More Info →Waitangi Tribunal Research : Kukutauaki 1872 - 1885

Description

CHAPTER 8
KUKUTAUAKI 1872 TO 1885
8.1 INTRODUCTION
In the early stages of the Horowhenua dispute there had been considerable resistance from both Ngati Apa and Muaupoko to any suggestion that the matter be taken to the court. Ngati Raukawa, on the other hand, seemed well disposed to the court.1 And while Pakeha occasionally commented between 1869 and 1871 that the Horowhenua dispute should be settled in the Native Land Court, or the problem solved by the Government buying the land, it was never McLean’s policy that the dispute be solved by forcing it into the Native Land Court; nor were McLean’s actions driven by a desire to purchase the land in question.2 His view seems to have been, quite consistently, that the land was not important; what was important was that the dispute over the land be settled. In 1872, however, men for whom the land was of primary importance came to the fore. Horowhenua became part of the larger problem of Kukutauaki, issues relating to the ownership of land on the coast on one hand, and its sale or purchase on the other, became hopelessly entangled, and recourse to the Native Land Court unavoidable.
If the descendants of Te Whatanui had no right to Horowhenua, and for three years Hunia and Kemp had said they did not, what claim did Ngati Raukawa have to the rest of the lands south of the Manawatu – the vast district known as Kukutauaki? And for that matter, what rights did Ati Awa and Ngati Toa have to the lands they claimed to the south of Kukutauaki, for these lands had originally belonged to others as well. Could the clamour over Horowhenua be merely the thin edge of a Ngati Apa wedge? There were some among Ngati Raukawa who feared this to be the case. If so, how were Ngati Raukawa and other tribal rights south of the Manawatu to be defined, and placed beyond all dispute?
Since the mid-1860s the Native Land Court had been the official machinery for settling all questions relating to the ownership of Maori land. Anyone could make an application to the court for an investigation of claim; once such an application was made, other interested parties were obliged to make counter-claims, or lose any rights they might have to the land by default. The result was that the initial claim was often followed by a flood of other claims.
1. Matene and 36 Others to McLean, 24 May 1870, ‘Papers Relative to Horowhenua’, AJHR, 1871, F-8, no 24, p 11
165
2. Cooper to Gisborne, 12 January 1870, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington; Fox to Gisborne, 30 June 1871, MA series 75/7, NA Wellington
8.2 1872: APPLICATIONS FOR TITLE INVESTIGATIONS
The Kukutauaki boundaries, of course, included land that was separately occupied by particular Ngati Raukawa hapu or groups of individuals, and during 1872 many of these laid claim to their own chosen patches, as an assertion of prior right. Among these applications were two separate claims to Horowhenua, for example, one by Watene Te Waiwai, Pomare, other descendants of Te Whatanui, Matene Te Whiwhi, and Tamihana Te Ruaparaha, the second by Hitau descendants: Tauteka, Kararaina, and their relatives. Kemp also made an application for the Horowhenua, on behalf of Muaupoko, and so did the Muaupoko chiefs. Some of these smaller or sectional claims overlapped each other, which made internal boundaries the issue. Others, like Horowhenua, pitted one group of claimants against another. All of these claims were set down to be heard at Foxton, during November 1872. But not only were Ngati Raukawa’s claims, both general and particular, set down for hearing during that month: those of Ati Awa and Ngati Toa, relating to lands to the south of the Kukutauaki boundary, were also to be determined. In short, the flood gates had opened; title to the entire coast, from the Government lands at Wainui in the south to the Manawatu River in the north, was to be determined, and once determined, the major obstacle in the way of purchase or sale of all or part of this land would be removed.
This was a situation which undoubtedly caused great satisfaction to W Fitzherbert, then Superintendent of Wellington, and at that time the Government’s land purchasing agent in the province. The west coast represented the last large area of land in the Wellington provincial district still in Maori hands; it was thus the only area left that could be used for new European settlements. These lands also formed a barrier between the European settlements at Wellington and the Hutt in the south, and those of Wanganui and the Manawatu in the north. For strategic reasons and the further expansion of European settlement in the province, acquisition of land along the coast was a political imperative.
It was Fitzherbert who had arranged for James Grindell, a Native Department interpreter, to be seconded to the Wellington Provincial Government at the beginning of 1872, his mission being to traverse the coast, persuade the tribes and hapu to make applications for the investigation of their titles, and discuss with them the question of land purchases.
On his first foray into the district, in March 1872, Grindell found his ground well prepared by Hunia and Kemp. Their agitations at Horowhenua, now into a third year, had produced insecurity with respect to land ownership not only in that district, but up and down the coast as well. The suggestion, therefore, that the Horowhenua dispute be taken to the Native Land Court as part of general clarification of tribal rights along the coast, fell on receptive Ngati Raukawa’s ears.
166
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
Grindell went first to Otaki, where he held a meeting with a very large and representative contingent of Ngati Raukawa. The speeches made were principally concerned with the claims made by Muaupoko and Rangitane to the land. These tribes, along with Ngati Apa, were considered to be ‘a scheming dissatisfied lot, desirous of obtaining possession of the whole country under the shelter of the law, which they and their fathers had not been able to hold by force of arms’.3 Ngati Raukawa felt that they had been patient, and made concessions to preserve the peace, but the more these tribes got, the more they wanted. They would give nothing further, and allow no further trespass. Ngati Raukawa were prepared to sell the mountains to the Pakeha, and would oppose any claims these other tribes might make. Grindell’s response set the parameters he would observe for the duration of his time on the coast. First, that the only way to settle disputes of the kind described was via the Native Land Court. Secondly, that the Government would not buy land until title to it had been properly investigated. Thirdly, that applications should be sent in covering all land to which they wished to claim title. Grindell asked specifically if Ngati Raukawa were prepared to have the Horowhenua dispute settled by the court, and received, after much discussion, the decision of the Otaki gathering: all disputes concerning land, including Horowhenua, would be left to the court to determine.
Grindell next travelled to Foxton, and up the Manawatu River to a meeting with members of the Rangitane, Muaupoko, and Ngati Whakatere tribes. Among the matters discussed at this meeting was the question of Horowhenua, the Muaupoko saying that while they were willing to submit the matter to the court, they must obtain Kemp’s views before making a final decision. Grindell’s response was that only the court could provide full legal title, and that since Ngati Raukawa had already agreed to place the dispute in the hands of the court, it would be best if Muaupoko did the same. Porotawahao was the next stop. Ngati Huia endorsed the decision of the Ngati Raukawa who had been present at Otaki, namely that Horowhenua and all other disputed claims were to be settled by the court. They wished to sell only the mountains, but Grindell said the Government wanted flat land as well, for roads and settlements. While Ngati Huia did not ‘fully consent’ to this, Grindell felt that there would be little difficulty in obtaining land of the required type.4
Watene and other Ngati Raukawa assembled at Horowhenua all supported a court adjudication, and provided Grindell with an application for investigation of their claims. They also offered to sell flat as well as mountain land.
