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

by Thomas Lindsay Buick

The Mission Church at Kororareka.

Where Captain Hobson read his Proclamations.

This earlier attitude was admirably expressed by the Rev. Dr. Hinds, who in discussing the matter before the Committee of the House of Lords, boldly stated that he believed civilised people had a right—an inherent right—over countries that have not been subject to civilisation, whether those countries were uninhabited or partially inhabited by savages who were never likely themselves to cultivate the country. "Here," he said, "is a country considered to be populous for a savage country. According to an estimate made by a respectable Missionary of the C.M.S. the inhabitants of the Northern Island amount to about 105,000. This Northern Island is probably about the size of England, and this its population of 105,000 stated to be decreasing in number without the least chance of their becoming cultivators or sovereigns of the soil. I hold it not to be an infringement of any natural rights to claim the sovereignty of the Island, and this is a claim which until lately would never have been questioned. There has been often a question as to the mode in which sovereign rights over savage countries should be distributed among civilised people, but it has been a question between one civilised country and another. Formerly the Pope used to claim the disposal of sovereignty. Subsequently it has been more conveniently settled by allowing the priority of claim to the first discoverers—a course as convenient probably as can be advised. Within the last few years, however, the justice of this claim has been questioned, and it has been asserted that savage as well as civilised men have sovereign rights. I do not, myself, think they have; but it has been the wish of the Association not to offend any scruples, and therefore they have carefully in this Bill waived the question, and allowed the claim to a sovereign right of some kind to exist in those savages. I say a sovereign right of some kind, because it is clear in the instance just mentioned, the giving the flag to the Bay of Islands, that the very assumption on the part of Great Britain of a right to give that flag supposes the New Zealanders not to be altogether a sovereign power. Many probably who may be willing to cede to them the right of sovereignty as far as concerns themselves would not go to such lengths as to say that Great Britain should not cede the sovereignty as regards any right which may be put in by other nations; and I do not know on what principle we should draw a distinction, and say how much or how little of this right of sovereignty we should claim. The French have been attracted by the flax: suppose they were to say 'If you relinquish your rights of sovereignty we will put in our claim, we stand next,' or the Dutch may say so. I do not know which visited the country first, but I cannot see on what principle we could interfere with the French or Dutch unless we contend that we had some disposal over the sovereignty of the Islands. The question, however, has been waived in the Bill; we suppose the New Zealanders and not Great Britain to be in possession of the right of sovereignty, and we propose accordingly that a purchase should be made of the sovereignty as well as the fee simple of the land. We have some precedents for this. I do not know whether it is of consequence to bring forward precedents, but even at a late period a purchase of this kind has been made; Sir Stafford Canning took possession in 1815 of Singapore; it was at that time in possession of the Malays, the subjects of the Sultan of Jahore. In 1825 he found, I think, some inconvenience arising from the Sultan's claims, and the English bought the Domain of the Sultan for a sum of money, and so clear was the understanding about it, that the Sultan made some reservations; some exceptional laws, as they are called in this Bill, were made. There was a clause that the Sultan's slaves should not be emancipated, and certain lands were reserved and became entailed property and inalienable. When Penn purchased Pennsylvania he no doubt understood he purchased the sovereignty as well as the fee simple of the land, for I can conceive no one mad enough to found a colony in the midst of barbarians without securing the colonists against their interference as sovereigns. Vattel certainly speaks of Penn's treaty as if he understood him to have purchased the sovereign rights as well as the fee simple. These are precedents which may not be considered as carrying any great authority. The question has not been very much discussed; it has been taken for granted, and I think with reason, that the savage is in a state of pupilage, and must be treated as we treat children. The only principle which it is important to maintain is this: If you go into a country at all inhabited by savages and take possession of their land and become sovereigns of it, you infringe their rights if you do not consider their benefit as well as your own. If you were treating with a child you would not infringe the rights of that child simply by acting and deciding for him, but you would infringe his rights if you acted and decided for your benefit and not his. So with respect to savages; they are compared with civilised men, like children. They are of themselves incapable of acquiring the arts and habits of civilised life; unless some interference that amongst civilised men would be considered unjust, takes place, they never can, by themselves, rise to that higher condition. The injustice to be deprecated is that of seeking our own benefit solely and not theirs; and with respect to the New Zealanders our purchase of the sovereignty of their country ought not to be represented as being the same kind of bargain as if the French, for instance, were bargained with to cede the sovereignty over any portion of their territory. When the French ceded their sovereign rights over Martinique, Guadaloupe, and the Mauritius, they strictly ceded all their sovereign rights; but in the present instance what is meant by the cession of sovereignty amounts to this—that we purchase the right to participate in the sovereignty with them; we do not wish to exclude them, but pay them a price to partake in the sovereignty with them. Of course, in the first instance, the civilised man will be the only sovereign, but that is because he only will be fit and capable of exercising sovereign rights. As the savage advances in civilisation he will come in for his share; and I see no reason, as soon as the New Zealander is capable of it, against his being Chief Justice, Governor, or Bishop, or holding any other office. It is not therefore that we take the sovereignty from him; we purchase the right of participating with him in the sovereignty, and by so doing we enable him to become Sovereign of the country, which he is not at present."

