MASARYK UNIVERSITY IN BRNO
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MASARYK UNIVERSITY IN BRNO
Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Treaty of Waitangi – New Zealand’s founding document
Baccalaureate Thesis
Supervisor: PhDr. Jitka Vlčková, Ph.D. Pavla Kramářová
Brno 2006I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the sources listed in the bibliography.
2I would like to thank my supervisor PhDr. Jitka
Vlčková, Ph.D. for her kind and valuable advice.
3Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………... 5
The early Māori-Pākeha contact……………………………………………………... 7
The need for intervention…………………………………………………………….. 9
James Busby and the Declaration of Independence…………………………………..10
On the way to the Treaty……………………………………………………………... 12
The Drafting and Signing of the Treaty……………………………………………… 14
The contents of the Treaty and the differences between the texts…………………… 17
• Te Kāwanatanga
• Te Rāngatiratanga
The aftermath………………………………………………………………………… 24
Discontent and Wars…………………………………………………………………. 26
From neglect to recognition………………………………………………………….. 28
The Principles of the Treaty…………………………………………………………..32
The preservation of documents and Waitangi Day…………………………………... 33
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 35
Appendix A. The Treaty sheet ……………………………………………………... 37
Appendix B. The text in Māori……………………………………………………... 38
Appendix C. The Draft in English………………………………………………….. 39
Appendix D Modern English translation of the Māori text………………………... 41
Bibliography...………………………………………………………………………...43
4Introduction
The Treaty of Waitangi, dubbed Magna Carta of the aborigines of New Zealand, is an
agreement concluded between representatives of the British Crown and Māori iwi and hapū
(tribes and subtribes). The Treaty bears the name of the place in the Bay of Islands, Waitangi
(weeping or noisy waters)1 where it was first signed on 6 February 1840. This covenant was a
necessary consequence and unravelling of the uncontrolled coexistence of the tangata whenua
(people of the land)2 and white settlers or Pākeha3, as the Maori used to call their new
neighbours.
In the introductory chapter I set out to picture the arrival of the first explorers and a
subsequent flow of settlers who made a preliminary contact with the native people and what
this contact looked like. This situational frame is further developed in the chapter The need
for intervention to show what way the initial cohabitation progressed till it finished up in the
advent of James Busby and the Declaration of Independence. The era preceding “the treaty’s
coming on the scene” will be closed with a description of the immediate causes and
motivations that led to the drawing and signing of the Treaty. Then I will proceed to the
Treaty itself. I concentrate on the process of forging and accepting the Treaty text and I
devote one chapter to a detailed analysis of the text in which I comment on the contents, its
structure, meaning and interpretation. This is followed by the depiction of its consequences
and influence on Maori-Pākeha relationship. One chapter deals with the various forms of
Maori discontent and resistance and the following one with the process from the continuous
neglect to a final treaty’s recognition. What role the Treaty plays today is also of my interest,
to a limited extent, in reference to the Treaty Principles. The story of the documents
1
“The colonisation of New Zealand: The Treaty of Waitangi.” New Zealand in History. 28 March 2006. 15 Jan.
2006
also Shaw, P.: Waitangi. Napier: Cosmos, 1992. p. 10
2
Shaw, P.: Waitangi. Napier: Cosmos, 1992. p. 96
3
Pakeha is a term used to designate a white person, a New Zealander of Anglo/European origin, or a Non-Maori
or foreigner.
5preservation and of Waitangi Day concludes this bachelor thesis. In appendixes you can see
the picture of the Treaty and look in the texts of both versions, Maori and English, together
with Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu’s modern English translation of the Maori text provided
with footnotes.
6The early Maori-Pākeha contact
The first European to catch sight of Aotearoa4, or Tiritiri o te Moana5, to use two
ancient Maori names for New Zealand, was in 1642 a Dutch East India Company explorer
Abel Janszoon Tasman who just sailed up the west coast and named the land Staten Island,
later on renamed New Zealand after the province of the same name in his country. It was only
some thirty years later after Captain James Cook’s voyage to the Islands in 1769-70 that the
white people came to inhabit New Zealand. Cook was the first European seen by Maori of the
Bay of Islands. He made a number of friendly contacts with them and having concluded his
sail around the coasts of both the North and South Islands, he claimed the land for the British
Crown in the name of King George III. and continued on to Australia. It was a routine
procedure and Britain neither confirmed nor pursued its claims immediately, but Cook’s visit
raised the possibility for further British intrusion and ultimately dominance. Marion du
Fresne, a Frenchman who visited the Bay in 1772 and was killed there by the local tribe (as a
result of a series of blunders), claimed the country for his sovereign as well but neither his
government took any immediate interest in the land.
New Zealand’s first settlers were sealers, whalers and traders, temporary settlers who
came at the end of the 18th century, mostly from New South Wales, Australia. During the
early 19th century European settlers were arriving in greater numbers whose increasing
presence led to the introduction of different livestock, crops, literacy, religious ideas, weapons
(especially muskets which aggravated the fighting and killing in inter-tribal wars), disease and
prostitution. By 1805 the Bay of Islands had become a major whaling port. However, the
4
Aotearoa is the most widely known and accepted Māori name for New Zealand, most often translated as “The
land of the long white cloud” (it is a compound of Ao=cloud, tea=white and roa=long)
“Aotearoa.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 1 Apr. 2006.
