Friday 24 May 2024

Ned Fletcher's book: "unsatisfactory" and "badly flawed"


New Zealand/Australian historian Bain Attwood reviews Ned Fletcher's English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi in the Australian Book Review. His conclusion: "unsatisfactory" and "badly flawed."

Attwood was raised in New Zealand and is a professor of history at Melbourne's Monash University, thus giving him both local knowledge and a less myopic perspective on Treaty issues than most locally-based historians. His most recent books (A Bloody Difficult Subject: Ruth Ross, te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Making of History and Empire and the Making of Native Title) also demonstrate he has put that wider perspective to good use.

Fletcher, he says, writes more as lawyer than historian, handling his material like a legal brief, with all the flaws evident without an opposing counsel to point out omissions and elisions. Fletcher, for example (emphases mine), "adduces practically all the relevant historical sources and [citing] at great length those parts of them that seem to support it" — he "painstakingly rebuts each and every argument contrary to his own, or at least those he finds useful to acknowledge" – if that's not bad enough, Attwood also accuses him of omitting "any thorough consideration of important points that tend to undermine the cogency of his argument" – and he also "neglects to discuss in any thoroughgoing way those parts of the historical record that draw his claims into question." Ouch! 

"By using these tricks," says Attwood, "he might well convince unwitting readers." He has. Many of them, as an Ockham book award and a quick Google search will indicate. (But as other more perceptive reviews or comments indicate — Philip Temple's, Braunias's, Brian Easton's my own [ahem]— you can't fool all the people all of the time.) Part of the reason, perhaps, is the imprimatur of the publisher, Bridget Williams Books. Part his own familial imprimatur – his mother being the former Chief Justice. And perhaps the major part is the ease with which Fletcher's interpretation melds with fashionable political interests.

Nonetheless, as Attwood makes clear, "Fletcher’s argument is badly flawed. In large part this is because it rests on a series of dubious assertions or assumptions that he does not seek to test and which obscure several awkward historical facts." These include:

Soon after making the Treaty, the British Crown claimed possession of New Zealand (or parts of it) on grounds other than the Treaty, including the legal doctrine of discovery. The imperial government sought to assume sovereignty by making an agreement with many local chiefs, even though it regarded them as neither fully sovereign nor owners of all the land. It did so for reasons that were as much diplomatic and political as they were legal and moral, and so were inherently pragmatic rather than simply principled in nature. It instructed its agent to make a treaty that only had two conditions: the Māori were to cede sovereignty to the British Crown as well as the pre-emptive (that is, sole) right to purchase land. There is no evidence to suggest that it envisaged the agreement that was subsequently made with some of the chiefs as one that was meant to provide the basis for the colony’s legal and political arrangements at the time, let alone in the future.

Fletcher's argument also rests, says, Attwood,  "on three especially problematic claims":

  1. that the meaning of any text such as the Treaty of Waitangi can be discovered merely by considering the purpose or intent of those who are said to be its authors, rather than contemplating how that text was received, not least by Māori; 
  2. that the meaning that might have been bestowed on the Treaty at the time it was made, rather than the discussion and debate that has taken place about it since, best accounts for its historical significance in the sense of both meaning and importance; and 
  3. that the original (1840) understanding of the Treaty is more important than any later understandings of it, historically speaking. 
Not one of these propositions, he concludes, can withstand critical scrutiny. "They reveal a loss of perspective about the making of the Treaty in 1840 that characterises much of the historical discussion and debate about it." A loss of perspective that it is probably easier to see from across the Tasman.

In my own review I suggested Fletcher was slippery. Attwood also suggests that Fletcher simply fails to "engage with and thus alert lay readers to the most important historical scholarship of the last twenty or so years." Especially so to scholarship   with views at odds with his own. This 

draws his argument into question and/or undermines his publisher’s claim that this book is a ground-breaking scholarly contribution to understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Among that scholarship that Fletcher either 'overlooks' or fails to adequately engage (cited in Attwood's book on Ruth Ross's seminal 1972 article) is

 A lot of careful scholarship to ignore.

Attwood concludes:

This tome is undoubtedly a prodigious piece of research, but in seeking to account for the British government’s purpose in making the Treaty, its author is unwilling or unable to distinguish the wood from the trees. The result is a remarkably turgid work, the publication of which is somewhat puzzling, given its publisher has an enviable reputation for presenting a good deal of New Zealand’s finest historical scholarship to lay audiences.

Wednesday 7 February 2024

When was sovereignty properly established here?


So here's a quiz question for you: When did Britain legally acquire sovereignty over the New Zealand isles? (Supplementary questions: What IS sovereignty? And was it EVER ceded by the locals?)

  • Was it when Cook first planted his flag in 1760 and 1770?
  • Or in 1787, when Captain Phillips was installed as governor of NSW "and adjacent isles"?
  • Perhaps in 1813, when NSW Governor Macquarie issued his General Order "purporting to bring the natives of certain Pacific islands, including New Zealand, under the protection of His Majesty" — followed by the appointment here of magistrates in 1814 and 1819?
  • Maybe in 1823, when the jurisdiction of Australian courts was extended here to deal with miscreant British subjects?

All this activity reveals there was already a great deal of legalistic British engagement with the place loooong before Hobson landed here for the first time in 1837. (No, not a typo.) But none really convey sovereignty as we understand it, i..e, the exercise of legitimate power by a recognised state. 

In that respect, some argue that 14 January 1840 is the important date, marking the day when NSW Governor Gipps proclaimed the extension of NSW's boundaries to NZ,  English laws applying here for the first time. Or 30 January of that year when Hobson landed and proclaimed himself Lieutenant-Governor.

Even after Hobson re-landed here in January 1840, he and his ship's captain reckoned on the one hand that sovereignty was acquired peacemeal -- the northern parts after the northern signings (Hobson issued a proclamation on 17 Feb 1840 on that basis), and thence from Auckland north after a signing there on 4 March, 1840 ("thus confirming to Her Majesty the Sovereignty of this Island to this Parallel," wrote his ship's captain.)

On the other hand, Hobson also reckoned that "the Treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840 ... This instrument I consider to be de facto the Treaty, and all  the signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of the original document." 

This looks contradictory. Yet the two views can be easily reconciled: in Hobson's mind, it was not the Treaty that confirmed sovereignty, but his proclamations largely on the basis of those signatures-- the most important being on 21 May 1840 when he proclaimed sovereignty over the whole place (and clumsily claimed the Treaty's signing date to be 5 February).

