The Wentworth-Jones Deeds of 15 February 1840

Turnbull Library Record, Volume 28, 1 January 1995, Page 43

Harry Evison

The Wentworth-Jones Deeds of 15 February 1840

1. The Background

In 1830, in New South Wales, the arbitrary powers of the colonial governor were under attack by political reformers who demanded an elected property-franchise legislature with a measure of responsible government. Prominent in this agitation were Sydney commercial interests led by William Charles Wentworth, a rich barrister, speculator, and publicist later dubbed ‘Australia’s greatest native son’. 1 Governor Ralph Darling (1825-31) became a particular object of Wentworth’s criticism.

At Akaroa in November 1830, Captain John Stewart of the English brig Elizabeth assisted Te Rauparaha in massacring some 200 Ngai Tahu. When Stewart arrived in Sydney in 1831, Darling had him put on trial for murder. Wentworth’s law partner defended Stewart, who then disappeared —with the connivance of Wentworth, according to Darling. 2 Darling’s subsequent replacement by the more liberal Governor Bourke was applauded by Wentworth, the sworn enemy of autocracy.

In 1838, Sir George Gipps became Governor of New South Wales. When rumours reached Sydney that Britain planned to annex New Zealand, Wentworth and other Sydney speculators hastened to obtain so-called ‘deeds’ for large areas of New Zealand, signed by Maori chiefs, with a

view to cornering the market in land for European settlement. Active in this ‘land sharking’ was John Jones, a self-made Sydney trader, shipowner, and whaling station owner. Jones had a close alliance with southern Ngai Tahu chiefs led by Tuhawaiki. Jones needed their approval for his whaling stations, and they needed muskets and ammunition for their war with Te Rauparaha, and Sydney merchandise and sailing boats for their coastal trading activities. The southern Maori population was being severely depleted by ship-borne epidemics of measles, influenza, and tuberculosis, 3 and Tuhawaiki and his chiefs were increasingly dependent on their Sydney connections for the necessities of trade and war. They welcomed the sudden demand for land sale ‘deeds’ as a source of funds, but Gipps considered it his duty to protect the Maori people from Sydney land sharks.

In December 1839, Captain William Hobson arrived at Sydney aboard HMS Druid , with a commission as British Consul for New Zealand and Lieutenant Governor under Gipps. Hobson had been instructed to negotiate a treaty with the Maori chiefs to pave the way for British sovereignty. On 19 January 1840, Gipps issued proclamations in line with Hobson’s instructions. They reiterated the basic principle of British sovereignty regarding property in land: that title can derive only from the Crown. 4 New Zealand land claims were to be subject to a Land Claims Commission, and further purchases from Maori were disqualified. Wentworth and his supporters denounced Gipps’s proclamations as an infringement of British liberties.

Another kind of political contest now emerged in the South Island of New Zealand. In September 1839, Tuhawaiki and his chiefs sailed from Otago to attack Te Rauparaha at Cook Strait. 5 Te Rauparaha, however, unknown to them, was meeting agents of the New Zealand Company who had arrived aboard the Tory with a large consignment of firearms and other attractions. On 25 October, while Tuhawaiki’s expedition was mustering at Banks Peninsula, Te Rauparaha signed ‘deeds’ selling the South Island to the Company as far south as the 43rd parallel, including a third of Ngai Tahu’s tribal territory. 6

Tuhawaiki’s party, evidently getting wind of this, abandoned their expedition and hurried home. On 6 January 1840, over Tuhawaiki’s moko, they sold some land to Captain Cattlin of Jones’s ship the Success . 7 On 10 January, at Ruapuke, they embarked aboard the Success with Jones for Australia. Tuhawaiki wanted to see

Governor Gipps ‘to have the rights of Ngai Tahu established and to get the protection of the Queen of England’. 8 Ngai Tahu needed all possible support for their claim to be the true proprietors of the South Island.

Reaching Sydney on 27 January, Tuhawaiki and Jones no doubt learned of Gipps’s proclamations and Hobson’s departure for New Zealand. Gipps was soon in touch with the chiefs on his own account. To further Hobson’s objectives, he wanted them, together with some North Island chiefs, to sign a treaty acknowledging

the Queen’s sovereignty and her sole right to purchase Maori land, in return for the rights of British subjects and the provision of education and Christian instruction funded from the resale of land. 9

On 14 February, Tuhawaiki and six other chiefs visited Gipps to consider his treaty, accompanied by Jones. Gipps paid the chiefs ten guineas each on the understanding (so he thought) that they would return and sign the following day. He gave Tuhawaiki a British flag. 10 But on the appointed day, instead of the promised visit from the chiefs, Gipps received a note from Jones:

Sir, I have been advised not to be instrumental in getting the New Zealand chiefs (my friends now here) to sign away their rights to the Sovereignty of the Crown, respectively owned by them, until my purchases are confirmed as far as they can be by the Crown. I write to inform you I shall act on the advice. 11

Jones had not been idle. To protect his New Zealand interests against Gipps’s proclamations, he had secured a powerful ally. He had joined W entworth in arranging for a vast ‘purchase’ of southern New Zealand from Tuhawaiki and his colleagues. While Gipps was preparing his treaty, Wentworth and Jones had been preparing their deeds of purchase.