Grindell then returned to Otaki, accompanied by many of the Ngati Raukawa who had been at Horowhenua, and ‘one or two of the Muaupokos, who came to hear the
3. Grindell to Superintendent, 25 March 1872, New Zealand Gazette (Province of Wellington), vol 19, no 10, 3 May 1872, p 89
167
4. Ibid, p 91
Wellington
discussions of Ngatiraukawa’.5 For several days, the various hapu argued about their respective claims. Finally nine applications were obtained, including one by Matene Te Whiwhi and his sister Rakapa Topiora for all of Kukutauaki, on behalf of the tribe as a whole. Grindell reported that many of the hapu did not approve of this application, and applied to have their claims investigated separately. This meant that some claims made infringed on those of others, while in other cases different parties were claiming the same block of land.
168
5. Ibid
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
While at Otaki Grindell received a message that the Ngatitehihi and Ngatiwehiwehi people wished him to see him in the Ngatiwehiwehi district at Waikawa. These Ngati Raukawa hapu had declined to attend the meeting at Otaki, fearful, according to Grindell, ‘of some advantage being gained over them by the other’.6 Grindell remarked that these feelings of mistrust and jealousy were prevalent among Ngati Raukawa all along the coast, not only towards Rangitane and Muaupoko, but also among the different hapu. Grindell travelled up the coast to Waikawa, where he found about 40 people camped in tents. They objected very strongly to any investigation of their title to the land they claimed, and refused to make application to the court. They were none the less willing to sell land. Grindell simply stated the Government’s position, that no land would be purchased until it had passed through the court and the facts of ownership been determined. He left them some application forms, invited them to discuss the matter among themselves, and returned to Otaki to await their decision. An apparently heated debate then ensued in the sand-hills at Waikawa. Next, a deputation travelled to Otaki to wait on Matene. After consultation with him, the Waikawa people joined in his general application for the whole of the Ngati Raukawa domain.7
In general, Grindell reported, Ngati Raukawa were prepared to take their claims, and their disputes with Kemp and Hunia, to the Native Land Court. Rangitane also favoured this approach, and Grindell was hopeful that Muaupoko would support it as well. Ngati Raukawa were also willing to sell the hills, along the full extent of their territory, and some of them were prepared to sell flat land as well. The question of surveys had come up repeatedly, everyone pleading inability to bear the expenses involved. Grindell had stated that it was proposed to make a general map of the district, with as many natural features, place names, and boundaries as possible. This map would be used to divide up the land, according to the judgments made by the court. The Government would pay for the surveys needed to prepare this map, and it had been agreed that these surveys would be permitted. Grindell concluded his report to Fitzherbert by noting that everywhere he went, demands for money as advances on claims were made, demands he ‘invariably discountenanced’.8 In his opinion, it was ‘inadvisable, as a rule, to make advances on land to which there are so many adverse claimants before their titles have been investigated by the Court’.9
8.3 1872: SURVEY OF COAST
6. Ibid
7. Ibid, p 92
8. Ibid, p 93
9. Ibid
169
Wellington
In a period of little more than two weeks, Grindell had obtained numerous applications for investigation of titles, indicated plainly the Government’s wish to buy land along the coast for roads and settlements, and obtained approval for the first step in the process of sale: survey and mapping of the land, at Government expense. He expected this work would take only a short time, since an exact survey was not required. It would be, he thought, ‘sufficient to roughly traverse the rivers with a pocket compass for a sufficient distance to mark their general direction, and their sources could be shown as seen in the hills from the flats below’.10 The expense would be ‘trifling’, and he clearly anticipated no difficulties with Ngati Raukawa or, indeed, any of the tribes along the coast. In fact, he spent much of the winter of 1872 on the coast, coping with bad weather, poor health, escalating costs, frustrating delays and, worst of all, shifting opinions within the different tribes concerning, at the most basic level, whether a survey should be allowed at all, and then, if a survey was to be permitted, what sort of survey it should be and who should control it. Many of these difficulties related to the ongoing dispute over Horowhenua; others to internal tensions within Ngati Raukawa, as the hapu struggled to unite in the face of a common enemy. Some of the problems seem to relate to simple confusion about the meaning or significance of a survey line, relative to or in comparison with the boundary lines that had long been used to mark off tribal or hapu territory; confusion that was compounded by ‘the immense amount of jealousy and suspicion [that existed] amongst the various claimants and tribes in reference to each other’s claims and boundaries’.11 A few of the difficulties were apparently the product of rumour, or of predictions made by interested Pakeha about what the eventual outcome of allowing the survey would be. In a district racked with anxiety and foreboding about the impending court hearing, almost anything could quickly erode away what was in reality often only fragile support for the survey, or even more disheartening and alarming, convert it into active hostility towards the surveying parties.
10. Ibid
170
11. Grindell to Minister of Public Works, 31 May 1872, AJHR, 1873, G-8, no 41, p 32
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
In April Grindell went back up the coast to get the survey under way and follow up some applications. The difficulties that Horowhenua presented were evident right from the start, Grindell reporting his concerns about the presence of Hunia in the district, calling him an ‘extremely violent and unreasonable man’ who, if he were associated with the survey in any way, might be the cause of its downfall.12 In an attempt to counter Hunia’s influence with the Muaupoko, Grindell enlisted Hector McDonald, a long-established Pakeha settler at Horowhenua, on the side of the survey. He had also arranged for the Rangitane chief Hoani Meihana to travel with the survey party while it was at Horowhenua, to keep the Muaupoko, in Grindell’s opinion, ‘an excessively mulish and obstinate people’, in check. Grindell was anticipating difficulties because he had found the Muaupoko, on his second visit to them, still very hesitant about the survey. He had explained to them that since Kemp and his allies had sent in an application covering the whole of the coast, a survey had become a necessity. Despite his explanation of the purpose of and reason for the survey, Muaupoko had absolutely refused to allow any Ngati Raukawa onto their land to point out any boundaries, apparently believing that this would be in some way an acknowledgment of right. Grindell had told them that since the different sections of Ngati Raukawa were making separate applications for their own portions of the tribal domain, Muaupoko would have to make a similar application for the land they occupied. This had lead to much ‘tedious talk’.13 Eventually the chief, Te Rangi Rurupuni, had announced himself in favour of the survey, in order that the dispute might be determined by the court. This did not, as might have been expected, settle the matter, but it was finally decided that after the tribe had consulted with some absent friends, an application would be forwarded to Wellington. Grindell clearly considered that this would mean Muaupoko resistance to the survey would end, since Hunia could have no objection to the survey: his name was on the application for a title investigation already received from Wanganui.