It's all a bit of a mess.

Many years ago, Auckland University's senior history professor James Rutherford had a crack at answering that question: When exactly did Britain acquire sovereignty over the New Zealand isles?

Turns out there's not exactly a straightforward answer.

Rutherford dismisses all those early dates with ease.

  • Cook's flag-planting was never ratified by the British Parliament, and not followed up by occupation.
  • Both Phillip and Macquarie probably overstepped themselves here, and once again their declarations were not followed up by immediate occupation.
  • The 1823 ordnances only applied to British subjects (and only if caught)
  • Gipps himself said his 1840 Proclamation was "only intended to give warning" that Hobson and pens and parchment were on their way to New Zealand, not to suggest he was already ruling here. It was "anticipatory" of sovereignty; it did not establish it.
So when Hobson arrived here in January 1840 to "treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority" he arrived only as Consul, no matter what he read out when he landed. 

He would only legally become Lieutenant-Governor when or if sovereignty could be properly established.

And when was that?

Well, it's complicated because of the confused legal status of the Treaty/Tiriti. As of 1949, when Rutherford was giving his opinion, even the date of 6 February 1840 could not be admitted:

Thus we come to Hobson's proclamations of 21 May 1840. He issued two:

The first proclamation (a) recites that Hobson was authorised to proclaim sovereignty over the South Island on the grounds of Discovery [although Hobson did not know, on 21 May, that a number of South Island chiefs had signed the Treaty. Their signatures imply that the Treaty applies to the South Island as well as the North Island], and that the North Island had been ceded in sovereignty to Her Majesty. The second (b) recites more fully that by the Treaty of Waitangi the chiefs have ceded all rights and powers of sovereignty to the Queen absolutely and without reservation. 
    Hobson's action in issuing these proclamations is clearly one of the important definitive acts of State for which we are looking. For the first time during the period of transactions under review, an accredited government agent, acting, it may be said, reasonably in accordance with instructions received, proclaims British sovereignty over the whole of New Zealand. 
    His action is still subject to the approval of the Crown. 
    In event of such approval being given, it will be reasonable and, I think, correct to date back the acquisition of British sovereignty over the whole of New Zealand to this date. ...
    Whereas the first proclamation clearly implies that sovereignty is asserted over the South Island on and as from 21 May 1840, sovereignty over the North Island is specifically asserted 'from and after the Date of the above-mentioned Treaty.' ... 
Hobson regarded the treaty proper as that which was signed at Waitangi on 6 February, the later signatures being merely supplementary. It is doubtful how far such a view can be taken as correct. If accepted, however, it has the effect of dating back the assertion of British sovereignty over the North Island to 6 February 1840.
Alternatively, it is possibly correct to consider that, as the chiefs signed the Treaty, they were recognising the sovereignty of the Queen over their tribal lands and were thereby fulfilling that political condition which H.M. Government had laid down to their consul, Hobson, as a prerequisite to his assertion of British sovereignty, which he could then proclaim at his convenience. 
Which he did.

However, we're still not there yet. (Did I say it was complicated?)

By 21 May around 400 chiefly signatures had been acquired on Hobson's various sheets of parchment, although not all had signed, and not all those signatures were yet in his kitbag. (The mail was awfully slow back then.) He acted quickly, before he was truly ready, because Wakefield's settlers at Port Nicholson were starting to make noises about republicanism.

So two things must at once be admitted, says Rutherford, about Hobson's assertion of sovereignty over the North Island in May 1840: 
(1) that it was premature, in the sense that the process of treaty-making was still incomplete; and (2) that in extending sovereignty over the whole of the North Island, as well as the South, Hobson was probably exceeding both what the strict letter of his instructions authorised, and what the Treaty, even in its finished state in October, warranted.
And then on June 5, in the South Island, having acquired several chiefly signatures, but spying many foreign vessels sunning themselves in Port Underwood, claimed the South Island on the basis of cession, and Stewart Island (being empty) on the basis of discovery. (Adding nothing to what Hobson had already claimed on 21 May but at least bolstering it.)

But as Rutherford points out, "Sovereignty could, in the last resort, be established only by the sanction of the Crown, and the form that Crown sanction took was approval of the terms of Hobson's May proclamations. ... The essential political condition of the assertion of British sovereignty was the 'free and intelligent' consent thereto of the Maori chiefs of the North Island. This was obtained in a considerable measure by means of the Treaty of Waitangi (February-October 1840)."

And thus by October 1840 the British Government could be sufficiently satisfied that its instructions to Hobson had been successfully carried out, and was able to give official approval. And so, Rutherford concludes, 
Not until they were satisfied that there was a general measure of native consent to British sovereignty did the British Government take any definitive legal step to assert or confirm sovereignty. Prior to the formal approval of 2 October of Hobson's May proclamations, all their actions were of a  preparatory sort. 
    The decision to assert sovereignty was based (i) upon the political facts that Hobson had secured a considerable measure of native consent by the Treaty; (il) in respect of the South Island and Stewart Island, partly upon native consent, partly upon rights of discovery, and partly on the fact of settlement; and (iii) in the North Island, in so far as native consent was withheld, upon rights of settlement or occupation. 
.   The Treaty of Waitangi is not recognisable as a treaty in international law, and is not part of municipal law; therefore the legal position is that New Zealand was acquired by an act of State, and falls in the category of colonies acquired by occupation. The definitive acts of State are Hobson's proclamations of 21 May 1840, and H.M. Government's approval of 2 October 1840.
Maybe we should make 2 October the National Day?

Tuesday 6 February 2024

Ned Fletcher's 'Slippery' Treaty



I'm happy to say that Part One of my abridged review of Ned Fletcher's book became the second-most popular piece yesterday at the Newsroom site.

Check that out here: Ned's 'Slippery' Treaty. Some snippets:

**"Fletcher’s will quickly become the favoured mainstream interpretation of the Treaty. But this doesn’t mean it’s correct."
**" It was in Chapter 19 that I began making notations under the heading “Slippery.” 
**" Pumuka, chief of the Roroa Tribe, says: 'I wish to have two fathers – thou and Busby, and the missionaries.' From the latter two he and his colleagues have already learned 'Christianity and the Law'…It’s this that these smart fellows, eager for modern learning, are asking for more of. For the protection of law, not for a bag of sweets and a paternalistic pat on the head. 
**"Fletcher has his work cut out for him in making words seem what they’re not. He admits himself on page 526, as he nears his work’s end, that '[t]he English draft of the Treaty contains no explicit recognition of Maori self-government and custom.' Which is true, but it’s the opposite of the conclusion he has been labouring for the previous 525 pages to prove."

