Essay writing guidelines

1. 
   The Achievement Standard 2
   
2. 
   Advice for the process of writing your essay 3
   
3. 
   Assessment schedules for a Treaty essay 10
   

• 
  Why did Maori sign?
  
• 
  Why did the British want a Treaty?
  
• 
  Why was a Treaty signed
  

4. 
   Note guides for Treaty essays 19
   
5. 
   Model essay with comments for a Treaty essay 21
   
6. 
   Treaty questions as a check of understanding 23
   
7. 
   Assessment schedule for a Northern wars essay 24
   

• 
  This booklet provides the class with advice and guidance for writing an essay.
  
• 
  It has blank pages and half pages where your teacher will ask you to complete certain activities.
  
• 
  Keep this document in the flipfile that is given to keep all essays
  

This achievement standard involves analysing the causes and consequences of a significant historical event.

1. 
   This achievement standard is derived from The New Zealand Curriculum, Learning Media, Ministry of Education, 2007, Social Sciences learning area, and the Level 8 achievement objectives:
   

• 
  Understand that the causes, consequences, and explanations of historical events that are of significance to New Zealanders are complex and how and why they are contested
  
• 
  Understand how trends over time reflect social, economic, and political forces
  

2010 at http://seniorsecondary.tki.org.nzhttp://seniorsecondary.tki.org.nz.

2. 
   Analyse involves explaining the causes and consequences of a significant historical event. This may involve establishing underlying and immediate causes and short term and long term consequences.
   

Evaluating includes the prioritisation of causes and consequences by justifying their relative significance.

• 
  The Treaty of Waitangi
  
• 
  The Northern war
  
• 
  The War in Taranaki
  
• 
  The Waikato War
  
• 
  Invasion of Parihaka
  
• 
  Fall of Singapore
  
• 
  Massacre at Srebrenica
  
• 
  Votes for Women 1893
  
• 
  Gallipoli
  
• 
  Paschaendale
  
• 
  The Dropping of the Atomic Bombs
  

4 Significance may be determined by:

• 
  the impact and importance of the event on people over a period of time
  
• 
  how deeply people’s lives were affected over a period of time
  
• 
  how many lives were affected
  
• 
  the length of time people’s lives were affected
  
• 
  the extent to which the event continues to affect society.
  

• 
  Mr Pipe’s books:
  
• 
  Early Contact
  
• 
  1830s
  
• 
  The Treaty of Waitangi
  
• 
  1840s Sovereignty versus Rangati=ratanga
  
• 
  1850s The calm before the storm
  
• 
  1860s The wars and the laws
  

3. 
   Assessment schedules for a Treaty essay
   

2009 Why did Maori sign?

• 
  There were common beliefs and fears that influenced both parties to become involved in a treaty:
  
• 
  A relationship had already been established between the British and Māori, eg 1831 Petition to King William IV by northern chiefs to be a friend and guardian, James Busby and the United Tribes & Declaration of Independence 1835.
  
• 
  Concerns over foreign influence – French and American intentions in NZ. Fear of the French in the North (du Fresne, de Thierry, Catholic influence through Bishop Pompallier and his missions). US Consulate had been set up.
  
• 
  Commercial transaction – an expectation of increased material benefits and trade.
  
• 
  Law and order needed to be established.
  
• 
  An increase of settlers were expected – less were expected by Māori, an unspecified amount were expected by the British government
  
• 
  Pressure and persuasion by missionaries who were concerned about the welfare of Māori, especially amongst humanitarians – Kororareka – Hellhole of the Pacific – drunkenness, prostitution, violence.
  
• 
  Resolution of inter-tribal rivalries and to bring peace amongst the age-old enemies.
  
• 
  Guarantees of sovereignty and control over land for both sides – British thought they would be given it, Māori thought they would not be surrendering it.
  
• 
  Concern about speculative land purchases of dubious legality taking place around the country. Missionaries and Australians ‘buying’ or claiming blocks of land from Māori, often transactions where Pākehā and Māori intentions and expectations were quite different. The British promised to investigate these ‘dodgy’ land sales. Māori expected to sell and / or lease some land to the extra settlers that would come.
  

