The “Littlewood Treaty”: An Appraisal of Texts and Interpretations
(Dated 1 May 2006).

MARTIN DOUTRE'S RESPONSE TO DR. DONALD LOVERIDGE'S ARTICLE
14th of July 2006.

It is openly acknowledged by our Treaty of Waitangi historians and experts that the final English draft of the treaty, which provided the text for the Maori translation, went missing in February 1840. From historical references, we know that this document was written by British Resident, James Busby. Captain William Hobson handed the final draft to Reverend Henry Williams at 4 p.m. on the 4th of February 1840 for translation into Te Tiriti O Waitangi.

In mid-March 1989 an English language version of the Treaty of Waitangi was found in Pukekohe, South Auckland, when members of the Littlewood family were sorting out the estate of their recently deceased mother. This old sheet of paper has, subsequently, been identified to be in the handwriting of British Resident, James Busby by New Zealand’s leading handwriting expert of documents from the early colonial era, Dr. Phil Parkinson of the Alexander Turnbull Library.

An astounding feature of this newly found document is that it is dated the 4th of February 1840. It is also written on very old paper, bearing a W. Tucker 1833 watermark.

The document has an impeccable pedigree back to 1840’s solicitor Henry Littlewood of the Bay of Islands and Auckland. By the 1850’s, at least, James Reddy Clendon, Police Magistrate, was using Littlewood’s legal services for conveyancy work and this seems to explain how Littlewood gained possession of the final English draft of the treaty. Clendon had been loaned the final draft original by Lieutenant Governor William Hobson, upon official request to the Colonial Secretary. It had been forwarded to him, in his capacity as U.S. Consul, between the 6th and 18th of March 1840 and seems to have remained in his possession permanently thereafter, until lodged with his solicitor, Henry Littlewood.

One of several newspaper articles about the Littlewood document find, after a whistleblower in archives leaked knowledge of the discovery to the media in 1992. Despite an initial burst of strong speculation that it was the "lost" final English draft, the media and our historians went very silent on the subject thereafter and promises to the public of a full forensic analysis were never honoured. This discovery constituted "a most unwelcome find" to the grievance-industry and social-engineers engaged in reinventing the true meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi for political-expediency.

In October 2003 I commenced in depth research into the provenance of this suppressed and all-but-forgotten document, spanning two years of investigation. During the period I had multiple interviews with the Littlewood family and spent considerable time seeking out many rare documents housed at archives, libraries, within private collections or on microfilm, locatable at resource centres around New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain and the United States.

The outcome of this exercise was that I was able to prove, conclusively, that the Littlewood document was, beyond any doubt, the much sought-after final English draft and mother document of the Treaty of Waitangi, from which the Maori language Tiriti o Waitangi was translated.

As a consequence of this fact, the recent-era treaty revisionism, or reinvention of the Treaty of Waitangi since 1975, was proven to be founded upon transparent fraud, as well as unscholarly make-believe and wishful-thinking. The very socially-destructive ruse of deliberate misinterpretations of the treaty was pushed and promoted by self-serving Maori activists and their cohorts for monetary or political gain, etc. It had no basis in true history, as attested to by historical documents.

The newly available information was compiled into a book, titled, The Littlewood Treaty - The True English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi Found, 2005, ISBN 0-437-10140-8. The book, complete with rare documents, is available online at:
http://www.celticnz.org/TreatyBook/Precis.htm

The emergence of this fully documented history into the public arena was very threatening to the lucrative grievance-industry and sent ripples of panic throughout their ranks, resulting in the implementation of damage-control incentives, comprised of re-education or indoctrination programmes like the very expensive Treaty-2-U traveling propaganda roadshow unleashed upon our "bussed-in" schoolchildren during 2006 - 2007.
http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/Treaty2UPart1.htm

Similarly, certain historians were given the task of debunking the new information and assigned the role to be the great "Defenders of the Faith". One such individual, who was highly paid to attempt to discredit my book and demolish its documented historical content, was Dr. Donald Loveridge.

What follows is my rebuttal of the spurious arguments he raises to counter the Littlewood document's authenticity as the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi.

In commencing this response to Dr. Loveridge, I would first like to establish some foundation points:

THE PRE-EMINENT STATUS OF THE MAORI TEXT OF "TE TIRITI O WAITANGI"

There is only one Treaty of Waitangi.

Lieutenant Governor William Hobson recognised that there is only one legal Treaty of Waitangi text, and it is in the Maori language. This singular recognition was affirmed by Hobson in his letter of instructions to Major Bunbury, wherein he wrote:

'The treaty, which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi, on the 6th February, 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the Confederation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. 'This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of the original document' (see: The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pg. 162). Red emphasis added.

On the 17th of February 1840 the C.M.S. Mission press produced 200 printed copies of the Maori language treaty, as a paid consignment ordered by Hobson. There was no production of an "official" English treaty text, as there wasn't one. Subsequently, ALL of the large, handwritten copies of the Treaty of Waitangi, commissioned and produced by the government, then officially sent to the treaty signing assemblies around New Zealand, were in the Maori language and there were no departures from this strict practice*.
*Appendix Note: Some will try to argue that the English language document that received signatures at Waikato Heads on 11/4/1840, as well as at Manukau on 26/4/1840 is an exception, but this is not the case. The only document ever officially issued by the government and intended to be used at Manukau and Waikato Heads now goes by the title of the Kawhia Treaty, which was in the Maori language. Because it did not arrive in time for his meeting, Reverend Robert Maunsell innovated and used a "printed Maori" text for presentation to the assembled chiefs and their tribes-people and allowed overflow signatures to spill onto a ruined Formal Royal Style English copy, produced solely for overseas despatch, which had come into his possession. Later, the Maori text sheet (with 5 signatures) was affixed atop the English sheet and the two unauthorised pieces of paper sent to Hobson as one, with the Maori language sheet representing the text presented and the large, scrap, English sheet merely a repository for overflow signatures.

Treaty Consultant, Brian Easton, noted:

'For further evidence of the low status of the various English versions after the signing of the Tiriti, consider the numerous translations made in the 1840s by those involved in land deals around Auckland.... If everyone was translating the Tiriti, then they are implying the official version in English was non-existent, unimportant, or irrelevant. In the 1840s the general view among settlers seems to have been there was no Treaty of Waitangi, but there was Te Tiriti o Waitangi which had to be translated into English....Ross reports on five versions which Hobson forwarded to his superiors in Sydney and London. There are differences between them. The main difference is that three have the Hobson-Busby preamble, two the Freeman one. One omits 'forests, fisheries'. A sixth version attributable to Hobson is in Clendon's letter to the Secretary of State on 7 July, where the preamble is again Freeman's (but 'forests, fisheries' are included).
What are we to make of all this? Surely it is that there was no English text of the Tiriti at the time of signing, or shortly after, that Hobson cobbled together what they could after recognizing the lack' (Was There a Treaty of Waitangi, and was it a Social Contract?’ Archifacts by Brian Easton, April 1997, p. 21-49). Red emphasis added.

THE MAORI TIRITI O WAITANGI GUARANTEES EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL NEW ZEALANDERS.

Article II states:

Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite kA wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani - The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the [families] tribes and to all the people of New Zealand - te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. - the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.

In keeping with this unifying theme, as Lieutenant Governor William Hobson shook hands with each signatory chief at Waitangi on the 6th of February 1840 he said, 'He iwi tahi tatou' -'We are now one people'.

The early "rough draft" notes, written before the "final draft", affirm that Hobson's sole intent from the outset was to establish an all encompassing, egalitarian society, wherein everyone was subject to the same laws. In Hobson's handwriting we find:

‘Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of civil Government with the view to avert the evil consequences which must result alike to the native Population and to Her Subjects from the absence of necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the Native Population and to Her subjects…Has been graciously pleased to appoint and authorize me William Hobson…’ (see Facsimiles Of The Treaty Of Waitangi, with Lithographic originals first printed in 1877, Reproduced by A.R. Shearer, Government Printer, 1976). Red emphasis added.

The categories of English Treaty texts:

  1. Drafts: There are sixteen pages of rough notes preceding the Maori translation, produced over several days, conceivably from about the 30th of January and dated in Busby's notation to have terminated on the 3rd of February 1840. These developed from very raw preamble concepts and were gradually refined until the drafters were ready to produce the final English draft text on the 4th of February 1840.

    In the National Archives at Wellington, twelve pages of these early rough notes are on display in the Constitution Room . A further four pages, representing Busby's first attempt, are in the collection of the Auckland Institute and Museum. None of these sixteen pages, singularly or in unison, can qualify as a completed final draft, sufficient for the legislators to hand over for translation into the Maori language.

  2. Final Draft: There is only one known document that qualifies, in every respect, as the final draft. It bears the date of the 4th of February 1840, the same day that Reverend Henry Williams was handed the final draft by Hobson for translation, overnight, into the Maori language. The document is written in ink upon W. Tucker 1833 watermarked paper. It is, as historically required, positively in the handwriting of British Resident, James Busby. It translates perfectly to the Maori Te Tiriti O Waitangi, with only some minor added emphasis being directed more-so to the Maori people in, primarily, Article III.

    This document was found amongst the papers of the Littlewood deceased estate of Pukekohe, South Auckland in March 1989.

    Treaty historians seem to be in universal agreement that the final English draft went missing sometime in February 1840:

    (A)     Dr. Loveridge in his report states: Ms. Ross noted that the English text used by Henry Williams as the starting-point for the creation of the Maori text “Unfortunately ... does not appear to have survived”, and Dr. Orange could only agree that no trace of “the final English draft” could be found (See: The Treaty of Waitangi, 1987 pp. 36-37).
    (See also: Ruth M. Ross, Te Tiriti o Waitangi: Texts and Translations, New Zealand Journal of History 6#2, Oct. 1972, pp. 129-157, particularly pp. 132-136).

    (B) Dr. Claudia Orange also wrote on her website:

    ‘The original draft in English, on which Henry Williams based this Maori translation, has not been found. His original translation, presented to the Waitangi meeting of 5 February, has also disappeared’.     Red Emphasis Added.

  3. Back-translations: There were a large number of English versions produced after the 6th of February 1840, by back-translating the Maori text. As Easton observes, this indicates a total lack of a treaty text considered "official" in the English language.

