LECTURE II. PART II. MAORI LAND TENURE.
[Image of page 202]
IN a former Lecture on the tenure of Maori land, I intimated that I would continue the subject on the "mana" of a New Zealand chief and tribal rights, this evening.
I must, therefore, revert to the past ages of Maori history, so as to define what is the influence or "mana" of a chief or priest, and from what derived, and to what extent it is exercised over the people.
The history of the Maoris, prior to their migration to New Zealand, speaks of their being associated as one people; and certain men [of the tribe occupied a portion of their time in rehearsing their history in a temple which they called "whare kura."
This temple was filled by their most learned men, of which there were two parties, each being a check on the other in preventing a perverted account of their past history being handed down to their children. And each party had an historical staff on which was kept their genealogy, and as they occupied each a different side of the temple they were called a "kahui," or flock.
The most learned man in each kahui was the leader or chairman, who was umpire of all disputed points of history that might occur. When any set debate was to take place, the people were arranged in order by the leaders of these two kahuis; each in the kahui had his place assigned to him according to the amount of knowledge he possessed; and this place was given to him by the leader of the kahui of which he was a member. This act of the leader was called "ranga" or putting in order. The people, as they came to the temple in a body, were called "tira," or company; and as the leader had to assign or "ranga" a place to each of his "tira," he was called the "rangatira," from which we derive our word in Maori for chief, "rangatira."
In course of time a quarrel in whare kura caused the people to disperse, and each family became independent of the other under the leadership of an "ariki," who in all instances
[Image of page 203]
was the first born of that family, the father of which had enjoyed the privilege of being a priest in whare kura. The knowledge handed down by the father to the son gave that son a certain power over the junior branches of the family; hence he was termed an "ariki," from the fact of his superior knowledge; he could ("a") lead or drive by that knowledge the junior or "riki" branches of the family, he therefore was an "a-riki," a leader of the juniors.
Shortly after the dispersion of the people from whare kura, each family, under their new leadership, erected temples of similar form and structure, in which they rehearsed their own genealogy or such portion of the whole of that recounted in the old whare kura as related to themselves and those who now took part in the rehearsal of this to them formerly sacred lore. They required a teacher or "kai tohu tohu" or "tohunga," and as in the former whare kura the most learned man in these matters took the precedence, so also in this the most learned took the leadership; and as he had to "tohu" (to point out or instruct), he acquired the name of tohunga, which is now applied to a priest or any educated person. The word "tohu" has also another meaning, which is to keep or take care of. The whare kura of these separate families had the images of their gods in them, and these were in charge of the person whose knowledge in ancient lore entitled him to the office. From this it was said that he "tohu" or kept them, and hence the name tohunga. As this was his duty, he was not required to work; and being also the keeper or tohunga of the gods he was sacred and could not be called on to perform any menial duty. Being the keeper of the gods and having a superior knowledge of past history and events, he was better enabled to form a correct judgment in respect of anything that was for the welfare of the families whose tohunga he was; hence also, in the event of war and in all matters relative to agriculture or fishing, the people gave precedence to the opinion of the tohunga. This leads me to the next point, viz., "Mana." As I have shown the origin of the names "rangatira," "ariki," and "tohunga,"
[Image of page 204]
I will now show what is the "mana" relative to the peculiar duties of those persons who assume these names.
The past history of the Maori informs us that they date their origin from their gods, and that their superstitions are all founded on the co-assistance of these gods with their tohunga or priest. Hence the tapu of the priest; and as all matters of importance are directed by the gods through the priest, orders or decisions must be implicitly obeyed, or "whakamana," so that the mana of a priest existed not on account of any natural power of his own, but of the gods. Again, in reference to the ariki, as it was the sole privilege of the first born to be taught by the father or grandfather, all the knowledge and experience they had acquired must as a natural consequence make him wiser than his juniors. His opinion when given accordingly carries a weight with it or mana, --hence therefore the mana of an ariki. Again, as the ariki guides by his superior knowledge, and as the tohunga guides by his intimacy with the gods, so there is a proper province for the rangatira. When any meeting takes place of the people, when a war dance is to be enacted, or any minor point or dispute arises in the tribe, the matter is arranged by the rangatira, so far as to see that order is kept; as, for instance, that the men in the war dance are all "kapa tonu," or in regular lines, and that in a dispute a fair hearing is given to each party.
To show what tribal rights are, we must still have recourse to the past history of the Maori prior to his migrating to these islands. The Maoris who came, although related, were not of one hapu or family, but were even some time previous to leaving Hawaike members of different hapus, quarrels between which were the cause of their migrating. But in Hawaike each tribe or hapu was called kahui, and not, as in the present day, by the name of the chief who was the leader of a family when it separated from the main tribe or iwi.
As each "waka" canoe, or the people who came together, for some time after they landed maintained their unity as a people, they were called an "iwi." The term iwi, therefore,
[Image of page 205]
means the descendants of those men who came over in one canoe, and in many cases the name of the iwi has merged in the name of the canoe in which their ancestors came; as, for instance, the Rotorua tribes are called "Arawa," the Ngapuhi "Mamari," and so on. In my former lecture I stated the boundaries of the lands taken and claimed by each one of the migrations which came to these islands, and I also gave many of their customs relative to their numerous claims to land. It therefore now remains to show the origin of the iwi being sub-divided into hapus. In order to be enabled to point out clearly tribal right and mana of chiefs I must again revert to the land taken by the Maori on his first arriving here, and as an illustration I will take two districts, Arawa and Tainui.