• 
  Rather than addressing the concerns of both parties, misunderstanding resulted from the mistranslations within the Treaty – Pākehā understanding that Māori had signed sovereignty away and Māori understanding that their rangatiratanga had been guaranteed. This meant continuing tension and friction as each tried to assert their sovereignty and get what they thought the Treaty had given them. “Hastily drafted, ambiguous, inconsistent and contradictory document.” Ruth Ross.
  
• 
  Hobson’s Proclamation of Sovereignty in May 1840 over the whole of New Zealand – North Island by ceding sovereignty, South Island by Cook’s discovery. New Zealand instantly painted ‘imperial pink’ – Belich.
  
• 
  Between 1840 and 1858, Māori sovereignty began to be slowly eroded and race relations deteriorated.
  
• 
  Commissioner Spain investigated validity of land purchases – land found illegally acquired by Pākehā would not revert to Māori but would go to the Crown as surplus land – “this seriously shook Māori confidence” – Claudia Orange.
  
• 
  Wasteland Policy – settlers constantly pressured Governors to take over land not cultivated or occupied by Māori.
  
• 
  Some Māori benefited from land rent arrangements with Pākehā – Wairarapa.
  
• 
  The first 15 years after the Treaty saw a period of economic expansion and prosperity for many tribes, especially those close to Pākehā markets.
  
• 
  Growth of Pākehā population – equalled Māori in 1858 and their desire for and acquisition of land led to conflict and economic dominance.
  
• 
  New Zealand Company settlements established in Wellington, Wanganui, Nelson, New Plymouth, also Canterbury and Otago. These settlements and the growth of Auckland saw close economic links formed with Māori to ensure food supply and survival. However, when Pākehā population overtook Māori, the cooperation between the races declined.
  
• 
  Some settler attitudes toward Māori were Eurocentric and superior, and they had little interest in understanding Māori culture – arrogance and intolerance.
  
• 
  Māori were excluded from the 1852 Constitution – denied franchise and participation in government.
  
• 
  Government instituted restrictions on Māori harvesting of flax and timber – went against Article 2 of Treaty.
  
• 
  Difficulties in the North 1841–42 – Hobson directed customs duties to go to the Crown not Māori; Hobson issued a regulation prohibiting the felling of Kauri; hanging of Maketu.
  
• 
  Wairau Incident 1843 – Pākehā attempted to enforce their rights over land before Commissioner Spain could investigate the land claim by surveying the Wairau and building huts. Te Rauparaha burnt the huts, Arthur Wakefield and about 50 armed settlers tried to arrest Te Rauparaha; a fight broke out, resulting in settler and Māori deaths. Governor Fitzroy investigated and declared the settlers guilty of provoking the fighting and proposed to do nothing further. Māori and Pākehā became more suspicious of each other.
  
• 
  Conflict in the North 1844–46 – loss of mana and economic decline because of move of capital to Auckland, application of pre-emption, loss of customs revenue, fewer land sales led to resentment. Hone Heke’s grievances – loss of rangatiratanga and independence led to cutting down of the flagstaff four times, sack of Kororareka, and war between Heke, Kawiti and the government and Tamati Waka Nene. Battles at Puketutu, Ohaeawai and Ruapekapeka. Through Waka Nene, Governor Grey negotiated peace with Heke; no Māori land was confiscated but Heke’s concerns were not addressed.
  
• 
  Governor Grey actions – Grey attempted to force Māori to sell wasteland in the Wellington region, which threatened the mana of Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata. Incidents of fighting occurred in the Hutt Valley in 1846. Grey arrested Te Rauparaha. Grey acquired 30 million acres of the South Island and 3 million acres of the North Island before he left NZ in 1853. His negotiation and methods of purchase were questionable, payments were minimal, and promises were not kept especially in the South Island.
  
• 
  Rise of the King Movement was an attempt by Māori to retain land and sovereignty. In 1859, Potatau Te Wherowhero was confirmed as holding the mana of kingship, supported by Waikato and central North Island tribes. Pākehā and the Governor saw the King Movement as a threat to British sovereignty. The Kohimarama Conference of 1860 was an attempt by Governor Gore-Browne to re-examine the Treaty and deal with the problem of Māori refusal to sell land, especially the King Movement.
  