    In 1869, due to the loss of the final English draft in February 1840, the New Zealand Government officially requested that a back-translation of the Maori text be formally supplied. It was produced, under this official request, by Mr. T.E. Young of the Native Department. In lieu of the final English draft, this text has always been a perfectly adequate substitute, as it reads and can be interpreted exactly the same as the Littlewood document.

  4. Formal Royal-Style copies: In keeping with formalities contemporary to the 1840's, memorial documents, destined to be laid beneath the gaze of royalty, the House of Lords or Parliament, etc., were often embellished in beautiful or flowery language.

    Hobson's secretary, James Stuart Freeman, who had been educated at prestigious Eton Public School and Oxford University, England, made up a series of variable, composite, Royal-Style treaty versions for despatch overseas, primarily to Governor Sir George Gipps in Australia or Lord Normanby of the Colonial Office in England. To create these several Formal Royal Style versions, Freeman consulted the rough draft notes, which still contained some very pretentious language, later superseded and discarded in the final English draft.

    This source of text is beyond dispute. We can identify the point of origin for each paragraph, found within the Royal Style variations, amidst the twelve pages of rough draft notes presently held by Archives New Zealand. Historian Ruth Ross, therefore, correctly defined this category of treaty versions for despatch as "composite" versions.

    No additional text created after the 3rd of February 1840, other than some linking words added in by Freeman to bind concepts together, can be found in these seven known Formal Royal Style composites. These are a special category, the function of which is similar to poetry. Each one of these versions created by Freeman for overseas despatch was different in wording to a larger or lesser degree.

*Appendix Note: A fairly good and easily accessible example of this traditional English preoccupation with highfalutin salutation in memorial documents destined for royalty, aristocracy or high positions and posts within the realm, can be found in the introduction to the King James version of the Bible, wherein it reads, in part:

To the Most High and Mighty Prince James,
by the Grace of God,
King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,
Defender of the Faith, &c.
The Translators of the Bible wish Grace, Mercy, and Peace,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty’s Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that, upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth, of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk, and that it should hardly be known who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title; and this also accompanied with peace and tranquility at home and abroad....etc., etc.

ENTER HISTORIAN RUTH ROSS (1920 - 1982).

Williams certified his translation work in a statement created by Freeman, which Williams signed. The statement read:

'I certify that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the Idiom of the Language will admit of.'

To Dr. Loveridge, I would respectfully request that you demonstrate to the public of New Zealand how the translators used any one of the seven or so Formal Royal Style English variations to create Te Tiriti O Waitangi.

THE MISSION STATEMENT AND CONCLUSIONS OF DR. DONALD LOVERIDGE

The stated purpose of Dr. Donald Loveridge's report was to review the historical evidence surrounding the so-titled "Littlewood Treaty" document in an attempt to determine its true status. This incentive became necessary due to a growing public awareness of the existence of the document and the claim, from several quarters, that it qualified as Hobson's "lost" final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Dr. Donald Loveridge's paid, investigative probe was initiated by The Treaty of Waitangi Information Unit.

Dr, Loveridge's article is, primarily, a refutation of points raised in my book, The Littlewood Treaty, The True English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi Found.

In his study he attempts to demolish some of my evidence while glossing over or completely ignoring other compelling facts presented. He then, all-too-quickly relegates the Littlewood document to the lowly status of a "back-translation". The limited scope of Dr. Loveridge's study, however, coupled with his lack of documented evidence and heavy reliance on "suppositions" to prove historical points, is insufficient to lead to his final conclusion.

Let us review, in more depth, the arguments he raises in support of his contention that the Littlewood Treaty document is, at best, an misdated back-translation or, at worst, an inept forgery:

(1) COULD THE LITTLEWOOD DOCUMENT BE A FORGERY, AS DR. LOVERIDGE SUGGESTS?

In a MEMORANDUM to Executive Crown Council, Jennifer Lake, dated September 21st 1992, under the SUBJECT title, The recently-discovered "February 4th Draft" of the Treaty, Dr. Donald Loveridge writes:

'The February 4th date, combined with the absence of any reference to "forests and fisheries" in the second Article, have led to a great deal of speculation. It has been suggested, among other things, that this text might be the English draft which Henry Williams was given by Captain Hobson on the 4th. The Maori text of the Treaty which Williams subsequently produced does not, of course, incorporate the precise translation of the "forests and fisheries" clause within its second Article'. Red emphasis added.

Indeed, speculation that Hobson's "lost" final English draft of the treaty might have been found had been published in major national newspapers as early as the 11th & 12th of September 1992 and was the subject of TV1 & TV3 news clips at about the same time.

Even Ian Wards, who had formerly held the post of Chief Historian for Internal Affairs, stated that there was, 'some thought that it could be the first draft or a copy of it taken by Governor William Hobson to the missionary Henry Williams on February 4, 1840 for translation'.

The article goes on to mention the Minister of Internal Affairs: 'Mr. Lee, who expressed his department's irritation that news of the find had been made public, said there was a mystery over who had written the document. There are a number of questions yet to be answered before Archives will be able to establish the document's significance' (See: Draft Puzzles Experts, NZ Herald, Sept. 11, 1992, pg. 2, Section 1). Red emphasis added.

The public of New Zealand had an absolute right to very well researched, clinically scientific answers about this document. If ever there was a time when our historians and forensic experts needed to combine their talents and concentrate their focus in a singular quest for the truth, it was now.

The newly found Littlewood Treaty document had the potential to redefine what the treaty truly meant, after a decade of radical revision and reinterpretations foisted upon New Zealanders, especially under the Lange and Palmer governments.

Central to establishing the document's significance was determining who wrote it. In 1992 this remained about the only outstanding or unresolved issue, other than the origin of the paper upon which the hand-written text appeared. Whose paper stock was it and could it be traced to contemporary stocks in use at the Bay of Islands in January and February 1840?

The people of New Zealand were to be disappointed in their very reasonable expectation of answers to these all important questions, as the answers never came.

In the interim period of about a week, between the national media coverage about the Littlewood Treaty document, and the 21st of the month, Dr. Donald Loveridge did a superficial assessment ('marginal involvement'), which in no wise answered or even adequately addressed the outstanding questions.

In his letter to the Crown Counsel of about seven hundred words content, including headings, introduction and footnotes, he dismissed the document as either a latter translation of the Maori text bearing a mistaken date, or an outright forgery by an inept individual.

These many years later, because of a statement by Dr. Phil Parkinson appearing in a very limited circulation, in-house newsletter of Archives New Zealand, we now know that the author of the document was James Busby.

Despite this very muted admission in the year 2000, this dynamic information has never been formally announced to the general public, as was promised in September 1992.

We also know, through private, independent research undertaken by a colleague and myself, that the W. Tucker 1833 paper upon which the text is written, belonged to James Reddy Clendon, U.S. Consul at the Bay of Islands and close friend of the British Resident, James Busby. Clendon had supported Busby in his writing of the 1835 Declaration of Independence for the Confederation of United Chiefs and had signed the same.

Dr. James Rutherford states:

'James Clendon was born at Deal, Kent. He became a London merchant and shipowner in association with his brother, John Chitty Clendon, and began trading to New Zealand about 1828. In 1830 he visited the Bay of Islands in the City of Edinburgh, [ship name] bought land from Pomare at Okiato, a few miles south of Kororareka, and settled there in 1832 in partnership with Samuel Stephenson. His business prospered, and his friendship with Pomare, Nene, and other chiefs made him one of the most influential Europeans in northern New Zealand.

Captain Clendon exercised more power in the lawless thirties than did the Resident, James Busby, for he was actively in touch with the Maoris and the European traders and settlers of Kororareka, whereas Busby was cut off at Waitangi and too preoccupied with writing letters. When the Residency was attacked (April 1834), Clendon sponsored a petition from the settlers asking for military protection, but this was not afforded. He fell out with Busby in 1835 when he, Thomas McDonnell, and others tried to prohibit the sale of spirits which were causing havoc in Maori society. When Baron de Thierry claimed New Zealand as his kingdom, Clendon supported Busby's efforts to form a confederation of Maori chiefs, and witnessed the Maori Declaration of Independence (28 October 1835)...'

'During the tribal wars at the Bay of Islands in 1837, his intervention along with that of the Rev. Henry Williams saved the lives of many European settlers, and eventually brought about peace' (See An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, 1966, republished article by James Rutherford).

Dr. Loveridge states the following:

'Doutré, Littlewood Treaty, p. 77 asks why Clendon would have needed Busby to do a translation, when he himself “had been in the country longer than Busby and, undoubtedly, spoke Maori equally well or better”. I am not aware of any evidence pertaining to Clendon’s Maori-language abilities, but would note that he could well have spoken the language without being able to write it or translate written documents.'

Clendon was a meticulous record keeper, as his surviving business registers attest*, who also had a wonderful command of language and the ability to write very eloquently. As a businessman and merchant trading with Maori on a daily basis, he most assuredly spoke Maori very well and, either reading Maori or writing in that language was a relatively easy extension to speaking it.

The advantage with the Maori language is that it is spelt exactly as it sounds, unlike English with all of its variations, as with "ough"... bough, enough, ought, cough, etc.
*Appendix Note: A register recording business activities can be found amongst other documents in the Clendon House Papers, Auckland Public Library, Special Collections.

Clendon also witnessed the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in behalf of his friend, chief Pomaré II on the 17th of February, 1840.

It is, seemingly, obligatory that Clendon would have first met Captain William Hobson in 1837. Inasmuch as Hobson was sent out from Australia as Captain of H.M.S. Rattlesnake, specifically at Busby's request, to help quell the hostilities arising between Pomaré II and Titore in which the settlers were threatened he would, assuredly, have worked closely with Clendon along with Reverends Henry Williams and Samuel Marsden.

Pomare II's PA sat adjacent to Clendon's farmlet and the land had been purchased from the chief's father and Clendon was a close friend of Pomare II.

In 1837 Hobson visited the chief in an attempt to diffuse the growing hostility and bring about peace (See Dictionary of New Zealand Biography).

Despite Dr. Donald Loveridge's assertions to the contrary, there is ample associative and circumstantial evidence to show that Clendon was well versed in the Maori language and that he also assisted the British Resident, James Busby, in formulating the 1835 Declaration of Independence as an advisor, supporter and finally as a signed witness to that document.

