For an alternative perspective, I have considered the evidence and argument supplied by Crown counsel, rather than the preference that is given to the claimants in their report.
In 2014, the Waitangi Tribunal published The Declaration and the Treaty (Wai 1040, Stage 1, Part 1 and Part 2). The Tribunal says (p. 10), that the purpose of Stage 1 of the report is to determine the ‘meaning and effect’ of the Declaration of Independence in 1835 as well as the Treaty of Waitangi when it was signed in February 1840, in response to a large number of claims:
“The essence of the claimants’ position in this inquiry is that their tūpuna did not cede sovereignty when they signed te Tiriti. Rather, the claimants argued, the Crown was granted only limited powers, which did not amount to sovereignty.” (p. 6-7)
The Tribunal found in favour of the claimants:
“The rangatira who signed te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty to Britain. That is, they did not cede authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories. The rangatira agreed to share power and authority with Britain … on the basis that they and the Governor were to be equals.” (p. 529)
The tribunal consisted of Judge Craig Coxhead (presiding), Kihi Ngatai, professor Richard Hill, Joanne Morris and emeritus professor Ranginui Walker. Whereas Andrew Irwin, Helen Carrad, and Rachel Hogg represented the Crown, 48 persons represented the claimants (p. 535-6).
The WAI 1040 report says that what happened was:
“Though Britain went into the treaty negotiation intending to acquire sovereignty, and therefore the power to make and enforce law over both Māori and Pākehā, it did not explain this to the rangatira. Rather, in the explanations of the texts and in the verbal assurances given by Hobson and his agents, it sought the power to control British subjects and thereby to protect Māori. That is the essence of what the rangatira agreed to.” (p. 529)
“By contrast, the Crown, while acknowledging that there were several points of agreement between it and the claimants, contended that the rangatira had agreed to cede sovereignty. This was because they had agreed to have a kāwana at the head of a government exercising authority over them, and ‘sovereignty’ was understood at the time as meaning ‘civil government’ and ‘especially government by legislation’. That, the Crown stressed, was the authority the rangatira agreed to cede. Crown counsel emphasised that the speeches of those who opposed the Kāwana having the power to govern them were evidence that the chiefs understood the treaty in this way. Counsel also submitted that sovereignty was explained fully both at the hui on 5 February at Waitangi and later that evening as the chiefs gathered at te tou rangatira to reflect on whether to agree to te tiriti.” (p. 503-4)
The Tribunal authors say, “when we asked Crown counsel to clarify where exactly the text of te Tiriti made it clear that the Governor was to have a higher authority than the rangatira, Crown counsel pointed to the chiefs’ speeches as evidence of this understanding.” (p. 531)
The WAI 1040 report considers the recorded evidence of the chiefs’ speeches on 5 February 1840, in particular, that of William Colenso: “There are other eye witness accounts … but none approaches that of Colenso – who understood both languages – for detail.” (p. 353)
So, I will review the Tribunal’s interpretation of Colenso’s “The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi” (here).
The Speeches
“For over five hours, through the heat of the day, more than thirty rangatira spoke for and against the treaty. These were men from the northern iwi and hapū, mainly from the Bay of Islands and its hinterland. Their main concerns were about their authority, their land and trade dealings.”
Claudia Orange, The Treaty of Waitangi, 2020, p. 39.
Colenso recorded 16 of the speeches in which 7 chiefs spoke against signing the Treaty and 9 spoke for signing; however, 12 of the 16 subsequently signed the Treaty the following day, and one more (Kawiti) signed a few months later. Ten of the chiefs used metaphor to describe what they understood to be the nature of the proposed agreement: three of those who spoke against signing used a dimensional metaphor of high/low, up/down and above/below; seven of those for signing used a familial metaphor of father or father and child.
It is evident from the report that both the Claimant counsel and the Crown counsel had considered the chief’s speeches as recorded by Colenso, and I have provided a table of the relevant characteristics of each of the speeches in an Appendix. It includes whether the speech was For or Against signing the Treaty and whether the speaker subsequently signed the Treaty.