• 
  Outbreak of war in Taranaki – Pākehā desire to purchase land in Waitara led to Te Teira offering to sell it to the Crown. Wiremu Kingi denied Te Teira’s right to sell and refused to sell the land, maintaining his mana and rangatiratanga over Waitara. Governor Gore-Browne felt British sovereignty had to be asserted by denying Wiremu Kingi’s authority over Waitara. Fighting began in March 1860. Waikato Kingites joined the fighting in support of Kingi and Māori autonomy.
  

• 
  After difficulties elsewhere with indigenous peoples, Britain was reluctant to annex New Zealand because of the likely cost and difficulties it would face.
  
• 
  There were calls from Māori for intervention – 1831 Petition to King William IV by northern chiefs to be a friend and guardian.
  
• 
  Incidents of violence – Boyd and Alligator Incidents, Elizabeth Affair.
  
• 
  Lord Normanby’s concern over foreign influence – French and American intentions in New Zealand. Fear of French in the North – du Fresne, de Thierry, Catholic influence through Bishop Pompallier and his missions. US Consulate set up.
  
• 
  By 1830s, traders and missionaries had substantial investments in New Zealand and wanted law and order to protect their rights and property.
  
• 
  Britain had recognised New Zealand as independent many times – Imperial Statutes 1817, 1823, 1828 & Declaration of Independence 1835. This meant that if they wanted to formally intervene, the independent status of Māori had to be qualified or removed with some sort of formal agreement. But the British government found there was no Māori government through which it could work – failure of Declaration of Independence and James Busby.
  
• 
  Cession through a Treaty would avoid an expensive war. Voluntary cession was required because Māori cultivated and therefore ‘owned’ their land in the North Island. Hobson saw Ngāi Tahu as hunter-gatherers – no cultivation, no ownership. International law demanded that some kind of treaty would look good to the rest of the world (Alan Ward – a show of justice).
  
• 
  Humanitarian lobby in England – pressure from the Aborigines Protection Society with increasing concern about the welfare of Māori and the desire to avoid the disaster of Australia over again.
  
• 
  By the late 1830s intervention was seen as necessary to protect both Māori and the missionaries from the rougher sort of Pākehā – Kororareka – ‘Hell-hole of the Pacific’ – drunkenness, prostitution, violence, etc – the Colonial Office wanted lawlessness tidied up at minimal cost (Peter Adams).
  
• 
  Late 1830s speculative land purchases of dubious legality taking place around the country. Missionaries and Australians ‘buying’ or claiming blocks of land from Māori, often transactions where Pākehā and Māori intentions and expectations were quite different.
  
• 
  The New Zealand Association / Company was organising English settlement in New Zealand 1833–39 and this concerned humanitarians, missionaries and the British government because the settlers would be outside British sovereignty and doubts that Wakefield’s dealings with Māori would be fair and / or ethical. Departure of the Tory in 1839.
  
• 
  From the late 1830s, the British idea of a Māori New Zealand that accommodated some Pākehā changed to a British settler colony that would accommodate Māori – “a fatal necessity” – Peter Adams.
  
• 
  Belich – the colonial office’s response was a consequence of the myths of empire. Three agents of empire were the Church Missionary Society (CMS), organisers of systematic colonisation (Wakefield), and merchants and capitalists – all put pressure on the government to intervene formally in New Zealand. They inundated the colonial office with reports of disaster and chaos – 1837 and 1838, they received Hobson’s report, which painted a bleak picture, and a CMS report, which indicated a deteriorating situation.
  
• 
  In July–August 1839, the British government decided that at least limited intervention was needed. Settlers had to be controlled and Māori had to be protected.
  
• 
  The British government expected:
  

– the authority to impose law and order over everyone in New Zealand

• 
  Misunderstanding resulting from the mistranslations within the Treaty – Pākehā understanding that Māori had signed sovereignty away and Māori understanding that their rangatiratanga had been guaranteed. This meant continuing tension and friction as each tried to assert their sovereignty and get what they thought the Treaty had given them. “Hastily drafted, ambiguous, inconsistent and contradictory document.” Ruth Ross.
  
• 
  Hobson’s Proclamation of Sovereignty in May 1840 over the whole of New Zealand – North Island by ceding sovereignty, South Island by Cook’s discovery. New Zealand instantly painted ‘imperial pink’ – Belich.
  
• 
  Between 1840–58, Māori sovereignty began to be slowly eroded and race relations deteriorated.
  
