THE CROWN, THE TREATY, AND THE HAURAKI TRIBES, 1800–1885

complete. Despite the demonstration of interest in sub-surface resources of the Hauraki region in the foundation years of the colony, no specific discussion has been found in records of on-the-ground negotiation concerning the royal prerogative over precious metals, nor explanation to Maori of the arcane legal meaning of the Crown which underlay that purported right.

The question of gold, and what to do if it was found on land still held by Maori, was first specifically raised at Coromandel, at a point in 1852 when far more weight was placed on the implications of the Treaty of Waitangi—and the might of Maori numbers—than was to be the case in later years. In their discussions about how to act with reference to gold found in native land, Lieutenant-Governor Wynyard, Governor Grey, and the Executive Council demonstrated a pragmatic recognition of the Treaty and of Maori power. They decided not to attempt a full assertion of the Crown's common law prerogative over gold, but were not prepared to abandon the right altogether and leave Maori in full control of all sub-soil resources. Instead, the Government decided to persuade right-holders to entrust their auriferous lands to the Crown's control, in return for a 'fair proportion' of the administrative revenues.

Again, no explanations of the Crown's claim to 'royal metals', or of the distinction between ownership and access which underlay its policy, appear to have been offered to Maori. Instead, officials emphasised that the Crown would protect Maori in their person and property, and that they would benefit from the opening of their lands to mining. It is argued here, however, that the maintenance of law and order, and the active protection of the right of Maori to control the use of their own lands, as they saw fit, was merely the proper exercise of the Crown's kawanatanga, and should not have been contingent upon Maori surrendering their rangatiratanga over those lands. Furthermore, respect for both the Treaty of Waitangi and for the understandings reached in 1852, should have included active protection of the right of Maori to forbid mining on their land if they so wished. Instead, the Government, whose underlying role was to promote mining, made only limited response to subsequent Maori complaint about trespass on their lands, and was even prepared to force the opening of lands which Maori wished to hold for themselves.

Whereas the Government tended to regard the agreement at Patapata as merely an instrument whereby Maori lands would be opened to mining and brought within its administrative jurisdiction to be defined, ultimately, by statutory mining law, Maori saw the occasion as an event of considerable moment. The terms of their understanding were defined not only by the rudimentary provisions of the agreement, signed by some right-holders in the area, but also by the promises made by Wynyard which suggested an ongoing relationship of respect for Maori rights and support for their continuing ownership of the land. Of equal significance were the reasons for the refusal of Taraia, Paora Te Putu, and others to agree to mining: a combination of an attitude of 'wait and see', desire to retain control of the land and its sub-surface resources for Maori themselves, and expectation that payments for the opening of land to mining would bear a direct relationship to the value of the minerals taken out.

6