Jury Whanau Land Claims. A Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal

Transcription

1 Jury Whanau Land Claims A Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal Tom White November 2002

2 Contents INTRODUCTION THEMES AND SCOPE OF REPORT SOURCES USED IN THE REPORT THE JURY WHANAU...5 CHAPTER 1: EARLY CROWN PURCHASING AND ITS AFTERMATH :1 INTRODUCTION :2 WHAREHANGA/TE WAKA-A-PAUA DISPUTES :2:1 Introduction :2:2 Waka and Kingi s transfer of Wharehanga :2:3 Interpretations of the transfer :2:4 Requests for Crown grants :2:5 The Crown s settlement of the Wharehanga dispute :2:6 Te Whatahoro Jury s response to the Native Land Court s decision :2:7 Wharehanga A s Urupa and Pa Reserves :2:8 Wharehanga B s Restrictions :2:9 Conclusion :3 TE KOKOTI-A-WHAKAURUHIA DISPUTES :3:1 Introduction :3:2 Origins of the dispute :3:3 Manihera and Te Whatahoro Jury s filing for writ of scire facias :3:4 Te Whatahoro Jury s 1876 Petition :3:5 Te Kokoti-a-Whakauruhia and the Native Land Court :3:6 Te Whatahoro s attempts to gain redress from Native Minister :3:7 Manihera s death and the Te Kokoti a Whakauruhia dispute :3:8 The Surveyor General and the Te Kokoti-a-Whakauruhia dispute :3:9 Te Whatahoro s use of a legal firm :3:10 Te Whatahoro s 1889 petition :3:11 Costs incurred pursuing Te Kokoti-a-Whakauruhia claims :3:12 Conclusion :4 MOROA, KOHA AND TE WHATAHORO JURY :4:1 Introduction :4:2 Te Whatahoro Jury and the gifting of Moroa :4:3 The Moroa deed...58

3 1:4: petition on Moroa :4:5 Moroa and the Native Land Court :4:6 Payments of koha on Moroa :4:7 Tauherenikau/Moroa boundaries and the payment of koha :4:8 Special provisions of the Moroa gift :4:9 Te Whatahoro s koha payment :4:10 Conclusion...70 CHAPTER SUMMARY...71 CHAPTER 2 JURY WHANAU AND THE NATIVE LAND COURT :1 INTRODUCTION :2 TE WAKA-A-PAUA/WHAREHANGA :2:1 The 1868 hearing :2:2 The 1883 hearing :2:3 Conclusion :3 PUKENGAKI :3:1 Introduction :3:2 The 1883 Title Investigation :3:3 Charles Jury s Pukengaki lease :3:4 The Pukengaki partition hearing :3:5 The Pukengaki Appellate Court hearing :3:6 The Subdivision of Pukengaki :3:7 Conclusion :4 MARAMAMAU EAST :4:1 The 1867 title investigation :4:2 The Alienation of Maramamau East :4:3 Conclusion...99 CHAPTER SUMMARY CHAPTER 3 JURY WHANAU AND PIRERE WHANAU LANDS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY :1 INTRODUCTION :2 JURY WHANAU LAND :2:1 Twentieth century Pukengaki transactions :2:2 Pre-World War Two Pukengaki transfers :2:3 Post World War Two Pukengaki transfers :2:4 Papawai :2:5 Pahoa

4 3:3 PIRERE WHANAU LAND :3:1 Introduction :3:2 Whakataki Grants Act :3:3 Whakataki :3:4 Whakataki 10B :3:5 Whakataki 10B :3:6 Mataikona CHAPTER SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX REPORT COMMISSION BIBLIOGRAPHY...136

5 Abbreviations Archives New Zealand ArchNZ Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representative AJHR Certificate of title CT Deposited plan DP Land Information New Zealand LINZ Maori Land Court MLC Survey order SO Turton s Deeds (vol.2) TD Waitangi Tribunal claim number Wai

6 Preface My name is Tom White. I graduated from Massey University in 1997 with a Master of Arts majoring in history. In September 2002, I was commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal to write this report. The purpose of the report is to address the grievances stated in the Jury whanau statement of claim (Wai 962). The Wai 962 claim is to be heard as part of the Wairarapa ki Tararua (Wai 863) inquiry.

7 Introduction 1 Themes and scope of report This report was commissioned to address issues raised by the Wai 962 statement of claim lodged by Rebecca Harper on behalf of the Jury whanau on 7 December The statement of claim was lodged in regards to four named pieces of land: Ngaki a Totara/Tauherenikau, Mataikona Block, Ngatamatea/Waihiharori Reserve, and Whakataki. The description Ngaki a Totara/Tauherenikau and the material relating to the block in the statement of claim are vague in nature. 1 For the purposes of this report it will be taken to mean the central Wairarapa lands that the Jury whanau had an interest in through descent from Muretu. The other three pieces of land are former reserves in the Castle Point Block. The Wai 962 statement of claim alleges that the Crown has breached the Treaty of Waitangi by allowing the the disinheritance of [the] Jury whanau through the transfer of Jury whanau land to individual title and by the subsequent promotion of alienation of individual interests in the land. It goes on to state the Crown breached its implied duties in relation to the treaty by undermining customary tenure, by failing to ensure the Jury whanau was left with sufficient lands for its needs, and by failing to address grievances. 2 This report was commissioned to research the background and issues arising from these alleged breaches. The direction commissioning research states the report will cover the following points: (a) The land alienation process, surveying practices and prices paid for land 1 Wai 962, Statement of claim, 07/12/2001, para. 1, Ibid. para