If the Muaupoko were difficult, the Ngati Raukawa were everywhere, and still reasonable and conciliatory. Ihakara Tukumaru and his people, for example, occupied land to the north of the district. They gave Grindell their application, along with the necessary assent to the survey, after only a brief discussion. Their land would therefore pass through the court with the rest of the Ngati Raukawa claims. Watene and his people, on land at Horowhenua, were reported to be quite anxious that the survey proceed, and had promised that they would not interfere with the Muaupoko, even if they did survey, as Kemp had threatened, up to their ‘very door steps’.14 The Ngati Huia at Porotawahao, to the north of the lake, on land adjacent to that of Muaupoko, were of a similar mind to Watene and the descendants of Te Whatanui: willing to have the survey proceed, unwilling to create any difficulties that might prevent its completion. The Ngati Raukawa at Otaki, Waikawa, and Ohau supported the survey as well.
12. Grindell to Superintendent, 29 April 1872, MA series 13/75B, p 2, NA Wellington
13. Ibid, p 8
171
14. Ibid, p 9
Wellington
Grindell was also able to report that he had nipped in the bud a potential dispute between Wi Parata of Ati Awa and Tamihana Te Ruaparaha of Ngati Toa concerning the lands to the south of the Ngati Raukawa tribal claim, with the result that these lands too would be surveyed and passed through the court. This meant that the applications in hand covered all of the land on the west coast still in Maori hands, from the Manawatu River in the north to the edge of the Crown lands at Wainui, south of Waikanae.
Grindell was anxious that everyone who occupied land along the coast should make an application for investigation of their title – no one was to be dispossessed by default. Similarly, the survey was to be conducted in the interests of all claimants. He provided details of all the boundary information contained in the various applications to Thompson the surveyor, and ‘instructed him to be particular in showing on the maps the position of all points mentioned along disputed lines of boundary’.15 At this stage, April 1872, Grindell expected the survey to be completed by September.
In May the promised Muaupoko application arrived in Wellington, ‘with the names of the principal men of the tribe attached’. In the same mail, however, came another letter:
purporting to be from the whole tribe with several signatures attached in the same handwriting, threatening to break the chain of the surveyor if he persists in surveying the land in dispute between them and the Ngatiraukawa.16
There appeared to be, Grindell remarked with probably unconscious drollery, ‘a division amongst them’.17
By May the survey was under threat from another direction as well. Ngati Raukawa opinion had shifted, or perhaps simply crystallised, and there was now a strong sentiment in favour of a united or single application to the court, covering the
15. Ibid, p 12
16. Grindell to Minister of Public Works, 31 May 1872, AJHR, 1873, G-8, no 41, p 32
172
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
whole of the Ngati Raukawa tribal domain. Sectional claims to different parts of this tribal domain were to be sorted out at a later date. The corollary, as far as the survey was concerned, was a simple one: no internal boundaries should be surveyed at this stage, only the outer borders of Ngati Raukawa’s claim.18 The Ngati Huia resident at Otaki were very much of this new persuasion, so much so that they had prevented the survey party from crossing the Otaki River.
Grindell reported that he had taken a very firm line with Ngati Huia.19 The court would not sit without properly prepared maps, and if the court did not sit, the whole matter would remain undecided. Nor would the Government be able to buy any land they might wish to sell. There must be maps, and he had insisted that these maps should contain information that would enable the court to divide the land up hapu by hapu as required, thus saving time and the expense of secondary surveys. After some discussion Ngati Huia had agreed to allow the survey to continue. Grindell telegraphed Fitzherbert on 13 June with a brief account of Ngati Huia’s actions, adding that the matter had been settled and that the survey was going on. The message ended with a few words giving a glimpse of the everyday realities Grindell was facing – ‘Weather inclement. Got wet. Cough returned. Natives require watching everywhere’.20
Early in July Grindell provided a much fuller account and explanation of Ngati Huia’s interference with the survey. It was, he said, part of a general Ngati Raukawa response to the threat posed by the emergence of a hostile coalition of five opposing tribes acting as one: Muaupoko, Rangitane, Ngati Apa, Whanganui, and Ngati
17. Ibid
18. Grindell to Superintendent, 13 June 1872, MA series 13/75B, p 1, NA Wellington
19. Ibid, p 2
173
20. Ibid
Wellington
Kahungunu. There was concern, in the face of this development, that the pursuit of sectional, that is, hapu, claims might sow dissension within the ranks of Ngati Raukawa, at a time when a united front was required, and thus provide the opposition with some advantage at the hearing. In other words, the argument was that Ngati Raukawa should fight Hunia and Kemp first. Then they could fight among themselves.