Dr. Loveridge states that the Littlewood Treaty could be a forgery, but this is quite impossible, for the following reasons:

Conclusion:

The Littlewood Treaty document, rediscovered by the Littlewood family in 1989 at Pukekohe, South Auckland, can be positively shown to have existed as of the 3rd of April 1840. It was supplied, on that date, by James Reddy Clendon, U.S. Consul, to Captain (later to become Commodore) Charles Wilkes, United States Antarctic Expeditionary Squadron, for transcription.

Closely similar wording, limited more-so to some capitalisation, spelling and punctuation differences, was despatched to the United States Secretary of State by James Clendon on the 20th of February 1840 in despatch No. 6. This shows us that the version existed by that date.

Moreover, there has never been so much as one documented piece of evidence to support the contention that the Littlewood Treaty document is misdated. In lieu of any such proof, we must accept that the date, the 4th of February 1840, is correct and represents what James Busby intended to write.

Compelling paper-trail evidence would lend credence to the fact that the document, which in recent years has been dubbed the "Littlewood Treaty" by our historians, was the same English language treaty document supplied to James Reddy Clendon by the Hobson government, in fulfillment of an official consular request, on or about the 13th of March 1840.

We know that Surveyor General, Felton Mathew, in company with James Stuart Freeman, Hobson's private secretary, visited Clendon on the 11th of March 1840, five days after H.M.S Herald arrived back at the bay with a paralysed Hobson on board. Something, quite apart from discussions about purchase of Clendon's Okiato estate by the government, compelled Felton Mathew to return to Clendon on the 13th of March 1840, with whom he had "some business" to conduct.

In this instance he doesn't appear to have done any further exploratory work on the property, as he and Freeman had done two days before, but left there to go and visit the American Schooner, Flying Fish to "chat" with the Captain and Lieutenant, returning to the Colonial Secretary's cottage at Kororareka at dusk.

It's significant that Clendon had officially requested complete treaty documentation from the Colonial Secretary, Willoughby Shortland, who had remained at the Bay while other members of Hobson's staff (and including Reverend Henry Williams) had been away to the Thames between February 21st and March 6th 1840 aboard H.M.S. Herald.

When H.M.S. Herald left for Australia on the 12th of March, both Felton Mathew and James Stuart Freeman moved in to live with Shortland at the two-room cottage at Kororareka, It's plausible to assume that in the interim day since Mathew's last visit to Clendon, Shortland had taken out of records the final draft that Hobson had read at Waitangi and carried with him to the other venues, including to the Thames. This "final English draft" was to be given to United States Consul, James Reddy Clendon in response to his formal consular request to the New Zealand Government.

Alternatively, Reverend Henry Williams would, most assuredly, have assembled with the others to wish the Herald "bon voyage" on the 12th and Williams could well have made Clendon's requested "official Maori" copy available on that day for delivery by Felton Mathew to Clendon on the morrow.

Although the "official" or "final draft English text" would, ultimately, be sent in Wilkes' despatch No. 64 a little over two weeks later, it makes sense to assume that Clendon, at that moment, intended to send it with The Flying Fish, one of the ships of Captain Wilkes' scattered and battered squadron, fresh from exploring the "icy land" of Antarctica. It was in the bay at the time undergoing repairs.

At that time, Clendon had no idea that Wilkes', aboard the U.S.S. Vincennes, would sail into the bay on the 29th of the month to find his lost ships.

Felton Mathew had also been obliged to go to see Reverend Henry Williams at Paihia on the 10th of March 1840, 'for the purpose of transacting a little business', after which he returned to the Herald in the dark. Felton Mathew appears to have acted as a primary messenger during this chaotic time for the government, with Hobson paralysed, and Shortland having had a "falling out" with Cooper.

The main point is:

There is clearly-recorded interaction between Felton Mathew, Reverend Henry Williams, James Stuart Freeman, Willoughby Shortland and James Reddy Clendon during the second week of March 1840, when James Reddy Clendon had his consular request to the government fulfilled and satisfied.

In his despatch No. 6, sent on the 20th of February 1840, U.S. Consul Clendon had promised the U.S. Secretary of State, John Forsyth, that:

'when Captain Hobson returns from the Southward', Clendon would 'apply officially' for the correct English and Maori texts of the treaty to be supplied 'for the purpose of sending it to the Government of the United States'.

We know that Clendon received what he had officially requested before the 18th of March 1840, as that's when he dated his receipt letter. Circumstantial evidence would suggest that on the 13th of March 1840, Felton Mathew, a senior member of Hobson's staff, gave Clendon both the "final English draft" (the Littlewood Treaty) and a "True Copy" of the Maori Treaty, hand-written for the American government's consular representative by Reverend Henry Williams, the British colonial government's designated translator.

This pristine Maori language document is officially signed off by James Stuart Freeman, in behalf of the government and still survives amidst the Clendon House Papers at Special Collections, Auckland Public Library.

On the 4th of February 1840, James Busby was acting as secretary in the final English language drafting of the treaty. He said this himself in July 1861 (See: Appendix to Journals, E, no. 2, pg. 67).

The only plausible conclusion is that the final English draft (the Littlewood Treaty), dated the 4th of February 1840, was also literally and physically given to Clendon on or about the 13th of March by Felton Mathew to complete the "requested" set of both official Maori and English texts (See: The Unpublished Letters of Felton Mathew to Sarah Mathew, Special Collections, Auckland Public Library).

2. WAS THE DATE WRITTEN ON THE LITTLEWOOD DOCUMENT THE RESULT OF A "COPYING ERROR"?

It is somewhat refreshing to see that Dr. Loveridge observes how Dr. Claudia Orange:

'was not entirely satisfied with my proposition that the “4th Feb. 1840” date on the Littlewood document was likely to have been the result of a copying error...'

It would seem that Dr. Loveridge was the instigator of this unfortunate "copying error" concept, which rose to overwhelm and subdue any positive effect the Littlewood document could have had in rectifying the worsening social situation in New Zealand, borne out of misinterpretations and a virtual reinvention of the Treaty of Waitangi's meaning after 1975. Red emphasis added.

Revisionism, centred on the "official English" treaty wording and its nouveau interpretations was seriously dividing the country in 1992 when Loveridge wrote these words.

This "Treaty Revisionism" was due, primarily, to the fact that one of James Stuart Freeman's Formal Royal Style English versions had been elevated to the status of the legislative treaty text, even supplanting and eclipsing Te Tiriti O Waitangi and becoming the pre-eminent authority consulted in the formation of legislation and the drafting of laws.

This English Formal Royal Style version was preferred by social engineers because, in the early rough notes, from which this "composite" treaty had been derived, Busby had forgotten to positively mention the "settlers".

Activists and opportunists after 1975 had seized upon an opportunity to exploit this temporary omission in the early drafting stages and argued that the treaty referred only to Maori.

In certain quarters the rediscovery of Hobson's final English draft constituted a most unwelcome find and "spanner in the works". Mechanisms were, thereafter, put in place to effectively hobble the Littlewood document's effectiveness, the foremost ploy of which was to throw doubt on the authenticity of the date at the end of the written text... the 4th of February 1840 or to withhold knowledge of the true author.

For over 150-years, generations of historians and politicians had been searching and "hoping against hope" that the "final English draft" of the treaty would finally and belatedly turn up. That it even survived is a miracle and a credit to the Littlewood family, whose consideration and respect, accorded to a fragile piece of paper, kept it safe for at least a hundred and thirty six years or longer.

As stated, James Busby is, positively and without dispute, the author of the Littlewood Treaty document. He's also the undisputed individual who penned the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi on the 4th of February, 1840.

For over 150-years before the Littlewood document came to public attention in 1992, we had been looking for a piece of paper with the following attributes:

One would have to scratch one's heads in bewilderment...if this document doesn't satisfy our mainstream historians as the elusive and long sought after final English draft, under all of the clinically stringent, qualifying criteria, then what ever would or could satisfy them?

In view of the weight of evidence supporting the document's authenticity as the final draft, one would have to conclude that it is, simply, not considered politically convenient or expedient to recognise it for what it truly is and that factor, undoubtedly, constitutes the real underlying issue.

In this matter our historians and forensic scientists are seriously derelict in their duty to the people of New Zealand and over two decades of deliberate foot-dragging, silence, misrepresentation, misinformation or pretending that the document does not exist, shows the contempt State employees have for the public who pay their wages.

It's a simple and innocent enough task to tell the public officially the full, forensic status of the document, who wrote it and why the date on it is somehow wrong, isn't it? ... or is that somehow inconvenient and counterproductive to someone's agenda?

THE 4TH OF FEBRUARY DATE.

Dr. Loveridge writes:

'It should also be noted, in this regard, that "4th Feb." is not a date which one would expect to find in the postscript of any draft version of the Treaty. The various English drafts were preliminary versions of a document which was meant to be signed by those Maori who decided to cede all their "rights and powers of sovereignty" to the British Crown, and the postscript was meant to record the date at which the process of signing was begun. On February 4th it was expected that the final, Maori version of the Treaty - as yet unwritten - would be presented to Maori on the 5th, and perhaps signed by them a day or two later. One would therefore not be overly surprised to see a draft with the date 'February 5th' in the postscript, but one with February 4th makes no sense at all: at no time was it intended that Maori would sign on that date. This contextual point reinforces the conclusion that Busby simply made a mistake when writing or copying out the document which somehow ended up with Mr. Littlewood.' Red emphasis added.

Dr. Loveridge's logic is ridiculous for the following reasons:

The unsubstantiated accusation, therefore, has been made that the date at the end of the text, the "4th of February 1840", is an error by the author, James Busby, and that he actually meant to write the 6th of February 1840. On any historical document carrying a date, one has to conclude that the date is correct, unless other documented evidence can be produced to prove, conclusively, that the recorded date is wrong.

Despite this continued untenable assumption of misdating our historians have never yet been able to produce even one document to validate their very dubious and faulted hypothesis. With that failure to validate, alone, they must give the date the benefit of the doubt and accept it at face value.

Every ploy possible has been used by grievance-industry aligned historians, since 1992, to cast doubt on the integrity of the clearly and indisputably recorded date, executed by James Busby himself. Far from the date being illogical, it is only logical to assume that Busby would have written this date and no other, for the following reasons.