8 (b) The transfer of land to individual titles (c) The adequacy of the reserves (d) The loss of waahi tapu (e) The role of the Native Land Court and the administration of lands by the Maori Trustee (f) The procedure by which land was taken under the Public Works Act and the consequences and outcomes of these takings (g) The consequences of the length of time taken before grievances were acknowledged (h) Reasons for the continuing sales of land (i) The current position of the Jury whanau in relation to land Chapter one of this report is focused on early Crown purchasing and its impact on the Jury whanau. It is not necessary to outline the general patterns and themes of the period (when the vast majority of Wairarapa land was transferred to the Crown), as these issues arising from this period have been covered in other reports commissioned for the Wairarapa ki Tararua inquiry. Instead this present report gives detailed accounts of the Wharehanga, Waka-a-paua, Te Kokoti-a-Whakauruhia and Moroa blocks. These are lands that the Jury whanau had an interest in through their Ngati Muretu descent. Chapter one focuses on how the whanau lost their interests in these blocks and the steps taken to gain redress for perceived injustices arising out of Crown action. The role of the Native Land Court in the alienation of Jury whanau land is examined in chapter two. As in chapter one, only a sample of land that the Jury Whanau had an interest in is considered. Blocks that illustrate clearly the Native Land Court s operation in relation to Jury Whanau land are included in this chapter. They are Wharehanga, Waka-a-paua, Pukengaki and Maramamau. The role Te Whatahoro Jury played in seeking to reform the Native Land Court is briefly considered at the end of the chapter. Chapter three deals with twentieth century issues. Issues covered in this chapter include the taking of land for public works and the process by which the last of the Jury whanau land was alienated. Blocks covered in this chapter include Whakataki Reserve, Papawai 2

9 and Pukengaki. The granting to Wairarapa Maori of the Pouakani lands in compensation for the non-granting of the Wairarapa Moana reserves is not covered in any detail in this report. Although Te Whatahoro Jury was heavily involved in securing this compensation, it has been covered on at length in another report. 3 Disputes that Te Whatahoro Jury was involved in over rights to Wairarapa Moana itself are also not covered in this report for the same reason. 4 The Wai 962 statement of claim refers to non-jury whanau lands. These are all reserves or former reserves that were or should have been set aside following the 1853 Castle Point transaction. These are of concern to the claimant because of her Pirere whanau descent and because of the intermarriage that occurred between the Pirere and Jury whanau. This report, in trying to address the issues raised in the Wai 962 statement of claim, covers the Pirere whanau interests in these Castle Point Reserves in chapter three. However, as the claim was lodged on behalf of the Jury whanau, the focus of the report will necessarily be on the Jury whanau lands. 3 Helen McCracken, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Incorporation Pouakani No.2 trust and the Crown, s. Report Commissioned for Crown Forest Rental Trust, July 2001, interim report, pp Ben White, Inland Waterways: Lakes, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, first release, March 1998, pp

10 Figure 1: Approximate locations of some Jury whanau land 4

11 2 Sources used in the report No Maori language sources have been used in compiling this report. Considerable writings of Te Whatahoro Jury are deposited in the Alexander Turnball library but no translations were available at the time of writing. This limits the potential scope of the report which necessarily relies on available written documentary evidence in English. The choice of blocks covered in this report was affected by the availability of evidence. In a similar way some themes, such as the adequacy of reserves or the socio-economic effects of Crown land policy on the Jury whanau, were not possible to cover in any depth due to lack of available evidence. This report largely relies on Native Land Court minute books and Maori Land Court files held at Hastings and Wanganui. These sources have been gathered together in a document bank by the Crown Forest Rental Trust researchers Barbara Gawith and Eve Hartley. In addition to material in this document bank, use has been made of several Maori Affairs special files held at Archives New Zealand as well as surveys and certificates of title available at LINZ Wellington regional office. 3 The Jury whanau M J Parsons, a descendant of the Jurys, has written on the origins of the Jury whanau at length. 5 However, a brief summary will be necessary to help define what is meant by the term Jury whanau in this report. For the purposes of this study, the Jury whanau is 5 M.J Parsons, John and Te Aitu Jury; The Jurys of the Wairarapa, Christchurch, 1986; Jury, Hoani Te Whatahoro, in Claudia Orange (ed.) The People of Many Peaks: The Maori Biographies from The Dictionary of New Zealand, Vol. 1, Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs/Bridget Williams Books, 1991, pp.18-21; Jury, Te Aitu-o-te-rangi, in Ibid. pp.21-22; A.G. Bagnall, Wairarapa: An Historical Excursion, Masterton: Hedley s Bookshop, 1976, pp.231,

12 taken to mean the descendents of Te Whatahoro Jury and his first wife Pane Ihaka Te Moe Whatarau. Te Whatahoro Jury was the son of Te Aitu-o-te-rangi, the daughter of Te Whatahoronui and the granddaughter of Muretu. 6 Te Whatahoro Jury was probably born in 1841 and died in Some aspects of Te Whatahoro Jury s whakapapa 7 Muretu Te Kakaho Whatahoronui Tutepakihirangi Te-Aitu-o-te-rangi - m - John Milsome Jury Wi Kingi Te Whatahoro Jury Charles Jury Anne Jury (John Alfred Jury) (Taane Turi) (Heni Turi) Te Whatahoro Jury called his hapu Ngati Muretu, as did other descendents of Muretu from the mid-1800s. 8 Wi Kingi was the acknowledged rangatira of Ngati Muretu until his death in the 1870s and played a key role in the early transfer of land to the Crown in the 1850s. 9 Ngati Muretu is closely related to the important Wairarapa hapu, Ngati Moe Te Whatahoro Jury was usually known as Tiaki Turi in his early years. Later he went by several titles including Jack Jury, John Jury, J.A Jury, John Alfred Jury, Hoani Jury, Hoani Turi, Whatahoro Jury, J.A Te Whatahoro and Te Whatahoro Jury. In this report he will be referred to as Te Whatahoro Jury. 7 Wairarapa Native Land Court minute book 23, 05/05/1896, fol.89?. 8 E.g. Wairarapa Native Land Court minute book 1A, 16/08/1867, fol Ibid. fol.92. Paul Goldsmith, Wairarapa, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui series (working paper: first release), July 1995, p J M McEwen, Rangitane: A Tribal History, Auckland: Reed, 2002, p

