THE CROWN, THE TREATY, AND THE HAURAKI TRIBES, 1880–1980

This offer was refused. Undaunted, Preece believed that the purchase could still be achieved with 'careful management' but that 'it would take time as there was no desire whatever on the part of the natives to sell, and ... they were very bitter with the Government for having purchased the other shares.'72 Maori subsequently complained, too, that they were 'never asked to sign [a] new agreement or consulted in any way, but were merely told that no more rent would be paid them, and that in future, they would only get the revenue that accrued from the land.'73

The local county council urged on the purchase, predicting that there would be 'considerable mining activity' in the near future, but the Government was unable to make any headway at the price of 7/6 being offered.74 In 1887 application for subdivision was made and soon afterwards the Crown applied for its interests to be defined. In the middle of the hearing, Wilkinson wired his Minister stating that Maori would agree to a sudivision which would give up 600 acres to the south-east of Kapanga Stream. He advised that this would be a 'very good' deal for the Government since that portion would contain nearly all the mines that had been in operation in the past ten years, although few were now productive. Only one mine lay on the north-west bank; however, Wilkinson calculated that this concern produced three-quarters of the current revenue of the block. He was duly instructed to accept the proposal, provided that Maori agreed to their retained portion being brought under the Mines Act 1886. Otherwise he was to try to protect the property of the English Company who owned the claim in question from possible seizure by Maori after they had been 'clothed in a new tide by the subdivision.'75

The owners of the block at first agreed that the gold field laws might remain over the block, but asked that they should collect the revenues for themselves because of the history of delay in payments by the warden, pointing out that they had been paid nothing since the termination of the rental arrangement two years earlier. Past problems were acknowledged by officials, but the idea of Maori taking over management was met with little enthusiasm. The Under Secretary of the Native Department responded:

Quite so. Questions should not be mixed; they should not however, be entirely overlooked. Please ascertain cause of non-payment of revenue to natives as complained of. Once the matter is settled delays of the kind will not be permitted. Natives would act unwisely to take the collection of revenues out of the hands of the Government. Please explain this to them as clearly as possible.76

The Moehau no. 4 grantees refused to give way, countering that since the Government had withdrawn from the original agreement of 1862, 'the land should revert to them unfettered with gold mining laws.'77 Wilkinson, now, advised caution:

The question seems to me whether, if the natives refuse to sign a new agreement, they have any case against the Government for keeping proclamation over block of land after they had

72 Ibid., p. 93.

73 Wilkinson to Under Secretary Native Land Purchase Department, 27 October 1887. Ibid., p. 98.

74 Acting Under Secretary Mines to Chairman Coromandel County Council, 2 December 1886. MD 1/86/2238.

75 Under Secretary Native Department to Native Agent, 24 October 1887. MA 13/296. Cited in Alexander, The Hauraki Tribal Lands, Part 1, p. 95.

76 Under Secretary Native Department to Native Agent, 25 October 1887. In ibid., p. 96.

77 Wilkinson to Under Secretary Native Department, 25 October 1887. Ibid.

4°