In the meantime the Government had unmistakably demonstrated their intention not to recognise the Company, and with all hope of political patronage gone the Company saw no reason why they should spare the Government. There was now in their opinion no possible room to doubt that the sovereignty over New Zealand rested in Great Britain, and that the Colonial Department was betraying a national trust in conceding any rights to the natives, thereby opening the door to foreign intervention. They first showered their protests against this supposed surrender of a national asset upon the Colonial Office, but when they discovered themselves ignored in this direction they turned with renewed complaint to the Foreign Minister. "We are assured," they wrote to him, on November 7, 1839, "that this question of the sovereignty of New Zealand engages the attention of various commercial bodies and a large portion of the public press in France; that the sovereignty in England is denied; that the French Government is urged either to join in that denial, by protesting against the colonisation of the Islands by England, or to claim an equal right with England to plant settlements there. We are not without fear that some such protest or claim should be admitted by your Lordship's Department, as it appears to have been admitted by the Colonial Department. It appears that the agitation of this question in France has been produced by the publication of a Minute of the British Treasury made at the instance of the Colonial Department (July 19), and also of an extract of certain instructions recently given by that Department to Captain Hobson,—two documents by which the Crown of England seems to repudiate the sovereignty of New Zealand. The apparent repudiation consists of an acknowledgment of sovereignty in the native chiefs from whom Captain Hobson is instructed to procure, if possible, a cession to Her Majesty. It is this acknowledgment, according to all our information, which has given occasion to the pretensions now urged in France.[43] That which England, it is contended, instructs her officer to procure, if possible, she admits she does not possess, and she thereby admits the right of France either to obtain sovereign jurisdiction in New Zealand, by the means which Captain Hobson is instructed to employ, or if France should prefer that course, to sustain the independent sovereignty of the natives. The argument appears conclusive. It becomes very important, therefore, if it is of great importance to England, to prevent the establishment of a French power in the midst of the English colonies of Australasia that your Lordship should be made aware of the acts of the British Crown which lead to a conclusion directly at variance from that which may be drawn from the said minute and instructions."

The Company's nominal[44] advocate on this occasion was their Deputy-Governor, Mr. Somes, who apparently possessed a faculty for stating strongly a weak case; and in the course of this letter to Lord Palmerston he taxed his ability to show that the right of sovereignty in New Zealand had vested in Britain since the discovery of the Islands by Captain Cook; that it had been confirmed by numerous diplomatic acts in all the years since then, and could not now be abandoned on the mere whim of a Minister.

