contributed to this increase—they had been showing considerable mobility since the earlier i9th century. As well, a significant number of Hauraki people would have been normally resident in those parts of these 'fringe' counties closer to the Firth. In general terms, these figures suggest for this 4o year period something in the vicinity of a 25% decrease in the Maori population of the 'core' counties, accompanied by an increase of over 3o% in the 'fringe' counties. Taking the two groups of counties together, the figures suggest a modest overall decrease in the range of 3-4%.
2.25 The possibility of a modest decline, and at best a stable situation, for the period after the 189os does not fit the overall picture given by Pool of a general increase beginning in the 189os and suggests that the Hauraki region goes against the nationwide trend. This continuing decline could not be accounted for by out-migration to places beyond the two groups of counties. For three of the censuses in the period under consideration, those of 1891, 1896 and 1901, the census-takers (as well as giving the returns cited above) reverted to the earlier practise of giving returns under 'principal tribes'—in this case `Ngati Maru', probably as a statistical shorthand term for the main body of Hauraki Maori. The numbers of people so identified who lived outside the 'core' and 'fringe' counties taken together are so small-119 in both 1891 and 1896, and io8 in 19o1—that, even allowing for some under-estimation, out-migration to more distant places cannot have contributed much.
2.26 It is likely, then, that the Hauraki Maori population was either stable or declining during the period covered by these censuses, from 1886 to 1916. If the explanation does not lie in out-migration, it can only lie in local conditions. The normal demographic explanation would be in terms of the relationship between birth rates and death rates. A high death rate accompanied by a low birth rate leads to a sharp decline in overall numbers; a shift in either (such as a decrease in mortality or an increase in fertility) will either slow down the decline or turn it into an increase. A high death rate accompanied by a high birth rate is generally regarded as leading to a fairly stable population, one which can do little more than replace itself. The numbers born into Maori families (but not always surviving past infancy) were almost certainly large during this period. But a high incidence of sickness and death especially among the young is also evident. The health situation described in a later section of this report is not out of keeping with the conclusion drawn here from the census statistics, of a regional Maori population either static or experiencing a slight decline in the later i9th and early loth centuries.
2.27 By contrast, it is usually considered that the Maori population as a whole began a small but steady increase around 1891. Though the difference between the regional and the national situation is not spectacular, it is enough at least to raise the possibility that Hauraki Maori experienced the general Maori predicament rather more severely than many others. This could be explained in terms of the relationship between European immigration and Maori ill-health. 'The influx of colonists ... subjected Maori to ever-increasing risks of exposure to diseases against which they had no immunity' ... (Pool,
26