- YM
Sidestep: How much land was sold by Maori
We mentioned a few years back, a case in the South Island where a chief sold a huge parcel of land on the West Coast to Europeans that wasn’t even his to sell. Land 'ownership' the way Europeans saw it, was a confusing thing to the Maori and this link might help put some perspective on how difficult it can be...
Here are some links to review.
In 1923, Sir Apirana Ngata, both Maori and the Minister of Native Affairs, wrote a book explaining the Treaty of Waitangi and the land confiscations entitled, “The Treaty of Waitangi - An Explanation”. This is what Sir Ngata said,
“Some have said these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty”.
NOTE: The above was written by one of Maori descent.
Much has been said about stolen land and indeed some has been taken as Sir Apirana Ngata suggested. But many deeds of purchase were made between the Crown and Maori and they are now all on permanent, but overlooked, record.
Much of Aotearoa was actually sold by Maori. Many of those deeds and descriptions are listed in a link further down in this article.
For most of the period from 1840 to 1865, land acquisition from Māori operated under the doctrine of Crown pre-emption – only the Crown could extinguish Māori customary title to their lands. Private individuals could not buy land directly from Māori. This was standard practice in all British colonies, and in New Zealand was set out in Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi and in section two of the Land Claims Ordinance 1841. Some historians have noted that the pre-emption rule allowed the government to buy land cheaply from Māori and then on-sell it to settlers at a higher price, with the profits supporting the costs of immigration by British settlers. But probably pre-emption was introduced simply because it was standard practice. It was also intended, at least in part, to protect Māori from private European purchasers. In this period about two-thirds of the entire land area of New Zealand was ‘bought’ from Māori, using deeds of sale. Māori would sign a deed (essentially a formal sale contract), usually written in both English and Māori. This would record that a certain area had been purchased by the Crown in exchange for a cash payment and the right to retain certain reserves or access to resources such as fish. Some of these deeds related to huge areas, sometimes thousands of square kilometres, while others were for small blocks of just a few hectares. The Crown set up a land commission to investigate previous land transactions. No title of ownership would be valid unless granted or confirmed as genuine or fair by the Crown.
After the Maori wars (where land was confiscated by those who breached the treaty), approximately 127,218 hectares were returned to Waikato Maori who were judged not to have rebelled. The final confiscations totalled 359,283 hectares. It should be noted that nobody in the Waikato was turned off land that he 'identifiably' occupied or cultivated. Large tracts of what many Europeans would call “waste land” with no identifiable Maori owners - “Crown Land” of the Kingites being the best description of it – was simply Gazetted as Crown Land, meaning all neighbouring tribes actually lost was the opportunity to turn land they didn’t utilize anyway into cash at some future point in time. Over a period of more than a decade, Governor Grey and his successors made numerous offers to ‘King’ Tawhiao to return all the confiscated lands (not already given to military settlers or otherwise sold), subject to Tawhiao taking an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Tawhiao intransigently and rudely rebuffed all these attempts. Here’s how it went down on one of these occasions. Days of abortive discussion included one particular day when Tawhiao and a group of his friends sat with their backs to the government delegation. Eventually, Governor Grey’s patience was exhausted: “Three times I have had to come to you at very considerable personal trouble and annoyance. I have had many troubles and many discomforts to go through. I have hurt my health by so doing … Now, the offers which were made to you at Hikurangi were promises of gifts to be given without your undertaking to do anything in return for them. I shall wait until tomorrow at 10 o’clock in the morning. If then you send to me, to tell me you accept these offers, or that you are prepared to discuss them, I will remain to discuss them. If I do not hear from you that you will discuss them, after 10 o’clock to-morrow morning they will be withdrawn absolutely.” No message came, and the offer lapsed. According to former Ngai Tahu Waitangi Tribunal claims researcher, Dr John Robinson: “The refusal [by Tawhiao] of the oath of loyalty was nothing other than treason, particularly from a man who claimed to be a rival monarch.” The upshot of Tawhiao’s arrogance was that Tainui lost the opportunity to regain much of the land that had been confiscated after the war. Only 26% of confiscated land was returned in the Waikato, compared with 64% in Taranaki, and 83% in Tauranga. Note the difference is percentages - it was simply arrogance that made the difference. As Dr Robinson correctly points out with respect to more than a decade of abortive Crown attempts to negotiate a final peace that included the return of as much land as possible: “This was not the action of a Governor, or of a Government, determined to strip Maori of their land. It was the exact opposite.” Only about 4 percent of NZ's land area was eventually – and quite rightly – confiscated from tribes who'd challenged the Queen's sovereignty and lost. These tribes were warned in advance this would happen if they didn’t pull their heads in. When conflict was brewing in 1863, Governor Grey made this abundantly clear: “Those who wage war against Her Majesty, or remain in arms, threatening the lives of Her peaceable subjects, must take the consequences of their acts, and they must understand that they will forfeit the right to possession of their lands as guaranteed to them by the Treaty of Waitangi.” The balance 96% of New Zealand’s land area was voluntarily "sold" by