• 
  Commissioner Spain investigated validity of land purchases – land found illegally acquired by Pākehā would not revert to Māori but would go to the Crown as surplus land – ‘this seriously shook Māori confidence’ – Claudia Orange.
  
• 
  Wasteland Policy – settlers constantly pressured Governors to take over land not cultivated or occupied by Māori.
  
• 
  Some Māori benefited from land rent arrangements with Pākehā – Wairarapa.
  
• 
  Growth of Pākehā population – equalled Māori in 1858 and their desire for and acquisition of land led to conflict and economic dominance.
  
• 
  New Zealand Company settlements established in Wellington, Wanganui, Nelson, New Plymouth, also Canterbury and Otago. These settlements and the growth of Auckland saw close economic links formed with Māori to ensure food supply and survival. However, when Pākehā population overtook Māori the cooperation between the races declined.
  
• 
  Some settler attitudes toward Māori were Eurocentric and superior and they had little interest in understanding Māori culture – arrogance and intolerance.
  
• 
  Māori excluded from the 1852 Constitution – denied franchise and participation in government.
  
• 
  Government instituted restrictions on Māori harvesting of flax and timber – went against Article 2 of Treaty.
  
• 
  Difficulties in the North 1841–42 – Hobson directed customs duties to go to the Crown not Māori; Hobson issued a regulation prohibiting the felling of kauri; hanging of Maketu.
  
• 
  Wairau Incident 1843 – Pākehā attempted to enforce their rights over land before Commissioner Spain could investigate the land claim, by surveying the Wairau and building huts. Te Rauparaha burnt the huts. Arthur Wakefield and about 50 armed settlers tried to arrest Te Rauparaha and a fight broke out resulting in settler and Māori deaths. Governor Fitzroy investigated and declared the settlers guilty of provoking the fighting and proposed to do nothing further. Māori and Pākehā became more suspicious of each other.
  
• 
  Conflict in the North 1844–46 – loss of mana and economic decline because of move of capital to Auckland, application of pre-emption, loss of customs revenue, fewer land sales led to resentment. Hone Heke’s grievances – loss of rangatiratanga and independence led to cutting down of the flagstaff four times, sack of Kororareka, and war between Heke, Kawiti and the government and Tamati Waka Nene. Battles at Puketutu, Ohaeawai and Ruapekapeka. Through Waka Nene, Governor Grey negotiated peace with Heke, no Māori land was confiscated but Heke’s concerns were not addressed.
  
• 
  Governor Grey actions – Grey attempted to force Māori to sell wasteland in the Wellington region, which threatened the mana of Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata. Incidents of fighting occurred in the Hutt Valley in 1846. Grey arrested Te Rauparaha. Grey acquired 30 million acres of the South Island and 3 million acres of the North Island before he left New Zealand in 1853. His negotiation and methods of purchase were questionable, payments were minimal, and promises were not kept especially in the South Island.
  
• 
  Rise of the King Movement was an attempt by Māori to retain land and sovereignty. In 1859, Potatau Te Wherowhero was confirmed as holding the mana of kingship, supported by Waikato and central North Island tribes. Pākehā and the Governor saw the King Movement as a threat to British sovereignty. The Kohimarama Conference of 1860 was an attempt by Governor Gore-Browne to re-examine the Treaty and deal with the problem of Māori refusal to sell land, especially the King Movement.
  
• 
  Outbreak of war in Taranaki – Pākehā desire to purchase land in Waitara led to Te Teira offering to sell it to the Crown. Wiremu Kingi denied Te Teira’s right to sell and refused to sell the land maintaining his mana and rangatiratanga over Waitara. Governor Gore-Browne felt British sovereignty had to be asserted by denying Wiremu Kingi’s authority over Waitara. Fighting began in March 1860. Waikato Kingites joined the fighting in support of Kingi and Māori autonomy.
  

The factors that contributed to the decision of many Māori to sign:

Many Māori chiefs made the decision to sign the Treaty of Waitangi after making an intelligent analysis of the information available to them at the time

Many chiefs may have signed for personal reasons. Chiefs such as Tamati Waka Nene were influential. He saw change as inevitable and believed that the clock could not be turned back. The Treaty was the way forward. William Colenso suggested that many chiefs were not aware of the implications of the Treaty

More access to Pākehā, which in turn bring markets to sell to, goods, employment, improved trade etc.

