An earlier report on the Crown’s purchase of Katikati and Te Puna, submitted by H. T. Clarke in June 1865, explained the transaction differently. Clarke stated that ‘it was distinctly understood by the Natives at the time that the peace was made, that Te Puna [block] would be absolutely required by the Government, but that it should be paid for’.²⁸ This implies that no choice was given to Maori in the matter.

Clarke was also given an opportunity to describe the purchase when presenting evidence before the Native Affairs Committee in 1877. In this account of the purchase, Clarke explained that:

It was then stated to them that this particular block between Te Puna and Katikati should be sold, because it had always been a bone of contention between themselves and the Thames Natives. They urged it themselves on that ground. These were the conditions on which that sale was made. Directly after Sir George Grey returned to Auckland a number of chiefs went directly to Auckland, and they received a deposit of £1000 on this block.²⁹

This statement suggests that the Crown used the ongoing customary dispute over land on the western side of the harbour to justify its acquisition of the area. However, it is debatable whether the resolution of traditional conflict was the sole, or even the primary motive for the purchase, especially as Hauraki tribes were not consulted before the purchase was made. Moreover, Clarke’s representation of the sale is reinforced by the way Fox described the cession that was in a letter to Grey dated 24 September 1864. In this letter Fox referred to the purchase of the Katikati-Te Puna block as ‘a forced acquisition of Native Lands under colour of a voluntary purchase’.³⁰ Therefore, while the purchase seemed, on the Crown’s part, to be well-intentioned, Fox’s reference to the purchase as a forced acquisition and Clarke’s phrase ‘stated to them that this block … should be sold’, cast the transaction in an altogether different light.

The apparent ease with which the purchase was carried out was complicated by the assertion of rights by ‘Ngaiterangi’s’ so-called ‘ancient enemies Taraia and the Thames people’.³¹ Fox and Whitaker had either overlooked or ignored the rights of

²⁸ Clarke to Mantell, 23 June 1865, AJHR 1867, A-20, p. 12.

²⁹ H. T. Clarke, Le 1 1877/5, NA, p. 2. Thanks to Eve Hartley for this reference.

³⁰ Fox to Grey, 24 September 1864, G 17/3, no. 5, NA, cited in Riseborough, p. 32.

³¹ See Stokes, The Allocation of Reserves, vol. 1, fig. 2, p. 10. See also Stokes, Te Raupatu, vol. 2, ch. 2-3, and O’Malley and Ward, pp. 6-18.