Maihi Te Poria and the Wairoa Road

It’s easy to assume, at this distance of time, that in the years after raupatu [1] land ownership was steadily and seamlessly transferred to pākehā settlers. Certainly the end result is confronting.

Wairoa Road, 2024

As well as the large parcels of land permanently and actually confiscated, there were, particularly in Tauranga Moana, areas returned (ie. initially confiscated and then given back) and reserved (ie. put aside from the start as allocations to support the local Māori population).  And yet, by the turn of the twenty-first century, of those returned or reserved areas of Māori land, 80 percent had been alienated [2].

Your writer makes absolutely no claim to any expertise in the field of Māori land law [3]. But I do know a bit about Te Puna. This is the story of how Maihi te Poria stood up for himself in, it has to be said, somewhat mysterious circumstances. How did he persuade the Tauranga County Council to pay him a levy of £2 a year for the use of his land for a road from 1907 until at least 1910?

I tell this from a pākehā perspective.  Although I have been in touch with some of Maihi te Poria’s whānau, and they have seen this account, my sources are confined to the public record, narrow, but authentic [4] except for one excursion into the unconfirmed space of FamilySearch, “a service provided by the Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints”, all rights reserved.  Out of respect for the family as well as a careful reading of the website’s terms of use, I do not quote from its content.  I do however offer the link [5] in case my small contribution encourages others to explore the personal history of the Maihi, also known as Marsh, family.

There could be many others in the story. We were unable to identify any Māori ratepayer names at all in the 1909 rating records for Tauranga County. But it is clear that those Māori with interests in such land as was left to them after raupatu were not only wary of officialdom. They were also willing to take it on. At a Council meeting held on 5 April 1910 correspondence was tabled from (if I have read the handwriting correctly) one Riripete Piahana, “re road through Section 116A to 116B Judea”.  The response was, to say the least, testy:  “It was resolved that the Native be informed that the Council has no idea of taking the land referred to.”  The Council moved on to deal with (either) Tinii or Tinui Waata Ririnui’s letter “re rates” and resolved to refer the matter to the District Valuer [6].  Nevertheless, Messrs Piahana and Ririnui thought it at least worthwhile to try. Maihi te Poria, of the Ngāti Pango hapū, similarly tried. And he won.

Map of Ngati Pango lands, Figure 24, Kahotea, D

Ngati Pango, along with Ngai Te Rangi, “lands extend on the west side of the Wairoa River, to Poripori, Te Irihanga and Te Whakamarama with the Pirirakau [7]”. Under the Tauranga District Lands Act 1867, Commissioners determined Lot 182, on the bend of the river and including the mill pond, to be Ngati Pango (shown in the 1867 map as allocated to one Hori Ngatai [8]). But by 1919 a Maori Land Court notice in the New Zealand Gazette [9] records Maihi te Poria making “application for partition” of that lot, which has to be [10] the land that was traversed by an informal road (or track) used by the Wairoa settlers.

Presumably they had acquired their land on the presumption that there was access to it by way of the river, readily navigable as far inland as Ruahihi. But roads, as every colonial administration came to appreciate, were much more convenient than waterways. The Wairoa been bridged for decades by 1907. It’s not hard to imagine that the casual assumption [11] that trespass was permissible across Maori land, to use a modern idiom, ground Maihi’s gears. We know he became familiar with the law of trespass because of a 1909 notice placed in the Bay of Plenty Times [12], warning “any person trespassing upon my land at Poripori, with or without dog or gun will be prosecuted”.

So we know that Maihi te Poria was willing to tangle with the colony’s institutions of land tenure. The patient reader, having been served a hefty dose of context, surely now deserves to know the mystery at the heart of this essay.

At the County Councillors’ meeting held 1 October 1907 [13], almost straight after the vigilantly critical George Vesey Stewart had asked, with urgency, for a report on “the necessary repairs to be made on the Wairoa Bridge”…

“The Chairman reported that he had made arrangements with a native named Maihi te Poria agreeing to allow the Public to use the road through his property from the Wairoa Bridge to the road leading to Settlers properties on the Wairoa river for the sum of £2 per annum.”