13 Other Wairarapa hapu that Te Whatahoro Jury claimed descent from include Ngati Kahukuratawhitia. 11 Ngati Muretu s ancestral lands were mainly along the Ruamahanga River to the northeast of Wairarapa Moana. Te Aihe on the Wharehanga peninsula is a kainga that was occupied by Ngati Muretu before and after the exile to Nukutaurua. 12 Other blocks in the area where Ngati Muretu interests through ancestry, gift or occupation have been stated include: Waka-a-paua (Jury s Island), Tauherenikau, Maramamau, Pihautea, Pukengaki, Nga-waka-a-kupe, Hupenui, Papawai, Tararua and Ahikouka. Te Whatahoro also stated before a government commission that, like most Wairarapa hapu, Ngati Muretu had mahinga kai take in Wairarapa Moana. 13 After 1870 Te Whatahoro traveled widely throughout the North Island in his various roles as Native Land Court assessor and agent, ethnologist, politician and activist. 14 Along the way he married women from several tribal areas including Ngati Porou and Whanganui. Through these marriages some of his children gained interests in blocks outside of the Wairarapa. 15 Those lands, although Jury whanau lands, are outside the scope of this report. It has been noted that Te Whatahoro s brother and sister, Charles John Jury and Anne Eliza Jury (later Oates), became owners of reasonably large blocks of land in the central Wairarapa from the late nineteenth century through purchasing land that had been partitioned by the Native Land Court. 16 This process, and Te Whatahoro s coinciding loss of land, is examined in this report. The Jury family split early in its history. Following an 11 Wairarapa Native Land Court minute book 23, 11/05/1896, fol Wairarapa Native Land Court minute book 1A, 16/08/1867, fol AJHR, 1891, Session II, G-4, pp.18-21, Parsons, Jury, Hoani Te Whatahoro, pp Wellington Native Land Court minute book 5, 16/09/1896, fol Goldsmith, p

14 argument with his Pakeha father, Te Whatahoro immersed himself in Maori culture. 17 His subsequent experience of land loss and disillusionment with Government Native land policy is similar to that of most of his contemporaries among Wairarapa Maori. Conversely Charles and Anne largely adopted Pakeha culture and their experience is not dissimilar to other Europeans owning medium to large scale blocks of former Maori land in the Wairarapa. 18 There is evidence of antagonism, at times, between Charles and Te Whatahoro Jury over land the family had an interest in Parsons, Jury, Hoani Te Whatahoro, p Bagnall, p Charles J Jury and Anne E Jury to Heaphy, 05/01/1880, NO80/3, Wharehanga special file, MA 13/29, ArchNZ. 8

15 Chapter 1: Early Crown purchasing and its aftermath 1:1 Introduction Chapter one is made up of studies of three blocks: Wharehanga/Waka-a-paua, Te Kokotia-Whakauruhia and Moroa. These three blocks do not form an exhaustive study of Jury whanau interests in lands purchased by the crown. They have been selected because they illustrate in some detail the effects of crown purchasing practice on the whanau. Source materials on Wharehanga, Te Kokoti-a-Whakauruhia and Moroa were also readily available at the time of writing. The history of the transfer of land to the Crown by Wairarapa Maori from 1852 until 1865, along with the disputes that arose out of these transfers, has been covered in other reports. 20 The purpose of this chapter is to examine how the consequences of the Crown s actions in this period impacted on the Jury whanau s Wairarapa land interests. Te Whatahoro Jury s attempts to gain redress for alleged Crown misdeeds in the 1850s extended into the twentieth century. These attempts by Te Whatahoro and others to get the Crown to acknowledge their claims arising out of earlier Crown transfers of Jury whanau land will be the main focus of this chapter. It appears Te Whatahoro Jury was not involved to any large extent in negotiating transfers of land to the Crown in the pre-native Land Court era. The only deed that Te 20 Goldsmith, ch.3-4; Helen McCracken, Land Alienation in the Wairarapa District undertaken by the Crown and the Wellington Provincial Council 1854-c.1870s, Report commissioned by the Crown Forest Rental Trust, September 2001; Bruce Stirling, Wairarapa Maori and the Crown, Report commissioned by the Crown Forest Rental Trust, draft, August 2002, vol.1. 9

16 Whatahoro definitely signed was for the 1873 Tararua transaction. 21 Te Whatahoro s sister, Anne Jury also signed the Tauherenikau no.4 deed as a small child in However, from 1870 onward Te Whatahoro Jury was at the forefront of efforts to gain redress from the Crown for problems arising out of Crown purchasing. 1:2 Wharehanga/Te Waka-a-paua disputes 1:2:1 Introduction Wharehanga and Waka-a-paua are beside the Ruamahanga River, close to present day Martinborough. Waka-a-paua or Jury s Island was 55 acres enclosed by the encircling river where Te Aitu and John Milsome Jury, Te Whatahoro Jury s parents, settled after the return from Nukutaurua in In the documentation Waka-a-paua is sometimes referred to as Ngaki-a-totara, which is actually a clearing on the land. Wharehanga is the peninsula of land to the immediate south of Waka-a-paua covering about 400 acres. It includes the site of the kainga Te Aihe, which was occupied by the Ngati Moe / Ngati Muretu rangatira Te Whatahoronui in the nineteenth century, and the urupa Nga Rua. 24 In the Native Land Court minutes both pieces of land are sometimes referred to collectively as Wharehanga or Waka-a-paua. The names of these two blocks caused some confusion amongst Native Department officials in the 1870s and 1880s. 25 For clarity, this 21 TD, p Parsons, John and Te Aitu, p A stop bank was built in the 1950s to divert the river and Jury s Island is no longer an island. 24 Parsons, Jury, Te Aitu-o-te-rangi, p Butler to Under-Secretary Native Affairs, 26/11/1879, NO79/5119; Maunsell to Under-Secretary Native Affairs, 21/12/1879, NO79/5520, MA 13/29. 10