3 Feb. 2006
5
Tiritiri o te Moana means The Gift of the Sea. According to the Maori traditions Maui, a supernatural being
and an excellent fisherman, caught a massive fish and pulled it up which today forms the North Island of New
Zealand. In Sinclair, K.: A History of New Zealand. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969. p. 13
7racial relationship was not always cordial. Pākeha were welcomed if they proved useful for
their goods and skills and for enhancing the mana (prestige, authority, power) of Maori chiefs.
The Maori were willing to accept Europeans on condition that the mutual contact would be
beneficial to them and they would do no harm. Otherwise Maori would not hesitate to drive
them out or destroy their settlement. There were cases when Maori, instead of being paid for
the goods they had delivered on the ships, were killed or flogged. Such insults were avenged
and the relationships soon deteriorated. The situation was partly calmed down by the arrival
of the missionaries of the Church Missionary Society in 1814 (the most prominent figure
being Reverend Samuel Marsden).
In the mid 1820’s commercial activities quickly extended to timber, flax, shore-
whaling, ship-building and general trading which resulted in the creation of first groups of
settlers living permanently in New Zealand. They were dependent on Maori cheap work force
and, most of all, upon Maori support for their survival (cleaning bush, supplying food).
Although Maori were sometimes treated badly by whalers, a significant number of them were
employed on board sealing and whaling ships. On the other hand, Pakeha settlements
represented necessary outlets for Maori products and they were important sources of firearms.
A kind of not only economic interdependence was in operation there. By the 1830’s New
Zealand had absorbed several boatloads of immigrants, each with different impact on Maori
society (for example European clothing was worn and European food eaten). Some traders
had taken permanent residence on the coast and in 1839 there were about 2 000 permanent
settlers, 1 400 on North Island and 600 on South Island. The largest European settlement was
Kororāreka (today Russell) in the Bay of Islands.
8The need for intervention
The European population was growing rapidly and the period from 1820 to 1840 was
a time of dynamic change for Maori. By 1834 there were already one thousand permanent
European settlers in the Bay. At that time the British policy towards New Zealand was
determined from London but the colonial governors of New South Wales played an important
role. They were interested in the activities of British settlers and endeavoured to impose some
sort of authority over New Zealand. Growing lawlessness from settlers, land speculations and
deterioration in Maori-Pakeha relations (the murders of a Maori chief and his family in the
South Island) resulted in petitions for British intervention. In October 1831 thirteen Maori
chiefs backed by the missionary Samuel Marsden6 sent a petition to King William IV. seeking
his formal protection, requesting that he become a “friend and the guardian of these islands”.7
Moreover they feared that the French, whose vessel La Favourite was moored in the Bay,
would claim New Zealand for France.
At first the Crown was reluctant to intervene officially. The Government supported the
trade with New Zealand but, on the other hand, it was not too keen on further colonising it.
Yet, the conviction that the Crown is responsible for the acts of its subjects (especially those
involved in tribal warfare) and for the protection of Maori was gaining on prominence and
with the continuation of the unauthorised settlement of the country by Europeans the need to
establish law and order finally forced the government in 1832 to appoint James Busby as the
British Resident at the Bay of Islands, a post equivalent to a consular officer.
6
It was Samuel Marsden who later on supported the Maori conviction that the Crown had maternal interest in
their protection.
7
Shaw, P.: “To King William the Gracious Chief of England”. In Waitangi. Napier: Cosmos, 1992. p. 30
9James Busby and the Declaration of Independence
James Busby reached New Zealand in May 1833 and on missionaries’ and Maori
advice set up a Residency at Waitangi. He was supposed to act as a negotiator between Maori
and Europeans and to deal with the growing number of crimes and arguments over land. Over
the next six years he functioned as a sort of facilitator but having no forces, no arms and no
means to impose his authority made his efforts to protect the settlers and keep law and order
difficult. Busby was a civilian and therefore not entitled to troops. He could not be appointed
a magistrate because New Zealand was an independent territory over which Britain had no
jurisdiction. Busby was powerless and for that reason he came to be dubbed “the man of war
without guns”8.
One of his tasks was to persuade the Maori of the necessity of an independent
government and of the recognition of their authority by the British Government. In March
1834 he convened a meeting where he invited northern chiefs to select a national flag. This
was necessary for the ships to be registered and recognised according to maritime law and
therefore has duty-free entry to Australia. Without the flag they were in danger of being
seized in foreign ports and being attacked by pirates. The registration of the flag, known as
The Flag of the Independent Tribes of New Zealand, was apprehended, according to the
Maori understanding, as an acknowledgement of mana of New Zealand chiefs and a symbol
of Maori national independence. Busby hoped that the flag meeting would lead to a
Confederation of Chiefs but his intentions were not fulfilled.
