Assessment Schedule – 2009 History: Examine a significant decision made by people in history, in an essay (90657) Judgement Statement

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

Download 159.45 Kb.
Size159.45 Kb.
1   2   3   4

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

  • The Instrument of Government permitted a return to more familiar and traditional political mechanisms that might be more acceptable to the governing class and bring greater stability. Cromwell was anxious that decisions should be taken by the civilian-dominated Council rather than by him or army leaders. He rejected kingship and military dictatorship. He wanted a return to “the old ways” and showed due respect to civil rights and the rule of law.

  • Although it required a greater taxation burden, a standing army would ensure Britain’s security against foreign threats and rebellion from the disaffected. However, the presence of such a large army made it difficult to avoid the accusation of government by military coercion. Certainly, it guaranteed Cromwell’s control on the direction of potential political, social and religious reform.

  • Cromwell’s desire for religious toleration for all extended to Jews, Catholic worship in secret and Anglican services without a royalist flavour. To him, it made sense because it prevented disorder and promoted harmony.

  • However, Cromwell had to deal with a Britain deeply divided by politics and religion. The Protectorate’s constitution was not fully accepted by the ensuing Parliament. Argument arose over the role and size of army, Cromwell’s powers and the degree of religious toleration permitted. Cromwell was compelled to dismiss the first Protectorate Parliament as soon as he could legally do so.

  • In 1655, after the Royalist Penruddock Rising, Cromwell embarked on a period of ‘personal rule’ through his Major-Generals, dividing England into eleven districts. Setting up a new reliable militia to be trained by the professional army to improve national security may have been the excuse, but moral reform of the public was also clearly a motive. The Major-Generals were directed to vigorously prosecute drunkenness, blasphemy, swearing and adultery within their provinces. They were also to suppress gaming houses, alehouses and brothels. To reduce the burden of taxation of local communities, a 10 per cent decimation tax on wealthy ex-Royalists was levied.

  • But the seizure of political power in the localities by the army had alienated the majority of the traditional governing class, who deeply resented the threat ‘lowborn’ army officers represented to their local status and authority. The traditional governing class withdrew from an active part in local government, leaving their roles to new men from the lesser gentry. The moral reforms of the Major-Generals were highly unpopular and a cause for much bickering and quarrelling that severely damaged Cromwell’s hopes of ‘healing and settling’ the governing class.

  • The 1657 parliament proposed a new civilian constitution – The Humble Petition and Advice – to replace the Army’s Instrument of Government. They wanted Cromwell to become King instead of Lord Protector and the succession to be hereditary. It also called for a second chamber (the Other House) to be restored to parliament and a biennial parliament to have control over appointments to the Council of State and over the national religion. Since the offer of the new constitution came from Parliament, it would have a validity and legality that the Instrument (created by the Army Council) lacked. As King, Cromwell would be likely to get more support from the traditional governing class, who were concerned at the continuance of a government whose sole authority rested on force available through the Army. However (after weeks of discussion), Cromwell declined the Crown, but accepted the rest of the Humble Petition and Advice. As the man used by God as His instrument to be the destroyer of monarchy, for Cromwell to become king would be an act of total apostasy. “I will not seek to set up that that Providence hath destroyed and lain in the dust.”

  • The army in general did not welcome the changes, but senior officers were reassured that their interests would be protected through seats in the Upper House. But although the Upper House was packed with Cromwellians, the Lower House lacked strong and influential supporters of Cromwell. No longer having the ability to block MPs from sitting, opponents were returned who were determined to attack the The Humble Petition and Advice and restore the Rump.

  • Cromwell lost patience and dissolved the Parliament within a month. He was working on a further purge of the army to preserve its unity and the nation’s security and intended to call another parliament when he took ill and died. It was clear; he had failed in his political aim to find a settlement acceptable to the nation that could replace traditional monarchy. There had been little legal and social reform. After his death, there was no potential for a stable civilian government under any one else’s leadership.

  • His personal appeals for “liberty for tender consciences” had largely fallen on deaf ears. The Protectorate Parliament’s determination to control religious belief and action by punishing dissent as evidenced in the 1656 James Naylor would have caused Cromwell to recognise the futility of his hopes for religious toleration.

  • His more lasting legacy was the result of his victories in Ireland and Scotland, the Navigation Act, the development of a powerful navy and defeat of the Dutch – an enhanced international reputation for Britain.

