Assuming Control

One of the chiefs at Waitangi shook hands with Hobson and commented that he was sick and would die soon. Hobson did in deed suffer a stroke and was effectively laid up for several months until he died.

He did manage to make some crucial decisions. He annexed the South Island by ‘right of discovery’ which conveniently allowed Britain to claim the South Island before the expected French settlers could and before his emissaries could drag copies down there.

We’ve discussed the fact that it may also have been easy to do because there were so few Ngai Tahu around to negotiate with. Despite this annexation the treaty was still taken south and was signed at three sites in the South Island.

The other decision was to move the capital south to Auckland. As I mentioned in class this was prompted by the political necessity of placing the European capital between the two largets concentrations of Maori in the country….Nga Puhi in the north (today still the largest individual Iwi) and the various Waikato Iwi (Waikato, Tainui etc.).

This was at the invitation of Ngati Whatua who conveniently acquired Pakeha who would allow them to trade giving them economic security and ensured their safety from the encroachments of other Iwi.

NZ Company settlers in Wellington saw ££££ and wanted the Capital moved there but this would have legitimised the NZ Co. claims to the lands they claimed. Hobson was unwilling to do this.

At first the relationship with Maori was relatively quiet. Various Iwi sought out the Pakeha to sell land, seeking the same advantages that Ngati Whatua had acquired. Crown pre-emption meant land could only be transferred to the Government. Auckland isthmus was sold for about £200 but local Maori were horrified when they saw it auctioned for thousands of pounds. This meant Maori preferred the offers made by settlers not the pittance offered by Government officials.

Maori reluctance to sell to Hobson or his replacement Shortland, left the Government short of cash. Great Britain expected their colonies to be self funding. Shortland and later his replacement Fitzroy found it difficult to finance Government activities, and were forced to issue Government Bonds(Loans) which they were not authorised to do.

In other parts of the Colony the New Zealand Company sites were also struggling as disputes over what their agents had actually purchased limited their expansionist ambitions.

Wellington could not convince Maori to give up the Hutt Valley and quietly fumed at the Maori refusal to give up this 'Waste' land.

Petre (Wanganui) and New Plymouth were also struggling as Maori who had left these areas returned because ironically the presence of Pakeha made the areas safe for them to re-establish Ahi Kaa over these lands.

At Nelson settler became increasingly unhappy about the lack of land. They claimed the nearby Wairau Plains. This was claimed by right of conquest by Ngati Toa.

When Company surveyors had their pegs removed and their Raupo huts destroyed the settler decided to establish the ‘rule of law’ and a Magistrate issued an arrest warrant for Te Rauparaha. I’ve already described the tragically comic events that followed and the utu that saw 17 settlers executed by Te Rangihaeata.

On the 18th June, 1843, Capt. Richards, of the Government brig, “Victoria,” wrote as follows to Mr. A. E. McDonogh:—

“I have the honour to report that at the repeated request of the Chief Magistrate of Nelson, I consented, on his representation of the urgency of the case, to depart so far from the strict letter of my instructions as to convey that officer and a Justice of the Peace, together with 35 men, to the Wairau, to apprehend on a warrant, two native chiefs. That expedition having terminated disastrously with loss of life and total dispersion of the party. I deemed it proper to proceed here for the purpose of procuring medical assistance for any who might be wounded....

...“The bodies of Captain Wakefield, Mr. Thompson, Captain England, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Howard, Bumforth, Cropper, Gardiner and Coster, were found near the spot where the last of those who escaped left them alive, lying within 20 yards of each other, in their clothes as they fell. Captain Wakefield's coat and waist-coat alone had been stripped off, and under his head was found a piece of bread, and a pistol across his throat.”

Settlers called Fitzroys decision pusillanimous, we would probably see it as realistic. A traditional approach to the death of so many settlers would normally have seen the might of Britain descend upon the Ngati Toa. Warriors would have died, Pa and Kainga and fields destroyed, and the natural order restored. Fitzroy didn’t because the warrant was illegal, you can’t be arrested for destroying something that belongs to you.

It was a tacit acknowledegement that outside the areas of settlement, New Zealand remained Maori.

Kawanatanga or Rangatiratanga

That we have a the treaty is generally well known, although I dare say that while everyone in the country is aware of the treaty few are really familiar either with the treaty itself or why one was needed.

It has unfortunately fallen into disrepute, mainly through the machinations of vested interests, both Pakeha and Maori. Some people want the Treaty forgotten, using arguments about its relevance and its necessity.