The extant historical record shows that the 4th of February 1840 date is perfectly correct and beyond reproach, in consideration of all of the separate attributes of the Littlewood Treaty document, taken together in totality.

Let's follow a chronology of recorded historical events and combine attributes of the Littlewood Treaty document to see if the written "date" stands up to scrutiny:

Top: Hobson's paper. Middle: James Stuart Freeman's paper. Bottom: British Resident, James Busby's paper.


To this day, Clendon is the only individual known to have used this manufacturer's brand of 1833 stock in New Zealand, which is found interspersed within, seemingly, all of Clendon's overseas despatches for 1840 until, at least, January 1841.

Loveridge goes on to state:

'As for the fact that the Littlewood document seems to have been written on Clendon’s “W. Tucker 1833” paper, several plausible explanations may be suggested. One is that Busby at some point borrowed a few sheets of paper from his good friend James (there were, of course, no handy stationery stores at the Bay of Islands in 1840). Another is that Busby, while visiting Clendon after Feb. 17th , made a translation of the newly-printed Maori text in Clendon’s possession, and then made a clean copy of this translation for himself while Clendon made one or more copies for his own use. Yet another is that Clendon made such a translation himself (or had one done by someone else), and Busby copied it while visiting. I doubt very much if we will ever know the exact details, but much simpler explanations are possible than the rather convoluted one proffered by Mr. Doutré.'

Dr. Loveridge has the audacity to describe my very simple, documented claim that Busby visited Clendon on the 4th of February 1840 and wrote the final English draft of the treaty there as, "convoluted".

He then proffers some utterly baseless and unproven counter-explanations, suggesting Busby visiting Clendon on the 17th of February or so (for which no documented proof exists anywhere mentioning this mythical visit).

We are then subjected to the logic of borrowing paper, as there are "no stationary stores" around (as a government employee, Busby received consignments of paper from the N.S.W. Government of Sir George Gipps for all of his official correspondence).

Then we have Busby making a translation of the newly produced Maori printed sheet for Clendon (even though Busby wrote the final English draft from which the Maori text was derived and didn't need to back-translate it ... and even though Clendon had years more experience with using the Maori language in his ongoing, daily business dealings or constant communication with local chiefs like Néné and Pomaré II, etc.).

Or we have Busby needing to make a back-translation for himself, but, even with knowing that the treaty was signed on the sixth and even with reading the same on the printed Maori sheet, still managed to very stupidly misdate his document as the 4th of February 1840.

And so Dr. Loveridge, what's so simple or logical about the ridiculous alternative explanations you've conjured up, none of which are backed by one morsel of documented proof?

And, while you're at it, could you please explain to the people of New Zealand how the simple explanation of Hobson and Busby visiting Clendon on the 4th of February to complete the treaty drafting process is CONVOLUTED?

An excerpt from the British Parliamentary Papers, showing where Freeman's evening despatch letter of the 3rd, and morning despatch letter of the 4th, were written from.

Dr. Loveridge should return to reading Reverend Henry Williams' statement more closely. By the words Williams chose to describe his late afternoon encounter with Hobson, it is clearly evident that he had not been present at the final drafting session with Hobson on the 4th of February 1840. The wording within his memoirs would indicate that he had returned home to the CMS Mission Station at Paihia, undoubtedly, from the Herald on the afternoon of Monday the 3rd of February, where he had had a meeting with Hobson. Reverend Williams' exact words are:

“On the 4th of February, about 4 o’clock p.m., Captain Hobson came to me with the Treaty of Waitangi in English, for me to translate into Maori, saying he would meet me in the morning at the home of the British Resident, James Busby, when it must be read to the chiefs assembled at 10 o'clock....” (See The Treaty of Waitangi, by Claudia Orange, pg. 39). Red emphasis added.

Williams' choice of wording shows his utter detachment from and non-participation in the final English drafting event and that he was not with Hobson, Busby, Clendon, Freeman or others in that final drafting session. After the draft was finished, Hobson had to travel to the home of Reverend Williams, hand the draft over for translation and then organise arrangements for the following day.

Williams, well aware of the urgency in completing this task prior to the morning, when both he and Hobson would be obliged to stand before an audience of over one thousand people and read treaty texts in both English and Maori, commenced the translation work. He undertook the task with the full assistance of his twenty-one year old son, Edward Marsh Williams, considered to be a scholar par excellence in the Nga Puhi dialect, and together they completed the translation overnight.

Logic and basic practicalities of function tell us that they did this from the comfort of their own home at the CMS Mission station, with ready access to their Maori language "Alphabet & Grammar", writing materials and large capacity teapot, primed for the overnight vigil ahead.

Early the next morning, Reverend Henry Williams traversed the short stretch of estuary mouth separating his home from Waitangi and the home of the British Resident. The very prominent role Williams played at the assembly on the 5th of February required that he be suitably dressed and refreshed for the drawn-out rigours of the day. He was at the British Resident's house, translation in hand, by 9 am in the morning.

So, the very brief account of activities of the day from Reverend Taylor's diary entry of the 4th of February in no wise proves that Hobson was not at Clendon's home earlier that day and, in fact, is supportive of Hobson having been there. Amongst other things it proves that Clendon was certainly there and not otherwise engaged at some distant location and unavailable.

Most assuredly, Hobson and his entourage would have left Clendon's by about 2:30 PM - 3 PM in the afternoon of the 4th to travel the 1.8-miles by boat diagonally across the harbour to the CMS Mission Station and deliver the document to Williams at the prearranged rendezvous point and time.

Although a very adept linguist himself, Reverend Williams was leaving nothing to chance and the talents of his twenty one year old son, Edward, who had been raised amongst Nga Puhi, were immediately pressed into service. Basic logic would allow us to conclude that Edward's participation had been premeditated and planned and that he was there at home with his father, awaiting Hobson's arrival with the final draft. This prearrangement would have been worked out the previous day during Hobson's meeting with Reverend Williams aboard H.M.S. Herald.

In a letter dated 4th of November 2004, Dr. Phil Parkinson answered my inquiry about some very important papers I was trying to access:

'As regards the Alexander Turnbull Library MS qMS-1603, it may be useful to you to have a little of the history of that item. The originals were formerly at National Archives of New Zealand and comprised mostly the original letters from missionaries to Hobson at the time that the signed treaty sheets were returned. All of the texts, of course were transcribed in despatches and printed in GBPP. They were extant in 1957, when they were copied for ATL, which catalogued the collection of documents as "Official correspondence relating to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, 25 March 1840 - 10 January 1842" (ATL qMS-1603). By May 1982, unfortunately, the entire collection of 230 leaves went missing at National Archives. The ATL subsequently photocopied our Photostat copies for Archives New Zealand'. Red emphasis added.

Thereafter, I traveled from Auckland to the Alexander Turnbull Library in Wellington, specifically to view the photostat file and especially Clendon's receipt letter to Shortland dated the 18th of March 1840. I was, initially, very disappointed to find that Clendon's receipt was now missing from the file. However, whoever had "lifted it" to make it, I suspect, "all-to-conveniently" disappear from the public record, had failed to notice that there was a much less conspicuous "negative" photostat of this highly important document at the bottom of the pile. I hurriedly acquired a copy and implored the desk attendant to make several more copies for posterity, as this document was amongst the last in existence and, seemingly, one targeted for extinction by some "treaty revisionist" desirous to fudge and blur the historical record.

In recent years I have sometimes found that pages have been, recently, torn out of the old hand-written government administration registers at critical positions to disallow the researcher from following a document trail to its natural conclusion.

Further examples of this tampering with or theft of highly significant documents* can be cited:

*Appendix Note: The loss of the entire Maunganui Bluff file of original documents is an example. This pristine file, which had survived perfectly intact for over 100-years was desperately needed by dispossessed farmer, Allan Titford to protect his farm title. However, it all-too-conveniently disappeared without trace within a few weeks of being sent to the Whangarei office of the Land Court from the Lands and Survey Department in Auckland.
The Head of the Land Court, Tom Parore, who was a Te Roroa iwi claimant against the Titford farm, gained the assistance of Sam Brown, Head of the Lands Department and also a blood-relative to the claimants, to get the file illegally sent north from its formally designated repository. When the case went before the Waitangi Tribunal the file, which had been in Tom Parore's custody, was "alleged missing".

To Dr. Loveridge I would state: Some historical incidents that were fully backed by documents only a few short years ago cannot now be corroborated by documents, so rapidly are the sensitive materials being targeted for disposal by treaty revisionists and, more especially, those involved in land claims.

The foregoing is offered only as a passing observation and in no wise impacts upon my case, for which sufficient documentation has survived to leave a paper trail... albeit a bit thin in places, but still there.

CLENDON'S MANSION

Dr. Loveridge states:

'He [Doutré] also proposes that much of the Treaty-drafting on the 3rd and 4th of February took place at J.R. Clendon’s “spacious 8-room house ... at Okiato” rather than, as Dr. Orange suggested, on board the frigate H.M.S. Herald.'

The paper trail, with supportive commentary from Felton Mathew's diary entries or Freeman's despatch letter titles, etc., positively shows that Hobson was not on board H.M.S. Herald on the evening of the 3rd of February 1840, when a draft in progress was 'submitted' by Busby for Hobson's consideration. Dr. Claudia Orange withdrew from her earlier strong assertion that the final drafting took place aboard H.M.S. Herald and stated as much in a letter to Ross Baker, One New Zealand Foundation historian, wherein she wrote:

'Many thanks for all your helpful work! I meant that between 1 and 3 Feb inclusive missionaries and Hobson met - either on ship or shore - but not much conclusive evidence of who and where and when...' Claudia Orange' (Letter to Ross Baker, January 11th, 2005). Red emphasis added.

Weather conditions for traveling by water on the 3rd and 4th of February 1840.

Hobson was ashore through the final stages of discussion and finalisation of the English treaty draft during both the evening of the 3rd and daylight hours of the 4th of February 1840. The evidence would strongly suggest that he went from the Herald in the afternoon of the 3rd, met with Busby at the two room cottage at Kororareka and stayed the night there, traveled by boat to Clendon's in the morning of the 4th, completed the final draft of the treaty at Clendon's mansion during the day, crossed the short stretch of bay to Reverend Henry William's home by 4 PM, later carried on the short distance up the coast to the Waitangi beach landing to drop the British Resident at his home, then returned to HMS Herald by dusk.

