The Treaty of Waitangi; or, how New Zealand became a British Colony

by Thomas Lindsay Buick

The Wesleyan Mission Society embodied their views in a memorial, which they subsequently deemed worthy of publication,[188] wherein they justified their right to question the propriety of Earl Grey's policy, not only because of the prestige and influence of their Mission, but because that prestige and influence had been solicited in the interests of the Treaty of Waitangi by Captain Hobson, at a time when his success without it was impossible. They explained that their solicitude upon the subject had been greatly increased, if not wholly produced by the flood of letters they had received from their Missionaries in New Zealand, expressing the state of alarm into which they had been thrown by the publication of his Lordship's Despatch and Instructions, and which in their opinion affixed a meaning to the Treaty of Waitangi very different from that in which it was understood by the parties principally concerned in its execution. Being apprehensive that any attempt to carry what they regarded as a new interpretation of the treaty into effect, would result in the most disastrous consequences, they were constrained to make such representations upon the subject as they had reason to hope would avert the evils which they feared. They then proceeded to set out that at the commencement of the proceedings adopted by Her Majesty's Government for founding a colony in New Zealand, they distinctly understood that the previous recognition of the independence of New Zealand by the British Government having taken the country out of the category of barbarous tribes and people without a national character or national rights, the ordinary course pursued in colonisation would not be adopted in its case, but that New Zealand would be negotiated with as an Independent State, and that the British Crown would not take anything from the Aboriginal proprietors which was not ceded on their part by fair and honourable treaty. In support of this view, they quoted at length from Lord Normanby's instructions to Captain Hobson, in 1839 and from the subsequent correspondence with him, when that officer sought a greater amplification of important points. On the authority, then, of the noble gentleman formerly at the head of the Colonial Department, they claimed that they were not deceived when they understood that the cession of sovereignty in New Zealand was not to involve the surrender of territory, either in whole or in part; that the cession to the Crown of such waste lands as might be progressively required for the use of the settlers should be subsequently obtained by fair and equal contracts with the natives, and that no lands were to be claimed for the Crown in New Zealand, except such as might be obtained by purchase from the natives, or by their own free consent. They detailed the overtures which Captain Hobson made to their Missionaries in 1840, when, "in accordance with instructions he had received from the highest authority in the realm," he requested their assistance in effecting the negotiation with which he had been entrusted. The Missionaries at this time, the Committee pointed out, had not read Captain Hobson's instructions, for they had not then been published, but they fully understood the claims of the natives upon the soil of New Zealand, and the point upon which they had to satisfy themselves was whether the proposed treaty was designed to admit and confirm those claims in the full and unqualified sense in which they were made. The Missionaries knew that the Maoris claimed the entire soil of New Zealand.[189] They knew that the entire country was divided amongst the several tribes, that the boundaries of every property were accurately defined, and the proprietorship so vested in each tribe that all the members of the tribe had a beneficial interest therein. They therefore knew that at the time the Treaty of Waitangi was signed there was no land in New Zealand without an owner, and which would under the principles of public law, be automatically transferred to the Crown.

"In the view, therefore, of both the Missionaries and the natives," they said, "the sovereignty and the land were two entirely distinct things, and to preserve the latter intact, while they surrendered the former, was the great solicitude of the natives. From Captain Hobson the Missionaries received the most satisfactory explanation of the terms of the treaty. It dwelt explicitly on both the sovereignty and the land, and the interpretation which the Missionaries were authorised to give of it was that, while the entire sovereignty should be transferred to the British Crown, the entire land should be secured to the natives. Most certainly the Missionaries received the fullest assurance that, in surrendering the sovereignty, the natives would not by that act surrender their original claims upon any part of the soil. In this sense the chiefs themselves understood the treaty, as it was propounded to them. They clearly comprehended its two main features as explained in their own figurative style, that 'the shadow of the land,' by which they meant 'the sovereignty,' would pass to the Queen of England, but that the 'substance,' meaning the land itself, would remain with them."

But the Missionaries were not alone the source from which the Committee proved the correct interpretation of the treaty. The witnesses who had given evidence before Earl Grey's own Committee in 1844 were marshalled to their support, the official Despatches were quoted to the same end, even those of Lord John Russell being referred to as "warranting the conclusion that his Lordship designed the treaty should be faithfully observed, in the sense in which it was understood by the natives and Missionaries of both the Church and Wesleyan Societies." To these was added the invaluable testimony of Lieutenant Shortland, who had been in closest association with Captain Hobson during the treaty negotiations, who had been privileged to administer the affairs of the colony under it, and who from his close official connection with it was peculiarly the man able to say what it meant and what it did not mean. Shortly before his return to England, the Select Committee of the House of Commons had issued their report upon "the State of New Zealand and the proceedings of the New Zealand Company," and so completely did that report misrepresent, in Mr. Shortland's opinion, the true position of affairs, so harmful did he deem the resolutions which accompanied that report, that he felt in duty bound to protest to Lord Stanley against the needless perversion of the facts. During a lengthy and dispassionate statement of the circumstances surrounding the procuration of the treaty—than whom no one knew them better—Mr. Shortland, writing from his quiet retreat at Torquay, dealt with especial emphasis upon the relation of the sovereignty to the land:

Respecting the cession of the sovereignty to the Crown by the aborigines without a reciprocal guarantee to them of the perfect enjoyment of their territorial rights, I do not hesitate to say, such a proposition would not for a moment have been entertained by the natives, who, during the whole proceedings of the Government at the first establishment of the colony, manifested a feeling of great anxiety and mistrust in regard to the security of their lands. Of this I could produce many instances did space permit, but will content myself with noticing that the Church and Wesleyan Missionaries possessing, as they deservedly did before the assumption of sovereignty by Her Majesty, the unlimited confidence of the natives, incurred by their aiding the local Government to effect the peaceable establishment of the colony, the suspicion of the aborigines, who frequently upbraided the Missionaries with having deceived them, saying, "Your Queen will serve us as she has done the black fellows of New South Wales; our lands will be taken from us, and we shall become slaves." How then could the colony have been founded with the free and intelligent consent of the native owners of the soil, on any other terms than those laid down by the Treaty of Waitangi, viewed in the light in which it has always been understood and acted on by the local Government.

With these and many similar pieces of unimpeachable evidence did the Committee press upon the Colonial Secretary the conviction that their reading and understanding of the treaty was the only one which its "large words," as Lord Stanley had termed them, would bear. Earl Grey relied upon the astute pen of Mr. Herman Merivale, his new Under-Secretary to release him from the horns of the dilemma upon which the cold reasoning of the Committee had impaled him. This he did by referring the memorialists back to an obscure phrase in the Royal Instructions, which provided that no native claim to land would be recognised unless the title had previously been acknowledged and ascertained, "by some act of the Executive Government of New Zealand as then constituted or by the adjudication of some court of competent jurisdiction." The Treaty of Waitangi was now admitted, and even asserted by the Under-Secretary to be "unquestionably an act of the Executive Government," and therefore it followed that nothing that was guaranteed by the treaty was imperilled by the Instructions. With a wealth of argument upon phases of the issue which were not directly raised by the Memorial,[190] Mr. Merivale was at least able to assure the Committee that the Government intended and always had intended to recognise the treaty, as they believed, in the same sense in which the Committee recognised it. "They recognise it in both its essential stipulations, the one securing to those native tribes, of which the chiefs have signed the treaty, a title to those lands which they possess according to native usage (whether cultivated or not) at the time of the treaty, the other securing to the Crown the exclusive right of extinguishing such title by purchase." Considerable unction was claimed for his chief by the Under-Secretary, in that he had directed Governor Grey to proceed with all circumspection in giving effect to the instructions of the Department, but he failed to observe that even in his widened interpretation of the treaty, he still limited the rights in native lands to those tribes whose chiefs had signed the treaty. Those who like Te Heuheu, and Te Wherowhero had maintained their independence might still have been subject to spoliation had this view become the accepted interpretation of the Department, and those who were keenly interested in the fate of the colony were not slow to place this construction upon it. The immediate necessity for anxiety upon this point was, however, obviated by the prompt suspension of the Charter by Governor Grey, and upon the submission by him to Downing Street of a more liberal and flexible Constitution, drafted upon the slopes and amidst the snows of Ruapehu.

Earl Derby.

Formerly Lord Stanley.

Ere the brewing storm in New Zealand had burst, the crisis had come in the life of Lord John Russell's Ministry, who were defeated on their Militia Bill. They were succeeded by the Stanley of old, who in the person of Lord Derby, became Premier, with Sir John Pakington as his Colonial Secretary. To him fell the duty of giving legislative effect to the more workable and equitable Constitution drafted by Governor Grey, and when the Wesleyan Committee again approached the Colonial Office with the regretful assurance that the reply vouchsafed to them by the noble gentleman who had just vacated the Chief Secretaryship "was less satisfactory to the people of New Zealand than it had appeared to themselves," Sir John was able to convey to them through the Earl of Desart the gratifying intelligence that in the Bill then before the House there was every provision for the full and complete recognition of the principles for which they had so resolutely contended.

Concerning the Third Clause of the treaty, little need be said. By this covenant the Queen undertook, in consideration of the cession of sovereignty and the granting of the pre-emptive right of purchase of land, to extend to the Maori race her Royal protection, and impart to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects. Of the manner in which this undertaking has been fulfilled, the Maoris have never complained, and they have never had just grounds for complaint. There is no colour line drawn against the New Zealander in New Zealand. Our courts are as open to him as to anyone, and whether he be plaintiff or defendant, the same even-handed justice is meted out to him. He travels upon our railways, he rides upon our cars, he sits in our theatres on equal terms with his Pakeha friend. His children are educated in our schools and his sons are absorbed into our Civil Service, his chiefs sit at the Governor's table, and his elected representatives sit in Parliament, where their voice is respected and their vote is valued. The professions are open to him, and there is no position in Church or State which he may not fill. No more is demanded of a Maori than of a European. His passport to society is his good behaviour, his participation of civil rights is governed by his disposition to become a law-abiding citizen.