MD
- Jun 19, 2020

Editorial #5: Thank the French

New Zealand nearly ended up French – half of it anyway.

In 1838 French whaling captain Jean Langlois bought most of Banks Peninsula, just south of the future Christchurch, from local Maori for a down-payment of some clothes and a pistol, and went home to whip up enthusiasm for a new south seas colony. But by the time his would-be colonists made landfall in 1840 William Hobson had already collected signatures for a treaty annexing New Zealand for Britain, and things turned pear shaped. They could live in a few villages as French, but not claim the whole island it seemed. The treaty prevented the French annexing half the country. (It might be worth noting that the contract involving sale of land was not honoured by those who first agreed to it because something else now protected them from withdrawing from that agreement).

Langlois felt that Akaroa, on the Banks Peninsula, would make an excellent French base, and began forming plans to take the South Island for France. He negotiated with, and obtained signatures from 12 Ngai-Tahu Māori chiefs from Port Cooper, whereby he bought of most of Banks Peninsula, on the east coast of New Zealand. According to the deed, in French, dated 2nd August 1838, the land was bought from the Māori for a deposit of 150 French francs in goods. The remainder of the total price was to be settled on Langlois' return to take possession of the land. Langlois bought most of Banks Peninsula. The goods the Māori received and were happy with, were : 2 cloaks, 6 pairs of trousers, 12 hats, 2 pairs of shoes, some pistols, axes and 2 shirts.

However, just one month before the "Comte de Paris" left France, the British signed the Treaty of Waitangi with Māori Chieftains, at the Bay of Islands in the North Island, on 6th February 1840. The South Island Māori chiefs signed the treaty a little later, on 30th May of the same year. The unknowing French duly arrived at Akaroa in August 1840 to discover they would be settling in a British colony. After the signing of The Treaty, a British warship had sailed to Akaroa and planted the Union Jack. The French also discovered that the land bought by Langlois had been resold again, several times since, as was often Māori custom. Some British settlers laid claim to certain areas of land which had originally been bought by Langlois. Fortunately, due to much diplomacy no major incident arose from this event. The French Government requested the British Government to protect the rights of French landowners in New Zealand, and this was agreed upon in 1841.

In the north, Hobson was at Waitangi and planned to have the treaty signed on 7th February 1840, but the weather was turning, the food was running out and the natives were getting restless. On advice, Hobson brought the signing forward. If Hobson had kept to his original plans and not brought the signing of the Treaty a day forward then quite probably, Maori would have left Waitangi, the Treaty would not have been signed, and Hobson would have returned to Britain empty-handed.

Four things could have happened if that treaty was not signed...

1. Maori might have remained in control of NZ as autonomous tribes and political entities.

2. The British might have invaded by force, rather than use a treaty of cession.

3. New Zealand might instead have been claimed by the French, or the Americans.

4. British colonisation may have applied where British settlers were resident, with Maori retaining their autonomy in other areas.

It is also worth noting that in the absence of a treaty, Maori would have no special rights beyond that of common law rights.

Maori distrusted the French. There is evidence that many tribes had, well before 1840, expressed a desire for British law and order and at the same time engaged in land transactions. maoir preferred the English.

It is said as many as 20,000 Maori lived in Auckland prior to the Europeans arriving. But in the 1820’s war broke out between the main rival tribes of Ngapuhi to the north, and the tribes around the Auckland region, namely Tainui and Ngati Whatua. It needs to be pointed out however, that Tainui and Ngatia Whatua only had control of Auckland because they took it from other tribes several generations prior. That act alone suggests that ‘traditional’ land is not always where your ancestral canoe landed, and that land could be owned by conquest and war.

If this is the case, then war and conquest were already a common practice within the tribal mix of what we would now call Maoridom. It is therefore, only the treaty that has provided for Maori what was never there beforehand for defeated tribes. That being security and protection (except if you were MoriOri as it turned out, who never signed the treaty).

The arrival of the Europeans caused a change in the balance of power within certain iwi. When muskets were gained, war broke out. Yet even a tribe without the musket, Ngati Whatua, still beat Ngapuhi’s first attempt at bloody conquest by killing 2000 Ngapuhi. They were tough buggers by all account. However, once they learned the art of musket war, Ngapuhi intentionally savaged the nation in a bloody and savage campaign of genocide. Hey, let’s call it what it was! It was genocide - outright genocide, in the 1820's, by Maori, upon Maori. The weapon is irrelevant, the reason they killed other Maori was an internal issue. The new weapon just made the killing more complete.

Auckland, was almost devoid of Maori by 1840 as a result of those wars, which we again stress were between Maori - Maori killing Maori. That slaughter did not involve Europeans other than the supply of weapons. But as we know - guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people and if you are intent on killing - you will find a way eventually.

A few Ngati Whatua were living at Orakei and took the Crown as a protector against Ngapuhi. They sold land and traded with the European merchants. They also traded land for European goods and as it was said “they lost the substance for the shadow.” But be clear on this, Maori chose to sell the land for what they saw as more important at the time. They were both naive, and caught up in the latest trend of ‘got to have it’ syndrome. Trinkets to us were an incredible treasure to them... at the time! Surely a true Maori linked to the land by spiritual connection would not sell his ancestral land for a few trinkets would he? Yes! He did! Let’s not get all caught up in the land grabs and look at the attitude Maori had at one time. It seems they had lost their connection with the land - or was their understanding of the transaction different? Now, in the face of a devastating war with other Maori, I can see the desperation in some ways. But there has been too much flip flopping of Maori mana over the last 200 years or so.

If it is finally proved that a race existed here that was eliminated by Polynesian arrivals, (and yet in recent times there has been much said about the taking of land, while not talking about iwi taking land from other iwi and claiming it as their own – even calling it ancestral by occupation - Ngai Tahu included), there are some serious misinterpretations of ownership by Maori even in the light of conquest in principle, except that treaty saved them from that embarrassment.

The treaty only exists because it was borne out of fear of who might ultimately rule them.

Maori had a deep distrust of the French after a massacre of 250 Maori in 1772, after Du Fresne was killed. Maori chose Britain, but only because they worried more about the French. The treaty didn’t prevent happening to Maori what Maori to did to Maori, or those that were here first - but it now gave financial recompense...even after full and final payments are made.

The treaty is a cash cow for many, yet that cash still doesn’t filter down to those at the bottom. It doesn't even filter down to those Maori who claim welfare from a Crown based welfare system. Yet Maori still want independence of national rule, but want national money. Yes, that is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is a true none-the-less.

In the old days there was a class system in Maori. Yes, that is 100% correct. There was a class system within pre-European Maori tribes, just like there was a class system in Europe, Africa or even the Pacific Islands (as Cook discovered when landing in Tahiti). That class system still exists within the treaty settlement process. Many elite within Iwi who have gained large settlements for themselves...(oops, I mean all of their tribe...) and some of those high ranking individuals have made appalling investment choices with no consultation with all of their tribe and with no consequence for their poor judgement - then plan to go to the government for more! Others, like Ngai Tahu have done much better with their investments and a whole lot more for their people - all in an area that was not their traditional homeland.

In this regard, Maori are almost dependent on taxpayer money, either at the lower end or the higher end. That is a good thing in a lot of ways. People need to be looked after, even if the process is suspect.

But all of this is only possible because of the treaty. Therefore....

...Maori should be thanking the French.