No realisation of the large numbers of settlers that would come (Keith Sinclair)

For their own trade advantages – access to knowledge, superior skills and tools

Control of undesirable Pākehā practices by Crown

Chiefs may have signed because of the promise of food and gifts. One Tauranga chief said “pay us first and we will write afterwards”. Some may have seen the Treaty signing as a commercial transaction

Many chiefs believed that the sharing of authority would enhance chiefly mana. Personal agreement between Chiefs and the Queen

Expectation that the promises made in the articles of the Treaty in Māori would be honoured: Article 1 – bought an expectation of equal role of authority – “we are one people” as the Treaty implied that Māori would give up only nominal rather than substantive sovereignty, as the word used to translate the ceding of sovereignty to the British was “kāwanatanga” not “mana” or “rangatiratanga”. These words would have indicated a much stronger form of British sovereignty over New Zealand. Article 2 – guarantee of rangatiratanga over land, taonga and resources – “shadow of the land”(Nopera). Article 3 – full rights of British citizenship

Pākehā officials to control troublesome Pākehā – the Governor would control Pākehā and especially those who were purchasing land. Mana of land would be held by Māori

Protection from foreign powers – wary of French

Little to fear as in 1840 Māori outnumbered Pākehā by 50 to 1

Rival tribes signing so signed to keep up with them especially in east coast of North Island (Manuka Henare)

Peace with age-old enemies

Avoid Australian disaster – some chiefs were aware of what had happened to the Australian Aborigines

Support against aggressive land buyers – all disputed land sales investigated

Desire to sell land to few more settlers

Utu – sell disputed land then don’t have to fight Māori rivals for it

Peace amongst tribes regarding land

The Governor’s notion of pre-emption was not explained – not the same as hokonga

Some chiefs trusted the Missionaries who were persuasive as they portrayed the Treaty as an overwhelming positive deal for Māori and encouraged chiefs to sign. The missionaries may also have played up the importance of protection of British law that was promised through Article Three. In light of events such as the Elizabeth Affair, the opportunity to pursue justice against Pākehā who had committed criminal activity was seen as desirable

Queen Victoria was the head of the church as well as the state – Treaty bond seen as sacred bond or covenant as in 1840 almost half of Māori were Christian.

The factors that contributed to the decision of a representative of the British Crown to sign:

After difficulties elsewhere with indigenous peoples, Britain was reluctant to annex New Zealand because of the likely cost and difficulties it would face

There were calls from Māori for intervention – 1831 Petition to King William IV by northern chiefs to be a friend and guardian

Incidents of violence – Boyd and Alligator Incidents, Elizabeth Affair

Lord Normanby’s concern over foreign influence – French and American intentions in New Zealand. Fear of French in the North – du Fresne, de Thierry, Catholic influence through Bishop Pompallier and his missions. US Consulate set up

By 1830s, traders and missionaries had substantial investments in New Zealand and wanted law and order to protect their rights and property

Britain had recognised New Zealand as independent many times – Imperial Statutes 1817, 1823, 1828 and Declaration of Independence (1835). This meant that if they wanted to formally intervene, the independent status of Māori had to be qualified or removed with some sort of formal agreement. But the British government found there was no Māori government through which it could work – failure of Declaration of Independence and James Busby

Cession through a Treaty would avoid an expensive war. Voluntary cession was required because Māori cultivated and therefore ‘owned’ their land in the North Island. Hobson saw Ngāi Tahu as hunter-gatherers – no cultivation, no ownership. International law demanded that some kind of treaty would look good to the rest of the world (Alan Ward – A Show of Justice)

Humanitarian lobby in England – pressure from the Aborigines Protection Society with increasing concern about the welfare of Māori and the desire to avoid the disaster of Australia over again

By the late 1830s intervention was seen as necessary to protect both Māori and the missionaries from the rougher sort of Pākehā – Kororareka – ‘Hell-hole of the Pacific’ – drunkenness, prostitution, violence, etc – the Colonial Office wanted lawlessness tidied up at minimal cost (Peter Adams)

Late 1830s speculative land purchases of dubious legality taking place around the country. Missionaries and Australians ‘buying’ or claiming blocks of land from Māori, often transactions where Pākehā and Māori intentions and expectations were quite different

