In the last video, video one about Article two, we established that:
Article two only had two sentences.
The first sentence was concerned with the British guaranteeing to protect Maori with respect to the possession of their land, dwellings, and property.
The second sentence detailed how after 1840, only the British government could buy Maori land.
We also established in the last video that the final English draft of the Treaty and the Treaty in Maori were virtually identical. This dispels the myth trotted out by activists that the Treaty in Maori and the English version of the Treaty are so different, you’ll need expert Maori translators to tell you what the Treaty in Maori says. They are different only because the activists are not reading the final English draft.
We also established that in 1840, the British considered New Zealand to be an independent sovereign Nation, ruled by Maori. In this brief to Hobson dated 14th of August 1839, Lord Normanby stated:
"The the sovereignty to New Zealand is indisputable and has been solemnly recognised by the British Government."
Later in the same brief he writes: "I have already stated that we acknowledge New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state so far at least as is possible to make that acknowledgement 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 deliberate in concert."
I have put his brief in the description of this video.
Having said this, at least 1/3 of New Zealand had already been sold to settlers or developers by the chiefs before 1840 The source of this information is the HH Turton Documents which I have included in the description of this video as well
In this sense, the chiefs did not own ALL of New Zealand in 1840 Only what they had not sold.
How shall we summarise? We could say that apart from these pre-1840 land sales, the British considered that, as at the 6th of February 1840, ALL the land of New Zealand was "owned" by Maori.
Think about it.
If Maori were not sovereign in 1840, why did the British see the need for a Treaty asking Maori to relinquish sovereignty?
If Maori were not sovereign in 1840, then there was no sovereignty to cede. If Maori were not sovereign in 1840, then there what was the point of the Treaty, which asked Maori to cede sovereignty?
As we know, Maori went on to sell 92% of New Zealand in the decades that followed 1840.
So Maori relinquished sovereignty in two ways 1. By cession through a Treaty 2. By sale of their land. When one sells land, one loses sovereignty over that land.
If you sell your home in New Zealand, when the new owners pay the money and move in, you lose your sovereignty over it. While you were the owner, you were sovereign. When you sold it, sovereignty was transferred to the new owners.
Really, this is all a clear double blow for the activists who claim that Maori in 2024 still hold sovereignty over New Zealand.
They call their fake sovereignty "tino rangatiratanga" and "mana motuhake".
They use these Maori words to try and bamboozle / confuse the general public into believing that Maori still have sovereignty over New Zealand. Don’t be fooled. Maori do not have sovereignty over NZ in 2024. They ceded sovereignty in 1840.
I did 7 videos on this topic so please go and look at those if you are not sure about the issue of sovereignty.
OK, let’s get back to Article 2, sentence 1, of the Treaty.
“The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.”
What does “all the people of New Zealand mean”?
Does it mean all everyone living in New Zealand, including all Maori and all settlers? Or does it mean just Maori? Often “Maori” in our history are referred to as “New Zealanders.”
If this is so, then the first sentence of Article 2 is really super-emphasizing that the British are going to confirm and guarantee ALL Maori (i.e. chiefs, tribes, hapu, Iwi, and any people who might be categorized as ‘Maori’) the possession or ownership of their land, dwellings and property. I have no problem with this.
If “all the people of New Zealand” really means everyone in New Zealand, Maori and nonMaori, then the British were promising to everyone living on the Islands of New Zealand the possession of their land, dwellings, and property.
Some might say, “If by “New Zealanders”, Hobson meant only Maori, then non-Maori New Zealanders don’t have the governments protection of the ownership of their land, dwellings, and property.” This is nonsense. Implicit in British law and government is the reality that the government would protect the ownership of the land, dwellings, and property of its citizens.
Since most settlers in New Zealand in 1840 were British citizens, they automatically had the governments guarantee to protect the ownership of their land, dwellings, and property. That is to say, they didn’t need the Treaty of Waitangi for this assurance. They already had it via British law.
So now we come to the issue of surveying the land, establishing boundaries, and issuing titles.
I made the point last video that if the British guaranteed Maori the possession or ownership of their land, then they (i.e. the British) needed to know, precisely, what land each tribe ‘possessed’ or owned.
One can’t protect what one has not defined.
When Maori had New Zealand to themselves, the land had never been surveyed.
So the British had to do this.
They had to survey each tribe’s land, establish boundaries, and issue titles.
As you can image, chiefs fought each other ferociously in the courts, arguing about who owned what land. Over time these issues were settled.
The best way to explain what happened it is like this.1
Imagine a map of NZ. In the middle of the North Island, draw a red square 1cm x 1cm Let’s say this square represents the land owned by a particular tribe at the 6th of February 1840.
The British considered that everything on that piece of land – including the land itself –dwellings, chattels, rivers, mountains, forests – everything – was literally ‘owned’ by that tribe. The British only promised to protect what tribes owned inside their 1cm square.
Roughly 540 chiefs signed the Treaty.
So in effect, we could say, there were 540 x 1cm² all over New Zealand, each square representing the land owned by each tribe. Not all the squares were 1cm². Some were smaller, some larger, depending on the size of the tribe and the size of the land they owned.
What I want you to remember is that the British only promised to protect that tribes ownership of everything inside that 1cm square. That is all. This point is crucially important for what follows.
1 There are five versions of the Treaty. The rogue James Freeman version (RJFV) which appears in Schedule 1 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Littlewood final English Draft, the 1989 Hugh Kawharu version, and the Treaty in Maori. The only one of the four that mentions ‘fisheries’ is the rogue James Freeman version This precisely why Freeman’s version is called ‘rogue.’ The British never intended for Maori to ‘own’ the fisheries or coastline of New Zealand or the water. The fisheries, coastline, and water, as I will explain shortly, belonged to all New Zealanders, to be managed by the government. ‘Forests’ also appears in the RJFV, but not the other 3 versions. “Forests” are not an issue because if a tribe had a forest inside their 1cm², which was highly likely, the British considered that that tribe ‘owned’ it. The RJFV is the version which is causing all the problems, because of ‘fisheries.’ Activists have milked this, claiming all the coastline and fisheries belong to them. They do not. The RJFV ought never to have been accepted as the English version of the Treaty in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act. The English version of the Treaty is the Littlewood Final English draft. That the RJFV of the Treaty was inserted in the Treaty of Waitangi Act can be put down to MP history ignorance. If you want to know how the RJFV came into being, click HERE