And now, on Waitangi Day, Newsroom has just posted Part Two of the abridged review: Ned's 'Puzzling' Treaty. Let's see if we can get this one to Number One! Some snippets from Part 2:

** "Ned argues the Treaty, the English version, promises eternal self-government to Maori... The entire scaffolding of Fletcher’s argument for separate Māori jurisdiction or law as a permanent thing falls to the ground however when one realises that Stephen, and the Colonial Office, did not intend such a state of affairs to be permanent. They expected continual progress towards their end goal of full equality."

** "In the Treaty’s only written references to protection, it never appears without the word 'rights.'... So what does the written word tell us then about the nature of the protection being offered in the Treaty?"

** "If the Treaty is about 'protection' of Māori, as Fletcher concludes, then as the Preamble makes very plain that was to manifest as 'Protect[ion of] their just Rights and Property.' Which seems vastly different to Fletcher’s conclusion that it must lead to inter-tribal self-government."

** That said, if there is a right to permanent self-government in the Treaty, then it is that of which John Locke spoke: which is the individual right to govern oneself free of let or hindrance by others – this self-governance being the source of all freedom. In libertarian terms, all one requires from a legal authority for this self-governance to function is to be protected in one’s genuine rights, for coercion to be outlawed and to be otherwise left alone by that authority. Thereafter, all human interaction becomes voluntary.
    "Would that this were the meaning one could draw from either Treaty, or Tiriti. Or from today’s lawmakers."
PS: If you'd like the full review of Ned Fletcher's book, The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi, you can download it here.

Monday 5 February 2024

'The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi' - BOOK REVIEW [PDF]


Welcome to readers of Newsroom, where a condensed version of this review has just appeared:

For the full book review of Ned Fletcher's 'English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi' — the complete "17,000 word opus" including footnotes and more history, along with an extended discussion of rights and rangitiratanga and more books to write — I invite you to download the full PDF version here.

Or to read it online, and comment, beginning here.

And of course, feel free to stay and look around. You could start over there on the right, with the 'Popular Posts' of the recent (and not-so-recent) past ...

Friday 2 February 2024

POSTSCRIPT 2: Rangatiratanga as Ownership

Following on from my book review of Ned Fletcher's English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi, this is POSTSCRIPT 2

Article Two of the Māori text of Te Tiriti promises to preserve tino rangatiratanga [1]; courts have interpreted this in various ways to mean that chiefs (Rangatira) retain some kind of chiefly power.  Fletcher says the English text agrees with this, saying the concept of sovereignty ceded was “compatible with ongoing tribal self-government,” suggesting then that “tino rangatiratanga” means Māori self-government. His view is both an expansion and a clarification of the mainstream view of what “tino rangatiratanga” might mean.

Context is important. It is Article One that whose focus is on sovereignty, whereas Article Two has a focus on land and resources. There was a logical progression from one Article to another, with the first Article, logically and in law, taking precedence. (Sovereignty first; then clarifying what that sovereignty is for.)

So in this context then, what is chieftainship about? It is primarily about ownership. Even individual ownhership. In his book One Sun in the Sky, author Ewen McQueen argues however that Williams's translation reverts to the collective:

“It is true that in translation [he says] Henry Williams has taken an approach that better aligns with the more [collectivist] Māori world-view, rather than the more individualistic European outlook. As such the Māori version does not refer to individuals holding exclusive possession of property. Instead we find chiefs exercising “chieftainship over the lands, villages and all their treasures.” [2]

As I say above, this makes for a disastrous confusion. “In particular the reference to chieftainship is about collective tribal rights over land. As [former Chief Justive] William Martin wrote in 1860,

‘This tribal right is clearly a right of property… To themselves they retained what they understood full well, the ‘tino Rangatiratanga,’ ‘full Chiefship,’ in respect of all their lands…’” [3]

“Even the ‘tino’ of the Māori version is better understood in this context,” notes McQueen. “It does not mean that the chiefs’ authority is unqualified in a government sense. Rather it is Henry Williams’s translation of how the chiefs would retain possession of the lands, forests and fisheries. The English version emphasised such possession would continue ‘full exclusive and undisturbed.’ Williams has rendered this concept as ‘tino’ rangatiratanga. It is about Māori retaining full agency over their land and resources. It is not a statement about unqualified political sovereignty.”

So “rangatiratanga” relates to ownership. “Tino” gives force to this relationship, giving it the force of a property right.

[1] Hugh Kawharu back-translates te tino rangatiratanga as 'the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship' -- the Queen guaranteeing "to protect the Chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures ..."

 In Fletcher's reconstructed English text, the corresponding phrase is full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests Fisheries and other properties ... "

[2] Ewen McQueen, One Sun in the Sky, Galatas Press (2020), p. 42-43. 

[3] William Martin, The Taranaki Question, The Melanesian Press(1860), p. 9. Quoted in McQueen, p. 43

Thursday 1 February 2024

POSTSCRIPT 3: The understanding of 'Protection' at the 1860 Kohi Conference

In his 2022 book 'The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi,' author Ned Fletcher argues that at Treaty signings and subsequently "the language of 'protection' and 'guardianship' was conspicuous." I challenge that in Part 3 of my book review, and I post there in Footnotes relevant speech excerpts from Colenso's account of the Waitangi signing relating to both 'Protection' and Guardianship.

The month-long 1860 Kohimamarama conference, called as New Zealand was teetering on civil war, became (as Claudia Orange titled her 1979 journal article on the conference), a "Covenant" -- a "Ratification   of the Treaty of Waitangi." [1] It was in essence a reaffirmation by a wide range of Māori chiefs of their understanding of the document they signed. 

Here, in these excerpts from the full proceedings, is what they said and understood about about what the Treaty said on protection. It begins with relevant excerpts from the introduction to the Conference by Governor Gore-Browne and Native Secretary Donald McLean...


