to Richmond?]. 13 May 1852. Quoted in Boast. 'Upper South Island', 28.
Boast, 'Upper South Island', 246ff.
Ironside (to Richmond?), 13 May 1852. Quoted In Boast, 'Upper South Island', 249-250.
74
right of the Ngati Toa chiefs to receive it and hand it over, and it is clear that this
was a point which mattered greatly to him.'"
During the next year, McLean negotiated for what became the Te Wai Pounamu
purchase, concluded in August 1853. The block's description in the deed-'signed
by
all the Chiefs of the Ngati Toa Tribe, and several principal Chiefs of other Tribes
interested in the Lands sold1-included
the cession to the Government of various
lands from Port Underwood through the Sounds, Kaituna:
... and the whole of the Western coast of the Middle Island,-as far as their
claims extend: that is to say as far as the Arahura River in the Province of
~anterbur~?'
Later, during the negotiations for the Arahura Purchase, when Ngai Tahu were
objecting to the Crown paying Ngati Toa and Ngati Rarua for West Coast land, James
Mackay defended the Crown's actions and took the offensive against the Ngai Tahu
complaining of them. At one point, Mackay said:
1 contended that these tribes had a right to sell the land, but said I did not see
what that had to do with the present case, as I was dealing with them and not
with the Ngatitoa ... .
We then got into a discussion about the Ngatitoa and Ngaterarua [sic], the
Ngaitahu denying their claims, and I contending they were just, but at the same
time telling them that the Government were willing to pay them as well as the
Ngatitoa. If we acted according to Native law we could take the ground from
them, as we had paid for it ... I recommended them to surrender their cl.dms to
the Crown, and tltke the Reserves offered by me, as it was possible that if they
obstinately persisted in refusing to dispose of the land, that the Government
would ask the Ngatitoa to put them [the Government] in possession.20'
'
He continued:
I said it was certainly strange that Taiaroa one of their principal chiefs arid
greatest men had been present st Wellington at the time the Ngatitoa had been
paid for their claims to the West Coast and he had raised no objection to it ... .
He argued that the Government would hardly pay twice for something if it did not
think it right to do so, in this case offering both them and the northerners money for
the same land.
This indicates a programme of purchasing tribal interests in order to quiet all
Maori claims, rather than a principled investigation. Mackay asserted publicly that the
1%)
Boast, 'Upper South Island', 250. The names of those whom Rawiri insisted should receive
the money were: himself, Pukekohatu, Te Wirihana, Hemi Kepa te Iti, Maka Tarapiko, Wiremu Katene
and Tamati Marino. The present writer is unable lo comment on their tribal affiliation.
200
Domctt to Richmond, 12 August 1553. NP 511. Quoted in Boast, 'Upper South Island', 253.
20'
27 April 1559. Minutes at Arahura. Quoted in Walzl, 'Rarua', 44.
75
northerners did have a right, but in any case all he was about was the acquisition of
the Ngati Tahu interests, whatever they might be, not righting any other wrong.
In the evidence given to the Native Land Court in 1883 concerning the Te
Taitapu Block on the West Coast, an important witness was the elderly Wiremu
Turangapeke of Ngati Rarua, an actual participant in the conquest five decades
previously. He was rebutting Te Ati Awa claims to the area, saying that:
The Conquest was made by Ngati Toa, Ngati Rarua and others. The canoes all
came together but made separate victories. Each party came in their own canoes
Ngati Toa was the chief tribe. I know that Ngati Awa never occupied this land.
You had no part in the conquest. Ngati Toa gave up Kotuku to Ngati ~wa.""
This had Ngati Rarua claiming the rights of occupation, but conceding some overall
primacy to Ngati Toa. This primacy seems to have been both in the conquest itself,
and also in the ability to give to another tribe a key prize, the area's chief, Te Kotuku.
Had Ngati Rarua's claimed exclusive occupation given it correspondingly exclusive
authority, Ngati Toa would not have been able to give such a prize to a thud party, or
at least Rarua would not have recognised so readily that Toa were 'the chief tribe'.
Ngati Toa did not participate in this case in the 1880s and the court recognised Ngati
Rarua as apparently having undisputed possession.203
In the Nelson Tenths case a decade later in 1892, Ngati Rarua evidence given by
Peka Herewine Ngapiko stated that only Ngati Rarua and Ngati Tama had conducted
the expedition going across to the West Coast and down to West Whanganui and
Karamea, after which Te Rauparaha divided up the lands amongst the tribes.'04
Perhaps, after sixty years he was running the two campaigns together and thinking of
those who went down the West Coast as the same as those who campaigned earlier
across Te Tau Ihu. In contrast to his detailed identification of the recipients of land in
most places, he was vague as to who had been allocated the land west of Takaka, only
remembering that it had been a section of Ngati Rarua. He then gave confused
evidence over the rights of Te Ati Awa, and whether Ngati Rarua's rights were
exclusive, but then agreed that 'Ngati Toa had mingled rights to the land together with
202
'03
ZDI
"iiiiOLi3
(1883) 1Nelson MB 10. Quoted m Boast. 'Upper South Island', 39.
Boast, 'Uppcr South Island', 39.
(1892) 2 Nelson MB 173.
W,
the other hapus and that was the reason why they were paid part of the purchase
money
He stated that 'The raupatu that conquered the South Island was under Te
Rauparaha assisted by: Ngati Toa, Ngati Koata, Ngati Rarua, Puketapu (these were
the hapus who conquered the land on the South side of Cook Strait).' He also allowed
that Te Rauparaha was the 'tino Rangatira'over all the tribes down through the Kapiti
segment of the migration, but while denying it for those who came to 'the district' did
say that Te Rauparaha divided the South Island amongst the various hapu because 'He
was the leader and that was why it devolved on him to divide the land amongst the
Judge Alexander Mackay, though, considered that there was no evidence that
Ngati Toa had any rights in Nelson or west. He reached this conclusion by applying a
strict occupation = rights test:
As regards the Ngati Toa claim this hapu [sic], altllough it took part with the
other hapus in conquering the Country on the South side of Cook Straits did not
occupy any portion of the territory gained in that manner within the Nelson
Settlement. The only places retained by that hapu in the South Island were
situated at Cloudy Bay, the Wairau and the Pelorus, these were the only places
in the 'bona fide'possession of this hapu at the foundation of the Colony,
consequently they had not acquired any proprietary rights in any other part of
the territory acquired from the original owners."'
As we have already discussed elsewhere, this direct and exclusive equation of
occupation and rights is arguable. Furthermore, regardless of the claims to primacy of
rights, there has been considerable evidence that indeed Ngati Toa did enjoy some
occupation in Nelson and west, which Mackay took no cognisance of. Neither did he
take any notice, as Boast shows, of the very basis of the Tenths in Spain's award
based on the New Zealand Company's purchase from Ngati Toa chiefs. Mackay's
reliance on the 1540 Rule may also be noted: the situation in Te Tau Ihu was still very
fluid in 1840 and it would be hard to argue that the state of affairs then, even if
accurately determined, was an authoritative representation of rights prior to that
time-or
even at the precise moment of the negotiations with the New Zealand
Company, or of Spain's awards. Boast concludes:
(1592) 2 Nelson MB 175. Also quoted in Boast, 'Upper South Island', 42. Boast also
discusses this and other matters relating to that case later in his report at 255ff.
2M
(1892) 2 Nelson MB 177.
(1892) 2 Nelson MB 5. Quoted in Boast, 'Upper South Island', 292-293.
OlifIUlli K11
Rights of occupation were supposed to be protected by the award of separate
artd adclifiortalreserves. Mackay's decision to base interest in the Tenths simply
on the basis of occupation is simply a non-sequitur?'
The northerners9ettlements went some distance down the West Coast. At the
Taitapu case before the Native Land Court in 1883, Wirihana Turangapeka of Ngati
Rarua testified that:
We claim through conquest, and have occupied it ever since. I came with the
conquerors. Some of us lived at Whanganui, near the inlet ... also a large
settlement at Paturau, at the mouth of the river ... at Te Anaoeka [sic, Anaweka
near Kahurangi] ... and at Kahurangi. There is a pah at Paturau. This was the
largest one, where most of the people lived. There were small ones. Also burial
places all along the coast, at certain distances from one a n ~ t h e r . ' ~
Hoani Mahuika of Rangitane, Ngati Apa and Ngati Kuia, and who now lived at
Westport, claimed as an original occupant of the Whanganui district, saying:
They fought without warning or provocation. Nsati Rarua, with Ngati Toa came
over... . They conquered and took possession ... . I claim on behalf of the hapus I
belong to. The conquerors allowed some to live, of whom I am the
representative. If they had killed them all, they would now be able to have
undisputed possession.210
He thus agreed that Ngati Toa was with Ngati Rarua in the conquest and taking of
possession of the upper West Coast. He was disputing their exclusive rights on the
basis that they had not exterminated the original tribes, but he was not denying it, and
he was including Toa with Rarua in the 'they' who had conquered and taken
possession.
Others from the Rangitanemgati ApaiNgati Kuia grouping also testified that a
conquest had taken place. Some had been taken away to Wairau, Whanganui and
Motueka as slaves and had never since lived on the Whanganui land. Even Alexander
Mackay, who as land court judge a decade later would deny Ngati Toa any claim west
of the Sounds, testified that 'Ngati Toa, Ngati Rarua, came here. Ngati Rarua then
took possession and have held it ever since. They were in possession in 1840 and have
exercised every authority ever since.""
As to Ngai Tahu claims to possess or re-possess the area up the West Coast
from Arahura, they are confronted by Ngati Apa's traditional claim coming south.
Phillipson summarises:
a9
210
211
Boast, 'Upper South Island', 293.
(1883) 1 Nelson MB 4.
(1583) 1 Nelson MB 5.
(1883) 1Nelson MB 10.
Whether or not this claim [of Ngati Apa'sl is accepted, the reports of Brunner
and Heaphy suggest that the Kawatiri district was occupied by neither
Raruairama nor Ngai Tahu in 1840, and that Ngai Tahu did not take up
residence there until 1846.~"
We may add that there was also the Rangitane claim further north of Ngati
Apa's. Phiilipson does not take further the issue of Ngai Tahu's not having been north
of Nawhera into Kawatiri prior to the mid-1840s, but it would prima facie seem
difficult to use such late occupation as establishing a countervailing customary rights
against the claims of Ngati Apa and Rangitane, and then their northern conquerors.
As was the case on the eastern coast, any re-occupation north of Mawhera was,
in any case, very limited. In 1857, James Mackay found Kakaroa abandoned and only
three people living at ~awatiri.""
Concerning claims below Arahura and Kaiapoi, one was advanced by Te
Puoho's nephew and Ngati Tama leader Te Wahapiro, apparently in 1852 in the
aftennath of the Wairau purchase and during the Te Wai Pounamu negotiations, for
land where Te Puoho had perished:
The Te Wahapiro bethought him of the land where died Te Puoho, at Tuturau.
He considered that owing to the desire of Sir George Grey when he asked for
Wairnu as payment for his dead. So he spoke in the presence of Ngati-Toa and
the chiefs approved of that sale and the boundaries of the land sold. Tuturau was
the boundary to the South, Kahurangi the boundary on the East beyond
Whanganui. The money agreed upon for that area was £5000.""
This was the account of the Ngati Toa chief Wiremu te Kanae, indicating that
the idea for Tuturau land emerged in 1852, suggested by the Crown representative,
Governor Grey, having played a 'respect for the dead' card during the negotiations for
Wairau. By 1852, of course, such a claim would have had to be satisfied by the
Crown, not Ngai Tahu, since the area had by then been purchased and was out of
Maori ownership. Regardless of the claim's validity in terns of Maori custom, it
certainly seemed fair to Ngati Toa that if the Crown should ask for consideration in
land where Pakeha died then they should be able to ask the Crown for land where
their allies had died. This was not, though, a late claim but advanced early during the
negotiations for the broad-ranging Te Wai Pounamu purchase. Other negotiations in
the north had been much more localised, while prior to the Crown purchases from
212
211
Phillipson, 'Northern South Island", 25
Walzl, 'Rarua', 37.
Te Kanae TS, IS.
Ngai Tahu Ngati Toa would have been unable to advance such a claim even if it had
been preexistent and had had to lie in their minds until an opportunity arose to seek
to have it met.
The Arahura Purchase, as with the Te Waipounamu and eastern coast purchases,
was a politically driven affair. Hamilton had noted that his Kaiapoi purchasing was
predicated on the Crown's prior political decision to recognise Ngai Tahu rights, and
it became apparent that Mackay's in Arahura was, too. For example, as Walzl reports:
In this letter [of 19 November 18581, and subsequent correspondence, Mackay
further asked whether he was purchasing a11 the West Coast as a matter of
course, or whether he was just extinguishing the claims of Mawhera and
Arahura Maori. McLean responded that this matter would be left up to
Mackay's discretion.""
It was of small concern to McLean just what Mackay called what he was doing, so
long as the final result was the quieting of Maori complaints about the purchase
process and the Crown being able to assert its title to the area, having paid off all the
Maori groups who might lay claim to it. The key to his activities was to determine
reserves that would be sufficient for Maori without creating undue cost for the Crown;
he was even told to set reserves as far as possible with natural boundaries, so as to
minimise surveying costs.
Maori Appellate Court 1990
With regard to the West Coast, the Maori Appellate Court found that there was
no recognisable challenge posed to Ngai Tahu in the area covered by the Arahura
Purchase. It stated bluntly:
In respect of the case presented by Ngati Toa in the area of the Arahura Deed.
we find that they did not establish their claim. There was no evidence led which
showed a cultural tradition with the area beyond leading at the early stages the
invasion with their allies. There is nothing which suggests settlement or the
exercise of any authority. They appear to have left any interest they would have
established to their allies whom we have already considered, and limited their
interests to the Cloudy Bay area."6
215
216
Walzl, 'Rarua', 39.
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,692.
Would Ngati Toa have had to exercise authority over the Poutini Ngai Tahu
living on the West Coast, or over the Ngati Apa who fled there? Would it have been
enough that Te Rauparaha's influence extended over the allies who conquered the
region? The court found that the allies concerned, Ngati R a m , also failed to establish
rights themselves in the region and thus any right on which Ngati Toa could come in.
Specifically, the court was impressed by the evidence that Niho and his people
left the West Coast and retreated to Taitapu after the defeat and death of Te Puoho,
fearing retribution from the Murihiku Ngai Tahu. The court stated:
For the purpose of this Court, once Niho and his people left it becomes
irrelevant whether he was a conqueror in occupation or a friendly iwi living with
Ngai Tahu with their consent; we agree with Ngai Tahu that any rights he may
have had were extinguished according to Maori custom. We say this because
there is no evidence before us that he left any of his iwi behind to maintain the
ahi kaa; as well Ngai Tahu's evidence that Niho never returned south of
Kahurangi Point is uncontradicted.
We believe that consistent with this view if Ngati Toa, Rangitane andTe Ati
Awa rely upon conquest and occupation by Niho or Takerei to substantiate their
claims to Tai Poutini any such right would necessarily have been lost with those
chiefs' ~ithdra\vais."~
Heaphy's account, though, notes that as late as 2846147 Niho was still
trying to exercise some control over access to an indeterminate area south of
the Whanganui Inlet-'
the whole of the coast beyond'-and
he had been
manifestly active south of Kahurangi Point. Heaphy's report has the description
of him having exercised extractive use rights down to Rocky Point and
cultivation rights down to the Heaphy River. Partly, the importance of this
evidence is a question of timing. Did Niho gather nuts, sink boats and grow
potatoes prior to 1840 or after Ngai Tahu regained rights there, if they did? If
Niho had left the Mawhera area after 1840, to what extent could Ngai Tahuwithout apparent re-occupation themselves, but on Heaphy's showing merely
exercising some transitory usage-regain
rights to the north?
The court also dismissed claims by Rangitane and Ngati Apa of interests in
Arahura, on the back of which Ngati Toa might have come in as conquerors of those
iwi. The court stated that the foundation of the Rangitane claim was the
acknowledged right of Puaha te Rangi, but then accepted Ngai Tahu evidence that
Puaha was there not because Rangitane had rights but because he personally was also
of Ngai Tahu. Rights claimed for 'Ngati Apa and possibly other northern tribe
remnants' were found to have been no more than rights of residence and that that
residence was only on Ngai Tahu ~ufferance."~The court summarised its
conclusions:
[Concerning] the relevant law applicable in cases of this nature we accepted that
to attain ownership there must have been one of the original Take supported by
actual occupation. We refer to our finding that Ngati Toa on the East Coast had
conquered Ngai Tahu at east as far South as Kaiapoi yet because they did not
remain in occupation, though they had Take Raupatu they did not attain
ownership. In this West Coast question we have the opposite situation i.e.
occupation or residency but not supported by a customary take ... .'I9
It may be noted that once again, the Maori Appellate Court was very impressed
with the opinion of James Mackay, at least in part because of his reputation as one of
what were called 'Native men', experts in dealing with ~aori.'" The same criticism
of his opinion concerning Arahura may be raised as was with regard to the eastern
coast, that when he gave it in 27 September 1859 he was not in fact the expert on
matters Maori that he later became through the next half-century. The court itself
states that process of Crown purchasing through the northern South Island at this time
was one of 'attempting to extinguish all Maori claims regardless of their validity',
while payments as such are evidence of nothing more than the Crown's disbursement
of money.22' Yet the court immediately goes on to find it 'significant' that Mackay
knew about McLean having in 1854 already paid out money to extinguish the claims
of Takerei and Ngati Rarua, and 'extremely valuable' that Mackay proceeded in
dealing with Ngai Tahu when already possessing this knowledge."'
With respect, if the Crown purchasing process is regarded merely as one of
quieting the clamour of any Maori group that claimed an interest-as
several times that it was-then
the court says
it is hard to see Mackay's actions as particularly
remarkable, 'significant' or 'valuable' in terms of assessing the relative merits of a
given group's customary interests. As with Hamilton previously at Kaiapoi, Mackay
was in the position of treating with Ngai Tahu on the West Coast because the
218
219
220
221
222
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,696.
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,696-697.
(1990) 4 SlAppMB 673,695-696.
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,695.
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 673,696.
government had decided to do so, and had commissioned him to perform the task, not
because he was investigating the situation in isolation or de novo.
In this connection, having surveyed the opinions of the three key officials
dealing with lands in Te Tau Ihu in the mid-nineteenth century, Boast concludes that
the differences between them emphasise the methodology of evaluation:
whether Ngati Toa are seen to have rights west of Whakatu turns not so much on
disputed historical facts but rather on how one chooses to interpret Maori
customary practice. I would argue that the issue was simply not as clear-cut as
[Native Land Court Judge Alexander] Mackay seems to assume."-'
'23
Boast, 'Upper South Island', 51
03IliOl33 KII
Conclusion
The claims of Ngati Toa in the South Island date-as
has been shown-from
at
least the earliest European records relating to the region. The claims go to the heart of
how Ngati Toa and their leadership perceived themselves and their relationships with
other tribal groups throughout central New Zealand between Banks Peninsula and
Taranaki.
These claims derive from the invasion Ngati Toa led of Te Wai Pounamu from
the late 1820s. The nature of conquest and the derivation of rights from it under Maori
custom therefore assume considerable importance. While many issues relating to that
must be left to others with greater expertise, a number of points can be made, mostly
relating to the issue of influence and its exercise.
Alan Ward applies a valuable test concerning the effects of Raupatu:
After a battle one tribe might claim the rights of raupatu, and dominant mana
over the land. The other might say, in effect, we lost the battle, but we are still
here, not far away, as we have been for hundreds of years, we concede nothing
to the Johnny-come-latelys, and when we have gathered our connections from
neighbouring or related hapu we will have utu for our losses in the last battle. It
is difficult to deny completely either of these claims, if there were people Living
on or near the land to make them. Customarily, they were resolved by assertion
of force and the expulsion or nenr-enslavement of one group by another, or by a
clear and public agreement observed by all parties, or by the passage of tirneby the on-going and undisturbed occupation of the land by a particular group or
groups over successive generation^.^'^
If one applies this to the northern South Island, one reaches different
conclusions for different areas. For Te Tau Ihu, it is clear that the original tribes
remained in some degree. However, it is also clear that they were thoroughly
overwhelmed and subjugated by the northerners who must thereby have gained
primary rights over the lands. In this context, the southern tribes would have retained
some ongoing rights, and these would normally have been adjusted over the years as
the invaders married into the southern bloodlines and a nzodz~svivrtzdi was developed
by which each group principally occupied more or less clearly specified areas. It
would usually have been a lengthy organic process, but in the case of Te Tau Ihu, as
224
Ward, 'Port Nicholson', iv.
84
with other areas affected by the Musket Wars, that process was interrupted by the
arrival of Europeans and the supervention of the colonial government's land
purchasing and settlement programmes taking the land out of Maori hands anyway. At
the time of European arrival, the northerners were still in undisputed control, Te
Rauparaha was still at the height of his power and influence. So, in the 1830s and
1840s, v i s - h i s the southern tribes, northern Maori and ultimately Ngati Toa
occupied a pre-eminent position regarding those conquered southern tribes and thus
their lands.
As regards the eastern coast, it is apparent that Ngati Toa did not occupy all the
lands conquered down to and including Kaiapoi and Banks Peninsula; there were just
not enough of them to do so. There is some evidence of a small amount of Ngati Toa
occupation on the Kaikoura Coast, but it seems indisputable that the substantial
occupation was limited to Cloudy Bay. The 'imperial centre' was at Kapiti and the
empire ran across Cook Strait, so the focus was always in that region and the purpose
was to develop and control trade. The lands further south were of diminishing interest
the further away they were from the strait and the European settlements. Yet it was
desirable to control them for a variety of reasons: Te Rauparaha was clearly motivated
by personal prestige and that of his iwi; the more territory he and they controlled the
greater the associated prestige. The lands to the south provided a physical buffer
against his bitter enemies, whose enmity still burned through the years after the
invasion. He might lack the power and increasingly the opportunity to go further
south and exterminate the entirety of Ngai Tahu as he seemed to wish to do in the
early 1830s, but he could continue to aggravate them by effectively keeping them out
of everywhere north of Kaiapoi for a decade. The lands had some economic value in
terms of resources, such as the mussels at Lake Rotoroa and the ducks at Lake
Grassmere, and whatever crops and products the subjugated peoples such as Wairau
Rangitane could be made to produce.
However, as regards Ngati Toa's i n h e n c e , it also seems ihat it remained strong
enough to keep Ngai Tahu off the Kaikoura Coast. Ngai Tahu might claim against
Rangitane to have had traditional rights up to Parinui, purportedly setting aside the
Rangiitane assertion of occupation down to Waipapa, but they were certainly in no
position to exercise any such rights after 1828. Nor did they re-occupy even to
Kaikoura until well after the arrival of colonial authority. Even subsequently, there is
85
little evidence that they did so and so in Ward's words it would seem hard to advance
a 'we are still herebrgument for much of the North Canterbury-Kaikoura Coast area,
and not at all for anywhere very far north of Kaikoura. Despite Ngai Tahu having sent
a couple of raids northwards, which did relatively little by way of harm, the Ngati Toa
influence was still strong enough for a generation to prevent them from lighting any
fires on the land themselves.
This evidence does, of course, accord with the Rangitane claims of being the
traditional owners as far south as Waipapa, and with Ngati Toa's of having gained
rights 'well to the south of the Wairau Valley'. The evidence seems to support Ngati
Toa's claim to non-exclusive rights, shared with Rangitane, below the Takiwa line at
Parinui south to Waipapa. Beyond that point, south towards Kaiapoi, clearly any
Ngati Toa interest as invaders would be shared with Ngai Tahu as tangata whenua and
it would become rapidly attenuated moving through Kaikoura and beyond in territory
where Ngai Tahu clearly did keep some fires alight.
The issue of land at Kaiapoi itself remains uncertain. Claiming an area
specifically where one's dead are buried is one thing, but there is also the evidence
from the Te Kanae manuscript of Ngati Toa actually having paid the Government a
substantial sum of money for such land in the Kaiapoi vicinity. No corresponding
reserve has been identified in the materials viewed in the preparation of this report.
