In the last video, video one about Article two, we established that: Article two only had two sentences. The first sentence was concerned with the British guaranteeing to protect Maori with respect to the possession of their land, dwellings, and property. The second sentence detailed how after 1840, only the British government could buy Maori land. We also established in the last video that the final English draft of the Treaty and the Treaty in Maori were virtually identical. This dispels the myth trotted out by activists that the Treaty in Maori and the English version of the Treaty are so different, you’ll need expert Maori translators to tell you what the Treaty in Maori says. They are different only because the activists are not reading the final English draft. We also established that in 1840, the British considered New Zealand to be an independent sovereign Nation, ruled by Maori. In this brief to Hobson dated 14th of August 1839, Lord Normanby stated: "The the sovereignty to New Zealand is indisputable and has been solemnly recognised by the British Government." Later in the same brief he writes: "I have already stated that we acknowledge New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state so far at least as is possible to make that acknowledgement in favour of a people composed of numerous dispersed and petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act or even deliberate in concert." I have put his brief in the description of this video. Having said this, at least 1/3 of New Zealand had already been sold to settlers or developers by the chiefs before 1840. The source of this information is the HH Turton Documents which I have included in the description of this video as well. In this sense, the chiefs did not own ALL of New Zealand in 1840. Only what they had not sold. How shall we summarise? We could say that apart from these pre-1840 land sales, the British considered that, as at the 6th of February 1840, ALL the land of New Zealand was "owned" by Maori. Think about it. If Maori were not sovereign in 1840, why did the British see the need for a Treaty asking Maori to relinquish sovereignty? If Maori were not sovereign in 1840, then there was no sovereignty to cede. If Maori were not sovereign in 1840, then there what was the point of the Treaty, which asked Maori to cede sovereignty? As we know, Maori went on to sell 92% of New Zealand in the decades that followed 1840.