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

actually taken place. Transactions, if deemed inadequate or somehow questionable, were generally patched up by the imposition of requirements for further payment or redrawing of boundaries before grant would issue rather than being rejected outright. From then on, the fact that such transactions had been scrutinised and approved by the Commission was taken as proof of a 'sale' by later bodies of enquiry.

Confusion about the meaning of these early transactions was exacerbated by lack of physical definition and subsequent alterations of awards on the ground. In fact, the first Commission was able to settle very little. Both FitzRoy and Grey interfered with its recommendations, while a prolonged period of inactivity and uncertainty followed, during which grantees and Government made little attempt to define boundaries. It is of little surprise, then, that Maori should object strongly in the 1850s when efforts were finally made to give practical effect to grants in order to facilitate further Crown purchase of adjacent blocks. They protested the Government's retention and on-sale of 'surplus' lands. Maori argued, for example, in the case of the area between the Tamaki and Wairoa Rivers, that they had sold those lands to Fairburn, not to the Crown.83 The Hauraki tribes strongly challenged the failure to return portions of this area to them throughout the late 1840s and early 1850s, and obstructed survey in other parts of their rohe.84

(b) The first hearings at Hauraki, 1843–1844

From May 1843 to July 1844 Commissioners Godfrey and Richmond heard claims at Coromandel concerning transactions as far north as Mahurangi, around Coromandel Harbour, Mercury and Kennedy Bays, the off-shore peninsula islands, and along the Waihou and Piako River valleys.85 Protection of the 'rights and interests of the natives' fell to a variety of personnel: George Clarke senior, Kemp, William Williams, George Clarke junior, and Edward Shortland—all filled the role of protector and interpreter to the court at some stage.86 The investigation of cases followed a pattern dictated partly by the Act, and partly by assumptions of English models of rightful transaction. Evidence was heard under oath from the claimant of the land, the purported vendors, and a witness to the transaction. That of the claimant generally concerned the location and boundaries of the land alleged to be purchased, the occasion of the transaction, the names of the vendors, details of payment, the nature of following residence, whether any other persons held an interest, and whether the boundaries were disputed. In general, the Commissioner required the claimant to produce the deed and two of the signatories to it, whose evidence was formulated and recorded in terms fitting to the English legal system, but which suggested that they wished these transactions to stand; that the deed had been fully explained before the vendors had affixed their signatures; that they had 'fully understood and were satisfied' with the deed; that they were aware that they were 'parting

83 Testimony of Walter Brodie in Minutes of Evidence taken before the 1844 Select Committee on

New Zealand. GBPP. Cited in P. Husbands & K. Riddell, The Alienation of South Auckland Lands (with a chapter by Professor Alan Ward), Waitangi Tribunal Research Series, 1993 p.13.

84 See Appendix One.

85 See R. Tonk, The First New Zealand Land Commissions, 1840–1845,' M.A. thesis, University of Canterbury, 1986, pp. 77–78.

86 Ibid., pp. 81–83.

48