On the West Coast, Ngati Toa have also asserted interests based on the
northerners' conquests as far south as Arahura. Again, these assertions depend on two
considerations: the rights gained by the conquerors as against Ngai Tahu, and the
internal division of rights amongst the conquerors. It is clear that the area was
conquered down to present Hokitika, and that this time the invaders did occupy for
some years. The principal Ngai Tahu chief, Tuhuru, was brought to
Rangitoto/D'Urville and made a formal submission and presentation of a pounamu
mere to Te Rauparaha himself, not to any intermediate, non-Ngati Toa chief, while
Tuhurua's daughter was given in marriage to Ngati Rarua chief Niho. All this argues
for the northerners' supremacy and Ngati Toa's within that. On the other hand, in this
case the invaders, having been there for a while. mostly withdrew-not
to an intermediate position-but
entirely, but
still actively enforced Ngai Tahu working for them
and paying tribute. Yet it was not until the mid-1840s that Ngai Tahu began any
attempt to re-occupy the lands even up to Karamea, and it remained on a very small
scale.
Any revival of Ngai Tahu's fortunes in the later 1830s does not seem to have
been translated into any action that subverted Ngati Toa's control in the Wairau, or for
the northerners on the West Coast. Rather, the shifts in Ngati Toa occupation patterns
were more likely affected by the increasing European presence in the
KapitiMarlborough Sounds region for purposes of trading, sealing and whaling.
Some, for example, clearly developed close connections with the onshore whaling
stations such as that at Te Awaiti in the Tory Channel, whether working as part of the
whaling crews or marrying Pakeha whalers and thus becoming to that degree
separated from their Maori whanau. As whaling subsided through the 1840s, so the
Ngati Toa focus shifted to other types of trade and commercial activity. To the extent
that their occupation and use patterns were affected, none of this reflected Ngai Tabu
pushing them out of Te Wai Pounamu.
Professor Ward has considered in the Wellington Tenths inquiry the question of
whether Ngati Toa's position with regard to the other tribes resulted in any rights over
the region beyond that actually occupied by Ngati Toa itself. He evaluates the various
claims of those allies who objected and resisted, then states:
i conclude therefore that Ngati Toa (not just Te Rauparaha) had a customary
interest in the Port Nicholson purchase area, by virtue of their leadership of the
heke and the military conquest of the whole region. They were not
overlord^'.^^
Ward does not agree that occupation was the crucial factor (although noting that
Spain once again applied his judgment on conquest to deny them 'ownership')), but
the mana toa ascribed to such war leaders as Te Rauparaha. This situation is, of
course, directly analogous to the situation in the northern South Island with many
similar claims being made by the same people or groups. Some such interest based on
'their leadership of the heke and the military conquest of the whole region' is broadly
similar to current Ngati Toa claims of non-exclusive rights.
The Wairau Purchase can not be regarded as a free and fair purchase of Ngati
Toa's interests; political considerations governed Grey's actions in that case to the
detriment of many Maori groups, beginning with Ngati Toa themselves.
225
Ward, 'Port Nicholson', 154
03lll0133 Kli
Correspondingly, it does not appear that the fact that the Crown made purchases from
Ngai Tahu in the Kaiapoi and Kaikoura Purchases is an authoritative indicator of Ngai
Tahu interests stretching all the way to Parinui and of Ngati Toa having none. As has
been noted about the Kaiapoi, Kaikoura, Arahura and Te Wai Pounamu purchasing,
so Ward says of comparable activity in Wairarapa at just this same time that:
These purchases appears [sic] largely to be typical McLean 'washing up'
payments, to settle doubts about the Crown's title and pay off chiefs who
demanded recognition based on former association.'^
Phillipson concludes:
The main issue between these iwi [Ngai Tahu and Ngati Toa] today is whether
the boundary behveen Ngai Tahu and Te Tau Ibu should be the old Rangitane
boundary at the Waiau-Toa, or the newer boundary affixed by the Crown at
Parinui o Whiti in the late 1850s.~'
This report has concluded that in fact the Crown's affixing of the Parinui
boundary in the 1850s was not done following any investigation which can be relied
on as a guide to traditional interests. Indeed, it was determined following the bare
assertions of Ngai Tahu leaders in purchases negotiated with officials who were not
expert in either Maori custom or in the history of the region. No other tribal groups
were consulted and the officials concerned negotiated, rather than investigated, trying
to determine not exact ownership rights but how little money and land Maori could be
persuaded to settle for. It has been shown by extensive historical research, noted in
this report, that the h4cLean-era purchases at this time were in fact not directly related
to specific tribal rights. Rather, they were conducted on a basis of political necessity
or expediency, attempting to pay off all Maori who claimed to have an interest. Even
under this superficial system, Ngai Tahu were adjudged to have interests worth only a
fraction of what was paid to Ngati Toa and the other northern tribal groups.
Boast has reached a similar conclusion:
My main argument is that Ngati Toa's rights in the northern South Island were
of two kinds. The first is that based on conquest and effective occupation [i.e.
the type of interest recognised first by Spain and most recently by the Maori
Appellate Court]. There can be little doubt that Ngati Toa were regarded as
direct owners at Cloudy Bay-Port Underwood, the Wairau area (meaning the
lower Wairau valley and especially the river flood-plain near the coast) and at
least in sections of Te Hoiere (Pelorus Sound). These areas were as much Ngati
Toa 'property'as were Porirua, Kapiti Island or Pukerua Bay. Beyond these core
areas Ngati Toa also held a more nebulous but still very real and important
226
227
Ward, 'Port Nicholson', 149.
Phiilipson, 'Northern South Island" 54.
primacy over a much larger area, indeed arguably over the whole of the
Northern South Island. This primacy was of course strongly believed in by Ngati
Toa themselves. It was also accepted to varying degrees by others. Whether this
'primacy' arose from Maori custom or out of power politics is unclear and
perhaps irrelevant.zY
It may well be irrelevant since power ruled during Te Rauparaha's lifetime,
which lasted until 1849, and despite the conflicts amongst alliance members in the
late 1830s weakening the alliance no-one supplanted the Ngati Toa leadership. Prior
to 1840, the Ngati Toa chief was effectively monarch of a11 he surveyed and only as
the Pax Britamica spread, a new authority emerged in Aotearoa, and the world
changed did his grip loosen. The Pakeha observations of people challenging him only
occur after this time, while the Ngati Toa leaders themselves asserted at the beginning
of the 1850s that during the years of war no-one would have considered questioning
their authority and only with Ngati Toa now not being able to exercise forceful
control could the 'buzzing flies' pester the Governor.
The conclusion to which this report comes follows Professor Ward's statement
quoted earlier:
... it was possible for various individuals
and groups to have interests in the same land, corresponding both to their
occupation and usage and to their mana as leaders of conquering roups (who
could not, of course, be occupying and using all the land at once).5 2 9 [Emphasis
in original]
To revert to common law terminology
On this understanding, the conclusion may be reached that Ngati Toa had
interests throughout the top of the South Island. On the one hand, they bad interests
deriving from the mana gained as leaders of conquering groups over the areas that
were subject to the conquests conducted by both they themselves and their allies. On
the other hand, they had interests in specific and much more limited areas on the basis
of occupation and usage. The second area was basically the Cloudy BayiPort
Undewoodffory Channel region with some other locations through the Sounds and
further west. The area covered by the first source of interests-the
of conquerors-runs
mana of the leaders
down the West Coast probably to Arahura and down the eastern
coast to least Waipapa and at least through most of the 1830s and 1840s probably
some distance past Kaikoura. Other groups share in the rights in those areas, but Ngati
129
Boast, 'Upper South Island', 27.
Ward, 'Port Nicholson', 9.
USIJIOI3I 1[13
Toa has justifiably maintained their claims over those areas continuously since the
days of Te Rauparaha.
Wiremu Neera te Kanae, 'The History of the Tribes Ngati-Toarangatira, Ngati-Awao-Runga-o-te-Rangi and Ngati-Raukawa'. 20 August 1888. TS trans George
Graham, Auckland, 20 April 1928. In 'Supporting Documents to Maori
Customary Interests ....' By Alan Ward. Wai 145 Doc Ml(a)
Maori Land Court Minutebooks
Trarucribed in Boast, 'Upper South Island: Appendix 3
(1868) 1 C Otaki MB
(1883) 1Nelson MB
(1892) 2 Nelson MB
MfzoriAppellate Court Decision 1990. Case stated 2/89.
(1990) 4 SIAppMB 672.
Appendix to the Joirrnak ojthe Home ojRepresentatives [AJHR]
1858, C-3. Reports relative to Land Purchases and the Condition of the Natives in the
Middle Island
1858, C-4. Deeds of Purchase of Land in the Middle Island
1872, H-9. Report of the Committee on Middle Island Native Affairs
1876, G-7. Report by F.D. Fenton, Esquire, Chief Judge, Native Lands Court, on the
Petition of Ngaitahu
1880, G-7. Correspondence relative to the Middle Island Native Land Commission
1881, G-6. Report of the Commission on Middle Island Native Land Purchases
1889,I-10. Report of the Joint Committee on Middle Island Native Claims
Research Reports
Armstrong, David, 'Brief of Evidence', 2003. Wai 785 Doc M3,Wai 44 Doc E3
, "'The Right of Deciding'? Rangitane ki Wairau and the Crown, 1840-1900'.
Wai 44 Doc AliWai 785 Doc A80
Boast, R.P., 'Ngati Toa and the Upper South Island: A Report to the Waitangi
Tribunal', 2 vols, September 1999iMarch 2000. Wai 785 Doc A56
Bradley, Richard, 'Brief of Evidence', 2003. Wai 785 Doc M2Wai 44 Doc E2
Nicholson, Ngarongo Iwikatea, 'Further Statement of Evidence for the Waitangi
Tribunal Hearing on the Wellington Tenths Claim', 15 September 1998. Wai
145
Norton, Graeme, 'Brief of Evidence', 2003. Wai 44
Phillipson, G.A., 'The Northern South Island', Rangahaua Whanui District 13, 1995.
Wai 785 Doc A24
Walzl, Tony, 'Ngati Rarua and the West Coast 1827-1940', 2000. Wai 594 Doc
B2iCVai 785 Doc B5
Ward, Alan, 'Maori Customary Interests in the Port Nicholson District, 1820s to
1840s: An Overview', 1998. Wai 145 Doc MI.
Published Sources
Ballara, Angela, Iwi: the Dynamics of iMnori Tribal Organisation from c. 1769 to c.
1945, Wellington, Victoria University Press, 1998
Belich, James, Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders, Auckland, Allen
Lane, 1996
Biggs, Bruce, 'Two Letters from Ngaati-Toa to Sir George Grey', Journal of the
Polynesian Society, vol68, no 4 (December 1959), 263-276
Butler, Peter (ed), L$e and Tinzes of Te Ranparaha by his son Tatnihana te
Rauparaha, Martinborough, Alister Taylor, 1980
Carman, Arthur H., Tawa Flat and the Old Porirua Road 1840-1970, Tawa, the
Author, rev edn 1970
Chambers, W.A., Samuel Ironside in New Zealand 1839-1858, Auckland, Ray
Richards Publisher, 1982
Crosby, R.D., The Musket Wars, Auckland, Reed, 1999
Elvy, W.J., Kei Pufa te W'airau: A History of Marlborotcgh m Maori Times, reprint
edn, Christchurch, Cadsonbury Publications, 1997
Evison, Harry C., Tlie Long Dispute: Maori Land Rights and European Colonistrtm~
in Southern New Zealand, Christchurch, Canterburv University Press, 1997
, Te Wai Porcrzantu The Greenstone Island, Wellkgton & christchurch, Aoraki
Press, 1993
Heaphy, Charles, Narrative of a Residence in Various Parts ojNew Zealand, 1842,
reprint edn, Dunedin, Hocken Library, 1968
McLean. Chris, Kapiti, Wellington, Whitcombe Press, 1999
Sherrard, J.M., ICnikoura: A History of the District, Kaikoura. 1966; reprint edn
Christchurch, Cadsonbury Publications, 1998
Shortland, Edward, The So~ltiternDistricts of lzietv Zealand, London, 1845; reprint edn
Christchurch, Capper Press, 1974
Stack, James West, Kaiapohia: The Story o f a Siege, Christchurch 6% Dunedin,
Whitcombe & Tombs, 1893
Taylor, Nancy (ed), Early Travellers tn New Zealand, Oxford, Clarendon, 1959
Waitangi Tribunal, Ngai Tahu Report, 3 vols, Wellington, Brooker & Friend, 1991
Wakefield, Edward Jerningham, Adventure in New Zealand, 2 vols, London, John
Murray, 1845
Supplementary
aterial to Report 'We Say That We Have
the Authority': Ngati Toa's Claim to Customary Rights in
Relation to the 'Ngai Tahu Takiwa'
Bryan Gilling
July 2003
Explanation of this Document
L
I submitted my report 'We Say that We Have tile Authority: Ngati Toa's CCIaim to Customary
Rights in Relation io the Wgai Tahu Takiwa"'on 21 May 2003 (Wai 785 Doc # P29).