On 15 February, Tuhawaiki and his colleagues failed to visit Gipps, whose treaty remained unsigned. They went instead with Jones to his solicitor’s office. There they signed duplicate deeds purporting to convey to Wentworth and Jones all of the South Island and adjacent islands that they had not already sold, except Ruapuke. Tuhawaiki received £IOO in cash and the promise of a life annuity of £SO, and the other chiefs each received £2O in cash and a promised annuity of £lO.

2. The Deeds

The Wentworth-Jones deeds name eight Maori vendors in whalers’ vernacular ‘John Towack’ (Tuhawaiki) as ‘King and chief of Tavai Poenammoo and Stewart Island’; ‘Jackey White’ (Karetai), ‘Kaikoraira’ (Kaikdareare), ‘Tuckawa’ (Tukawa), ‘Tyroa’ (Taiaroa), and ‘Bogener’ (Te Whaikai Pdkene) as ‘chiefs of Otago’; and ‘Tohowack’ and ‘Patuckie or Toby’ (John Topi Patuki) as ‘chiefs of Ruapuke’. They are represented by moko (facial tattoos) except for Patuki, who was not tattooed and has a simple portrait. 12

The deeds are elaborately engrossed in legal form. In about a thousand words they state that the chiefs ‘aliened enfeoffed released ratified and confirmed’ the ‘liberties franchises profits emoluments advantages hereditaments premises rights members and appurtenances’ of the specified lands together with all ‘reversions remainders

rents issues and profits’ and undertook to give Wentworth and Jones ‘full possession and seizin of all and singular the aforesaid Islands’ and of their ‘estate right title interest use trust possession inheritance claim or demesne’ through the chiefs’ ‘true and lawful attorneys’, named as ‘Edward Catlin [s/c] and John Hoyle of Sydney, mariners.’ Edwin Palmer and William Sterling are named as attorneys for Wentworth and Jones. 13

Whether or not the Maori ‘ vendors ’could have understood such language, the idea that Tuhawaiki and his companions had literally sold Wentworth and Jones most of the South Island has had currency ever since. 14 Tuhawaiki is said to have asserted his right to make such a sale. 15 The deeds however were invalid, because they had Tuhawaiki and company selling what they did not own. In the first place, the north of the South Island (later Nelson) was not Ngai Tahu territory. Secondly, Maori custom did not permit the disposal of tribal lands by any chief, however powerful. 16 Chiefs might surrender their own interests, but not those of others. Besides the eight chiefs named as vendors, there were at least sixty other Ngai Tahu chiefs and heads of whanau with hereditary or residential rights to the land named in the deeds. 17 The exclusion of Tuhawaiki’s stronghold of Ruapuke Island from the transaction suggests that he, at least, contemplated abandoning the mainland to the Europeans yet the Otago chiefs could hardly have intended this. The signature of a solicitor representing the Maori ‘vendors’ might have confirmed that their intention was to sell their own interests, but there is no such signature. Both documents are witnessed by Jones’s solicitor Frederic Wright Unwin, and his clerk witnessed one as well; but Unwin was scarcely a disinterested party. In Sydney, the Wentworth-Jones ‘purchase’ was seen as a challenge to Governor Gipps. It raised a storm that was still of interest in 1939, but the documents themselves passed into limbo. 18

On 18 February 1940, Wentworth’s ‘indenture’ was unearthed in a Sydney strongroom, and his grandson presented it to the Mitchell Library. 19 Another half century on, in 1993, Sotheby’s of London announced that they had ‘The Wentworth Indenture’, consigned from Australia, for sale. 20 A hurried enquiry by the present writer confirmed that the Mitchell Library’s ‘Wentworth Indenture’ was still in Sydney. There were two ‘lndentures’. Sotheby’s is presumed to have belonged to Jones, and it was fortunately purchased for the Turnbull Library. 21

Although engrossed as ‘lndentures’, the two documents lack the matching indentations that gave true indentures their name, nor is there evidence that a matching copy was issued to the Maori signatories. It is therefore appropriate to refer to them as ‘deeds’ rather than indentures, and to name them after their initiators, Wentworth and Jones. It is convenient to refer to each document by the name of its library of deposit, the Mitchell and the Turnbull.

Both documents comprise two sheets of vellum in excellent condition. They are attractive artifacts whose glistening freshness makes their close study a pleasure. The

Mitchell sheets measure 670 mm by 540 mm and 665 mm by 555 mm, and the Turnbull sheets are larger. In each case, the statement of ‘lndenture’ occupies the first sheet and the top of the second sheet. The second sheet carries the moko, while the receipts for the initial payments and a certificate of‘delivery of possession’ dated 2 April 1840 are on its reverse side. On both deeds, Tuhawaiki has penned a broad flourish across his name.

