Her Majesty’s Government have resolved to authorise you to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty’s Sovereign authority over the whole or any parts of those Islands which they may be willing to place under Her Majesty’s Dominion. –From Secretary of State for War and Colonies, Lord Normanby’s lengthy instructions to William Hobson, 1839
By Geoff Parker
The transfer of sovereignty
Lord Normanby’s instructions to Hobson prior to the Treaty of Waitangi – prepared by under-secertary for the Colonial Office, James Stephen — made it very clear that Britain would only take on New Zealand as a colony if the natives agreed to cede sovereignty. (1)
Captain Hobson reinforced this advice in the preamble of Te Tiriti o Waitangi — You yourselves have often asked the King of England to extend his protection unto you. Her Majesty now offers you that protection in this treaty… But as the law of England gives no civil powers to Her Majesty out of her domain, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent.
Full sovereignty was definitely ceded as people present at Waitangi on 6 February 1840 indicated in their eye-witness accounts.
- William Colenso’s recorded account of the signing and chief’s speeches. (2)
- Rev John Warren’s recorded account of the signing. (3)
In the early twentieth century the great Maori leader Sir Apirana Ngata reiterated what had happened — It was the first article of the Treaty which transferred the chiefly authority of your ancestors, affecting you and future generations for ever. (4)
What is the process of transferring sovereignty?
There are three ways in which one state may acquire sovereignty over another – by cession, by conquest, and by occupation. The British government gained the sovereignty over New Zealand through five ways.
1) Cession by treaty. A total of 512 chiefs, including 13 women, signed the Treaty of Waitangi, mostly the Maori language text, at 34 locations around New Zealand between February 6 and May 21, 1840.
2) Proclamations by Hobson (North Island), Bunbury/Nias (South Island, Stewart Island.). The proclamations appeared in the London Gazette on October 2, 1840.
3) Occupation, by 1881 there were 500,000 settlers and 45,000 Maori.
4) Conquest – If the defeats of tribes who took up arms against the government during the 1860s is to be considered, the British government also confirmed sovereignty over New Zealand by conquest.
1860 Kohimarama Conference — Acknowledging ceding sovereignty
The Kohimarama Conference of 1860 was attended by 112 Maori Chiefs who were signatories to the Treaty signing 1840, some were Ngapuhi — the main signees of the 1835 Declaration of Independence (DOI), some were also signees of the letter to King William for protection in 1831.
The Conference had been called to discuss the direct challenge that the Kingitanga [Maori King] Movement was mounting to the Queen’s sovereignty, something the loyal chiefs expected the Crown to quell in the interests of national unity.
The chiefs who attended the 1860 Kohimarama Conference pledged to each other to do nothing inconsistent with their declared recognition of the Queen’s sovereignty, and of the unions of the two races.
Here are three typical comments.
Hori Kerei Te Kotuku:– “…..It was during the time of Governor Grey that we first recognized the Queen’s authority. He said there is no other Sovereign for us but the Queen. I did not receive the Law without consideration. I sought it carefully in the pages of Scripture. I did not search in ignorance. I saw its benefits, and then I embraced it. Now the queen is my sovereign.”
Wi Te Tete:– Listen ye Pakehas, and ye Maori Chiefs! We have now become one people under the Queen.
Tohi Te Ueurangi:- Let the Queen be above all. I have nothing more to say.
A full account of the Kohimarama conference can be read here _ http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-BIM504Kohi-t1-g1-t1-body1-d1.html
Kawanatanga = sovereignty
The word ‘Kawanatanga’ was used in both the 1835 Declaration of Independence and in Article 1 of Te Tiriti.
The 1835 DOI was about establishing an independent state and setting up a Maori Government to make laws etc – so ‘Kawanatanga’ used in this document and appropriately mean’t ‘Government’.
However, Te Tiriti was primarily about the transfer of Sovereignty (little to do with ‘Government/governance’), so the correct translation of ‘Kawanatanga’ in Article 1 of this document can only be ‘Sovereignty’. All the evidence which is pertinent to the treaty contained in the Littlewood draft; Normanby’s brief to Hobson; the chiefs speeches at Waitangi; Hobson’s preamble statements; John Warren’s observations; the chiefs speeches at Kohimarama, and Apirana Ngata’s explanation, confirm this.
The word “kawanatanga” in Article 1 was used to translate “sovereignty” and “rangatiratanga” Article 2 to mean “possession”. These were the meanings in 1840.
It has become confusing since the 1980s when claimant/Waitangi Tribunal member Professor Hugh Kawharu redefined these key words in the treaty — “kawanatanga” and “rangatiratanga” to create a treaty that was purported to grant to the governor the right to govern settlers while letting the chiefs carry on being chiefs.
That is clearly nonsense and did not happen. It was not what the chiefs signed up to because they really did not want other chiefs carrying on as they had in the musket wars because too many people were being killed.