Another possibility is that Hobson, Busby and Freeman enjoyed the spacious luxury of Clendon's comfortable home and the hospitality of the Clendon family on the evening of the 3rd of February and slept the night there, rising early to complete writing the final draft in serene surroundings.

The reasonably placid and summery weather conditions in the bay on these two days was certainly conducive to such water borne movements. On both the 3rd and 4th of February Felton Mathew did exploration work around the bay in clear and comfortable weather. On the 4th he was on the distant northern side of the bay and writes:

'We landed in a beautiful bay with a fine beach of sand and shingle and after ascending a lofty hill at the back in order to obtain a view of the country, we enjoyed a most luxurious bathe and then sat down to dinner al fresco' [picnic lunch in the great outdoors] - We afterwards sailed across to the other side of the Bay (called Kiddi-ku) in order to examine a part of the country which, at a distance, presented the appearance of a large extent of level ground...'.

Felton Mathew describes extensive explorations for the day, the totality of which seem to have been far in excess of any distance Hobson was required to travel on the 4th of February 1840 in order to complete his circuit.

In the weather journal of James Ferdarb, Bay of Islands resident in 1840, he describes conditions of the 4th of February 1840 as 'Brisk W and cloudy'. This means there was an offshore breeze from the westerly quarter, which would have assumed reasonably calm conditions in the harbour. The wind that caused swells and unsettled sea conditions in the bay was, apparently, the strong north-easterly or east-north-easterly
(See Felton Mathew's letters to Sarah Mathew, pg. 21, unpublished manuscript, Special Collections, Auckland Public Library.
See also James Ferdarb's weather journal entries for the Bay of Islands, February 3rd & 4th 1840, etc., Special Collections, Auckland Public Library.
See also: the Diary of Reverend Richard Taylor, entries for February 3rd & 4th, 1840, Auckland Institute and Museum).

James Reddy Clendon's 1830's map of the Bay of Islands.

Position (1) is where HMS Herald was moored in sufficiently deep water at the ships' anchorage offshore of Kororareka township.

Position (2) is the town, situated half a kilometre from the Herald (.34 of a mile).

Position (3) is where the home of James Reddy Clendon was situated, 5 kilometres by water (3.1 miles) from Kororareka.

Position (4) is where the CMS Mission Station and Reverend Henry William's home were located, only 1.2 kilometres (.75 of a mile) by water away from Clendon's home. The boat journey from the mission station to the Herald was 4.7 kilometres (2.6 miles).

Position (5) is "Hobson's Landing" at Waitangi, situated 3.9 kilometres (2.4-miles) further up the coast from the southern extremities of the CMS Mission station or 3 kilometres (1.9 miles) from the Herald's mooring. Hobson's full circuit from Kororareka and back to the Herald, including dropping off the British Resident, would have been about 13 kilometres.

A close reading of Reverend Richard Taylor's diary, for the same two days, shows that he virtually duplicated, in his separate forays around the bay, Hobson's selfsame circuit of those two days. Taylor's water-borne movements included visits to Hobson in the afternoon of the 3rd of February and Clendon at his home in the late afternoon of the 4th, before returning to his own home to prepare for the treaty assembly on the 5th.

On Saturday the 1st of February Hobson had hired a whaleboat to be at his permanent disposal for transportation around the bay (See Unpublished Letters Of Felton Mathew to Sarah Mathew, pg. 10, entry for Saturday 1st of February 1840, Special Collections, Auckland Public Library).

On a couple of occasions in his letters Felton Mathew mentioned the rowers of the whaler, one time stating:

'I have a capital crew and they pulled away like Hermes' (See entry for the 14th of March 1840).

Felton Mathew did exactly the same trip to Clendon's on the 13th of March, as Hobson had done on the 4th of February. At that time Mathew was living at Busby's two room, rented cottage with Willoughby Shortland and James Stuart Freeman at Kororareka, which was now the office of the Colonial Secretary. He writes:

'I engaged this morning an English boat crew, and put them to immediate work, by pulling up the harbour to the house of a Mr. Clendon, the American Consul, with whom I had some business'.

3. WAS ALL TREATY DRAFT WRITING COMPLETED BY THE 4TH OF FEBRUARY 1840?

Dr. Donald Loveridge writes:

'But even if we were to accept that Clendon did play an active role in the drafting, that the Feb. 4th final drafting meeting was held at his Okiato home, and that Clendon retained a personal copy of the final English draft given to Williams, we would be left with a major problem. That is, why did Clendon then go on to describe the English text sent to the US with his Feb. 20th despatch as a “Translation ... from the Native Document and not a Copy of the Official Document in English from which the Native one is made”? This is a very explicit statement and, one would think, quite unambiguous – and it must also be noted that Clendon stated in the despatch itself that “I have also forwarded a Copy of the Treaty entered into with the Chiefs, with a translation attached thereto”, and the English text referred to is clearly headed “Translation”. He could hardly have done more to make the point that this was not the text which provided the basis for the Maori text of the Treaty, but rather was derived from the Maori text. If the English text which Clendon sent was, to his personal knowledge based on involvement in the drafting process, the one which Hobson gave to Williams on Feb. 4th, and which Williams transformed into the Maori text used on Feb. 5th, why did he not simply say so? Why, in other words, did he not tell the American Secretary of State how he had come into possession of the text, and instead make a statement which would have amounted to the exact opposite of the truth as he knew it?' Red emphasis added.

And here we come to the crux of the matter. What did Clendon actually say and what did Clendon actually mean in the appended note that he send with his English treaty text transcript in despatch No.6?

Also, what mechanisms did Clendon put in motion after this time in order to ascertain that the Government of the United States of America receive the "official", definitive English wording of the treaty of Waitangi, as recognised and supplied by Lieutenant Governor William Hobson himself?

It was Clendon's responsibility to send precise information to the Government of the United States. The American's ran a huge whaling industry in New Zealand waters and used the Bay of Islands port or other harbours for reprovisioning and repair of their ships. Annexation by the British would bring with it port duties, customs levies or other impediments and obligations under the law in any regions where sovereignty was ceded to Queen Victoria.

Loveridge is critical of my statement that the Americans might have wished to print public notification concerning the formation of a British Colony in New Zealand and writes:

'Doutré, Littlewood Treaty, p.87. I cannot imagine why the Americans would have published the Treaty as “a gazette notice” in one of their newspapers, and as far as I am aware the U.S. authorities never did so.'

Regardless of what the U.S. authorities ultimately did or didn't do with the intelligence forwarded to them by Clendon, the prerogative was theirs to exercise at their discretion and Clendon's responsibility, as U.S. Consul, was to provide correct information for use by his superiors.

Clendon had been given an "official" printed Maori treaty text document, but he had no notification from Hobson that the English transcript he held was the "official" English wording. Anyone who has had to memorise Shakespearean sonnets, the Westminister Confession or other catechisms, etc., knows that certain texts have to be orally delivered or transmitted word-perfect. This includes contracts and constitutions upon which governments are founded.

Because Hobson did not produce an official English treaty with the official Maori one, Clendon had to write a cautionary, temporary disclaimer in his letter to the U.S. Secretary of State, relating to the English treaty version he was sending.

It can be readily seen that Dr. Loveridge has, for reasons best known to himself, omitted to mention the very important second half of Clendon's statement:

‘This Translation is from the Native Document and is not a copy of the Official Document in English from which the Native One is made - and although the words may be different from what they were in the original I think the sense is much the same - but on the return to Capt. Hobson from the Southward I shall apply officially to him for a copy and translation of the Treaty for the purpose of sending it to the Government of the United States.’ (See despatch No. 6, Auckland Institute and Museum Library: Micro # 51. Despatches from the U.S. Consul to the Bay of Islands and Auckland, 1839-1906: Roll 1, May 27, 1839 - Nov. 30, 1846, also available at the University of Auckland Library). Red Emphasis added.

So, what Clendon does not know for certain at that moment, he promises he will find out and, moreover, he will acquire the necessary goods directly from Hobson and send those "official" texts, both in English and Maori, to the Government of the United States.

Loveridge further writes:

See the reproduction in Doutré, Littlewood Treaty, p. 81. It seems to be assumed that this is in Clendon’s handwriting, but I cannot see a specific confirmation of this in Doutré or Parkinson.

Having read and compared a large amount of Clendon's writing for this era, as contained in business registers or letters and despatch documents, I am very satisfied that the appended note within Clendon's despatch No. 6, is positively in his handwriting... Martin Doutré.

BUSBY’S FINAL DRAFT …4th of February 1840

Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving; And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceided to her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.-

Article first

The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty of their country.

Article second

The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation and the other chiefs grant to the chiefs Queen, the exclusive right of purchasing such land as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as shall be agreed upon between them and the persons appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.

Article Third

In return for the cession of the Sovreignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.-
Signed,
William Hobson
Consul & Lieut. Governor.

Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of the United tribes of New Zealand being assembled at Waitangi, and we the other chiefs of New Zealand having understood the meaning of these articles, accept of them and agree to them all.
In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the 4th Feb. 1840.-

CLENDON’S DESPATCH NO. 6 ... 20th of February 1840

Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her Gracious consideration for the Chiefs and the people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their Lands and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovereignty of their Country and of the Islands adjacent, to the Queen - seeing that many of her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the Country and are constantly arriving: And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the Natives, to establish a Government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the Chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other Chiefs to agree to the following Articles.

Article First

The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other Chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of their country.

Article Second

The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the Tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their Lands, dwellings and all their property. But the Chiefs of the Confederation and the other Chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such Lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.

Article Third

In return for the cession of the Sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

signed, William Hobson
Consul and Lieutenant Governor.

Now we the Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand, having understood the meaning of these articles, accept of them and agree to them all. In witness whereof our Names or Marks are affixed.

Done at Waitangi on the Sixth day of February in the year of our Lord one Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty.

This is what Clendon sent (right column) on the 20th of February 1840 to the U.S. Secretary of State, John Forsyth. The Littlewood document (left column) is shown for comparison.