Subsequently, further information has come to my attention on several matters canvassed in
that report, including complete copies of documents I sighted and quoted only in part from
secondary sources in that report.
2
The present tlocument is therefore submitted as supplementary material, expanding upon
issues touched upon in my report. It is not intended to introduce documentation unseen by the
parties to this inquiry, but rather to provide additional analysis of documents already on the
Te Tau Ihu record of inquiry or on tile public record which are central to the Ngati Toa case
with regard to tile 'takiwa' issue.
3
The documents cited in this supplementary material are:
Colonel William Wakefield's Diary, typescript, qms 2102, ATL. Attachment to Matiu
Nohorua Rei, 'Brief of Evidence', ,12. Wai 785 Doc P2
Alexander illackay, A Corrrperrrfironoj'Ofjkim1 Docunie~itsreliitive to Nurive ilffirics in
the Soirth Island, Wellington, Government Printer, I873
*
Sir George Grey, 'Evidence Relating to ihe Wairau Deeds'. MA 6714 WNA. Wai 785
Doc A39 no 20. Transcripr in Richard Peter Boast, 'Nzati Tort and the Upper South
Island: A Report to the Waitangi Tribunal', Vol 11, March 2000, pp 367-370. Wai 785
Doc A56
*
Evidence of Henare Rakiihia Tau in respect of Cross-claims by Kurahaupo Waka
Society and Others. h%tiAprz ki Te IVitiporrrriinrri Trust v Aftortrey-Gerreral arrd
Otlzers. CA 192102 ROP Exhibit N9
Evidence of Harry Charles Evison, 'The Norillern and Inland Boundaries of the
Kaikoura and Arahura Porcilases of James IvIackay, 1859-1860'. iVgati Apa ki Te
IVaiporarun~uTrust v A f t o r m y G e r r e r and Oihers. CA 192102 ROP Exhibit N14
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996
Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998
4
This supplementary material includes:
The Situation in 1839: William Wakefield's Observations ........................................................ 3
Queen Charlotte Sound ...............................................................................................................
3
Pelorus ........................................................................................................................................
4
Ngati Toa Trans-Strait Influenc
Ngati Toa Influence and Right
Ngai Tahu and Ngati Toa in the 1830Grey and the Wairau Purchase
Mantell, Hamilton and Mackay on the Kaikoura Coast ........................................................... 14
Takiwa Boundaries Ancient and Modern .................................................................................
25
The Situation in 1839: Williau~Wakefield's Observations
Colonel William Wakefield was perhaps the first European to observe intently and record
extensively a Pakeha perspective and mderstanding of rights to Maori land in central New
Zealand. He was obliged to inquire and observe since he was supposed to be making
purchases from the appropriate right-holders, and he was required to report systematically and
in detail to his en~ployersin London, who were basing their enterprise on his activities. His
observations were also made prior to large-scale European presence and Crown intervention
in the region.
Queen Charlotte Sound
As soon as the Tory made its first contact with land in New Zealmti at Ship Cove in Queen
Charlotte Sound on 17 August 1839, it was met by Maori coming out in a ramshackle canoe.
This group not only wishcd to trade but described themselves:
"These men are of the Ngatiinhatinglii [sic] tribe whose chief lives here and
is tributary to Raupero, the head of the Capiti tribes, who lives at Capiti or
Entry Island. This part of the Sound, however, is owned by Hiko, Raupero's
Nephew, who inherited i t from Ti Pahi, and who will proh~blysucceed
Raupero as chief of the Capiti ~ribes.'"
Whoever this group were, they were inimediately identifiable as being in a tributary
relationship to Te ~nupzaraha.'Te Hiko's 'ownership' of this part of the Sound also placed
Wakcfield, diary, 17 August 1839.
He later described them as numbering perhaps 80-90, living a mile and a half nearer the entrance of the
sound than Ship Cove at Antrho, and their chief as being Ngarewa. Ngarewa knew about both Taranaki
and a harbour some 20 miles south of Cape Fdre\vell with an abundance of coal, presumably Wesl
Whanganui. This all suggesests he and his people were a group of Te Ati Axva. The locntion of the
Ngati Toa in that area. This group also told Wakefield of a skirmish a few months previously
between Te Rauparaha and the local Te Ati Awa, won by Te Rauparaha and in which eight
men had been killed, establishing peace.
6.3
Wakefield concluded after a week or so at Ship Cove that land rights on both sides of the
strait were confused, especially because traditional rights had been "usurped by tribe after
tribe during 11 series of wars'. This, he thought, would allow a body of settlers to 'locate
themselves, without purchase, in almost any part of the shores of the Straight [sic],
unmolested by any body'. Already individuals could do so but only by marrying into ;I group
to gain its protection. Being 'the natural consequences of irregular colonization' the present
situation also conveniently contrasted with 'a better system' such as the Company had to
offer, and would 'speedily give way' to such a system." He was evaluating matters from his
perspective of seeking to impose (or at least introduce) en orderly settlement system,
compared with which, such apparently 'coufused'relationships as governed Maori land and
rights would have appeared, from his European perspective, inherently chaotic.
7
Pelorus
7.1
When Wakefield first went to explore the Pelorus River a s a potential site for settlement, he
took with the party 'a young Chief of the Kafia tribe, to whom the natives living in Admiralty
Bay would show deference as one of the heads of the party who had conquered them and
taken possession of their territory'? His name was 'Eboa', perhaps [El Puaha. Moving up the
Pelorus, they encountered a group of Rangitane, who had been 'made prisoners four or five
years ago by Raupero and the Kath people'. This group appeared to Wakefield thoroughly
cowed at the presence of the Ngati Toa chief:
"These poor people received u s in fear and trembling; holding their lives at
the mercy of the Chiefs, one of whom was with us. We encamped near them
at night and found them very different from the free people we had seen.
They are scarcely aflowed to possess anything beyond the bare means of
existence and pay heavy tribute yearly to their masters."'
7.2
On Guard's Island. they found more Kangitane slaves and a substantial and prosperous Ngati
Toa settlement. The chief there was the elder brother of [he one who had travelled with
Wakefield's party (the brothershames were Enai, Eboa and Charley), and since 'his tribe
3
4
5
western harbour as West Whangaoui was later confirmed to Wakefield by Dicky Barrett who had
visited and brought back 10 tons of coal, dug up at high water mark on the beach.
Wakefield, diary, 29 August 1839.
Wakefield, diary, 6 Septemher 1839.
Wakefield, diary, 8 September 183Y.
owned the Oyerri [Pelorus] by right of conquest,' Enai wished to find out whether Wakefield
wanted to buy it for settlement. Wakefield understood the three brothers to be 'snxious to sell
to Europeans, in the hope of deriving benefits, which they have learned to appreciate 'through
dealings with the Te Awaiti whalers." Wakefield was prevented from immediately entering
into negotiations
'the heads of the Kafia tribe' to purchase the Pelorus harbour by the
news of the impending arrival of missionary Henry Williams, who was coming to Port
Nicholson to dissuade Maori from dealing with the Company.'
8
Ngati T o a Trans-Strait Influence
8.1
When dealing for land at Cloudy Bay, Wakefield admitted an understanding that:
"Raupero, Hiko, Rangaiata and other powerful chiefs at Kapiti are the
principal owners and far more to be consulted on the subject tlian the petty
Chiefs here ... .'"
8.2
The Port Underwood Maori 'attacked [Wakefield] in the most bitter manner' over his having
purchased Port Nicholson-'Every
one repeated the story of Raupero's rights and of the
certainty of a dispute about them', since they hrtd not been duly recaguised." Wakefield
promised to make a similarly estensive purcllase of Port Nicholson frorn Ngati Toa.
8.3
When Wakefield was debating the Port Nicholson purchase w ~ t hNohorua ('Tom Street') and
other chiefs frorn Port U~idenvood,the u*llaler's Maori wife who was inteqweting for
Wakefield let slip the posbibility that Wakefield might have been dealing tlirough the wrong
people over Port Nicholson, she:
"very innocently betrayed the secrct that there would lrave been nothing
wrong in buying Port Nicholson and no probability of a fight if [the whaler]
Jackey Guard and a Chief or two of the Kalia tribe had been employed in the
matter instead of Mr Barrett and the Ngatiawa people.""'
8.4
While not wishing to place a great weight on this statement, it is yet another indication of the
trans-strait influence of Ngati Toa and of some recognition of their ouer-arching rights. This is
not a statement that Port Nicholson should have been bought from Ngati Toa, but suggests
h
7
a
9
10
Wakefield, diary, I1 September 1839.
Wakefield, diary, 17 September 1839.
Wokefield, diary, 6 October 1839.
Wakefield, diary, 7 October 1839.
Wokefield, diary, 8 October 1839.
that buying it through them, as happened later at Pakawau, was more appropriate, recognising
both their status and the standing of those on the land concerned."
Wakefield explained to his masters in London the significant position held by T e Rauparaha.
The chief was 'occasionally in alliance'with T e Ati Awa, having been 'forced' to let them
settle in the South Island, but %y similar treachery [to that used against Ngai Tahu] has
Raupero acquired his power in other parts and become the terror of all the neighbouring
tribes'." In fact.
"He receives tribute from numerous petty tribes and slaves and the stronger
tribes are occasionally constrained to purchase peace at his hands."
That power had just been graphically illustrated:
"No longer since than last week, to afford a treat to the Chiefs of the
Ngatirocowa or boiling-water tribe, who assembled at Mana upon the
occasion for the mourning for his sister's death, he sacrificed a slave of the
Rhangatani's [sic] who had come from Admiralty Bay with presents of dried
Fislt-but my informant: an Englishman, who saw the unfortunate man being
dragged away to his fate says that more disguise as to the disposal of the
body was made use of then heretofore, in consequence of Raupero having of
late professed hirnselfa missionary and that he intended to discourage
cannibalism.""
Ngati Tot Influence and Rights
Wakefield saw his colonisation project as a deliberate method of overthrowing T e Rauparaha
and his influence:
"In resolving to visit and conciliate this old savage, however strong my
repugnance to his character and practices, 1 am more led by the hope of
acquiring his land on which to locate a society which shall put an end to his
reign, than by any good wishes to him, and to obtain influence with his
presumptive successor, Hiko, who bears a much better ~haracter."'~
In his negotiations with T e Rauparaha, Wakefield observed that, although 'the negotiation
was difficult and disagreeable', it was implicitly worthwhile persisting since:
Two of thc Maori with Wakelield, Tuarnu and Ewareh, wished to bc taken with Dicky Barrett back to
Taranaki since 'They have considered it unsafe or i t least inconvenient to remain here subject to the
taunts, if not insults, of the Kafin people.' Wakefieid did not spell out why Taranaki men should be
subject to Ton's insults.
Wakefield, diary, I4 October 1839.
\rVakefield, diary, 14 October 1839.
Wakefield, diary, 14 Octoher 1839.
"Their [Ngati Toa's] rights to large portions of territory are, however,
indisputable and if ceded conjointly with those of the Ngatiawas will entitle
the possessors to the commanding portions of the two islands in these
latitudes.""