10 July, Tuesday

Gore-Browne, opening the conference

His Excellency Governor Browne opened the proceedings by reading the following address, a translation, of which was afterwards read by Donald McLean. Esq., (Native Secretary, and President of the Conference):—

My Friends,—Chiefs of New Zealand, …

3. On assuming the Sovereignty of New Zealand Her Majesty extended to her Maori subjects her Royal protection, engaging to defend New Zealand and the Maori people from all aggressions by any foreign power, and imparting to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects; and she confirmed and guaranteed to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish to retain the same in their possession. …

6. Having renewed these assurances in the name of our Gracious Sovereign I now ask you to confer with me frankly and without reserve. If you have grievances, make them known to me, and if they are real, I will try to redress them. Her Majesty's wish is that all her subjects should be happy, prosperous, and contented. If, therefore, you can make any suggestions for the better protection of property, the punishment of offenders, the settlement of disputes or the preservation of peace, I shall gladly hear them and will give them the most favourable consideration…

8. There is also a subject to which I desire to invite your special attention, and in reference to which I wish to receive the expression of your views. For some time past certain persons belonging to the tribes dwelling to the south of Auckland have been endeavouring to mature a project, which, if carried into effect, could only bring evil upon the heads of all concerned in it. The framers of it are said to desire that the Maori tribes in New Zealand should combine together and throw off their allegiance to the sovereign whose protection they have enjoyed for more than twenty years, and that they should set up a Maori King and declare themselves to be an independent Nation. Such ideas could only be entertained by men completely ignorant of the evils they would bring upon the whole Native Race if carried into effect….


It is unnecessary for me to remind you that Her Majesty's engagements to Her Native subjects in New Zealand have been faithfully observed. No foreign enemy has visited your shores, Your lands have remained in your possession, or have been bought by the Government at your own desire. Your people have availed themselves of their privileges as British subjects, seeking and obtaining in the Courts of Law that protection and redress which they afford to all Her Majesty's subjects. But it is right you should know and understand that in return for these advantages you must prove yourselves to be loyal and faithful subjects, and that the establishment of a Maori King would be an act of disobedience and defiance to Her Majesty which cannot be tolerated. It is necessary for the preservation of peace in every country that the inhabitants should acknowledge one Head. …


I may frankly tell you that New Zealand is the only Colony where the aborigines have been treated with unvarying kindness. It is the only Colony where they have been invited to unite with the Colonists and to become one people under one law. In other colonies the people of the land have remained separate and distinct, from which many evil consequences have ensued. Quarrels have arisen; blood has been shed; and finally the aboriginal people of the country have been driven away or destroyed. Wise and good men in England considered that such treatment of aborigines was unjust and contrary to the principles of Christianity. They brought the subject before the British Parliament, and the Queen's Ministers advised a change of policy towards the aborigines of all English Colonies. New Zealand is the first country colonised on this new and humane system. It will be the wisdom of the Maori people to avail themselves of this generous policy, and thus save their race from evils which have befallen others less favoured. It is your adoption by Her Majesty as her subjects which makes it impossible that the Maori people should be unjustly dispossessed of their lands or property. Every Maori is a member of the British Nation; he is protected by the same law as his English fellow subject; and it is because you are regarded by the Queen as a part of her own especial people that you have heard from the lips of each successive Governor the same words of peace and goodwill. It is therefore the height of folly for the New Zealand tribes to allow themselves to be seduced into the commission of any act which, by violating their allegiance to the Queen, would render them liable to forfeit the rights and privileges which their position as British subjects confers upon them, and which must necessarily entail upon them evils ending only in their ruin as a race. …


I will not now detain you by alluding to other matters of great importance, but will communicate with you from time to time and call your attention to them before you separate. Let me, however, remind you that though the Queen is able without any assistance from you to protect the Maories from all foreign enemies, she cannot without their help protect the Maories from themselves. It is therefore the duty of all who would regret to see their Race relapse into barbarism, and who desire to live in peace and prosperity, to take heed that the counsels of the foolish do not prevail, and that the whole country be not thrown into anarchy and confusion by the folly of a few misguided men. … 

Finally,—I must congratulate you on the vast progress in civilization which your people have made under the protection of the Queen. Cannibalism has been exchanged for Christianity; Slavery has been abolished; War has become more rare; Prisoners taken in war are not slain; European habits are gradually replacing those of your ancestors of which all Christians are necessarily ashamed. The old have reason to be thankful that their sunset is brighter than their dawn, and the young may be grateful that their life did not begin until the darkness of the heathen night had been dispelled by that light which is the glory of all civilized Nations …



Paora Tuhaere

… These are my words. I entertained the Pakeha a long time ago, and I found him good. Hence, I say, I shall always rememeber the Pakeha, and I shall always remember too, with affection, the Governor who was sent here to protect us.The benefits which we received from him are—Christianity and the Laws. Now, listen! My affections at the present time lie between these two blessings. Listen, again! My heart is satisfied. All that the Laws keeps from us is—Guns, Powder, and Brandy. Another subject comes under my attention. It is the misunderstanding between the Pakeha and the Maori about land. The Pakeha has his mode of selling land, and the Maori has his mode. O people, hearken! The Pakeha came to New Zealand to protect the Maori.; As to the talk about Waitangi (treaty), that is Ngapuhi's affair.

Tamati Waka Nene:

 O people, listen! These are my words in your hearing. I shall speak about the Governor,, and about the Pakehas. I am not accepting the Pakeha for myself alone, but for the whole of us. My desire when Governor Hobson arrived here was to take him as our Governor, in order that we might have his protection. Who knows the mind of the Americans, or that of the French? Therefore, I say, let us have the English to protect us. Therefore, my friends, do I say, let this Governor be our Governor, and this Queen our Queen. Let; us accept this Governor, as a Governor for the whole of us. Let me tell you, ye assembled tribes, I have but one Governor. Let this Governor be a King to us. Listen again, ye people! When the Governor came here, he brought with him the Word of God by which we live; and it is. through the teaching of that Word that we are able to meet together this day, under one roof. Therefore, I say, I know no Sovereign but the Queen, and I never shall know any other. I am walking by the side of the Pakeha. Mr. McLean, this is all I have to say. People of the Runanga, 1 have finished. …

11 July, Wednesday

Hemi Metene Te Awaitaia: 

I shall make the Governor's address the subject of my speech. I shall speak first of the 4th clause, namely,—"In return for these advantages the chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi ceded for themselves and their people to Her Majesty the Queen of England, absolutely and Without reservation, all the rights and powers of sovereignty which they collectively or individually possessed or might be supposed to exercise or possess." That was the union of races at Waitangi. I was there at the time, and I listened to the love Of the Queen. I then heard about the advantages of the treaty. I shall speak in the second place on the 16th clause of the Governor's address, namely,—" I will not now detain you by alluding to other matters of great importance, but will communicate with You from time to time and call your attention to them before you separate. Let me, however, remind you that though the Queen is able without any assistance from you to protect the Maories from all foreign enemies, she cannot without their help protect the Maories from themselves. It is therefore the duty of all who would regret to see their race relapse into barbarism, and who desire to live in peace and prosperity, to take heed that the counsels of the foolish do not prevail, and that the whole country be not thrown into anarchy and confusion by the folly of a few misguided men." Listen, Mr. McLean, that I may tell you my thoughts. In my opinion the greatest blessings are, Christianity and the Laws. While God spares my life I will give these my first concern. When I commit a wrong, then let me be brought before the Magistrate and punished according to law. Those are the good things. 