There had also been Pakeha intervention in the affairs of Ngati Raukawa by T C Williams, the son of Henry Williams, and Wyld, a private surveyor. Williams had strongly advised Ngati Raukawa not to sell their land, and had recommended that they gather funds so they could repay any advances made on the land by the Government. Williams had also told them they while they might wish to sell only useless land, the mountains, for example, the Government would not be satisfied with land of this kind. That was why they wanted the land cut up into separate blocks, so they could gain possession of it piece by piece. Williams’ advice to them had been that they should survey the land themselves, in one block, and establish their tribal claim ‘independently of Government interference’.21
Williams had the best interests of Ngati Raukawa at heart. Wyld’s interests clearly lay a little closer to home. His message was that Ngati Raukawa should avoid Government surveyors, since this could lead to the cost of the survey being charged against the land, ultimately forcing its sale. What Williams and Wyld were saying was enough to cause uncertainty, alarm, and back-sliding among Ngati Raukawa, to the detriment of the survey, and Grindell had had to reassure them yet again as to the Government’s intentions and objectives. He admitted that the Government wanted to
174
21. Grindell to Superintendent, 2 July 1872, MA series 13/75B, p 4, NA Wellington
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
buy flat land on the coast, but reminded Ngati Raukawa that he had told them this at the very beginning, when they had first offered to sell the mountainous country. But this did not mean that the Government would take all the land:
they were aware that not an inch would be alienated without a price agreed upon and the full and free consent of all interested, and that indeed if they were to offer the whole of the land the Government would not agree to purchase it all – it was not the object of the Government to beggar them and render them homeless but to improve their condition.22
Nor was the Government intending to use survey charges as a way of obtaining the land. He had said previously that ‘the Government would make no charge for the surveys’, and he explained again why the Government was willing to bear these costs:
The Government have agreed to do this not for the purpose of having a lien upon the land, but for the purpose of preserving peace and quietness amongst you and of enabling you to settle your differences by Law. The Government objects to fighting anywhere, but more especially in the midst of European settlements, and you were very nearly coming to that a short time ago at Horowhenua. If each hapu amongst you were to employ its own surveyor, the other tribes claiming would desire to do so likewise and the result would be confusion and bloodshed. To prevent this the Government was willing to step in as a mediator and employ its own surveyors to mark off the boundaries as claimed by each party, leaving the Court to finally settle all disputes.23
22. Ibid, p 7
175
23. Ibid, p 6
Wellington
The surveying party was now approaching Horowhenua, and Grindell had decided that he would offer the Muaupoko their own surveyor, in a manner of speaking, in the hope that this would persuade them to allow a survey of their boundaries to be made. In fairness, the same arrangement was to be offered to Ngati Raukawa as well.24 On his arrival, he described the Muaupoko as ‘obstinate and unreasonable as ever’, their settlement full of Ngati Apa, Ngati Kahungunu, and other opponents of Ngati Raukawa. Not only did they lay claim to the whole coast from north to south, they also:
positively refused to allow the country in their locality to be surveyed, and protested strongly against the surveys of other parts of the coast at Otaki and elsewhere, declaring that the whole must be discontinued until they had given their consent. They threatened to break the chain and the theodolite and turn off the surveyors if they came there to survey.25
Grindell pointed out, among other things, that if they took their opposition as far as to break the law, they risked Kemp’s disapproval. He made the offer of a surveyor, who would work under their observation as far as the surveying of their internal boundaries was concerned, and offered to let them go with the surveying parties, and point out any boundaries or locations anywhere on the coast that they wished to be shown on the map being prepared for the hearing. Te Rangi Rurupuni once again said that he could see no objection to a survey of the boundaries claimed by Watene and again advised that the survey be permitted to go ahead. But again the chief’s opinions gave rise to hot dissent, and Grindell decided, in the face of this discord, to place the survey of Horowhenua on hold until Kemp arrived back in the district.26 In the meantime, he announced, he would continue with the survey to the north and south of Horowhenua, a decision that some ‘still grumbled’ about.
24. Grindell to Superintendent, 7 June 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
176
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
Grindell left the Muaupoko settlement that day in a far from optimistic frame of mind:
it seemed to me that nothing less would satisfy them than an absolute admission on the part of the Government that they were the only owners of the country and that the Ngatiraukawa were only aliens and intruders.27
In the morning, Te Rangi Rurupuni came over to Hector McDonald’s house to tell Grindell that if he wanted to push ahead with the survey of Watene’s boundaries, he could do so. A party would come and protest about it, but Te Rangi Rurupuni doubted that they would use force to get their way. Grindell’s position was that the survey could not proceed in the face of opposition. He would wait for Kemp to arrive.
Grindell went across to talk to Watene before leaving Horowhenua, and recorded at some length what Watene and his people had to say, in the middle of June 1872, about these matters:
25. Grindell to Superintendent, 2 July 1872, MA series 13/75B, p 9, NA Wellington
26. Ibid, p 12
27. Ibid, p 11
177
Wellington
from the commencement of the dispute they, the Ngatiraukawa, had exercised great patience and forbearance under extreme provocation and insolence from a remnant of slaves whose lives had been spared by Te Whatanui from mere compassion when the country was first occupied by Te Ngatiraukawa; that they had been anxious to preserve peace throughout, and had been always guided by the wishes of the Government, and that now again they would wait patiently until Major Kemp returned as desired by me. But, they said, if after that the Muaupoko still remained obstinate they would ask the Government to allow them to settle the dispute themselves in their own way ‘after the manner of their ancestors’.28
On his way north, Grindell stopped an Porotawahao to check up on the Ngati Huia. They were ready and waiting for the surveyors to arrive. Visits to the Ngati Raukawa settlement at Hikaretu, on the Manawatu River, and the nearby Rangitane village at Oroua both went well, each tribe agreeing to allow the other to point out their boundaries to the surveyors without interference. This was not the first time, nor would it be the last occasion, on which Rangitane would take an independent and moderate line, despite their ties to Muaupoko and Ngati Apa. Given the history of their relationship with Ngati Raukawa, Rangitane’s generally conciliatory and cooperative attitude to their distant relatives was perhaps to be expected.29
A meeting at Foxton with Ihakara Tukumaru had both good and bad aspects. On one hand, Ihakara reported that a large and very recent gathering of Ngati Raukawa at Otaki had agreed that everyone would drop particular claims until the court had heard Ngati Raukawa’s claim to Kukutauaki as a whole. Only then would the land be subdivided. Grindell reported that he had, consequently, encountered some reluctance to allow any surveying of internal boundaries. However, Ihakara was quite willing to have the boundaries of his own block surveyed.30
While in Foxton, Grindell interviewed Peeti Te Aweawe, Hoani Meihana, and other Rangitane chiefs. All of them condemned the Muaupoko attitude to the survey,
28. Ibid, pp 13–14
178
29. J M McEwen, Rangitane: A Tribal History, Auckland, Reed Methuen, 1986, p 132
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
and agreed to try and talk Hunia around, identifying him as the cause of all the problems. Hoani Meihana in fact produced another application from the Muaupoko for an investigation of their title to Horowhenua. He had obtained this from them following a recent visit by Hunia to their settlement, to which he attributed their change of heart.31
On his way back to Wellington, at the end of June, Grindell stopped at Ohau and Waikawa, where he found that arrangements for the survey were proceeding ‘as satisfactorily as at the other settlements of Ngatiraukawa’.32 While at Ohau, a small party of Muaupoko arrived, protesting to Ngati Raukawa that the survey should not proceed until they (Muaupoko) had consented. Ngati Raukawa politely referred them to the Government. When the delegation turned to Grindell, and ordered him to stop the survey, he declined to do so, stating again that Horowhenua would not be surveyed until Kemp had made his views known, but that the survey would proceed elsewhere on the coast. They withdrew, said Grindell, ‘after a great deal of vapouring’.33
30. Grindell to Superintendent, 2 July 1872, MA series 13/75B, pp 16–17, NA Wellington
31. Ibid, pp 17–18
32. Ibid, p 20
33. Ibid, p 21
179
Wellington
At Otaki, on 28 June, Grindell met with an influential gathering of Ngati Raukawa, and answered all their questions and explained anything which they did not seem to understand. The meeting seems to have been a wide ranging one, covering matters such as the survey, disputed boundaries, what action should be taken if the Muaupoko interfered with the survey, the operation of the Native Land Court, road making, and the advantages of European settlement along the coast. Despite what Ihakara Tukumaru had reported about the recent Ngati Raukawa gathering at Otaki, Grindell gained an assurance from the meeting that the survey would proceed without obstruction.34 The next day, he took the coach to Wellington.