9.3
When he concluded tlie negotiations niaking his (in)famous purchase between the 391h to 43"'
parallels, Wakefield explained his understandi~igthat 'The whole extent is owned by the
Kafia [i.e. Ngati Toa], the Ngatiawa, the Nyatirocown and the Wanganui tribes.' Within the
broader area, the Wariganui district was occupied by the tribe of the same name, Ngati
Raukawa held the district of Otaki (broadly defined between Waikanae and Wanganui), Te
Ati Awa had interests in Queen Charlotte Sound, West Whanganui, Port Nicholson, Waikanae
'and other small portions'. As for Ngati Toa, in addition to the areas they physically occupied,
'An immense portion on the Southern island is uninhabited; but having been conquered by the
Kafia people is acknowledged to be theirs'. It is significant that he wrote 'is acknowledged to
be theirs', not 'is claimed by them'. HIS perception was not bnsed simply on the rhetoric of Te
It'
Raupamha and Te Rangihaeata, but on the acknowledgenient by others of Ngati Toa rights.
,Lby'L\
Wakefield perceived nn overarcliing claim for Ngati Toa over areas not directly occupied by
--
(
-
them,apparently based on their general leadership in the region, saying: 'The Kafia tribe has
&--
I
_
_
-
.
-
'l-.-..-,-..-
^.
the same claim to thatparrt of the cotmtry_l@~Nsi~tiRauka\va
territory n ~ $ ? - o f ~ W p j ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ] ~
which it had to Port Nicholson and Queen Chxlotte's
-Sound and this claim I have by today's
I
-
..-.ll-._
-
purchase acquired.""
c'j
CI___,_-I_------_-__X___
9.4
Wakefield therefore had discerned that the m n in tlie South Island not directly controlled by
Te Ati Awl was under direct Ngati Toa control. He had based that conclusion on three
months spent negotiating. He perceived, too, that there was a difference in the kinds of rights
being claimed and exercised, such that while he would not think that he had acquired tlie
lands of Te Ati Awa, Ngati Raukawa and Wanganui witliout dealing directly with them, yet
Ngati Toa had some claim over those territories which also had to be recognised and
purchased. He 'did not, howevcr, lay much stress'on such a claim, but he did recognise it and
believe that it required pnrchnsing in conjunction with the rights of the physical occupants. He
told his superiors that:
"1 have by today's deed acquired the land in possession and clarmed at this
time by the Kafia Chiefs and the clearly acknowledged rights of I-Iiko as
connected with that and tlie Ngatiawa tribe; have overcome the most difficult
step towards the exclusive possession of their rights of these tribes, and have
15
16
Wakelicld, diary, 18 October 1839.
Wakefield, diary, 21 October 1839.
a received a solemn ratification of my previous purchase of Port Nicholson,
which was only questioned by the parties to the late sale.'"'
Wakefield did, therefore, clearly understand there to be a difference between the lands
occupied and those claimed by Ngati Toa under another sort of right. This understanding must
have come to him, a complete outsider, through his discussions with the various Maori and
settlers with whom lie tiad been intensively engaged. The understanding covered the lands of
both the North and South Islands and was sufficiently strong that he saw this deal as
unlocking the way for his dealings with all the other tribes ihrough the region.
Again, it is probably necessary to note explicitly that the present analysis is not an
endorsement of the methodology or price of Wakefield's purchase, nor any comment on what
the Maori concerned thought they were doing." It is simply to note that what was
transparently obviotis to these eager land purchasers in IS39 was this centrality of Ngati Toa
throughout the vast region concerned; they observed it and clearly had it explained to them in
the daily discussions and negotiations they had with a range ofsettlers, whalers and klaori
groups. As Wakefield and his party perceived it, what land and resources Ngati Ton did not
have exclusive rigllts to, they did have some pre-eminent or over-arching right to \vliich
entitled them to be dealt with, in addition to, or even prior to, those who actually occupied a
given area.
Indeed, as regards actual occupation, according to Wakefieid's information and observation,
'it must he remembered that nine tenths of the land is without an inhabitant to dispute
possession'." To the extent that he thought he was buying otit Ngati Toa rights to land they
did not physically occupy, that understanding likewise extended to include all of the other
tribal groups throughout the region. It was not just that Toa did not occupy while others did,
but that in European terms (ill Maori groups were spread pretty thinly over their claimed
rohe."'
Ngai Tahu and Ngati Toa in the 1830s
Wakefield, diary, 24 October 1839.
Wakefield bimself noted that some olthe )Maori participants 'betrayed a notion that the sale would not
aifect their interests, from an insufficiency of emigrants arriving to occupy so vast a space, io prevent
them retaining possession of any psrts they chosc or even reselling them at the expiration of a
reasonable period'. Having noted thcse opinions himself, he included no record of his having tried to
disabuse the 'sellers'of their niisapprehensions-presurnahly he did not want to jeopnrdise the present
'purchasc'by aalarming them with the actual effect? he thought the deal had. Instead, he 'rejoiced at the
tcrmination of this noisy and troublesome bargain'. Wakefield, diary, 25 October 1839.
Wakcfield, diary, 24 October 1839.
Admittedly, of course, Maori did not just 'occupy' land but used vast tracts in ninny ways not readily
discernible to the short-term observer, but thus gaining and exercising rights and intcrests associated
with a geographical area.
There was a rongopai made in 1839, when Ngati Toa returned many significant Ngai Tahu
slaves. Ngai Tahu sources have indicated that these were Ngati Toa initiatives and
consequently inferred that Ngati Toa were therefore effectively capitulating and surrendering
their South Island mana and interests. Henare Rakiilia Tau, for example, links this directly to
Te Rauparaha having 'come off second best in the two Wairau campaigns', by which he
means the tau:^-iti anad Taua-nui raids oE5 or more years previously." He cited, as Itis only
authorities for this, Te Kaahu, a Ngai Tahu source, and Natanahira Wamwarutu, a Ngai Tahu
tohunga. This argument is clearly insupportable, both because of the length of time between
the raids and the rongopai, and because of the fact that Te Ranparaha was not in fact defeated;
the first raid-intended
as an exploratory expedition-was
inconclusive since Ngai Tahu left
after unsuccessfully chasing Te Rziuparaha and a small hunting party, while the second met
no-one at all. The motivation appears in Stack's account, also cited repeatedly by Tau, that Te
Rauparaha did not wish to leave his southern flank exposed while he was in conflict with Te
Ati Awa in the North Island and so effectively bought a removal of that southern threat:
'fearing a coalition being formed against him, the wily Cltief of Ngatitoa resolved to make
peace with Ngaitahu'."
The first rongopai was at Port Levy when 40 Ngati Toa returned Ngai Taliu chiefs Momo,
Paora Tau and Iwikau. James West Stack makes clear that the return of the chiefs, together
with the voluntary placing of their Ngati Ton in Ngai Taliu power, was intended to buy peace,
and in this Te Rauparaha was successful: the strategy 'won the gooclwill of the Kaiapohians,
who accepted the terms offered to them, and made peace with their foesC3
However, this peace now made most cert;~ittlydid not mean that Ngati Toa had capitulated to
Ngai Tahu. Even in Stack's account liis nest comment is that 'tliough peace was established
the bulk of the Kaiapohiam prisoners [sic] carried to the north were still kept in bondage'. He
reiterates that there they remained until the 'civilising' influence of Christianity convinced
'the tribes over which Rauparal~aruled'that slavery was unacceptable and they were released
and assisted by the northern tribes to return home."
Ngai Tahu sources used in Tau's evidence also allege tliat, as part of that rongopai process,
Ngati Toa agreed to a boundary as high as Parinui and Kahurangi. Whether or not such an
undertaking forms part of the Ngati Toa tradition is another issue entirely, ltowever for the
Tau, Evidence, 16. MAC RoP Eshibil N9
Stack, Kuiapoliin, 90.
Stack, Kniupoiiiu, 91.
Stack, Kuiapohia, 91.
present it suffices to observe that Ngai Tahu's assertion does not appear in the Stack account.
where no detail of the peace negotiations was recorded.
Tau's evidence states that these boundaries were proposed at the first meeting at Kaiapoi and
confirmed later at a second meeting at Otakou, but unlike for a number of his other points he
does not provide a reference for that particular assertion, although he does say it was 'the
most important action'.."'
The account of the process indicates an mitlative and control retained by Ngat~Toa. The
return of the slaves was at Ngati Toa's discretion. certainly not forced by esternal forces. The
peacemaking process was a strategic move by Te Rauparaha to limit the challenges to w h ~ c h
Ngati Toa might be exposed.
It may also be noted that both sides seem to have regarded the peace as pretty fragile and not
much more than a truce. Thus, it is clear that for some years, into the 1840s, Ngai Tahu were
in fear of some further form of Ngati Toa assault, while Te Rauparaha was still contemplating
one at the time when his son and klatene te Whiwhi went on their missionary journeyduring which Stack records that they were 'in momentary danger of being put to death3.'"
Edward Shortland took a detailed census in 1843.44 of the Ngai Tahu people throughout tire
southern regions of the South Island. While he listed 450 people including children, as based
at Kaiapoi, there were only 5 at the only site listed north of there-~aikoura."
He insisted
that, since he had listed everyone by their names, the census was reliable, apart from slwes
who were omitied.
Grey and the Wairau Purchase
Sir George Grey's conduct with regard to the Wairau Purchase has been extensively
c:mvassed. Here, only two of Grey's own key statements are analysed, with a particular focus
on the issue under discussion, Ngati Toa's rights in Wairau and further south.
Grey intended by mid-1846 to purchase the Wairau district-however
defined-from
Maori.
Writing to tlie Secretary of State, he esplained what he was intending to do about Port
Nicholson in light of the arrival of Colonel McCleverty. He then continued that for the
Wairnu he would also wait until McCleverty had proceeded further, since that officer would
Tau, Evidence, 15. MAC RoP Exhibit N9.
Stack, Kaiapohin, 92.
End in FitzRop to Stanley, 1 November 1845. GBPP, vol 30 [I846 (337)],156. &ariApn ki Te
Il"aipot~numuTrtlst vAtrorney-Gwerd and Oritem. CA 192102 Doc Bank vol 12, 3423.
'soon make himself master of more information on this subject than is possessed by any other
person'. Further, as regards the purchasing process:
"It may be sufficient to say generally that a very great benefit will be
conferred upon the Colony by the prompt and immediate settlement of this
question. It will be desirable. before entering into any negotiation upon the
subject, to ascertain the exact number of Natives at present inliabiting the
district, tlie extent of land they have under cultivation, and wlietlier any
portion of the Ngatiton Tribe are likely to remove from Porirua to that
district, and then take the necessary precautions for securing to the Native
inhabitants blocks of tand in continued localities of sufficient extent to
provide for the wants of the probable Native popuk~tion.""
Within six months, though, McCleverty had been appointed the commanding officer of the
imperial troops in New Zealand, preventing him from undertaking the extensive
investigations originally envisaged. Grey, therefore, 'found it necessary to take into my own
hands the settlement of the most important of these questions'. He regarded Spain's statement
about Ngati Ton having 'the real and hor~czficlepossession'oof the Wairau as conferring on
them the rights to a district 'extending to about 100 miles south of Wairau, as their claim to
the whole of this territory is identical with their claim to the Valley of the ~ a i r a u ' . " "One
issue that arises from this is whether the 100 miles was to be taken from the Wamu bar, or
from tlie further reaches of the Waimu Valley, which goes past Lake Rotoroa.
Grey then explained Row he had proceeded on tliesc 'most important' issues. He had decided
to purchase from Ngati Toa 'a large district of land surrounding Porirua". including :as much
of the area claimed by tlie New Zealand Company as possible so as to meet the European
settlers' claim?. As for the Wairau, he liad decided to proceed w ~ t hthat also:
"I tliought it advisable not only to purcl~asethis district, which was estim~ied
by tlie Surveyor-General to contain 80,000 acres of the finest agricultural
land, and about 240,000 acres of tlie finest pastoral land, but also to
endeavour to purchase the whole tract of country claimed by the Ngatiton
Tribe, and extending about 100 miles to the southward of that valley, the
greatest portion of which country is, I understand, admirably adapted to
European settlers, and is likely to be almost immediately occupied by sheep
and cattle, as I thought that an ultimate and decisive arrangement of this kind
would be excessively advantageous to this Colony.
