Gh—6b;

surveyed (see liis report) the line was not cut (see Fox's report under review). From the Maori point of view it was the duty of Paremata, as chief and mouthpiece of the neighbouring people, if he considered they were being encroached upon to demand of the settlers and company that they prove their rights to the land they were occupying. 147. On the following day (Thursday), however, he is accused of breaking into a settler's house and robbing him of some flour (which may or may not be a just accusation), and of destroying a stockyard and burning a quantity of shingles and hurdles. 148. On the following Monday a public meeting was held in Nelson whereat it was decided that " the surveyor should proceed to the valley and cut a broad line across it in exact accordance with the Commissioner's (Spain's) plan." On the next day the surveyor (in the presence of an armed party of upwards of eighty persons who were there in defiance of a notice of the Police Magistrate forbidding such proceedings read to them the night before by the Chief Constable) proceeded to cut the line " to which no obstacle opposed itself." A proposal that the gathering, " with weapons and ammunition whose order had been carefully tested overnight," should " visit " Paremata at his pa came to nothing, as Mr. Reay (with commendable good sense) declined to act as the guide of an armed party. 149. On the 26th January, 1845, the H.M.S. " Hazard " arrived fortuitously at Nelson on her way from Wanganui to Wellington, whereupon Mr. Richmond, the Police Magistrate, the Government Interpreter, and William Fox visited Whakapuaka and met Paremata. Paremata was invited to inspect the line, but did not go. Two of his brothers Emanu (Wi Katene) and Etera (Herewini te Roha ?) went on his behalf. It is valuable at this point to note that the Maori chief of a place almost invariably used a subordinate as a go-between in his dealings with officials. Upon the return of the party Paremata gave a solemn pledge to abide by the boundary " laid down by me " ([sic] it was Spain's award cut by Fox), which thereafter he duly kept. 150. In the following respects Mackay's report verges upon an exaggeration of the facts as recorded by William Fox and William Spain : — {a) The turbulent Natives did not proceed to turn off the European settlers, but respected the lawful course of events in marked contrast to William Fox's contempt of it. (b) The surveyor " did not lay down the boundary"—it was surveyed before, but apparently the line was not cut. This is made clear by the minutes of Spain's Court held on 19th August, 1844 (Mackay Com., Vol. No. 1, page 60) : — Colonel Wakefield on behalf of the New Zealand Company then produced two plans of the surveyed districts in the Nelson Settlement comprised under the present claims. The Commissioner then inquired of Colonel Wakefield whether the land marked on the plans produced exhibited the total quantity of acres claimed by the New Zealand Company in that district. Colonel Wakefield said that they did in this immediate (Nelson) District, but that he was not prepared to state the precise quantity of acres, but would furnish the Court with such particulars to-morrow. (c) William Fox says that the Natives from Massacre Bay arrived between Mr. Reay's two visits, not as Mackay says (or suggests) after the boat from the "Hazard " had arrived. It is very unlikely that there were two parties absent from Whakapuaka in the same district. It is, of course, absolutely necessary to the Mackay delineation of the immaculate Wi Katene that he should be absent while the trouble occurred. If he were not shown to be absent it might be suggested that he should have used his authority over Paremata to compel him to desist from his turbulent behaviour. (id) The suggestion that Wi Katene lost land on this occasion through Paremata's action is weak, as also is the statement that he objected to the line at first and then agreed to it. Major Richmond dealt with Paremata. Of the alleged loss of land more will be said later. (e) The statement that settlers were alleged by Paremata to be residing to the north of the line that Wi Katene had pointed out he had sold to the company is a strange one. The line was the line of Spain's award, and was laid down at a Court at which Paremata was present and Wi Katene was not. (See Nelson minute-book 2, page 335 —Paramena Haereiti in reply to his conductor, Hemi Matenga —" Wi Katene was absent at Te Taitapu at the time payment was made by Mr. Spain.") Hemi Matenga secured this evidence in order to show a good reason for Paremata's having received money which should, be contended, have gone to Wi Katene. It has already been shown that Wi Katene was not a seller to the company prior to 1845, although he received benefits, so that the explanation cannot be found in the substance of a line having been laid down by Wi Katene at the time of sale. One becomes forced to the opinion that it was a repetition of the stock answer to any act of ownership or chieftainship exercised by Paremata that Wi Katene was away at the particular time. (/) The further reference to the fixing of this line in 1851 was capable of a useful explanation which was not given by Mr. Alexander Mackay and which will be given when the declaration of James Mackay on the same subject is under review. (See Para. 202 a). 151. We can now turn to paragraphs 2 and 3, which refer to the Tuturau raid and to the gift of Whakapuaka. In the first sentence of paragraph 2 a reference is made to " the early occupation of the block by Wiremu Katene te Puoho and the Ngatitama who belonged to his party." The reply is that occupation of this nature would establish the strongest possible presumption of rights in the members of the party whether Wi Katene took by conquest or gift. 152. The remaining statements are quite incorrect. Firstly, Te Puoho did not go straight from the conquest of the Blind Bay district (1831-32) to Tuturau (1836-37). He spent some time in the North Island, and was at the Ohariu Massacre of the Muaupoko in 1834 or 1835. Secondly, Kauhoe was at Parapara when news of Puoho's death was received. This her lament plainly shows. The

Para. 99. Para. 150 (b).

Para. 202 a.

Para. 138.

35