The New Zealand Association / Company was organising English settlement in New Zealand 1833–39 and this concerned humanitarians, missionaries and the British government because the settlers would be outside British sovereignty and doubts that Wakefield’s dealings with Māori would be fair and / or ethical. Departure of the Tory in 1839

From the late 1830s, the British idea of a Māori New Zealand that accommodated some Pākehā changed to a British settler colony that would accommodate Māori – “a fatal necessity” – Peter Adams

Belich – the colonial office’s response was a consequence of the myths of empire. Three agents of empire were the Church Missionary Society (CMS), organisers of systematic colonisation (Wakefield), and merchants and capitalists – all put pressure on the government to intervene formally in New Zealand. They inundated the colonial office with reports of disaster and chaos – 1837 and 1838, they received Hobson’s report, which painted a bleak picture, and a CMS report, which indicated a deteriorating situation

In July–August 1839, the British government decided that at least limited intervention was needed. Settlers had to be controlled and Māori had to be protected

The British Government expected:

sovereignty would be given by Māori to the British for all parts of the country

the authority to impose law and order over everyone in New Zealand

total control over land in areas ceded to them, which they would sell to settlers.

The candidate’s response to the second part of the question could include:

The mistranslation of the Treaty led to Māori and the Crown having totally different understandings of what they had promised each other. The actions of Crown officials after the signing of the Treaty suggest that they believed that New Zealand had been instantly painted “imperial pink”, with Māori now subject to British law. Actions by Māori chiefs after 1840 suggest that they believed that they would still have authority over their people and land

On 21 May 1840, Hobson proclaimed British sovereignty over all of New Zealand. Most likely, this was in response to plans by the New Zealand Company to establish its own government in the Cook Strait region

The arrest, trial, and execution of Maketu in 1842 provided an early post-Treaty test for British law in situations that involved cross-cultural crime

In 1842, land commissioners began investigating pre-Treaty land purchases. If the commissioners believed that the transaction had been fair, they validated it and awarded a Crown Grant. Crown Grants were limited to 2560 acres (four square miles). Excess land was ceded to the Crown, as was land that was deemed to be invalidly obtained. Commissioner William Spain deemed most of the purchases around Wellington to be invalid

Conflict between some tribes in 1842 led to the suggestion that those chiefs who had not signed the Treaty didn’t come under its authority. A ruling was made that all Māori were deemed to be under Crown authority

The Wairau incident highlighted many of the issues that surrounded the Treaty. Ngāti Toa disputed the New Zealand Company’s claim to have purchased the land and disrupted the surveyors. The New Zealand Company officials set off to arrest Te Rauparaha. A musket was fired, killing Te Rangihaeata’s wife, and in the fighting that ensued, five more Māori and 22 Pākehā were killed. Of these Pākehā deaths, 13 had surrendered but were killed as utu for the Māori deaths. Governor FitzRoy refused to apprehend Te Rangihaeata for these killings, saying there was wrong on each side

The Treaty of Waitangi gave the Crown the exclusive right to purchase Māori land, but in 1844 private land purchases were allowed when Governor FitzRoy gave in to demands from settlers and Māori and waived his right of pre-emption

Hone Heke cutting down the flagpole at Kororareka in 1844 and 1845 was a protest against what he perceived to be a loss of Māori authority and a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Northern War that followed was very much a war of sovereignty

In 1846, the British Government instructed that the ownership of Māori land had to be registered. Any unregistered land was deemed to be “surplus”. Governor Grey reinstated the exclusive Crown right to purchase Māori land, citing the Treaty of Waitangi

Grey attempted to force Māori to sell wasteland in the Wellington region, which threatened the mana of Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata. Incidents of fighting occurred in the Hutt Valley in 1846. Grey arrested Te Rauparaha. Grey acquired 30 million acres of the South Island and 3 million acres of the North Island before he left New Zealand in 1853. His negotiation and methods of purchase were questionable, payments were minimal, and promises were not kept especially in the South Island

Rise of the King Movement was an attempt by Māori to retain land and sovereignty. In 1859, Potatau Te Wherowhero was confirmed as holding the mana of kingship, supported by Waikato and central North Island tribes. Pākehā and the Governor saw the King Movement as a threat to British sovereignty

The Kohimarama Conference of 1860 was an attempt by Governor Gore-Browne to re-examine the Treaty and deal with the problem of Māori refusal to sell land, especially the King Movement

Fighting began in March 1860. Waikato Kingites joined the fighting in support of Kingi and Māori autonomy.