The Ngatitoa Tribe, after considerable discussion, agreed to dispose of the
required territory, still reserving their riglits to that portion of the country
which is shown in the accompanying map. ,,%I
Grey to Sec of State, 1.1 September 1846. Mackay, Compend~unl.I, 72
Grey to Secof State, 26 March 1847 Mackay, Compend~um,1,201.
Grey to Scc of State. 26 March 1847. iMackay. Compendtum, 1, 202.
This reads as Grey understanding that the Ngati Toa ckaims ran to 100 miles south of the
Wairau Valley, whereas the previous reference was to 100 miles south of ~ a i r a u . "The
.considerable discussion'is an entirely disingenuous portrayal of the various kinds of
coercive pressure brought to bear on Ngati Toa in 1846/47. The descriptions of the territory as
'required' and the purchase as 'excessively advantageous to the Colony' seem unwittingly
accurate.
In February 1848, Grey went with Colonel Wakefield to meet with Ngai Tahu at Ntaroa and
Otakou. Ngai Tahu expressed great unliappiness at the Wairau Purchase having been
conducted with Ngati Toa, particularly at its inclusion of the area as far south as Kaiapoi. A
contemporary Ngai Tahu source for this discussion is Matiaha Tiramorehu's letter to Eyre in
1849. He remembered:
"Ngaituahuriri spoke to the Governor concerning the payment for Kaikoura
and Kaiapoi; he (the Governor) told the Ngaitahu Tribe that (the payment for)
%liapoi should not be given to the Ngatitoas, hut that for Kaikoura was
already gone to them.'""
The Tribunal in the Ngui Tahu Report considered whether 'Kaiapoi'referred to the district or
the pa, concluding that it meant the district centred on the pa,3s but did uot discuss what
'Kaikoura' meant. The Wairau Purchase's southern boundary, it found, was clearly in Grey's
understanding limited to north of 'at or about the ~urunui'."' It did not, though, contemplate
the northern boundary of what had been meant by 'Kaikoura' in the discussions with Ngai
Tabu. As a result of [he Sentantes memorandum of 1850, Grey was prepared to allow Ngai
Tahu interests 'south of the Kaikouras', which must come to somewhere between Kaikoura
itself and the Arnuri Bluffs settlements. The location may shift north from Hurunui, but not all
the way north past the Kaikoura Coast, arouud Cape Campbell to Parinui.
What is not apparent in this material, from either Grey or Ngai TaRu themselves at that time,
is any Ngni Tahu clz~imto land north of the vicinity of Kaikoura. Even in the Tiramorehu
source, there was no mention of a claim-whetlter
pro-Ngai Tahu or anti-Ngati Toa-running
past Kaikoura. Arguments from silence are always unsatisfactory, and Evison filled in this
apparent lack of discussion with the statements: 'As for the riglit to Kaikoura, that was the
The Tribunal in theNgai Tahi Repurr, vol2,393ff, accepted that it was '100 miles south of the valley',
which equated roughly with the mouth of the Hurunui and the 43" parallel. The valley' would
therecore be the mouth, not the head, of the Wairau Valley, but there was no discussion of thc point.
Tiramorchu to Eyrc; 22 October 1849. Mackay, Compendium; 1,227.
Wairangi Tribunal, Ngui Tabu Report, vol2,JOO.
Waitnngi Trihuual, Ngai Tnirir Report, vol 2,397.
prerogative of Kaikoura Whakatau and his Ngati Kuri hapu to content for."' He did not,
though, cite a single source indicating that this was in the contemplation of any of the
participants and in his discussion to that point had spoken of 'Ngai Tahu'rather than 'Ngati
Tuahuriri'. If the debate with Grey was expressing Ngai Tahu outrage regarding dealings with
Ngati Toa, why would tiley have remained silent concerning Ngati Kuri alone, the sole group
to have allegedly lost ail of their lands? Or were Ngati Kuri's remaining interests really oely
in the district from Kaikoura south? Unfortiinalely. the silence can be no more than
suggestive.
11.9
Three decades later, Grey gave evidence to tlte Smith-Nairn Commission concerning the
Wairau Purchase. First, he denied that he was 'buying a block of land with defined
boundaries', stating:
"My impression was, that I was buying the entire interest of the North Island
natives wlro have conquered the tribes of the Middle Island, and by native
custom became the owners of certain lands there ... .
The impression on my mind was, that I purchased all they had a right to ....
There were no regularly defined boundaries. They were laid down merely
verbally."'"
11.10 He repeatedly denied that in making the Wairau t'urchase he was purchasing totally a clearly
defined block, but rather tltat he was buying out the rights of Ngati Toa, Ngati 12auk;iwa and
'some other tribes', wherever they claimed them. There was, consequently, in his
understnuding no rigidly demarcated or exclusive southern boundary to the purchased block.
11.11 When pressed as to his having any knowledge of a southern boundary, Grey replied:
"No! Tlus was, I may say, almost an entirely friendly tmnsaction. The
p;iyment given to these people was very trifling, indeed .... The payment was
very trifling compared with the extent of land.""
11.12 We may well agree concerning the payment for such a vast area. However, his portrayal of
the process as 'entirely friendly'and 'an act of entire good will'on the part of the Ngati To;i
chiefs was, rather, once again entirely disingenuous. Saying that it was offered by them 'to
prevent disputes arising between their own race and the Europeans' was laughable, given the
aclual coutest in 1846-47 of the sustained warfare made by the Crown under Grey on Ngati
Ton and the kidnapping of Te Rauparaha. He compounded the falsehood a few minutes later.
When asked if the Wairau Purchase included 'the scene of the Wairau massacre', he replied:
32
36
..,,
Evison, Tr Wni Pourmrm~,242.
Grey, evidence. MA 6714. WNA. Transcript in Boast, 'Northern South Island', 11, 367.
Grey, evidence. MA 6714. WNA. Transcript in Boast, 'Northern South Island; 11_367-363.
13
"Yes. They [the young Ngati Toa chiefs] felt that very much, and were
anxious to make atonement for it. I regarded it more a s a giving up of the
land for the good of both races than as a purchasing of it.''38
Here, Grey portrayed himself as an almost reluctant recipient of the Ngati Toa act of
'atonement', having to receive it for the good of Maori-Pakeha relations. Instead, of course,
he had actively sought the land, and admitted as much shortly afterwards when he testified
that 'I know I was ordered to assist the Company in getting land'."As
is clearly shown in the
quotes above from his report back 'Home'at the time of the purchase, he was actively
motivated by a perceived need to acquire more land for settlement, and especially for the
settlers left adrift for years by the Company. Then there are other discrepancies in this
'atonement' statement, for example the assertion that Ngati Toa did in fact feel there was
anything to atone for, and what was for the time the substantial payment made for what he
now claimed was not principally conceived of as a real purchase.
Returning to the question of a southern boundary to the Wairau Purchase vis-h-vis the Kemp
Purchase Block, Grey claimed he had argued at the time that he thought the boundaries of
both blocks were unsatisfactory and would lead to future difficulties, but that he had nothing
directly to do with such matters, implicitly blaming subsequent problems on Eyre. Further, he
was emphatic that Ngati Ton 'bad not been very justly treated aftenvards'when they came to
try to purchase some of their former land from the Crown. The fact that they had been
prevented from re-purchasing after hc had promised them they could, he considered 'a very
grievous wrong'?"
&Pantell, Hamilton a n d Mackay on the Kailcoura Coast
In my report, I discussed several documents relating to the three Crown purchase officers
dealing with the lands around which the 'takiwa' issite centres. Subsequently, more complete
material relating to those documents has come to my attention and sheds further light on wllat
those officers believed and did, and why.
When Mantell was sent south, his commission was specifically to tidy up the situation with
regard to reserves irrsick the Kemp Purchase. Quite apart from whether he learned anything
about the Kaikoura Coast incidentally, he had no mandate to even consider such questions.
Grey, evidence. MA 6714. WNA. Transcript in Boast, 'Northern South Island', 11; 368.
Grey, evidence. MA67iJ. W N A . Transcript in Boast, -Northern Souih Island', It, 370.
Grey, evidence. bL4 6714. WNA. Transcript in Boast, Worthern Souih Island', 11,369.
-
In my report at p 49, I quoted from Mantell's report of 18 November 1850, which described
_
-__.__
C
the area south of the Wairau to Kaiapoi as 'waste, unoccupied, and belonging to neither tribe'.
I had quoted the extract from the report which had in turn been quoted by Dr Phillipson. In
fact, that extract did not reveal that Mantell went further to argue that therefore the land was
already rightly the Crown's, as being waste land in 1840." He stated that, in his opinion, in
fact neither tribe owned it. Ngati Toa had destroyed the inhabitants arid then withdrawn and
had anyway been seeking only revenge and pounamu, not land. Ngai Tahu he described as
small and scattered remnants who were only able to reassert any claim because of the
protection afforded by Europeans, without which they would have had no land. If pressed to
choose between the two tribes, he would accord rights to Ngai Tahu. Why? Because of 'the
precedent established by Captain Fitzroy, in the repurchases at New Plymouth'. This opinion
on the respective tribal rights is hardly authoritative for several reasons:
a.
Mantell was still new to the land purchase business, only a year further in than he had
been when first dealing with the Ngai Tahu reserves.
b.
He relied on no other explicit evidence than Servantes'report summarising the three
heads of the Ngai x$hu claim. He said nothing about any information ;rbout Maori
history or custom he personally possessed that might le;rd him to the opinion he was
now giving with 'confidence'.
c.
Y
His real personal opinion was that the 'only valid' claim was the Crown's; neither
Maori group therefore had any 'valid' entitlement.
\
d.
He was clearly iiiibued with the current concept of Maori having 'waste land', which
this district was, he thought, because it was currently unoccupied.
e.
He made no distinction or gradation of rights between the land immediately adjacent
to Wairau or Kaiapoi and that in the Kaikoura Coast, rights that might have been
expressed in some way other than physical occupation.
f.
He made no mention of Raiiigitane; he seems to have been unaware of them. which
may account for why Ha~i~ilton
later seemed surprised to find out about them.
%.
There is no indication that i'vlantell was informed by anything more than the claims
made by the Ngai Tahu with whom he had been dealing over their more southerly
reserves.
1
41
Mantell, report. 18 November ISiO. Mackap, Compeodlum, 11, 7.
h.
Ultimately, he stated clearly, his sole reason for preferring Ngai Tahu was to maintain
an apparent consistency in Crown purchasing policy. Because FitzRoy had dealt with
the Taranakl tribes in a certain way, therefore this applied without qualification to the
eastern South Island. Regardless of one's view of either Ngai Tahu's or Ngati Toa's
claim, that cannot be the basis for an authoritative evaluation of Maori customary
rights or pre-1840 history in the eastern South Island.
I.
The letter from Tikao, or Matialia Tiramorehu, which Mantell attached purported to
claim the Wairau and to express a willingness to give it up to the governor." It stated
that the original inhabitants were Ngati Kuia, not Rangitane. But for present purposes,
despite what such an extensive claim may imply, it actually said nothing at a11 about
the Kaikoura Coast.
12.4
Hamilton began his work for William Fox while attached to tlleAcl?eron in 1850. In January
of that year, he wished to explore nortli of Banks Peninsula but was unable to find a Maori
guide. He went himself as far as Mount Grey to try to scout the mountains further north. In a
letter I quoted in part from another source in my report, lie warned Fox about sending settlers
too precipitately into the North Canterbury region:
"I am bound to take the earliest possible opportunity of informing you that it
is probable the Natives of Kaiapoi, Amuri, Kaikoura, and Port Levy, will
offer objections to the occupancy of the country lying north of the Kowai
River, as far as Kaikoura. They have mentioned to me several times that this
land lias not been purchased, and have expressed their desire to have a
conference with the Governor before any measures are taken by me towards
settling on it." [There followed the brief analogy with Napoleon's
imprisonment, quoted in my report.]j3
12.5
Ngai Talw did not regard Ngati Toa as having any rlglits since the conquest was not followed
up by occupation and 'considering, therefore, that this money has been given for the purchase
of their property, they will not allow that their title is extinguished until either he has Banded
it over to them, or Government lias madc good the amount'.
