Kerry Butler: Did Maori Cede Sovereignty to The British Crown

Cede means relinquish. Sovereignty is supreme authority, i.e. power to govern.

Certain members of the Waitangi Tribunal are claiming that the Māori chiefs did not cede sovereignty … by alleging that it was not the intent of the British to have them do so. And, by misinterpreting the Māori text in the Treaty as meaning they had agreed to self-determination; or to govern in partnership with the Crown.

This take on the meaning of the treaty cannot be allowed to go unchallenged ... because it will lead to unjustified racial division. An example being that Te Pati Māori (the Separatist Party) are using the myth that sovereignty wasn’t surrendered to push for a separate Māori Parliament.

But here’s the kicker … for starters, they’ve already said, quote: “Our Māori Parliament will levy a 2% commission on ALL property sold or leased in Aotearoa”.

To counteract any fabrication, here is a concise summation … that no matter who might claim Maori did not cede sovereignty, or the reasons they might come up with as so-called proof … one thing none of them will ever be able to honestly dispute, is all the evidence presented here that the chiefs definitely did cede sovereignty.

FACT: Evidence of British intent for the Māori chiefs to give up sovereignty can be seen in documents housed in British Parliamentary Papers and Colonial Office archives (e.g., CO 209 series).

Short Relevant Excerpt: ‘. . . .signaling the Crown’s pivot towards treaty-based sovereignty as a means to pre-empt French claims and protect Maori. . . .’

FURTHER FACT: Part of the instruction regarding the Treaty from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Normanby, to Governor Hobson was to: “Negotiate terms with the natives for the recognition of Her Majesty's sovereign authority.”

And, to: “Walk away if full sovereignty cannot be ceded; as without it, Britain will have no legal basis for bringing order and peace to New Zealand.”

Despite the above evidence, some argue that the British did not wish to have Maori cede sovereignty at all. They insist vehemently that British sovereignty was to only apply to European settlers … some of whom were lawless at the time.

This scenario had been considered in earlier proceedings … but was scrapped as not being practical. Sovereignty by one, encompassing all, was the only viable option.

And let’s be realistic about the silly claim by radicals … if the intent was for sovereignty to apply only to European settlers, then that sentiment would surely have been in the treaty preamble or agreement, or recorded somewhere, or mentioned in a speech by someone.

For more documented evidence of British intent to have the Maori chiefs cede sovereignty … see below.

TREATY PREAMBLE

Source: Te Tiriti O Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi, 1840, Museum of New Zealand.

Short Relevant Excerpt: ‘. . . .for the recognition of Her Majesty’s Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands’ . . . .‘shall be ceded to Her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.’

Article the First

“The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation of Individual Chiefs respectfully exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole Sovereign thereof.”

Thus, there can be no argument as to whether the intent of the British was to have the chiefs cede sovereignty.

Of course, to get around this, the tricksters will claim that the chiefs didn’t understand the meaning of sovereignty – so they weren’t aware that they would be under British Governance Authority.

To prove most chiefs knew very well what ceding sovereignty to the British Crown meant, I’ll quote just a couple of them from Waitangi in 1840 during discussions as to whether they should sign the Treaty.

Chief of Ngatkawa, Te Kemara, said: “Were all to be equality, then perhaps I’d say “Yes” but for the Governor to be up, and me to be down low, a worm, a crawler – No.”

Another chief, Tareha added: “We will not be ruled over.”

(Ref. William Colenso’s Journals)

However, after much debate, most of the chiefs saw the advantage of signing the Treaty, especially because it gave them the security that they’d been wanting for quite some time. Details of their concerns can be seen in a letter written to King William by 13 chiefs in 1831, pleading for protection from the French; and asking for control of European lawlessness, as well as wanting a stop put to their own self-annihilation due to intertribal warfare.

It should be acknowledged that, due to these concerns, the British had put a proposal to Māori in 1835 to create a Declaration of Independence. But, only a few chiefs signed. And the so-called Confederation of United Tribes was abandoned without a meeting, due to internal conflicts among Tribes.

So, in 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was offered as the only definitive way to sort matters.

Regarding the terms of the treaty being ‘conditional’ on Māori ceding sovereignty … Governor Hobson stated explicitly to the chiefs: “You yourselves have often asked the King of England to extend his protection unto you. Her Majesty now offers you that protection in this treaty… But as the law of England gives no civil power to Her Majesty out of her domain, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent.”

For more proof that sovereignty was ceded, I’ll quote Rev John Warren: “I was present when the treaty was signed. My impression was that the natives perfectly understood that, by signing it, they became British subjects. Many natives were in mortal fear of the French, and justly thought they had done a pretty good stroke of business when placing the British Lion between themselves and the French eagle.”

(Ref. ‘The Treaty of Waitangi’ by T. Lindsay Buick)

Another point is that after the Treaty had been signed, Hobson proclaimed: “He iwi tahi tatoa” (we are now one people).

So, ask yourself … WHY would he have said that?