Nevertheless this was not enough to prevent other nations from encroachment upon
Maori sovereignty. Baron Charles de Thierry, a Frenchman, claimed that he had bought a
large amount of land in the Hokianga district and planned to establish a sovereign and
independent state there. Moreover he declared himself the “Sovereign Chief” of New
8
Sinclair, K.: A History of New Zealand. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969. p. 51
10Zealand. This de Thierry’s intention caused growing concern to local chiefs (in Māori
Rangatira) and Busby saw it as a good opportunity to accomplish another of his tasks, to set
up “a settled form of government” among the Māori people9. What he envisaged to do was to
make the country a dependency of the British Empire. In October 1835 Busby held a second
meeting where he persuaded several northern Chiefs to sign a Declaration of Independence
which declare the country an independent state. The Declaration of the Independence of New
Zealand written in Maori Language, titled He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tirene,
was initially signed at Waitangi on 28 October 1835 by thirty four Rangatira who formed a
Confederation of the United Tribes of Aotearoa and agreed to meet at Waitangi annually in
the autumn to frame laws for maintaining peace and order in the country. The intention was to
create a nation state, an attempt to depart from the prevailing tribal orientation and to
introduce a confederate approach to governance (among others it proposed Maori legislature,
a Parliament made up of Chiefs). The Declaration stated that all sovereign power and
authority (tino rangatiratanga) in the land would reside in the hereditary chiefs and tribal
leaders. The chiefs asked King William IV, in return for the friendship and protection that
Maori were to give British subjects, to be the parent of their infant state and its protector from
all attempts upon its independence.10 Busby sent the Declaration to England where it was
formally acknowledged; the Crown accepted its role of Protector and the independence of the
country. The signing continued till 1839 when a total number of signatories reached 52. The
document was then published and for Maori it became one of the means of asserting their
autonomous rights throughout the 19th century till nowadays.
9
“The Declaration of Independence (1835): The Story of the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi. 2004 – 2006.
17 Jan. 2006
10
“Treaty of Waitangi-Questions and Answers.” Maori Independence Site.
2 Feb. 2006
11On the way to the Treaty
The Declaration in Busby’s view was the best guarantee against a takeover by other
foreign powers; further, he thought it would inhibit other agreements between the Maori
chiefs and other countries of whose growing interest he was aware. It should be pointed out
that the Declaration was also significant in another way; it is believed that it prepared Maori
to accept, or, in other words, made them less resistant to further British intervention in their
country.
In 1837 Busby sent a report to the Secretary of State for Colonies to inform them
about the increasing land purchases by French and American citizens. Certainly the strongest
interests in the area were those of British but American and French activities were gaining
strength. The Americans had many trade interests in the Pacific at that time and from 1839
onwards they maintained their own consular representative in the Bay of Islands. The French
on the other hand set up a Catholic mission in the Hokianga and paid regular visits to their
missionaries and traders.
Although the British were reluctant to acquire sovereignty, they did not want other
nations to annex the country. But this was not the only cause for the increasing pressure on
Britain for some direct action in New Zealand. Among others it was the missionary societies
that began to press for official intervention and, of greater importance, the New Zealand
Company with its plans to establish large British settlement. Its programme of “systematic
colonisation” of the country led to speculative large-scale purchases of Maori lands of
dubious legality. (New South Wales capitalists took part in land speculation as well, buying
up large areas to secure titles later, especially by the end of the 1830s when British
intervention seemed more likely.) These land purchase problems increased the British
Government concern; they realised that the land transactions could result in serious
confrontation and violence. European settlers needed the protection and the friendship of the
12tribes and with the NZ Company’s determination to send more settlers to New Zealand it was
obvious that the British Government could no longer ignore the situation.
Settlers, traders and missionaries were sending petitions to the King asking for more
effective government to deal with lawlessness. Busby himself, often criticized for
ineffectiveness in dealing with the misbehaviour of settlers, mainly because of limited powers
and no troops, wrote to the Colonial Office that what New Zealand needed was a British
Protectorate. Finally the British Government changed its opinion in favour of the colonisation
and decided to intervene officially, primarily with the aim of protecting its trade and
economic interests.
In 1838 James Busby was replaced with Captain William Hobson, appointed as a
British Consul, who was to act later on as a Lieutenant Governor. His responsibility was to
secure British sovereignty over the country. But there was one obstacle; the Declaration. Its
signing and the British recognition of the Maori rangatiratanga meant that if New Zealand
was to become a British Colony and its sovereignty transferred to the British Crown, Hobson
would have to negotiate a formal treaty with the Maori Chiefs. His instructions were drafted
in mid-1839 by Lord Normanby, the Colonial Secretary, and since the British policy of
dealing with the indigenous people in the other British colonies was a subject of strong
criticism, he did not want to make the same mistakes in New Zealand; thus he advised
Hobson that:
“All dealings with the Aborigines for their Lands must be conducted on the
same principles of sincerity, justice, and good faith as must govern your transactions
with them for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereignty in the Islands. Nor is this
all. They must not be permitted to enter into any Contracts in which they might be the
ignorant and unintentional authors of injuries to themselves. You will not, for
example, purchase from them any Territory the retention of which by them would be
essential, or highly conducive, to their own comfort, safety or subsistence. The
acquisition of Land by the Crown for the future Settlement of British Subjects must be
confined to such Districts as the Natives can alienate without distress or serious
13inconvenience to themselves. To secure the observance of this rule will be one of the
first duties of their official protector.”11
Furthermore the British Government realised that keeping Maori and Pakeha apart, protecting
them in isolation in reserves, should be avoided. This practice was known from North
America, South Africa and Australia where it proved ineffective and where such reserves
were finally swept away by expanding white settlement. They aimed to adopt a different
approach; they wanted Maori to amalgamate12 with settlers.
The Drafting and Signing of the Treaty
Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands on 29 January 1840 and announced the
investigation of all land purchases (by Land Claims Commission formed the same year); no
land claims would be recognized unless approved by the Crown and any further private land
purchases from the Maori would be considered illegal and invalid. At the same time he
printed invitations to several hundred Maori to the meeting at Busby’s house at Waitangi, set
on 5 February. Because he was not given any draft text, he spent the days in between drawing
up a treaty. He made some rough notes for the treaty with the help of his Secretary J. S.
