AN HISTORICAL INACCURACY

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 207, 27 May 1920, Page 5

AN HISTORICAL INACCURACY

Sir—Tho suggestion made'by "Liber • | in his book notes on Saturday, "that it j would not be a bad idea were the Gov-. | ernnient to 6cnd the Prince of. Wales a sot of historical works dealing with New ' Zealand" is both sensible and timely. , Added point is given to this gentle.hint ; by a paragraph in the parting address ) sent by the Prince of Wales to the people ' of New Zealand, in which His Royal ; Highness 'speaks of "Tour achievement : since the country was annexed to the British Crown only eighty years ago." This surely is a carelessness of phrase. : olo'gy which' should hot have l>een ;perniitted, and which, I venture to say, ; would not have occurred had • those in -j high places been familiar witli tho his- , tor'y of this country. New Zealand never ; was ''annexed" to' tho British Crown, as . that 'term is understood in international : affairs, and it is historically untrue and . politically incorrect to say that it was. ' New Zealand was "ceded" to the Crown, • or at least the sovereignty of it was, ,; 'which is quite a different matter. . To ; spatkof New Zealand being "annexed - to the Crown is, unwittingly no doubt, ; offensive to the Native race, because it : implies that tho country-the land as ; well as the sovereignty—was taken over ■■; without the free will and consent of its ; rifchtful owners. As a matter of fact no- ] tliiiig was further from the minds of. j British statesmen in 1839-40 than to ; "annex" New Zealand to the Crown, and . aiiv attempt to do so would have been : resisted by the Maoris of that day to the : last man and the last ditch. This unfor- i tuiihte'misuse of terms, however, serves ; to show that although eightryears have : !elaps<id since the Treaty of Waitangnvas . signed, how much that document, every ■ lib*,- is misunderstood % those who ought : to be familiar with its every line and ■ every word.--I am, etc., FR gg