Of significance, is that in a book by Dr Bain Attwood, he quotes correspondence in 1843 between Lord Stanley and the Attorney General in NZ, William Swanson … where it was confirmed that: “All of New Zealand and all persons inhabiting its territory lay within the domain of the British Crown.”

Also of significance is that in 1858 members of the Ngāpuhi tribe were quoted as saying: “We have a Queen … Queen Victoria. Which is what we agreed to in the Treaty.”

And in 1860 the leading chief of the North, Tamati Nene said: “I know no sovereign but the Queen and I shall know no other.”

Then in 1901, Wairarapa chief, Tamahau, was reported in the New Zealand Times as saying, quote: “The British Queen is our Queen.”

In 1940 Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs said, quote: "The Treaty handed over the sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever."

Despite all the above evidence pointing to Māori having ceded sovereignty, some turn a blind eye to it … and focus on just one twisted aspect of the treaty, i.e. the misinterpretation of the Māori text that the chiefs were guaranteed the right to self-govern.

It needs to be kept in mind that Article 1. deals with sovereignty, and then Article 2. as a secondary progression from 1. focuses on property rights.

The defining point being that Article 1. in the English Draft (from which the Treaty in Māori was constructed) states that the chiefs will cede sovereignty, which means Māori will be governed by the British Crown.

So, in Article 1. of the official Treaty Document, the word sovereignty was translated as “kawanatanga” (governorship). But, even though that first Clause was not about property at all, it’s now deviously misinterpreted as meaning governance over Maori land only. Not over Māori personally!! You couldn’t make this up. And yet they have.

And it gets worse: To back-up the shameless twisting, it’s also claimed that “chieftainship” in Article 2. meant chiefs had the right of governorship over their Tribes.

Thus, another ridiculous contradiction, because what Article 2. (which focuses on property rights) really refers to is that chieftainship (tino rangatiratanga) was about protecting Māori ownership of their land. Not self-governance.

You only have to read Article 2. in the treaty to realise that it was all about Maori “rights” to their property ownership. Because it goes on to say that the Chiefs must grant to the Queen the exclusive right to purchase their land, if they wish to sell.

Further to the above … any assumption that Maori were granted the right to self-determination is contradicted in Article 3. which clearly states that Maori will have “equal” rights. The wording of which can’t be twisted as has been in Articles 1. and 2.

Thus, Article 3. makes a mockery of that sham … and proves beyond doubt that all New Zealanders were to be one people governed equally by the British Crown.

And here’s the clincher: If Maori had not ceded sovereignty and become British Subjects, then why would they have been given the right to vote when a “condition” of the ‘New Zealand Constitution Act’ was that only Subjects of the British Crown could vote!

Te Papa Museum clarifies what the treaty meant, quote: Kei a Kuini Wikitria te mana kawanatanga, kei nga rangitira te mana rangatiratanga … (Queen Victoria holds authority over the country and the chiefs hold right of possession).

That this was understood and accepted, was confirmed beyond doubt at the largest ever meeting of chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860 where they unanimously agreed they had consented to become subjects of the British Crown.

Talking about producing indisputable evidence that it had been accepted by most of the Maori chiefs that sovereignty was ceded, you’d have to wonder how “Denialists” could wriggle their way out of what is clearly written on an historic headstone:

Tamati Waka Nene

Died 1871

'Chief of Ngapuhi

the first to welcome

the Queen’s Sovereignty

in New Zealand'

Of course, the question will be asked as to why Māori would allow a minority of Europeans to have ultimate “power” over them, in their own country. Well, in truth, the chiefs ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria, the Chiefess of the greatest Empire in the World at the time … because they wanted to be part of that powerful regime, so as to share in its “success” and “security”.

When challenged to dispute all the evidence presented here, certain people invariably counter-challenge you to read Ned Fletcher’s book about the Treaty, and the conclusion that cession of sovereignty by Maori did not happen.

And yet, there is a ridiculous contradiction in the book where he writes: “The Colonial Office, being cognisant of the humanitarian concerns, decided that a cession of sovereignty from Maori was a necessary precondition to establishing a Colony.”

Thus, that ‘stipulation’ is a clear indication of British intent. But despite this, Fletcher went all out in his book to convince people that the Treaty was not about ceding of sovereignty.

Well, if that’s the case, then what was causing such angst among some of the Chiefs when trying to decide whether to sign the Treaty … if it wasn’t about ceding sovereignty (as spelled out in the Treaty preamble).

Take note: Historian, Dr Bain Attwood, has described Ned Fletcher’s book as, quote: “Mythic rather than scholarly”.

And in case you think Attwood doesn’t have the credence to make such an assessment, he is the author of “Empire and the Making of Native Title” which was the joint winner of the New Zealand Historical Association’s 2021 W.H. Oliver Prize for the best book on any aspect of New Zealand history.

Kerry Butler is rated an amateur historian who specialises in exposing the truth to prevent losing control of our country.