We are not told how this was received. It’s easy to imagine some consternation in the Council Chamber. But this is yet another piece in the uneven jigsaw of Māori land appropriation post-raupatu. The political climate was just a bit more constrained at the time. For whatever reason – memories of the 1886 Barton inquiry, the current influence of the Stout-Ngata Commission [14] - there was a significant fall-off in Māori land alienation around Tauranga in the first decade of the twentieth century [15]. 

All we know is that Councillor McEwen proposed, incorporating a shrewd nod in the direction of Councillor Stewart, who seconded, “that the Chairman’s actions be approved and that the Engineer be requested to inspect the road with a view to its acquisition under the Public Works Act.” [16]

The approval lasted until 1910, when Maihi, for reasons undisclosed, advised the Council that he intended to close the road through his property. For reasons also undisclosed, the Council resolved to leave the matter “in the hands of the Chairman” [17].

The County Chairman, J.A.M. Davidson, must have known Maihi te Poria quite well. They were near-neighbours, Davidson holding an extensive property just over the hill, along the Hakao [18]. And, as my reading of the Minute Books made clear, there were many instances when the Council trusted his personal capabilities to smooth conflicts and find practical solutions. At any rate, the matter at this point fades from the record. I wish I knew if Maihi te Poria’s toll earned him more than £6, and how, eventually, the road connection between the bridge and “Mr Perston’s property[19]” was formalised.  Semi-acquiescent takings under the Public Works Act were, and indeed are still, not unknown to officialdom.

However it happened, the public road still winds up the hill from the bank of the Wairoa River. And Maihi te Poria had other, more extensive, land to make a go of, behind the Minden hill at Poripori. For a long time, the only way he could get to it was over the land on which he had once successfully charged a toll.

References

Belgrave, M., Young, Heinz and Belgrave, D., A: Report to the Waitangi Tribunal WAI 215 #T16a.  Tauranga Māori Land Alienation, A Quantitative Overview, 1886-2006, Final Report
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_93401142/Wai%20215%2C%20T016%20(a).pdf

Kahotea, Des Tatana: Report to the Waitangi Tribunal commissioned for Wai 42A, a claim lodged by Ngāti Kahu in 1986 (Wai 27)
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_94031141/Wai%20215%2C%20A037%20(a).pdf

O’Malley, V: The Aftermath of the Tauranga Raupatu, 1864-1981, an overview report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, June 1995
https://www.academia.edu/2993300/The_Aftermath_of_the_Tauranga_Raupatu_1864_1981_Crown_Forestry_Rental_Trust_June_1995_222pp

Notes

---

[1] For these purposes, “raupatu” encompasses both the consequences of the Katikati and Te Puna purchase up to 1886, and the post-1886 acquisitions under a number of statutory measures including the Public Works Act in its various iterations.

[2] Belgrave et al, p 12

[3] In this blog I have relied on the far greater scholarship in the sources listed at the end of the essay.

[4] My thanks to Glenda McDell and the team at Western Bay of Plenty District Council for providing desk space and access to the Minute Books and rating records of the Tauranga County Council.

[5] https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/L5RQ-18C/wiremu-henare-marsh-te-poria-1884-1958

[6] The correspondence is minuted at pages 357 and 358 of the Minute Book recording proceedings of the Tauranga County Council for 1907-1911.

[7] Kahotea, D., p. 9.  This detailed study of the three hapū of Ngāti Kahu, Ngāti Rangi and Ngāti Pango has been invaluable, as has the input from the Maihi Te Poria whanu, whose whakapapa is quite distinct from that of Maihi Haki.

[8] Hori Ngatai’s role in the Ngati Pango story is a compromised one, too complicated for a place in this story.  Readers are referred to Des Kahotea’s report for further particulars.

[9] http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nz_gazette/1919/47/71.pdf

[10] Based on the writer’s personal knowledge of the area.  For instance, I know just where the Perston property was (adjacent to the present Oliver Road).

[11] Or assumptions based on usual terms of  Court orders?  See O’Malley, p. 190: “The right to run roads through Maori lands was included in grants made pursuant to the decisions of the [Native Land] Court…”

[12] https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19090319.2.50.3

[13] Page 240 of the Minute Book recording proceedings of the Tauranga County Council for 1907-1911.

[14] O’Malley, Part B, section 3; p94 and p.194, citing ‘Native Lands and Native -Land Tenure: Interim report of Native Land Commission, on Native Lands in the County of Tauranga, AJHR 1908, G-1K https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1908-I.2.4.3.15   .