Most of the chiefs indicated their preference metaphorically, so I have also given the two types of metaphor they used which correlate with whether the speech was For or Against the Treaty: The Against speeches use a ‘dimensional’ metaphor and the For speeches use a ‘familial’ metaphor even though both metaphors refer to the same hierarchical proposition of the Governor, and the chiefs and their tribes:
The Tribunal’s interpretation of the seven chiefs who spoke Against signing the Treaty – Te Kemara, Rewa, Moka, Kawiti, Wai, Hakiro and Tareha – was that “Some rangatira expressed great concern at the prospect that the Governor might sit above them, and rejected him for that reason.” (p. 518) For example, Te Kemara said, “Were all to be on an equality, then, perhaps, Te Kemara would say, 'Yes;' but for the Governor to be up and Te Kemara down - Governor high up, up, up, and Te Kemara down low, small, a worm, a crawler - no, no, no.” That shows that Te Kamara understood the hierarchical nature of the proposed relationship, and the other dissenting chiefs were similar. That contradicts the Tribunal’s claim that those who spoke against signing the Treaty did not understand the hierarchical nature of the offer.
Furthermore, three of the seven who spoke Against signing the Treaty –Te Kemara, Rewa and Moka – subsequently signed it the next day, and Kawiti signed a few months later. It was the same Treaty which had been read to them in Maori by Henry Williams on 5 February before they made their speeches in opposition to its hierarchical arrangement, and yet they accepted it. That contradicts the Tribunal’s claim that those who signed the Treaty did not understand the hierarchical nature of the offer.
The Tribunal’s interpretation of the nine chiefs who spoke in favour of the Treaty – Tamati Pukututu, Matiu, Pumuka, Warerahi (George King), Rawiri, Hoani Heke, Hakitara, Tamati Waka Nene and Eruera Maehe Patuone – was to say that they did not describe hierarchy. However, Hoani Heke, for example, said, “Remain, Governor, a father for us… We Natives are children.” The metaphor of father and child was present in seven of the nine speeches in favour of the Treaty, and they all applied the metaphorical father to Hobson as Governor. They used a familial metaphor of father and child to describe a hierarchical proposition of Governor as father, and chiefs and their tribes.
Moreover, Tamati Waka Nene used both metaphors to speak to both those for and against the proposition. Hence, he was speaking to those who decried a hierarchical arrangement when he used the dimensional metaphor and said, “We, the chiefs and Natives of this land, are down low; they are up high, exalted.” And he was speaking with those who accepted a hierarchical arrangement when he continued with the familial metaphor, “O Governor! sit. I, Tamati Waka, say to thee, sit. Do not thou go away from us; remain for us - a father, a judge, a peacemaker. … Stay thou, our friend, our father, our Governor.”
In so saying, Nene made two relevant connections: First, he applied the metaphorical father to Hobson when he said “our father, our Governor” Second, he used both metaphors in the same speech, and so aligned ‘father’ with ‘high’ and ‘exalted’, and the ‘chiefs and Natives’ with ‘down low’. That is, for Tamati Waka Nene the relationship was hierarchical: he wanted the Governor to be “a father, a judge, a peacemaker” for the chiefs and their tribes.
The Tribunal treated Nene’s speech as expressing the Maori consensus and wrote (WAI 1040, p. 524): “Nene may well have made the key speech at Waitangi, and his views may have been shared by other rangatira.” When the speeches are analyzed collectively, they show consistent use of language when speaking For and when speaking Against, which indicates general consensus regarding what was offered by the Treaty, even though they disagreed as to their response.
Nevertheless, when considering the speeches, the Tribunal claimed, “The chiefs did not, of course, speak with one voice. It would be wrong to suggest there was unanimity of understanding, even among those who signed.” (p. 518) That makes me wonder if they analyzed the speeches, because there are clearly shared patterns in their language. The chiefs had discussed the Treaty amongst themselves and had a common understanding of what it proposed.
The main objection given by the Tribunal was that Hobson had not effectively communicated the hierarchical nature of the offer in the Treaty. Nevertheless, WAI 1040 includes the following:
“Crown counsel also pointed to the discussions between the rangatira and the missionaries on the evening of 5 February at te tou rangatira as an occasion at which a full explanation of the treaty’s meaning and effect was given. A fragment of evidence from Williams provides the basis for counsel’s confidence that a full explanation was provided.