Most of these people have little understanding of the historical basis for the 1840 decisions, nor do they understand the language used in the treaty which is the foundation of claims and counterclaims made today. Hopefully over the last week you have gained a greater appreciation of the Treaty debate.

For our purposes we are concerned with why a Britain and Maori sought an accommodation. The Treaty required both parties to be willing to take part, however what was offered or expected did not always mesh.

Britain as we discussed in class sought to legitimise their relationship with the Maori. They were concerned over the possible settlement of the country by private companies like the New Zealand Company led by Wakefield. Clashes between Settlers and Maori could be disastrous if there were no military presence.

The "Tory" arrived in Whanganui-a-Tara (Port Nicholson) shortly before Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands. This coincidence panicked both parties. The Company wanted to acquire as much land as possible before a colony was announced. They hoped to forestall any limitations that might be created should the Government place a moratorium on land sales.

For his part Hobson wanted to legitimise his position and to stop both the Company or anyone else for that matter from infringing on British sovereignty in New Zealand. Thus his apparent haste at writing, translating and negotiating the Treaty at Waitangi.

Besides the Company there were also the possible arrival of the French or Americans. French settlers were rumoured to be headed for Akaroa on Banks peninsula. This may explain his decision to claim the South Island on the basis of discovery (by Cook) rather than by negotiation. It would have taken to long to travel to the South Island. Surprisingly the treaty was still taken south to the Ngai Tahu who signed at three sites.

From our work in class you will be aware of the various points of view expressed at the meeting on the 5th February. Its seems to have been equally weighted for and against with the matter evenly balanced. Kawiti had argued against it as he distrusted the Missionaries until some important chiefs like Waka Nene spoke in favour of it.

The language of the treaty is extremely important especially in the Maori version. Kawanatanga means governorship, Rangatiratanga means sovereignty.

Consider your textbooks. They belong to the school who has Rangatiratanga over them. You are looking after them, you have Kawanatanga.

Claudia Orange has made the point that the first article should have used the term 'Mana', but Williams who helped translate it knew Chiefs would never have agreed to this.
Maori claims through the 19th and into the 20th century against the treaty are all based on the second article which assures Maori of their ownership of their lands, fisheries, taonga etc.

The “fourth article” at Pompalliers prompting assured religious freedom, much to the consternation of the CMS/WMS who had hoped for an extension of the State religion status accorded to the Anglican church in Britain.

Several Missionaries spoke at the meeting. All extolled the virtues and advantages a treaty would bring Maori. As we mentioned in class the idea of a covenant between the Queen and
Maori was presented, reinforced by Maori understanding of the Bible where covenants were sacred agreements made between Man and God. Maori (apart from Kawiti) had few reasons to disbelieve or question the motives of the Missionary(s).

The treaty was then copied and sent to the south. However Orange has made the point that other chiefs who signed often did so on the basis that the Hui at Waitangi having already thrashed out the pros and cons of signing and that if Nga Puhi thought it a good idea then they to should sign.

(New 2008) Maori protocols said that a Hui of any standing would thrash out all of the arguments for and against the proposition. A traditional Hui would have continued until everyone had reached agreement. Traders and Missionaries who carried the Treaty around the country may well have exploited this belief, encouraging other chiefs to sign the document.Britain soon decided that the 500 Maori who signed the treaty represented enough of a sample to announce annexation of the whole country. Again this shows the lack of awareness of the makeup of Maori society and the tribal nature of their culture.

Now we are one people

That we have a the treaty is generally well known, although I dare say that while everyone in the country is aware of the treaty few are really familiar either with the treaty itself or why one was needed.

It has unfortunately fallen into disrepute, mainly through the machinations of vested interests, both Pakeha and Maori. Some people want the Treaty forgotten, using arguments about its relevance and its necessity.

Most of these people have little understanding of the historical basis for the 1840 decisions, nor do they understand the language used in the treaty which is the foundation of claims and counterclaims made today. Hopefully over the last week you have gained a greater appreciation of the Treaty debate.

For our purposes we are concerned with why a Britain and Maori sought an accommodation. The Treaty required both parties to be willing to take part, however what was offered or expected did not always mesh.

Britain as we discussed in class sought to legitimise their relationship with the Maori. They were concerned over the possible settlement of the country by private companies like the New Zealand Company led by Wakefield. Clashes between Settlers and Maori could be disastrous if there were no military presence.