The calligraphy of the two documents is different, suggesting that they were prepared by different clerks simultaneously perhaps under pressure, judging from the deletions, insertions, and spelling errors. Clearly one was not copied from the other, for they are set out differently.

3. The Moko

On each document, the Maori signatures consist of the moko varying from 60mm to 100 mm in width —and a seal of red wax alongside each name. The moko are drawn in pencil across a vertical axis of double lines about 3mm apart and are set out in two columns. Tuhawaiki heads the left column, followed by Karetai, Kaikoareare, and Tukawa, while Taiaroa, Pokene, Tohowack, and Patuki occupy the right column. On the Turnbull document, the chiefs’ names and seals appear in a single column to the right of all the drawings. On the Mitchell, however, the name and seal of each chief appears alongside his moko a fortunate circumstance without which the moko on either deed could not be identified with certainty.

The Mitchell document has rectangular frames ruled up for the moko, about 120 mm wide in the left column and 113 mm in the right. The rectangles are 78mm (3 inches) high, except for the second one in each column, which is 92mm high. Karetai and Pokene thus have bigger spaces than the others. Pdkene’s is used to good advantage with a magnificent moko about 100 mm across. Tuhawaiki evidently found his space too small and used the top smm or 6mm of Karetai’s space.

On the Turnbull document, there are no ruled frames for the drawings, some of which consequently crowd upon one another. Tuhawaiki’s drawing crowds down on Karetai’s, Pdkene’s on Tohowack’s, and Tohowack’s on Patuki’s. Taiaroa, Kaikdareare, and Tukawa, on the other hand, have drawings of modest size which leave unused space.

It is not stated how or by whom these moko were drawn, but it is well documented that Maori could draw such moko. According to Cruise, the Church Missionary Society completed a purchase as follows at the Bay of Islands in 1815:

When the missionaries had signed it [the deed of sale], Shungie [Hongi] and some of his principal chiefs drew the amoco [moko], or pattern according to which their faces were tattooed, upon the paper. 22

According to Nicholas, who was present, Hongi drew the moko of the principal vendor and another Maori drew half of his own moko on the deed by way of witnessing it. Nicholas reproduces another moko drawn by the Maori chief ‘Themoranga’, using a pen ‘which he now handled for the first time in his life’. Robley shows the very complicated moko of Te Pehi Kupe, ‘drawn by him without the aid of a mirror’ in Liverpool in 1826. According to Robley, Te Pehi drew this moko repeatedly with perfect precision. These accounts confirm that Maori could draw their own moko, and one another’s. 23

It has long been disputed whether or not Maori moko conveyed specific information about the wearer. William Y ate, a Church of England missionary at the Bay of Islands from 1828 to 1834, says:

The tattoo is not a special mark of chieftainship, as has been stated by almost all writers on New Zealand; for many chiefs, of the first rank, are without a single line; others, even to old age, are only partially covered; and many a slave has had the greatest pains taken, to give this ornamental operation the greatest effect upon his plebeian face. Nor do the peculiar marks on the faces of different people denote their rank, or the tribe to which they belong: it all depends upon the taste of the artist, or upon the direction of the person operated upon. 24

Robley quotes D’Urville’s contrary opinion that moko were completely analogous to European heraldry except that ‘whereas the coat-of-arms attests the merits of ancestors, the Maori moko illustrates the merits of the person decorated with it. ,25 But Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hlroa) dismisses this as a European idea. He says that moko designs acquired currency from the skill and popularity of the tattooists who performed them, and might be borrowed from tribe to tribe. 26 Among more recent writers, Eric Schwimmer supports the view that the ‘tattooed man had his entire history and identity indelibly imprinted on his face’, and D. R. Simmons asserts that moko specified the wearer’s tribe, lineage, status, and occupation in detail, and that the mother’s lineage was shown on one side of the face and the father’s on the other. 27

According to Simmons, the forehead designs denoted the person’s rank, and the upper facial area denoted the parents’ status. Of Tuhawaiki’s moko on the Cattlin deed of 6 January 1840, Simmons says that the forehead designs are ‘ridiculous’ and that the lack of an upper spiral on the ‘mother’s side’ (the right-hand side of the drawing) would mean that Tuhawaiki’s mother was illegitimate. Simmons suggests that the moko is a forgery, or a joke on the part of Tuhawaiki. 28 Both the Turnbull and the Mitchell Tuhawaiki moko have the same facial spirals as the Cattlin deed, however, and forehead designs that are very similar. These elements of the Tuhawaiki moko can therefore be regarded as authentic. Furthermore, Tuhawaiki’s

mother Kura was the sister of Te Whakataupuka, and by no means illegitimate. Likewise, Taiaroa’s Wentworth-Jones moko has no upper spiral on either cheek, yet his mother Wharerauaruhe, at least, was of notable lineage. These moko indicate that Simmons’s system, whatever its currency, was not practised among Ngai Tahu. 29

