It is not difficult to imagine the entrepreneurial, successful businessman designated, some seven years earlier, the British Resident by Queen Victoria – a governing role of sorts – huddled over candles late into the night searching for a form of words that would suffice his masters, back in Westminster as well as the anxious chiefs arriving from all parts of the North Island.
There were many and varied pressures in the young colony. Lawless sealers and whalers, acting with impunity, Iwi freshly armed with muskets fighting fiercely with each other, but worrying about losing land, mana and their tenuous control, missionaries trying to keep the peace, French and Dutch opportunists ready to unfurl their country’s flags and various attempts, even by Busby, to find a solution having largely failed. Governor Richard Bourke, of New South Wales, required Busby to protect the more orderly British settlers and traders and prevent 'outrages' by the less orderly Europeans against Māori. He was given no resources to manage this dictate.
By early 1840 Busby as British resident was aware that the House of Lords in London had recommended in 1837 a voluntary transfer of sovereignty from the Māori to the British Crown. Hobson, who was appointed Consul, was instructed to carry out the Crown’s wishes. Hobson had three instructions – to gain freely given Māori recognition of British sovereignty over all or part of New Zealand, to assume complete control over land matters, and to establish a form of civil government.
He was required “to treat the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands which they may be willing to place under Her Majesty's dominion”.
If the concept of co-governance was in the front of his or Busby’s mind it is not difficult to consider he would have written a much different document.
There is not the slightest hint of co-governance in the preamble. Conversely, there are two clear references to Queen Victoria assuming sovereignty over “all lands”.
It is not credible to think that something as dramatic, unique and consequential as co-governance would not be very adequately introduced in this preamble. Equally, there would be a good deal more detail in the Articles, establishing a framework for co-governance beyond the much debated kawanatanga (governorship) and rangatiratanga (chieftainship) references in Article Two.
There is no logical reason to think that these expressions were made in respect of anything other than land and possessions then owned by various tribes in the same way as property rights are enshrined in law today.
If the Queen, her ministers in Whitehall, governing authorities in New South Wales and the new colony, Hobson, Busby, Freeman, Colenso or any other party had any intent to create what would have been a novel and unique co-governance instrument, it would have surely been a great deal more evident in the lead up to the Treaty, the Treaty itself and the statements recorded by Colenso and others subsequently. He iwi tahi tatou.
There were many and varied pressures in the young colony. Lawless sealers and whalers, acting with impunity, Iwi freshly armed with muskets fighting fiercely with each other, but worrying about losing land, mana and their tenuous control, missionaries trying to keep the peace, French and Dutch opportunists ready to unfurl their country’s flags and various attempts, even by Busby, to find a solution having largely failed. Governor Richard Bourke, of New South Wales, required Busby to protect the more orderly British settlers and traders and prevent 'outrages' by the less orderly Europeans against Māori. He was given no resources to manage this dictate.
By early 1840 Busby as British resident was aware that the House of Lords in London had recommended in 1837 a voluntary transfer of sovereignty from the Māori to the British Crown. Hobson, who was appointed Consul, was instructed to carry out the Crown’s wishes. Hobson had three instructions – to gain freely given Māori recognition of British sovereignty over all or part of New Zealand, to assume complete control over land matters, and to establish a form of civil government.
He was required “to treat the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands which they may be willing to place under Her Majesty's dominion”.
If the concept of co-governance was in the front of his or Busby’s mind it is not difficult to consider he would have written a much different document.
There is not the slightest hint of co-governance in the preamble. Conversely, there are two clear references to Queen Victoria assuming sovereignty over “all lands”.
It is not credible to think that something as dramatic, unique and consequential as co-governance would not be very adequately introduced in this preamble. Equally, there would be a good deal more detail in the Articles, establishing a framework for co-governance beyond the much debated kawanatanga (governorship) and rangatiratanga (chieftainship) references in Article Two.
There is no logical reason to think that these expressions were made in respect of anything other than land and possessions then owned by various tribes in the same way as property rights are enshrined in law today.
If the Queen, her ministers in Whitehall, governing authorities in New South Wales and the new colony, Hobson, Busby, Freeman, Colenso or any other party had any intent to create what would have been a novel and unique co-governance instrument, it would have surely been a great deal more evident in the lead up to the Treaty, the Treaty itself and the statements recorded by Colenso and others subsequently. He iwi tahi tatou.
Owen Jennings, a former Member of Parliament and President of Federated Farmers, maintains a keen interest in ensuring agricultural policies are sensible and fit for purpose. This article was first published HERE
6 comments:
Nowadays nothing like the elementary observations above appears in the msm.
Considering the instructions, and the time spent getting here, it is remarkable that the Treaty was not better thought out prior, with only translation required. If they had a word processor on the sailing ship might have done better. That so much depends on a last minute compilation by young men seems incredible.
Lange and others (Palmer?) have expressed very pithily the absurdity of Queen Victoria with the British Empire at its might, entering into partnership/co governace with a bunch of stone age cannibals. Lange's and the other quotes now never appear in the msm.
Oh how wrong this all is! In 1840 NZ Maori were a united gentle people who loved and cared for nature, respected Each other, spent their days gardening, wood carving and singing while playing stick games. Children were loved and all people were equal. A test of bravery and beauty was a tattoo without anaesthetic.
But Lo! They were invaded by colonists and subjected to colonialism. They had to learn to protect themselves and speak English.
But the shining light was Queen Victoria who said to her foul subjects STOP. treaty we must have. I am but a partner with these folk welcoming you in peace and love to their land. Naughty white rascals you must obey my word and leave the brown people in their wisdom to themselves. And give them all their land back. They can keep the guns you gave them to protect themselves from you.
And so NZ and the partnership between white brutes and local folk came into being.
To both Robert Arthur & Anonymous, with your permission can I take your worldly scribing's - on matters TOW and turn it into a TV Mini series.
Yes I can just see - Hugh Lawrie, Stephen Fry, Blackadder, Tony Robertson plus other notable English actors (mainly from the series Blackadder as I think they could carry the presentations better).
And I like the idea of "a word processor", something unusual to be found on a sailing vessel, tilted to the left or right (depending on wind direction) coming across the southern Indian ocean - would be a typical "Blackadder" themed approach to the scenes.
And we could line up the current radical Maori and Te Pati Maori to be the Chiefs - wow.
I will make a phone call to Clint Eastwood to see if he can Direct, with Sir Peter Jackson & Fran Walsh providing script.
Fine by me. Could I please be a script creative ? Anon.
To Anon, who posted a comment @ 11.53 PM -
"What kind of cash return (tax free of course) placed in a Bank A/c in the Bahamas, are you looking for Bro"?
Busby was a mere scribe at Waitangi.
It was Hobson's treaty.
The following is utterly wrong because TRANSLATION IS NOT THE SAME AS DERIVATION!! GET IT?
kawanatanga (governorship) and rangatiratanga (chieftainship) references in Article Two.
In the ToW, 'kawanatanga"= "sovereignty" and "rangatiratanga" = "possession".
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.