The Arawa district remains, as a whole, in the hands of the offspring of the same men who came in the Arawa canoe. The migration, very shortly after they arrived, dispersed over their large territory and divided into separate hapus (or families, as the word implies), and in course of time each of these hapus have taken the rank of iwi, and act independently of any other, as though it had been of a distinct migration. Each of these is again sub-divided into many hapus, the aggregate body still keeping the whole of the district formerly taken by the Arawa. But not so the Tainui district. As I have spoken of the Arawa as an unbroken district, I will for contrast take the other extreme, that of the Tainui, which district, originally of large extent, is now so curtailed that the only portion left to the iwi of Tainui is a small portion of it at Whaingaroa.
As I shall have to speak of all the migrations, I will at once give a general outline of the different migrations or iwis, in reference to their present tribal rights or mana over that district which their respective migrations took on their arrival here. The Ngapuhi have now more land as an iwi than the district taken by the migration of Mamari. So have the adjoining iwi, the Ngatiwhatua. The Tainui have lost all their territory save a small portion. The migration by the Aotea have but a small portion of their ancient district. The adjoin-
[Image of page 206]
ing migration of Tokomaru have lost a portion of their ancient district. The old occupants of the south island have become a mere name on the land of their fathers. The Takitumu still hold all their land. The Matatua, who took part of the Arawa district, have but part of the land first taken by them. The Ruikakara and Wakatuwhenua have lost their name as a migration in the Ngapuhi iwi, and the Mahuhu have lost their claim to the land at the North Cape.
Intermarriage has caused the loss of land to the original owners more than conquest. As more disputes on this point are caused than any other, I will at once enter on the tribal rights which arise from it. I stated in my former lecture that it was thought a point of material importance that females given in marriage ought, if possible, to induce the husband to join her tribe so as to add to the force of her people; hence portions of land are claimed by certain tribes who reside in and claim part of a migration district, but who do not own any right of mana to be exercised by the offspring of the original migrators in whose district they are thus located. I will instance some of these claims in each migration, and, for the sake of clearness, I will take the migrations consecutively, from the North Cape along the west coast and round by the east coast. There is not an instance of this sort in the Mamari migration, but there are other claims (dissimilar in origin, though in effect the same) which I will presently refer to; and similar claims also exist in the next migration district, that of Mahuhu. In the adjoining migration of Tainui, there are many of the class of which I first spoke. In the Kawerau, for instance, which tribe had their origin from a chief of the Aotea and Ngatiawa migration of the name of Maki marrying a Tainui woman, he became the avenger of the Tainui wrongs, and after some time the head of a hapu which now forms a distinct people, acting without any reference to the chiefs of hapus in the Tainui or Mahuhu migrations by which they are surrounded. The tribal rights of this little hapu, which does not number in all 50 men, women, and children, are not few or of minor importance to them. In
[Image of page 207]
the produce of the land and sea they do not pay tribute to any chief, nor could they be commanded by any adjoining tribe or hapu to assist in any act whatever, nor could a chief go to any of their fishing grounds without their express permission. In the wars of past times they bore the brunt of battle by themselves. In an attack made on them about 45 years since by a Ngapuhi chief named Te Kahakaha, they did not ask the aid of any other tribe, and, although they were beaten, they neither fled from their own land, nor did they ask revenge to be taken for them by the powerful tribes of Waikato. Again, in a war anterior to the one I have just mentioned, they were so determined to hold the land of their fathers, that although few in number and unable to meet their enemy (Ngapuhi) in open fight, they built a pa on long posts in the midst of a deep swamp, and there defied the attacks of their more numerous foes. This was not done so much to baffle their enemy as to keep the mana of their land, as, being few in number, they could have escaped in the forest and mountains of their own district. I will give an instance of the extent to which this little tribe could carry their mana, or tribal right, where they permitted an infringement of the customs relative to the dead. It is a custom amongst the hapus of one iwi to bury their dead in the same burial place, and therefore each has a claim to the "wahi tapu;" so that any one who may visit or pass near the wahi tapu has, by so doing, incurred the displeasure of all the hapus. No one but a priest of the first rank (an ariki) could go into a wahi tapu, and (at a funeral) those who might be deputed by the ariki to accompany him to convey the corpse. But on one occasion, when I was travelling over the land of the Kawerau in company with thirteen chiefs of Waikato and three of Kawerau, we came to a wahi tapu where the bones of the Kawerau ancestors have been deposited for many generations. By permission of the Kawerau chief I went alone into the cave, in the midst of which there was built a small house of the swamp reed ornamented with flax of variegated colours, in which were the bones of arikis of the tribe. At the doorway of the house, which measured altogether not
[Image of page 208]
more than about five by three feet, were the bones of a child, and near them a small canoe. The bones were no doubt those of an ariki child, and the canoe, his plaything, had been taken with him to his long rest. This house contained mats of different degrees of preservation, which I did not touch, and near to a large skull was an ancient Maori shark hook. On my return to our camp I requested to be allowed to take the canoe and fishing hook, which the ariki of the Kawerau permitted; the only condition imposed on me being that in our future progress during the journey I should be the last man in the line of march, and should carry the two curiosities myself. This was insisted on, lest the gods of the Kawerau should kill the Waikato chiefs if they followed after me with these things. Again, in the same journey we caught an uncommonly large eel, measuring six feet nine inches long; and as we were strangers on the Kawerau territory, I waited till the eel was cooked to see if my friends the Waikato chiefs would render the tribute of mana of the land to the Kawerau chief. This in time was done by them. It is an invariable custom amongst the hapus of tribes, when they are on an eel-fishing excursion, to give any eel of uncommon size to the principal owner of the land, and the heads of all the eels eaten while the party is out are laid before the owners of the land on which the eels are caught. This is their mana of the land, and in this instance, when the eel was cooked, the head was first taken off and laid before the Kawerau chief by one of the Waikato chiefs.