As to whether the Wentworth-Jones moko may have had ‘meanings’, we may consult Edward Shortland, who visited Otago in 1843 as Protector of Aborigines and interpreter to the Land Claims Commission after a year among North Island tribes. He met Tuhawaiki, Pskene, and Taiaroa, and consulted Tuhawaiki and Tiramorehu on Maori history and culture. Professor Atholl Anderson suggests that Shortland was ‘the first anthropologist of the Maori’, and describes his South Islandjoumals and77ze Southern Districts of New Zealand as ‘the seminal work of South Island Maori history and ethnography’. 30 Concerning moko, Shortland states:

The tattoo or ‘moko’, as it is termed in native language, is neither intended to constitute a distinctive mark between different tribes, nor to denote rank, as has been variously stated. It is, in fact, only a mark of manhood, and a fashionable mode of adornment, by which the young men seek to gain the good graces of the young women. It only so far denotes rank, that the poor man may not have the means of paying the artist, whose skill is necessary. 31

Moko drawings are generally thought to present an observer’s view of the face, not a mirror image. Thus, the right side of the drawing is thought to represent the left side

of the face. This seems to be confirmed by an extant full-face photograph of Taiaroa, dating presumably from about 1860, in which the faint traces of moko appear to match its orientation on the Wentworth-Jones deeds. 33

In the space available to them on the Wentworth-Jones deeds, the chiefs had to compress their moko into about a tenth of the area of the face they were representing, or less. The result could only be an approximation. Detail successfully depicted in one drawing might be compromised, or omitted, in another. Even so, there are remarkably few erasures or amendments.

Tuhawaiki, despite his pretensions, was not ‘king’ of the South Island, but he was of distinguished lineage and had won military prestige in the wars against Te Rauparaha. In 1833, he had led the ‘Taua-iti’, the remarkable Ngai Tahu naval expedition which, starting from Ruapuke, had fought and nearly captured Te Rauparaha at Cook Strait. In 1835, he inherited the mantle of his uncle Te Whakataupuka, the most powerful Ngai Tahu chief of his generation, when the latter died of measles. In 1837, Tuhawaiki’s war party ambushed and killed the daring Ngati Tama raider Te Puoho at Tuturau in Southland.

On the Mitchell document, Tuhawaiki’s elegant moko is 80mm high by 85mm wide, and on the Turnbull it is easily the largest. The two drawings are fluent and remarkably consistent. In 1843, Land Claims Commissioner Godfrey admired Tuhawaiki’s skill with the pencil, 34 and it seems perfectly credible that he drew his own moko for Wentworth and Jones. But it is curious that at the outer cheeks they differ from his moko on the Cattlin deed and the Ruapuke declaration. 35 The Cattlin has three kora figures on the right cheek which are absent from Tuhawaiki’s Turnbull, Mitchell, and Ruapuke moko. The Wentworth, Jones, and Cattlin moko depict double spirals on the nose and forehead, but the Ruapuke drawing, which is entirely in ink, has only single spirals.

Karetai was a contemporary of Tuhawaiki, Taiaroa, and Kaikoareare, and was by birth the senior chief at Otago. Both Boultbee and Stack comment on his affability. He lost an eye fighting in the Taua-iti in 1833, and fought in the Taua-nui under Te Whakataupuka the following year. Afterwards, he and his wife spent some time with Samuel Marsden in Sydney, returning in 1835 with the epidemic that killed Te Whakataupuka. Karetai commanded a squadron of boats in Tuhawaiki’s 1839 expedition. 36

Karetai’s moko was so dark that his entire face looked bluish-black. 37 On these deeds, it seems to have been drawn by different persons. The Mitchell drawing seems bold and confident, suggesting the denseness of Karetai’s moko more graphically, while the Turnbull seems more painstaking. The Turnbull depicts double spirals, while the Mitchell has only singles and the spiral on the left forehead runs the wrong way. The Turnbull has a small outer spiral on each jaw, lacking on the Mitchell, and a pencil ring has been put around one of these as if someone had queried it. On the Fowler deed of 1839, Karetai’s moko is drawn in ink and looks crude and shaky, suggesting that he was awkward with the pen, but its essential features resemble the Turnbull more than the Mitchell. 38 It appears that the Fowler and Turnbull moko were drawn by Karetai himself, the latter with some assistance perhaps from Tuhawaiki, while his Mitchell moko was drawn by someone more competent than he with the pencil but less accurate with the moko. The truncation of the Turnbull forehead would have resulted from Tuhawaiki’s encroachment on Karetai’s drawing space. The loss of the left eye is reflected in its shrunken aspect in the moko and the vacant area adjacent to it.

Kaikoareare, nicknamed ‘Bigfellow’ by the whalers, was a prominent Ngai Tahu fighting chief, tall and powerfully built, and ‘bloodthirsty’ according to John

Boultbee. 39 He was active in the wars against Te Rauparaha, and commanded a squadron of boats in Tuhawaiki’s 1839 expedition.