Chief Archivist, Kathryn Patterson, wrote the following to John Littlewood:

'The registers of letters received by the Colonial Secretary (held by National Archives) show Clendon requesting (and receiving) an official copy of the Treaty in March 1840. Unfortunately, Clendon's memorandum does not say who provided him with the translation. We had a search made of the Clendon manuscripts held in Auckland Public Library to try to assist with this point, but to no avail' (See Letter to John Littlewood from Kathryn Patterson, 12th of October 1992). Red emphasis added.

Here's Clendon's receipt letter to Willoughby Shortland, Colonial Secretary and Acting Lieutenant Governor during Hobson's paralysis. Clendon's return letter is written in very formal consular language, wherein he acknowledges acquisition of the treaty documents officially asked for ('having been placed in my hands') and requests to be kept informed of all treaties entered into around New Zealand.

This letter was written by Clendon, acknowledging that he had received what he had requested. We know from what he wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State that the main item he lacked was the official wording in English, but would ask for 'a copy and translation for the purpose of sending it to the government of the United States.'

His receipt letter is dated, at the top, as being sent to the Colonial Secretary, Willoughby Shortland, on 25/3/1840, but was written a week earlier on March 18th 1840.

Clendon, ultimately, did all that he said he would do. It was, generally well known and accepted that the solitary "Treaty" was a text in the Maori language. The text in English assumed the secondary title of the "Translation". In the true chronology of historical events, however, the roles were the reverse of this, as the English text had preceded the Maori and, in true terms, it was the Maori text that was the actual translation.

As a point of interest, the above image was derived from a photostat negative, of which there seems to have been only one positive (at the National Archives) and one negative (at Alexander Turnbull Library) left in the entire world, the original having been stolen by May 1982. Had there not been 1 solitary photostat copy in existence in 1982, then this critically important document would now be extinguished completely from the public record.

The following are copies of the actual, government issued, documents "placed in [Clendon's] hands" in fulfillment of his request as U.S. Consul:


This is what was given to Clendon by the Hobson Government. The hand-written text in the Maori language, penned by the official translator, Henry Williams, can still be found amongst the Clendon House Papers in Special Collections, Auckland Public Library. This document has the words "True Copy" in the top left corner and is signed off JaStuart Freeman (James Stuart Freeman). This is the kind of "formally prepared", official document that was befitting the high office of the Consul the United States.

These two lighter colouration pictures show the front and rear faces of the "Littlewood Treaty" document, the second or English language portion of what the New Zealand Government issue to Clendon as the "official" English text to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Two weeks after receiving it from the Colonial Secretary, Clendon "officially" supplied the two language texts to Captain Charles Wilkes of the U.S. Antarctic Expeditionary Squadron for transcription.

We know positively that it was the Littlewood Treaty document that Wilkes handled and transcribed. It later went to Clendon's solicitor, Henry Littlewood, and survived until modern times amongst the Littlewood family papers. Again, with provision of the authentic final English draft, Hobson's government had, with all-due dignity and respect, made available a document befitting the high office of the Consul of the United States.

Clendon could now see, for the first time, that Reverend Williams had found the text, handed to him on the 4th, quite satisfactory and had not required any changes. Nor had Bishop Pompallier's request on the 6th of February led to any amendments. The English text had remained essentially the same as that which Clendon had transcribed at the final English drafting session, the only real differences relating to some errors due to inattention (Wilkes) and individual spelling, capitalisation, punctuation or abbreviation preferences by those transcribing.

After Clendon knew the date when a treaty was secured he, obviously, wrote that onto his transcript from the 4th of February, for transmission to the United States Government in despatch No. 6 of the 20th of February 1840.

BUSBY’S FINAL DRAFT …4th of February 1840

Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving; And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceided to her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.-

Article first

The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty of their country.

Article second

The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation and the other chiefs grant to the chiefs Queen, the exclusive right of purchasing such land as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as shall be agreed upon between them and the persons appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.

Article Third

In return for the cession of the Sovreignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.-
Signed,
William Hobson
Consul & Lieut. Governor.

Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of the United tribes of New Zealand being assembled at Waitangi, and we the other chiefs of New Zealand having understood the meaning of these articles, accept of them and agree to them all.
In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the 4th Feb. 1840.-

WILKES’ DESPATCH 64 TREATY ... 3rd of April 1840.
Translation of the Treaty
Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand and Her desire to preserve to them their lands and to maintain peace and order amongst them has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of their lands country and the islands adjacent to the Queen seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in this country and are constantly arriving and that it is desirable for the protection of the Natives to establish a Govt. amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a Captain of the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceided to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles

Article First

The chiefs of the confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation cede to the Queen of England forever the entire Sovreignty of their country.

Article Second

The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes and to all the people of N Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the confederation and the other chiefs grant to the chiefs Queen the exclusive right of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell, at such prices as shall be agreed upon between them and the person apptd by the Queen to purchase from them.

Article Third

In return for the cession of the sovreignty to the Queen the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

Signed Wm Hobson
Consul and Lt Governor

Now the chiefs of the confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand being assembled at Waitangi and we the other chiefs of New Zealand having understood the meaning of these articles, accept of them and agree to them all. In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed.

Done at Waitangi the sixth day of Febu in the year of our lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty.

Consulate of the US of America at the Bay of Islands N Zealand April 3rd 1840.

It can be readily seen that Busby’s final draft wording of the 4th of February 1840 was made available to Captain Charles Wilkes on the 3rd of April 1840. The subsequently copied transcript shows that Wilkes or his secretary (copying the despatches, or letters sent and received within the squadron, into the U.S.S. Vincennes’ letter book) has been a bit inattentive or hurried and has left out “of the Sovereignty” in the Preamble, or has abbreviated some words. Other than this, the general text is the same as Busby’s 4th of February final English draft of the Treaty.

It is beyond dispute that the Wilkes’ transcript was copied directly from Busby’s final draft, as the copyist has religiously tried to duplicate all of Busby’s mistakes or corrections, as found upon the Littlewood Treaty.

Where the somewhat inattentive copyist left out the word “Sovereignty” in the first instance, one can see he first put in “land”, but didn't’t fully rectify or recover from the mistake.

The transcribing secretary has even copied Busby’s spelling mistake for “Sovreignty” on two occasions, leaving out the telltale “e” quite deliberately.

The same holds true for the “crossed out” word chiefs where Busby had earlier written the wrong word into his final draft in Article II, then had to replace it with “Queen”. Wilkes or his secretary duplicated Busby’s mistake by crossing out chiefs and adding “Queen”.

Even the mistake Busby had made in writing “ceded” as “ceided” was picked up by the copyist and recorded.
(See Papers of Charles Wilkes 1837-1847, U.S.S. Vincennes letter book duplicate of despatch Number 64, Microfilm 1262, University of Auckland Library pp. 142-145 & 163-168).

The original Wilkes’ Papers are held at, The Kansas Historical Society, Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A., and the microfilm reproduction of them was made in 1953.

The use of the term "Translation" to describe the English version was fairly general. Because the Maori Tiriti was indisputably "The Treaty" and the whole point of the entire drafting exercise, anything in English immediately assumed the secondary or subservient position of a "Translation".

It will be remembered that James Reddy Clendon promised John Forsyth, the United States Secretary of State, that he would ask Lieutenant Governor William Hobson for a "copy and translation" of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Maori text he received, handwritten by Reverend Henry Williams, was marked as "true copy" and it was accompanied by the final English draft, which, for the English speaking Americans represented the "Translation".

In the hypocritical approach that grievance-industry aligned historians take to the subject matter, they are not averse to switching the titles themselves if it helps their case. A good example of this tactic relates to one of the grievance-industry "holy-cows"... a much revered item that they call, "The Certified Treaty".

In the latter half of February 1840 James Stuart Freeman sent one of his several "Formal Royal Style" composites to Australia and used some available space at the end of it as a business section to inform Hobson's superiors of recent successes in gaining signatures from the chiefs. Two hundred copies of the "official" Maori treaty text had been printed by William Colenso on the C.M.S. Mission press on the 17th of February and three of these were included within what Freeman was sending.

Because of these newly printed copies, as well as and a beautifully handwritten, Maori language one by Reverend Henry Williams despatched earlier, Freeman penned a "certification" statement into his business section and then had Reverend Henry Williams sign it.

Freeman's statement read:

I certify that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the Idiom of the Language will admit of.

Grievance-industry aligned historians, using a cunningly deceptive "sleight-of-hand" trick, try to make it look like Williams' statement relates to the Formal Royal Style English text.

They're quick to point out (falsely), See, Henry Williams himself certified this "English" text as the official English! ... so in this instance they are more than happy to call the English text the "Translation".

The reality is of course that Williams was not certifying Freeman's Royal Style, patchwork quilt, composite text, which he'd had no hand in creating, but was certifying, instead, his "Translation", in the Maori language, of the final English draft he'd been handed on the 4th of February 1840. Copies of his Maori language translation, either handwritten or printed, were bundled into despatch enclosures, along with other documents, and sent overseas.

He was certifying the accuracy of his "own work" as official translator, after printed replications of his translation had become available. Red emphasis added.

The single line of writing at the very top of the left-hand page (pg. 25 of Vol. G-30/1) is in the hand of James Stuart Freeman, who has also initialed the page in the bottom left hand corner. Otherwise, the entire document of Maori Treaty text is in the handwriting of Reverend Henry Williams. This 3-page document is, essentially, the true 'certified copy' text that Williams was referring to and constitutes the TRANSLATION wording he signed off as official TRANSLATOR.

The handwritten copy (of which only page one of the three pages is shown here) was sent to Gipps on the 8th of February 1840, followed by a printed copy two weeks later (right -hand picture). In all, three printed Maori version copies were sent overseas in the 3rd week of February (1 to Gipps and 2 to Normanby) in the double despatches assembled between the 16th and 20th of February 1840.
(See: Repatriated Despatches, Volume G-30, National Archives of New Zealand, Wellington).

4. WAS JAMES REDDY CLENDON ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN CONVINCING MAORI TO SIGN THE TREATY?

Dr. Donald Loveridge is critical of my statements, where I indicate that Clendon was a participant in helping Hobson secure a treaty. Loveridge states:

'Doutré also notes here that “With the proposed Treaty of Waitangi now emerging to supplant the 1835 legislation, it seems obligatory that Clendon would have been invited, by Busby, to participate in this new incentive”. In the first place, the Declaration was not ‘legislation’ in any sense. Secondly, the Treaty was prepared under Hobson’s direction and authority, not Busby’s, and it is most unlikely that he would have considered it appropriate to invite a representative of a foreign power to be involved in the drafting process.'