Freeman and then took it to James Busby who recommended certain changes. After several
revisions done on 3 and 4 February the Treaty appeared, consisting of three clauses, an
explanatory preamble and a short attestation clause at the end (see Appendices A, B). This
text was then given to Reverend Henry Williams, head of Church Missionary Society, who
translated it into Maori with the assistance of his son Edward, a fluent Maori speaker. They
laboured together with Busby long into the night of 4 February over the wording, a difficult
“Read the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi. 2004 – 2006.
11
15 Jan. 2006
12
The “amalgamation” of the races, the general aim of the humanitarians, involved little recognition of any
inherent value in Maori culture, and, despite idealistic trappings, it meant no more than the Europeanization of
the Maoris. In Sinclair, K.: The Origins of the Maori Wars. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1961. p. 80
14task as we can assume from what Henry Williams wrote in his paper "Early Recollections":
“In this translation it was necessary to avoid all expressions of the English for which there
was no expressive term in the Māori, preserving entire the spirit and tenor of the treaty, -
which, though severely tested, has never been disturbed, notwithstanding that many in power
have endeavoured to do so.”13
The text in Maori was ready the next day, on 5 February, for a hui (a meeting or
gathering; political as well as social)14 where Williams was supposed to read and explain it to
the Chiefs. The meeting was held in a spacious tent erected on the lawn in front of Busby’s
house (now called the Treaty House). It was surrounded by a number of smaller tents for
those Maori whose rank might exclude them from a place in the larger marquee. There were
assembled about 500 Maori with the principal Native chiefs in the foreground and the whites,
residents and settlers around the sides of the tent. Hobson announced to the assemblage that
he had been sent to New Zealand to act as Governor which had to be approved of by the
Chiefs. He then read the Treaty in English, followed by Henry Williams who did the same in
Maori. Hobson did not want anyone to sign the treaty till they fully understood its text and the
chiefs were invited to express their views or to ask for further clarification of its points. Busby
explained to the Natives that the Governor did not want to take their land; his aim was to
guarantee and secure their continued possession of land they had not sold yet and return all
land that had been improperly acquired.
Some chiefs wished Hobson to stay and some insisted on his leaving. The following
debate continued late into the night with many arguments in favour of and against the treaty.
Tamati Waka Nene, chief of the Ngatihao Tribe, said that it was too late to tell the British to
go. He addressed the opposing chiefs:
13
“The Trail Of Waitangi - The Treaty.” 15 Jan. 2006
14
Olivier, W.H., Williams, B.R.: The Oxford History of New Zealand. Wellington: Oxford University Press,
1981. p. 191
15“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 farther, a judge, a peacemaker. Yes, it is good,
it is straight. Sit thou here; dwell in midst. Remain; do not go away…… Stay thou, our
friend, our father, our Governor.” 15
His speech was crucial in swaying the opinion of the gathering. The Maori were given three
days to think it over but the next morning they announced to Hobson that they were resolved
to sign the treaty and were anxious to set off home (one of the reasons was that their food
supply was running short). Hobson was willing to accept the signatures of any chiefs who
were present and prepared to sign it, but first, he urged Henry Williams to read the text once
again to the gathering, this time from the parchment (as that read the day before was on
paper).
James Busby brought a paper with listed names of Maori Chiefs according to which
they were called separately to come forward and sign the document. Thus Hone Heke, the
chief of the Ngapuhi tribe, became the first to sign the Treaty. He told the surrounding crowd
that he fully approved of the text, that they needed protection of the Queen. He was followed
by other chiefs and at this second day of meeting 43 rangatira put their marks or moko (the
tattooed design on each face) below the treaty. This being done, the Governor shook each
chief by the hand saying "He iwi tahi tātou" ("We are now one people")16. A few tribal
leaders, who were not present on the first day of the meeting, arrived during the signing but
no chief made any objection that he did not fully understand the contents of the document.
Hobson refused to take any responsibility for the misunderstanding; he did his best to provide
as much explanation as was possible. It was again Hone Heke, who said: “The Native mind
15
Sinclair, K., Harrex. W.: Looking Back: A Photographic History of New Zealand. Wellington: Oxford
University press, 1978. p. 33
16
Shaw, P.: Waitangi. Napier: Cosmos, 1992. p. 63
16could not comprehend these things: they must trust to the advice of their missionaries.”17
Finally William Hobson and several English residents added their signatures and the meeting
was dissolved. Two days later, on Saturday, 8 February, H.M.S. "Herald" ran up all her flags
and a Royal salute was fired in honour of the new British Colony of New Zealand. The
document was then sent around Northland for the additional signatures.
In practice the Treaty of Waitangi is not a single sheet of paper. Hobson provided
several copies which were circulated throughout the country. Till nowadays nine documents
have altogether survived; seven on paper and two on parchment.18 By the end of 1840 539
chiefs signed the Treaty, including few women whose mana was confirmed by the members
of missions. 39 chiefs out of the total number put their marks on the English version. Some
tribes did not sign because they were not given the opportunity to do so; they were not
canvassed by the missionaries and officials. Nevertheless, as was proclaimed by the Colonial
Office, the Treaty was applied even to those regions where it was not actually signed because
the British Government thought of those Maori who signed the Treaty to have acted as the
representatives of the whole Maoridom as a nation.