17 report will refer to the land also known as Jury Island as Waka-a-paua and the land to the south as Wharehanga. In the statement of claim lodged on behalf of the Jury whanau it is stated that the Jury lands around Jury Island were part of the Tauherenikau no.4 block transferred in This would appear not to be the case as Jury s Island (Waka-a-paua) and the peninsula to the south (Wharehanga) were formed by the enclosing Ruamahanga River whereas the Tauherenikau no.4 block did not extend as far as this river. 27 This land is located within an area where several poorly defined and highly contentious land purchases were undertaken by the Crown between 1854 and The Maramamau Block was transferred to the Crown in December The imprecise boundaries on the deed refer to Wharehanga and the old pa site to the northeast of Waka-a-paua, Taumatakai-namu. This land was transferred by Te Waka Tahuahi and others in a deal disputed by Te Manihera Rangitakaiwaho. 28 Wharehanga and Waka-a-paua are bordered by another disputed block to the northeast called Ongaha. It appears this land was sold by Waka and others to Charles Bidwill in 1869 with the assistance of Edward Maunsell. 29 The owners of Ongaha and Bidwill gave evidence to the Native Land Court that part of Waka-a-paua was within Te Waka s rohe at Ongaha Wai 962#1.1, para TD p Ibid. p.313; Wairarapa Native Land Court minute book 1, 15/08/1867, fol Ongaha deed of conveyance, 18/141, 11/3/1869, LINZ Deeds Registry, Wellington. 30 Wairarapa Native Land Court minute book 1A, 12/10/1868, fol.61,

18 Figure 2: Approximate boundaries of Wharehanga and Waka-a-paua 12

19 Te Whatahoro Jury stated claims to both Wharehanga and Waka-a-paua through ancestry, occupation and gift. Twice at Native Land Court hearings he laid claims to the land through descent from Muretu. 31 He also stated that this land was occupied and cultivated by him and his mother in the 1850s. 32 At an 1868 title investigation of Waka-a-paua he stated: My mother and I cult[ivated] at Nga Taira after the gift. At Pakihiroa also and at Ngaki a totara also I lived there and my father s fence was there The timber was taken from the bush and some out of the bush that had been given to Te Waka. I also cult[ivated] at Ngaraaanui. These claims coincide with a statement Te Whatahoro made before the Wairarapa Lakes Commission in 1891 that at the time of the 1855 earthquake he was living at Waka-apaua. 33 The Jury family history states that Manihera and Kingi acknowledged Jury Island and Wharehanga as belonging to Te Aitu and John Milsome in the 1840s. To avoid any later arguments a deed of gift was signed but this was later lost in a fire. 34 Manihera, Kingi, Te Whatahoro Jury and John Milsome Jury referred to this deed in the Native Land Court. 35 In the 1868 hearing Te Whatahoro stated: I claim as land given to my mother by Wi Kingi Te Aitu is my mother s name deceased She had a joint interest in the land as a Ngati Muratu [sic] but it became wholly hers by the gift of Wi Kingi Ibid. fol. 91. Wairarapa Native Land Court minute book 4, 16/11/1883, fol Wairarapa Native Land Court minute book 1A, 12/10/1868, fol AJHR, 1891, Session II, G-4, p Parsons, John and Te Aitu, p Wairarapa Native Land Court minute book1a, 20/10/1868, fol.91-92, 21/10/1868, fol Ibid. 20/10/1868, fol

20 Manihera explained the gift in this way: On the return from Nukutaura Te Aitu, Tiaki s mother, came with us about 1842 or It was proposed that the land of Muretu should be given to Te Aitu and her European husband Jack Jury [=John Milsome Jury, Te Whatahoro Jury s father]. After sometime Te Aitu and Jury and the child Tiaki were brought up in a boat and located at Te Ngaki o Totara. Wi Paki was the man who brought them there. Wi Kingi was about in the South at this time. When he came back Te Aitu was living there and her husband. Lease of Maramamau by Wi Kingi from Te Moenga [?] Toenga to Taumata Kairau. Waka had let this land. Wi Kingi disputed and about this time made over the land to Te Aitu. The deed of gift was brought to me by Wi Paki and Wi Kingi. I wrote my name to it. The document described the whole of the land [?] in this plan (including o ngaki huia). 37 Regarding the fate of the deed of gift, Manihera stated: The document referred to was burnt at Rauiwi Pihau s house at the same time Tiaki s younger brother was burnt. 38 1:2:2 Waka and Kingi s transfer of Wharehanga Te Waka and Wi Kingi transferred Wharehanga to the Crown in McCracken writes of the transaction: 37 Ibid. fol Ibid. fol

21 The following day [9 January 1856] McLean confirmed a transaction for land at Wharehanga for which 100 had already been paid to Tarapure, wife of Tareha, at Ahuriri. The deed was then lost and only relocated in It is not known when Tarapure received the The deed of this transfer is noteworthy in several respects. As noted above the government could not locate the deed for over 25 years. This hindered the Crown s wish to sell the land until the mid-1880s. As late as June 1882 Maunsell wrote to the Native Office stating that he had: searched in vain for the deed. The last trace of it being in the government possession is its removal from the Crown Lands Dept. by the Receipt Clerk, I believe, to the late Major Heaphy. Through the loss of the deed, I have been unable to place the question before a Minister. My object in asking to Mr Bryce is to represent this difficulty and what is to be decided about a course to follow. Is the claim of government to be submitted to the Native Land Court I have received a notice of a sitting to be shortly held, if it is to be submitted no time is to be lost. Then a question arises whether in absence of a deed the Court will recognize a claim. 40 In September of the same year, Under-Secretary Lewis wrote in a minute: A copy of the Wharehanga deed has been found by Mr. Sheredon in a book belonging to the forerunner of Crown Lands Office McCracken, Land Alienation, p Maunsell to Morpeth, 20/06/1882, 82/1874, MA 13/ Lewis to Russell, 23/09/1882, 82/2677, MA 13/29. 15