Writing his report a few days later, Grindell noted that there were now three surveyors working on the coast, and that he expected the work to be completed by September. He then went on to sum up his impressions of the three tribes he had dealt with during his month of travelling and meetings:
. . . Ngatiraukawa from the commencement have been extremely forbearing and anxious to submit every dispute to the decision of the Court, whilst the Muaupokos have been extremely unreasonable, and even arrogant and imperious, protesting against and interfering with surveys in localities which have been, within my own knowledge, in the undisputed and peaceable occupation of the Ngati Raukawa for over 30 years. I believe Kawana Hunia of Ngatiapa to be their principal instigator in this line of conduct for the deliberate purpose of creating a disturbance between the tribes. The Rangitane by no means approve of this course, and are equally as anxious as Ngatiraukawa that the survey should proceed and the whole question be settled by the Court.35
In July, Grindell was on the coast again, in yet another effort to get the Muaupoko to cooperate with the survey, Halse telegraphing him to be ‘very cautious’ in putting in surveying posts on the south side of the Hokio.36 Grindell expected to meet Kemp, but Kemp was ill, and did not make the journey. Instead Hunia turned up, and
34. Ibid, pp 21–22
35. Ibid, pp 22–23
180
36. Halse to Grindell, 25 July 1872, MA series 5/2, p 158, NA Wellington
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
Grindell reported that he found him much more reasonable that he had expected. Hunia asked a great many questions about the survey and the Government’s intentions, and said he was satisfied with the answers Grindell provided. Hunia even had favourable things to say about Ngati Raukawa, referring to Te Whatanui’s role as the protector of the Muaupoko people, an act which he said had not been forgotten. However, Ngati Toa and Ati Awa were spoken of with ‘great rancour and bitterness’.37 Hunia announced that he was withdrawing any opposition to the survey, and a deal was immediately struck. Muaupoko would cease to protest about or interfere in any way with the surveys. In exchange, they would be permitted to point out whatever boundaries they wished to the surveyors, even on land occupied by Ngati Raukawa, anywhere on the coast. Grindell offered to accompany a party of Muaupoko and their Ngati Apa escort to the south, as far as the Government boundary at Wainui, so that Muaupoko could erect posts and otherwise place their own stamp on the survey maps.
181
37. Grindell to Superintendent, 29 July 1872, MA series 13/75B, p 2, NA Wellington
Wellington
Grindell and his charges arrived at Otaki, the very heart of Ngati Raukawa country. The Government man explained to Matene Te Whiwhi why they were there, and the arrangement he had made with Muaupoko concerning the survey. The visitors, according to Grindell, were ‘somewhat shy and reserved’,38 but they were given a cordial welcome. Matene assured them that they were welcome to conduct their surveys wherever they chose, and that Ngati Raukawa were pleased that all of the parties to the dispute now accepted that their respective rights and title should be decided by English law. And so, said Grindell, ‘the matter was amicably arranged’, and the Muaupoko went off to place the posts and markers which signalled their intention to claim and divide up among themselves all the domains of Ngati Raukawa.39
Grindell’s relief at this outcome was evident enough in his telegram to Fitzherbert and Cooper: ‘Matters never looked as well as now. I have no further anxiety. Home end of week’.40 But he did not take any great credit for this turn around himself, attributing the Muaupoko change of heart to the influence that Hoani Meihana and the other Rangitane chiefs had brought to bear on their wayward allies, and that Hunia, seeing the way the wind was blowing, had ‘made a virtue of necessity and submitted with a proper grace’.41 Kemp, he thought, had probably exerted influence on Hunia as well. In any event, the last obstacle in the way of completing the survey had been removed, and Grindell urged that a sitting of the court be advertised as soon as possible. If publication of the necessary notice was left until the survey was finished, the sitting of the court, he stressed, would be delayed unnecessarily.
38. Ibid, p 5
39. Ibid
182
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
183
40. Grindell to Superintendent, 26 July 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
41. Ibid
Wellington
In August Grindell received advice from Hector McDonald that Hunia was likely to cause more trouble over the survey. However, Grindell doubted that anything serious would occur: Hunia was ‘naturally of a bounceable and vapouring disposition’, but he and the Muaupoko had written both to McLean and the Governor, re-affirming the arrangements that had been made about the Horowhenua survey, and this would go ahead over the next few weeks.42 Watene had also been to see Grindell, to tell him that Muaupoko were talking of cultivating on the disputed land – on the very site where Watene’s houses had been burnt. Again, Grindell did not attach any great significance to this information, but did note however that these matters needed ‘to be carefully watched’.43 To date, according to the information Grindell provided to Fitzherbert, only minor problems with the survey had occurred: a Ngati Raukawa chief had objected to the presence of a Muaupoko labourer in one of the surveying parties, and a letter had been received from a Muaupoko chief objecting to Ngati Raukawa being involved with the survey between Ohau and Manawatu. Grindell had taken a strong line over the Muaupoko labourer and nothing more had been heard of the matter. In the case of the Muaupoko protest, the principal Rangitane chief Hoani Meihana had intervened, and set the record straight as to Ngati Raukawa’s right to work with the survey parties north of Ohau. Grindell was following up with a letter to the same effect. The underlying problem in all of this, Grindell concluded, was that ‘each party regards the survey of the other with extreme jealousy and suffers the work to proceed with a very ill grace’.44
In fact, Hector McDonald’s information was sound, and in mid-September Grindell was on the coast, talking to Hunia and trying to persuade him and the
42. Grindell to Superintendent, 16 August, 1872, MA series 13/75B, p 1, NA Wellington
184
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
Muaupoko, yet again, to allow the survey to proceed. On 17 September he reported that he had had a long talk with Hunia, that they would see the Muaupoko on the following day, and that the work would be resumed. ‘I shall wait till it is finished or at least till all danger over’.45 On 21 September he reported success with the Muaupoko after a marathon ‘reasoning’ session. No further difficulties were anticipated, and he mentioned that Hunia and some others were on their way to Wellington. He was very glad that they were out of the way, since one of this party was the chief source of obstruction.46 This was probably the Muaupoko Heta, and Grindell heard that, while in town, Heta was going to try to get an advance on some land at Horowhenua. He telegraphed the Provincial Secretary, H Bunny: ‘Old Rangi says the land does not belong to him. Give him nothing’.47
Unfortunately for Grindell, however, Hunia took his complaints about the survey to the Government. Cooper telegraphed Grindell on 26 September that he had interviewed Hunia, and agreed with him that only outside boundaries needed to be surveyed. Any internal boundaries or subdivisions would be left to the court to decide, and then surveyed only by order of the court. He then directed that if any surveying of internal subdividing boundaries was going on, to ‘stop it’.48 A second telegram on the same day spelt out Hunia’s objections: there was to be no surveying at Mahoenui, Ngatukorua or, in particular, ‘Tau o te ruru’.49 All of these were sensitive spots, especially Tauataruru: the site of one of the posts marking the southernmost boundary of the land allocated to Muaupoko by Te Whatanui.