The contents of the Treaty and the differences between the texts
The Treaty of Waitangi consists of a preamble, three clauses called Articles, and a
final statement. There are two versions, one in English and one in Maori language. It was
presumed that these two versions have the same meaning but, as the subsequent events
proved, there are significant differences in between them. This is a result of the fact that the
Maori version is not a literal translation of the English text. When Henry Williams translated
“The Trail Of Waitangi: The authentic and genuine history of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
17
15 Jan. 2006
18
The Treaty copies: Waitangi Treaty Copy, Manukau-Kawhia, Waikato-Manukau (the only one in English),
East Coast, Tauranga, Bay of Plenty (Fedarb), Herald-Bunbury, Henry Williams and Printed Treaty copy.
“Signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi”. New Zealand’s history online.
15 Jan. 2006
17the Maori text back into English, which later on was taken to serve as an official version of
the Treaty, and which Hobson then sent to Governor of New South Wales Mr. Gipps, the
reverend remarked on the despatch: “I certify that the above is as literal a translation of the
Treaty of Waitangi as the idiom of the language will admit of.”19. This short note was
intended to draw attention to the fact that a word-for-word translation was impossible.
The preamble did not cause any confusion. The meanings of both are clear and
identical. In the English text it is stated that the Queen Victoria in her concern to protect the
rights and property of Maori and to maintain peace and order between Maori and encroaching
British settlers appointed William Hobson to negotiate with Native people the establishment
of government to keep an eye on these tasks. The Maori version says that the Queen promised
to provide a government and to secure tribal rangatiratanga (explained later on) and land
ownership as long as Maori wished to retain it.
To deal with Article I and II it is necessary to explain two important Maori terms
whose wrong use and interchange caused the subsequent misunderstanding over the Treaty.
Te Kāwanatanga
This word was not originally part of a Maori lexicon. It is a transliteration of
governance or government and was first used by missionaries in their translations of the
Bible20. The word itself consists of the words Kāwana, a transliteration of an English word
governor, and the suffix -tanga which fulfils the same function as the suffix –ship in English.
Thus the word-for-word translation of Kāwanatanga would mean something like
governorship, government.
Te Rangatiratanga
19
Public Record office, London, CO 209/7, 13-15
“Read the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi. 2004 – 2006.
15 Jan. 2006 < http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/treaty/background.php>
20
Durie, M.H.: Te mana, te kāwanatanga = The politics of Māori self-determination. Auckland: Oxford
University Press, 1998. p.2
18Maori word Rangatiratanga comes from the word rangatira and a previously
mentioned suffix –tanga. The meaning of the first is chief. The compound Rangatiratanga
stands for chieftainship, but it can have different connotations such as responsibility or
sovereignty. This word is often used in syntagma with a word tino, functioning as superlative
in the sense of very, total, or absolute21.
The phrase tino rangatiratanga had already been used to translate the concept of
sovereignty in the Declaration of Independence signed in 1835 (see above) by the Maori
rangatira, which stated that all sovereign power and authority in the land rested in the hands of
hereditary chiefs. The same term was used five years later in the Treaty and is very important
in the Maori interpretation of the document. Among the 539 chiefs who signed the Treaty,
there were some who had also signed the Declaration of Independence and thus knew what
the term referred to. As opposed to kāwanatanga which always had for Maori the connotation
of a limited power given to the Crown, tino rangatiratanga stands for absolute sovereignty.
The major difference between English and Maori version is in Article the First (Ko Te
Tuatahi). In the English text Maori pledged to “cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England
absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty”22 that the Chiefs
possessed over their lands. This gave the British Crown the power to make and enforce laws,
and the necessary and long-awaited authority over settlers in Aotearoa.
In the Maori version of the Treaty what the chiefs actually gave away was “te
kāwanatanga katoa (katoa = complete)”. As I have already explained before, this word has
for the Maori people the denotation of government. So under this term they agreed to sign
away “the complete government” over their land. However, when Reverend Henry Williams
translated the English draft of Captain Hobson into Maori language, this word was used to
cover the meaning of sovereignty. Nowadays many Maori think that the word mana (prestige,
21
“Tino Rangatiratanga.” Joint Methodist-Presbyterian Public Questions Committee. July 1993
18 Jan. 2006
22
see Appendix B, the Draft in English
19authority) or tino rangatiratanga would serve better to approximate the concept of
sovereignty. Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu, the author of the modern English translation of the
Maori text, explains in the footnotes to his translation (see Appendix C) that Maori leaders
could not have comprehended the word government in the sense of sovereignty. They had not
had any experience on which they would base their understanding of the word. We have to
realise that they had never been governed by any form of authority before so they could not
fully understand the implication of this term. What is more, at the time of the singing of the
Treaty there were about forty times more Maori than Pakeha and thus it seems unacceptable
that about one hundred thousand Maori would willingly cede their sovereignty to two
thousand settlers. During the discussion preceding the signings the attention was drawn to the
protection and guarantees offered by the Queen. Hobson and missionaries who were to
explain the contents to the Natives stressed its benefits; that settlers would have to abide by
the British law, that the long criticised lawlessness would be redressed and new markets
would be created for profit of all. They are to be blamed that they deliberately did not fully
explain the intention of the British government to acquire sovereignty. Their motive was
straightforward; they knew that the Maori would never agree with its contents. Historians
suppose that if the word mana or rangatiratanga had been used instead of kāwanatanga, the
Maori chiefs would have never given their consent to the Treaty. Furthermore, the text which
was discussed and then signed by the majority of the chiefs was the Maori text, not the
English version, and according to that text what they granted to the British Crown was a
limited power. That power was kāwanatanga. (I want to note that the discussion ran in Maori
with Rev. Henry Williams functioning as the interpreter and as William Colenso, an Anglican
missionary and printer, observed in his memories, Mr. Williams did not translate all that was
said, implying that important information might have been withheld.
