"In the view, therefore, of both the Missionaries and the natives," they said, "the sovereignty and the land were two entirely distinct things, and to preserve the latter intact, while they surrendered the former, was the great solicitude of the natives. From Captain Hobson the Missionaries received the most satisfactory explanation of the terms of the treaty. It dwelt explicitly on both the sovereignty and the land, and the interpretation which the Missionaries were authorised to give of it was that, while the _entire_ sovereignty should be transferred to the British Crown, the _entire_ land should be secured to the natives. Most certainly the Missionaries received the fullest assurance that, in surrendering the sovereignty, the natives would not by that act surrender their original claims upon any part of the soil. In this sense the chiefs themselves understood the treaty, as it was propounded to them. They clearly comprehended its two main features as explained in their own figurative style, that 'the shadow of the land,' by which they meant 'the sovereignty,' would pass to the Queen of England, but that the 'substance,' meaning the land itself, would remain with them."
But the Missionaries were not alone the source from which the Committee proved the correct interpretation of the treaty. The witnesses who had given evidence before Earl Grey's own Committee in 1844 were marshalled to their support, the official Despatches were quoted to the same end, even those of Lord John Russell being referred to as "warranting the conclusion that his Lordship designed the treaty should be faithfully observed, in the sense in which it was understood by the natives and Missionaries of both the Church and Wesleyan Societies." To these was added the invaluable testimony of Lieutenant Shortland, who had been in closest association with Captain Hobson during the treaty negotiations, who had been privileged to administer the affairs of the colony under it, and who from his close official connection with it was peculiarly the man able to say what it meant and what it did not mean. Shortly before his return to England, the Select Committee of the House of Commons had issued their report upon "the State of New Zealand and the proceedings of the New Zealand Company," and so completely did that report misrepresent, in Mr. Shortland's opinion, the true position of affairs, so harmful did he deem the resolutions which accompanied that report, that he felt in duty bound to protest to Lord Stanley against the needless perversion of the facts. During a lengthy and dispassionate statement of the circumstances surrounding the procuration of the treaty--than whom no one knew them better--Mr. Shortland, writing from his quiet retreat at Torquay, dealt with especial emphasis upon the relation of the sovereignty to the land: