Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Sovereignty Undetermined in New Zealand by House of Lords

Sovereignty Undetermined in New Zealand by House of Lords

Ratings: (0)|Views: 198 |Likes:
A document exposing that sovereignty was not a concept in 1840 in New Zealand and could therefore not be ceded. It was regarded as if it was not there by The House of Lords. The Declaration of Independence was seen as fictional and that Maori had no comprehension of abstract language as they were people of truth and not fiction. Everything is null and void and brings us all back to square one.
A document exposing that sovereignty was not a concept in 1840 in New Zealand and could therefore not be ceded. It was regarded as if it was not there by The House of Lords. The Declaration of Independence was seen as fictional and that Maori had no comprehension of abstract language as they were people of truth and not fiction. Everything is null and void and brings us all back to square one.

More info:

Published by: He Tangata Eighteen-ThirtyFive on Nov 17, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/30/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Page
1
of 
6
 SESSIONAL PAPERSPRINTED BY ORDEROFTHE HOUSE OF LORDS,OR PRESENTED BY ROYAL COMMAND,INTHE SESSIONS 4
o
& 5
o
VICTORIÆ(26
th
January
 –
22d June,)ANDTHE SESSION OF 5
o
VICTORIÆ,(19
th
August
 –
7
th
October,)1841,ARRANGED IN VOLUMES.VOL. XXVI.REPORTS FROM SELECT COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSEOF COMMONS, AND EVIDENCE,COMMUNICATED TO THE LORDS,(Five Volumes,)CONCLUDED;THE SUBJECTS AUTOMATICALLY ARRANGED.SUBJECTS OF THIS VOLUME:
New Zealand; Railways;Witnesses Expenses before Select Committees.
1841.
Pages 61-65 (Paragraphs 255-275+) from 
 
Page
2
of 
6
 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NEW ZEALANDE. G. Wakefield, Esq. 16
th
July 1840
253. Mr Hawes.]
Now read the words of Mr. Busby, in page 16?
 –
The words of Mr. Busby, at the
bottom of page 16 of the correspondence laid before Parliament, are, “Having been specially
accredited
to the missionaries of the Church Missionary Society, and directed to consult with them.”
And in a previous passage, about the middle of the same page, which is very explanatory of the sortof connexion with Mr. Busby supposed that he was placed in with
the missionaries, he says, “Unless
a defined and specific share in the government of the country be allotted to the missionaries, theBritish Government has no right to expect that the influential body will give a hearty support to its
representative.”
 
254. Chairman
.] Will you turn to page 42 of the correspondence laid before Parliament, and havethe goodness to read two paragraphs which you will find at the foot of that page, in a letter fromCaptain Hobson to the Under-secretary of State for the Colonial Department?
 –
 
“The declaration of 
the independence of New Zealand was signed by the united chiefs of the northern island only, (in
fact, only of the northern part of that island,) and it was to them alone that his late Majesty’s letter
was addressed on the presentation of their flag, and neither of these instruments had anyapplication whatever to the southern island. It may be of vast importance to keep this distinction inview; not as regards the natives, towards whom the same measure of justice must be dispensed,however their allegiance may have been obtained, but as it may apply to British settlers who claim atitle to property in New Zealand as in a free and independent state. I need not exemplify here theuses that may hereafter be made of this difference in their condition; but it is obvious that thepower of the Crown may be exercised with much greater freedom in a country over which itpossesses all the rights that are usually assumed by first discoverers, than in an adjoining state whichhas been recognized, than in an adjoining state which has been recognized as free and independent.In the course of my negotiations, too, my proceedings may be greatly facilitated by availing myself of this disparity: for with the wild savages in the southern island it appears scarcely possible to observeeven the form of a treaty, and there I might be permitted to plant the British flag in virtue of those
rights of the Crown to which I have alluded.”
 