Here's what actually happened:

Up until Saturday 1st of February and Sunday 2nd of February 1840, when Hobson fell very ill because of violent arguments with Captain Joseph Nias of H.M.S. Herald, he'd been content enough to do the treaty drafting himself, with the solitary assistance of James Stuart Freeman, his secretary and probable input from other members of his immediate staff.

Essentially, Busby's position as British Consul was eclipsed the moment Hobson, Busby's consular replacement, arrived in the bay on the 29th of January 1840.

With the unexpected set-back of debilitating illness, Hobson had no option but to go "cap in hand" to ask, through George Cooper, for Busby's much needed help. Busby made himself available immediately and unconditionally, then worked like a Trojan over the next two days to both oversee and salvage the floundering treaty programme of his ailing replacement consul.

Busby, now at the helm, put several things in place immediately to remedy the stalemated or declining situation, including getting Hobson distanced from the source of his immediate vexation and troubles, Captain Nias.

After Cooper handed Busby the very undeveloped rough notes, we can safely surmise at church on Sunday the 2nd of February, it's obvious that there was some very matter-of-fact discussion about what had befallen Hobson, followed by some quick remedial decisions and suggestions by Busby. By the same afternoon, Felton Mathew and other members of Hobson's staff, who had been with Busby at Paihia during the morning, had taken Hobson to view Busby's two room cottage at Kororareka.

Busby was obviously providing Hobson with an escape route from the hostile environment he was in aboard ship in Nias's obstructive domain

Let’s review some first-person accounts of incidents that demonstrate the degree of this worsening rift between Nias and Hobson, as extracted from the letters of Surveyor General, Felton Mathew to his wife, Sarah:

29th of January 1840: ‘Hobson is much annoyed because Nias refuses to salute Busby when he comes on board, which as he has been always accustomed to receive the honour, will of course mortify him. Hobson very good naturedly and very considerately says, that now, just as Busby’s powers are about to be extinguished, he would rather salute him with 20-guns, than be the means of making him feel his altered position. The proper number of guns for a Resident is eight - This shews good feeling on the part of our Governor and bad taste to say the least of it on the part of the Captain - His mortifying and degrading a man, when he might do him honour at no expense or trouble to himself’.*

30th of January 1840: [Before the ceremony ashore at Kororareka Church]. ‘The Governor is to be formally installed this afternoon at 2 o’clock - by the reading of his commission and the Queen’s Proclamation - What ceremonies are to be observed on the occasion I know not; for our Captain is such a queer fellow that there is no saying what he will do. His idea of “cooperation” seems to be that of doing as little as possible to promote the success of the expedition’. [Felton Mathew then writes the following after the ceremony]: ‘Captain Nias has behaved scandalously in the business, having offered every impediment and shewn as little respect, both to the Governor and to the ceremony itself as possible - Poor Hobson is very much annoyed; and I fear we shall have some difficulty in preventing an unpleasant explosion of some kind now, before we leave the ship’.

1st of February 1840: ‘Several circumstances have occurred to prevent us from going to Hokianga; and this morning we had a very disagreeable collision with Captain Nias, which put it almost out of our power to go anywhere - We intended to have gone across to Paihia and when there to have made an arrangement with the missionaries for proceeding to Waimate - When however we sent to ask for a boat, he refused to let us have one, although he had himself offered us one to be at our service while we are in the harbour. This has of course occasioned a breeze; [colloquial expression for argument] and we have in consequence hired a whaleboat to be at our disposal while here. After a while we put ashore at Kororarika - and after a walk across the hills enjoyed a delightful bath in a fine sandy bay - We returned on board to dinner - since dinner we have had considerable rows - Nias has behaved very ill indeed to Captn Hobson - I fear we shall not be able to preserve peace while we are on board - He appears to have been under great restraint during the past fortnight and is unable to contain himself any longer’.

It seems that Busby pulled out all the stops and mustered his own support network to get the urgent work done. What he accomplished in the course of about 48-hours is quite astonishing and, during that period, Busby was acting very much like the chief executive, overseeing the whole treaty writing programme.

The itineraries, venues of meeting and discussion or key participants for the next two days seem to have been organised by Busby, who also appears to have called upon Reverend Henry Williams to step fully into the breach and act as a back-stop.

It would appear that, as of Sunday the 2nd of February, Hobson was considered to be a frail participant of known delicate constitution, to be carried and much-supported within Busby's organised programme. Should Hobson have a relapse of serious illness, the job was still going to be done on time, and it no longer depended fully and finally on Hobson himself. He would be nurtured, propped-up, encouraged and mollycoddled to whatever degree was necessary and relieved of all pressure, such that he could recuperate and regain sufficient strength.

All Hobson really had to do within that 48-hour period was consider and review the tenets of Busby's developing draft and make the required modifications or additions, such that the final document was in keeping with the requirements of Lord Normanby's, Colonial Office instructions. The hard slog writing and thinking were now Busby's responsibility.

With the vast amount of pressure removed and the treaty writing burden now carried mainly on Busby's broad and experienced shoulders, Hobson rallied in health and improved quickly in strength, although his countenance was still a bit pallid and sickly as he left the treaty grounds on the 5th of February 1840.

Through Sunday and Monday Busby wrote copiously, putting real flesh on the bare bones of Hobson and Freeman's rough notes, which consisted of little more than Preambles or scant ideas for some Articles.

Hobson was now drawn fully into Busby's inner circle of long-time supporters, including his foremost friend, James Reddy Clendon. We can safely surmise that, on all sides, the red carpet was rolled out for Hobson by Busby's support group, who were now cognizant of Hobson's frailty. He was extended kindness and hospitality, pending completion of the treaty.

The chief executive needed rest and sustenance to build up his energy levels for facing the demanding public responsibilities of Wednesday the 5th of February 1840, when he would be required to stand erect, in the full stature of imposing British dignity, before a huge assembly, as Queen Victoria's duly appointed and eloquent representative.

In July 1861, Busby published Hobson’s letter of thanks to him for his endeavours in preparing a treaty. Busby writes:

‘In writing to me afterwards he expressed himself in the following words:- “I beg further to add that through your disinterested and unbiased advice, and to your personal exertions, I may chiefly ascribe the ready adherence of the chiefs and other natives to the Treaty of Waitangi, and I feel it but due to you to state that, without your aid in furthering the objects of the Commission with which I was charged by H.M. Government, I should have experienced much difficulty in reconciling the minds of the Natives, as well as the Europeans who have located themselves in these islands, to the changes I contemplated carrying into effect.” (See Appendix to Journals July 1861, E. No. 2 page 67).

Of James Reddy Clendon's influence in convincing the chiefs to sign the Treaty of Waitangi document, Captain Wilkes recorded in his journal:

'About forty chiefs, principally minor ones - a very small representation of the proprietors of the soil - were induced to sign the treaty. The influence of Mr. Clendon arising from his position as the representative of the United States was amongst the most efficient means by which the assent of even this small party was obtained. The natives placed much confidence in him, believing him to be disinterested. He became a witness to the document, and informed me when speaking of the transaction that it was entirely through his influence that the treaty was signed' (see The Treaty of Waitangi, by TL Buick, pg. 149 footnote).

In commenting on Clendon's position of split-loyalty, Wilkes stated:

'If the Govt. [U.S.] should hold this in contemplation [securing an American treaty with the chiefs] I should advise that a private agent of talent be sent out here to effect the object and that it be done with the assistance of our Consul here, [Clendon] who seems well disposed to forward the interests of our whalers, but being a British Subject he might be induced to prevent a very full arrangement and possibly might be the means of defeating the object if he was made the only agent to act. Already large offers have been made him to take office, which he has declined preferring his present situation to accepting anything connected to the Govt. here' (see Papers of Charles Wilkes 1837-1847 pg. 166, despatch no. 64, Microfilm 1262, University of Auckland Library, pp 142-145 & 163-168).

As for Dr. Loveridge's contention that the 1835 Declaration of Independence for the Confederation of United Chiefs was not considered to be a guideline, "legislative" or "legal" text that influenced British policy towards New Zealand, it was most certainly given recognition by the British Parliament and the Colonial Office in lieu of anything else.

The text was written by British Resident James Busby, apparently for the primary purpose of declaring that New Zealand was a sovereign and independent nation ruled by its Maori chiefs. The northern signatories to the declaration were only a small minority of the chiefs around New Zealand, but the apparent purpose of the document was to tell certain international superpowers, like France, "hands-off".

Busby was sent to New Zealand as British Consul or Resident as a direct consequence of the letter of the northern chiefs to King William in 1831, asking the king to be their Protector. The chiefs were very worried about the "tribe of marian", meaning Marc-Joseph Marion du Fresne or, more specifically, the French. Northern Maori had murdered Marion du Fresne along with a large number of his crew and, by 1831, feared French reprisals and annexation of their country by the nation of France.

To dissuade the French from coming and to scare them off, the northern chiefs had flown a British Union Jack flag from a Bay of Islands flagpole overlooking the harbour.

LETTER OF THE 13 CHIEFS.

NEW ZEALAND
(Enclosure 2 in No. 1.)
From WILLIAM YATE, Esq., to the COLONIAL-SECRETARY, New South Wales.
Sir,
I have the honour to forward to you, by His Majesty's ship "Zebra" the enclosed New Zealand document, with its translation, and the request that it be transmitted through His Excellency to the Secretary of State, in order to its being laid before His Majesty.
I have, & c.,
(Signed) WILLIAM YATE

(Enclosure 3 in No. 1.)
To KING WILLIAM, the gracious CHIEF OF ENGLAND.
King William,
We, the chiefs of New Zealand assembled at this place, called the Kerikeri, write to thee, for we hear that thou art the great chief of the other side of the water, since the many ships which come to our land are from thee.
We are a people without possessions. We have nothing but timber, flax, pork and potatoes, we sell these things however to your people then we see property of the Europeans. It is only thy land which is-liberal towards us. From thee also come the missionaries who teach us to believe on Jehovah God and on Jesus Christ His Son.
We have heard that the tribe of Marian* is at hand coming to take away our land, therefore we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these islands, lest the teazing of other tribes should come near us, and lest strangers should come and take away our land.
And if any of thy people should be troublesome and vicious towards us (for some persons who are living heree who have run away from the ships,) we pray thee to be angry with them that they may be obedient, lest the anger of the people of this land fall upon them.
This letter is from us, of the chiefs of the natives of New Zealand.