Kaikdareare’s two moko drawings are strongly individual in style, and are so alike as to bespeak the same artist. Such detail compressed into 65mm indicates remarkable competence with the pencil as well as confidence with the subject. The Turnbull moko has more detail at the right cheekbone, possibly suggesting that the Mitchell was done first. Such differences indicate that the drawings were not copied one from the other as would probably be the case if a European artist had drawn them, but they are still consistent with the drawings having been done by the chief himself.

Tukawa, or ‘Tukua’, is recorded as having been a senior chief and associate of Kaikoareare at Otago in 1840. 40 His moko drawings on both deeds so closely resemble Kaikdareare’s in their distinctive pear shape and compactness as to suggest that his and Kaikdareare’s were drawn by the same person. The moko itself is so like Kaikdareare’s as to suggest that they had same tattooist. The Mitchell Tukawa has been retouched at the right eye and left side of the nose to agree with the Turnbull, yet the broad band across the right cheek ending in a kora figure seems less successful on the Turnbull than on the Mitchell. The artist was evidently not infallible on the details of Tukawa’s moko.

These points suggest that the artist was Kaikdareare, and that he was corrected by Tukawa. This would be consistent with Tukawa himself having added the slanting eyes, and the ‘teeth’ in the Turnbull, as his own contribution, perhaps humorous in intent.

T aiaroa, although not of the highest birth, became prominent in tribal affairs through his independent behaviour. To Europeans he was an enigma, with a strong liking for

things European yet an uncompromisingly ‘Maori’ attitude, so that Boultbee described him as ‘Not much liked not trusty’. 41

Taiaroa’s moko is incomplete. The right side of the face has completed designs on the forehead, eye-line, nose, mouth-line, and chin, and one large facial spiral with an outer kora element. On the other side, only the forehead rays, eye-line, and nose are completed. The Mitchell drawing shows signs of an eraser on the left forehead, and lacks the left upper nose spiral of the Turnbull. Otherwise, the two drawings are similar in execution, as if drawn by Taiaroa himself.

Facial tattooing was normally done in a protracted series of sittings. Perhaps Taiaroa ’ s moko remained incomplete because his tattooist died, or because he himself lost interest. The beard, shown clearly on both drawings, was not normal for a tattooed Maori, and denotes a preference for European sailors’ fashions. 42

Te Whaikai Pdkene was a high-born chief one or two generations older than the others in this group. 43 Boultbee in 1827 described him as one of the eight leading southern chiefs, commanding his own village ‘an old cannibal and not much liked’. 44 Pdkene’s is an eighteenth-century moko, and is splendidly displayed on the deeds.

The Mitchell and Turnbull Pokene moko differ startlingly as to content, especially on the forehead and outer cheeks. The Mitchell seems boldly and confidently drawn, but has only single spirals on the forehead and nose, whereas the Turnbull has doubles. The Turnbull Pdkene is so like the Turnbull Tuhawaiki, both in style and

content, that they could be taken for the same moko except that the Pokene has two spirals on the left cheek while Tuhawaiki has one.

It appears likely that Tuhawaiki drew Pokene’s moko on the Turnbull document and allowed some of his own moko into it. The distinctive features of the Mitchell Pokene are therefore more likely to be genuine. Its firmness resembles that of the Mitchell Karetai and Tohowack. If Pokene had been able to draw as well as this, he would hardly have had Tuhawaiki draw for him on the Turnbull. It seems more likely that the old chief did not care to draw and allowed others to do it for him. The similarity of style of the Mitchell Karetai, Pdkene, and Tohowack suggests that one person drew all three.

‘Tohowack’ has not been identified. It might stand for ‘Tuhawaiki’, since there were others of that name, except that the deeds give Tuhawaiki as ‘Towack’, suggesting that the name ‘Tohowack’ sounded differently. Asa‘chiefofßuapuke’,hemusthave been a close associate of Tuhawaiki.

Tohowack’s moko has a facial spiral on only one side, but otherwise it is complete. Which side had the spiral is impossible to tell because the Turnbull and the Mitchell have it on opposite sides the only instance of such a reversal in this set of moko.

Also puzzling is that the Mitchell Tohowack lacks the forehead spirals of the Turnbull, has four forehead rays to the Turnbull’s three, has a quite different kora design outside the facial spiral, and has a facial outline while the Turnbull has none. It seems doubtful that the two drawings were done by the same person. Perhaps ‘Tohowack’ himself drew one with the spiral on the wrong side so someone else drew the other. Perhaps ‘Tohowack’ added the distinctive eye pupils and lip outlines to both drawings.

