SOVEREIGNTY IN N.Z

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 29, 4 February 1937, Page 12

SOVEREIGNTY IN N.Z

WHEN DID IT BEGIN ?

(To the Editor.)

Sir.—Mr Fildes's letter, appearing in your issue of this evening, makes interesting reading, but, with your permission, I would offer a few comments thereon, inasmuch as your esteemed correspondent has overlooked several very relevant points.

Cook's proclamation at Possession Island in 1770 was followed by the official founding of the colony of New South Wales in 1788, but his earlier proclamations in this country were followed by no official settlement prior to 1840. Certainly there were white settlers in New Zealand much earlier, but, generally speaking, they were mere adventurers, and though doubtless the majority were British subjects, nothing they did could involve the British Government in any responsibility. Darwin, for example, relates in his "Voyage of the Beagle," how the vessel called at the Bay of Islands in December, 1835. He tells us that there were then from 200 to 300 British subjects residing there! but he describes them as the refuse of society and adds that the "one bright spot" was the Anglican Mission Station at Waimate "with its Christian inhabitants." He refers to Mr. James Busby as the British Resident, which in fact Mr. Busby was, and the title indicates that New Zealand —called by Darwin "this fine island" —was regarded as foreign territory.

In this connection it is an interesting fact that in 1823 Lord Bathurst, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, in a letter to Baron de Thierry who had written from Hokianga asking for recognition of certain claims of his own, expressly stated that New Zealand was not British territory. Such was undoubtedly the view of every British Government prior to the treaty of cession usually referred to as the Treaty of Waitangi. That Treaty must be considered in conjunction with all the circumstances surrounding it. With a view to circumventing the machinations of Baron de Thierry, Mr. Busby had inspired a number of Native chiefs to proclaim themselves "the United Tribes of New Zealand," and as such they were recognised by the British Government. It is true that, their title notwithstanding, those chiefs represented but a small portion of New Zealand, but that fact was unknown to the British Government, and so Hobson was officially authorised to negotiate with them for a treaty of cession.

Apparently Mr. Fildes maintains that Cook's proclamations of 1770, coupled with the arrival of settlers in 1840 under the auspices of the New Zealand Company were sufficient in themselves to establish British sovereignty in this country. But there are two fatal flaws in the argument. First, settlement after an interval of 70 years is too widely separated from the date of proclamation to establish sovereignty, and secondly, the settlement by the New Zealand Company was not merely unauthorised by the British Government, but opposed! As for the first point, when he was unable to find any. Natives at Stewart Island to sign the Treaty of Waitangi, Major- Bunbury proclaimed the sovereignty of Queen Victoria in virtue of the discovery by Cook in 1770. The commander of the French warship L'Aube promptly challenged the validity of the proclamation, but he protested no longer when further signatures were obtained in the South Island and British authority officially proclaimed shortly afterwards at Akaroa and at Cloudy Bay. How the British Government viewed the settlement at Pito-one under the auspices of the New Zealand Company is fully shown by Hobson's proclamation in which he .denounced the conduct of a "certain person at Port Nicholson" as being not merely unlawful, but treasonable. There can be no doubt that he regarded the action of the Company in setting up a Government of its own devising as an affront to authority, and he followed up his denunciatory proclamation by despatching an armed force to Port Nicholson to proclaim sovereignty and to put the "rebels" in their proper place.—l am, etc., P. J. O'EEGAN. February 3.