Hira Kingi: 

Friends, hearken! I did not join the Queen's party for a long; time. When the Pakeha Maori came here I did not join, but when the Missionaries came, then I came under the wing (or protection) of the Queen. (A song.) That song is my reply to the Governor's address….

Eruera Kahawai: 

Listen, ye people! There is no one to find fault with the Governor's words. His words are altogether good. (Song.) It was the introduction of the Gospel that put an end to our evil ways. Yes, my friends, it was Christianity alone that did it. It put an end to thieving and many other sins. I have already entered the Queen's party. We have now a new parent, the Queen. We have now the protection of the Queen. We have abandoned our old ways. The rule now is kindness to the orphan (charity), peace, and agricultural pursuits. I shall not turn to the Maori side I have now come under the wings (protection) of the Queen. The father on that side is the Governor. (Song). My words then are, "As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be."


I am a Maori. Let me tell of the first things. There was no evil in them. In the first place came the Missionaries. Formerly it was death, but I have been saved by Christianity. Now we have become united in the name of the Queen. I am like the bird called Pipiwarauroa. The (foster) parent of that bird is the Piripiri. She (the Pipiwarauroa) lays her egg in the nest of that bird, leaving to her (the Piripiri) the hatching and rearing of it. And when the young comes forth it cries "Witiora-witiora." The Piripiri is not its real parent. So also with me. It is through the Queen that I have been permitted to stand here, and to enjoy life. The protection of the Queen is right This (protection) shall be as a house to me. The rain may beat on the outside of the house, but I am inside, that is, I am with the Queen.

12 July, Thursday


Let me make use of an illustration from the Scriptures. Jesus Christ said he was above Satan. So the Governor says he is above both Pakeha and Maori—that he alone is Chief. Now, when Satan said, I am the greatest, Christ trampled him under foot. So the Queen says, I that she will be chief for all men. Therefore, I say, let her be the protector of all the people.

13 July, Friday

Donald McLean

Mr. McLean opened the Meeting with the following speech … “The Governor has read you his address, and you have been invited to take it under consideration, and to give free expression to your opinions, whether for or against it.

It has been in your hands for several days to afford you full time for its consideration. If you have examined the address, and understand all that it contains, then let each tribe in this Conference proceed to prepare a reply to the same … I shall now read the address to you, and shall make remarks as I proceed.

3rd Clause:—This treats of Her Majesty's protection, whereby New Zealand and the Maori people are defended from all aggressions by any foreign power. Has not this pledge been carried out? Has any foreign power disturbed this country? People of other nations have certainly come here, but their mission has always been a friendly one. They have come to settle or to trade. They have never assumed any authority in this Colony…

7th Clause: This has direct reference to the Maori King movement. You should freely express your opinions on this subject…. The protection of England has been solicited and accepted by this country, and it is therefore wrong to talk about any other sovereignty…

16th Clause: The Governor tells you that the Queen will afford you protection against dangers from without, but she cannot without your co-operation save you from internal feuds. It is therefore the duty of every man to help, that peace and good order may prevail…

You must carefully examine the Address yourselves, and then let each hapu consider a reply to it, that the Governor may become acquainted with your opinions. His object and earnest aim is to induce you to adopt European customs. Let each tribe give utterance to its opinions, whether for or against, and let this be done soon, in order that you may proceed to the consideration of other important subjects.

16 July, Monday

Matene Te Whiwhi, (Ngatiraukawa) Otaki:

“…Let this plan [the assembling of Native chiefs] be made permanent by the Governor and yourself; my reason for urging this is, that it may be to us a means of realizing the advantages of our position as subjects of the Queen, and as a means of cementing our attachment and making firm our loyalty to the Queen, that we may truly dwell under the shadow of the Queen; that we may recognize the Governor as our father, and that we may feel the warmth emanating from the Law as our protector. We hear the Queen's name mentioned, but we desire also to feel her warmth. By this plan only will the union of the two races be confirmed; by this will they grow together. I will not assume the possession of much knowledge at the present time; in future years, perhaps I may attain to some knowledge of the civilized institutions of the Pakeha, but let this plan be continued and made permanent.”

Horomona Toremi, (Ngati Raukawa,) Otaki:

“I have one word to say:—The Lord commanded John (the Apostle), saying:—"This is my commandment, that ye love one another." I am reminded that it is through the Law that we love one another. Another thought of mine is, that our language has become yours. It will be for you, for the Pakeha, to interpret it. Here is another matter, Mr. McLean. It is my desire that we should participate in, and be protected by your power (mana). I am not in any doubt about the matter, for it was the first Governor who appointed, and Governor Grey who confirmed Matene, as our Magistrate. All I have to do is to support him.”

July 17, Tuesday

Hira Kingi

“…The Queen's shall be our only flag. We will hold our lands under the protection of the Queen…”

Te Makarini, (Ngatiawa;) Te Awa-o-te-Atua: 

“Tamihana! What you and Matene have said is correct. I lay the blame upon our parent the Governor. You, Tamihana, find fault with the [Māori] King. I find fault with our parent. Inactivity! inactivity! was the fault. lt was because they were left to themselves that Waikato was led to seek some means of protection for their lands and property. This is where we find fault with our parent….”

Te Karamu Kahukoti, (Ngatipaoa,) Hauraki: 

“…It was not my proposal to have a [Māori] King for this land; for I had become incorporated with the Pakeha. The cry for this King came from the South. Te Heuheu took it up and brought it to Maungatautari. It then obtained footing in the centre (of the Island). Had it proceeded from us here in in the North, it would be our concern. 1 mean, had it been true that I was favorable to the King Movement. It was you people from a distance who set it afoot. I am sitting under the Queen's wings (protection). We have one style of dress (i.e. identity of customs)….

