Chapter I: Hauraki and the Crown, 1800–1850

and Orange points out that it is significant that no signatures were gathered from the tribes resident there.47

The non-signatories at Coromandel stated that the question of a treaty required tribal consideration and refused to make any decision until all the chiefs of the Thames could be assembled and the matter discussed. Piko held out little hope of his eventual consent, being unwilling to yield any of his authority over his people to the British Government—although he acknowledged that the latter could do as it wished with Pakeha:

[H]e could for himself, see no necessity in placing himself under the dominion of any prince or queen, who might govern the white men if she pleased, as he was desirous of continuing to govern his own tribe.48

Two years later Shortland recorded his opinion that Taraia, 'as well as most of them [the chiefs in the general area] have never signed the Treaty of Waitangi and still maintain their independence.'49 When the Government attempted to punish Taraia in 1842 for

leading Ngati Tamatera in an attack on Ngaiterangi at Tauranga, over rights at Kati Kati, the chief pointed out that 'the Governor was no Governor for him or his people and that he had never signed the Treaty'. In his view: 'With the Governor is the adjustment of European affairs and with us is the adjustment of the natives.'50 George Clarke, who was sent to investigate the incident, reported that even chiefs who welcomed the British presence did not necessarily see the Government as having authority in Maori matters. Ngati Paoa chiefs, Kahukoti and Te Ruinga, had accorded him a warm welcome at Orere, where he had broken his journey, but when questioned on the matter, signified their disapproval of the Governor intervening in any role other than one purely of mediation.51

That basic divergence in understanding of the nature of the Crown's authority and the pertinence of the English law, continued to characterise relationships between Hauraki Maori and the Government over the next decade. Recourse to the institutions and personnel of the Government was only one of the options that Hauraki Maori took when problems arose with settlers. Where dispute arose over land and services, Maori might accept the intervention of the protector or the Land Claims Commission, or undertake prosecutions through the court system, but they also continued to strongly assert rights on the ground, imposing their own justice. When, for example, the settler Thorp refused to pay for a fence constructed by Maori, the latter pulled it down; when McGaskill failed to complete a promised payment for land in Piako, Taraia seized the two casks of tobacco rather than applying to the Government for redress, although the case was subsequently brought to its attention.52 Nor was authority and responsibility for matters of community

47 Ibid., p. 87.

48 Ibid., p. 74.

49 Shortland, Diary and Journals 1842–1844, North Island 2. Cited in Monin, Waiheke Island, p. 87.

50 Duplicate despatches to the Secretary of State, G 30/2, p. 896. NA. Cited in Orange, The Treaty of Waitangi, p. 110.

51 Clarke Report, in Gipps to Russell, 7 March 1841. GBPP, 1842 (569), PP. 95–100. Doc. 2, pp. 7–11.

52 For full discussion of this incident see Shortland report, 23 May 1843. 1A 1843/1130; McGaskill to FitzRoy, 20 August 1845. 1A 11845/1471; McGaskill to Grey, 10 October 1847. 1A 11847/1953.

39