20Article the Second was unambiguous and created no confusion. The English text
confirms and guarantees to Maori people “the full exclusive and undisputed possession of
their Lands and Estates, Forests, Fisheries and other properties”23 while the Crown claimed
for itself the right of Preemption (to follow the exact words: “Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the
exclusive right of Preemption” over the lands they wished to alienate). This exclusive right of
land purchase reserved for the Crown, a common practice in foreign policy applied to the
British colonies, was a very significant provision because it was the land transactions that
were the causes of much trouble between Maori and Pakeha. Hereafter no land could have
been bought directly from Maori by any British resident. Instead, all land purchases were
mediated through a delegate of the Crown appointed for that purpose. If a Maori wished to
sell his land, he had to offer the land first and foremost to the Crown. The land acquired by
the Crown became the territory to which the British governorship, kāwanatanga, was applied
and then this land could be further resold to individual settlers. The rest of the land, that in
Maori possession, would remain under their customs and law.
Ko Te Tuarua ( Article the Second), in a Maori version, guarantees te tino
rangatiratanga to Maori people, which meant “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship
over their wenua (lands), kainga (villages), and taonga katoa (all their property/treasures)”.24
There is a slight difference between the two texts. The Maori word taonga has a wider
connotation as opposed to its English equivalent. It does not designate only material things
but refers to such concepts as language and culture. As to the right of Preemption, Maori
interpreted the provision in a different way. The word hokonga meant that the Crown “was
allowed to enter into buying, selling or trading of land.”25 It did not state the exclusive right of
23
Sinclair, K.: The Origins of the Maori Wars. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1961. p. 28
24
“English text: Read the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi. 2004 – 2006.
15 Jan. 2006 < http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/treaty/index.php>
25
“Treaty of Waitangi-Questions and Answers.” Maori Independence Site.
2 Feb. 2006
21the Crown to the land. If the Crown declined the offer to buy land, according to a Maori
interpretation of the treaty text, they were allowed to propose the purchase to other private
buyers. These word nuances may be criticised as a meaningless quibble but, as history
manifested, the two different people which were brought closer by this Treaty had completely
different expectations and readings of the text based on their distinctive culture, history,
experience, tradition and last but not least language. So, in compliance with the British law,
this doctrine of preemption meant that the land could be sold either to the Crown or not at all,
and this fact was not properly explained to Maori. One of the reasons could be that those who
were to give the explanation and collect the signatures did not fully understand its implication
or simply, and intentionally, withheld this crucial information.
It is also important to know how Maori perceived the ownership of land, it is
maintained that they could have viewed the land transactions differently from Europeans.
Nopera Panakareao, a chief at Kaitaia, explained the Treaty to his tribe as follows: “Only the
shadow of the land passes to the Queen. The substance stays with us, the Maori people.”26 In
general, Maori rangatira would think of themselves as kaitiaki, guardians, of their land and
would only grant permission to its use for a particular period of time. This traditional custom
misled many of them. They were convinced they were selling this permission, not actually the
land. It was only permanent alienation in their view.
The last clause, Article the Third, Ko Te Tuatoru, promised to Maori people the
protection and the same rights and privileges (tikanga) the British subjects enjoyed. Thus they
were to have the same status as British citizens. But it ignored the fact that British subjects
were not normally subject to a preemption clause and wisely the Treaty did not mention the
obligations of British subjects. The Maori text has the same meaning and is considered to be a
literal translation.
26
“The Meaning of the Treaty: Treaty of Waitangi — Tiriti o Waitangi.” Christchurch City Libraries.
3 Feb. 2006.
22The last part of the written document forms the final statement acknowledging the
understanding of the contents followed by the signatures of Captain Hobson and Maori tribal
leaders and one or more white witnesses.
In addition to these three basic articles, there exists a fourth, unwritten, article (it is
even claimed that some Maori signed a version with four articles). Unwritten in the sense that
it is not a part of the official Treaty text. At the meeting, while the contents had been widely
discussed, the French Roman Catholic Bishop Pompallier approached Captain Hobson with a
request “that the natives might be informed that all who should join the Catholic (Roman)
religion should have the protection of the British Government.”27 Hobson agreed and at the
same time expressed his regret that his wish had not been pronounced earlier that it could
have been included in the draft. It was to be announced to the assembled crowd (before they
would proceed to signing) but, because of its great importance, Henry Williams preferred to
write it down on a piece of paper, including that the same protection should be accorded to
everyone of any creed. The text run: “E mea ana te Kawana, ko nga whakapono katoa, o
Ingarani, o nga Weteriana, o Roma, me te ritenga Maori hoki, e tiakina ngatahitia e ia.” (“The
Governor says the several faiths [beliefs] of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also the
Maori custom (usage), shall be alike protected by him.”)28. Thus the freedom of practice in
New Zealand was acknowledged.
All these differences are very important and have been hotly debated till nowadays.
The debate is believed to have divided the society and have caused a lot of tension between
two races, thus, a different approach was adopted; it is emphasized that what actually matters
is the spirit of the Treaty which should override all these ambiguities. Other reaction was the
introduction of the Principles of the Treaty widely used to bridge these differences between
the texts (for more information see the respective chapter below).