Ngapomate, (Ngatiwhakaue,) Rotorua:

“Listen you of the Conference, the new comers, and you others! I will hold up to you my grievance that the Conference may consider it. … By placing ourselves under the Queen's protection we shall get this grievance redressed. If the Queen administers a remedy it will be effectual….”

July 18, Wednesday

The Native Secretary announced the receipt of a message from His Excellency the Governor and proceeded to read: Message No 2 from 

Thomas Gore Browne, Governor.—

“…The Governor earnestly desires to see the chiefs and people of New Zealand in secure, possession of land, which they can transmit to their children, and about which there could be no dispute. Some land might be held in common for tribal purposes; but he would like to see every chief and every member of  his tribe in possession of a Crown Grant, for as much land as they could possibly desire or use. When a dispute arises about a Crown Grant, the proprieter need neither go to War nor appeal to the Government: he can go at once to the proper Court, and, if he is right, the Judge will give him possession, and the Law will protect him in it…”

Tohi Te Ururangi (Ngatiwhakaue,) Rotorua: 

“…I have nothing else to speak of but the law. The law will protect me. I have nothing else to speak of but my allegiance to the Queen…”

July 24, Tuesday

Tamati Waka Nene, (Ngapuhi,) Bay of Islands:

“…My reason for accepting Governor Hobson was to have a protector for this Island. I thought of other nations—of the French. Now if we consent to the Maori King, our Island will be taken from us. …Therefore I say again, Put an end to this clamour for a [Māori] King—put an end to it. That I urge is this. Do not let the name, for protection of the Queen be withdrawn from this country; inasmuch as the land, and the inhabitants also, have become the Queen's. If you persist in crying for a [Māori] King, we shall be lost. We owe the protection of our lands to the Queen. We owe our protection to the Governor. … My object in accepting the Governor was, that I might have a protector. [Tukihaurr ene interposed: Lest what befall you?] We don't know the mind of other nations. When the fame of New Zealand became known, the French arrived, and the Americans arrived. Look, for instance, at the conduct of the French towards Pomare (the Queen of Tahiti). The French have taken all her land. … This is the close of the Conference (as far as I am concerned); I am returning home….”

July 25, Wednesday

Mohi Te Ahi-a-te-Ngu, (Waikato,) Pukaki:

“…The Queen sent the Governor here to protect the Natives of this Island. The Queen said that there should be one law for the Maori and the Pakeha. I sold my lands; but you keep the laws, and do not allow me to share in them. There is another of your faults. I desired to rent my land at the Wharau. You said "No." You only enjoy the law….”

July 26, Thursday

Home Ropiha Tamaha, (Ngatikinohaku,) Auckland:

“… I have  a Word to say respecting the Treaty of Waitangi. When Governor Hobson first arrived at the Bay of Islands, Ngapuhi assembled at Waitangi. The proposals were talked over and consented to by the tribes to the North. It was at that time that this Island was taken under the shadow of the Queen. After that it was brought to this place. There was a meeting (of Chiefs) and they consented (to the treatv). It was then taken to all the places in this Island as far as Port Nicholson. All gave their assent. War occurred at the Bay of Islands. The Queen's protection was not removed from the Island. War broke out at Port Nicholson and Whanganui, but the shadow of the Queen Still remained on this Island, Perhaps it will now be withdrawn on account of this King (Movement). … It is 20 years since strife among us has disappeared—it is perhaps forgotten.

“Truly it is as you say, Hone (John Hobbs), our old chiefs did agree to the Treaty of Waitangi and to the Sovereignty of the Queen. Te Rauparaha did not take exception to it; he signed his name and he took the blanket. I desire that we should ratify this Treaty, that we should hold it fast lest the Queen's protection should be withdrawn from us….” 

Donald McLean, in conclusion…

Mr. McLean concluded the proceedings with the following speech:—

“…With regard to the Treaty: I think Tamati Waka and the other Ngapuhi chiefs shewed themselves to be wise men in asking for protection Hongi Hika was a sagacious chief, and although he destroyed many lives in war, yet he was a man of great mind. He loved his country, foresaw danger, and provided against it. He and others perceived the necessity of having protection. They applied to the King of England for it and the result was this Treaty of Waitangi. Whatever you may now say respecting it, it has been a great boon to you. It is folly to accuse your chiefs of the past generation of ignorance. Do not imagine that you are intellectually superior to them, or that they were less competent than yourselves to form a judgment as to what would benefit their people. Had they not the same faculties as you? and were they not quite as capable of using them? You should not impugn the wisdom of those chiefs who signed this Treaty, Let not the children now talk of repudiating the wise acts of their fathers. They knew in their day what they were about as well as, or better than, you of the present generation. This Treaty should be regarded by you [unclear: as] a valuable property, the benefit of which will be experienced by you, in your day, and hereafter by your children.

It is quite true that what is done here may be considered as a fuller ratification of that Treaty on your part. I therefore agree with you, Paul, in your view as to the importance of a conference like the present one. For, as you observe, the various Native tribes of New Zealand are well represented here.

Your words also, Thompson, are correct. Attempts have been made in England to set aside this Treaty, but the Queen maintained it. She would not take advantage of your ignorance to set it aside. And let me tell you, Chiefs of the Conference, that that Treaty is your safeguard. If it were set aside, you would be the sufferers.

I shall now read to you the Treaty of Waitangi:—

"Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, regarding with Her Royal Favor the Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand, and anxious to protect their just Rights and Property,  and to secure to them the enjoyment of Peace and Good Order, has deemed it necessary in consequence of the great number of Her Majesty's Subjects who have already settled in New Zealand, and the rapid extension of. Emigration both from Europe and Australia, which is still in progress, to constitute and appoint a functionary properly authorised to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands. Her Majesty, therefore, being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native population and to Her subjects, has been graciously pleased to empower and authorise me, William Hobson, a Captain in Her Majesty's Royal Navy, Consul, and Lieutenant-Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may be, or hereafter shall be, ceded to Her Majesty, to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.

"Article the First.

"The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand, and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation, cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England, absolutely and without reservation, all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole Sovereigns thereof.

"Article the Second.

"Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests, Fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the Individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate, at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

"Article the Third."

"In consideration thereof, Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her Royal Protection, and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British subjects.

"W. HOBSON, Lieutenant-Governor.