43. Ibid, p 2
44. Ibid, p 6
45. Grindell to Superintendent, 17 September 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
46. Grindell to Superintendent, 21 September 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
47. Grindell to Bunny, 25 September 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
48. Cooper to Grindell, 26 September 1872, MA series 5/2, p 276, NA Wellington
185
Wellington
Mahoenui, in turn, was the southernmost boundary of the Horowhenua district. Nga Tokorua was north of the lake, and the site of one of the posts marking the northern boundary of the Muaupoko block, and so the border between that tribe and Ngati Huia.50 Grindell immediately telegraphed Fitzherbert, to tell him that Cooper had halted the survey, at that stage within a few days of completion.51 A longer telegram to Cooper and Fitzherbert on the same day set out the situation as Grindell saw it:
49. Halse to Grindell, 25 July 1872, MA series 5/2, p 280, NA Wellington
50. G L Adkin, Horowhenua: Its Maori Place-Names and Their Topographic and Historical Background, Wellington, Department of Internal Affairs, 1948, p 256
51. Grindell to Superintendent, 26 September 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
186
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
All surveys completed except one internal boundary at Mahoenui. Muaupokos all agreed that this should be done on condition of their survey on the beach to Manawatu without interruption from Ngatiraukawa. This they have done and also their internal boundary between them and the Ngatihuia and elsewhere. Hunia agreed fully to this and authorised me to go on with it. Kemp has also agreed and written Muaupokos not to interfere and telegraphed me and the NgatiRaukawa have been promised that they shall do theirs. If the Ngatiraukawa are told that they must not do it after submitting so patiently to all the whims of Muaupokos they will have just cause of complaint. This is a breach of the promises made publicly by Hunia and Kemp. Hunia drew a plan on the sand, pointing out boundaries to be surveyed with the full consent of all his people after a whole night’s consideration. His subsequent action in Wellington is deceitful in the extreme. Hope you will reconsider the matter. See Mr Fitzherbert. Have written to him. Can’t explain all in telegram. Can finish survey in a few days. Stopping work now at request of Hunia in direct opposition to pledge from him will create dissatisfaction and complication. He interviewed Karanama Kapuhai at Otaki and told him no further interruption would be offered and told me I might depend upon his words. I am anxious about this. Reconsider and reply. See Hoani Meihana. [Emphasis in original.]52
The next day Grindell sent another telegram to Cooper and Fitzherbert:
Hunia’s action in Wellington is a bare faced breach of faith. He never expected such a concession when he asked it. Merely trying it . . . I know positively he is now acting without the knowledge of Muaupoko and in opposition to their desire, he and the spiteful creature with him Heta. See Rangi Rurupuni, chief of Muaupoko, who goes per coach today. See Ngatuere who is in town and knows all about it . . . Muaupoko’s own internal boundaries are done and it would be beyond all precedent unjust not to allow NgatiRaukawa to finish theirs . . . There is no danger of any collision between them. If I saw danger I should at once withdraw surveyors. You can depend on my judgment.53
In Grindell’s opinion the Government had taken Hunia’s complaints too seriously, overestimated the support for his views, and seen dangers which did not exist. Now that it had a correct assessment of the situation, it must reverse the decision to halt the survey.
By the spring of 1872 all the tribes on the coast supported the idea that the disputes over land titles should be settled by referring the matter to the Native Land Court – Muaupoko being the last tribe to agree to this mode of settlement and the tribe with the least commitment to it. The need for a survey seems to have been
52. Grindell to Cooper and Superintendent, 26 September 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
187
Wellington
generally accepted as well, but the concept of survey lines that represented hapu or some other kind of subdivisional boundaries that were provisional until confirmed by the court seems to have been less well understood, at least by Muaupoko and some sections of Ngati Raukawa. In the case of the Muaupoko, Grindell attributed a great deal of their obstructionism to Hunia’s influence, and Hunia he thought was simple trying to ferment tribal conflict. It is true that many of the difficulties encountered in the survey of Horowhenua do seem to have originated with Hunia. Perhaps he was concerned that the Muaupoko case for Horowhenua, let alone the wider claim for all of the coast, would not stand up under the scrutiny of the court. If so, the only thing to do was prevent the survey, and so the court hearing. At the same time, it is possible that Hunia, and the Muaupoko, who seem to have been less familiar with Pakeha ways than Ngati Raukawa, were also exhibiting a degree of genuine confusion about the precise meaning of newly-cut survey lines, especially ones that ran along the boundaries traditionally claimed by their opponents.
On at least two occasions during 1872 the Muaupoko chief, Te Rangi Rurupuni, took an opposite line to Hunia and/or some sections of Muaupoko, but was unable to carry all of his tribe with him. This indicates a division of opinion within Muaupoko, but the basis of this division, whether over the survey or the claim for Horowhenua, or the alliance with Ngati Apa, or whatever, is not entirely evident. It is possible, of course, that too much emphasis had been placed on the concept of tribe, and therefore of tribal unity, and not enough on the hapu or tribal subdivisions. It may be that unity at the tribal level was unusual; the apparent ‘split’ in Muaupoko may be simply a manifestation of normal hapu dynamics and interactions.