The next hapu or minor iwi in the Tainui district is the Ngatiteata, a hapu of recent date, who have usurped the lands of an old Tainui hapu called Ngatikahukoka. Kahukoka, a Tainui chief, the leader of the Ngatikahukoka, and his people, occupied all the land from the south head of Manukau to the Waikato river: they were a numerous people till the time of Tamakae and Tamakou, who were brothers; the younger brother killed the elder, and the men of the elder murdered a Waikato boy for revenge, whereupon a party of Waikato chiefs came and took their pa, killing all in it save their own relations who were of
[Image of page 209]
the Ngatikahukoka tribe. Those saved, as payment for their rescue, gave a large block of land on the east bank of the Waiuku to their deliverers, the progenitors of the Ngatiteata tribe. The receiving party, the Waikato, took possession of the given district, and in course of time the present Ngatiteata have taken by force the adjoining lands of the Kahukoka tribe. Although the Ngatiteata tribe have their origin from the Waikato Ariki Tapaue, yet the Waikato chiefs have no right of mana over the Ngatiteata tribe or land, as in the invasion of Hongi against the Waikato the Ngatiteata joined him in the attack on Matakitaki, the Waikato stronghold; and at the present time the only claim the Waikatos make to the lands taken by the Ngatiteata from the Ngatikahukoka is in a Wahi tapu near the Manukau Heads, where some of the Waikato chiefs are buried; yet out of one of the land sales of the Ngatiteata the Waikato chief received a payment; but this was a tribal right arising from an act of the Ngapuhi in the war by Hongi. The chiefs taken at Waikato were killed, and their heads were brought to a spot called Te Kauri, on the south bank of the Manukau, and there whakatahurihuri (a superstitious Maori rite in war); and on these grounds the Waikato people had a claim of tapu, which was paid to them when the land was sold. Save these two claims, the Waikatos do not claim any tribal right over the Ngatiteata land.
Again, in the Tainui district on the Wairoa river there has been located for a long time a little tribe called Ngatitai, who migrated here from their iwi, the Ngatitai, in the Bay of Plenty. This little hapu is related by marriage to the Ngatipaoa, Te Akitai, and Ngatimaru, which are adjoining hapus and iwi; but still they exercise the sole mana over the land they claim, nor do they pay tribute for their land to any chief, nor in all the land they have disposed of, which they claimed by conquest, have they given any portion to other chiefs. In the war on Mauinaina, by the Ngapuhi, the Ngatitai still remained on their own land, and although many of them were killed there by Hongi, yet, when the Ngatipaoa fled to Waikato, they maintained their position on the Wairoa. One instance of the mana of their land
[Image of page 210]
having been attempted to be infringed was repudiated by them in a manner that nearly led to a Maori quarrel. A canoe of the Ngatimaru having upset in passing in front of the Ngatitai settlement, and one chief being drowned, the Ngatimaru chief called on the Ngatitai to "rahui" the fishery grounds until he saw fit to take the tapu off. As the shark fishing season was then begun, the Ngatitai sent a message "that they would not catch or allow to be caught, or eat or allow to be eaten, any of the fellows with many teeth (shark) for that season;" but they would not abstain from eating all other kind of fish longer than one month. But there was a principle at stake: the Ngatimaru had made a claim to some land over which one of their dead ancestors had been carried (after a battle with the Ngatipaoa), and as this land was shortly to be paid for, the Ngatitai would not admit any claim by the Ngatimaru. If the rahui of all the fish imposed by Ngatimaru had been allowed by the Ngatitai without restricting it as they did, a money payment would have been exacted for the two claims the Ngatimaru had made when the shark rahui was taken off.
Again, in reference to the tribe which now reside at Orakei, called the Ngatiwhatua (which is a hapu of the great Kaipara tribe, the Roroa), this hapu does not admit any tribal right to be exercised over it by the Waikato, Tainui, or Ngatipaoa tribes. This hapu took possession of their district by force of arms from the Tainui and Ngatipaoa tribes. All the fishing grounds on the Waitemata river belong to them, and none of the surrounding tribes would attempt to fish on them unless permission were granted by the Ngatiwhatua, nor do they pay any tribute of fish or other thing to the original owners of the district. Although connected by marriage to the Waikato chiefs, they still keep a separate and independent control of all their land, and in their numerous sales of land they gave no portion of the payment to the other tribes. This was not merely the case with regard to the original owners of the soil, but they do not even allow the parent tribe at Kaipara to exercise any control over them in reference to the land they claim here. And although, as a por-
[Image of page 211]
tion of the parent tribe, they claim an equal right with the rest of the iwi to the land of the iwi Te Roroa at Kaipara, yet, as the descendants of these men who conquered the Auckland district, they alone claim it, to the exclusion of the rest of the Roroa.