22 Once the copy of the deed was found the Crown was able to proceed in its plans to sell the block. This will be discussed below. A copy of the copied deed is located in the Wharehanga file at Archives New Zealand. 42 It reads: We consent to sell to Donald McLean a portion of our land commencing at the Wharehanga and going on to the Ruamahanga at the Wakapau thence going on in the Ruamahanga to the Aihe, thence on to the Whareo-tamaure, thence on to Te Haki Raupo, thence on to Te Parua thence on to Te Ngatawaru thence on to the land of John Durie [sic] at Te Ngaki-ototara then on to the boundary of the Crown land at Wakatakatakanga and going on thence in that boundary until it reaches Wharehanga. This portion of land we give to the Queen for the sum of one hundred pounds ( 100) which sum was paid by Donald McLean to Taraipure the wife of Tareha at Ahuriri. If this portion of land is found to exceed in value the sum of one hundred pounds ( 100) another instalment will be given, but if it does not this sum will be the sum to be given for it. And in testimony of our consent we hereunto sign our names at Wellington on the ninth day of January The Maori copy states the signatures attached belonged to Te Waka Tahuahi, Wiremu Kingi and Pirika Pau. The scribe and translator is recorded as Elwin B Dickson. The Maori copy of the deed is in Maunsell s distinctive handwriting. 1:2:3 Interpretations of the transfer At subsequent Native Land Court hearings several witnesses commented on how the transaction took place. In an 1883 title investigation Te Whatahoro Jury stated: 42 Extracts from Register No.1 of Native Deeds, Commission of Crown Lands Office, Wellington, , MA13/29. 16

23 In 1853 Wiremu Kingi said this land should be put aside for his younger cousins [presumably Te Whatahoro and his siblings] and Manihera Rangitakaiwaho also said the same. McLean said it could not be legal, it must first go through the government s hands. William Kingi and Waka then sold the land to the government on those conditions. It was sold to the government for 100 pounds. The money was paid to Waka and he gave it to Tauha. William Kingi was displeased that he did not get his share of the money and Manihera said that Waka had no right to dispose of the land. When my father heard the land was sold he went to Wellington to purchase it. The government said there was a difficulty in regard to the land, referring to Manihera s claim. It has never been settled. 43 At the same hearing Manihera also gave evidence as follows: What John Jury (Te Whatahoro) states is quite correct. In 1856 Waaka sold the land. I knew nothing about it at the time. After I heard of it I went to Wellington and met Waaka. He was alone. I met him returning here. He did not say he had sold the land. On the same day I met Sir Donald and he told me to come in and sign my name to the deed. I asked what portion for. He replied Wharehanga. I asked him to read it out to me so I could understand. I told Sir Donald it was wrong when I discovered the portion which had been sold. He replied he could not help it, the government had bought it. Mr Searancke came to survey the land I objected and it has not been surveyed to this day Wairarapa Native Land Court minute book 4, 16/9/1883, fol Ibid. fol

24 Te Waka s right to sell the block was later called into question and his take to the land was shown to be tenuous by the Native Land Court. 45 Wi Kingi s right, as a Ngati Muretu rangatira, was no doubt a valid one. However, it is necessary to note that he never received any of the money for the sale and was angry with Te Waka for the way he conducted the sale. Kingi s motive in transferring the block is perhaps explained by Te Whatahoro s statement that Kingi was attempting to legalize the gift of the land to Te Aitu s children. On 6 June 1861 the District Land Purchase Commissioner William Searancke submitted his general report on land purchasing in the Province of Wellington. In his report he noted nine major problematic Crown purchases in the Wairarapa that he felt needed to be settled. Among those mentioned was the Wharehanga block. 46 It seems clear that Manihera rejected the transfer and leased some of the land to the Bidwills. 47 Richard Gill, in an 1883 minute to the Native Minister wrote: I saw Manihera [?] at Greytown he is very ferocious [?] in his holding to the land and says he has been from the first day he heard of the sale in The land is leased I am told for 300 pounds a year. 48 In 1871 Manihera wrote to Commissioner Cooper: I have asked for information about Te Wakapaua three times. Now I tell you to leave my place alone, you are not to exercise any right over it, by and by perhaps I may take possession of it Ibid. 21/10/1868, fol Searancke to Chief Commissioner, 6 June AJHR, 1861, C-1, pp Maunsell to Morpeth, 20/06/1882, 82/2677, MA 13/ Gill to Native Minister, 12/03/1883, 82/2919, MA 13/ Manihera to Halse and Cooper, 05/05/1871, 71/275, MA 13/29. 18

25 There is evidence to suggest that he did live on the land at times in the 1870s. 50 The Government did not challenge this situation until it instigated a title investigation in The reason for this delay is clearly because the deed transferring the land to the Government was lost. 51 In July 1872 Te Whatahoro Jury attempted to sell Wharehanga. At the time he in was in jail for debt and was eager to get money to discharge his debts. He wrote to Wardell, stating: This is an inquiry to you relative to our conversation about Te Wakaapaua. To whom am I to sell that land, to you or Mr Bidwill? If I am to sell it to Mr Bidwill write that I may know. If I am to sell it to you, write that I may be clear. Well, if I am to sell it to you, write informing me what you will give for the whole of that land the fullest extent of the payment you are willing to give for that portion. Do you send this reply by the first mail to me at the prison here. 52 Wardell sent Te Whatahoro Jury s request to the Wellington Provincial Superintendent. By way of explanation he wrote: I enclose a translation of a letter addressed to me by John Jury now a prisoner for debt in the gaol at Wellington. The lands he refers to (Wakaapaua) containing about five hundred (500) acres was purchased for the Crown some years ago by Mr McLean from Te Waka Tahuahi. Mr Jackson has a plan of the land which was before the Native Land Court on the claim of Jury and others when it was pronounced out of 50 Maunsell to Under-Secretary Native Department, 21/12/1879, 79/5520, MA 13/ Ibid. 52 John Alfred Jury to Wardell, 19/07/1872, 72/755, Wellington Province inward letters 72/ , WP3/28, ArchNZ. 19

26 jurisdiction as being under negotiation. The extinguishing of the native title has never been gazetted because as I believe of the opposition to the sale by Te Manihera. Jury is recognised by Manihera as one of the principal claimants. It is quite worth while to get over the opposition by the payment of a hundred pounds, as I believe the lands would sell for one pound per acre. Jury and others have recently erected some fencing upon it, and ploughed about twenty acres it may be desirable to pay them for their improvements in addition. 53 Wardell s letter was minuted by a provincial Government official. He wrote: I agree with Mr Wardell in thinking it worth while to spend 100 in completing the title by this land. But it should be ascertained whether a conveyance from Jury will put a stop to further opposition and will not rather excite it. Manihera is a man not to be in any way depended on and unless he and all other claimants joined with Jury in signing the deed I should not feel satisfied that all risk of further complications was secured. 54 It would appear that Manihera s claim to Wharehanga precluded the provincial Government administration from accepting Te Whatahoro Jury s offer to sell the land. 1:2:4 Requests for Crown grants Te Whatahoro Jury claimed this block as his in the 1870s and 1880s. At the time of the transfer of the Maramamau East block to Bidwill, Te Whatahoro listed 400 acres at 53 Wardell to Wellington Provincial Superintendent, 07/08/1872, 72/755, WP3/ [?] minute, 02/09/1872, 72/755, WP3/28. 20

27 Wharehanga as Land left belonging to me in the Trust Commissioner s report. This was crossed out and initialed by Maunsell. 55 There is evidence that Te Whatahoro sought to gain a Crown grant to the lands. In a September 1882 minute to the Native Minister, Under-Secretary Lewis wrote he had received a request from Te Whatahoro Jury for a Crown grant. 56 Anne (Eliza) and Charles Jury wrote to Heaphy in 1880 asking them not to give a Crown grant to Manihera and Te Whatahoro alone. They wrote they had been unfairly left off the deed of Maramamau and other blocks. 57 Manihera also tried in vain to obtain a grant for Wharehanga. In a letter to Cooper and Halse in 1875, Manihera referred to his seeking of a Crown grant for the block: This [letter] is to ask you why the issue of the Crown grant for Wakapaua is so long delayed. The land having passed through the Court. 58 Manihera is probably referring to the 1868 hearing of the Native Land Court. However, the judge did not order issue of title or grant except for the island of Waka-a-paua and this was ordered only for Charles and Anne Jury. In 1879 Maunsell wrote to the Native Minister saying that Manihera had again applied to the Government to give him a Crown grant for the land in question. He wrote: Manihera has frequently remarked to me that the government should waive any further claim to this land and give him a Crown grant for it in 55 Confirmation of conveyance: Tiaki Te Whatahoro to Charles Bidwill, 04/11/1879, 77/225, Trust Commissioner s alienation records, MLC Wanganui. 56 Minute: Under Secretary of Native Affairs to Native Minister, 22/09/1882, NO82/2919, MA 13/ Charles J Jury and Anne E Jury to Heaphy, 05/01/1880, NO80/3, MA 13/ H.Rangitakaiwaho to Halse and Cooper, 16/03/1875, 75/1201, MA 13/29. 21

28 consideration of his past services and assistance he rendered to the Land Purchase Commissioner in acquiring the Wairarapa Valley. 59 Maunsell appeared to be a little confused as to the details of the case, which was hardly surprising seeing as no deed could be found at the time. He stated: The land in question was ceded to the Crown in the year 1861 by Te Waka Tahuahi and Wiremu Kingi.The purchase was effected by Mr Searancke. In 1875 Manihera s brother, Eurera, wrote to the Native Department requesting a Crown grant for Wharehanga. 60 In response Maunsell wrote to the Under-Secretary of the Native Department to explain the situation. He stated that at the 1868 Ongaha Native Land Court hearing, Te Waka had successfully established his right to sell Waka-a-paua/Wharehanga and Manihera, Te Whatahoro Jury and others were shown to have no rightful claim to the land. He recommended paying Te Waka 25 or 30 pounds to settle the case. Maunsell s assertion that Te Waka had established his rights to Waka-a-paua / Wharehanga is clearly contradicted by the evidence in the relevant minute books. On top of that, his suggestion to pay Te Waka some more money would have clearly done nothing to resolve the underlying problem, which was Te Whatahoro Jury and Manihera s claim to the land. 1:2:5 The Crown s settlement of the Wharehanga dispute Both Maunsell and the Under-Secretary of Native Affairs were eager not to give up the Crown s claim to the land and issue any Crown grants to Wharehanga. In 1879 Maunsell estimated the land to be 600 acres and worth 5 pounds an acre. 61 By June 1882 he had upped his estimation to over 700 acres and thought the land was very valuable Maunsell to Native Minister, 21/12/1879, NO79/5520, MA 13/ E.R Rangitakaiwaho to Clarke, 18/10/1875, Native & Defence75/5337, MA 13/ Maunsell to Native Minister, 21/12/1879, 79/5520, MA 13/29. 22

29 In 1879 Maunsell came up with a plan to partition Wharehanga and grant half to Manihera and other interested Maori and half to the Crown. He wrote: Should the government decide not to bring the matter before the Native Land Court, a compromise may be effected, say a grant be issued for a portion to Manihera on his agreeing to relinquish any further claim. 63 This plan was not acted upon until the copy of the missing deed made its appearance. In September 1882, with a copy of the deed now found, Under-Secretary Lewis set about settling the matter. Lewis seemed to be bothered by the clause in the deed that if the value of the land was found to have been more than 100, an additional payment should be made. 64 Lewis suggested a payment under the clause might be necessary to settle the claims to Wharehanga but concluded in the meantime that: it might be advisable to confer with Mr. Maunsell on the subject and as Mr. Gill is going to the Wairarapa I beg to suggest that the papers be referred to him with a request that he would see Mr. Maunsell and then advise to the best course to take under the peculiar circumstances of the case. The Native Minister agreed with Lewis plan and Gill discussed the matter with Maunsell in the Wairarapa at the end of Following this meeting, the Native Minister 62 Maunsell to Native Affairs Minister, 20/6/1882, 82/1874, MA13/ Maunsell to Native Minister, 21/12/1879, 79/5520, MA13/ Lewis to Native Minister, 10/10/1882, NO82/2919, MA13/ Lewis to Under-Secretary of Land Purchase Department, 11/10/1882, NO82/2919, MA13/29. 23

30 decided to apply to the Native Land Court to investigate and determine the title of Wharehanga under section 107 of the 1873 Native Land Act. 66 It is interesting to note that the Native Land Court s judgement corresponded to Maunsell s suggestion that the block be partitioned. Maunsell and Lewis seemed to think the block was worth as much as Because only 100 had been paid in 1856, perhaps Lewis and Maunsell felt it was better to settle the matter by allowing half the block to remain in Manihera and Te Whatahoro s possession. Otherwise a large additional payment under a clause of the 1856 deed might have been necessary. On 16 and 17 November 1883 a Native Land Court title investigation hearing was held to ascertain the Crown s interest in the Wharehanga lands. 67 Details of this hearing and the 1868 hearing will be discussed in chapter two of this report. The land below the island was partitioned under section 107 of the 1873 Native Land Act into Wharehanga A and B, both about 200 acres. Wharehanga B was an inland portion to the northwest, while Wharehanga B abutted the river to the southeast. Wharehanga A was awarded to the Crown and Wharehanga B to 8 Maori: Manihera Rangitakaiwaho, Eurera Kopa Rangitakaiwaho, Matini Te Ore, Tutakamaiwaho, Taane Turi, Heni Raita Oti, Makere Waito and Hoani Te Whatahoro. Heni Raita Oti is Anne Oates, Te Whatahoro s sister. Taane Turi is Charles Jury, Te Whatahoro s brother. Maunsell s plan to solve the Wharehanga problem by awarding half to the claimants and half to the Crown was used. However, this was not done in the way Maunsell originally envisaged. Instead of avoiding taking the case to the Native Land Court and issuing a Crown grant directly to Manihera, the partition was by order of the Native Land Court. 66 Native Minister minute, 12/1/1883, NO82/2919, MA13/29; Native Minister s Office, Application for Native Land Court hearing, 18/01/1883, NO82/2919, MA13/29.S 67 Wairarapa Native Land Court minute book 4, 16/11/1883, pp , ,

31 1:2:6 Te Whatahoro Jury s response to the Native Land Court s decision Immediately following the court s decision in 1883 Te Whatahoro Jury wrote to the Native Minister requesting to buy from the government the part of Te Waka-a-paua that had been awarded to the Crown. He wrote: The Wakaapaua Block has been adjudicated upon and the judgement of the Court is that half is for the Crown and half for us and Te Manihera. This is to say that if you will have compassion on me and my younger brethren and agree to sell us the portion of the Wakaapaua Block awarded the Crown then do you let me know your price but do not ask for too much, for that land is subject to encroachment by flood every year, the principal reason why I wish to have the land is that the burial places of my dead and the principal pa of my ancestors are in the portion awarded to the Crown. Mr Gill and Major Mair know the land. If you agree to sell that land to me do you communicate with me at Gisborne. But do not place that land in the hands of the Waste Lands Branch because there is so much delay in their administration, if you approve of this then the money of the Crown will not be wasted in making a fresh survey. Do you have compassion on me and my younger brethren, we are reluctant to part with our burial grounds and the principal pa of our ancestors and that Europeans should acquire the interest awarded the Crown. 68 Probably Te Whatahoro did not believe the land to be of low value but was trying to negotiate a cheap purchase price. However, prior to the building of stop banks in the twentieth century, this block was subject to flooding Te Whatahoro to Native Minister, 21/11/1883, NO83/3626, MA13/ A 1919 Survey Order of the area has written across the area: Flat land in grass subject to flood, SO 17344, Wellington SD, 31/03/1919, LINZ, Wellington. 25

32 It seems Te Whatahoro received no immediate reply so he again wrote to the Native Minister in February This time he made an offer to the Minister: but do you be liberal with me and let me know the lowest price you will take for the land and I will give way to the government and ourselves concerning lands in the Wairarapa, that is to say, the Kokotiawhakauruhia 46 acres adjoining Wakaapaua, also Moroa and the lands on the banks of the Wairarapa Lake which are still in an unsettled state. There are many transactions between us that have still to be completed therefore I ask you to be liberal with me in the matter of the land referred to. 70 Te Whatahoro s letter was minuted by the Under-secretary of the Land Purchase Department in 1884 stating: This land must be sold in accordance with the Laws and offered by auction. The Native Minister then added his minute: if the small part containing the old pa and burial place referred are reserved from sale possibly the objection of the tribe will be allayed. 71 1:2:7 Wharehanga A s Urupa and Pa Reserves In January 1884 the Native Minister recommended a survey be made in which the pa and urupa site on Wharehanga A be reserved from sale. He added: It is unnecessary I think to make it a Native Reserve. 72 A minute was also attached later by the Survey Department stating that a right of way to the pah and graves had also been ordered to be put on the survey plan. A minute attached to Te Whatahoro Jury s 1884 letter by the 70 Te Whatahoro to Native Minister, 29/02/1884, NO84/878, MA 13/ Native Minister minute, 21/11/1883, NO83/3629, MA 13/ Native Land Purchase Department to Native Minister, 19/01/1884, NO83/881, MA 13/29. 26