During the course of his trenchant review of the position Mr. Somes declared that the sovereignty of England in New Zealand had been over and over again asserted and exercised. Whether it could be subsequently abandoned by such documents as the Treasury Minute and instructions was a question in constitutional and international law on which his Lordship was of course far more competent to judge than they could pretend to be. But that there was recently a British sovereignty either to maintain or to abandon the Company had no sort of doubt. He pointed out that in the year 1769, Captain Cook, acting under a commission from the Crown of England, took possession of the Islands of New Zealand, in the name of His Majesty, George III. This act was performed in the most formal manner, and was published to the world. "We are not aware," he wrote, "that it was ever questioned by any foreign power. It constituted sovereignty by possession. The Law of Nations, we believe, recognises no other mode of assuming dominion in a country, of which the inhabitants are so barbarous as to be ignorant of the meaning of the word sovereignty, and therefore incapable of ceding sovereign rights. This was the case with the New Zealanders, from whom it would have been impossible for Captain Cook to have obtained, except in mockery of truth, a British sovereignty by cession. Sovereignty by possession is that which the British Crown maintains in a large portion of its foreign dependencies. In this year, 1787, a Royal Commission was granted to Captain Philip appointing him in pursuance of the British sovereignty in possession, which had previously been established by Captain Cook, "Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief in and over the territory of New South Wales and its dependencies." This territory was described in the commission as "Extending from Cape York, latitude 11° 37´ south, to the South Cape, latitude 43° 30´ south, and inland to the westward as far as 135° east longitude, comprehending all the Islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean, within the latitudes of the above-named capes." This is the Act by which the Crown first assumed the Government of New South Wales and the other barbarous lands of which Captain Cook had taken possession in the name of the King. The Islands of New Zealand are as clearly within the prescribed limits as Norfolk Island, Van Dieman's Land, or even New South Wales itself. On November 9, 1814, the Governor and Captain-General of New South Wales and its dependencies, acting on the representation of the Crown, by public proclamation, declared New Zealand to be a Dependency of his Government, and by regular commission of dedimus potestatem appointed Justices of the Peace to act there. Some of the Magistrates so appointed were aboriginal natives of the country. It is plain that they were treated as British subjects. In 1819 again Governor Macquarrie appointed an English Magistrate in New Zealand. This Justice of the Peace exercised the authority so bestowed on him by apprehending offenders and sending them for trial to the seat of Government. In 1823 a British Act of Parliament (4 George IV. cap. 96) extended the jurisdiction of the Courts of New South Wales to New Zealand by name, and also to other places in the Southern Pacific not within the latitudes previously mentioned. Under this authority several persons, we understand, have been tried in New South Wales for offences committed in New Zealand, and we have been informed that property in New Zealand, as well real as personal, has been made the subject of the Bankruptcy law of New South Wales. The authority of the British Crown was frequently enforced by means of ships of war, and although it cannot be asserted that regular government was ever established in New Zealand, far more than was essential to creating British dependency seems to have been performed. The Islands thus continued in a state of dependency until the year 1831, when a series of proceedings commenced by which the sovereignty of Britain may perhaps have been forfeited. An officer was appointed to reside at the Bay of Islands. He presented to certain native chiefs, as from the Crown of England, what was termed "a national flag." This might have been considered a transfer to these chiefs of the British sovereignty, if the Resident had not been 'accredited' to certain officers of the Church Missionary Society, then settled at the Bay of Islands. By the latter act the sovereignty of the Islands would almost seem to have been transferred to these Missionaries. But in October 1835 this diplomatic agent assembled certain native chiefs residing in the Northern part of the North Island, called them a "Confederation," and sanctioned a declaration of Native Independence, to which their names were appended. This last act appears, by all accounts, to have been a mere mockery of its ostensible purport. The tribes of New Zealand are so entirely distinct, so utterly destitute of nationality, as to have no name for the whole country which they inhabit. A national name was invented for this occasion—the words Na Terrene which express the native pronunciation of the English words "New Zealand." The only parties besides to the so-called Declaration of Independence were the chiefs of a few tribes then inhabiting a small part of one of the Islands. These even, inasmuch as their language contains no words to express nationality, sovereignty, or independence, must have been unconscious instruments of the Resident, or of the Missionaries, to whom that officer was accredited, as if they (the Missionaries) had been the sovereigns of New Zealand. If indeed the sovereignty was delegated to the Missionaries they could, being British subjects, have held it as trustees for the Crown. If the sovereignty of the natives was then acknowledged it extended only to a small part of one Island inhabited by the parties to the Declaration. And in either case this mockery of an independent sovereign nationality has been set at naught by the power in whose name it took place, inasmuch as the jurisdiction of British law, and the armed authority of British warships have been exercised since in the same way as before the Bay of Islands' Declaration of Independence.

