Bruce Moon: Goodness, gracious me!?!

And now we have Jack Vowles, Professor of Political Science at Victoria University of Wellington, no less, asking us why “sovereignty” is “so hard to define”!  Really?  It as, after all, a well-established word in the English language and my Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives shades of meaning for it such as: “supreme dominion, authority or rule”, a usage established in late Middle English.  It is well known of course that, a little earlier, King John tried to push this a little too hard and was obliged to sign Magna Carta.  Since then, as British practice has developed, the sovereign has ruled though Parliament[i] which has, so to speak “called the shots”.  Indeed, when King Charles the First sought to overturn this practice, he lost his head for his efforts.  With a brief interregnum, the sovereign has, through parliament, exercised supreme dominion since over recognized British territory.

By contrast in classic Maori society, chiefly authority, exercised through various ranks from ariki to subordinate chiefs, was virtually untrammelled.  Indeed, if a chief so desired, he could with impunity kill a young slave girl and, subject to various rather complicated protocols, have her cooked for his supper.  In fact, intertribal warfare reached such a pitch that mortality amongst breeding age women had got to the point that population numbers could not be maintained.  It was not until well into the subsequent colonial era that, considerably assisted by interbreeding with the wicked white colonials, Maori numbers slowly started to recover.[ii]  This was aided too of course by the increased longevity brought about by better food and living conditions, likewise by courtesy of those wicked white colonials. 

Just don’t make me laugh. Colonization brought immense benefits to Maori society and no mistake.

*   *   *   *   *

Well, by the mid-eighteen-thirties, Maori society was in deep trouble and the wiser chiefs knew it.

In 1831, thirteen Ngapuhi chiefs had written to King William IV saying “we pray to thee to become our friend and the guardian of these islands”.  James Busby was appointed resident.  With no resources, Busby did his best, drafting a so-called “Declaration of Independence”, or “Whakaputanga” if you prefer, which he induced a collection of somewhat bewildered chiefs to sign, duly rewarding them with a “cauldron of porridge”.[iii]    Despite continual efforts by Margaret Mutu and others to pretend that this effort had any substance it was nothing but a “paper tiger”.  As King remarked[iv] it “had no reality, since ... tribal authority – or rangatiratanga, as it would come to be called after Henry Williams invented the word – being far more akin to a collection of ‘nations’.[v]”  Well, with things going from bad to worse, with warfare between signatories of Busby’s declaration, not to mention developments by the New Zealand Company for orderly settlement by colonists, the British Government knew it had to do something substantial.

Hobson was despatched with a 4200 word brief from the Colonial Secretary, Lord Normanby[vi].

READ IT, absorb it and let it burn into your brain of you wish to comment any further on the Treaty of Waitangi or any related topic!!!

After discussing some of the pros and cons, Hobson is authorised “to treat with the aborigines of New Zealand in recognition of Her Majesty’s sovereign authority ... and the impossibility of Her Majesty extending to them any effectual protection unless the Queen be acknowledged as the Sovereign of their country.” 

Thus, Professor Vowles, the Maori chiefs were to cede to the Queen their authority to govern—in a word, to cede sovereignty to her.  That is what “sovereignty” means.  I need hardly tell you, Professor, that while today, government is in the King’s name it is no longer absolutely vested in that one individual, as King John found out a long time ago.

Thus came the day, 5th February 1840.  As Hobson meticulously explained, with Henry Williams translating,[vii] the law of England gives no civil powers to Her Majesty out of her dominions ... .“

Put it another way, Professor.  “If you want the Queen’s protection, cede sovereignty to her.”.  Well, seven chiefs spoke in favour of doing so, seven against.  Indeed one of the latter, Kawiti of Ngatihine rather overdid it, asserting that “when quietly paddling our canoes by night I, even I, Kawiti, must not paddle this way, nor paddle that way, because the Governor said ‘No!’”.  Nevertheless, all but one who disappeared duly signed, most the very next day!  Put it another way, Professor, they freely ceded to the Queen such sovereignty as each possessed.

Then came the latter-day experts, notably Hugh Kawharu who translated article first of the ToW as “the chiefs ... give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.”  Is not as if we need Kawharu’s effort (which is also severely flawed in other respects) since we have Hobson’s final English text of 4th February which ticks all the boxes, albeit there are plenty of “experts” who continue to deny its validity which upsets too many of their own pretty little theories!  One of these was the then Associate Minister of Justice, Margaret Wilson who on 27 September 2004 completely side-stepped the real issue.  She replied to a correspondent that “a treaty contract has no validity unless signed by both parties.  The “Littlewood” Treaty was not signed.”  She then goes on to extol the fake Freeman “treaty in English”, used for an overflow of chiefs’ signatures at Waikato Heads in an emergency situation, legislated as “the Treaty in English” in the deeply flawed Treaty of Waitangi Act, 1975.

Well, our Margaret well and truly missed the point since Hobson’s final text in English was a working  document, correctly dated 4th February 1840 from which the Williams, father and son, produced the actual Treaty in Maori by working overnight. Nobody needs a translation of the ToW since what it said in English is there in plain sight, except of course to those so blinded by prejudice that they will not see.  There is just one significant difference between these two documents: the inclusion of the word “maori” in article third by the Williams, since it was specifically to the “ordinary people” of New Zealand that the ToW granted the rights of the people of England.

As Martin Doutré acutely pointed out, this is very significant evidence that Hobson’s final text in English, the so-called “Littlewood treaty” preceded the actual ToW and is correctly dated 4th February.  

It really all fits together very neatly like a jigsaw puzzle despite the claims of naysayers whose own pretty little theories it demolishes.

So there, Professor, is the substance of what you may well consider to be your first lecture of the forthcoming year to students who will, I am sure, find it very illuminating and refreshing.

Footnotes:     

[i] Henry VIII did assert exceptions for some topics
[ii] J. Robinson, “When two cultures meet, the New Zealand Experience”, ISBN 1-872970-31-1,2012, pp49ff
[iii] M.King, The Penguin History of New Zealand”, ISBN0-14-301867-1, pp154ff.
[iv] Ibid, p.155,
[v] Ibid, King’s inverted commas
[vi] Readily obtained by “googling”
[vii] W. Colenso, “The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty Of Waitangi” readily googled! 

Bruce Moon is a retired computer pioneer who wrote "Real Treaty; False Treaty - The True Waitangi Story".