the chiefs in hundreds of transactions. So the land was not “stolen” but sold. And the sales are all recorded in writing. Those records as compiled by Special Commissioner Henry Hanson Turton, are readily available on the Victoria University of Wellington website for anyone to see. Here are links to Turton's Deeds, held electronically by Victoria University of Wellington, and in hard copy at the Hocken Library and others. Index to Deeds, Receipts, Gifts > http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-Tur01Nort.html Once peace was finally made, the Kingites were treated as British subjects, a far more benevolent fate than they'd have suffered had they been conquered by another Maori tribe, and indeed considerably better treatment than the Tainui tribes had meted out to others during the Musket Wars of the 1830s. Nonetheless, for around 70 years, Tainui kept up an avalanche of complaints and petitions that the land confiscations were both wrongful and excessive. Eventually, the Labour Party buckled to this pressure, and gave them something to keep Princess Te Puea and the Kingites in the tent for Labour. In 1946, after what one commentator at the time referred to as “the biggest and most representative hui of the Tainui tribes ever held,” the Crown and Tainui signed the Waikato-Maniapoto Settlement Claims Act, the preamble of which read: "The purpose of this Act is effect a full and final settlement of all outstanding claims relating to the raupatu confiscations ..." Full and final usually means full and final... a done deal. Yet Waikato-Tainui were handed a second full and final settlement of $170-million in 1995, on the basis of what the Waitangi Tribunal asserted were “Treaty breaches,” despite never having signed the Treaty of Waitangi. This settlement specifically excluded further claims that Tainui might mount over the Raglan, Kawhia, and Aotea Harbours, and to the Waikato River, so that one wasn’t “full and final” either. The 1995 settlement went around the various Tainui subtribes for ratification, and was eventually endorsed by around 2/3 of the marae in the Waikato. A kaumatua at one of the dissenting marae famously told the New Zealand Herald at the time: “We do not see this as a full and final settlement, because who can anticipate the needs of future generations. To bind future generations like that is not the Maori way.”
It's all very contentious but you can be sure of one thing... there will never ever be a full and final payment from the Crown to any Maori tribe.
You are free to disagree with any of the above... after all, that's exactly what will keep the process going 'roa ki te heke mai'.
*****
Colonialism is a word used to mean "Europeans took our land of us". In fact Maori signed the treaty and made the Crown sovereign. Land sales began. Only when the Sovereignty was contested on the ground - despite the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 - did Māori became less willing to sell land to the rapidly growing European population (which is understandable, much like we don't like Chinese corporations buying up land now). Maori did view land differently than the European and that's where much of the problems occurred.
Many Māori died defending their land; others allied themselves with the colonists for a variety of reasons, sometimes to settle old scores. You see, Maori never were, and still are not, a united Nation. They were, and still are, a group of warring tribes that supposedly came from the same homeland for the same reasons. They were fighting among themselves long before any European saw these shores. For example; Ngai Tahu took land off Kati Mamoe, who took it off Waitaha, long before Cook arrived. In other words Ngai Tahu were involved in a form of 'colonialism' themselves - as Sir Apirana Ngata himself stated. Here at tangatawhenua16, we have a strong belief that all that has happened is just karma (there is no true Maori word for this term or meaning - the closest would be tukunga iho), for taking land and enforcing their way way of life upon the few indigenous that were here long before Toi ever began exploring. Of course colonialism of a savage type did occur in other countries (Australia included), but NZ had a treaty, and the treaty meant they were awarded the same rights as a British Citizen. Land sales began, some sold cheaply for what they deemed at the time was fair exchange, and yes tensions did erupt (just as they do now in land sales). The land taken by the government was 97% to do with Maori not following the treaty they signed. Yet not all tribes even signed the treaty you say? That is correct, but even those that didn't still want payouts from it today! The treaty should only have been binding if all chiefs of all tribes signed it. The British were too concerned the French would beat them and moved too rashly. But history is what it is.
Very little land was stolen. So little information on it is public and visible (although still able to be accessed) that many assume the lands taken were done so unfairly. In some cases they were, but the majority were legitimate purchases by a willing buyer and a willing seller. The rest was as Sir Ngata said "...the chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority...". The trouble is the understanding of what 'owning' land means as Maori and Pakeha see it differently.
But if we finally do show conclusive proof that a race existed here that once had claim to the entire land... well - you can guess why we receive threats even now; even without the entire proof being shown yet! You see, many hundreds of millions of dollars might be at stake and you can be very sure an unknown whakapapa, previously never mentioned or referred to prior to 2020, will suddenly emerge going back to Eroero and about 300AD (some 980 years before Maori were said to have arrived here)... you can be sure of it! Just as a previously unknown story about the 'Korotangi' 'suddenly' appeared - even though no one knew of its existence prior.
But have a remedy for that and the rope will be laid out for those that might try lie and deceive with something 'previously' kept hidden from previous common knowledge.