[15] Belgrave et al, p 30

[16] Page 240 of the Minute Book recording proceedings of the Tauranga County Council for 1907-1911.

[17] P. 351 of the Minute Book recording proceedings of the Tauranga County Council for 1907-1911.

[18] Readers may be interested in the essay on the Hakao, Friday 14 January 2022, https://taurangahistorical.blogspot.com/2022/01/te-punas-lost-watercourse.html

[19] https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19071106.2.40

 

Putting Matters Right

How W.P. Bell was elected as a Dairy Co-op Director, 1933-34

It’s possible that in 1933 William Pool Bell of Townhead Farm on Cambridge Road stood for election as Director of the Tauranga Co-Operative Dairy Association expecting merely to fill his father’s shoes. Walter Common Bell’s ill health had led to his resignation in 1925 after fourteen years’ service, and he died the next year. [1] But those eight short years had seen a collapse of butter prices and increasing anxiety about New Zealand’s sensitiveness to “external conditions.” [2] W.P. Bell, elected third on the ballot on 8 August, was in for a bumpy ride. [3]

William Pool Bell, June 1943. Image collection of Margaret Mackersey, nee Bell

The usual fuels for anxiety – rumour and controversy – were already at work. Well ahead of the 31 May 1932 balance date, the possibility that suppliers would be paid a mere seven pence per pound of butter was scotched by a statement in the Bay of Plenty Times. [4] The same statement, however, confirmed the gloomy reality that the payout would remain at ninepence-ha’penny. Later that year L. Tollemache stepped down as Chairman, a post he had held since 1927. [5] And at the 1933 meeting, chaired by his successor P.T. Keam, he was asked to publicly explain why, back in 1930, he had turned down the opportunity to improve the Co-op’s books by the sum of £2000.

The question turned on a lease of just over an acre of land owned by the Church Mission “under the old Military Cemetery.”  The 1930 Directors explained the rationale to the Co-op shareholders: they had “planned out a suitable area for a future factory [3 roods, 15 perches] when increase warrants it; the intention is to sublet the balance [1 acre 1 perch], which part we anticipate will practically leave us rent free. The site is adjacent to both deep water and the railway and will be a considerable saving in cartage of cream and stores.”[6]

None of these plans came to anything. The Board was still paying out £100 a year in ground rent when Tollemache was challenged at the 1933 general meeting by G Chapman of Te Puna, who asked “... if Mr Tollemache had received an offer for the land on the waterfront ... [and] if Mr Tollemache had advised the directors of any offer.”[7]

Tollemache averred that he had received an unspecific offer (from a Mr Green on behalf of the Shell Oil Company, to use as a depot) and had advised the Directors of it. All this occurred shortly after the lease had been taken. But now, one by one, the Directors told the meeting that they either were not aware of the offer or had not been on the Board at the time. We can only infer that this ambush affected his chances in the ballot. 

The votes were cast as the meeting traversed district meetings (fruitful opportunities for the exchange of rumour and opinion), the price suppliers paid for their butter (a loading of 2d. per pound!), and a break for lunch. They were counted after the appointment of scrutineers (and a wrangle over ballot closing time and methods), an address by the local MP (and former Chairman of the Association), C.E. McMillan, and discussion of several sundry items including a vote of thanks to the Dairy Factory manager and his staff. And Tollemache came narrowly fifth in a four-horse race [8] behind W.P. Bell [9] and C.O. Bayley.

Advert from Dairy Exporter's edition of the 1934 Report of Dairy Commission, p.19

All directors were present at the Board meeting on 9 September, the first that William Bell attended.  No mention of the recent general meeting appears in the Minutes. He successfully moved that a response to a letter of complaint from Mrs Kelso of the Womens Institute, seeking correction of a flawed advertisement, be made. [10] This was to introduce him early to anxiety levels in the dairy industry; even this small gesture had consequences.

Meanwhile, Tollemache had his champions. The adverse implications of his treatment of the Shell offer could not be allowed to stand. His supporter J. Hopkins lodged notice of a motion to remove Messrs Lever and Keam from the directorate. Keam chaired the extraordinary general meeting called to deal with this on 23 September, an unruly affair of claim and counter-claim, bearing a remarkable resemblance to twenty-first century website comment strings. Even a direct quote from the 1930 Minutes [11], confirming that on 12 April of that year the Chairman had not only received an offer (price not stipulated) and had advised the directors that he had turned it down, but also had had this decision endorsed by the Directors (moved Keam, seconded Lever) did not settle things down.