Content Guidelines

Topic Two: New Zealand in the Nineteenth Century

Topic Two: Essay One

Explain the beliefs and fears about the state of affairs in New Zealand shared by Māori chiefs and the British Government that led to their decision to negotiate the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

Evaluate the extent to which the Treaty of Waitangi had addressed the concerns of both parties by 1860.

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

Topic Two: Essay Two

Explain the factors that led to Edward Gibbon Wakefield’s decision to organise the planned settlement of New Zealand.

Evaluate the consequences of Wakefield’s decision on New Zealand society until 1855.

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

  • The Wakefields’ desire to make money – The New Zealand Company was founded as a commercial operation designed for investors.

  • The desire of Wakefield to avoid the problems experienced in other “less organised” colonies, especially those in Canada and Australia through systematic colonisation. Wakefield believed that the haphazard nature of the peopling of the Australian colonies had led to the wrong sorts of people (a “squattocracy”) gaining control of the land. Wakefield’s desire was to create a “Britain of the South” where class distinctions were preserved.

  • His belief that emigration was the key to solving the problems of social distress – mass unemployment and urbanisation – that had been caused by the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Wakefield adhered to the widespread view that population growth – regarded as desirable – was related to food production, and that the solution to mass starvation was to export surplus population.

  • Wakefield argued that to make emigration to a colony ‘pay’, and to promote a ‘civilised’ society rather than a dispersed, barbaric settlement, land should be charged at ‘a sufficient price’. This would ensure that only some would be able to afford to buy land, and that landowners would have labourers to work for them.

  • Wakefield was looking for a new land that was not tainted by the criminal class exported to Australia (the “convict stain”).

  • In England, Edward Gibbon Wakefield spoke in glowing terms to a House of Commons committee in 1836, “Very near to Australia there is a country which all testimony concurs in describing as the fittest in the world for colonization, as the most beautiful country with the finest climate, and the most productive soil; I mean New Zealand.”

  • New Zealand in 1839 was not yet a British colony, but all indications suggested that it would soon become one. Therefore, the time was right for the Company to buy land before any restrictions were legally placed upon it. If the New Zealand Company could establish their Wellington colony before the annexation of New Zealand, this would lead to huge profits as land prices would increase (especially if Wellington became the capital of the new colony).

  • Investors in the company were promised 100 acres (40.5 hectares) of farmland and one town acre; the initial 1000 orders were snapped up in a month. But how to attract the labourers? To combat negative notions about New Zealand, the company used books, pamphlets and broadsheets to promote the country as ‘a Britain of the South’, a fertile land with a benign climate, free of starvation, class war and teeming cities.

  • Agents spread the good news around the rural areas of southern England and Scotland. As added inducement, the company offered free passages to ‘mechanics, gardeners and agricultural labourers’.

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

  • The first ships arrived in Wellington from January 1840, Wanganui from September 1840, New Plymouth from November 1841, and Nelson from February 1842. Two offshoots of the company, the Otago Association and the Canterbury Association, brought people to Dunedin in 1848 and Christchurch in 1850.

  • The company’s promises were flights of fancy, only partially made good by dubious land purchases from Māori, one of which eventually led to violence on the Wairau in Marlborough. Wakefield’s neat plans did not work out – land titles were uncertain, there was a lack of useable land and no obvious way to generate income through exports, and there were too many absentee landowners (about three-quarters of those in the Nelson settlement).

  • By 1843, the new settlers were short of food and the company was virtually bankrupt. Two interventions by the British government saved it from total disaster. Yet the company began to organise large-scale migration to New Zealand. Advertising and propaganda attracted thousands of people over the next 100 years, and the main drawcard, the free or assisted passage, became hugely important. Company immigrants sent letters back home which encouraged others to come out over the years.

  • The New Zealand Company had a remarkable impact on immigration to New Zealand. Of the 18 000 settlers who came directly from Britain between 1840 and 1852, about 14 000 were brought in by the company or its successors. As a result of the company’s policy, by 1852 the European population in New Zealand had reached some 28 000. The New Zealand Company established the outlines of immigration from Britain to New Zealand, setting in place the mechanisms and promotional pitch that were used by the provinces and the government in later years.

  • The vast majority of passengers whose fares were paid by the New Zealand Company came out in family groups; there were as many women as men, and almost half of this group were children. Apart from the Otago Association settlers, who were recruited largely in Scotland, most were from England.

