Chapter I: Hauraki and the Crown, 1800–1850

with the land forever'; and that the land was not disputed by others. In some cases, such witnesses admitted a transaction, but stated that they had not received sufficient payment, or, that boundaries were wrongly stated in the deed—although, it might be correctly stated by the claimant before the Commission.87

How far this apparent consensus reflected genuine acceptance of transactions as permanent alienations of land is not clear. There had been a lengthy history of European commercial enterprise in the coastal region, and many Maori were prepared to both attend the hearings and support claims, provided that the original transaction was seen as fair, the boundaries had been agreed upon, and occupation had followed within a reasonable time. Where opposition existed, it tended to centre on questions of payment and boundary, rather than representing a complete repudiation. The Waitangi Tribunal has recently pointed out, however, that the two parties were operating in different worlds and has criticised the inquiry for proceeding on the 'erroneous assumption' that such transactions constituted contracts for the sale of land under English law. There was no examination of the true nature of these transactions or the degree of mutual understanding between the signatory parties, nor consideration of whether 'vendors' would retain sufficient land for their future well-being.88 Furthermore, the Commission had to rely on opponents of claims appearing before them, in order to establish whether all interested parties had agreed to a sale. Chiefs such as Taraia might chose, however, not to attend the court. It is difficult, too, to assess how adequately Maori were informed of the sittings of the Commission. While Maori and Government were in close communication at a political level, tribal interests were widely scattered over the region. Certainly, in a number of cases—McGaskill (no. 287–289), Cormack (no. 143), Fairburn (no. 590) Wilson (no. 583), Foster (no. 801), and Thorpe (no. 832)—Maori made complaint to later investigations that they had not been represented at the Godfrey and Richmond hearings. Te Moananui (Katikati), in protesting the Crown's treatment of the Fairburn transaction; Mohi Te Haerere who appealed to the Bell Commission against the grant to Foster; and Tukukino, petitioning Parliament regarding Thorp's claim at the Waihou River—all, stated that their people had not appeared to oppose sales because they had been unaware of the investigation of those claims.89

(c) The findings of the first Old Land Claims Commission

The results of the Old Land Claims Commission in terms of acres alienated within the Hauraki rohe cannot be stated with absolute precision since the lands claimed were generally poorly defined, the estimates of acreage sometimes wildly inaccurate, and the awards, unaccompanied by survey, and in some cases, immediately tampered with by the Governor. Thus, only the broad parameters of the nett impact of the Commission's findings can be delineated here. A total of 113 cases (excluding those under pre-emption

87 See, for example, evidence of Parata, 4 July 1843, in Browne case file, OLC 1 981, Repro 1681; evidence of Horetu in Prout case file, OLC 1 392. See Appendix One for outline of Maori objections to claims.

88 Waitangi Tribunal, Muriwhenua Land Report, P. 394.

89 See Statement of Katikati, June 1851, Fairburn case file, OLC 1590; statement of Mohi Te Haerere, Foster case file, OLC 1 801, & Thorp case file, OLC 1 831–2.

49