William Colenso was both. He was a printer by trade and won a job in Paihia in the mid 1830’s helping with translations of the Bible. He became enthralled with botany, was encouraged by Charles Darwin and taught by several leading people in their field. His work was highly regarded by Kew Gardens.
He learned the Māori language quickly and fully. By 1840 he was well known for printing religious and secular documents in both Māori and English. His observations recorded at the Treaty signing were published as “The authentic and genuine history of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi (1890)”, the most reliable contemporary European account of the signing.
One would have expected his cataloguing of events to be well done, accurate, full and reliable.
His commentary is well worth reading. It is easy-going and something of a revelation. It records day one and several other days of signings.
Here is the strange thing. Nowhere, but nowhere, is there the remotest or vaguest suggestion of a “partnership”. It is strange because had Her Majesty and her minions in Whitehall, London been desirous of a partnership or even willing to contemplate such a unique type of governing arrangement, it would have been the subject of discussion at Waitangi. It would have been something never offered to a country before, then or since. William Hobson, who introduced the Treaty in a brief speech before inviting chiefs to sign it, would almost certainly have taken time to cover the notion of shared power, describe how it might work and what the consequences might be. Logic and commonsense tells you that.
Hobson was keen to get signatures. He wasn’t mucking about. He needed a positive result. Many of the first Māori speakers opposed the Governor, who was representing the Queen. They spoke eloquently and with typical chieftain flair and gesticulation stating they were not giving away their rule. If Hobson had a “rabbit in his hat” like the offer of some sort of joint governance, he would have produced it in a flash.
It was up to chiefs like Hone Heke to later save the day and turn the direction of the discussion.
Offering, or even conceding some type of partnership, would have demanded a much fuller discussion and would have drawn significant comment from the chiefs. There wasn’t any. Because there was no partnership offered or waiting in the bottom drawer.
The recording of the chiefs’ comments is straight forward and focused on whether giving away control or governance would mean losing their land – that which hadn’t already been sold. Hobson, Williams and others were very clear – any land not sold and identified as belonging to a chief’s tribe was theirs and would be secured. We call it property rights. Hobson was able to assure the chiefs that one of the articles in the treaty was dedicated to ensuring protection for their lands and properties. They could only sell to the Crown in the future.
Had there been even a smell of an opportunity to create some sort of combined governance deal not only would Colenso have covered the inevitable discussion, but such a potentially difficult arrangement would have taken up many days of discussion and debate in the period following. There was none. Because there was no partnership.
Had a partnership been envisaged by the British there would have been some follow up to ensure it happened. Appointments would have followed. Meetings to handle details would have occurred. There were none. Because there was no partnership.
Had a partnership been demanded by the Māori chiefs, and acceded to by the British, the chiefs would have followed it by calling for process to set the notion in place. There was none. Because there was no partnership.
No amount of manipulation of various Māori words, of using Māori words to convey meanings never reckoned for them to hide the truth, of trying to fit a square peg into a very round hole would hide the reality – there was no partnership of any quality or type offered or inferred.
As chiefs came forward to sign, Hobson said, “We are one people, now”. It was a confirmatory, consoling supportive line. Had there been a partnership involved that could not have been said.
The Treaty was written by Englishmen in English. It involved Hobson, Busby and others. It was clear. Sovereignty was to be held by the Queen and her governments. On that, all agree. There was no partnership involved. Henry Williams and his son translated the document into Māori. If there had been an intention for a partnership it would have been in the English version. It is simply not credible to think otherwise.
No amount of criticism of Colenso and his recordings will help either. There have been attempts to denigrate Colenso and his efforts. It is a painful abuse of our historical record to try and impose an ideological spin on something that is straightforward and genuine. The record of a person who prided himself on accuracy and reliability.
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
One would have expected his cataloguing of events to be well done, accurate, full and reliable.
His commentary is well worth reading. It is easy-going and something of a revelation. It records day one and several other days of signings.