12.6
So in 1850 the Ngai Tahu objection was explicitly to the Crown recognition of Ngati Toa
rights from tlie Kowai River north to Kaikoura. There was no claim advanced for Ngai Tahu
northfront Kaikoura, nor objections to Ngati Toa receiving recognition in the Wairau to
1
42
Mackay, Compendium, 11. 7.
Kaikoura districts. Nor was this objecting group confined to Ngai Tahu with interests around
Banks Peninsula; Hamilton specified that the anticipated objectors would include those from
Amuri and Kaikoura.
District Commissioner J.G. Johnson, when he was sent by McLean in 18% to resolve Ngai
Tahu kind matters, was actually sent to deal with a single reserve, perhaps at Little River,
which had been originally dealt with in Mantell's work.& He was then confronted with the
Ngai Tuhu refusing to accede to govermnent demands regarding that block unless their claims
for the lands north of Kaiapoi were dealt with. Mantel1 had not resolved matters as the area
was outside of the Kemp Purchase with which alone he was authorised to deal (as anywhere
north of Kaiapoi had also been). The Ngai Tahu pressure w;ts Johuson's sole motivation to
consider the Kaikoura issue.
McLean then advised the governor that Johnson's 'iiivestigations' had resulted in an opinion
that f lriO 'would enable him to settle the outstanding claims in that Province [Canterbury]':"
This was not exactly what Johnson had said and so the value of Ngai Tabu's interests was set
by the Crown in such an ad hoc manner. McLean authorised Johnson to use the £150
recommended in order to use that sum to 'settle the claims of the Kaiapoi Natives finally ...
taking care that this payment s h d l not afford any pretext for making future demands for
payment by the Natives of the Cauterbury Province3.'"l'hus
this was another example of
McLean's policy of simply paying Maori to settle their ckrirns. He made no inquiry of
Johnson as to the precise area to be covered or the suitability of £150 as the final payment for
all of Ngai Tahu's rights in whatever area might be under discussion. The only Crown interest
was in 'settling claims' so as to facilitate the smooth settlement of the area. However, Johnson
did not pursue the claim as when he conducted his negotiations over the next month, he found
that Sir George Grey ltad offered Ngai Tahu f 100 'in satisfaction' of the 'claims of the
Nttives of Kaiapoi to compensation for the land north of the ~shley'." The Crown response
to assertions of contested traditional rights had now become compensation for clainis to
indeterminate lands north of Ashley.
Within a fortnight, Johnson's work had been turned into a commission from McLeun for
Hamilton to 'undertake a settlement of these questions', i.e. 'certain unextinguished claims to
Hamilton to Fox, I I January 1850. Ivlackay; Compendium, 11.6.
McLean to Johnson, 25 April 1856. Mackay, Compendium, 11,8.
McLean to Private Secretary, 27 May 1856. Mackay, Compendium, 111 9.
iMcLcan to Johnson, 30 May 1856. Mackay, Compendium, 11,9.
Johnson lo McLean, 5 August 1856. Mnckay, Compendium, 11, I I.
land at Akaroa and ~ a i a ~ o i ' ?Some of his reports of that negotiation have been discussed in
my report at pp 52ff.
Hamilton also reported in December 1856 that in the course of his dealings over ilkaroa, he
had been unable to tackle 'the Kaiapoi quest~on'.The Wesieyan missionary, Aldred, who was
interpreting for him, thought that there would be 'no difficulty' with it. Hamilton though,
added:
"I find, however, that Natives of Knikoura, SO miles north, are interested in it,
and their consent will be indispensable.'""
Although he held a position of government responsibility in Lyttelton and had been dealing
with Ngai Tahu over the lands since August, this December letter dates his first awareness of
a link between Ngai Taliu concerns over land north of Kaiapoi and those who were in the
Kaikoura region. He continued in his report to note as an example of Maori forbearance
regarding 'us when trespassing on their land', that the Kaiapoi Maori had complained to him
as early as 1850, when the Canterbury Association" surveyors had moved north of the
Ashley, that the land north of that river had never been sold by them. He remembered that he
had been told the same thing by those living in the Kaikoura district at that time?"
All of this suggests that the Ngai Tahu claim was perceived to be to the area immediately to
the north of Kuinpoi, perhaps stretching up to Kaikoura. Despite having had an awareness for
several years that Ngai Tahu claimed some of their land north of the Ashley had not been sold
by them, Hamilton's appreciation was that this was North Canterbury. Although the Kaikoura
Maori had told him that the area had not been sold, only in late 1856 did he seem to become
awnre that they might have rights in the area concerned, which suggests that he had no
conception it reached up into the Kaikoura district.
Hamilton soon reported further. On S January, he had been visited by Kaikoura Whakatau
who had come 'to assert the rights of himself and his people', having heard that the
Government were 'in treaty with the Kaiapoi Natives for the surrender of their lands north of
the river Ashley (Rakahauri)'?' At this meeting, Whakatau asserted the overall rights of Ngai
Tahu as the 'l~cwfulowners90 the land all the way up to Parinui and he and the KaiapoiRapaki group maintained an internal division between themselves at tile Waiau-ua.
blclean to Hamilton, I6 August 1856. Mackay, Compcndium, 11, 13.
Fiamilton to McLean, 11 Deccmber 1856. Mackay, Compendium, 11, 15.
Hamilton to McLean, 11 December 1856. Mackay, Compendium, If, 15.
Hamilton to McLean, S January 1857. hilackay, Compendium, 11, 16.
This-in
early 1857-is
the earliest mention in the records surveyed during the course of the
present writer's work which puts the northern limit of Ngai Tahu claimed ownership at
Parinui. All of the prior mentions either spoke vaguely of lands north of Kaiapoi and perhaps
non-specifically between Wairau and Kaiapoi, or, when they became specific, spoke of the
North Canterbury lands only, maybe to Kaikoura.
The Ngai Tahu maintained that their two raids north, having gone unavenged, confirmed their
rights despite the conquest, while Te Ranparaha had never cemented l ~ i conquest,
s
'he never
occupied or possessed their country so 8s to maintain tiis right to it in accordance with Maori
custom'. In addition, they said they had since the asserted conquest and 'these subsequent
affairs remained in undisturbed occup;~tionof the lands in question'. Specifically, they had
occupied pa at 'Kekerengu (Keggeregoo of whalers) Parikawakawa, and now occupy at
Waipapa, Ohau, Kaikoura, Omilri, Mikonui and h u r i
luff'."
Hamilton noted that Grey had paid Whakatau £50 in October 1852 'for the surrender of
Waiopuka, Fyfe's Whaling Station, on Kaikoura Peninsula, N.E. extreme". Grey had
promised to have this surveyed-which
had not been done-while
subsequently when the
New Munster surveyors had tried to chain aloitg the Coast between Half Moon Bay and
Waipapa, they had been turned back by Whakatau and his people 'in assertion of their
ownership". Nelson Province had, Nyai Tabu told Hamilton, recently taker] a census in which
the 'Kaikoura Maoris numbered 78, of all ages and sexes, since increased by two births'. The
Kaikoura Maori set out their current status:
"They reside or cultivate at Waipnpa, Ohan, Te Hapuku, Maunga, Mahuita,
Wainuaianm, R>ikoura Pa, and ivfikonui. Ihaia Rawiri, Raihania, and
Whakatau, are their principal men."'"
-.
So, by this point, Ngai Tahu were establishing to officials a renewed presence up the
Kaikoura Coast. This was, once again though, reaching only as far north as Waipapa, not
crossing into the traditional Rangitme rolie and cerfainly nowhere near Parinuiowhiti. It was
also only noted in 1857, virtually
;I
decade after Grey had purchased Ngati Toa's interests
through the region, slightly longer back to Ngati Toa's dealings with the first runholders at
Kekerengu, arid three decades after the original Ngati Toa incursions.
Whakatau had been paid some money during Mantell's earlier negotiations, but this was
..
given by itis relatives as a present, not as ot right. He now offered Hamilton 'to surrender to
Hamilton to McLean, S J;muary 1857. Mackay, Cumpendium, 11, 16.
1-lamilton to McIxan, 8 Jnnuary 1857. Mackay?Compendium, 11, 16.
the Crown the whole of their lands as ciainled by them' for a similar sum as that paid to those
in Akaroa and Kaiapoi, i.e. f 150.''
James Mackay was instructed by Donald IvicLean on 3 November 1858 to go to Kaikoura 'for
the purpose of settling with the Natives there for their outstanding claims to land in the
..
Canterbury Province'.'' But the Kaikoura Ngai Tahu-claimed lands, especially those claimed
north of Kaikoura, were not in the Canterbury Province, which was set up as not including
even some of North Canterbury. Once more the Crown intention was not to investigate
ownership, but to 'settle claims', which by virtue of their having been made, were presumed
to have some degree of legitimacy. The sun1 o f f 150 was set down a s the amount for which he
would obtain 'the final cession of all their claims to land in that Province'.
When Mackay reported in in April 1859 concerning his Kaikoura nezotiations, he stated that
he had dealt with the Ngai Tahu of Kaikoura and Kaiapoi, and that they had agreed to
'surrender to the Crown the whole of their lands'. These lands were:
-'from the River Hurunui to Cape Campbell seawards, and from the Coast
back to L;ke Sumner or Hokakura, and the sources of the Rivers Waiau-ua,
Waiauton ,and Wairau, the North-westerly boundary being Pari nui o whiti
(the White or Wairau ~luffs)."~"
In itself this description makes little sense at the northern end, since the coastal boundary
extends north only to Cape C;rmpbell, yet the 'north-western' boundary is set at Parinui.
There is some unmentioned distance across the Lake Grassmere-Awatere River coastline to
join tlie Cape with the Bluffs. Reference to the sources of the Wairau is hardly specific
enough to define just tvltere within the broad watershed the limits were actually to lie, while
'sources' implies that some considerable part of the river was not included so that it would
not, for esumple, run down the full line of the Mlirau River. The deed itself was a little more
specific, describing the land as beginning at Cape Capbell, running westerly [sic] to Parinui,
and then by a direct line to Rangitahi (Mt Tarndale).
The associated ~ u a p(in the Compendium between pp 36 and 37) is of little help, running in a
ruled str;tight line from an undefined point inland of the head of the Clarence to Parinui. This
follows the language of the deed, but both the deed and the map therefore ignore Mackay's
I-Idmdton to McLean. 8 January 1857. Mackay, Compcnd~um.11, 16.
McLcan to Mackay, 3 November 1858. Mackay, Compendtum, If, 33
Mackay to MeLean, 19 Aprtl 1859. Mackay, Compendium, 11.15.
comment about the sources of the Wairau, which were-apart
from a few small streams-
excluded by bot~i.~'
12.23 Maekiy's description of the negotiations clearly focused on the southern end of the district.
Hurunui to Waiau-ua was deliberately 're-purchased" as the Kaikoura claimants alleged that
those from Kaiapoi had excluded them from Hamilton's payments for tlie area, while there
were new and admitted claims there. The main area of contention was the core area around
Kaikoura (Kahutara to Tutai-putuputu rivers) on which there were already several Crownlocated Pakeha settlers (Fyffe, Keeoe and Tinline) whom Ngai Tahu threatened to evict if
their price were not met. It may be significant that there was no suggestion of evicting the
Ngati Toa-located settlers at Kekerengu and elsewhere north of Kaikoura.
12.24 There was no mention in Mackay's report of any discussion of the area north of Kaikoura.
Presuniahly there must have been some, but he was concerned with three issues: @) the price
to be paid (they settled for f 3 0 0 having repudiated any approval of Hamilton's proposed f 150
and themselves suggesting f 10,000), (b) tile reserves to be set aside (even in Mackay's
judgment 'barely sufficient')), and (c) the quietening of threats to upset the occupation of the
settlers who had already moved on to parts of the hnds. James Ivfackay's purchasing activities
and liis boundaries can hardly be taken as an authoritative guide to tribal rights.
