In September 1992 someone "leaked" news to the media that a Treaty document had been found by the Littlewood family of Pukekohe, Auckland District. Statements at the time, by the National Archives experts, shows that they realised the potentialities and probable far reaching significance of this document. It showed every sign of being the long lost Treaty draft, much sought after for 150-years. Despite this, the National Archives and related authorities went silent and suppressed the document, which find had "irritated them" when news was made public. These many years later they still have not performed their duty to the people of New Zealand and have never admitted that they have in their possession the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi. To do so would severely curtail the activities and huge plundering potential of the grievance industry, which relies on the wording of the wrong English draft in order to survive and continue to perpetrate its fraud against the people of New Zealand.

AUTHOR OF TREATY DRAFT A MYSTERY (Article).

N.Z. Herald 23rd September 1992.

Historian and archivists have been unable to identify positively a draft of the Treaty of Waitangi found in an Auckland family's heirlooms.
The Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. Lee, yesterday received a briefing on the investigation into the document's status.
He said specialists from the National Archives and elsewhere now believed they were in for "a long haul" in determining who had written the draft, on paper with an 1833 watermark.
"There is no guarantee that even after an enormous amount of work that we will come up with the goods" the minister said.
Initial interest in the draft centred on the possibility that it was the "missing" draft taken by Governor William Hobson to the missionary Henry Williams on February 4 1840 for translation.
However, an authority on the Treaty, Dr. Claudia Orange, subsequently expressed doubts that it was the missing English draft. It looked instead like a translation of the Maori version of the Treaty into English.
The document omitted reference to forests and fisheries, but Dr. Orange said the discrepancy was "quite unimportant".

TREATY EXPERT COOL ON DRAFT FIND (Article).

NZPA Wellington. N.Z. Herald-Saturday 12/9/92.

Dr. Claudia Orange, an authority on the Treaty of Waitangi, yesterday warned against placing too much importance on a copy of the treaty found by Mr. John Littlewood of Auckland, and now being examined by the National Archives.
The Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. Lee, had earlier said that the copy could possibly be the missing English draft passed by William Hobson to the missionary Henry Williams for transmission on February 4, 1840.
The document omitted reference to forests and fisheries.
Mr. Littlewood found the document three years ago in a drawer after his mother's death and took it to the Auckland Museum Library where it was restored and authenticated.
Mr. Littlewood said that the document belonged to his great-grandfather, Henry Littlewood, a solicitor who was known to have come to New Zealand in either 1842 or 1847.
"I know the document is an original because it has a watermark from 1833", Mr. Littlewood said yesterday in a radio interview.
But Dr. Orange who has been evaluating the document for a month doubts that it is the missing English draft.
"When I looked at the actual wording of the Littlewood copy it looked very like a translation of the Maori version of the treaty into English", she said.
The wording in English follows very closely the wording of the treaty in Maori, several copies of which were signed by most Maori chiefs around the country."
Dr. Orange said the version of that treaty made no mention of fish and forests.
But the official version of the treaty as regarded by Hobson in 1840, did mention forest and fisheries.
"The discrepancy is quite unimportant and certainly unimportant as far as the Waitangi Tribunal is concerned."
The treaty find was unlikely to have any impact on the treaty claims, she said, as the Tribunal regarded the official English and Maori versions as one.
Dr. Orange said it would be difficult to establish why this draft of the treaty was written. She said it might not date from 1840 at all even though it was on old paper.
"It may date from the 1850's. All we know is that it is very old. The watermark of 1833 may simply indicate it is paper that was hanging around the solicitor's office and was used."
Dr. Orange warned people about placing too much importance on the find.
" this is always the case when we get an interesting find, from an historical sense it is very interesting, but we shouldn't get too excited about this, especially in the political sense."

SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE "EXPERT" ANALYSIS OR CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THESE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES FROM 1992?

You absolutely have to ask yourself, in all honesty: is it even remotely possible that our country's leading historians, forensic scientists or document scholars can be this stupid and inept or are they being deliberately obtuse? Did our experts deliberately evade the issue and set out to deceive the people of New Zealand, concerning the significance of the "Littlewood Treaty", in 1992 and since that time? Consider the following evidence:

1. If our treaty scholars wished to find out whether or not the "Littlewood Treaty" was the long sought after "lost final English draft" of the Treaty Of Waitangi, then the process is very simple. There are only 3 primary individuals whose handwriting needs to be analysed, against the handwriting appearing on the Littlewood Treaty. The foremost or first choice would be James Busby. The second choice would be James Stuart Freeman and the third choice would be William Hobson. These are the individuals who penned all of the treaty drafts in English leading up to the creation of the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi. Historical accounts show that British Resident, James Busby, was the individual who wrote the final draft. He said this himself:
‘The draft of the Treaty prepared by me was adopted by Captain Hobson without any other alteration than a transposition of certain sentences, which did not in any degree affect the sense’ (see Appendix to Journals, July 1861, E. No. 2, page 67).