4. 
   Note guides for Treaty essays
   

Maori were impressed with Britain’s ships and power, especially after her defeat of the French under Napoleon in 1815 that had earned her the title of ‘Ruler of the Seas’. Also, traditions held that the British were the first to make contact with the Maori people. Orange notes that “[Maori chief] Titore, acknowledging Britain's past conflict with France, offered to reserve certain trees from which spars could be cut in any future AngloFrench engagement.” Rumours that other less desirable powers were showing an interest in NZ concerned some Maori. Worst was the French with their supposed aim of utu for the killing by Maori in 1772 of Marion du Fresne. Maori were also aware of the harsh French treatment of the Tahitians

New Zealand was without a doubt a Maori country (Maori were culturally, militarily, politically, numerically and even economically dominant at 1840). It was not until 1858 that the Pakeha population exceeded Maori; an official Pakeha presence thus did not appear threatening. In addition, in the Maori version of the Treaty rangitiratanga (chiefly authority) was guaranteed, thus there was no loss of sovereignty. As Nopera Panakaeroa of the Rarawa tribe said: “Only the shadow of the land passes to the Queen. The substance stays with us.”

Maori in contact with Pakeha were keen to continue the mutually beneficial trade relationship and to regulate it where difficulties were occurring

Missionaries and both Busby and Hobson emphasised the personal and almost sacred nature of the relationship between Maori and the Queen, giving the impression that any problems could be worked out directly. There was also a guarantee to protect Maori from Pakeha trouble-makers. These points made it seem unlikely that the Treaty would not be honoured. Orange points out that “On his seven visits to New Zealand between 1814 and 1839, he [missionary Samuel Marsden] consistently promoted the belief that the Crown had a parental interest in protecting the Maori people… Maori came to expect a personal relationship with the Crown's representative and developed unrealistic expectations of continuing special treatment.”

Edward Gibbon Wakefield reported that some Maori in the Wellington region did not have the significance of what they were signing explained to them. He noted that two chiefs he knew well, Turoa and Te Aratia, thought they were signing to say that they had received a blanket from the Queen. Such instances may well be truer away from Waitangi.

Maori, as well as missionaries and Busby, were concerned about pakeha lawlessness and the increase in disregard for Maori ways. They could not be sure what problems unregulated Pakeha settlement might bring in the future so thought it was better to allow the British to look after their own people

 British nationals especially were causing trouble. The Kororareka Association, a vigilante group, had been formed to combat drunkenness and lawlessness. Maori also called on the British to do something about the ‘riff-raff’. There had been incidents such as the Boyd and Alligator. The Elizabeth incident (Captain Stewart and Te Rauparaha) caused alarm as Pakeha became involved in Maori interhapu rivalries and British law was unable to doing anything.

 Busby, who found that he had little real power in dealing with troublemakers, and missionaries sent back alarmist (and exaggerated) reports of the dire effects of unscrupulous Europeans on Maori and demanded for them the protection of the Crown. (As Belich points out, the Colonial Office allowed itself to be persuaded that a relatively few grog-sellers and traders were somehow able to decimate a culture that was strong and its members well-armed.)

 With its policy of purchasing vast areas of land cheaply and systematically establishing large numbers of new settlers with their own government, the pressure was on for the Crown to establish its own authority and to regulate what was going to be a flood of new immigrants. The crown feared that Port Nicholson and later NZ Company settlements would establish themselves as republics beyond British law.

 This formalised a friendly link with Britain as protector. It also meant that Britain had recognised New Zealand's independence and thus would need a formal treaty to legally secure sovereignty.

 France, especially, and the USA were believed to be interested in NZ. Busby in particular sent back alarmist reports about the Frenchman Baron Charles de Thiery and his (wild) claim of setting himself up as King of New Zealand from a base in the Hokianga.

 British and Sydney interests had invested substantially in NZ, for example at the timber mills in the Hokianga. Britain felt that it had an obligation to protect the investments of these companies and individuals who were concerned at the increasing problems.