John Robinson: The Treaty of Waitangi, 1840 and 2023

The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi on 1840 marked the beginning of the formation of the modern nation of New Zealand.  Prior to that, these islands were home to Polynesians, now known as Maori, living in many separated tribes with a primitive culture.

In Maori society loyalty was to the tribe, and, in the absence of any central overall authority, conflict resolution was by armed might, by fighting – with widespread killing, cannibalism and slavery.  The coming of muskets, and the growing familiarity with other parts of the country (due to travel on British vessels and in long-distance war-parties) resulted in an explosion of war, and the Maori population declined by close to one-half in the first forty years of the nineteenth century.

Many Maori, including some of the most savage warriors, came to recognise that their society was in free-fall.  Their visits to Australia and (a few) to England, together with the examples and teaching of missionaries, showed an example of a better way to live together, in peace under a rule of law.

From 1830, and in the years around 1840, an extraordinary cultural transformation was under way – as shown by increasing numbers joining Christian congregations and turning away from the old culture, tikanga, together with efforts of chiefs and missionaries to bring peace to areas (such as the Tamaki isthmus) that had become deserted during the wars.[1]

There were calls by Maori for British involvement, such as a letter of 1831 (written for the chiefs by missionaries) and another letter of 1835 (written for the chiefs by the British agent, James Busby).  Busby had spoken of the need for a national authority, and the failure of his proposed United Tribes proposal led to a recognition among northern Ngapuhi chiefs that a British colonial government was needed to assert a system of law and to bring peace among the warring tribes.[2]

Growing concern over the collapse of Maori society and an understanding of the possible alternative over many years had led those chiefs to the realisation that colonisation would be an essential feature of the cultural transformation, towards peace and the rule of law.  The thoughts of those chiefs were made clear in the discussions at Waitangi,[3] and their desire for the Treaty was shown graphically by their actions on those two days at Waitangi, Wednesday 5^th and Thursday 6^th of February 1840.

There was a vigorous debate of over five hours on the Wednesday.  The opening comments set down a spirited challenge, as is normal in Maori protocol.  A major concern was their undoubted understanding that sovereignty was being handed over, with an end to the previous absolute rule of chiefs.  Thus, “If thou stayest as Governor, then, perhaps, Te Kemara will be judged and condemned.”  And Tareha”: “No Governor for me – for us Native men.  We, we only are the chiefs, the rulers.  We will not be ruled over.”  Such questions were answered, and these chiefs later signed the Treaty.

After the initial challenges, further speeches showed the desire for, and acceptance of, the new national authority.  Just two of many such are: “Do not thou go away from us; remain for us – a father, a judge, a peace-maker” (Tamati Waka), and “Sit, Governor, sit.  If thou shouldst return, we natives are gone, utterly gone, nothinged, extinct. … Remain, remain; sit, sit here; you with the missionaries, all as one.” (Hone Heke)

The translation of the original English text into Maori could never be exact; Maori social organisation differed completely from that proposed; there was to be a transformation from tribalism to unity in one nation.  Maori culture lacked several of the key ideas expressed in the Treaty, and there were no precise equivalent words.  The best possible solution was to make use of words expressing similar (but not exactly the same) concepts. 

Just what was proposed, and agreed to, was explained in many discussions, continuing the process begun in meetings of chiefs with missionaries, Busby and other settlers over the previous decades.  Statements by chiefs at Waitangi and at many subsequent meetings show an appreciation of the changes, with acceptance for the new rule of law and frequent rejoicing for the message of Christianity.  There was no confusion or misunderstanding.

The British believed that this had been just the first of many days of debate, and at the end of the first day, Hobson announced that proceedings would continue on the Friday.  But the chiefs had made their decision in advance and, once the formalities had been observed, they wanted to sign and return home.  The chiefs were directing proceedings, this was their treaty, their change of culture, their opportunity for peace; they wanted to get on with it. 

That determination to sign was shown dramatically the next day, Thursday.  The missionaries left Paihia Station at 9.30 a.m.  On arrival at Waitangi, they found that the chiefs were already there and pronounced themselves ready to sign.  At 11 o’clock, Hobson had still not arrived, and no movement be discerned on board H.M.S. Herald; the chiefs were becoming impatient. About noon a boat from the ship came ashore, with two officers, who seemed surprised to find the crowd waiting for the Governor.  A boat was instantly despatched to the ship and the Governor soon arrived, in plain clothes, except his hat.  He had not the least notion of a meeting to be held that day, but decided that he would take the signatures of the chiefs who were present.  Thus, at the insistence of the chiefs, the first signing of the Treaty of Waitangi took place.