“[Henry] Williams recalled in later years of this encounter that:
[‘There was considerable excitement amongst the people, greatly increased by … ill-disposed Europeans, stating to the chiefs … that their country was gone, and they now were only taurekareka [slaves]. Many came to us to speak upon this new state of affairs.’ (see Note below)]
‘We gave them but one version, explaining clause by clause, showing the advantage to them of being taken under the fostering care of the British Government, by which act they would become one people with the English, in the suppression of wars, and of every lawless act; under one Sovereign, and one Law, human and divine.’
“Crown counsel felt that this indicated that ‘Māori would have understood te tiriti / the treaty to mean they would come under the authority of the Governor and that British law would apply to them’.” (pp. 516-7)
Note that I have [in brackets] extended the quote of Williams from Claudia Orange (The Treaty of Waitangi, 2020, p. 42). That is, the portion in brackets is not in the WAI 1040 report. I expect that the claim by ‘ill-disposed Europeans’ that the Maoris were taurekareka would have contentiously increased a belief held by the chiefs of a hierarchical relationship.
That also serves as an example of the difficulty the Tribunal had finding language which does not imply a hierarchy; in this case, they may have removed relevant information from the passage because it did not fit their narrative.
When Colenso asked Hobson if he thought that the chiefs really understood what they were signing, Hobson replied: ‘If the Native chiefs do not know the contents of this treaty it is no fault of mine, I wish them to fully understand it. I have done all that I could to make them understand the same, and I really don’t know how I shall be enabled to get them to do so. They have heard the treaty read by Mr. Williams’.” (WAI 1040, p. 373)
If Hobson had not made explicit the hierarchical nature of his proposed relationship with the chiefs, he could not say he had not done all that he could for the chiefs to know the contents of the Treaty. Also, he would not have fulfilled Lord Normanby’s instructions to obtain the informed consent of the Maoris to acknowledge the Queen’s power to make and enforce laws over both the British and the Maoris.
The Tribunal point out in WAI 1040 that Hobson made much of telling the chief’s they would be protected, but that there is not an explicit record of Hobson telling the chiefs of the hierarchy. However, pursuing the former does not prohibit fulfilling the latter and the Tribunal elsewhere said, “We are well aware that we do not have the full picture of what was said at either Waitangi or Mangungu on the basis of the surviving written record.” (p. 515) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and the language in WAI 1040 severally implies that Hobson did tell the chiefs all that he should have.
WAI 1040 (p. 486) notes, “Counsel submitted, the chiefs clearly understood what they were signing, and the claimants were simply ignoring what the chiefs had said. As support for the Crown’s position, counsel pointed to the Ngāti Rēhia submission that Tāreha would not sign because he was being asked to agree to the Queen being above him. Counsel said Tāreha was right, and understood the agreement.”
WAI 1040 (p. 355-6) cites several contemporaneous recordings of the signing ceremony on 6 February, including Felton Mathew who wrote in a Journal entry that Hobson had told the assembled chiefs that the Queen had sent him “to assume the government of these Islands”. After Hobson finished, Williams read the Treaty in Maori with an explanation, of which he subsequently wrote included, “That the Queen had thought it desirable to send a Chief as a regulator of affairs with the natives of New Zealand.” Years later, Busby gave his own account of what was said by Hobson and Williams, which began “Captain Hobson through Mr Williams explained to the Chiefs … that the only way in which this could be effected, was by their ceding their rights of Sovereignty to the Queen who would then be able to afford protection to them…”
WAI 1040 (p. 408) also records early scholarship, including:
“William Pember Reeves, who wrote in 1898 that the chiefs ‘were fully aware that under it [the treaty] the supreme authority passed to the Queen’, and T Lindsay Buick, who claimed in 1914 that: ‘The natives . . . understood clearly enough that for the advantages they hoped to reap from the treaty they were yielding much of their existing power to the PakehaGovernor…’”
Consequently, WAI 1040 (p. 8) records the following submissions by Crown council:
“Crown counsel submitted that rangatira who signed te Tiriti ‘ceded sovereignty to the Queen’, and the treaty was ‘the means by which the Crown obtained Māori consent to assert sovereignty over New Zealand’. British sovereignty was acquired, counsel said, by a series of steps which included the treaty, Hobson’s proclamations of British sovereignty over the north and South islands in May 1840, and Crown publication of those proclamations in the London Gazette in October 1840.
