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 5th and Thursday 6th 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.
[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.
4 comments:
And still no mention (see below) of the 1869 Back Translation from the original Maori Treaty ordered by the Legislative Council and carried out by Mr T E Young of the Native Department.
Victoria, Queen of England, in her kind thoughtfulness to the Chiefs and Hapus of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their chieftainship and their land, and that peace may always be kept with them and quietness, she has thought it a right thing that a Chief should be sent here as a negotiator with the Maoris of New Zealand – that the Maoris of New Zealand may consent to the Government of the Queen of all parts of this land and the islands, because there are many people of her tribe that have settled on this land and are coming hither.
Now the Queen is desirous to establish the Government, that evil may not come to the Maoris and the Europeans who are living without law.
Now the Queen has been pleased to send me, William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy, to be Governor to all the places of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen; an he give forth to the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand and other Chiefs the laws spoken here.
The First
The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all Chiefs also who have not joined the Assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England for ever all the Government of their lands.
The Second
The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the Chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and their property. But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all the other Chiefs, gives to the Queen the purchase of those pieces of land which the proprietors may wish, for such payment as may be agreed upon by them and the purchaser who is appointed by the Queen to be her purchaser.
The Third
This is an arrangement for the consent to the Government of the Queen. The Queen of England will protect all the Maoris of New Zealand. All the rights will be given to them the same as her doings to the people of England.
William Hobson Consul and Lieutenant Governor.
Now, we the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand, now assembled at Waitangi. We also, the Chiefs of New Zealand, see the meaning of these words: they are taken and consented to altogether by us. Therefore are affixed our names and marks.
This done at Waitangi, on the sixth day of February, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty, of Our Lord.
Would the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act been put on our statute books if this document had been tabled and put in front of the voting public?
It is somewhat incredible, considering all that had gone before, and the time available on a voyage to ponder, that the Treaty was not better prepared prior. iIf everone had been on current legal profession rates far more time would have been expended (although the outcome would probably have been deliberately even more contestable)
An excellent commentary John and, despite however inconvenient for some, it certainly rings true.
But that aside, for all those that dissent, all I want answered is: on what grounds is "we are one people" (i.e. we are 'all equal') not now appropriate? And please do come forth all those ('Maori') who dissent (and who inevitably adopt the refrain that "we", as in collectively all the currently living taxpayers, somehow "stole something that was owed to them”) BUT, before any claims are considered, firstly, are they prepared to undergo a DNA test to determine their precise ancestry and then, armed with those results, how do they fundamentally reconcile their current individual claims?
I somehow suspect that those 'purportedly’ dispossessed or entitled Maori, along with all those 'woke Pakeha’ (like those ambulance chasing lawyers who have no claim), will quickly disperse into the ether.
But whatever - it's long past time this BS ended and we moved forward as the united, multi-cultural country that we are which, incidentally (much to the chagrin of some), is still legally recognised as, New Zealand.
You are mistaken as to the origin of the Littlewood document. Clendon explicitly referred to the text of it as a translation from the Native treaty and NOT a copy of the official English text. He then acknowledged that it different in wording from the official English treaty.
Please don't deceive readers of your blog.
Post a Comment