27
“The Trail Of Waitangi - The Treaty.” 15 Jan. 2006
28
“The Trail Of Waitangi: The authentic and genuine history of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
15 Jan. 2006
23The aftermath
Long before all the signatures were collected, Hobson proclaimed, on 21 May 1840,
the British sovereignty over the whole of the North Island on the grounds of cession and over
the South Island on the grounds of discovery. The capital was established at Kororāreka in the
Bay of Islands (today Russell) but a year later Hobson moved it further south, to Auckland.
All these formal actions were, apart from other things, prompted and precipitated by
the uncontrolled activities of The New Zealand Company that planned to buy vast areas of
Maori land in both the South and North Island. It had already, without permission of the
British government, sent emigrants to Port Nicholson who were to establish a new settlement
of Wellington and wanted to set up their own government. They were making their own laws
which in Hobson’s eyes was a treasonable act and so he intervened to prevent the creation of
(sort of) an independent colony and made the incomers realize that they were Queen’s
subjects as well and had to behave in the accordance with the British law.
Thomas Bunbury who had been commissioned to gather further signatures in the
South Island made two other proclamations of sovereignty. On 5 June 1840 over Stewart
Island (where no Maori were found) by virtue of Cook’s discovery and, after some of the
South Island rangatira signed the Treaty of Waitangi, the sovereignty was also proclaimed on
17 June 1840 over the South Island by right of cession; once again because Bunbury was not
informed of Hobson’s claim. New Zealand became part of New South Wales colony whose
authority was extended to it but few months later, in November 1840, New Zealand was
declared a separate and independent British colony.
Maori expected after the signing of the Treaty that they would share authority in the
country with the Crown, that they would exercise their sovereignty alongside the British
governorship. They thought that their mana, confirmed in the Article II, would be further
enhanced but their expectations were not to be fulfilled. From the beginning, since the ink on
24the paper dried, the Maori tino rangatiratanga has been usurped. Gradually, as the number of
incoming Pakeha was increasing. At first the British tried to be on good terms with the Maori,
primarily because the new residents needed the assistance of the Natives to cope with a harsh
environment (Maori were supplying them with food), and they followed the provisions stated
in the treaty. At that time the white settlers were still outnumbered by the Maori and they
were aware that it was for their benefit to deal with them evenly. However with a rapidly
growing number of immigrants the need for more land came to press most of them. In 1842
Hobson, who had suffered a stroke and seemed to be on the way of slow recovery, died. His
successor, Captain Robert FitzRoy, was willing to let Maori people, to a limited extent,
practise their customs but that was not to last for long. FitzRoy spent in office two years but,
being criticised for his pro-Maori policy, he was replaced in 1845 by Sir George Grey, an
advocate of a rapid Maori assimilation. He intended to subject the Maori with a minimum use
of force. Grey was against the toleration of districts where Maori customs had the force of law
and within which the authority of the colonial government did not operate. He wanted to
substitute them with a “civilised” legal code.
Maori people were also to feel little by little the impact of the second article; the
Crown’s right of preemption. They soon realised that they could not sell the land as they
wished and the problems concerning land purchases, such as not consulting all the Maori
landowners, a purchase from the wrong people or selling the same piece of land three times,
were causing much tension in a newly born colony. Another source of disputes was the issue
of an unoccupied land. The need of inflowing Europeans to buy land on which to settle
resulted in taking over the land uninhabited by Maori (classified as a wasteland). This was
against the proclamation that the Maori held title to all land in New Zealand (further, Hobson
was instructed to buy only lands not occupied by Maori and not these “the retention of which
by them would be essential or highly conducive, to their own comfort, safety or
25subsistence.29). The price the Maori were paid for their land was substantially lower than that
at which the Crown was offering it to private buyers and Maori were aware of that. Their
initial willingness to sell land began to weaken. The dubious purchases led to a widespread
discontent and rebellions which the government punished by land confiscation. In 1844 the
Treaty was proclaimed injudicious and a tax on fallow land proposed, with the confiscation as
a penalty for not paying the tax. The discontent with the British incursion into territory under
the authority of Maori aggravated and finally led to New Zealand Wars.
Discontent and Wars
Hone Heke, the first Maori chief who signed the Treaty, was also among the first who
showed his discontent with the then present situation. Heke was told by Americans and
French traders that the British flag flying at Kororareka signified slavery for the whole of
indigenous people. The pole, a gift to the first British Resident James Busby, became a target
of his angry. He chopped it down and then repeated the attack on the pole for about three
times, the last time the flagpole was left lying on the ground (it was left there, a symbol of his
victory, till the Maori themselves erected a new one, thirteen years later) and the town of
Kororareka was burnt down. Heke was determined to put an end to British authority in the
Bay and assembled a large force south of Kororareka. The armed conflict broke out in 1845
and ended in January 1846 when peace was negotiated with a free pardon granted to Heke and
his followers. His rebellion is referred to as the First Maori War or Flagstaff War. Despite the
existence of tensions and conflicts of interest, the two races co-existed peacefully enough for
some years after the sporadic fighting of the mid-1840s but the relentless and insatiable desire
of the Europeans for more and more Maori land prolonged warfare. (Furthermore they began
to demand that individual Maori should be permitted to sell land; that tribal ownership should
“Treaty of Waitangi-Questions and Answers.” Maori Independence Site.
29
2 Feb. 2006
26be individualised. This was later on enacted by The Native Lands Act of 1865.) There was a
widespread conviction among Pakeha that Maori still held more land than they could use.