“Crown counsel submitted that rangatira who signed te Tiriti would have understood that they were giving ‘consent to the institution of a new Governor in New Zealand’; that the new Governor ‘would have authority to make laws for all people (Maori and non-Maori) and all land in new Zealand where the Treaty was signed’; that British laws would apply to all people (Māori and non-Māori); that the Governor would protect Māori property rights; that ‘Subject to the Governor’s authority over all people and places within New Zealand, the chiefs would retain chieftainship over their people and properties’; and that ‘Māori would gain the benefits of becoming British subjects’, and would be able to practise any beliefs, including traditional beliefs.
“Counsel acknowledged that there was a ‘lack of clarity’ about the relationship between ‘kawanatanga’ and ‘tino rangatiratanga’. Nonetheless, they argued that rangatira who signed te Tiriti would have understood that the Governor would have ‘over-arching authority’ and that their continued ‘chieftainship’ over their people and territories would be subordinate to that authority.”
…
“Crown counsel submitted that rangatira would have understood the treaty on the basis of the Māori text and the ‘events surrounding the signings’, including the oral explanations given in Māori.”
Conclusion
The opposing interpretations referred to above are summed up in the WAI 1040 report, as follows:
“Some rangatira expressed great concern at the prospect that the Governor might sit above them, and rejected him for that reason. It was this resistance that the Crown seems to have regarded as its strongest point. As Crown counsel put it,
‘it seems quite clear from the evidence available concerning the speeches made by rangatira in deciding whether or not to sign that they understood the fundamental change to be effected by the document being put to them: the Governor would be in a position of authority over them.’
“Here, Crown counsel relied upon the recorded statements of rangatira like Te Kēmara, Rewa, and Tāreha at Waitangi, and Taonui and Papahia at Mangungu. To underline his point, he referred to Ngāti Rēhia’s view that this knowledge was what prevented Tāreha from signing. Those who did sign, argued the Crown, did so in spite of their concern that the Governor would be above them. In other words, all signatories accepted the supremacy of the Governor.
“We disagree. While we cannot be certain this applies to every rangatira who accused the Governor of having a plan to subjugate and enslave them (as ‘mischievous’ pākehā had predicted), we consider that some at least were doing so to draw out a denial. The same motive would have prompted some rangatira who objected to the Governor having a much higher authority than their own. This conclusion is supported by the analysis in the tribunal’s Muriwhenua Land Report that rangatira were using ‘impassioned declamation’ at the treaty hui as a ‘standard oratorical tool’.” (p. 518)
And on that claim hinges the finding of ‘partnership’ and the viability of our country.
The ‘mischievous pakeha’ are the ‘ill-disposed Europeans’ mentioned by Williams above. They included Bishop Pompallier, who, at the signing ceremony on 6 February, Te Kemara said had told him “not to write on the paper, for if he did he would be made a slave” (Moon and Biggs, The Treaty and its Times, p. 209). The Tribunal also recorded that at least Te Kemara and Rewa had said that Hobson would enslave them if they signed (WAI 1040, p. 357-8), which adds weight to the claim that the chiefs were aware of the proposed hierarchy.
It is an unsubstantiated assumption to ‘consider that some at least’ were using ‘impassioned declamation’ in attempt to get Hobson to refute the hierarchical nature of the proposed relationship.
It is more plausible that they were using traditional Maori hyperbole to express their displeasure as an introductory gambit, which was probably exacerbated by Pompallier and his priests saying they would be slaves (Moon and Biggs, ibid., p. 202). WAI 1040 (p. 422-3) says, “the essence of the tradition – the offering of token resistance, the importance of the discussions among the rangatira on the evening of 5 February, and the final decision to sign te tiriti – fits with the written history.”
That four of the seven chiefs who objected because they believed the Governor would be above them, subsequently signed the Treaty contradicts the Tribunal’s conclusion that “The rangatira agreed to share power and authority with Britain … on the basis that they and the Governor were to be equals.” Instead, they acknowledged the Governor would be above them and the basis of a partnership of equals was not demonstrated. Yet the direction of our country is according to a partnership of Rangatiratanga and the Crown.