It comes as no surprise that the row descended into a procedural wrangle about the use of proxies in a proposed poll on the motion, vague references to legal opinions and “see you in Court” remarks.
 
At the Directors’ next meeting, on 14 October, William was prominent in support of moves by another Board member, Mr W.J. White, to regularise the stand-off between Chairman and former Chairman. [12] White wanted an opinion from the Board’s solicitors and preferred not to rely on Mr Keam’s own lawyer’s opinion. He moved accordingly. William seconded. Keam bristled. He considered this a personal, not a company, matter. "He had a perfect right to receive and pay for advice from whom he pleased." [13]

White got testy. This was a slight on the Company’s solicitors. [14] Would the Chairman indemnify the Company for costs entailed in a Court case? William temporised. "If the Chairman was prepared to get a written opinion from his Solicitors ... he would be perfectly satisfied. He would like also, as a matter of courtesy to have an opinion from the Company’s Solicitors, as he considered they were slighted.”

The move to avoid potential discourtesy to Sharp, Tudhope & Auld did not succeed, but the Chairman assured the meeting that a written legal opinion "as asked by Mr Bell" would be obtained. [15]

White, not yet placated, aired two further points of displeasure. He wished to correct a statement of the Chairman’s that was contrary to fact: he had not taken round the ‘Requisition’ to remove Messrs Keam and Lever. The Chairman conceded that he had relied on hearsay. White also pointed out that not only had no reply yet been made to Mrs Kelso; the Chairman had breached Company confidence by handing on her letter to “a third person”. The Chairman conceded again. He explained that an organiser of the Institute, visiting recently, had expressed concern that Mrs Kelso’s letter contained statements which (again) were contrary to fact. The Chairman had given her a copy in an attempt to help "put the matter right."

The energetic local atmospherics of Tauranga’s dairy industry of the 1930s illustrate, as well as desperate financial strain, a deep sense of concern for fair treatment that found immediate expression in the 1934 Commission and the (quite prompt) rehabilitation of L. Tollemache in the opinion of Tauranga farmers. [16] This concern continues to reverberate today.  Co-operatives rely on a sense of justice, driven by economics as well as social conscience. The long tradition of "putting matters right" can be aligned with modern anxieties about attitudes to dairying and a sense of division between country and town.  Tauranga dairy farmers were a spirited lot, but they ultimately stayed very loyal to a practice of sharing the risks of commodity production - and staying on side with the urbanites who bought their butter.

References
[1] Obituary, Bay of Plenty Times, Vol LIV, Issue 9262, 16 August 1926, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19260816.2.10
[2] Report of the Dairy Industry Commission, H-30 of 1934, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1934-I.2.3.2.37
[3] Acknowledgements are due to Bell’s daughter Margaret Mackersey, who kindly allowed access to his small archive of Minutes and associated papers from his time as Director of the Tauranga Co-Operative Dairy Company.
[4] https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19320109.2.9
[5] He took over from C E McMillan, MP who held office until 1926: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19270809.2.20
[6] https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19300812.2.18
[7] https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19330808.2.22
[8] Ibid: It seems to have been a preferential voting process: total votes cast were significantly fewer than votes enumerated for the seven nominees.
[9] Ibid: Bell may not have been present when the results were announced.  The BP Times records thanks to supporters being offered only by Keam, Clarke and Bayley.
[10] Bell archive, Minutes of meeting of Board of Directors 9 September 1933, p.2., Collection of Margaret Mackersey, nee Bell
[11] https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19330925.2.26
[12] Bell archive, Minutes of meeting of Board of Directors 14 October 1933 p.4., Collection of Margaret Mackersey, nee Bell
[13] Ibid: all further quotes are from this source.
[14] Sharp, Tudhope & Auld, a firm still practising in Tauranga.
[15] Op. cit: Bell archive, 14 October 1933. Perhaps indicating that the legal opinion had yet to be put into writing? Collection of Margaret Mackersey, nee Bell
[16] He was re-elected in 1934 https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19340807.2.25 (W. P. Bell did not stand) and was still being elected to the Association in 1945: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19450717.2.9