whether  one  New  Zealander  in  a  thousand  understood  during  the  months  of controversy that followed that decision.  Indeed, I was one of the counsel in the case  and  I  followed  events  subsequent  to  the  decision  with  close  interest.  The public debate was conspicuous in my view for the fact that while the rhetoric was hot, very few participants on either side of the debate had any real idea of what they were talking about, and perhaps this is not surprising given the complexity of the issues.    18 The  doctrine  of  aboriginal  or  customary  right  is  one  of  the  most  indeterminate doctrines of the common law. But it came to New Zealand early. In 1847 what is now the equivalent of the High Court, sitting with two Judges, decided that the Queen  is  the  only  source  of  title  to  land  in  New  Zealand.  The  judgments  do contain reference to the pre-emptive rights of the Crown contained in the Treaty of Waitangi but this was not the legal source of the rule. The Crown held the land subject to the encumbrance of native land rights based on customary usage. This was  legal  restriction  on  the  title  of  the  Crown  as  the  ultimate  land  owner.  As Justice Chapman said in 1847:¹¹ “Whatever may be the opinion of jurists as to the strength and weaknesses of Native title, whatsoever may have been the past vague notions of the natives of this country whatever may be their present clearer and still growing conception of their own dominion over land, it  cannot  be  too  solemnly  asserted  that  it  is  entitled  to  be  respected,  that  it  cannot  be extinguished (at least in times of peace) otherwise than by the free  consent of the Native occupiers.”   19 So  the  law  of  New  Zealand  on  the  matter  was  established  very  early  in  our colonial history and its effect was clearly to protect Maori interests. 20 This  was  the  same  set  of  legal  principles  that  came  to  be  applied  by  the  High Court of Australia in Mabo v Queensland,¹² a case that caused massive upheavals of public opinion in Australia and a large and complicated legislative response to try  and  sort  it  out.  Aboriginal  title  in  New  Zealand  can  be  extinguished  by legislation  and  Sir  John  Salmond  in  the  early  twentieth  century  as  Solicitor-                                                  11     R v Symonds (1847) NZPCC 387. 12   Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.