John Topi Patuki ('Toby Partridge' to the whalers) was of distinguished birth but had no moko. He is said to have shot Te Puoho at Tuturau in 1837, and he took part in Tuhawaiki's 1839 expedition. In 1840, he was probably aged about 20, an age by which tattooing would traditionally have begun. Clearly it was no longer customary among Ngai Tahu. On the Turnbull receipt, Patuki appears to have attempted an autograph signature, and perhaps he did the retouching of his Turnbull portrait with the same pen. Summary The difficult double spirals seem to be Tuhawaiki's hallmark on these deeds. Their incidence suggests that he contributed to the Turnbull Karetai as well as completing both of his own moko and the Turnbull Pdkene. It seems likely that Kaiksareare drew both his own moko and Tukawa's, and that Taiaroa did his own. Who completed the other four moko seems unclear. 4. The Sequel On 12 March 1840, Tuhawaiki left Sydney for Ruapuke aboard Jones's ship Magnet under Captain Bruce, taking with him the Governor's flag, dress uniforms for himself and bodyguard, cattle for Ruapuke, and Jones's clerk Henry Hesketh as his secretary. A Maori contemporary described the operation: They loaded on to the ship food, guns, powder, clothes, everything in preparation for an army. Tuhawaiki himself was proclaimed general, and when they arrived back at Ruapuke they began to train to become

soldiers. Tuhawaiki wore his General’s uniform complete with sword around his waist. He cut a striking figure. Because of these activities, he began to look upon himself as the Maori King of Niu Tireni [New Zealand]. 45

On 28 March Tuhawaiki issued his Ruapuke Declaration, inscribed over his moko by Hesketh, proclaiming Ruapuke as the property of himself, Kaikoareare, Patuki, Haereroa, and four other chiefs whose names are unclear. 46

On 2 April 1840, at an unspecified place, the Wentworth-Jones deeds were signed by Palmer and Sterling as attorneys for the purchasers, acknowledging ‘delivery of possession’ by Cattlin and Hoyle as attorneys for the Maori chiefs. James Bruce, James Anderson, and Thomas Emery signed as witnesses. All these ‘attorneys’ and witnesses were employees or associates of Jones. Since Cattlin had sailed for New Zealand from Sydney on 21 February on the Success, 47 and his signature and Bruce’s are genuine, it appears that the ‘delivery’ was signed in New Zealand. This being so, it is curious that no Maori signed the ‘delivery’, even as a witness.

In Sydney, also on 2 April, Wentworth presided over the formation of a ‘New Zealand Association’ to contest Gipps’s proclamations of 19 January. This prompted Gipps to urge Hobson to proclaim British sovereignty over the South Island without delay, which Hobson did on 21 May. Between 30 May and 13 June, Hobson’s deputy, Major Bunbury, got Tuhawaiki and five other Ngai Tahu chiefs to sign the Treaty of Waitangi. 48

On 28 May, Gipps introduced his New Zealand Land Claims Bill in the New South Wales Legislative Council to give effect to his proclamations. Wentworth and others, including James Busby, subsequently appeared before the Council to object to the Bill. Gipps accused Wentworth of wishing to emulate Baron de Thierry in setting up colonies in defiance of the Crown. 49 The Bill was duly passed, and its provisions were adopted by the New Zealand Legislative Council in 1841. 50 Wentworth pursued the matter no further. He went on to enjoy a successful career, much honoured and admired, and died in England in 1872.

Jones lost no time in cashing in on his land deals. On 6 March 1840, for £SOO, he sold a half interest in his share of the Wentworth-Jones transaction to his solicitor F. W. Unwin, who must have thought that the enterprise had a chance of success. 51 On the same day, Jones sold about 400 square miles (100,000 ha) on the shores of Foveaux Strait, derived from his previous Maori purchases, to two other Sydney parties for a total of £ISOO. 52 In June 1839, he had sold an adjacent 50,000 acres (20,000 ha) to another Sydney partnership for £1250, and on 23 April 1840 he sold another block there for £2O. 55 All these purchasers later lost their investments when the Land Claims Commission at Wellington rejected their claims. 54 Jones himself received the Commission’s maximum award of four square miles at Waikouaiti in 1848, but he petitioned the Crown for more and was finally awarded 10,000 acres in 1867 under the John Jones Land Claims Settlement Act. 55 He died two years later,

a pillar of Otago society and commerce, and his Dunedin mansion is now a gentlemen’s club.

After 1840, Tuhawaiki continued his career as a leading Maori businessman. In 1843, he attended the Land Claims Commission at Otakou, supporting some smaller claims but scotching the more extensive ones. Tuhawaiki was always at ease with European gentlemen, and expressed his wish to live as one of them. 56 He fraternised with Bunbury, Shortland, Bishop Selwyn, Colonel Wakefield, and David Munro, who all described him in glowing terms. He led the sale of the Otago Block to the New Zealand Company in 1844 and was drowned at sea soon afterwards.