12.25 In his submission to the Maori Appellate Court, Mr Evison noted that the Crown had
already-presun1;ibly
in tlie Te Wai Pounarno purchases-purchased
the interests on the West
,
Ngati Rarua. Rangitane ;tnd Ngati Kuia. He
Coast of the Nyati Toa, Ngati A w ~Muaupoka,
then stated:
"I have no doubt tlliit James Ivlackay in his dealings with Ngai Tahu would
have insisted on upholcling any rights these otlier tribes may have been
claiming south of the Kahurangi and Parinuiowliiti lines, if he had thought
them in the least justifiable. But he did not do so. I therefore draw the
conclusion that the boundaries adopted by James Rilackay in liis Kaikoura and
Arahura purchases correctly represent the true customary boundaries as
Janies Mackay found them to be from his impartial dealings among the
various tribes of the nortliern South Island over a period of some years.'"'
12.26 However, this statement may be challenged at almost every point.
'7
58
Both Parinui and Mt Tarndalc are to the south 01 the line of the Wnirau and its tributaries and therehe
a straight line hctween the two must also be.
Evidence of Harry Charles Evison, 'The Northern and Inland Boundaries of the Kaikoura and Arahura
Purchases of James Mackay, 1859-1860'. 3. MAC RoP Exhihit N14.
i4lackay was not the obvious choice for the more responsible dealings. whereas Turton, who
was older and more esperienced, was preferred, until he became unavailable.
Half a year later, while finalising the account for the North Canterbury purchase, McLean
noted: 'A similar amount o f f 150, with a reserve of 400 or 500 acres, will be necessary to
settle with the Arahura Natives on the west coast of the Nelson Province.""'This is predetermined before 'negotiations', or research to determine the legitimate extent of the claims,
were commenced.
After he dealt with Kaikoura. Mackay was to continue on to Arahura 'for the purpose of
carrying out similar arrangements at that by place' by allowing a small reserve of no more
than 500 acres and paying only f 150-200. That size of reserve '\vould be sufficient for the
few Natives residing
blackay agreed to carry out the task. He wanted to know whether he was to deal with only the
Arahura and Mawhera districts, or to purchase the entire West Coast. Tarapuhi, the son of
Tuhnru, had spoken to him:
"... he claimed the whole of the land from West Wanganui (Province of
Nelson) to Dusky Bay, Piopiotai (Province of Otago), for this he asked
f2500; he, however, admitted that the Port Cooper Natives and Taiaroa had
received payment for the West Coast, and to a certain extent allowed the
conquest of part of tlie district by the Ngatitoa tribe."""'
He thought there would be no difficulty in the task as they had already been prepared to sell
two years preliously, although he did anticipate they would want more than thc Crown was
proposi~igLo offer.
When Mackap was aulhorised lo 'conclude negotiations with the Natives for tlie cession of
their title' of the Arahura district, it was made clear that this process was not a broad-ranging
and complete investigation of the customary interests in the region. McLean's assistant, T.H.
Smith, instructed him that, with the money he
been allowed:
You are authorized to pay to the Npaitahu Natives a sum not exceeding the above [E-IOOJ in
full satisfaction of all their claims."
McLean, memorandum, 22 June 1858. Mackay, Compendium, 11,30.
McLean to Mackay, 3 November 185%Mackay, Compendium, II,33.
Mackay to McLem, 19 November 1858. Mackay, Compendium, 11,34.
Smith to Mackay; 75 October 1859. Mackay, Compendium, II,39.
When Mackay reported the successful conclusion of the negotiations, he confirmed that. in
accord;tnce with his instructions, he had proceeded to the Arahura 'for the purpose of
estingurshing the title of the Poutinr Ngaitalw over that district"'
At the end of negotiations
he declared: 'On the 21" May, 1860, the Nga~tahuTitle was con~pletelyextinguished over all
the portion of tlie West Coast district lying between Kahurangi Point in the Province of
Nelson, and Piopiotai, or Milford Haven
... and bounded inland by the watershed range of the
East and West Coast ... .'a Revealing the agenda behind the purchasing, he commented: 'now
that tlie Native Title over the West Coast districts has been extinguished, and that as available
"gold and coal-fields'" have been discovered there, it may attract a population [of colonists]
... and add rts quota to the general wealth of the ~ o l o n y . ' ~ '
Fortuitously, Puaha te Rangi, who 11ad guided Mackay south from Nelson, was on hand and
spoke up for Ngati Apa during the negotiations with Poutini Ngai Tithu, pressing that tribe's
customary clailns in the Kawatirb'Buller area. The Poutini Ngai Tahu admitted 'the justice of
these claims' and supported Ngati Apa being given some 'ca~npensation',which was to take
the form of some reserves and pnrticipation in the
Mackay did not ponder how this
admission might then h v e reflected on the Ngai Tahu claims as far north as Kahurangi. The
matter seems also to h w e been downplayed in subsequent considerations of the border issue.
Again, the matter was tieternlined on the bitsis of 'claims', rather than a n investigation.
Takiwik Boundaries Ancient and Modern
During the course of my investigation of the Arahura and Kaikoura purchase documentation,
it became apparent that the various sets of boundaries do not mesh exactly. Particularly, the
current 'takiwa' boundaries are noticeably more expansive than those of \he historic deeds
upon which they are ostensibly based.
On the matter of boundaries, it has been painted out above that tltc Kaikaura Purchase
boundtzries themselves were:
"commencmg at the Karaka (Cape Campbell), and proceeding by the sea
coast in a Westerly direction to Pari nui o whiti (Wairzm Bluff); from thence
turning inland it runs in a direct line to Rangitahi (Tarndale), at the sources of
the River Waiautoo [sic] (Clarence); whence, turning in a South-westerly
direction, it continues by the mountains to Hokakura (Lake Sumner) ..."."
67
68
69
ill
71
Mackay to Chief Land Purchase Commissioner, 21 September 1861. Mnckay, Compendium, II,40.
Mackay to Chief Land Purchi~seCommissioner, 21 September 1S61. klvinckay's Gmpcndium, I1,41.
Mackay to Chief L n d Purchase Commissioner, 21 September 1861. Mackay's Compendium, 1I,42.
Mnckay to Chief Land Purchase Commissioner, 21 September 1861. Machy's Compendium, II,Jl.
Mackay, Compendium, 11,384.
13.5
By contrast, however, the Ngai Tahu Takiwa, as defined in section 5 of Te Runanga o Ngai
Tahu Act 1996-perhaps
significantly for its drafting process a Private Act, rather than
Public--describes the lands as all those south and east of a line:
"commencing in the Marlborough Land District at a point on the coastlme of
Clotidy Bay at the south-eastern end of Big Lagoon, north-west of White
Bluffs, being on the production, in a north-easterly direction, of a right line
between survey mark I.P. 2 on S.O. Plan 5485 (Marlborough Land District)
and the Trig Station on Belvedere Peak situated in the Nelson Land District;
thence proceeding by a right line in a south-westerly direction, passing
through the said survey mark I.P. 2 on S.O. Plan 5485 (Marlborough Land
District) to the said Trig station on Belvedere Peak situated in the Nelson
Land District, being the source of the Clarence River ... ."
13.4
As regards the Kaikoura Purchase per se, this clearly adds onto the Ngai Tahu lands a wedge
of land hvo or three kilometres wide tit the coast-the
and the south-eastern end of Big Lagoon-and
difference between the Parinui Bluff
some 15 kilometres wide at the inland foot-
the difference between Mt Tarndale and the more westerly Belvedere Peak.
13.5
Then there is the relationship between the Arnhura Deed and the Ngai Tahu Takiwa
description. The Amhnra Deed boundary is from:
"the saddle [Harper Pass], at the source of the River Taramakan; thence to
Mount Wakarewa; thence followine
- the ranee
- of Mountains to the Lake
Rotoroa: thence to the sources of the Rivers Karamea and \Vakmoai
[Hzaphy]; thence by a straight line to Kaurangi [sic] Point, at the
seaside....""
13.6
Section 5 of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996 picks up the boundary from Belvedere Peak:
"thence proceeding generally in a westerly direction along the suinmit of the
ridge of the Spenser Mountains, passing through Waiau Pass, to the peak of
&fount Mahanga; thence proceeding generally in a northerly direction along
the summit of the ridge of the Mahanga Range to the peak of 1L1nuot Misery;
thence continuing by a right line in a north-north-westerly direction to the
junction of the western bank of the D'UUrlle River with the shore of Lake
Rotoroa; thence proceeding generally in a north-west direction following the
south-western shore of Lake Rotoroa to the south-east corner of Gowan
Bridge, at the confluence of Lake Rotoroa and the Gowan River ...; thence
proceeding in a north-north-westerly direction to the Trig station on Mount
Owen; thence continuing in a north-north-westerly direction by a right line to
a trig station on Mount Patriarch; thence proceeding generally in a northeasterly, northerly and again north-easterly direction along the summit of the
ridge of the Arthur Range to the Trig station on Mount Arthur; thence
proceeding by a right line in a north-westerly direction to the Trig station on
Mount Peel; thence proceeding generally in a north-westerly direction along
the summit of the Peel Range, passing through the Trig station on Mount
72
Mackay, Compendium, 11,386.
, ,
RanoIf, to the Trig station on Aorere Peak; thence proceeding by a right line
in a north-westerly direction to the Trig station on Mount Gouland; thence
continuing in a north-westerly direction by a right line to Trig Station
Kahurangi No. 2 at Kahurangi Point and that line produced to a point on the
coastline of the Tas~nanSea ...." [Emphasis added]
13.7
This line begins by bridging between the Arahura and Kaikoura blocks, although it is
unknown to the present writer what 'Mount Wakarewa'is now called. Then it flows around
Lake Rotoroa and the ridgelines to the north of the watersheds of the Karamea and Heaphy
rivers, creating a significant north-easterly bulge. Of course, this brings it within sight and
easy distance of the coastline in Motueka and Golden Bay, from Mount Owen to Mount
Gouland, and through drawing straight lines includes some watenvays, such as the Spey River
and Big River, which actually flow to the north. Given the longstanding occupation of several
tribal groups in those districts, and the lands' natural orientation towards the closer and more
accessible coast, the extent of Ngai Tahu's traditional reach into this district may be queried,
especially given Ngai Tahu's admission of the Ngati Apa use of tlie Ktrarnea River and
adjoining lands, even in Heaphy's Arahura dealings.
13.5
It is further to be noted that the description of the Tztkiwa recited in Te Runanga a Ngai Tnli~r
Acl is said at the beginning of that same section 5 to be:
"all the area of Te Waipouna~iiusouth of the northernmost boundaries
described in the decision of the Maori Appellate Court in Re n claim to the
W~ritcrrrgiTribunal iy Henure Rakiihn %u, 12 November 1990,1 South
Island Appellate Court Minute Book 672 ... ."
13.0
The apparent difficulty with that statement is that the Appellate Court's decision does not, in
fact, set out in its decision any 'northernmost boundaries'. The decision itself is a bare answer
to two questions. Furthermore, the court was asked two questions, the first of which was
which tribal group held customary interests within the areas of the Kaikourn and i\rahura
blocks, but the second was what the relative tribal boundaries were, should more than one
group be found to be entitled. The court held that Ngai Tahu had sole rights within the
purchase block areas and therefore, it concluded: 'Having decided that Ngai Tahu only is
entitled question two above does not require an answer.'Tlie court explicitly did itor make
any determination relating to exact tribal boundaries. The closest the detailed reasoning
behind the decision comes is the recitation of the relevant segments of the Kaikoura and
Arahura deeds, as quoted above. The present writer is therefore at something of a loss to
know esactly what section 5 of Te Runenga o Ngai Tahu Act was referring to in saying that
the court's decision described the boundaries as set out in great detail in the remainder of that
section.
13.10 The significance of these discrepancies is, of course, presently more a matter for legal
submission and Tribunal consideration than historical reflection.
13.11 The Takiwa description as quoted above was adopted without change in section S of the Ngai
Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998:
'Takiwa of Ngai Tahu Whanui' means the area identified as the takina of
Ngai Tahu Whanui in section 5 of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996."
"