That was the defining feature of the proceedings at Waitangi; the speed with which the ceremony was carried out, as insisted upon by the Maori chiefs.  They took charge; this was an essential feature of their cultural revolution.  If the initial challenges were serious, they would not have been set aside so readily.

Such prompt action differs considerably from the lengthy meetings and extended debate when an issue had not been decided in advance.  One example is the Waikato meeting at Rangiriri in 1857 to consider a proposal to set up a Maori king.[4]

On Thursday, May 9, after the guests had been mustering for several days, the last detachment arrived, including several Europeans.  After a reception, the proposed king’s flag was hoisted.  Friday and Saturday were devoted to eating and talking; Sunday to Christian worship; Monday to a reconciliation of old hostilities.

On the Tuesday, at about ten o’clock, a long line of Maories, dressed in black cloth suits, came from the southern end of the town, bearing the flag of the new king.  They advanced to the open space, planted the flag in the ground, and sat down, arranged in long rows, occupying one side of the square. 

They seemingly did not anticipate much opposition, but after half an hour a Union Jack was seen displayed on a little hill about a quarter of a mile off; another soon appeared a short distance inland.  Shortly afterwards two processions, each bearing the Union Jack, came to occupy the side of the square opposite to that taken by the King party.  Both Jacks were planted in the ground opposite to the kingite flag.

Proceedings then commenced, with vigorous speeches from the two opposing parties.  Although the proposed king – the elderly warrior chief Te Wherowhero (Potatau), a supporter of the new government, who had become a peacemaker and a friend to Governors Gore Brown and Grey – came on the Wednesday, he showed not the slightest sign of leadership.  According to the report, he did not respond when asked his view on the flags.  While some wanted to appoint him as king, others disagreed with the idea of a rebel monarchy and would accept him simply as a paramount chief.  There was no agreement, no resolution; the dispute remained unresolved.

After some speeches as to retaining the land, and several songs, the meeting separated.  When “Waata Kukutai paraded the English flag, rang a great bell, and proclaimed that all who acknowledged allegiance to, and intended to support that flag, should follow him, all lower Waikato and the sea coast to Kawhia mustered. They passed resolutions, and embodied them in a letter to the Governor.”

“On the following day the King’s flag was despatched to the tribes in the South of New Zealand, to convene a larger meeting and induce Potatau to accept the office, or to appoint some one else.”

Another meeting in June 1858 again failed to reach any general agreement; there was never any consensus to set up a king in the Waikato.[5]  Afterwards, the kingites withdrew, declared their king and asserted his rule as if a king had been accepted by all, which was not so.

The understanding and appreciation of the Treaty of Waitangi (by supporters and challengers) that was evidence in these two meetings was repeated at the national 1860 Kohimarama conference of chiefs, where their first resolution declared that they were pledged to each other “to do nothing inconsistent with their declared recognition of the Queen’s sovereignty, and of the union of the two races.”[6]

In 1922, Sir Apirana Ngata, a prominent scholar, Government Minister and supporter of Maori culture, again repeated the absolute clarity of the Treaty in a forthright discussion of the unambiguous Maori text.[7]  “The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws.”  Ngata recognised the significant differences in the official text in English, which (for example) included Maori ownership of fisheries, which had not been initially intended and was not in the Maori text.

The reason for that contradiction between the two copies of the Treaty has since become known.  The Treaty was written in several days of discussion before being translated into Maori on Tuesday, February 4, then presented to the chiefs on Wednesday, February 5, and signed on Thursday, February 6.  When Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, could not find the original English copy, he created a new version, based on the many notes of the initial discussion, and sent this off to Australia, and then to England, as the official document.  This version, which is often referred to as the ‘Freeman Treaty’, was poorly written and differed considerably from the true copy. 

This was considered the English text for many years.  The true Treaty, written on February 4, 1840, had wound up in the possession of James Clendon’s lawyer Henry Littlewood, and stayed in his family until found in 1989; is often referred to as the ‘Littlewood Treaty’.[8]  It is in accord with the copy sent by Clendon to the USA as well as to translations from the Maori (until recent years have brought completely new suggestions of word meanings).

That confusion had received little attention until, in 1972, Ruth Ross[9] presented a thoroughly researched, critical analysis of the preparation and importance of the Treaty of Waitangi.[10] 

“The signatories of 1840 were uncertain and divided in their understanding of its meaning; who can say now what its intentions were? …

“However good intentions may have been, a close study of events shows that the Treaty of Waitangi was hastily and inexpertly drawn up, ambiguous and contradictory in content, chaotic in its execution. To persist in postulating that this was a ‘sacred compact’ is sheer hypocrisy. …

“If Waitangi 1840 held any real promise for the future, it was perhaps in Hobson’s few words of halting Maori to each man as he signed: He iwi tahi tatou, ‘We are one people’.”

