Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jan 14, 2024 5:30:13 GMT 12
Mike Butler writes > If sovereignty was not ceded, as Jim Ross argues, why is there no evidence of this view from 1839 to 1922? For instance:
1. On August 14, 1839, Lord Normanby directed Hobson to “treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any parts of those Islands which they may be willing to place under Her Majesty's Dominion”. Why did he not specify that exercise of sovereignty was over settlers only?
2. On February 4, 1840, Hobson’s team drafted a treaty in which Hobson for Queen Victoria and chiefs would agree that chiefs would cede sovereignty, that chiefs owned what they owned but could sell to an agent of the Queen if they so wished, and that the Maori people of New Zealand would be granted the rights of British subjects and be protected. There is nothing in that treaty says that only settlers would be under the new Governor.
3. The treaty was debated at Waitangi on February 5. Missionary William Colenso’s eyewitness account records 11 chiefs not wanting a governor but five who did. The principal objection was that numerous chiefs did not want to have a chief over them. This is pretty clear proof that the authority discussed then was to include both settlers and Maori. There was no statement that the proposed deal was to involve settlers only, and that chiefs could carry on being chiefs.
4. That treaty was signed on February 6 at Waitangi and subsequently at 34 locations all around New Zealand. In all, 512 chiefs signed. At none of those signings was there any statement that chiefs could carry on being chiefs and that the governor would only control settlers.
5. Then there were the sovereignty proclamations. On May 21, 1840, Hobson issued two proclamations of sovereignty over the North South and Stewart Islands and Major Bunbury issued two further such proclamations over Stewart Island and Cloudy Bay. These covered all of New Zealand. Nowhere was the statement that only British settlers in these areas would henceforth be under the Governor’s control.
6. When some members of some tribes rebelled during the 1860s, at a meeting in Kohimarama in Auckland, on July 10, 1860, a total of 112 chiefs including a number who signed in 1840 committed their support to the treaty as signed in 1840, and to the governor. There was no mention that the governor should limit his governing to settlers.
7. In 1922, Maori Affairs Minister Sir Apirana Ngata addressed grumblings in a spirited defence of the treaty in an imagined dialogue with an old woman in his book The Treaty of Waitangi – an explanation. The treaty he discussed was not the “for settlers only” treaty.
Click to enlarge
1. On August 14, 1839, Lord Normanby directed Hobson to “treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any parts of those Islands which they may be willing to place under Her Majesty's Dominion”. Why did he not specify that exercise of sovereignty was over settlers only?
2. On February 4, 1840, Hobson’s team drafted a treaty in which Hobson for Queen Victoria and chiefs would agree that chiefs would cede sovereignty, that chiefs owned what they owned but could sell to an agent of the Queen if they so wished, and that the Maori people of New Zealand would be granted the rights of British subjects and be protected. There is nothing in that treaty says that only settlers would be under the new Governor.
3. The treaty was debated at Waitangi on February 5. Missionary William Colenso’s eyewitness account records 11 chiefs not wanting a governor but five who did. The principal objection was that numerous chiefs did not want to have a chief over them. This is pretty clear proof that the authority discussed then was to include both settlers and Maori. There was no statement that the proposed deal was to involve settlers only, and that chiefs could carry on being chiefs.
4. That treaty was signed on February 6 at Waitangi and subsequently at 34 locations all around New Zealand. In all, 512 chiefs signed. At none of those signings was there any statement that chiefs could carry on being chiefs and that the governor would only control settlers.
5. Then there were the sovereignty proclamations. On May 21, 1840, Hobson issued two proclamations of sovereignty over the North South and Stewart Islands and Major Bunbury issued two further such proclamations over Stewart Island and Cloudy Bay. These covered all of New Zealand. Nowhere was the statement that only British settlers in these areas would henceforth be under the Governor’s control.
6. When some members of some tribes rebelled during the 1860s, at a meeting in Kohimarama in Auckland, on July 10, 1860, a total of 112 chiefs including a number who signed in 1840 committed their support to the treaty as signed in 1840, and to the governor. There was no mention that the governor should limit his governing to settlers.
7. In 1922, Maori Affairs Minister Sir Apirana Ngata addressed grumblings in a spirited defence of the treaty in an imagined dialogue with an old woman in his book The Treaty of Waitangi – an explanation. The treaty he discussed was not the “for settlers only” treaty.
Click to enlarge