The time allotted for a lecture precludes me from noticing each Waikato tribe separately. Although they now occupy what is called the Tainui district, they are not all of Tainui origin, as some of them date their descent from the original people of New Zealand, who were called by the Maori people Ngatimokotorea. Reserving a further reference to some of them when I shall speak on the mana, I will pass on to the Aotea district (in which the claims of the original owners have been as much curtailed by migratory movements of chiefs from other parts of New Zealand as by conquest), and to the next district of Tokomaru, or the New Plymouth natives, whose family wars have been carried on with bitter hatred, on account of their numerous lines of descent from other migrations. The adjoining migrations of Matahourua, or the Taranaki and Ngatiruanui, have kept more aloof from the rest of the tribes; they are of a more savage disposition than the other people, and may be termed the only New Zealand savages of the present day; they have a slight mixture of the Rangitane people of the South Island, who are more of the Malay than any other, and this may account for their being a savage, yet cowardly, people. Their district has been overrun by many war parties, but (save a portion of the south end) they have kept their original dominion; there are therefore very few hapus among them who act independently of the iwi. But in the next migration of Takitumu there are tribes who act without any reference to the Ngatikahuhunu on the east, as they do of the Ngatiruanui on the west. There is in the Port Nicholson district a portion of a Waikato tribe, now called Ngatiraukawa. A quarrel of two brothers near Maungatautari, in Waikato, was the cause of the tribe coming to open combat, and the beaten portion migrated South, and eventually located in their present home. Having driven off the portion of the Ngatikahuhunu, they exercise the sole right as a tribe over their own
[Image of page 212]
district, nor do they allow any tribal right to be exercised over them by any of the Waikato chiefs to whom they are so nearly related. Again, there is the Ngatitoa in the Port Nicholson district, who were originally the owners of Kawhia, but migrated south, and took all the Ngatiruanui country, and then resigned the greater portion back to the old owners, but demanded a tribute of tribal right or mana of the land to be given to them by the Ngatiruanui, such as kumara and fish, which was invariably done by them to Rauparaha. The Ngatitoa, though of Kawhia, do not allow any right of the iwi at Kawhia to be exercised over them, but are in the Port Nicholson district as independent as it is possible to be; on the other hand, they not only exercised the tribal right over part of Port Nicholson district, but they invaded the South Island, and brought under tribute the then owners of that island up to the time it was sold by them. I shall have again to refer to the Ngatitoa on the mana: I will meanwhile pass on to the Horouta or Hawke's Bay people, who, though one iwi, yet are divided into many hapus acting quite independently of the chiefs of other hapus or iwi. This remark will also apply to the Ngatiporou district or the East Cape natives, and may perhaps also extend to the Bay of Plenty natives; yet there is a shade of difference in some of their hapus, for they are descendants of women who came from the Hawke's Bay and East Cape natives, and on that account repudiate any claim of tribal mana being exercised over them by the iwi in whose district they reside, and of which they claim part. Passing on, we come to the Thames tribes, in speaking of whom I shall have to revert to the past, in order to clear up an apparent contradiction. Previous to the arrival of Te Arawa and Tainui in New Zealand, a chief named Ruaeo followed Te Arawa, when his wife, who had been taken by the Arawa navigator, Ruaeo, landed at Maketu, and having met the Arawa there, after a war between Ruaeo and Te Arawa navigators, Ruaeo and his party crossed inland to Matamata, and came down the Thames, taking all the land as far as Cape Colville. The Ngatiawa migration followed, and drove the Ngatihuarere or the Ruaeo people from the district, and
[Image of page 213]
on the departure of the Ngatiawa northward Paeko and his followers from Ohiwa took the district. This people also were driven off by the descendants of a woman called Upokotioa, from Tauranga, and who divided into the hapus of Te Tuhuke, Ngatihako, Ngatimarama, and Ngatikatarake, the iwi being the Upokatioa. Hotunui of Kawhia was the ancestor of Paoa, who migrated back to the Thames, and founded the Ngatipaoa tribe. Marutuahu, the son of Hotunui, was the founder of the Ngatimaru, of which the Ngatitamatera and Ngatiwhanaunga are subdivisions. The Ngatipaoa exercise the sole tribal right over their own land in the Thames, without reference to the Waikato or any other tribe; so also the subdivisions Ngatitamatera and Ngatiwhanaunga are each as independent in tribal rights of their own land from each other as they are of the Ngatipaoa.
