Wairoa, then the balance required was to be taken on the north bank of the Wairoa extending toward the Puna,” that the surveyors had reported there were not 50,000 acres between the two rivers, consequently land had been surveyed between the Wairoa and the Puna. I then stated I had ascertained from the Survey Department that the surveyors had included 55,000 acres within their lines, and that this was wrong, being in excess of the quantity fixed by His Excellency the Governor in August 1864, and also the final arrangements in 1866. I therefore proposed to give back five thousand acres by cutting a line from the Ruangarara branch of the Wairoa to the Puna River, excluding the Pirirakau cultivations near Waiwhatawhata and Te Irihanga. As it also appeared that some loyal Natives had lost a good deal of land within the confiscated block; and some ex-rebels had little land elsewhere, I offered to make certain reserves which with those previously sanctioned by Mr Whitaker made a total of upwards of six thousand acres within this block, reducing the actual quantity retained by the Government to about forty-four thousand acres. The greater portion of these reserves either had water frontage or were near it. After some discussions this proposition was unanimously agreed to, the old chief Maungapohatu being a consenting party. A reserve of about four hundred acres was set apart for him and the Pirirakau.
I then expressed “my regret that the Pirirakau were not present” and the exclamation was, “who are they ? What have those slaves to do with it ? The only man of any rank is Maungapohatu, he is connected with us. Take the land. Do not ask them about it.” I however told them “I should like to see Pirirakau and would write to them again to come to the meeting.”76 [Emphasis added.]
It should be noted that although Mackay claimed that his proposal received unanimous agreement, those people who were most effected, the Pirirakau hapu who lived west of the Wairoa River, were not present at the meeting to give their consent, or to object. Mackay himself seemed to acknowledge this by saying that he would like to meet with them. However, the Crown Commissioners were well aware that Pirirakau opposed the boundary extension. Not only had Pirirakau disrupted the surveys, and repeatedly refused to meet with the Crown and negotiate, they also wrote in protest:
We will not agree to (or consent to give) the land from Te Wairoa extending to Waipapa. We will not consent to the money these words are true: No, for the money, No for the rebellion. Desist from your disputing (do not contend the point) stop where you are. This is a true word by the tribes of the Wairoa extending to Waipapa.77
However, by claiming that Pirirakau were ‘slaves’ of Ngaiterangi, and by pointing out that they were ‘hauhau’ Mackay was able to justify to the government the inclusion of Pirirakau lands within the confiscation boundary. He was also able to justify using their lands to reward those Maori who had agreed to his arrangements:
This tribe were very much inclined to be troublesome when I was last at Tauranga. I would point out that with the exception of some two or three persons they have all been in rebellion, and have not returned to their allegiance to this day. In my opinion it would only be just to confiscate all their lands, reserving about 2,500 acres for their use and occupation. Their lands are principally between Te Puna and Wairoa, and I would suggest that a portion of these should be given to those friendly Natives who have lost land in the block of 50,000 acres before mentioned.78
76 cited in Stokes, 1990, pp 108-109
77 Tribes of the Wairoa to Waipapa to Mackay and Clarke, 3 November 1866, AJHR, 1867, A-20
78 Mackay to Rolleston, 25 September 1866, AJHR, 1867, A-20, p 22
F8