"Now, therefore, We, the Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand, being assembled in Congress at Victoria, in Waitangi, and We, the Separate and Independent Chiefs of New Zealand, claiming authority over the Tribes and Territories which are specified after our respective names, having been made fully to understand the Provisions of the foregoing Treaty, accept and enter into the same in the full spirit and meaning thereof: in witness of which, we have attached our signatures or marks at the places and the dates respectively specified.

"Done at Waitangi. this sixth day of February, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight handred and forty."

Hemi Parai, (Ngatiawa,) Wellington:

“…As to that which is called the Treaty of Waitangi, I have heard nothing about it. The only thing I have heard of is the law of God. As to these laws which have been spoken about. they have been out of sight with the Europeans. I did not hear of them. … Governor Grey laid out roads, established schools, and built hospitals. It was he also who appointed the Chiefs as Assessors to assist the European Magistrates. Among us Porutu and Te Puni were appointed; Manihera was another. This it was which brought me: into close connection with the Europeans, and here I take my stand under the protection of the Pakeha.”

Tamihana te Rauparaha, (Ngatitoa,) Otaki:

“… I say the Treaty of Waitangi was good. Some approve of that Treaty; others object to it. In my opinion there is nothing wrong in it. That Treaty is right; it is clear. Those Natives who do not understand it, are confused  about it, and that is why they object to it. 

“Paora has said that it is not clear, that the blankets were the bait and the Maories the fish. The Europeans saw with regret the many evils which existed among the Maories at that time, and that was the reason why Governor Hobson made things smooth, so that they should sign their names as soon as possible. I say, therefore, that that Treaty is clear. 

“That Treaty is like a new road which has just been opened, and which has not been carefully measured off, the brushwood having only just been cut away; and though strife between the Maories and Europeans has been frequent, still the kindly provisions of that Treaty have not been erased. 

“So also in the first purchases, the land was not paid for in money, but with blankets, with scissors, with jews harps, and other goods of inferior value. It was a road of which that was but the beginning. Afterwards the Queen agreed to purchase the land of the Maories. Then first did the Maori see the yellow gold to his hand. Now the purchase of land is clear, as it is paid for in gold. The buying of land with blankets is like the Treaty of Waitangi. This second Treaty, the Kohimarama Treaty, is like the buying of the land with gold. 

“As the rule of paying for land with money is now fixed, so in like manner the provisions of this Treaty are now clear, like the road which has been properly made. In my opinion this is going on towards maturity. The foot has attained one step; when the second is reached then it will be quite clear. 

“I think we had better cease to speak about the disputes of those days gone by, as both the Europeans and the Natives know how wrong those proceedings were. Let us begin afresh now and have new thoughts from this time; let our aim be to hold fast the protection of the Queen, and let us strive to follow the customs [i.e., laws] of the European. 

“With respect to cases of murder, let them be dealt with according to the law of England; if a European should kill a Maori, let the case be dealt with by that law. Whether European or Maori let the offender be dealt with by the same law. If a Maori should be killed by a man when drunk, let the case be tried, and if it be seen to be wrong (that the slayer should be put to death,) enough, let him go; whether European or Maori let the rule be the same; or, if he be a deranged person, let the same law be observed. ….

“There is another thing: it would be well to define the boundaries of our lands, that each family may have its own portion marked off; these should also be surveyed, the Governor appointing surveyors for the purpose, that we may have Crown Grants given to us, so that everything may be clear for us, and that we may be like the Europeans. For this reason I say that this Conference should be made permanent And another thought of mine is, that we should place full confidence in the laws of England, and that there should be no thought to hold back the land; each man should do as he pleases with his own piece….

“What the Ngapuhis have said about cleaving to the Europeans is right; their setting up the flagstaff cut down by Hone Heke at Kororareka was to show the Europeans that they do not consent to the Waikato project. They still hold fast their loyalty to the Queen. Let us hold to this good thing: let us be determined to cleave to this, that is, let us uphold what is good.”

Tukihaumene, (Ngatiwhakaue,) Maketu:

“… One thing, however, let us make haste and finish the talk. Let the Queen's Sovereignty spread and extend to every place. From the Reinga (in the north) to where the sun rises, and on to Port Nicholson. The acknowledgment of the Queen has been agreed to by us all. Therefore, I say, let us finish this. Influenza and what not will be our death. Let us go to town where it is warm. It was said we should be one week, but you have now made the time long.”

August 1st, Wednesday

Wiremu Tipene, (Te Uriohau,) Kaipara:

“… I will speak about the Maori mana. The Ngapuhis have their mana, the Ngatimaru have their mana, the Ngatiwhatua, and the Ngatiwhakaue, have their mana, as their protection; but the mana to protect me is broken. The day of my salvation was the preaching of the Gospel. I will cleave to the Word of God as a parent for me. When the law of the Queen came as a protector for my body then all were warmly clad. The laws of God and of the Queen guard the gates of death. I beheld and thought this is a sign of salvation for all men threatened with death in this Island. I said, Christianity will guard the soul and the law of the Queen will improve our temporal condition: there will I take refuge. I will have nothing to do with the Maori mana. I will abide in the laws of God and of the Queen for ever and ever. These are the best laws I recognise; you, the Europeans, shall be parents to us the Maori people. I will not acknowledge the Maori mana. The people of the Ngatiwhatua tribe intend to embrace and rest upon the law.

Arama Karaka, (Te Uriohau,) Kaipara:

“…Afterwards came Governor Hobson. Then they told me of the laws of the Queen, and of the laws of England. Then I consented that you should be a parent for me, and that the Queen's mana should be my mana. I am under the mana of all men You, O Governor, must be my protector. My laws must be given up; they are bad laws, cruel and dark. Your laws shall be my laws; let us be bound up that we may hold close together. This is what I have said down to this day. That which binds the Ngatiwhatua is the law of God and of the Queen. The laws of God are for the enlightenment of my heart, and those of the Queen are clothing for my body. The old men pass away, but I shall continue to speak the same language. You have hard what binds us; I refuse to acknowledge the Maori mana, or Maori government(chieftainship). I have seen its evils. It was the law of the Queen which showed me what is good for men—love and kindness.”