As I have given the tribal rights of each iwi, I will now show the tribal rights of the people in respect of individual claims to land, and as a matter of course enter on those of the head chiefs first, and again take the same line of route in each iwi as I did in the tribal rights of the iwi, and commence therefore with Ngapuhi, going round by the West Coast. The Ngapuhi, or the natives of the north end of this island, are, from their longer intercourse with Europeans, said to be the least like their own countrymen in reference to tribal rights of great or minor chiefs; but the very fact of their having sold more land (so far as the number of claims are concerned, these claims being so isolated and sold by so many different hapus), is the best test we can have of the seignorial rights of first rank chiefs over the whole tribe or even over a section of a tribe or hapu. The natives at the north Cape, or the Rarawa and Aupouri tribes, are a branch of the Mamari or Ngapuhi people, and are guided by the old chief Morenga; yet in all land sales this old chief has not participated in the slightest degree, but a chief of minor importance in the same tribe (Panakareao) sold largely, even when the old chief Te Morenga was in full power. This, however, only applies to the Rarawa at Kataia, as there was another section of this tribe at Whangape, led by Te Pukeroa
[Image of page 214]
and Papahia, the former of whom did not sell an inch of land, and Papahia only participated in two sales out of many which his tribe made. Again, in Hokianga there is another section of this tribe, of which Moetara was the chief; he sold two blocks though not as chief of the tribe, as he was but a claimant of a small portion of each of the pieces sold. These chiefs (although of the same tribe or iwi) did not exercise any right over each other's land, for the land in the district in which each lived was under their own control. On the sale of a certain piece of land at Kataia, in which Papahia of Hokianga was a claimant, he received a small portion of the payment, yet the other chiefs of this tribe at Hokianga did not. Again, in the sales by Moetara, Papahia and the others did not receive any payment, but in one of the sales by Papahia, Moetara as a claimant received a payment. The Hikutu tribe is also a hapu of the Ngapuhi, whose ariki is Moehau. Out of all the sales of land by this hapu, Moehau received part payment for only one, while in some of the sales minor chiefs of the Rarawa were claimants and received part of the payment. Again, the Ngaitupoto (the ariki of which was Whatiia) sold land in which Tawhai, the chief of Te Mahurehure had a claim, and received a portion of the payment, yet the ariki of Te Mahurehure (Moka) did not participate. Again, a number of Mahurehure (of which Tawhai is chief) had claims not only in the district in which they lived but in other districts (to the exclusion of their leader, Tawhai, and many of the other chiefs), who sold these claims and received the whole of the price themselves. But in one of the land sales by the Rarawa (or that portion or hapu of it called Te Patu), when they sold a piece of land at Monganui, the chief Tawhai of Hokianga being a claimant received part of the payment. Again, the Hapu Te Urikapana sold a piece of land in their own district, and a minor chief of the Mahurehure, called Tiro, being a claimant, received part of the price, yet not any of the chiefs or ariki of Te Mahurehure received any payment. Again, the Ngaitupoto sold some land in their own district, and a chief in the Popoto tribe, Tahua, received part of the price as claimant
[Image of page 215]
but not as ariki. Again, in the Waimate district, the Ngatitautahi sold land, and a minor chief of the Ngatikaihoro, a hapu of the Mahurehure, called Netana, received as claimant a portion of the price; and also when the Ngatimatakiri in the Waimate district sold land, the ariki of the Popoto as claimant received a portion of the price, but not any other of the tribe. Again, the Tahawai of Whaingaroa sold a piece of land, and the ariki of the Hikutu at the Bay of Islands, being a claimant, received part of the price. Again, the Ngatiuru of Whaingaroa sold land, and chiefs of the Ngatirehia and Hikutu of the Bay as claimants received part of the price, but not the arikis of those hapus. Again, the Ngaitawake sold land in the Bay, and Wi Hau, of the Ngatiwhiu (at Waimate) as claimant received a part of the payment. Again, the Hikutu at Ngunguru sold land, and chiefs of the Ngatihau in Hokianga as claimants received a portion of the price. Again, the Urikopura hapu live in their own district on the borders of the Patu district, yet five of the minor chiefs of the Urikopura sold a block of land which was situated in the middle of the district of the Mahurehure, and not the slightest part of the payment was given to the ariki of their own tribe, or to the Mahurehure ariki or people. These will suffice as examples out of the Ngapuhi iwi, to show that the head chief or ariki of the Ngapuhi does not possess any manorial right over the land of the iwi. It will be apparent to all, that not only the ariki of the Ngapuhi iwi has no veto on the disposal of land, but even the ariki of any of the hapus do not possess that right; for in the examples I have given there is proof enough to show that the members of a hapu dispose of land without the slightest reference to other members of their hapu, and that members of different hapus join and dispose of land as though they were of the same hapu. And not only so, but it will further be seen that in many instances minor chiefs have received a portion of the payment for land disposed of by members of another hapu when the ariki of the hapu of the receiver has not, and also that the minor chiefs of a distant hapu have the power to dis-
[Image of page 216]
pose of land belonging to them which is situated in the midst of land belonging to another hapu, without any permission on the part of their own ariki or the ariki of the hapu in whose district the land is situate. But I will pass on to the Kaipara district (the Mahuhu migration), in which until of late years there has been very little land disposed of to Europeans. I would here remark, that it is believed by many that Maori intercourse with Europeans has materially altered their manners and customs, and especially so in reference to the power of chiefs and the customs relative to land; but how such an idea should have taken possession of the public mind is a matter of wonder if we look into the history of the people, and their wars, which related so often to only one point, namely, the right to land. The history of their claims, and their daily occupation causing them to roam over their whole territory; their having no written records; their minds being imbued with the feats of their fathers in protecting their lands, made it impossible for any communication with Europeans, before 1840, to cause any alteration in their customs relative to their ancient tenure of land. I have, therefore, selected all my examples from sales by natives before the Government took possession of New Zealand, so that it will be seen the idea to which I have referred cannot be fairly deduced from the cases given. The chief Paikea is the ariki of the Roroa or Uriohau tribe, in the Kaipara district, yet he is a witness (not a principal) in the sale of a piece of land by Ngaukora, a minor chief of the tribe. Again, in the district over which Paikea is ariki, and even within four miles of his principal residence, Parore and other minor chiefs of a distant tribe (the Ngaitawake) sold a piece of land, in the payment for which Paikea and tribe did not participate; and not only so, but Tirarau, the ariki of the Ngaitawake hapu, at Kaipara, was witness to the sale, the sellers being minor chiefs of his tribe. In another instance, the two arikis, Paikea and Tirarau, were the sole sellers of a piece of land. Again, in another instance, Paikea sold a piece of land when Tirarau was witness to the sale.