Here is the strange thing. Nowhere, but nowhere, is there the remotest or vaguest suggestion of a “partnership”. It is strange because had Her Majesty and her minions in Whitehall, London been desirous of a partnership or even willing to contemplate such a unique type of governing arrangement, it would have been the subject of discussion at Waitangi. It would have been something never offered to a country before, then or since. William Hobson, who introduced the Treaty in a brief speech before inviting chiefs to sign it, would almost certainly have taken time to cover the notion of shared power, describe how it might work and what the consequences might be. Logic and commonsense tells you that.
Hobson was keen to get signatures. He wasn’t mucking about. He needed a positive result. Many of the first Māori speakers opposed the Governor, who was representing the Queen. They spoke eloquently and with typical chieftain flair and gesticulation stating they were not giving away their rule. If Hobson had a “rabbit in his hat” like the offer of some sort of joint governance, he would have produced it in a flash.
It was up to chiefs like Hone Heke to later save the day and turn the direction of the discussion.
Offering, or even conceding some type of partnership, would have demanded a much fuller discussion and would have drawn significant comment from the chiefs. There wasn’t any. Because there was no partnership offered or waiting in the bottom drawer.
The recording of the chiefs’ comments is straight forward and focused on whether giving away control or governance would mean losing their land – that which hadn’t already been sold. Hobson, Williams and others were very clear – any land not sold and identified as belonging to a chief’s tribe was theirs and would be secured. We call it property rights. Hobson was able to assure the chiefs that one of the articles in the treaty was dedicated to ensuring protection for their lands and properties. They could only sell to the Crown in the future.
Had there been even a smell of an opportunity to create some sort of combined governance deal not only would Colenso have covered the inevitable discussion, but such a potentially difficult arrangement would have taken up many days of discussion and debate in the period following. There was none. Because there was no partnership.
Had a partnership been envisaged by the British there would have been some follow up to ensure it happened. Appointments would have followed. Meetings to handle details would have occurred. There were none. Because there was no partnership.
Had a partnership been demanded by the Māori chiefs, and acceded to by the British, the chiefs would have followed it by calling for process to set the notion in place. There was none. Because there was no partnership.
No amount of manipulation of various Māori words, of using Māori words to convey meanings never reckoned for them to hide the truth, of trying to fit a square peg into a very round hole would hide the reality – there was no partnership of any quality or type offered or inferred.
As chiefs came forward to sign, Hobson said, “We are one people, now”. It was a confirmatory, consoling supportive line. Had there been a partnership involved that could not have been said.
The Treaty was written by Englishmen in English. It involved Hobson, Busby and others. It was clear. Sovereignty was to be held by the Queen and her governments. On that, all agree. There was no partnership involved. Henry Williams and his son translated the document into Māori. If there had been an intention for a partnership it would have been in the English version. It is simply not credible to think otherwise.
No amount of criticism of Colenso and his recordings will help either. There have been attempts to denigrate Colenso and his efforts. It is a painful abuse of our historical record to try and impose an ideological spin on something that is straightforward and genuine. The record of a person who prided himself on accuracy and reliability.
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
4 comments:
In the 1980s I recall Maori radical, Moana Jackson saying that Maori had no concept of partnership at the time of the Treaty. That the idea of Treaty partnership was just an invention of Pakeha judges.
If you look at the policies of Te Pati Maori and the demands of the Maori radicals today, there is certainly no partnership proposed. What they want us complete Maori rule, where the Maori elite act like feudal nobility, living off the hard work of Pakeha tenants. Even under Labour's policies, like the Three Waters, Maori were going to have control.
The idea of partnership is just there as a sweetener. It is a feel good for all the flakey pakeha who like to imagine they are being liberal. As Tuhoe leader, Tamati Kruger said, Treaty partnership is only a step. It is a step towards Mana Motuhake.
It's all a nonsense because maori are not even indigenous to nz. Maori people came here from Hawaikii, now Taiwan and share the same dna as the Tao people who still live there. If you google the tao people, you would think you are looking at photos of maori. They have similar traditional clothing and use the same canoes that maori
used to come to nz. Taiwan is their ancestral home and not nz. The activists should be making claims over there.
To repeat loud and clear - and often - to the gullible.
Perhaps radical Maori & TPM should move to Taipei, hey it sound s a bit Te Reo-ish? They could then await the coming of the CCP army and see where their separatist ideals get them then! Oh how I wish ...
Post a Comment