spinofflive
CIRCA 1840: British naval commander William Hobson (1793-1842), circa 1840. Hobson was appointed as first governor of New Zealand and negotiated the Treaty of Waitangi with the Maori chiefs, which granted England sovereignty over the country. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
CIRCA 1840: British naval commander William Hobson (1793-1842), circa 1840. Hobson was appointed as first governor of New Zealand and negotiated the Treaty of Waitangi with the Maori chiefs, which granted England sovereignty over the country. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

ĀteaNovember 30, 2017

Debunking the ‘one people’ myth: a historian on the invention of Hobson’s Pledge

CIRCA 1840: British naval commander William Hobson (1793-1842), circa 1840. Hobson was appointed as first governor of New Zealand and negotiated the Treaty of Waitangi with the Maori chiefs, which granted England sovereignty over the country. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
CIRCA 1840: British naval commander William Hobson (1793-1842), circa 1840. Hobson was appointed as first governor of New Zealand and negotiated the Treaty of Waitangi with the Maori chiefs, which granted England sovereignty over the country. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Māori historian Dr Danny Keenan explains why it is highly unlikely William Hobson ever made his famous ‘pledge’.

Great play has been made by anti-Māori Pākehā on a statement attributed to Lieutenant Governor Hobson at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, that new settlers and Māori ‘were now one people’.

But did Hobson ever say such a thing?

New Zealand history is fraught with myth – things that never happened, or at least, the evidence is sketchy. ‘Hobson’s pledge’ is one example. Was there ever such a thing?

During the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi on 6 February 1840, we are told, Lieutenant Governor Hobson shook hands with each Māori signatory, saying ‘he iwi tahi tatou – we are now one people’. But did this actually happen? Where is the evidence?

The ‘evidence’

The account of ‘Hobson’s pledge’ comes from William Colenso, a mission printer who was present at Waitangi on the day of the Treaty signing. His version of events can be found in his The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, published much later, 50 years after the event, in 1890. This was nine years before his death aged 89 years in 1899.

Other accounts however do not mention Hobson saying such a thing, or anything like it. It’s not recorded by anyone else that such sentiments were expressed; instead, what caught the attention of most Pākehā observers was the rancour and discord evident amongst Māori, and the suspicion directed at Hobson.

Forty-five chiefs signed the Treaty that day, but few of them, says Colenso, were of ‘first rank’. And none were present from any distance, save a small number from the Hokianga.

Earlier, Colenso had asked Hobson was he sure Māori knew what they were doing, by signing the Treaty? Did they understand the Articles? Hobson’s reply, the expression of quite a different sentiment, was that if Māori don’t understand, then this was of no concern to him.

Meantime, says Colenso, other chiefs like Marupo of Wanaurara, and Ruhe of Ngāti Hineira were urging Māori not to sign, as indeed, by some accounts, was a clearly ambivalent Hone Heke Pokai. Such was the level of disagreement amongst Māori on that fateful day at Waitangi.

Later accounts of the signing

Colenso’s account of Hobson’s statement does not appear in earlier accounts of the Treaty signing, written by other Pākehā who were present.

Missionary Richard Taylor’s account of 1840 does not mention any such statement, nor such sentiment, being expressed by Hobson. Instead, he wrote of the hostility shown to the governor by Māori.

William Baker’s account of 1865 also fails to mention Hobson’s supposed statement. Baker was a translator for the Native Department who was asked to provide an account for parliament, which he did, on 8 July 1865.

Baker’s overriding concern was the discord and disagreement amongst Māori – a war of words which had provoked a crisis, threatening to derail the signing ceremony. Even Hobson himself did not mention his supposed ‘pledge’, instead recalling that he had been opposed by Māori with displays of ‘great violence’.

Was there ever a ‘Hobson’s pledge’? This seems unlikely. The evidence for it is confined to the recall of one participant, written down some 50 years after the event.

Colenso’s account is also written in verbatim style, with dialogue recorded in detail, a precise if unlikely remembering of minutiae and nuance, some 50 years after the event, through years of intervening, turbulent history.