  • The company wanted mechanics and agricultural labourers, and this is what they got. A third of the adult men were farm labourers, and another two-fifths were ‘mechanics’ – traditional rural craft workers such as builders or blacksmiths. They were not starving down-and-outs, but people under threat as farm wages fell and the old crafts disappeared. These skilled rural folk looked to New Zealand to fulfil dreams of independence through land ownership. There were few industrial workers or even clerks.

  • About a fifth of the New Zealand Company recruits came as paying cabin passengers, often the younger sons of the gentry or ‘remittance men’ – black sheep sent out to the colonies. There were retired military officers, and a few professionals such as doctors aspiring to a higher social status. Many were single males, although there were also spinsters keen to work as governesses or to find a husband. In general, the New Zealand Company migrants were a more genteel group than later arrivals.

  • People with similar ideas about new colonial societies such as the need for self-government, the importance of education, came as migrants who gave a big boost to colonial development.

  • The revenue from land sales was used to divert some immigrants to New Zealand from the mainstream of world migration – New Zealand was put on the immigration map.

  • The class structure, which developed in the new settlements, was a loose one – there was no agricultural capitalist group and the labourers would not accept an inferior status.

  • Immigrants had greater opportunities and aspirations. Equality and natural rights for all were promoted. Colonial values and social customs were relaxed, eg men no longer had to tip their hat at a landowner.

  • The New Zealand Company settlers may have been disproportionately influential because they were the first, and they established the nature and ethos of their cities, and developed a British character in New Zealand.

  • The comparatively successful settlement of Otago. Many of these early settlers came to escape Scottish poverty. The ‘sufficient price’ was set too low to generate the ‘vertical slice’.

  • The comparatively successful settlement of Canterbury, where the ‘sufficient price’ much more successfully produced the desired vertical slice.

  • Most of Wakefield’s theories were not implemented or did not work in practice in the New Zealand Company settlements. There were also difficulties in getting the settlements up and running because of the New Zealand Company’s inadequacies.

  • The Company failed to deliver on the promise to the working class; most English gentry bought land as a passive investment with no intention to migrate. This created a shortage of capitalists to act as investors and employers – unemployment was high and wages were poor. Some immigrants faced starvation. In Wellington and Nelson, the Company had to provide relief work for discontented labourers.

  • There was conflict over the purchase of land. The influence of the New Zealand Company officials was controlled by the Crown pre-emption clause in the Treaty of Waitangi. Most of the early Governors were not well disposed to Company aims.

  • Capitalists also suffered from failed promises – Māori disputed selling land, development was hindered and inter-racial conflict resulted from the inability of the New Zealand Company to fulfil their promises of land in Nelson (Wairau Incident 1843, in which Arthur Wakefield was killed), Wellington (wars in the Hutt Valley and Porirua against Te Rangihaeata and his Ngāti Toa supporters, 1846).

  • The New Zealand Company had inadequate knowledge of the geography of sites for settlement. Immigrants were often disappointed when they saw what the site was really like. Land was sold by ballot in England, unseen and unsurveyed.

  • Settlement sites were often not prepared when settlers arrived, and the New Zealand Company’s administration was inefficient. Settlers experienced frustrating delays, and progress in establishing an economic base was slow in the 1840s.

  • Much of the land turned out to be unsuitable for agriculture despite the fact that it had been promoted as flat and fertile land. Sheep farming was more suitable to the land. Settlers moved inland. Some land owners had to deal with squatters and land disputes.

  • Some had to turn to shop-keeping or small businesses and trades when agriculture ventures did not go to plan, eg many Wellington farmers moved north for better conditions and so there was less employment for labourers in the city region. Some immigrants left New Zealand for Australia.

  • The sufficient price of land was never implemented in the way Wakefield intended – labourers often could not afford land when they first arrived but were able to buy land much more rapidly than Wakefield had planned.

  • Labourers set up small family farms, which became the dominant type of farm in the new settlements but didn’t employ many labourers themselves.

  • There was political rivalry between the settlers from the Wakefield settlements and the settlers from non-planned settlements (especially Auckland).

  • The increased number of Pākehā settlers brought demands for governments to take Māori land for the use of Pākehā settlers. Confiscated land and unscrupulous land deals were associated with the provision of land for new immigrants.

  • The nature of nineteenth-century community – the atomisation / tight-knit community debate.

  • Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page