We now know (after many years) that the Littlewood Treaty is in the handwriting of JAMES BUSBY...the most likely choice from day one. This being an irrefutable fact, accompanied by the equally irrefutable fact that the document is clearly dated the 4th of February 1840, then, IT IS, WITHOUT QUESTION, THE FINAL ENGLISH DRAFT.

2. All of the earlier Treaty drafts, written between the 1st and 3rd of February, 1840 by Hobson, Freeman or Busby are located at the National Archives. It would have taken less than five minutes of handwriting comparisons to ascertain, or at least strongly suspect, that James Busby was the individual who had penned the Littlewood Treaty. The statement by Internal Affairs Minister, Graham Lee, that: specialists from the National Archives and elsewhere now believed they were in for "a long haul" in determining who had written the draft, on paper with an 1833 watermark. "There is no guarantee that even after an enormous amount of work that we will come up with the goods"... is absolutely impossible to believe!

3. The long sought after "lost final English draft" was handed, by Hobson, to Reverend Henry Williams at 4pm on the 4th of February, 1840. The Littlewood Treaty, in the handwriting of James Busby, is dated the 4th of February 1840. James Busby wrote the yet earlier draft, which preceded the final draft, on the 3rd of February 1840 and was acting as the "Treaty drafting secretary or scribe" throughout the final stages of completing the English version of the Treaty Of Waitangi.

4. The statements by Dr. Claudia Orange dismissing the Littlewood document on the grounds that: "It looked instead like a translation of the Maori version of the Treaty into English"... or... "The wording in English follows very closely the wording of the treaty in Maori, several copies of which were signed by most Maori chiefs around the country"...are meaningless, "red herring" statements conceived to, somehow, sow doubt related to the document's significance. Consider the following:

5. British Resident, James Busby's close friend and associate was U.S Consul, James Reddy Clendon. During the year 1840 and into 1841 James Reddy Clendon's despatches to the US Secretary of State, John Forsyth, were written on 1833 W. Tucker paper. James Reddy Clendon appears to be the only individual in the Kororareka (Russell) area who had a stockpile of this paper. Chief Government Historian, Ian Wards stated that James Reddy Clendon helped to draft the Treaty in English before the Maori version was made. Clues found within letters from Surveyor General, Felton Mathew to his wife Sarah Louise Mathew, written in early February 1840, point to the fact that the last "Treaty" drafting meetings were held at the home of US Consul, James Reddy Clendon.

The paper for Busby's final draft came from Clendon's company stock. This verifies that the date on the "Littlewood Treaty" (4th of February 1840) is beyond reproach, despite Dr. Claudia Orange's wishful thinking that the Littlewood Treaty might have been produced in the 1850's. James Reddy Clendon was later responsible for 2 additional copies of the "Littlewood Treaty" version, being despatched to the US Secretary of State. One of these was on the 20th of February 1840, to which Clendon attached an appended note stating that he would have the English wording "officially" verified by Captain Hobson on his "return from the Southward". Clendon was as good as his word and applied to the Hobson government for "official" copies of the "Treaty" (Maori version) and "Translation" (final English draft). These were supplied to him in March 1840, when he was given Busby's final English draft (the original document, now known as the Littlewood Treaty) and a hand-written copy of the Tiriti O Waitangi, penned by Reverend Henry Williams and signed off by James Stuart Freeman. The register of letters of the Colonial Secretary records Clendon's acknowledgement that his request has been fulfilled.

On the 30th of March 1840 American Antarctic explorer, Commodore Charles Wilkes arrived in the bay aboard his flagship, the Vincennes. On the 3rd of April he was supplied with Busby's final English draft of the Treaty, which he then hand transcribed for his despatch number 64 to the U.S. Secretary of State. Wilkes deliberately copied Busby's spelling mistake of "Sovreignty" instead of "Sovereignty". He also duplicated Busby's mistake of chiefs instead of Queen. He religiously copied Busby's rendition of ceided instead of ceded. In all, Commodore Wilkes made two copies of Busby's final draft original, one of which went into the U.S.S. Vincennes' "Letter Book".

After this time, Clendon retained Busby's final draft in his possession, until he gave it to his solicitor, Henry Littlewood.

Both Clendon's 20th of February 1840 transcription of the final draft original, as well as Wilkes' copy for the U.S.S. Vincennes Letter Book on April 3rd 1840, are viewable on microfilm at Auckland University Library. The despatched originals of what both men transcribed are in either the US Archives in Washington D.C. (Clendon's Despatch No. 6 & Wilkes Despatch No. 64)) or at the Kansas Historical Society in Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A. (Wilkes' Letter Book). Clendon's 20th of February 1840 transcription is positively on 1833 W. Tucker paper.

Our experts have long maintained that the only time 1833 W. Tucker watermarked paper has ever been seen in New Zealand occurred with the Littlewood Treaty document... absolute rubbish and abysmal scholarship! Virtually every despatch that Clendon sent to the United States between January 1840 & January 1841 contains W. Tucker 1833 watermarked paper.

The problem we face in New Zealand is that we have almost no true "Historians" left ...all we now have is a gaggle of "Social Engineers" or "Spin Doctors", posing as historians and catering to the whims of the grievance industry.

THE LITTLEWOOD TREATY