Hone Waiti, (Te Uriohau,) Kaipara:

“… We took no part in the talk about the Treaty of Waitangi. In former times all men were as orphans, (friendless,) and every tribe sought for some means by which they might return and live. When the Gospel was made known to us, we sought it as the means of saving men's lives. We were told that it was a good thing and would save the soul. We accepted it. We submitted to the law of God. It was that which caused us to draw nigh to God. It was a good thing which would put down all evil amongst the people. We thought if the side only in which the spirit is concerned be warn, what is to be done for the body? At that time when some of the tribes had embraced Christianity, and others were still evil, the Government came, and it was said that the law of the Queen would protect the Island, and that by these two laws men would live. If evils grow, men die; but these two laws will protect man and he will live.”

August 3, Friday

Paora Tuhaere, (Ngatiwhatua,) Orakei:

“… This Conference is a proper means by which we may come under the protection of the Queen. All the people have been enclosed in the Queen's net. Although a man may wander about, he will do so to little purpose outside of the net. …”

Arama Karaka, (Te Uriohau,) Kaipara:

“All ye of the runanga, hearken! In the days that are past we were in doubt and uncertainty, and knew not whether we should live or die; but in this day the Governor has made a declaration. … My thoughts are with the laws of God and the Laws of the Queen. These are the sentiments of the people of Kaipara, for the meeting which took place yesterday (evening) was composed of Kaipara chiefs. I approve of the words of Te Waiatua (Taiapo). Let us all consent to a pakeha (magistrate) being stationed at Rotorua, as a protection for that place, so that the people may not be disturbed.”

August 6, Monday

Governor Gore-Browne, closing speech

“…Farewell, my Friends! and may God protect you and guide you in the ways of wisdom and in the paths of peace !"


To follow ...


1. Claudia Orange, ‘The Covenant of Kohimarama: A Ratification of the Treaty of Waitangi’, New Zealand Journal of History (NZJH), 14, 1 (1980), pp.61-82. ‘The Covenant of Kohimarama: A Ratification of the Treaty of Waitangi’, New Zealand Journal of History (NZJH), 14, 1 (1980), pp.61-82

Wednesday 31 January 2024

POSTSCRIPT 4: 'Protection,' Duties and 'Rights' in Normanby's Instructions

Following on from my book review of Ned Fletcher's English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi, this is POSTSCRIPT 3: Excerpts from Normanby's Instructions to Hobson, as drafted by James Stephen, dated 14 August, 1839

KEY WORDS/CONCEPTS HIGHLIGHTED: Protection, Rights, Duties/Object of Your Mission, Gradualism
"The acquaintance which your service in Her Majesty's Navy has enabled you to obtain with the state of society in New Zealand relieves me from the necessity of entering on any explanations on that subject. It is sufficient that I should generally notice the fact, that a very considerable body of Her Majesty's subjects have already established their residence and effected settlements there, and that many persons in this kingdom have formed themselves into a society, having for its object the acquisition of land, and the removal of emigrants to those Islands. ...

The necessity for the interposition of the Government has, however, become too evident to admit of any further inaction. ... The spirit of adventure having thus been effectually roused, it can no longer be doubted that an extensive settlement of British subjects will be rapidly established in New Zealand; and that, unless protected and restrained by necessary laws and institutions, they will repeat, unchecked, in that quarter of the globe, the same process of war and spoliation under which uncivilized tribes have almost invariably disappeared as often as they have been brought into the immediate vicinity of emigrants from the nations of Christendom. To mitigate and, if possible, to avert these disasters, and to rescue the emigrants themselves from the evils of a lawless state of society, it has been resolved to adopt the most effective measures for establishing amongst them a settled form of civil government. To accomplish this design is the principal object of your mission.

I have already stated that we acknowledge New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state, so far at least as it is possible to make that acknowledgment in favour of a people composed of numerous, dispersed, and petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act, or even to deliberate, in concert. But the admission of their rights, though inevitably qualified by this consideration, is binding on the faith of the British Crown. ...

Believing, however, that their own welfare would, under the circumstances I have mentioned, be best promoted by the surrender to Her Majesty of a right now so precarious, and little more than nominal, and persuaded that the benefits of British protection, and of laws administered by British judges, would far more than compensate for the sacrifice by the Natives of a national independence which they are no longer able to maintain, Her Majesty's Government have resolved to authorize you 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. ...

Especially you will point out to them the dangers to which they may be exposed by the residence amongst them of settlers amenable to no laws or tribunals of their own, and the impossibility of Her Majesty's extending to them any effectual protection unless the Queen be acknowledged as the sovereign of their country, or at least of those districts within or adjacent to which Her Majesty's subjects may acquire lands or habitations ...

It is further necessary that the chiefs should be induced, if possible, to contract with you, as representing Her Majesty, that henceforward no lands shall be ceded, either gratuitously or otherwise, except to the Crown of Great Britain. ... Extensive acquisitions of such lands have undoubtedly been already obtained, and it is probable that, before your arrival, a great addition will have been made to them. The embarrassments occasioned by such claims will demand your earliest and most careful attention. ... 

[I]it will be your duty to obtain, by fair and equal contracts with the Natives, the cession to the Crown of such waste lands as may be progressively required for the occupation of settlers resorting to New Zealand. All such contracts should be made by yourself, through the intervention of an officer expressly appointed to watch over the interests of the aborigines as their protector. The re-sales of the first purchases that may be made will provide the funds necessary for future acquisitions ... the price to be paid to the Natives by the local Government will bear an exceedingly small proportion to the price for which the same lands will be re-sold by the Government to the settlers....

The acquisition of land by the Crown for the future settlement of British subjects must be confined to such districts as the Natives can alienate without distress or serious inconvenience to themselves. To secure the observance of this, will be one of the first duties of their official protector....

There are yet other duties owing to the aborigines of New Zealand, which may be all comprised in the comprehensive expression of promoting their civilization,—understanding by that term whatever relates to the religious, intellectual, and social advancement of mankind. For their religious instruction, liberal provision has already been made by the zeal of the missionaries and of the missionary societies in this kingdom; and it will be at once the most important and the most grateful of your duties to this ignorant race of men to afford the utmost encouragement, protection, and support, to their Christian teachers. ... The establishment of schools for the education of the aborigines in the elements of literature will be another object of your solicitude; and until they can be brought within the pale of civilized life, and trained to the adoption of its habits, they must be carefully defended in the observance of their own customs, so far as these are compatible with the universal maxims of humanity and morals. But the savage practices of human sacrifice, and of cannibalism, must be promptly and decisively interdicted. Such atrocities, under whatever plea of religion they may take place, are not to be tolerated within any part of the dominions of the British Crown.