Karetai lived on as acknowledged ariki at Otakou until his death in 1860, quietly maintaining his Maoritanga and his amity with Europeans. His unsigned name was obtained by Bunbury on the Treaty of Waitangi at Otakou. He signed the Otakou Deed in 1844, and urged the Maori people to honour the sale. He was involved in Kemp’s Purchase and led the Otago chiefs in signing the Murihiku Deed in 1853. 57

Kaikdareare returned with Tuhawaiki to Ruapuke in March 1840 and appears on Tuhawaiki’s Ruapuke Declaration as ‘Kicora’, the same spelling of his name as appears on Gipps ’ s unsigned treaty of the previous month. This strongly suggests that he was the ‘Kaikoura’ written by the semi-literate William Stewart on the Treaty of Waitangi at Ruapuke in June 1840. 58

Kaikdareare signed the Otago Deed in 1844, and after the Otago settlement was founded in 1848 he became a popular ferryman on the harbour ‘a good fellow, friend alike of Maori and European’. He was bitterly criticised by the missionary Charles Creed for flouting Christianity ‘a curse to the whole district, a scoffer at religion and a daring Sabbath breaker’. 59 He drowned on the harbour in 1852. Tukawa had evidently died by 1844, since he did not participate in the Otago Purchase.

After Tuhawaiki’s death, Taiaroa asserted a more prominent role, strongly promoting the sale of Ngai Tahu lands. In 1845, he received money from the French for Banks Peninsula. In 1848, he undermined Maori opposition to Kemp’s Purchase by colluding with Kemp. He offered both Murihiku (Southland) and the South Island West Coast to the Government, claiming sole rights to them, and signed the Murihiku Deed at Dunedin in 1853. He frequently visited Wellington, where Donald McLean began referring to him as ‘the chief of the aboriginal tribes in the Middle Island’ a rank which had no Maori validity. It was evidently in this capacity that Taiaroa spoke at the Kohimarama Conference in 1860 soon after his conversion to Christianity. He died in 1863. 60

Te Whaikai Pokene lived until 1861, by which time he must have been a very old man. He signed the Otago Deed in 1844 and was present at Kemp’s Purchase in 1848, but did not sign the deed or any of the subsequent receipts. He participated in the Murihiku purchase.

John Topi Patuki outlived all the other participants. In 1844 he signed the Otago Deed and became senior Murihiku chief on Tuhawaiki’s death. Mantell befriended him and got his signature to Kemp’s Purchase, and he afterwards assisted Mantell with the Murihiku purchase. 61 In 1864, he arranged the sale of Stewart Island to the Crown. He lived until 1900, a respected figure, but altogether eclipsed by Taiaroa’s son Hori Kerei Taiaroa.

Turnbull Library Record 28 (1995), 43 —60

References 1. K. R. Cramp, William Wentworth of Vaucluse House (Sydney, 1922), passim. 2. Harry C. Evison, Te Wai Pounamu, the Greenstone Island (Wellington, 1993), p. 56. 3. Evison, pp. 85-86, 208-10. 4. Evison, p. 115. 5. Evison, pp. 113-15. 6. Roland L. Jellicoe, The New Zealand Company's Native Reserves (Wellington, 1930), p. 18. 7. Jocelyn Chisholm, Captain Cattlin towards New Zealand (Wellington, 1994), p. 82; John Boultbee, Journal of a Rambler, edited by June Starke (Auckland, 1986), p. 89 (illustration). 8. John Top! Patuki, in Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives 1878 J-3, p. 3. 9. Edward Sweetman, The Unsigned New Zealand Treaty (Melbourne, 1939), p. 64. Sweetman mistakes 'Terour' (Taiaroa) for 'a North Island chief. 10.'Ten guineas': Sweetman, pp. 60-64, 103. 'British flag': Patuki, p. 3. 11. Sweetman, p. 62. 12. David Colquhoun, 'A Matter of Speculation', Off the Record 1 (August 1994), 8-9 (illustration, p. 8). 13. NSW State Library, The Wentworth Indenture, MS Awsl; Alexander Turnbull Library, The Wentworth-Jones Deed, MSO 4947. 14. See for instance Sweetman, p. 65; A. H. McLintock, The History ofOtago (Dunedin, 1949), pp. 104-05; New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (Wellington, 1990), i, 212 b; and Peter Tremewan, Selling Otago (Dunedin, 1994), p. 17. 15. Paora Taki, 'Events as Told by Paora Taki', translated by Te Aue Davis, in Ngai Tahu Submission to South Island Maori Appellate Court, in re Cross Claim by Kurahaupo Waka Society and M. N. Sadd (Christchurch, 1990), p. 33. 16. Evison, pp. 8, 96. 17. Evison, pp. 512-16. 18. 'A challenge': Sweetman, pp. 67-68. 'Raised a storm': Sweetman, pp. 65-76. 19. Otago Daily Times, 19 February 1940, p. 6; NSW State Library, The Wentworth Indenture, MS Awsl. 20. Sotheby's, London, to the author, 7 June 1993. 21. Alexander Turnbull Library, The Wentworth-Jones Deed, MSO 4947. 22. R. A. Cruise, Journal of a Ten Months' Residence in New Zealand (London, 1823), p. 307. 23. 'According to Nicholas': J. L. Nicholas, Narrative of a Voyage to New Zealand (London, 1817), i,192-93. 'Nicholas reproduces': Nicholas, p. 217. 'Robley shows': H. G. Robley, Moko; or, Maori Tattooing (London, 1896), p. 15. 24. William Yate, An Account of New Zealand and of the Church Missionary Society's Mission to the North Island (Wellington, 1970), p. 148.