188
53. Grindell to Superintendent, 27 September 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
Whatever the interpretation, at Otaki, Matene Te Whiwhi was having problems of a similar kind with Ngati Raukawa. According to the evidence provided by Grindell’s reports, the leadership of Ngati Raukawa became very preoccupied, during the winter of 1872, with ‘tribal unity’, a sure indication that this was either something being anxiously sought, or that it was something being threatened by splits and divisions of one kind or another. During the 1830s, the hapu of Ngati Raukawa had settled themselves, or been settled, in different areas of Kukutauaki. Ngati Pareraukawa, Te Whatanui’s hapu, for example, had located themselves at Horowhenua, on the south bank of the Hokio Stream. Ngati Huia held land near Otaki and in the north at Porotawahao. These hapu districts were by no means rigidly fixed, and boundary disputes were not uncommon. Even as late as 1873, Grindell reported that one reason for the delay in buying land was ‘owing to the impossibility of getting the natives to agree about their boundaries’.54 But while boundaries may have been movable feasts, there does seem to have been strong associations between particular hapu and particular districts. During the early part of 1872 some of these hapu had shown a desire to take their own smaller claims to the court, or to otherwise act in an independent manner in their dealing with the Government, not approving, for example, of Matene Te Whiwhi’s claim on behalf of Ngati Raukawa for all of the tribal domain.55 This is probably good evidence that the prospect of land sales, which would be opened up by a successful claim in the court, was having a corrosive effect on the tribe’s cohesion, assuming of course that the tribe was, prior to this date, a closely knit entity. As the situation developed during the winter of 1872, it also seems evident that opposition to the survey of hapu
54. Grindell to Superintendent, 21 April 1873, MA series 13/75B, p 1, NA Wellington
189
Wellington
boundary lines equated with opposition to land sales, and that this opposition was strongest among the Otaki Ngati Huia, possibly because of the influence of Williams on this particular section of Ngati Raukawa.
190
55. Grindell to Superintendent, 25 March 1872, New Zealand Gazette (Province of Wellington), vol 19, no 10, 3 May 1872, p 91
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
In any event, Grindell had very obviously underestimated, at the beginning of 1872, the difficulties the survey would encounter. Consequently he had to spend a good deal of his time up and down the coast that year, preaching the need for a survey, and in particular for a survey that would allow the land to be subdivided, for the purposes of sale. While elements of both Ngati Raukawa and Muaupoko at some stage or other opposed and obstructed the survey, Grindell invariably talked of the Ngati Raukawa as ‘reasonable’ and the Muaupoko as very ‘unreasonable’, ‘excessively stupid and ignorant’, and ‘mulish and obstinate’.56 Despite these opinions, he explained, discussed, reasoned, and cajoled with equal tact as required; when opposition was strong, and the situation volatile, he left well alone. No attempt was ever made to carry on the survey against the will of any of the occupants, and a forcible survey was never contemplated. Had opposition been widespread, strong, and intractable, Grindell would almost have certainly recommended that the survey be abandoned. When asked why a survey was needed, he explained it in terms of the need to clarify land titles, and so prevent arguments and conflict, and he seems to have been meticulous in seeing that everyone who had a claim to land made application for investigation of their title: no one was to forfeit their land by default. But he was also quite forthright about the other reason for the survey; the Government wanted to buy land along the coast, and it wanted to buy this land from those who had a legal and settled title to it. Thus the land had be passed through the court, and the survey was the necessary prerequisite to this operation.
191
56. Grindell to Superintendent, 24 April 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington; Grindell to Superintendent, 29 April 1872, MA series 13/75B, p 5, NA Wellington; Grindell to Superintendent and to Under-Secretary Public Works, 19 June 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
Wellington
8.4 1872: ADVANCES ON THE LAND
The provincial government was anxious to acquire land. Grindell and McLean were, they said, concerned that land should be purchased only after title to it had been satisfactorily investigated. Once titles had been settled Grindell felt there would be no shortage of willing sellers, for it was quite apparent that the various tribes along the coast ‘were generally desirous of selling their waste lands at the present time’, and Grindell was confident that ‘some valuable blocks will be acquired’.57 Indeed, before the survey had started, Grindell was deluged with demands for advances on land offered for sale, and through the year applications of this kind, claims for a share of any money that was to be paid for land, and requests for food, the cost of which was to deducted from the price of the land, were frequently made. Generally, Grindell advocated caution in dealing with propositions of these kinds, especially when the ownership of the land in question was disputed or unsettled. He had explained his reasons to a meeting of Ngati Raukawa at Waikawa in March 1872:
if we were to pay them money for [land] without first duly ascertaining the ownership, they would be secure, having received the payment, but we should, in all probability, be landed in a difficulty, as it was likely this and that hapu would come forward, each claiming and taking a slice, till at last we should be left with nothing but the bones. For our own protection, therefore, we required the title to be investigated.58
57. Grindell to Minister of Public Works, 31 May 1872, AJHR, 1873, G-8, no 41, p 32
58. Grindell to Superintendent, 25 March 1872, New Zealand Gazette (Province of Wellington), vol 19, no 10, 3 May 1872, p 92
192
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
Similarly, when approached by those who wished to stake a claim in advance to a share of the proceedings of any land sales, Grindell seems to have consistently responded that anyone wanting to have their claims to land recognised would have to attend the court and look after their own interests.59 McLean seems to have taken a similar line. When Nepia Taratoa wanted to come to Wellington, for example, to discuss matters relating to land, McLean minuted that ‘it would be more judicious not to encourage the natives to come to Wellington until the land is passed through the Court’.60
But while the official line may have been that no advances would be made before the land had passed through the court, in practice a more flexible approach seems to have been in operation. In August 1872, for example, Grindell received a letter from Hector McDonald at Horowhenua, dealing with Hunia’s objections to the survey but commenting also about advances:
I have heard that Caroline Nicholson has been getting advances on Whatanui’s land at Manawatu and Watene is going to town to draw more also for here. You must mind what you are doing for Pomare and his wife is the rightful owners.61
McDonald went on to say, incidentally, that ‘Watene is only looking after the place for Pomare and his wife’ and that ‘Pomare is no fool I can tell you and has lots of money to go to law’.62
Earlier, in July, Grindell had reported that some of the Manawatu Ngati Raukawa had complained, ‘with some bitterness’, that Booth had advanced money to Rangitane on account, while their applications for similar treatment had been turned
59. Ngawai to Superintendent, 14 May 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington; Henare Waiatua to Superintendent, 3 August 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington; Kaperiere Te Mahirahi to Superintendent, 29 August 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
60. Nepia Taratoa to Fitzherbert, 18 July 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
61. Hector McDonald to Grindell, 15 August 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
193
62. Ibid
Wellington
down, on the grounds that their claims to the land in question had not yet been investigated by the court. To the Ngati Raukawa this seemed, Grindell said, ‘a recognition of the claims of Rangitane to the prejudice of Ngatiraukawa’.63 He went on to note in passing that while it was not unknown for ‘some small sums’ to be advanced on land, to be accounted for when the purchase was finalised, Booth had in this instance not only advanced money on disputed land, he had also fixed the price, ‘which is very considerable’, to be paid per acre, thus tying the Government’s hands in all future dealing over the block in question. This was bad enough, but then Grindell’s real objection to Booth’s behaviour emerged: the land in question ‘was within the boundaries of the district allocated to me by the Hon The Native Minister’, Booth’s actions therefore constituted ‘interference’ and as such was ‘highly objectionable’.64
This small bureaucratic skirmish seems revealing. For one thing, it suggests that the left hand did not always know what the right hand was doing and, additionally, that as far as laying the foundations for purchase was concerned, it was business as usual along the coast and in the Manawatu during 1872, even to the extent of dealing with disputed lands. Nor does Booth’s behaviour in this respect seem exceptional. In March 1872 Grindell said that it was ‘inadvisable, as a rule, to make advances on land to which there are so many adverse claimants’ because:
63. Grindell to Superintendent, 2 July, 1872, MA series 13/75B, p 18, NA Wellington
194
64. Ibid, pp 19–20
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
if one party receive money, the others will expect it also, or they will say with reason that favour is shown, and that the rights of one party is being acknowledged to the prejudice of the other.65
In May of that year he noted that the Kaihinu West block was disputed land, and that several competing applications had been made to the court, yet, his report says, ‘some small advances have been made on account of this block’.66 The reality, in short, did not always match the rhetoric.