Crown counsel analyzed the chief’s speeches recorded by Colenso to show that all signatories accepted the supremacy of the Governor and anyone can confirm that for themselves by searching on the chief’s names – Te Kemara, Hoani Heke, Tamati Waka Nene, etc. – in Colenso’s ‘History’ (here). That is the most important evidence in WAI 1040; the rest is mostly just a school of thought regarding oral history.
The WAI 1040 report says (p. 1), perhaps without recognizing the implications, “The treaty has also been hailed as New Zealand’s founding document, its Magna Carta”. The arrangement of the two types of power mentioned above does indeed suggest a hierarchical relationship of sovereignty and rangatiratanga similar to that of King John and his barons in the Magna Carta. So, let us replace the imprudent obiter dictum ‘akin to a partnership’, with the inalienable common knowledge ‘akin to the Magna Carta’.
Barrie Davis is a retired telecommunications engineer, holds a PhD in the psychology of Christian beliefs, and can often be found gnashing his teeth reading The Post outside Floyd’s cafe at Island Bay.
References
The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.
William Coloenso, F.R.S., F.L.S. (Lond.), Etc.
First Published by the Government Printer in 1890.
https://www.waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html
I.H. Kawharu (ed), Waitangi: Maori and Pakeha Perspectives of the Treaty of Waitangi, 1989, Appendix: “Texts of the Treaty of Waitangi”; “Translation of Maori text by I. H. Kawharu” p. 319-321.
He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti: The Declaration and the Treaty (Wai 1040, 2014)
Part 1 of the report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry [PDF, 6.1 MB]
Part 2 of the report on Stage 1 of the Te Paprahi o Te Raki Inquiry [PDF, 4.4 MB]
APPENDIX. Categorization of Chief’s Speeches
The following is derived from The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi by William Colenso, F.R.S., F.L.S. (Lond.), Etc.
First Published by the Government Printer in 1890.
https://www.waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html
Chief: The Chiefs are listed in order of speaking, as given by Colenso
Sign: The signatories are as given by Orange (2020), Appendix 2.
Chief | Stance | Metaphor | Evidence | Sign |
1. Te Kemara | Against | Yes Up/Down | “Governor high up… Te Kemara down low, small, a worm” [1] | Yes 19 |
2. Rewa | Against | No | “We are the Governor… we, the chiefs” [2] | Yes 29 |
3. Moka | Against | No | “Who will obey thee?” [3] | Yes 30 |
4. Tamati Pukututu | For | Yes Father | “Sit, Governor, a Governor for us … a father for us” [4] | Yes 6 |
5. Matiu Huka | For | Yes Father | “a Governor for us… sit here, a Governor, a father for us” [5] | Yes 18 |
6. Kawiti | Against | Yes Up/Down | “We do not want to be tied up and trodden down. We are free.” [6] | Yes 1 Note. 1 |
7. Wai | Against | No | complaints about trade fairness [7] | No |
8. Pumuka | For | Yes Father | “Stay … I will have this man a foster-father for me” [8] | Yes 9 |
9. Warerahi (George King) | For | No | “We will have this man as our Governor.” [9] | Yes 5 |
10. Hakiro (for Titore) | Against | No | “We are not thy people… we are free” authority hierarchy [10] | No |
11. Tareha | Against | Yes High/Low | “Thou high… and I, Tareha… low” [11] | No |
12. Rawiri | For | Yes Father | “Our Governor, our Father! Stay here, O Governor!” [12] | Yes 59 |
13. Hoani Heke | For | Yes Father/child | We Natives are children… a father, a Governor for us. [13] | Yes 4 |
14. Hakitara | For | Not known | Unclear | Yes 56 |
15. Tamati Waka Nene | For | Yes Father | “We, the chiefs and Natives of this land, are down low; they are up high, exalted. … Stay thou, our friend, our father, our Governor.” [15] | Yes 17 |
16. Eruera Maehe Patuone | For | Yes Father | “Remain here with us, to be a father for us… Remain Governor Sit, stay” [16] | Yes 22 |
Note 1. Kawiti signed mid-April or early May 1840
Extracts of the Chief’s Speeches from Colenso’s Recording
1. “Te Kemara, a chief of the Ngatikawa, arose and said, “Health to thee, O Governor! This is mine to thee, O Governor! I am not pleased towards thee. I do not wish for thee. I will not consent to thy remaining here in this country. If thou stayest as Governor, then, perhaps, Te Kemara will be judged and condemned. Yes, indeed, and more than that - even hung by the neck. No, no, no; I shall never say 'Yes' to your staying. Were all to be on an equality, then, perhaps, Te Kemara would say, 'Yes;' but for the Governor to be up and Te Kemara down - Governor high up, up, up, and Te Kemara down low, small, a worm, a crawler - no, no, no.”