The "Tory" arrived in Whanganui-a-Tara (Port Nicholson) shortly before Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands. This coincidence panicked both parties. The Company wanted to acquire as much land as possible before a colony was announced. They hoped to forestall any limitations that might be created should the Government place a moratorium on land sales.

For his part Hobson wanted to legitimise his position and to stop both the Company or anyone else for that matter from infringing on British sovereignty in New Zealand. Thus his apparent haste at writing, translating and negotiating the Treaty at Waitangi.

Besides the Company there were also the possible arrival of the French or Americans. French settlers were rumoured to be headed for Akaroa on Banks peninsula. This may explain his decision to claim the South Island on the basis of discovery (by Cook) rather than by negotiation. It would have taken to long to travel to the South Island. Surprisingly the treaty was still taken south to the Ngai Tahu who signed at three sites.

From our work in class you will be aware of the various points of view expressed at the meeting on the 5th February. Its seems to have been equally weighted for and against with the matter evenly balanced. Kawiti had argued against it as he distrusted the Missionaries until some important chiefs like Waka Nene spoke in favour of it.

The language of the treaty is extremely important especially in the Maori version. Kawanatanga means governorship, Rangatiratanga means sovereignty.

Consider your textbooks. They belong to the school who has Rangatiratanga over them. You are looking after them, you have Kawanatanga.

Claudia Orange has made the point that the first article should have used the term 'Mana', but Williams who helped translate it knew Chiefs would never have agreed to this.

Maori claims through the 19th and into the 20th century against the treaty are all based on the second article which assures Maori of their ownership of their lands, fisheries, taonga etc.

The “fourth article” at Pompalliers prompting assured religious freedom, much to the consternation of the CMS/WMS who had hoped for an extension of the State religion status accorded to the Anglican church in Britain.

Several Missionaries spoke at the meeting. All extolled the virtues and advantages a treaty would bring Maori. As we mentioned in class the idea of a covenant between the Queen and Maori was presented, reinforced by Maori understanding of the Bible where covenants were sacred agreements made between Man and God. Maori (apart from Kawiti) had few reasons to disbelieve or question the motives of the Missionary(s).

The treaty was then copied and sent to the south. However Orange has made the point that other chiefs who signed often did so on the basis that the Hui at Waitangi having already thrashed out the pros and cons of signing and that if Nga Puhi thought it a good idea then they to should sign.

Maori protocols said that a Hui of any standing would thrash out all of the arguments for and against the proposition. A traditional Hui would have continued until everyone had reached agreement. Traders and Missionaries who carried the Treaty around the country may well have exploited this belief, encouraging other chiefs to sign the document.Britain soon decided that the 500 Maori who signed the treaty represented enough of a sample to announce annexation of the whole country. Again this shows the lack of awareness of the makeup of Maori society and the tribal nature of their culture.

An unwilling partner

In 1831 Yate persuaded 13 northern chiefs to sign the “Letter to King William.” This petition sought British protection from the French. It seemed that the good Mister Yate used the arrival of the French ship ‘la Favourite’ to stir up the Chiefs into believing that France was about to annexe New Zealand and would take the opportunity to take revenge for the murder of Marion du Fresne some 40 years earlier… as it turns out the French ship was simply continuing their tradition of scientific research and left without doing much at all.

What is interesting is that by recognising the letter Britain gave some semblance of recognition of the country itself. Combined with the terrible events surrounding the Elizabeth affair it was enough to encourage the Colonial office under Stephen to look at some way of controlling the behaviour of British citizens in the islands.

Sending a Resident would help to alleviate the situation. Instructions sent to the Governor in Sydney were relayed with the expectation that he would provide a suitable candidate. By all accounts James Busby was an irritating twit. He seems to have continually sought higher office within the administration of the Governor and did not seem to realise how annoying he was.

The new position of resident allowed the Governor to fulfil the Colonial office instructions and to rid himself of a pest at the same time. Unfortunately he disliked Busby so much he refused to provide him with all of the things necessary for the job. A ship, troops were denied him, he even had to plead for the house he needed to live in. Busby had plans for a 500 pound house drawn up, the Governor reduced it to 250 pounds. The problem of course was that while Port Jackson had to provide the Resident they were unwilling to pay for him – there were no taxes to be collected in New Zealand.

A Resident is just about the lowest position available in Diplomatic circles. It ranks below Consul and Ambassador. A resident has few powers and would not normally do more than represent his countries views to his hosts. By appointing Busby however this appears to be a tacit recognition of New Zealand as a sovereign nation.