If they did not understand what they were signing and still thought they were chiefs, then why did cannibalism end and the chiefs were required to free their Maori slaves? (5)
If sovereignty was not ceded, why? (Mike Butler)
If sovereignty was not ceded here are seven questions to answer.
WHY WAS THERE NO MENTION:
- by Normanby, in his instructions to Hobson, that sovereignty was over settlers only?
- in the treaty, that only settlers would be under the new Governor.
- in the treaty debate on February 5, 1840, that sovereignty was for settlers only.
- at any of the 34 treaty signings, that chiefs could be chiefs while the governor controls settlers?
- in any of the four sovereignty proclamations, that sovereignty was only for settlers?
- at the Kohimarama conference in 1860, that the governor should limit his governing to settlers?
- by Maori Affairs Minister Sir Apirana Ngata, in his 1922 treaty book, that the governor should limit his governing to settlers?
We’ve had 40 years of Treaty members and lawyers asserting that Maori have “rangatiratanga” but 184 years of all of us living under Crown sovereignty.
Behaving as if sovereignty was definitely ceded (Don Brash)
In an astonishing report issued in 2014, the Waitangi Tribunal claimed that the Maori chiefs who signed the Treaty agreed to share power and authority with Britain, but did not cede sovereignty.
But as historian and Treaty specialist Professor Paul Moon of AUT made clear at the time,the Tribunal’s conclusion was “manifestly wrong.”
Chris Finlayson, at that time Attorney General and Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations, and somebody well known for having considerable sympathy for Maori aspirations — he had been a lawyer for Ngai Tahu — said in reaction to the Tribunal’s report that there was “no question that the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand”.
Sir Apirana Ngata, writing about the Treaty in 1922, said that the Treaty made one law for the Maori and Pakeha. If you think things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were very powerful.
Moreover, with very rare exceptions, the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders with a Maori ancestor have behaved as if sovereignty was ceded in 1840:
* they’ve served in the Police and the Armed Forces;
* they’ve bought and sold assets, registering those transactions with an agency of the Crown;
* they’ve paid income taxes and GST;
* they’ve been employed by the Crown as teachers, nurses, and bureaucrats;
* they’ve accepted unemployment benefits, New Zealand Superannuation and other benefits;
* they’ve accepted treatment in public hospitals and from highly subsidized doctors;
* they’ve been educated in public schools and universities;
* they’ve travelled overseas on New Zealand passports;
* they’ve accepted large sums of money from the Crown in resolution of so-called historical grievances.
All very strange behaviour if Maori haven’t accepted the sovereignty of the Crown. (6)
Gary Judd KC also concurs that there is only one treaty (Te Tiriti) and that the chiefs at Waitangi fully understood that by signing the document they would be ceding full sovereignty to the Queen – see video here > https://theplatform.kiwi/podcasts/episode/gary-judd-kc-on-the-treaty-of-waitangi-the-prospect-of-a-referendum
Footnotes
- https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-Mac01Comp-t1-g1-t5-g1-t2-g1-t6.html
- http://www.waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html
- http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=TH18630822.2.9
- https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html
- http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/name-401540.html
- https://www.donbrash.com/after-politics/what-partnership/
Excellent summation should be compulsory reading in every NZ school university library and by local councils and above all every MP.
Dude these memes have been debunked and sharing a link to the Platform where maori hating runs rife isn’t impartial. Also the Maori version differs significantly to the English version remember Maori didn’t and couldn’t understand the nuances of the english language. Henry Williams the missionary that translated the pakeha version of the TOW into Maori became a significant land owner which made him wealthy. He lied to the Maori people by not indicating that they were about to cede their control over their lands and resources. Most of what you have written is easily dispelled right up to the Kohimarama conference of the 1880s. Your historic revisionism is quite limited please I try an leave a link here so you can pick it apart.
from Roger Childs: Thanks “Stephen” for your comments. Waikanae Watch is definitely not into hate of any kind. Fundamentally we want honesty, accuracy, and balance in the article we publish, and equality for all people.
There are a number of factual errors and inaccuracies in your comment.
· There was no English version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. The 500+ Maori leaders who signed the document around New Zealand put their signature or mark on the Treaty which was in the Nga Puhi dialect. They didn’t need to “understand the nuances of the English language”.
· Henry Williams did become a significant landowner, but bought his property legally. His son Edward, a fluent Te Reo speaker, helped him with the translation of Busby’s English text into Maori.
· There was no lying over what Maori were ceding. In Article 1 they ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria, but the control of their lands and property was guaranteed under Article 2.
· The Kohimarama Conference was in 1860, not the 1880s, and if you read the transcripts in the Maori Messenger of what more than 100 chiefs said at that gathering, you will see that the majority knew what sovereignty meant and were happy to live under the rule of the governor who represented the Queen.
You have indulged in some “historic revisionism”, and like so many observers on the details of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and what it spelled out, you have got a number of things wrong.
We welcome different viewpoints but they need to be based on accurate evidence.