succeed in proving his title to it, which I think is most likely. I would suggest that the matter stand over until the 7000 acre reserve block is surveyed, and the title to the other block decided by Native Land Court. If a surveyor is sent to survey the 7000 acre block, he might be instructed to notice how much land suitable for cultivation there is upon it, also the position of the burial places at Moerangi mentioned by writer.2
The Under Secretary to the Native Department was aware of the promise of a reserve to Tarapipipi, but there was no written record of the promise in the Department. Daniel Pollen was therefore written to, and asked what he could recall of the promise he had allegedly made.3
Pollen replied that
I have no recollection of having made any such promise or agreement as is in this letter mentioned. Acting only as Agent of the Government, I certainly would not have made a promise affecting a subject so large as the practical restoration of 24,000 acres of the confiscated territory to natives who had been in rebellion, without special authority from the Government. Such an authority would come to me officially through the Colonial Secretary's office, and would be recorded there if issued. I do not think that such an authority was ever given. Amongst my memoranda of official transactions, I can find no trace of it, or note of any occasion when such a promise could have been made by me to Tarapipipi Te Kopara or to any other men of the Ngatipaoa.
There is this antecedent improbability about it that, in my capacity as Government Agent and as Native Minister, I held, and always advisedly expressed, the opinion that, whilst for all rebel natives who chose to come in ample provision in land should be made, not an acre of the confiscated land should ever be surrendered to those who were in rebellion, as that would be an acknowledgement that the confiscation was wrongful, an acknowledgement which no Government could be expected to make.
With regard to the records accompanying this letter and to the question raised in Tarapipipi's letters to myself, I note that my report of the native meetings at Piako and at Shortland (of date December 24th 1870) was laid before Sir Donald McLean, who was then in Auckland, and it would appear that in consequence of the absence of a triangulation station, no action with reference to the rectification of the confiscation boundary could then be taken, and nothing was in fact done for a long time thereafter.
Regarding Tarapipipi's complaint that his land and that of his people at Hapuakohe had been taken, I have no doubt that I promised to recommend to the Government that land should be set apart for them at that place, and this appears to have been done very liberally, but not by me, and not perhaps on the terms mentioned in my report. Whilst the question of the alteration or rectification of the confiscation boundary was being discussed, I assured all the natives present that if in making a new boundary any land not already proclaimed as confiscated should be included, payment would be made to the owners for what would be so taken. That was the practive limit of any promise made on the occasion in question, or, to the best of my recollection, at any other time.4
The Native Minister was advised that
You will notice from Dr Pollen's [reply] that, with perhaps the exception of some land at Hapuakohe, none of the promises or agreements as alleged appear to have been made.
2 Native Agent Kihikihi to Under Secretary Native Department, 13 August 1889. Maori Affairs Head Office file MLP 1892/8. Supporting Papers #1374.369.
3 Native Minister to D Pollen MLC, Auckland, If October 1889. Maori Affairs Head Office file MLP 1892/8. Supporting Papers #B74.367 and 336-355.
4 D Pollen, Auckland, to Native Minister, z6 October 1889. Maori Affairs Head Office file MLP 1892/8. Supporting Papers #B74.336-355.
30