[Image of page 217]
THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHIEFS.
I will now pass on to the next subject, viz., Mana. But before I speak on this it will be as well to define the meaning of this word by examples of its use. Mana has many and various meanings; for instance, it means fulfil, as in this sentence: "Ka mana taku kupu i au" (I will fulfil my word); and it means potent, as "He karakia mana" (a potent charm); and it also means effective, as "He kupu mana tana kupu" (his word is effective); it also means granted, as "Ekore to tono e whakamana" (your request will not be granted); it also means support, as "Mawai e mana ai tau kupu" (who will support you that your word may be effective). There is also another form which the word "mana" takes when it is joined by the preposition "ki" (to) forming the word "manaki." I will give the meaning of this word, with examples of its use. For instance, it means acceptable, as "E kore ahau e manaakitia mai e ratou" (I shall not be acceptable to them); and it means like, as "Ekore aia e manaki mai ki au" (he will not like me). Again, the word "mana" takes another form if the preposition "ko" (to) is joined to it as an affix, when it means desire, as "Kahore aku manako atu" (I have no desire); and again, if the word "tunga" (which means of itself a secret gift, the purport of which or for which it was given is only known to the receiver), be made as an affix to the word "mana," we have "manatunga" or keepsake; then again, if the noun of space be added to it as an affix, that is "wa," we have "manawa" or breath; and again, when the adjective "nui" (large) is added it becomes "manawanui" or bravery; and if we add the verb "popore" to the Maori word for breath, we have "manawa-popore," which is greediness, desire, regret, or anxiety. It will be seen, therefore, that mana expresses in its many shades of meaning nothing more or less than the unseen determination of that uncontrolled something --the human mind. I will now refer to the mana of a chief or priest.
The mana of a Maori priest is circumscribed, and only extends to those matters in which the interference of the gods may be recognised, as in the many internal arrangements of the tribe,
[Image of page 218]
in times of war, or in specific acts in agriculture. In war (when the tribe has determined for hostilities) the mana of the priest is seen in every movement of the tribe being guided by him; this does not only include his own tribe or hapu, of which he may be a member, but includes all men of other tribes who may join them; but his mandates are only obeyed while the war lasts. I will give an instance or two. In the wars of Hongi, whenever Hongi wished his army to halt, he signified such wish to the old priest of his expedition, Te Kemara, who thereupon sent a man forward to a certain point where he was to deposit the priest's garment, as the signal to halt, and in no instance was the signal disobeyed. In the wars of Te Waka Nene an old priest, Te Ngau, guided all their movements. In one instance Waka's people were short of food, when it was determined to send out a foraging party to obtain some from the enemy. In such an expedition deeds of valour could be shown in taking the food from the enemy, out of or near their camp. On this account all the people longed to join in the party; but the old priest having retired into the scrub near the pa for a short time to consult the omens by the Niu, he returned and named those who should go. This command was obeyed, and although dissatisfaction appeared in the countenances of those who were prohibited, yet the priest's word was mana, and no murmur was expressed. I have said the priest's word was mana where that to which it referred would allow the influence of the gods to be inferred, but the opposite applied if the express wish of the priest, and not an omen of the gods, was given in his command. An instance will show this. The ariki and priest of Ngatiawa at Taranaki, on the eve of a battle between that tribe and the Taranaki tribe, uttered a contemptuous expression against a hapu of his own people, which was, "Who ever thought that men who fish with a rod could be brave in battle?" (This priest, Te Rakino, uttered it to the hapu of which Korotiwha was chief.) When the battle did take place and was raging, in the height of the battle, Korotiwha held up his spear and called out to his hapu, "My sons, the sign of blood," at which signal they all withdrew from the combat,
[Image of page 219]
THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHIEFS.
