THE CROWN, THE TREATY, AND THE HAURAKI TRIBES, 1800-1885
mark' and agreed that it was necessary to give Maori compensation only, not payment for either the freehold or the mineral rights. Payment was thus represented as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Crown for the false impression created by past negotiations, now that Hauraki found themselves 'dispossessed by a law of which they were ignorant'. In subsequent discussion, Fenton's judgement was presented only in terms of fishing rights, while the more extensive rights claimed by Maori were dismissed out of hand.
Even though Maori continued to express a strong preference to lease rather than to sell the foreshore, they were given no option but a complete alienation to the Crown. The Government flatly rejected a proposal that it lease the area, and Dr. Pollen, who took over responsibility for the negotiations, told Maori at Thames that they had little choice but to surrender their claim to exclusive use 'in face of so large a European population' in order to 'avoid the chances of trouble and annoyance to either party'. But whether they agreed or not, Maori control of the now commercially-valuable beach flat was rapidly declining. Even though the foreshore had been removed from the jurisdiction of the Gold Mining District Act, the Superintendent of the Province who had control of the management of the field, had 'tacitly recognise[d] occupation and reclamation of some portion of the foreshore'. No rental had to be paid for the use of these sites until the native claim had been extinguished. In the meantime Maori had lost their use of a formerly important food source, but been given 'compensation' limited by the conception of their rights as being of a secondary nature, unsustainable, and on the Government's sufferance. They were given no chance to participate in the development of the beach area which was anticipated to generate large-scale income, and hence later given to the Thames Harbour Board as an endowment. Common law assumptions regarding the ownership and use of the foreshore increasingly dominated the Government's political thinking after this point. Hauraki Maori continued, however, to petition the loss of their authority over traditional flounder and shell-fishing grounds into the twentieth century.
Maori dissatisfaction with gold field agreements
[pp. 165-167] Nor were promises of ongoing, shared prosperity, that 'your children will be benefited, our children will be benefited', actively promoted by the Crown. It is true that in the first boom years, considerable 'native revenues' in the form of payments for miners' rights and rents were generated by the gold field. These monies went, however, to only 13 persons, further distribution being left to their whim and circumstances, and when questions of title were later examined by the Native Land Court, it was acknowledged that more persons should have participated in them. It is suggested, too, that such revenues were but a poor reflection of the value of their sub-surface resources? Expectations of participation in commercial development were largely frustrated rather than fostered by Government agency. At the same time, highly prized resources of the foreshore and their traditional cultivations had been swallowed up by the expansion of the gold field outside its original boundaries.
22