2. Rewa, chief of the Ngaitawake Tribe, arose, and said (his first short sentence being in English), “How d'ye do, Mr. Governor?” which, unexpected as it was, set all hands a -laughing. “This is mine to thee, O Governor! Go back. Let the Governor return to his own country. Let my lands be returned to me which have been taken by the missionaries - by Davis and by Clarke, and by who and who besides. I have no lands now - only a name, only a name! Foreigners come; they know Mr. Rewa, but this is all I have left - a name What do Native men want of a Governor? We are not whites, nor foreigners. This country is ours, but the land is gone. Nevertheless we are the Governor - we, the chiefs of this our fathers' land. I will not say 'Yes ' to the Governor's remaining. No, no, no; return. What! this land to become like Port Jackson and all other lands seen [or found] by the English. No, no. Return. I, Rewa, say to thee, O Governor! go back.”
3. Moka, chief of the Patuheka Tribe, arose and said, "Let the Governor return to his own country: let us remain as we were. Let my lands be returned to me - all of them - those that are gone with Baker. Do not say, 'The lands will be returned to you.' Who will listen to thee, O Governor? Who will obey thee?
4. Tamati Pukututu, chief of Te Uri-o-te-hawato Tribe, rose and said, “This is mine to thee, O Governor! Sit, Governor, sit, a Governor for us - for me, for all, that our lands may remain with us - that those fellows and creatures who sneak about, sticking to rocks and to the sides of brooks and gullies may not have it all. Sit, Governor, sit, for me, for us. Remain here, a father for us, &c.”
5. Matiu, a chief of the Uri-o-ngongo Tribe, rose and said, “O Governor! sit, stay, remain - you as one with the missionaries, a Govemor for us. Do not go back, but sit here, a Governor, a father for us, that good may increase, may become large to us. This is my word to thee: do thou sit here, a father for us.”
6. Kawiti, chief of the Ngatihine Tribe, rose and said, “No, no. Go back, go back. What dost thou want here? We Native men do not wish thee to stay. We do not want to be tied up and trodden down. We are free. Let the missionaries remain, but, as for thee, return to thine own country. I will not say 'Yes' to thy sitting here.”
7. Wai, a chief of the Ngaitawake Tribe, rose and said, “To thee, O Governor! this. Will you remedy the selling, the exchanging, the cheating, the lying, the stealing of the whites? O Governor! yesterday I was cursed by a white man. Is that straight? The white gives us Natives a pound for a pig; but he gives a white four pounds for such a pig. Is that straight? The white man gives us a shilling for a basket of potatoes; but to a white he gives four shillings for a basket like that one of ours. Is that straight? No, no; they will not listen to thee: so go back, go back.”
8. Pumuka, chief of the Roroa Tribe, rose and said, “Stay, remain, Governor; remain for me. Hear, all of you. I will have this man a foster-father for me. Stay, sit, Governor. Listen to my words, O Governor! Do not go away; remain. Sit, Governor, sit. I wish to have two fathers - thou and Busby, and the missionaries.”
9. Warerahi (George King), a chief of the Ngaitawake Tribe, rose and said, “Yes! What else? Stay, sit; if not, what? Sit; if not, how? Is it not good to be in peace? We will have this man as our Governor. What! turn him away! Say to this man of the Queen, Go back! No, no.”
10. Hakiro (son of Tareha, but who on this occasion appeared and spoke on behalf of Titore, deceased, principal chief of the Ngatinanenane Tribe) arose and said, “To thee, O Governor! this. Who says 'Sit'? Who? Hear me, O Governor! I say, no, no. Sit, indeed! Who says 'Sit'? Go back, go back; do not thou sit here. What wilt thou sit here for? We are not thy people. We are free. We will not have a Governor. Return, return; leave us. The missionaries and Busby are our fathers. We do not want thee; so go back, return, walk away.”