and the Rakino and his party were routed by the Taranaki, when Korotiwha turned the fortune of the day by attacking again and gaining a victory. This will show that the mana of a priest is only so far as he is the medium of communication between the gods and the tribe. This has reference to his mana in times of war; but as the priest is also ariki by birth, he exercises certain mana as before stated in particular times. In agricultural pursuits, for instance, it is his prerogative to say at what time the tapu shall commence (when the crops are to be put into the ground), and when it shall be taken off; when no canoe is allowed to pass up or down the river, in the vicinity of which the tribe are cultivating, and how long this prohibition shall last; it is also at his intercession that the gods allow the tapu to be taken off any person who may have touched a corpse. His food, raiment, house, and all belonging to him are sacred, or tapu, and his mana is inherent in them; that is, if touched by any common person, that mana or influence of the gods (as expressed in the word mana as applied to them), will cause death to that person. It is therefore the influence of the gods, or the superstitious dread in which they were held by the people, and not human influence, that gave the mana to a priest: which I will further illustrate by following on to the mana of the ariki or chief, in the concerns of everyday life. 1st. Hereditary mana, its extent, and by what curtailed. 2nd. The dictatorship of a tribe, assumed by a minor chief of the tribe or even a member of another tribe; by what means gained, and to what extent allowed by the tribe. The mana of an ariki or chief was not in any instance disputed by his own people or adjoining tribes, when exercised for particular purposes. It was in his power as ariki to say when the prohibition for fishing for shark should be taken off. He was also allowed to decide when the rat-snaring season should commence. He had also power to decide when and where a corpse should be buried, when that corpse should be exhumed and exhibited to the people previous to its final interment, and also where it should have its final resting place. As there is a great deal of
[Image of page 220]
labour connected with the ceremonies over the dead, such as providing food for those tribes invited to the Hahunga, it may be supposed that the ariki is supreme ruler of the people, and his word is law for the ceremonies of the dead. As the gods are in more immediate connection with the dead and the ceremonies over them it is supposed that if the superstitious rites of the Maori are not fully carried out according to ancient custom, the gods will curse the tribe, so that the ariki is not obeyed on account of his own influence. An ariki also may covet any article belonging to another person, and upon his calling it by the name of any part of his own body the owner is forced to make him a present of such thing; still, this is not done in honour of his own rank, but on account of his connection with the gods, as the naming of that article after part of his body (his body being the abode of the gods) prevents the owner from keeping it for fear of them, since no one but the ariki thus naming it could by any possible means use or cause to be used the article without incurring the displeasure of the gods. Not that such an act ends as a gift; if the ariki does not repay to the owner, or his offspring after him, a twofold price, he is looked on with disgust by the people, and thereby loses any personal influence which he may have. This leads me to the next point, namely, to show by what means a chief may lose his personal power. The foregoing will show that covetousness will militate against him, so will neglect to entertain visitors or an over austere manner to his slaves, or a bad memory in respect of past history and mythology; but that which inevitably excludes an ariki from any power over his people is want of intellect. If a chief or ariki should be loquacious or bombastic, he is thought little of by his people hence a studied silence is the rule of a chief. In no instance will a tribe be led or listen to the counsel of an ariki of the ablest mind if he takes that which is not his own; but still his mana on other points holds good against all these obstructions; for instance, in a case where war exists between two tribes with which such an ariki may be related by his intercession with each he can bring about
[Image of page 221]
THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHIEFS.
a peace. Still it is not personal mana that does this, his being related to them is the introduction to pave the way for peace, and as an ariki he carries the influence of the gods with him. This, of course, is not the only ingredient in the matter; but as the Maori people do not delight in war (though when once in it they are so proud that they cannot think of wishing or offering terms of peace) an ariki related to each of the contending parties may offer terms of peace to each without insulting their Maori honour; thus, therefore, is the mana of an ariki admitted, but still not on personal power and influence.
It will appear, then, that any influence that may be exercised by an ariki or chief is allowed by the people and not assumed by right of birth. This I will illustrate by a few examples. I must, however, state that in times of peace an ariki does not appear to be anything more in the tribe than the minor chiefs, save that he eats alone and the house in which he sleeps must not be polluted by food being taken into it nor the fire at which he sits be used for cooking, for fear of the gods. He cultivates with his people, if he is so inclined; but as a general rule he is merely the overseer of the work, receiving at the harvest a portion of the crop. This last remark must not lead any to suppose that the crops of a minor tribe or hapu are not common property, for the produce of a hapu is stored altogether, and the food cooked at a settlement is a common meal at which all the hapu partake; then as such, the ariki receives his portion when cooked. But in cases of dispute in the tribe, a minor chief may set at defiance the opinion of an ariki, and act as seems to him good. An instance of this occurred where a minor chief had a dispute with another member of the tribe, belonging to Waka Nene. The minor chief, Ngahu, having taken a horse from his opponent, Waka interfered, and sent a man to bring the horse back; but the messenger was insulted by being asked what Waka had to do in the matter. Waka knew that he could not use force, and therefore as ariki he sent his own horse to Ngahu, saying that if it was really a desire on the part of Ngahu to have a horse and that he had merely taken the opportunity in
[Image of page 222]
that dispute to obtain one, he wished him to send the man's horse back, and take his. This could not be done by Ngahu, as the message implied insult; and Ngahu's pride being hurt, he sent the two horses back. In order to show that the ariki or chief does not possess an imperative power over his tribe, I will illustrate it by an ancient custom. In olden times, in times of war, when an attack was expected by any section of a tribe and the aid of other portions of the tribe was needed, the ariki did not send a command, but conveyed his wish by a token called Ngakau, which token varied according to the danger then impending; also, if a hapu or section of a tribe intended to take vengeance for an old insult, a token was sent to gain the assistance of other sections of the tribe. It was not a command. The token was sent without a message, and it was received without a question being put by the chief to whom it was sent: it was therefore optional on the part of the receiver to attend to the summons thus implied or not. An instance occurred about the year 1838 when a Maori war was raging in the Bay of Islands, in which Kawiti, ariki of Ngatihine, took part. He sent a Ngakau to Mate, a chief of the same tribe then residing at Kaipara, but the request was not complied with. If it had been (as some suppose) that a chief is supreme in his tribe, such a custom as I have given could never have been practised for generations. The custom itself is a sufficient refutation of the assumption that the chief has a manorial right over his tribe. But it may be said that this is an isolated case; I will, therefore, give another, where not only the hapus of a tribe were concerned, but where the whole tribe and all the chiefs of the tribe were concerned in the refusal to accede to the request of the ariki. I have before said that an ariki of a tribe (being priest) is supreme ruler in times of war, when his orders are admitted by the people to carry an appearance of an order from the gods; but in the attack on the stronghold of the Thames tribe (Ngatipaoa), about the year 1822, by the whole of the Ngapuhi Iwi led by Hongi, there arose a dispute as to how the pa was to be attacked, which eventually caused a separation of the Ngapuhi. Four or five of
[Image of page 223]
THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHIEFS.
the hapus retired, and would not join in the attack on this place, but joined after the battle, and assisted in all the further attacks made on the Waikato.
