Factors and Events that Pulled The British Crown into New Zealand in 1830-1840

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Factors and Events that Pulled The British Crown into New Zealand in 1830-1840

The British granted New Zealand independence in 1935 but by 1940 it had become obvious that Britain needed to take control of New Zealand, this greater form of control was to come in the treaty of Waitangi in 1840. The motives behind the signing of the treaty vary greatly from Maori and Pakeha. Britain held very little control in New Zealand. Captain William Hobson noticed this when he was sent to investigate the situation on behalf of Governor Bourke of New South Wales. He reported back saying that both Maori and the ever increasing settlements of law abiding British were under threat from lawlessness. This lawlessness refered to drunken sailors and the like apon from whom which British had a gained reputation no where more then at Korakea which became known as the hell hole of the South Pacific. There was also a much more sinister problem which the britsh had to deal with that was the use of Britsh ships in a mercenaries fashion apon which warriors could be transported. The Elizabethan Affair was a prime example of this. It occurred when Captain Stewart sailing the Elizabeth gave Te Rauparaha (a northern chief) and his men safe passage to Akaroa so that they could lay a trap for unsuspecting Ngai Puhi. In return for a payment in flax. New Zealand had no effective force for dealing with these sorts of incidents. People had to be sent from New South Wales and by the time they arrived deed was done and the culprits had absconded as had happened with the elizerbeth affair Captain Stewart was long gone before the authorites were any the wiser. This highlighted the ineffectiveness of this system.

Pre 1940 there was a lack of a real British presence and commitment to New Zealand. This lead to interest from France, Holland and America, as well as greedy entrepreneurs keen to extract whatever they could from New Zealand. The Declaration of Independence in 1935 was a step in the right direction but only really made provisions for protection of maori from large scale colonization. An incident which really worried Britain, was the landing of the Nimrod in 1937 carrying Baron Charles de Thierry and 93 of his subjects. They hoped to colonise the Bay of Islands and name it De Thierry land. This threat was not defeated by Britain but more so by maori who had sold much of the land De Thierry had purchased 15 years earlier. This made the little land they had uneconomical. They had to trade for food and soon ran out of funds. But they did have a lasting effect the theory that Britain would be able to extract resources from New Zealand with out a larger presence no longer held much weight.

Colonisation threats did not only come form other countries. The Wakefeild brothers made this blatently clear. These convicts would buy land from Maori, often very shadily and then divide it up and sell it to incoming settlers, they also tried to set up infrastructure creating small towns. This got up the noses of the Crown for three reasons; the fact that they were kept out of this money making loop, that the Wakefeild brothers would often give settlers unworkable pieces of swamp or hill country which hadnt been surveyed due to the difficulty. Many of the reasons that had stopped Britain from having a greater presence in New Zealand in the past no longer existed. Settlers and Missionaries aswell as Maori all saw the merits of having a greater British presence. They applied pressure to the crown. They believed this would improve trade and help to cur lawlessness.

It is true that many of the motives behind British and Maori signing the treaty do not align. But in many cases what both sides aimed to achieve lined up very well. The possibility of the French trying to colonise New Zealand was something that both British and Maori wanted to stop but for very different reasons. The British wanted the resources of New Zealand such as Kauri Spars and Gum to themselves but also wanted to stop the spread of Roman Catholicism. The maori had never had a good relationship with the French. This began in 1769, when the the St Jean Baptiste captained by Jean de Surville ransacked a village in Spirit Bay. This was in response to the local maori stealing a yawl which is similar to a small row boat. This set the tone for French-Maori relations and is summed up well by Walker who says the Maori would much rather have been taken over by the British than by the Frenc or Dutch. The Declaration of Independence had already promised Maori protection from foreign powers but both British and Maori didnt mind being reassured of this fact especially after the De Thierry incident. Belich backs up these fears by stating A French New Zealand was not entirely farcical. Trade and settlement was also a motive for both Maori and Pakeha. British wanted more greater acess to the natural resources of New Zealand and Maori wanted better acess to British technology. But Maori were unaware of quite what this meant as Belich agues Maori would have known that the Treaty would have lead to an increase in settlement they just wouldnt have expected it to be as large as it was. They simply saw it as a means to aquire items from the British.

The Maori believed that they would be maintaining substantive sovereignty and that the British would be given nominal sovereignty. This view is summed up well by Horeka who says the shadow of the land will go to Victoria while the substance will stay with us. This is the main way in which the Maori and British differ, British saw the treaty as a right to rule over New Zealand while the Maori saw it as giving Britain the right to rule over its citizens in New Zealand. This is where confusion plays a huge part in the fact that the Treaty was signed at all. Henry Williams was the translator of the treaty, due to the fact that his brother William Williams the more competant translator of the pair was away. This translation said that Maori would maintain rangitiratanga or chieftainship but would lose kiwatana or governorship. Both Ranginui Walker and Ruth Ross agree that Cheifs would not have signed the treaty if the term manna was used. Whether this was purely due to Henry Williams inadicacies as a translator or that he obscured the true meaning of the treaty because the C.M.S. had huge plots of land to gain from it.

In many respects the crown has been cast as the exploiter when there was a strong humanitarian motive behind Britain signing the treaty. This was largly due to the strong humanitarian movement which had taken root in Britain. Hobson applied this to the treaty in a fairly shallow and nave way, he didnt carry it out quite the way the humanitarian movement including missionaries had intended. The missionaries especially Marsden felt that maori should be educated in British ways and should be protected from out of control British. Hobson saw Maori as not capable of ruling themselves. And he saw it as in the best interests of Maori to be ruled by British who would act as guardians, which basicly meant giving British full control. This was not necessarily the view of his superiors, Belich points out that New Zealand agents were the greatest pressure in getting Britain to consider a full treaty. Suggesting they would hav been happy with a lesser treaty but Hobson went the Whole Hog.

So as you can see many factors lead to a change in British views from when the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1935 to when the Treaty was signed five years later. The motives of Maori and Pakeha signing the treaty clashed in some instances whereas in other they aligned harmoniously.

Click Here To Order Now!