11. Tareha, chief of the Ngatirehia Tribe, rose, and, with much of their usual national gesticulation, said, “No Governor for me - for us Native men. We, we only are the chiefs, rulers. We will not be ruled over What! thou, a foreigner, up, and I down! Thou high, and I, Tareha, the great chief of the Ngapuhi tribes, low! No, no; never, never. I am jealous of thee; I am, and shall be, until thou and thy ship go away. Go back, go back; thou shalt not stay here. No, no; I will never say 'Yes.'”
12. Rawiri, a chief of the Ngatitautahi Tribe, arose and said (first sentence in English), “Good morning, Mr. Governor! very good you! Our Governor, our Father! Stay here, O Governor! Sit, that we may be in peace. A good thing this for us - yes, for us, my friends, Native men. Stay, sit. Do thou remain, O Governor! to be a Governor for us.”
13. Hoani Heke, a chief of the Matarahurahu Tribe, arose and said, “To raise up, or to bring down? to raise up, or to bring down? Which? which? Who knows? Sit, Governor, sit. If thou shouldst return, we Natives are gone, utterly gone, nothinged, extinct. What, then, shall we do? Who are we? Remain, Governor, a father for us. If thou goest away, what then? We do not know. This, my friends," addressing the Natives around him, " is a good thing. It is even as the word of God " (the New Testament, lately printed in Maori at Paihia, and circulated among the Natives). " Thou to go away! No, no, no! For then the French people or the rum-sellers will have us Natives. Remain, remain; sit, sit here; you with the missionaries, all as one. But we Natives are children -yes, mere children. Yes; it is not for us, but for you, our fathers -you missionaries - it is for you to say, to decide, what it shall be. It is for you to choose. For we are only Natives. Who and what are we? Children -yes, children solely. We do not know: do you then choose for us. You, our fathers - you missionaries. Sit, I say, Governor, sit! a father, a Governor for us.”
14. Hakitara, a chief of the Rarawa Tribe, rose and said a few words; but, in consequence of several talking (both whites and Natives) the one to the other at this moment, remarking on Hoani Heke's speech and manner, and from Hakitara speaking low, what he said was not plainly heard. He spoke, however, in favour of the Governors remaining.
15. Tamati Waka Nene, chief of the Ngatihao Tribe, rose and said, “I shall speak first to us, to ourselves, Natives” (addressing them). “What do you say? The Governor to return? What, then, shall we do? Say here to me, O ye chiefs of the tribes of the northern part of New Zealand' what we, how we?” (Meaning, how, in such a case, are we henceforward to act?) “Is not the land already gone? is it not covered, all covered with men, with strangers, foreigners - even as the grass and herbage - over whom we have no power? We, the chiefs and Natives of this land, are down low; they are up high, exalted. What, what do you say? The Governor to go back? I am sick, I am dead, killed by you. Had you spoken thus in the old time, when the traders and grog-sellers came - had you turned them away, then you could well say to the Governor, 'Go back,' and it would have been correct, straight; and I would also have said with you, 'Go back;' - yes, we together as one man, one voice. But now, as things are, no, no, no." Turning to His Excellency, he resumed, "O Governor! sit. I, Tamati Waka, say to thee, sit. Do not thou go away from us; remain for us - a father, a judge, a peacemaker. Yes, it is good, it is straight. Sit thou here; dwell in our midst. Remain; do not go away. Do not thou listen to what [the chiefs of] Ngapuhi say. Stay thou, our friend, our father, our Governor.”
16. Eruera Maehe Patuone (the elder brother of Tamati Waka Nene, who has for some time been living in the island of Waiheke, in the Thames, and who only came up from thence a few weeks back) rose and said, “What shall I say on this great occasion, in the presence of all those great chiefs of both countries? Here, then, this is my word to thee, O Governor 'Sit, stay -thou, and the missionaries, and the Word of God. Remain here with us, to be a father for us, that the French have us not, that Pikopo, that bad man, have us not. Remain, Governor Sit, stay, our friend.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.