I have said that the dictatorship of a tribe may be assumed by a minor chief of a tribe, or even by a member of another tribe. Although the natives allow a great influence, and even pay a great respect to the offspring of their aristocracy, yet if this power is unaccompanied by intellect and bravery, the ariki of a tribe or chief of a hapu may be supplanted by an inferior chief, as in the case of the ariki of the Ngatiraukawa, who was succeeded by Te Rauparaha. Te Rauparaha was not a chief of rank; that is, he was the offspring of a junior branch of the ariki family of Tainui, and by intermarriage of his progenitors with minor chiefs and women of other tribes, he held no influence by birth; but when the principal chief of Ngatiraukawa (Hape ki Tuarangi) was on his death-bed and the whole tribe were assembled, the old chief (who had been a noted warrior in his day) asked if his successor could tread in his steps and lead his people on to victory, and so keep up the honour of the tribe. This question was put to all his sons, but no reply was given; when Te Rauparaha got up from the midst of the minor chiefs and people who were sitting at a distance from the sick chief and the chiefs of high rank, and said, "I am able to tread in your steps, and even do that which you could not do." As he was the only speaker in answer to Hape's question, the whole tribe acknowledged him as their leader. Hence his influence to his dying day. Te Paraha was a man of superior powers of mind as a native, and as a leader of a war party was not even surpassed by the noted Hongi; but let it not be supposed that by gaining a certain influence or mana by his superior powers of mind, he had the power to make anything tapu; his mana only went so far as his protecting power and counsel were required; the Ngatiraukawa ariki and the Ngatitoa ariki still retained the power of making or taking the tapu off anything, as I will again instance in an ariki of an hapu of Ngapuhi, whose name was Manu. He was ariki of the Ngatikaihoro, but being a thief he
[Image of page 224]
lost all influence over his people except that of tapu; his nephew (his sister's son) took the leadership of the hapu, but it so occurred that a certain piece of land was required by the hapu on which to cultivate. A decision was given by the then leader; but he could not go beyond his wish, and it could not be occupied till it had been made noa or the tapu taken off by an ariki. Manu being the ariki objected, but at the combined request of his hapu, he removed the tapu by incantations, and the land was occupied by the people. This example speaks for itself in a twofold way. Not only can the people transfer their allegiance to a person not an ariki by birth, but they can compel by united request, their own ariki to do that to which he is opposed. The word "chief," as understood by Europeans, leads to false conclusions in reference to the application of that name to a New Zealander, or (to put it in another way) Europeans expect more to be done by chiefs of Maori tribes than even these admit themselves to possess. I may confidently say there never was, or is now, a chief in New Zealand who can order any one of his tribe (slaves excepted). The members of a tribe do resist the orders of a chief with impunity. I may say, further, there is not any chief or ariki of a tribe, or even all the chiefs and arikis of any iwi together, who can collectively give a guarantee that they will make iwi, or any hapu in it, act up to any terms they (the chiefs) may agree to. I do not wish to tamper with the rank or influence of a Maori chief, but let facts speak for themselves. When Heke had, for the first time, cut the flagstaff clown at Kororareka, and troops (though a few) were sent from Sydney, and when the Governor had gone to the North to within seven miles of Heke's home, the arikis of the Ngapuhi hapus laid a number of guns at the feet of His Excellency as tokens, and entered into a contract that Heke should not cause any more disturbance. Although these chiefs were the greatest men of Ngapuhi--Waka, Rewa, Tareha, and others, and Heke was only a minor chief, yet he in defiance of them all cut the flagstaff down again, and burnt the town of Kororareka. A Maori chief when he promises anything in the name of his tribe, invariably
[Image of page 225]
THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHIEFS.
implies the proviso that he promises for as many only of his tribe as will listen to him. And when he promises anything for his individual self, he has a proviso in his own mind (when he is reminded of his contract) which he makes known in this way, "Oh, my love to my relatives, who condemned me for my act, made me think as they do." And if reprimanded for not conveying the news of his change of mind at a sooner date, his answer is, "I thought it would be the same if you did not know of it."
I said that a member of another tribe may assume the dictatorship of a hapu of an iwi not his own. As my time is limited one example must suffice. In the war of Hongi with the Rotorua he took many slaves, and at a recent time a young man named Pirihongo (of no note even amongst his own people as a chief of birth) paid a visit to some of his relatives who were taken slaves by Hongi. Being of an intelligent mind he eventually became, and is now, the leader of one of the Ngapuhi hapus at the Waimate, to whom many of the arikis and chiefs of Ngapuhi apply when they want the advice and assistance of the hapu of which he is now the leader.