Thames gold rush followed, bringing a flush of wealth to some miners and some Maori. The claimants have submitted that Mackay pursued ‘divide and rule’ tactics and brought undue pressure to bear to secure these agreements. The Crown contends that there were inevitable divisions of opinion among Maori about the extent and pace of opening their lands to mining, and that no land was opened without the consent of the rangatira and hapu concerned. The agreements included payments to Maori landowners for ‘all claim holders and their servants’, for residential and business site licences, and for the cutting of kauri and other timber.

On these matters, we note the following:

► In general, we concur with the Crown’s view. Mackay firmly policed the boundaries of Maori land not opened to mining and awaited the agreement of principal rangatira to mining on the land they controlled.

► The allegation of undue pressure relates mainly to Waiotahi, on the northern side of Thames, which Aperahama Te Reiroa had kept closed. We accept that Mackay did bring some undue pressure to bear on Te Reiroa but also that minimal prejudice was involved because many owners in Waiotahi were already in favour of mining the land.

► In several instances, rangatira asked for advance payments as part of the terms of mining agreements. Mackay declined in some instances and agreed in others. We consider it unwise for the rangatira to have asked, and unwise but not improper for Mackay to have acceded. The advances were against an assured stream of mining revenue, not a debt on the land, and were part of a general agreement among the principal owners, not a buying off of one group to get a foothold against known opposition (as was to occur in Ohinemuri).

ES.5.5 Ohinemuri

The Crown has accepted that there were ‘elements of pressure and coercion’ in the pursuit of a mining cession in Ohinemuri, then the freehold of it, and that Ohinemuri was ‘a particularly regrettable transaction.’³ The Crown nevertheless submits in mitigation that Maori right-owners in Ohinemuri were always divided on the question, and that the Crown did not confront or overrule the opposition to mining (led by Te Hira) but kept miners off the land pending the withdrawal of opposition. We have received many submissions relating to the propriety or otherwise of the Crown’s advances to individual right-owners or sections of them, for their interests in Ohinemuri, Waikawau, and Moehau blocks (including £3000 advanced by Mackay for tangi expenses); also on the practice of ‘raihana’ - the acceptance by Mackay of orders many Maori owners made with storekeepers for day-to-day needs, also charged against the land. In late 1874, Mackay and McLean confronted the assembled

3. Document AA1, p 181