Those conclusions deserve careful consideration.

Was the Treaty “hastily and inexpertly drawn up”?  The text was certainly written at Waitangi in the days preceding its presentation and signing, over a few days.  The authorities in Whitehall had sent Hobson to New Zealand with lengthy instructions but no draft of an intended treaty, which was to be written on arrival with the assistance of those familiar with the local situation.  There are two ways to consider that last-minute preparation, either as a foolish lack of proper preparation or as a wise decision to allow Hobson to adapt to conditions on the ground.  Personally, I agree with Ross that the formulation of the Treaty could have been handled better, although the result was excellent.

Was the Treaty “ambiguous and contradictory in content”?  Ross correctly recognised the completely obvious problem that the text of the Treaty of Waitangi in English available to her was quite different from the Maori copy.  This was the version cobbled together by Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, when the original was mislaid.  The original text, referred to now as the ‘Littlewood Treaty’ was discovered years later in 1989; this was clear and unambiguous, and identical with the Maori text.

Was the whole affair “chaotic in its execution”?  Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman was manifestly incompetent.  As pointed out above, the haste with which the chiefs gathered and insisted on signing the Treaty after just one day of discussion cut short the proceedings (which were then rushed through) and limited the time taken for further consideration of the implications.  Then, not long after, on March 1, Hobson suffered a serious stroke. This meant that while he convalesced the work of taking the Treaty around the country fell to others.  Sure, it could have been done better.

On the question of understanding of the Treaty, I disagree with Ross, who claimed that “The signatories of 1840 were uncertain and divided in their under-standing of its meaning”.  As noted previously, many statements by chiefs over the years show clearly their appreciation of the new situation.  For Apirana Ngata in 1922, the Maori text was clear and unambiguous, readily understood; he found problems only when he referred to the false English, Freeman, text.  The rewriting of the Maori text is a recent, revisionist activity, forcing division amongst New Zealanders by insisting on contrary meanings of Maori words and introducing newly minted concepts (partnership, principles) that are not found in any copy of the Treaty – until the Treaty as now presented has come to mean the very opposite of what was written, discussed and agreed upon in 1840.

The refusal by Ross to accept the Treaty as a ‘sacred compact’ (sheer hypocrisy) is even more true now than ever, when it has become a political football, forcing division by race. 

Above all, we can only applaud her final conclusion, which is to free ourselves from the confusion that has been created – to stop arguing and to focus on the essential point.   If Waitangi 1840 held any real promise for the future, it was perhaps in Hobson’s few words of halting Maori to each man as he signed: He iwi tahi tatou, ‘We are one people’.”

This is even more significant today, in 2023. 

References: 

[1] Robinson J L 2023.  Our choice for the future: Equality or tribal rule.   https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/John-Robinson.pdf pages 28-31

[2] Robinson J L 2015. Two great New Zealanders, Tamati Waka Nene and Apirana Ngata.  Tross Publishing.

[3] Colenso W 1890. The authentic and genuine history of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.  https://waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html

[4] Article, “The Native Question”, in The Southern Cross of Friday, June 5, 1857.  https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DSC18570605.2.12.  Also: Robinson J L 2016. The kingite rebellion.  Tross Publishing.  Pages122-138

[5] Buddle Rev T 1860.  The Maori King Movement in New Zealand.  Pages 13-15.  http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/document/?wid=4390&page=1&action=null

[6] Robinson J L 2022. The Kohimarama Conference 1860: chiefs support Christianity and the Queen. Tross Publishing

[7] Ngata A 1922.  The Treaty of Waitangi, an explanation. http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html

[8] Doutré M, 2005.  The Littlewood Treaty: the true English text of the Treaty of Waitangi, found.  Dé Danaan Publishers

[9] Attwood B 2023.  ‘A Bloody Difficult Subject’: Ruth Ross, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the Making of History.  Auckland University Press

[10] Ross, R 1972.  Te Tiriti o Waitangi texts and translations.  New Zealand Journal of History vol 6, no 2, pages 129-157.  https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=FL39861975

Dr John Robinson is a research scientist, who has investigated a variety of topics, including the social statistics of Maori.  His recognition of fundamental flaws in the interpretation of nineteenth century Maori demographics led him to consider the history of those times in several books.