on the back of the deed). They included Te Hira and Mere Kuru. Tukukino did not sign and subsequently refused to recognise the lease where it affected land in which he claimed interests. Meha Te Moananui’s name does not appear either, although Hirawa Te Moananui, presumably his teina, did sign.

There was subsequently an allegation by some Hikutaia Maori (reported through Henry Alley, the purchaser of McCaskill’s land) that Te Moananui received a personal advance on miner’s rights fees, authorised by McLean, as an inducement to accepting the lease. Indeed there are eight entries in the table of ‘payments of the £15,000’ drawn up for the MacCormick commission, five on 10 November 1874 and three on 18 November 1874, specifically identified as ‘advances against future payments’; they were the only entries in the list so described. The entries for 18 November include £718 to Meha Te Moananui.⁹⁸ The item is puzzling, given that Te Moananui was still strenuously opposing the mining agreement in the December meetings, and appears to have taken no part in the subsequent agreement. By the time purchasing of Ohinemuri resumed in 1877, he had died.⁹⁹

The signatories to the February 1875 agreement include a number of people recognisably from iwi other than Ngati Tamatera, including Ngakapa Whanaunga of Ngati Whanaunga and Tamati Paetai of Ngati Pu, but hapu or iwi affiliations are not noted on the deed, and most names do not otherwise appear in the documentary record. There were four subsequent signings, some at least at Shortland, before 24 March, organised by George Wilkinson (licensed interpreter) and witnessed by various settlers. These resulted in a further 61 names being added to the deed. There was no Maori-language version of the deed, but Wilkinson certified that he had translated it at each signing and that his translation was ‘perfectly understood’ by the Maori signatories. (Another licensed interpreter, Mackay’s clerk, John Guilding, was present at the two main signings.¹⁰⁰) The Ohinemuri goldfield block was proclaimed under the Gold Fields Act 1866 and not under the Gold Districts Act 1873, which imposed some limitations on the kind of mining leases that could be issued.

When the Ohinemuri lease was proclaimed, a section of Hikutaia right-owners petitioned the Auckland superintendent (George Grey) in March 1875: they had not known that coal was to be included in the lease.¹⁰¹ Others also were unhappy: the lease (and the

98. ‘Statement of the Facts and Circumstances Affecting the Ohinemuri Block’, goldfields special block file ma13/ 35(b), Archives NZ (doc A8(a), pp 1026–1237). Dr Anderson has cited Puckey’s report of 31 July 1880 as supportive of the Hikutaia allegation but this is incorrect – Puckey was referring to the advances made to Te Moananui and others in the Thames negotiations of 1867, discussed in the previous chapter: see E W Puckey, 31 July 1880, in Hauraki goldfield petition, Treasury statement, ma13/35(c) [ma13/35g], Archives NZ (doc a8(a), pp 686–692); Alley to Grey, 29 March 1875, Auckland Provincial Government general correspondence, ap2 29/280/75 (doc A8(a), pp 574–577).

99. Monin, p 243

100. Turton, pp 543–548. Mackay also told the Native Affairs Committee that he explained each paragraph ‘three times’: ‘Petition of Epiha Taha and Other Natives of Ohinemuri Brought before Parliament and Select Committees’, 18 August 1875, Le 1/1875/12 (doc a8(a), pp 578–614).

101. Document a8, p 227