"I beg leave," continued Mr. Somes, "to assure your Lordship in the name of my colleagues that we intrude on you with the greatest reluctance. But we have felt that it was incumbent on us especially during the recess of Parliament to convey to your Lordship the information that we have received as to the state of feeling in France on this subject, so that if unhappily the British sovereignty of New Zealand were lost it should be through no fault of ours. We fear that the measures recently adopted by the Colonial Department may, unless promptly remedied, lead to very disastrous results. We are deeply concerned for the fate of a large and most respectable body of our countrymen, who have emigrated under our auspices. Connected as several of us are with the commercial and shipping interests of the country, and knowing therefore how much importance they attach to the British possession of New Zealand, as they have frequently stated in memorials to the Treasury and Board of Trade, we have felt that it was a duty to express to your Lordship the apprehensions which we entertain. We have been told that a French frigate recently sailed for the South Seas with sealed orders, and some of the French newspapers report, with expressions of satisfaction, that the Government of the United States of America has appointed a Consul in New Zealand, to be accredited to 'the Confederation of chiefs,' and has sent him to his destination in a man-of-war, which is to remain under his orders. These statements may be untrue, or only premature, but in either case Captain Hobson's instructions which attach two conditions, either or both of which may be unattainable, to the exercise of any authority by him in New Zealand, namely possession of the land by British subjects, and cession by the natives of the sovereignty over such land, are calculated to invite foreign pretensions which otherwise would never have been imagined."

This protest was taken most philosophically by Lord Palmerston, who merely passed it on to Lord John Russell, who had now succeeded Lord Normanby at the Colonial Office. Lord John treated it even more philosophically, for it was not for several months (March 11, 1840) that he deigned to reply, and then only after he had been reminded of the omission by the Foreign Office. In the meantime all need of further argument had been obviated by the success of Captain Hobson's mission, and so the Colonial Secretary wasted no words in rhetoric, but forwarded to his colleague a memorandum couched in concise official terms, setting out in sequence the events which in the light of International law would be used as evidence against any claim to British sovereignty, and which contained all the information it appeared necessary to afford in answer to the communication from Mr. Somes.

It is easy to understand the indignation of the Company on learning of the Minister's repudiation of British sovereignty in New Zealand, because it sapped the very foundations of their scheme, seeing that it was illegal for British subjects to establish colonies outside the limits of the Empire without the sanction of the Crown. They had always presupposed the existence of a British sovereignty over New Zealand and upon that supposition all their calculations had been built. Now the basis of their building had gone, they adroitly pretended that what grieved them was not so much their loss as that the repudiation of British authority was a national calamity, and that what was the neglect of Britain became the opportunity of France.

The position taken up by the Government was, however, perfectly sound, and was the only logical one they could occupy. Whether previous Governments had acted wisely and well in declining to embrace the opportunity to colonise which Cook's discovery had opened to them, may be a debatable question, but the fact at this date was that the golden opportunity had passed, and that by subsequent diplomatic acts, deliberately taken, the independence of the Maori people had been clearly and emphatically acknowledged. "The answers," wrote Lord John Russell to Lord Palmerston, "which would be made by foreign nations to such a claim as that put forward by Mr. Somes are two. First that the British Statute Book has, in the present century, in three distinct enactments, declared that New Zealand is not a part of the British Dominions, and secondly that King William IV. made the most public, solemn, and authentic declaration which it was possible to make that New Zealand was a substantive and independent state. The resolution by the King, Lords, and Commons of Great Britain of the fact that New Zealand is not a part of the British Dominions will be found in the Statutes 57 George III. cap. 53, 4 George IV. cap. 96, sec. 3, and 9 George IV. cap. 83, sec. 4."