25. Robley, pp. 15-18. 26. Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), The Coming of the Maori (Wellington, 1950), p. 299. 27. 'Schwimmer supports': Eric Schwimmer, The World of the Maori (Wellington, 1974), p. 93. 'ln detail': D. R.Simmons, Ta Moko, the Art of Maori Tattoo(A\ick\and, 1986), pp. 131-38. 'Mother's lineage': Simmons, pp. 131,140-41; plates 9, 15, 18, 19; figures 98, 102, 110,200. These have several contradictions as to which side represents which parent. 28. 'Tuhawaiki's moko on the Cattlin deed': Simmons, p. 140 b (illustration); reproduced also in Boultbee, p. 89. 'Simmons suggests': Simmons, p. 140 b. 29. 'By no means illegitimate': Edward Shortland, The Southern Districts of New Zealand (London, 1851), p. 94, Table A. 'Of notable lineage': Shortland, p. 94, Table F. 30. DNZB, pp. 396-97. 31. Shortland, pp. 16-17. 32. See for example Robley, pp. 12-13 (description of 'Themoranga' moko), and Simmons, p. 66a (description of Te Pehi's moko). 33. Alexander Turnbull Library Picture Collection, 'Te Matenga Taiaroa', negative no. 76006 1/2. 34. Shortland, p. 81. 35. See Boultbee, p. 89, and Hocken Library, Dunedin, Declaration of Ownership of Robucka Island by Tuhawaiki, MS 8088, respectively. 36. 'Affability': Boultbee, p. 108; J. W'. Stack, More Maoriland Adventures of J. W. Stack, edited by A. H. Reed (Dunedin, 1936), pp. 114-16. 'He lost an eye': Evison, pp. 68-69. 'Time with Samuel Marsden': Evison, pp. 83-84. 37. Stack, p. 114. 38. Hocken Library, Deed of Sale by Golantine (Karetai) to James Fowler, MS 808 A. Simmons, p. 70, wrongly attributes Karetai's moko on the Fowler deed to 'Korako', a contemporary of Captain Cook's visit to Queen Charlotte Sound. 39. Boultbee, p. 108. 40. John Hunter, 'Reminiscences', in Murihiku Re-viewed, edited by Rhys Richards (Dunedin, 1995), pp. 129-33. 41. Boultbee, pp. 107-08. 42.'Facial tattooing': Robley, p. 54. 'The beard': Robley, p. 29. 43. Shortland, pp. 15-16. 44. Boultbee, pp. 107-08. 45. Paora Taki, p. 33. 46. Hocken Library, Declaration of Ownership of Robucka Island by Tuhawaiki, MS 8088. 47. Robert McNab, The Old Whaling Days (Christchurch, 1913), pp. 285-86. 48. Evison, pp. 126-34. The Treaty has seven Ngai Tahu names, but Karetai's is unsigned. 49. Sweetman, pp. 68-171. 50. Evison, pp. 148 (note 41), 161-62. 51. Land Titles Office, Sydney, 1825-1848 Book R 1-520, Number 144; Archives Office of NSW, Sydney, Registrar-General Memorandums of Land Transfer, Reel 1593. 52. Land Titles Office, Sydney, 1825-1848 Book R 1-520, Numbers 151 and 152. 53. Land Titles Office, Sydney, 1825-1848 Book U 585-1000, Numbers 763 and 848. 54. Alexander Mackay, A Compendium of Official Documents relative to Native Affairs in the South Island (Wellington, 1873), i, 81-93; Land Claim numbers 45,108,121 a, 210,235 a and b, and 265 respectively. 55. 'Four square miles': Evison, p. 293. 'IO,OOO acres': Evison, p. 175 (note 83). 56. William Wakefield to New Zealand Company, 31 August 1840, in T. M. Hocken, Contributions to the Early History of New Zealand (London, 1898), p. 270. 57. Evison, p. 356.

58. 'Gipps's unsigned treaty': Sweetman, p. 64 (illustration facing). 'This strongly suggests': Evison, pp. 131-32. 59. 'A good fellow': Murray Gladstone Thomson, A Pakeha 's Recollections, edited by Alfred Eccles (Wellington, 1944), p. 40. 'Bitterly criticised': Evison, pp. 337, 366 (note 25). 60. 'ln 1845': Tremewan, p. 44. 'ln 1848': Evison, pp. 259-62. 'He offered': Evison, pp. 299, 357. 'He frequently visited': Mackay, p. 303. 61. Evison, p. 349. Note: The editor wishes to thank Te Aue Davis for her help in establishing the appropriate use of macrons in Maori words in this article. In this article, as throughout the Record, macrons have not been used in book titles or quotations when the title or quotation as originally printed did not use them, or in 'Europeanised' versions of Maori words, such as 'Otago'.