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

by Thomas Lindsay Buick

In conferring upon New Zealand her charter of severance from New South Wales in 1840 Lord John Russell thus conveyed to Captain Hobson his view of the governmental state to which the Maori had risen: "They are not mere wanderers over an extended surface in search of a precarious existence; nor tribes of hunters, or of herdsmen, but a people among whom the arts of government have made some progress; who have established by their own customs a division and appropriation of the soil; who are not without some measure of agricultural skill, and a certain subordination of ranks, with usages having the character and authority of law." New Zealand then being an inhabited country and a country under a system of government at least so efficient as to subsequently induce the British authorities to recognise the Maori nation as an independent State, it becomes obvious that this could not be designated a land which could be lawfully seized upon by circumnavigators.

But such rights as Cook's discoveries did confer upon the nation, the Government of that day sought to conserve. Following upon his return to England with the accounts of his travels in strange waters, his contact with strange peoples, his finding of new lands, proclamations were issued which were not contested by other Powers. The Dutch title to these islands was thereby lawfully extinguished, and New Zealand, Van Dieman's Land, and Australia became for geographical and colonising purposes portions of the British Empire.

A laudable effort was made to render the claims of Britain even more explicit when in 1787 Captain Philip was appointed by Royal Commission Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief in and over the colony of New South Wales and its dependencies, which were claimed to include all the discoveries of Cook in the Southern Pacific. The territory over which the new Governor was authorised to exercise jurisdiction was described in his Commission as extending "from Cape York, the extremity of the coast to the northward in the latitude of 11° 37´ south, to the South Cape, the southern extremity of the coast in the latitude of 43° 30´ south, and inland to the westward as far as 135° of east longitude, comprehending all the islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean within the latitudes of the above-mentioned capes."

Unfortunately, owing doubtless to imperfect geographical knowledge on the part of those responsible, these boundaries were but loosely defined, for if they had been strictly adhered to, then Britain was setting up a claim not only to Cook's valuable discoveries, but to all the islands eastward of Australia, as far as the western coast of South America, embracing many Spanish discoveries; while on the other hand they excluded not only Stewart's Island, but all that part of the Southern Island of New Zealand south of Bank's Peninsula. Governor Philip's Commission was therefore faulty, because it asserted excessive rights in the one direction and made insufficient claims on the other.

It is true that in later years these boundaries were abandoned and the position made even more anomalous. During the Governorship of Sir Thomas Brisbane it was deemed expedient to separate Van Dieman's Land from New South Wales, and more circumscribed limits were assigned to the Mother State. In this readjustment, whether by accident or design it is impossible now to say, not only Van Dieman's Land but New Zealand were excluded from amongst the dependencies of New South Wales. Then it became an arguable point whether the word "adjacent" had ever covered Islands so far distant from the parent colony, and much legal acumen was expended in the effort to justify the contention that New Zealand had always been beyond the pale of the dependencies.

Up to this point, however, the official mind had never been troubled by doubts as to the extent of its jurisdiction. Governor Philip not only believed that his authority extended to New Zealand, but far beyond it, and under this belief he actually colonised Norfolk Island as a part of the territory he had been commissioned to govern. In like manner the British Government believed it had a right to all that it claimed in Philip's Commission; and at the Congress of Vienna at the close of the Napoleonic wars in 1814, when the map of Europe was recast, it had its claims allowed, New Zealand being acknowledged by the Great Powers to be a portion of our then infant Empire. Even earlier in the century Ministers had seriously discussed a representation made by Lieutenant-Colonel Foveaux, of the New South Wales Corps, to appoint a Lieutenant-Governor in New Zealand, which under his scheme was to become a penal settlement subordinate to New South Wales. Fortunately for New Zealand that baneful suggestion was not entertained; but Governor Macquarie appointed Justices of the Peace and exercised the functions of Government within the Islands, as did his successor, Sir Thomas Brisbane, down to the time of his proclamation which excluded New Zealand from amongst the dependencies of New South Wales.

Thus far Britain would seem prima facie to have kept alive her right to colonise in these Islands as against any other nation, except, perhaps, in the important particular that she had not systematically occupied the land. It is not sufficient that discovery should take place, or that the free will and consent of the native inhabitants should be obtained to the introduction of colonisation. It is an essential factor in the acquisition of new territory that the sanction thus secured should be followed up by speedy emigration and effective settlement, for obviously no nation could be permitted to hold idle for an indefinite period vast tracts of waste country to the exclusion of another nation to whom the inhabitants might also be willing to concede the right to colonise. The principle upon which this view is based has thus been stated: "The Law of Nations, then, will recognise the proprietary rights, and the sovereignty of a nation over only uninhabited countries which it shall have occupied really and in fact, in which it shall have formed a settlement, or from which it shall be deriving an actual use."

In the case of inhabited countries the condition of occupation is no less exacting. It is, however, hedged about by the additional restriction that before occupation can take place the right to settle must be ceded by the inhabitants. Had the point ever become one of national importance as between ourselves and France, Britain might have pleaded that her occupation was at least as far advanced as that of her rival. She might have pointed to her Missionaries, her traders, and her whalers as evidences of an irregular settlement by no means inconsiderable. But whatever importance British jurists may have attached to such a form of occupation in the settlement of an international dispute, it cannot be denied that it loses much of its value from the fact that the settlement was irregular, and that British Ministers would have been put in the anomalous position of calling to their aid a condition of society which had arisen, not with the sanction of the Crown, but in spite of the Crown.

If these views be founded on the principles of justice, it will be seen that it is a popular fallacy to suppose that Britain acquired any rights of sovereignty in, or over New Zealand by virtue of Cook's discovery. Her position in 1770 was much less absolute than that, and whatever rights she had then acquired she subsequently proceeded to abrogate. In 1817 commenced a period of renunciation during which successive British Governments appeared only too anxious to absolve themselves from all further colonial responsibilities. Not only by neglect, but by direct Act and Ordinance did they repudiate the claim to New Zealand which their predecessors had been laboriously building up through all these years. These Acts of repudiation were specifically enumerated by Lord John Russell in the memorandum which he prepared for Lord Palmerston in reply to the protest of the New Zealand Company against the views on sovereignty adopted by Lord Normanby in his instructions to Captain Hobson, and it was the known abrogation in these statutes of whatever claim Britain may have had to New Zealand that led to the Declaration of Maori Independence in 1835.

It cannot be said that this Declaration of Independence was a serious bar to Britain's colonising scheme, for under the Confederation of Chiefs which grew out of it, no Government was founded stable enough to merit recognition by other established administrations. Indeed its own members were the first to acknowledge its failure in the face of the difficulties by which it was confronted. As useless and as harmless as the "paper pellet" to which it has been compared by the sarcastic Gipps, it was neither government for the Maori nor a controlling influence for the Europeans. It was therefore not that which the Maori had done which created difficulty for the Melbourne Cabinet when they had seriously to face the question of assuming responsibility in New Zealand—the obstacles to be overcome had, curiously enough, been raised by the acts of the British Parliament itself. This was why, at the critical hour, Britain stood in no better position towards New Zealand than did any of the other nations; why she had to run the gauntlet of their competition for sovereignty, and why more astute statesmanship on the part of France or the United States might have robbed her of "the fairest flower in all the field."