255
. Will you now proceed with your statement of what took place?
 –
The appointment of Mr.Busby, as before described, appears to have been wholly inefficient as a means of repressing crimeand outrage in the islands, and further representations were made to the Government, urging thenecessity of some more efficient authority. It appears that in consequence of those representationsthe British resident was instructed to confederate chiefs at the Bay of Islands, in the northern island,and that in October 1835 those chiefs were constituted into a congress and issued a declaration of independence. I have seen that declaration in the native language; and it was to that I alluded theother day, when I said that the natives were so little capable of asserting their nationalindependence that in this declaration they knew not what name to give to their country, andtherefore called it Nu Terene, which expresses their pronunciation of the English words NewZealand.
256. Mr Tufnell 
.] Does not it appear to you that there might have been a divided sovereignty overparticular parts of the island, and yet no general sovereign power over the whole?
 –
I think therewas no sovereignty at all, because there can scarcely exist amongst any society of men an institutionfor
which that society have no name. now there is no such word as “sovereignty”
in the NewZealand language.
257. Mr Briscoe
.] Nor any equivalent word?
 –
I believe no equivalent word: the thing does notexist. The best proof of its non-existence is that there is no name for the country. Nationality
 
Page
3
of 
6
 without a name seems to be hardly possible; and what we understand by sovereignty is somethingnot conceived by the mind of a New Zealander.
258. Mr Tufnell 
.] Does it appear to you a valid argument against there being a sovereignty, thatthere was no general sovereign power; is it not possible that there may have been a sovereignpower in each particular tribe, without there being a sovereign power over the whole island?
 –
Itmight so have happened that the island should be cut up into a very great number of separatenations, each of whom should enjoy a national sovereignty; that might have happened, just as wesee in some parts of Europe and in several parts of Asia exceedingly small districts ruled over by thesovereign authority of separate nations. But that was not the case in New Zealand, because therethe authority of separate nations. But that was not the case in New Zealand, because there theauthority exercised in each tribe was not of the nature of a sovereign authority. When those chiefswere incited, not from any bad motives that I am aware of, or that I believe, but when they wereincited by the missionaries, who had a very great influence over them, to propose an alliance withthe King of England, they did not propose to make a treaty of peace and friendship with the King; buttheir ideas were such that they could express themselves in no other way than asking him tobecome their father; that appears in the correspondence. They had not the words which belong tothe existence of sovereignty, and they had not the words because they have not the idea; and havingneither the words nor the idea, of course they had not the thing.
259
. You stated that you considered the absence of a native word to designate the whole island tobe a conclusive argument against there being any native sovereignty?
 –
Against there being ageneral sovereign with general sovereignty. The declaration which was got up for the natives assertsthe national independence of New Zealand. Now New Zealand means the whole of the islands,consequently a general sovereignty was asserted; and I wish to explain that something was assertedwhich did not exist.
260
. Then you allude to a general sovereignty, not a particular sovereignty in each district?
 –
Iallude to the sovereignty which is asserted by that declaration, and which is I believe assertedwithout warrant, because there was no such thing to assert.
261
. There were native names to the different districts?
 –
Certainly.
262
. Therefore, when the chiefs of those districts were confederated for the first time, it is notunnatural that they should not have had a name for the whole of the districts united?
 –
If they hadconfederated themselves, if they had the degree of political intelligence necessary for congregatingthemselves and forming themselves into a congress, that would have been a very natural course.But it will appear by what took place afterwards, that in point of fact they never were a congress of chiefs; it was a mockery throughout.
263. Mr. Hope
] Do you admit that there exist independent sovereignties in parts of the island?
 –
Ithink not in any part of the island, because, as far as I understand the capacity of these people, theydo not know what sovereignty means, either small or great. The extent of the sovereignty hasnothing to do with the question; it is the thing itself; they do not know what it means.
264. Mr Tufnell 
.] But there were certain chiefs exercising the power of life and death?
 –
Yes; butvery much in the same way in which we see some animals exercising the power of life and deathover inferior animals, and over inferior beings of their own class, without any fixed law. It was a lawof passion: an inferior offended a chief, and the chief knocked his brains out with a tomahawk. Thatis not law; it is savage nature; it is that state of things in which the idea of sovereignty cannot be

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->