Busby was expected to do little except keep the peace. Without any formal backup he failed miserably. Thus, the unkind name given to him of “Man’o’war without guns’. He was left in the position of writing letters to anyone who would listen. But he was not entirely witless and recognised the need for an ensign that would allow New Zealand built ships to be registered and allowed to trade with Sydney without being confiscated.

The Flag chosen in 1834 was negotiated by Busby and a number of Northern Chiefs. Its design was one of three presented to them. When it was gazetted by the Admiralty it again reinforcedthe view of New Zealand as an independent state.

The following year Busby again exceeded his authority and negotiated with 35 Northern chiefs and created the Declaration of Independence. This was also sent to Great Britain and again it was recognised by the Government.

In the meantime Baron De Theirry had arrived in the North causing a mild panic amongst some, apart from Busby who sent off a number of wild letters to the Governor and the Colonial office concerning an imminent takeover by the ‘King’ of New Zealand. Luckily for Busby the Nga Puhi of the Hokianga were less than impressed with the Frenchman’s claims to 40,000 acres (sold to him in 1820 by Hika) and allowed him only a few hundred. His French settler promptly rioted and left. Poor old De Theirry ended his days as a piano teacher in Auckland.

There was also growing French interest in Akaroa and Busby continued to bombard the Colonial Office with letters of annexation in the south. Not only were the French a colonial threat but the large numbers of American whalers and the appointment of an American Consul (Clendon) was also a matter of concern.

A case in point.. Paragraph Writing

READ through this and add a comment by telling me what you think the ORIGINAL paragraph should have received as a mark.

This last term we have been writing paragraphs in Moodle. The following is one paragraph I have just marked. On the face of it it covers all of the bases... but it needs some work. The factors discussed are all good but it could be better. It is copied below as is.....

"the missionaries eventual conversion of maori to christianity is mostly attributed to 5 different factors; war weariness, synthesis, disease, hongi and education.

maori were tired by war, and the missionaries preached of a peaceful cristian lifestyle, which after on going wars appealed hugely to the maori.

synthesis occoured between the maori religion and christianity. this added to maori conversion as maori wetre relativly happy with the conversion of the two religions, and could see the benifits of converting.

european travelers brought diseases with them that maori had never previously encountered, such as TB. they had no immunity and there were no knowlage, or procedures to deal with them. missioneries on the other hand had previous experiance with them, and were able to supply maori with appropriate medication and prayers. this aided maori conversion as it gave them faith in the christian god.

hongi was very against conversion so when he died in 1828, a lot of conversions occured over quite a short ammount of time.

the maori language had never really been previously been written dow, so maori were fasniated by the concept of writting, and education. this curiosity lead to a number of conversions."

Below is the marked work. Note that I have reorganised the structure and added examples/comments. I have not corrected anything else.

________ this is a good attempt but could do with some rearranging and some explanation.

A statement/topic sentence to start...

the missionaries eventual conversion of maori to christianity is mostly attributed to 5 different factors; hongi, war weariness, disease, synthesis, and education.
HONGI
Hongi an important Ngapuhi chief was very against conversion, he had refused to embrace the new religion, so when he died in 1828, and a lot of conversions occured over quite a short ammount of time.
WAR
maori were tired by war, its effects had debilitated their culture and undermined their self belief in thier atua, 20,000 dead and just as many again displaced had left them tired and dispirited. and the missionaries preached of a peaceful cristian lifestyle, which after on going wars appealed hugely to the maori.
DISEASE
european travelers brought diseases, such as TB with them, that maori had never previously encountered, . they had no immunity and there were no knowlage, or procedures to deal with them. missioneries on the other hand had previous experiance with them, and were able to supply maori with appropriate medication and Christian prayers. this aided maori conversion as it gave them faith in the christian god. This further undermined their faith in their own atua.
SYNTHESIS
synthesis occoured between the maori religion and christianity. Traditional Maori beliefs were mixed with Christian ideas to produce new hybrid religions. this added to maori conversion as maori wetre relativly happy with the conversion of the two religions, and could see the benifits of converting. The first of these, Papahurihia is recorded in the 1830's and allowed Christianity to become more acceptable to maori.
EDUCATION
Education also played a part because Hongi had sent slaves to Mission schools, many learnt to read and write in Maori but they also became converted. When released in the early 1830's they returned home to their own Iwi as lay missionaries, often beginning the conversion process before the Europeans arrived.

Now a summary...

If you want to comment further... does the reorganisation work better? Does it make better sense or flow better as a piece of work....? What other details could have been added?