Declaration of Independence - taming the frontier?

A declaration of independence

The British Resident, James Busby, was not alone in his concerns about life in New Zealand. By the early 1830s Kororareka in the Bay of Islands was the main European point of contact with New Zealand. Described by some as the 'hell-hole of the Pacific', it was notorious as a 'flesh town' where sailors met local women. Three-week marriages were sometimes negotiated and women bore the tattoos of their itinerant lovers. One American observer described Kororareka as a 'Gomorrah, the scourge of the Pacific, which should be struck down by the ravages of disease for its depravity'.

Humanitarian groups such as the Church Missionary Society (CMS) were concerned about this situation. Formal British intervention was considered essential to protect Maori. The Colonial Office argued that as there was no single authority that spoke on behalf of Maori, negotiations between Britain and a sovereign New Zealand nation were impossible.

Busby's moves to select a flag for New Zealand in March 1834 can be seen in this context. While ships flying this flag could now be recognised according to maritime law, the flag also represented a symbol of sovereignty and a necessary first step in creating an independent New Zealand state that Britain could negotiate with.

'Baron' de Thierry

A common concern of men such as Busby was that if Britain did not act, then some other country might. One example of this involved the claims of Frenchman Charles Philippe de Thierry. This self-declared nobleman had announced plans to proclaim a sovereign and independent state in Hokianga.

De Thierry had earlier tried to persuade the Dutch to make him viceroy of New Zealand and had also declared himself king of Nuku Hiva, an island in the Marquesas group. He arrived in Hokianga in 1837 with 60 settlers from Sydney but found that his land purchase was not recognised and local Maori were not interested in accepting him as their monarch. The colonists he had recruited rioted and left. Eventually this king-in-waiting moved to Auckland where he made his living as a music teacher and piano tuner.

A Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand

On 28 October 1835, a mere day and a half after receiving a letter from de Thierry, Busby called another hui (meeting) at Waitangi. This time 34 northern chiefs, known as the Confederation of United Tribes, signed 'A Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand' and called upon King William IV of Britain to become their 'father and protector'. They also thanked the King for acknowledging their flag.

The handwritten Declaration of four articles was later printed by the mission printery and asserted the independence of Nu Tirene (New Zealand) under the rule of the 'United Tribes of New Zealand'. This body planned to meet in Congress at Waitangi each autumn to frame laws.

Maori had no say in the preparation of this document. Nevertheless, by 1839, 52 chiefs had signed the Declaration, which was acknowledged by the British government. Busby saw it as a significant mark of Maori national identity and believed it would prevent other countries from making formal deals with Maori.

A jealous reaction?

Busby did not enjoy great success as the British Resident. He was capable enough but did not have many friends and was argumentative. He was mocked in the Sydney press as 'Mr Borer Busby Junior' and criticised for not being up to the task. In 1835 Busby's superiors decided to appoint a Hokianga-based trader, Thomas McDonnell, as Honorary Additional British Resident. It was felt that as a trader McDonnell had greater influence with Maori. This was evidenced by his success in banning liquor sales in the Hokianga, something Busby had been unable to achieve in the Bay of Islands. An already prickly Busby did not react well to this. He saw the Declaration as an opportunity to boost his reputation with Maori at the expense of McDonnell.

How was the Declaration seen?

Governor Bourke of New South Wales referred to the Declaration as 'a paper pellet fired off at Baron de Thierry', but overall, he saw some merit in it. One Colonial Office official went as far as to say it was 'silly and unauthorised'. But Lord Glenelg, the secretary of state for the colonies, was more enthusiastic and advised the King to recognise the new policy 'with a due regard to the just rights of others and to the interests of His Majesty's subjects'.

Interpretations of the Declaration

In recent years the Declaration of Independence has been viewed as a significant first step towards the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Its validity, however, as a document speaking for all Maori is questionable. Historian Gavin McLean described New Zealand at the time as 'a fragmented, war-weary land where tiny hapu, as often as iwi, claimed most people's loyalties'. Furthermore, as historian Claudia Orange noted, 'there was no indigenous political structure upon which to base a united congress'. This interpretation was echoed by another historian, Michael King, who maintained that the Declaration 'had no reality, since there was in fact no national indigenous power structure within New Zealand'. King also pointed out that some of the United Tribes were at war with one another within a year of signing the document.

Despite these reservations it seems that the Declaration became a foundation for the assertion of indigenous rights and was another step towards a formal constitutional relationship with Britain. Historian Tom Brooking argued that the Colonial Office accepted the Confederation of United Tribes as bestowing 'indisputable' Maori 'title to the soil and the sovereignty of New Zealand'. For many, though, this was nothing more than a Nga Puhi measure. Historian Paul Moon argued that the Declaration represented a 'regional goodwill agreement rather than a national document of truly constitutional significance'. No Congress ever met.