The making of cash advances was a very common feature of mid-nineteenth century land purchasing, and is usually considered to have been an effective device, ensuring that sooner or later the owners, because of their indebtedness, would be obliged to complete the sale. In fact, at least along the coast, some of the blocks on which advances were made were sold so long after the advance that the connection between the advance and the final sale does seem very tenuous. Advances were also made with the objective of breaking down any resistance there might be within the iwi or hapu to sale, thus ensuring that alienation occurred sooner rather than later. Again, some of the blocks along the coast on which advances were made were never purchased, and the advances were eventually refunded or otherwise repaid.
Another way to create debt among landowners was to supply provisions, the cost of which was then debited against the purchase price finally agreed. During the winter of 1872 a number of requests were made to Grindell, McLean, and Fitzherbert for arrangements of this kind, with respect to land both on the coast and in the Manawatu. There were more requests in the spring, up to and during the sitting of the court in November and December of that year. In August Grindell recommended that one request of this kind be declined, and with reference to
65. Grindell to Superintendent, 25 March 1872, New Zealand Gazette (Province of Wellington), vol 19, no 10, 3 May 195
Wellington
another remarked that ‘such applications may be expected from all quarters, but it is not expedient to grant them, except in very exceptional cases’.67 At the beginning of September a third application came in from T U Cook, a Foxton settler with Ngati Raukawa connections, on behalf of Ngati Raukawa living in the Moutoa area. This hapu owned large areas of land between Moutoa and the mountains, and sought an advance in the form of provisions. Since they were, Cook continued:
a tribe that have always stood in the way of land sales, I should think it would be good policy to make them the little advance of food they solicit, and really stand much in need of, as the natives generally on the river are entirely out of potatoes, and at presence there are no government works that they seem capable of undertaking. The Norwegians apparently cutting them out altogether.68
1872, p 93
66. Grindell to Minister of Public Works, 31 May 1872, AJHR, 1873, G-8, no 41, p 32
67. Grindell to Superintendent, 16 August, 1872, MA series 13/75B, p 3, NA Wellington
68. Grindell to Superintendent, 5 September 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
196
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
Grindell recommended an advance of between £25 and £30, presumably because this was the type of exceptional case he had had in mind the previous month. Another apparently exceptional case was dealt with at about the same time, Grindell reporting to Fitzherbert that, as instructed, he had divided an advance of £100 among some Ngati Raukawa, ‘33 in number’, and obtained a receipt. However, since they had come to Wellington unnecessarily, the cost of their accommodation, £31 17s, would be deducted from the price of the land as well.69
During September, information came to hand that a Mr John Martin was offering an advance of £1000 on land in the vicinity of Otaki.70 The fact that the Government land purchasing agents now had competitors on the coast seemed to have unsettled Grindell, and at the end of September, when two other requests for provisions came in, he remarked that it was ‘unsafe’ to make further advances on the security of land if private parties were to be allowed to engage in land purchasing.71 In October, further requests for advances in the form of provisions were received, and one request for a tent, to be used as accommodation at the Foxton hearing.72 One of these petitions came from Rangitane, and may be the only non-Ngati Raukawa inquiry of this kind extant: Grindell recommended against it, giving no reason.73 As for the others, he felt that agreeing to them would be unsafe, for the same reason he had given earlier. At the end of the month, however, another request came in from Cook, this time on behalf of five Ngati Raukawa hapu: Ngati Kikopiri, Ngati Huia,
69. Grindell to Superintendent, 6 September 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
70. Ibid
71. Ihakara Tukumaru to Superintendent, 30 September 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington; Wereta Te Wahe and others to Superintendent, 30 September 1872, MA series 3/75B, NA Wellington
72. Hoani Taipua and others to Superintendent, 17 October 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington; Ngati Huia to Superintendent, 21 October 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington; Rawiri Wainui and others to Superintendent, 21 October 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington; Henare Te Hahete to Superintendent, 22 October 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington; Nerihana Te Paea to Superintendent, 22 October 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
197
73. Grindell to Superintendent, 9 October 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
Wellington
Ngati Pareraukawa, Ngati Pihaka, and Ngati Kahoro, who said that ‘unless food is provided on account of their land they will not be able to exist during the holding of the Court’. Cook strongly supported this request. Grindell recommended in their favour as well, noting that there would be at least 500 or 600 Maori in the Foxton area for four to six weeks, and that their own crops would not be ready for harvest for some time. McLean could see no objection to providing the supplies requested, and Fitzherbert approved as well, recommending that the food ‘be issued from time to time to the grantees as their blocks are passed through the court’.74 It seems that other advances of food were made during November and early December as well: on 16 December, about a week after the court had adjourned, Grindell sent some vouchers to the provincial government for payment. The minor item was £1 5s for office rent, the major item £423 5s, for food supplied at Foxton.75
74. Cook to Grindell, 25 October 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington; Fitzherbert to Waterhouse, 31 October 1872, WP series 6/8, pp 42–43, NA Wellington
75. Grindell to Superintendent, 16 December 1872, MA series 13/75B, NA Wellington
198
Kukutauaki 1872 to 1885
It is clear from the

Identification