33 Under Secretary for Crown Land stated: The land referred to has been withheld from sale but not permanently reserved. 73 The Native Minister asked the Under-Secretary of the Native Department to write to Te Whatahoro and inform him of the status of the pa and burial site. 74 At this point, as far as can be ascertained from the Wharehanga file, the correspondence on the matter stops. A 1886 certificate of title, issued for Wharehanga A, has the pa and urupa reserves on its sketch plan. 75 In 1900 a deposited plan included the pa site and right of way. 76 Another deposited plan in 1916 recorded the pa and urupa site and listed their size as 1 acre 1 rood 11 perches and 1 rood respectively. 77 Currently the pa and urupa sites are listed as Maori land in the Maori Land Information System with no owners under the titles Wharehanga A (1), pa reserve, and Wharehanga A (2), urupa reserve. It would appear that the pa and urupa land was reserved on plans but a certificate of title was never issued. 1:2:8 Wharehanga B s Restrictions On 23 November 1883 a certificate of title for Wharehanga B was issued. 78 Wharehanga B was restricted and under the 1880 Native Land Court Act was inalienable except by lease of 21 years or less. 79 The block was then leased to F.Heckler for 21 years from October 1884 at 50 per annum but was subsequently assigned to the Bidwill brothers a month later for 250. Wharehanga B was sold to the Bidwill brothers as a private purchase in December 1886 for 880. In November 1884 an application for removal of 73 Sholt to Native Under-secretary, 11/05/1884, NO84/878, MA 13/ Gill to Davis, date unknown, NO83/3626, MA 13/ CT WN41/222, 07/05/1886, LINZ, Wellington. 76 DP1115, Wellington SD, 19/09/1900, LINZ Wellington. 77 DP3431, Wellington SD, 31/05/1916, LINZ Wellington. 78 CT WGN 614-1, Wharehanga B, 23/11/1883, NO83/829, MA13/ Wharehanga A&B, 83/2, General land files, Wai 195/29, MLC, Hastings. 27

34 restrictions was received for Wharehanga B. 80 The chief applicant was H.M Rangitakaiwaho (Manihera) along with the six other owners. Consent was recommended on certain conditions in March In 1885 the Native Minister appointed a special commissioner to investigate applications to remove restrictions on Maori land. 82 The application to remove restrictions on Wharehanga was one of the cases the commissioner investigated. Commissioner G E Barton visited Wairarapa in October 1886 and interviewed the potential buyer and sellers of Wharehanga B. 83 Even though he made a relatively thorough investigation of the proposed alienation, Barton relied upon Bidwill s and the sellers evidence to ascertain if the price offered was fair and if the sellers had sufficient other lands. 84 Charles Jury gave evidence to Barton on 29 October He stated: My brother Hoani has interests in the same lands that I have interests in except Jury s Island and is in good circumstances. This was despite the fact Te Whatahoro Jury appeared to be heavily indebted in the mid 1880s. 85 In a November 1886 report to the Governor, Barton wrote: In making the recommendation that the proposed sale should be allowed, I have the honor to suggest that it should only be allowed upon production of a transfer of conveyance for your Excellency s assent showing a payment of at least 880 pounds purchase money. And also showing that the person or persons who sign as the successor or 80 Manihera and others to Governor, 28/11/1884, NO85/338, MA 13/ Register of Applications for Removal of Restrictions, p.128, MA 14/3, ArchNZ. 82 AJHR, 1886, G-11, p Barton to Bidwill, 25/10/1886, NO86/3671, MA13/ Bidwill s case, notes on meeting, Greytown, 29/10/1886, NO86/3671, MA13/ Greytown plaint book, 16/06/1881; 16/08/1887; 02/11/1888, Masterton District Court. 28

35 successors of the deceased Manihera have been duly appointed by the Native Land Court. 86 Barton stated that Manihera had died in 1885 but as yet no successor had been appointed. He went on to state that he felt the price (about 4 per acre) that Bidwill was offering was too low and 5 an acre was a fairer price. He also said that Bidwill had offered Te Whatahoro Jury an additional 100 as a bonus for his acting as an agent in obtaining the assent of the other owners of Wharehanga B. In December 1886 Naomi Potae succeeded to Manihera s interest in Wharehanga B. 87 On 15 December the Governor was sent advice to lift the restrictions on Wharehanga B. 88 The lifting of restrictions was not gazetted in1886. The lifting of restrictions was required to be preceded by a gazette notice under the 1883 Native Land Laws Amendment Act. However, this legislation was repealed in October 1886 by the enactment of the Native Land Court Law which did not have any provisions for the imposition or removal of restrictions on Maori land. 89 When the block was transferred in December no gazetting of lifting of restrictions was necessary. 1:2:9 Conclusion The purchase of Wharehanga by McLean was part of the second phase of Wairarapa purchases. These purchases did not transfer large amounts of land to the Crown. They were intended to tidy up pieces of land perceived to have been left out of the original 86 G.E Barton, Report to Governor, 09/11/1886, NO86/3671, MA 13/ Notice of succession, Wharehanga B, 10/12/1886, 86/3303, Wai 195/29, Wharehanga A and B general land file, MLC Hastings. 88 Native Office to Governor, 15/12/1886, NO86/4004, MA13/ Williams, David V, Te Kooti Tango Whenua: The Native Land Court , Wellington: Huia, 1999, pp

36 phase of purchasing or to settle disputes arising from it. Stirling has written of McLean's purchasing in the mid-1850s: the lasting legacy from this brief flurry of activity (much of it conducted with select rangatira in Wellington) was the host of incomplete deeds left behind, negotiations in which payments had been made to one or two rangatira in Wellington on the basis of the most vague description of the land, and the reserves. Final deeds were to be signed, and further payments possibly made, when the size and quality of the area transacted was more accurately known, and the truer extent of the Maori interests in that land discovered. Thus, vendors be they willing or unwilling were locked into an arrangement that might, upon a belated inspection of the actual land and its survey, prove still more unsatisfactory. The new deeds were also signed by very few Maori. 90 Wharehanga fits this general pattern of purchasing. The land was transferred by Waka and Kingi, ignoring the fact that others had an interest in it and that it had been gifted to Te Aitu s children. The real value of the land was not ascertained and the boundaries were not clearly defined. This was only to be expected of a transaction that took place in Wellington with no plan of the land available. The Crown only showed an interest in surveying the land to on-sell it but this proved impossible because of Manihera s intransigence. In an attempt to have his interests in the land acknowledged by the Crown, Te Whatahoro Jury had to pay for his own survey. 91 The loss of the original deed is a not uncommon example of the slip-shod way in which the purchasing and its aftermath was handled Stirling, p Wairarapa Native Land Court minute book 1A, 12/10/1868, fol Stirling, p