During the 1850s many Maori turned against land selling. They were fearful for their
land and their declining influence. Some tribal chiefs in the Waikato region conceived the
idea of a Maori King who would hold their lands and people together at those difficult times.
Thus a loose land holding movement grew up which merged in 1858 into The Maori King
Movement. Kingitanga, the Maori term, resisted land sales and Pakeha settlement in the King
country, spreading from the Upper Waikato to the Upper Wanganui 30 ( the central part of the
Island so called to the present day ), right up until the 20th century but they were not opposed
to the Crown’s sovereignty on the Crown’s lands. Its primary purpose in opposing land sales
was to protect their independence but George Grey viewed the movement as treasonable and a
direct challenge to the authority of the Crown. The first Maori King became the paramount
Waikato chief Te Wherowhero, named the King Potatau I. The movement’s support was
always widespread and by 1863 it had encompassed the majority of Maori.
As it became more obvious that the British expected Maori to be subjects to British
law and authority, pressures between the Maori and settlers finally escalated into what is
today collectively known as the Maori Wars. They took place between 1860 and 1865 in
many parts of the country, such as in Taranaki (the Taranaki war of 1860-61), around the East
Coast, and in Waikato (the Waikato war of 1863-64), the heartland of the Kingitanga. The
British were unable to destroy the King Movement but they defeated and seriously weakened
it. This reduced Maori unity and increased collaboration with the government. After the wars
the government decided to confiscate huge parcels of Maori land; a kind of punishment for
the rebels. This led to increased outrage, especially since those who were neutral and those
who fought on the Crown’s side (the so called Kupapa, friendly Maori) were taken their
30
Sinclair, K.: The Oxford Illustrated history of New Zealand. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. p. 93
27lands. It was the worst injustice ever perpetrated by a New Zealand government. The Maori
said, this formulation I particularly liked, “that the missionaries had taught them to look up to
heaven while the Government stole the land from under their feet”.31
Over a million acres of land in the Waikato and about a million acres of land along the
Taranaki coast were confiscated by the Government. The Taranaki case was even more
controversial because the local tribes never signed the Treaty and thus expected to be
excepted from its provisions; they believed, and many more, that by not signing The treaty
they had protected their tribe. Governor Grey, whose aim was to permanently “cripple” Maori
independence by confiscating the best land of the key resisting tribes and allocating it to the
military settlers (those fighting in wars), refused to accept the existence of a rival authority,
the Maori King, and the sporadic fighting went on for nearly another ten years, until the wars
came to a halt in 1872. Altogether, more than three million acres was confiscated and by the
early 20th century, together with a large-scale land purchase programme proposed by Grey in
1845 and reinforced in 1870s, the Crown had acquired some three-quarters of the North Island
( in South Island, most of which had already been lost by 1860s, Maori possessed less than 1
per cent of land ). In 1920 it was only 4,787,686 acres32 that remained in Maori ownership.
From neglect to recognition
All the time Maori leaders looked to the Treaty for protection; they sent petitions and
voyaged to England demanding intervention into Treaty breaches, but these attempts were to
no avail. They were not able to achieve the ratification of the Treaty (it was never ratified by
Britain until 1975, more information will follow). Since the signing, the Treaty had been
described as “a praiseworthy device for amusing and pacifying ignorant savages for the
31
Sinclair, K., Harrex. W.: Looking Back: A Photographic History of New Zealand. Wellington: Oxford
University press, 1978. p. 34
32
“Legislative Violations of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
6 Apr. 2006
28moment”33 who had no rights and who would nevertheless finally fade away by a law of
nature or by a law of progress. Most of the Pakeha shared the opinion that the Maori were
inferior to them; not only did the Europeans regard Natives as unregenerate savages, but they
doubted whether they were capable of improvement, of elevation. A covenant between the
Crown and these Savages could on no account be interpreted as an agreement between
sovereign states and thus, in terms of international law, the Treaty had little status. In 1877 it
was ruled in the courts “a simple nullity” since treaties with primitive barbarians lacked legal
validity (case Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington)34 and in 1890, during the celebration of New
Zealand’s 50th anniversary, the Treaty was not mention at all.
For the next years Maori tried to get the Crown to honour the Treaty, which meant for
Maori people the return of lands, waters and other resources that were taken illegally or, in the
case the return was not possible, an adequate compensation for the loss of that land.
Honouring the Treaty also means that Maori would have control and authority over their
affaires and a genuine say in decisions affecting all residents in New Zealand. They have
petitioned not only the Queen but also the Governor-General, they have worked through the
courts, Parliament, protests, fighting and occupying the traditional lands allegedly stolen by
the Crown in an attempt to make the Treaty statutory and make other people listen to their
claims. King Tawhiao, the son and successor of the first Maori King Potatau I, wrote to the
Governor that “no matter how you may be addressed you will not regard nor reciprocate”.35
This sentiment was shared by many chiefs at that time. Maori also tried to find their own
ways; in 1892 the first Maori Parliament, Te Kotahitanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi, was
convened but it was never recognised by the official New Zealand Parliament and having no
33
“Early Crown Policy: The Story of the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi. 2004 – 2006.
17 Jan. 2006
34
Durie, M.H.: Te mana, te kāwanatanga = The politics of Māori self-determination. Auckland: Oxford
University Press, 1998, p. 180
35
“Amalgamation" Policies and Māori responses: The Story of the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi. 2004–2006.
17 Jan. 2006
29You can also read