Colenso’s record of events, then, is structured around remembered – or invented – conversations, written for effect rather than accuracy. Some popular historians use this method, it is true, but you wouldn’t get away with it in your PhD thesis.

Claiming New Zealand for Pākehā

It’s worth bearing in mind that, by 1890, when Colenso published his account, Māori had lost the New Zealand Wars. They had had thousands of acres of land confiscated, or alienated through the Native Land Court.

Māori had seen their communities decimated by settler economic encroachment and their population numbers had fallen to about 40,000, from a high of about 100,000 in 1840. The evidence for this is of course overwhelming.

However, in 1890, Colenso would have had good reasons for presenting Hobson as a benevolent figure, conciliatory to Māori because, by then, New Zealand was in the grip of a new Pākehā nationalism.

Scholars like Edward Tregear and William Pember Reeves were searching amidst the literary and figurative landscapes of New Zealand, which they saw as empty, looking for an organic foothold for Pākehā amidst the undergrowth.

They were trying to recapture the heady days of the young F E Maning, as described in his book Old New Zealand (1863) – a time when Pākehā were few, carefree, and felt as if they belonged, even if they were living under the sufferance and mana of Māori, which they were happy to do.

A resurgent literary nationalism propelled this search for an organic foothold forward. New journals like the New Zealand Graphic and Ladies Journal aimed to foster and assist this revived sense of belonging amongst Pākehā.

Native Associations were established all over the country, comprising Pākehā determined to secure their space, and place, here in Aotearoa. They adopted a new organic ensign, the silver fern, to symbolise their new-found attachment to the otherwise desolate landscape.

Inventing an early regard for Māori 

It therefore served Pākeha nationalist purposes to portray Hobson, and the Crown, as always having been well-meaning and benevolent towards Māori from the very beginning.

Despite everything, said Colenso, Pākehā had really meant well.

Such a newfound regard for Māori absolved Pākehā of the ravages inflicted on Māori since 1840 on the way to a new sense of Pākeha identity, hegemony and nationhood. Inventing a ‘Hobson’s Pledge’ served a useful purpose.

But to most Māori, as to many discerning Pākehā, this all rang hollow, as it does today.

Danny Keenan lives in Whanganui and has a PhD in history from Massey University. He is the author of the recent biography Te Whiti O Rongomai and the Resistance of Parihaka.


Ātea supports The Aunties – an organisation that provides material needs for Te Rōopu O Te Whānau Te Rangimariē O Tamaki Makaūrau, Womens Refuge, the NZ Prostitutes Collective, The Salvation Army and more. Click here to find out how you can help.

Keep going!
Tauranga Moana Te Arawa ki Takutai Partnership Forum Chair Reon Tuanau and Western Bay of Plenty Mayor Garry Webber
Tauranga Moana Te Arawa ki Takutai Partnership Forum Chair Reon Tuanau and Western Bay of Plenty Mayor Garry Webber

ĀteaNovember 30, 2017

How Hobson’s Pledge is taking aim at Māori wards in Tauranga

Tauranga Moana Te Arawa ki Takutai Partnership Forum Chair Reon Tuanau and Western Bay of Plenty Mayor Garry Webber
Tauranga Moana Te Arawa ki Takutai Partnership Forum Chair Reon Tuanau and Western Bay of Plenty Mayor Garry Webber

Western Bay of Plenty district council already voted in favour of Māori wards, but one councillor, the partner of Hobson’s Pledge head honcho Don Brash, is demanding a rate-payers’ poll. Let’s vote for progress, writes Graham Cameron.

In our balmy autumn months in Tauranga Moana, during the commemorations for Te Weranga (the 1867 Tauranga Bush Campaign), I have often had the privilege of walking down hills from old pā and kāinga with the Western Bay of Plenty mayor, Garry Webber.

Garry (pictured above with Reon Tuanau) is an energetic older Pākehā man with a long business career behind him and his secret is he is an excellent listener. So he had listened as our speakers talked about who we were and who we are. On our way down the hills he would talk quietly about his admiration for our survival and his desire for us to succeed alongside his council.

This quiet but firm man showed courageous leadership alongside his Western Bay of Plenty district council to support the the establishment of one or more Māori wards. The 9-3 vote of the full council came after a unanimous vote from the Council’s own Tauranga Moana/Te Arawa ki Takutai Partnership Forum.

I never had any doubts that within the confines of the council the desire for both a greater expression of the Treaty relationship and improved representation for our pressing social and economic issues would be honoured. But outside of that forum, debate, discussion and mature conflict so easily fall away before hate and fear.

Three councillors voted against the motion for Māori wards: Margaret Murray-Benge, Kevin Marsh and Mike Lally. Margaret Murray-Benge was particularly dissatisfied with losing a duly-constituted democratic vote and has turned to the shabby strategy of getting 5% of ratepayers to demand a poll on the decision.

Hobson’s Pledge have come roaring in behind her decision to relitigate the Māori wards with a poll. The speedy support she has been given was probably helped by the fact Margaret and Don Brash, leader of Hobson’s Pledge, are a couple.

Don and I have sat on a stage together at a panel on income inequality. Don struck me as deeply learned on economic matters and yet blinkered on social and political issues. He didn’t seem to be a great listener; he was quick to answer questions whilst they were still being asked.

As I sat there I marvelled at him; he seemed genuine but introverted. As far as I can tell he actually believes iwi are pushing for apartheid, for racial segregation and discrimination. He seems to believes that all of the scholarship and historical record to date has covered up the truth about the Treaty. He also appears to have faith that it was just a matter skill and ability that put Pākehā men on top of everyone else.

I don’t think it is an act or a manipulation. I believe he is just as fearful of Māori aspirations for partnership as the people he energised at Orewa in 2004. So he is deadly serious in his criticism of Māori wards and in his support of Margaret’s poll.

Don and Margaret would be a sideshow in Auckland or Wellington. But in Tauranga Moana, Hobson’s Pledge always draw a packed house to its meetings, packed with angry and confused Pākehā elderly who are watching their pre-1970s monochromatic world slip away.

These same elderly have an advantage over many – they actually vote. Hobson’s Pledge have the capacity to pull together 5% of ratepayers in the district who feel as they do. They may even have enough to overturn the decision.

Yet in the past decade, as our region’s population grows, as people from Auckland move here, as Tauranga city finds its feet, there is an evolution happening.

Every now and then, leaders like Garry Webber who are excited by change and possibility, are voted onto councils. More and more of our residents want to know the story of the land they are standing on; they want to know the story of tāngata whenua. People can see that our regional identity is being enhanced by the the unique contribution of tāngata whenua.

Nevertheless, I suspect here in Tauranga Moana we will have a choice to make in 2018. Five percent of ratepayers will probably call for Margaret’s poll on the Māori wards decision and it will be held. And then we vote.

The question is, will our votes be ruled by a fearful longing for the past or our hopeful future?

In 2017 on Tawhitinui marae, north of Tauranga city, I told a story to 500 people of our Pirirākau resistance at Te Weranga. The majority of the attendees were Pākehā. Throughout the day the Whakamarama Community Inc. threw themselves into catering and organisation. Our Pirirākau iwi could not have honoured our ancestors as well as we did without our Pākehā brothers and sisters.

If you are in the Western Bay of Plenty district you will have a choice. May you be as the Pākehā members of the Whakamarama community who see opportunity in diversity and are proud of our iwi and the history here where we live together. May you be one in a large majority that votes to affirm Māori Wards to send a message that fear and hate are fading away and in their place, debate, discussion and mature conflict.

Send a message for our mokopuna: the people of the Western Bay of Plenty want their iwi to return as rangatira to partner with the Crown at the council table. To return as equals, as friends and as whānau.


Ātea supports The Aunties – an organisation that provides material needs for Te Rōopu O Te Whānau Te Rangimariē O Tamaki Makaūrau, Womens Refuge, the NZ Prostitutes Collective, The Salvation Army and more. Click here to find out how you can help.