The foregoing is a literal translation of the accompanying document.

WILLIAM YATE.
Secretary to the Church Missionary Society, New Zealand.
No.
1 Wareahi. Chief of Paroa.
2 Rewa.- Chief of Waimate.
3 Patuone ) Two brothers, chiefs of
4 Nene ) Hokianga
5 Kekeao Chief of tile Ahuahu.
6 Titore Chief of Kororaika.
7 Tamoranga Chief of Taiamai.
8 Ripe Chief of Mapere.
9 Hara Chief of Ohaiwai.
10 Atuahaere Chief of Kaikohe.
11 Moetara Chief of Pakanai.
12 Matangi Chief of Waima.
13 Taunui Chief of Hutakura.

* Marian, meant Marc-Joseph Marion du Fresne.

Lord Normanby later wrote in 1839:

'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. But the admission of their rights, though inevitably qualified by this consideration, is binding on the faith of the British Crown. The Queen, in common with Her Majesty's predecessor, disclaims for herself and Her subjects every pretension to seize on the Islands of New Zealand, or to govern them as a part of the Dominions of Great Britain unless the free intelligent consent of the natives, expressed according to their established usages, shall first be obtained' (See: Lord Normanby's 4200-word Colonial Office Brief to Hobson, The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pp. 70-79). Red emphasis added.

5. HAS THE TRUE "FINAL ENGLISH DRAFT BEEN FOUND HIDDEN WITHIN A "FORMAL ROYAL STYLE" TEXT, AS DR. DONALD LOVERIDGE WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE?

Dr. Loveridge writes:

'Dr. Parkinson proposes that these ‘Feb. 5th’ English texts, rather than being copying errors of some kind, actually incorporate the text of the final English draft, “although both the actual document sent to Henry Williams, as well as the official reference copy” have not survived. This identification, he continues, has been based on forensic examination of the handwriting and the use of the principle of filiation, the derivation of one text from another by descent. The use of filiation has enabled the sequence of textual amendment to be established in considerable detail. The same method demonstrates that the so-called “official text” of the Treaty [dated Feb. 6th] is in fact identical to the final English draft, except for the date. Chapter 3 of ‘Preserved in the Archives of the Colony’ charts the line of descent in detail, and I personally find it quite convincing. If he is correct, and the several ‘Feb. 5th’ English texts are indeed derived directly from the final English draft of Feb. 4th, a puzzling anomaly in the documentary history of the Treaty has finally been cleared up.' Red emphasis added.

So, let's look very closely at what Dr. Loveridge finds 'quite convincing':

One of two Formal Royal Style versions found in the Volume of Repatriated Despatches G 30-1 pp 29 to 32 at Archives New Zealand. In the case of each of these, plus one other, penned and sent through James Stuart Freeman to the United States in July 1840, the Preamble section is wholly the one Freeman created about February 1st 1840. Other than that, the Articles follow what Busby wrote in his rough drafts, terminating on the 3rd of February 1840.

There is no content in here, other than some linking words to tie concepts together, that is not found in the 16-pages of rough notes finalised by the 3rd of February 1840. This version is just another of what Historian Ruth Ross called "Composites"... a sort of "patchwork quilt" assembled from the "rough notes", solely for overseas despatch and laced with highfalutin, pretentious language.

The two copies of this Formal Royal version within Repatriated Despatches (pp. 29 - 32 & pp. 75 - 78 of G 30 -1) are written on Harris & Tremlett 1838 watermarked paper, which seems to have been a marque used in the Colonial Secretary's Office (Busby's two room cottage at Kororareka). A number of duplicate letters (copies of copies) are written on this marque of paper. It was probably stock in the possession of Willoughby Shortland and seems to have persisted in use until about August 1840. By November 1840 the Colonial Secretary's Office began to use some G Y Deles 1839 watermarked paper.

It almost wreaks of a certain desperation that our scholars would cleave to the ridiculous notion that these three known Formal Royal Style copies (Her Most Gracious Majesty version) contain the elusive text of the "final English draft" and, by some stretch of the imagination, represents the 4th of February 1840 mother document text of Te Tiriti O Waitangi.

Not wishing to wax Biblical, I still can't help remembering the saying: Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel (Matthew 23:24).

Due to the suppression of dynamic, historically documented evidence by the New Zealand authorities, government historians and archivists, the worldwide community of researchers and historians have been denied centrally-important resources from which to draw conclusions.

The preconceived notion of our authorities is that the historical circumstances surrounding the drafting of the treaty, as well as its subsequent meaning, are already well-known or decided upon, and there is no point in delving any deeper or looking any further afield for new clues and insights.

Unbiased, dispassionate historians and the public at large are, therefore, denied the new evidence, while the authorities, in possession of it, continue to ignore conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence.

One cannot do scientific or historical research when deprived of the evidence and the current, accepted hypothesis about just which document qualifies as the final English draft to the Treaty of Waitangi is the least valid, rather than the most likely. This is not science! This is social-engineering!

Let's now look at what these grievance-industry aligned historians are trying to "fob-off"on an unsuspecting public as the final draft English text from which Te Tiriti O Waitangi was created.

Look carefully at all the extra words or topsy-turvy concepts (coloured blue) with some of the more blatant place names or words (coloured Red) that did not get included in the Maori text.

Look carefully at the order in which concepts or sentences appear; Consider where Hobson puts his name, etc., etc. It is absolutely impossible that adept translators, who had lived in New Zealand permanently for 17-years by that time, speaking Maori fluently every day or engaged in writing and translating English documents into the Maori language constantly, could make such a "botch-up" of a translation.

It stretches credibility beyond the extreme for our so-called scholars to, seriously, advocate something so patently ridiculous, in view of the available but contrary, compelling documentation that honest historians could, would and should refer to if it wasn't suppressed or marginalised.

Composite -Royal Style- version assembled from early notes by James S Freeman, about 5/2/1840.

Her most gracious Majesty Victoria Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland regarding with deep solicitude the present state of New Zealand arising from the extensive settlement of British Subjects therein, And being desirous to avert the evil consequences which must result both to the Natives of New Zealand and Her Majesty's Subjects from the absence of all necessary Laws and Institutions, has been graciously pleased to empower and authorise me William Hobson a Captain in Her Majesty's Royal Navy, Consul and Lieutenant Governor in New Zealand, to invite the confederated Chiefs to concur in the following Articles and Conditions—

First Article

The Chiefs of the Confederation of The United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and Independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England, absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess over their respective territories as the sole Sovereign thereof.

Second Article

Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and Individuals thereof, the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests, Fisheries, and other properties, which they may collectively or Individually possess, so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession — But the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs, yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption, over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices, as may be agreed upon between the respective proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

Third Article

In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her Royal protection and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects.

Now therefore we the Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand, being assembled in congress at Victoria in Waitangi, on the fifth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty, And we the separate and Independent Chiefs of New Zealand, claiming authority over the Tribes and Territories which are specified after our respective names, having been made fully to understand the provisions of the foregoing Treaty, accept and enter into the same in the full spirit and meaning thereof — In witness whereof, we have attached our Signatures or Marks at the places and dates respectively specified —

Signed W Hobson

The original Maori text translated by Reverend Henry Williams and Edward Williams 4-5/2/1840.

Ko Wikitoria te Kuini o Ingarani i tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani i tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua, a kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangatira-hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata Maori; o Nu Tirani-kia wakaaetia e nga Rangatira Maori; te Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga wahikatoa o te Wenua nei me nga Motu-na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wenua, a e haere mai nei.

Na KO te Kuini e hiahia ana kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua ai nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore Ana

Na, kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a hau a Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana i te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana mo nga wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei, amoa atu ki te Kuini, e mea atu Ana ia ki nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangatira atu enei ture ka korerotia nei.

KO TE TUATAHI

KO nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga kA tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o ratou wenua.

KO TE TUARUA

KO te Kuini o Ingarani kA wakarite kA wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia KO nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu kA tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai AI te tangata nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea AI e ratou KO te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

KO TE TUATORU

Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei MO te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini-kA tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata Maori; katoa o Nu Tirani kA tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki Ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.

[signed] William Hobson Consul & Lieutenant Governor

Na KO matou KO nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani kA huihui nei ki Waitangi KO matou hoki KO nga Rangatira o Nu Tirani kA kite nei i te ritenga o enei kupu, kA tangohia kA wakaaetia katoatia e matou, koia kA tohungia AI o matou ingoa o matou tohu.

kA meatia tenei ki Waitangi i te ono o nga ra o Pepueri i te tau kotahi mano, e waru rau e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki.

Translation from the Original Maori by, Mr. T.E. Young, Native Department (1869)

Victoria, Queen of England, in her kind thoughtfulness to the Chiefs and Hapus of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their chieftainship and their land, and that peace may always be kept with them and quietness, she has thought it a right thing that a Chief should be sent here as a negotiator with the Maoris of New Zealand - that the Maoris of New Zealand may consent to the Government of the Queen of all parts of this land and the islands, because there are many people of her tribe that have settled on this land and are coming hither.

Now the Queen is desirous to establish the Government, that evil may not come to the Maoris and the Europeans who are living without law.

Now the Queen has been pleased to send me, William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy, to be Governor to all the places of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen; an he give forth to the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand and other Chiefs the laws spoken here.

The First

The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all Chiefs also who have not joined the Assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England for ever all the Government of their lands.

The Second

The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the Chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and their property. But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all the other Chiefs, gives to the Queen the purchase of those pieces of land which the proprietors may wish, for such payment as may be agreed upon by them and the purchaser who is appointed by the Queen to be her purchaser.

The Third

This is an arrangement for the consent to the Government of the Queen. The Queen of England will protect all the Maoris of New Zealand. All the rights will be given to them the same as her doings to the people of England.

William Hobson
Consul and Lieutenant Governor

Now, we the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand, now assembled at Waitangi. We also, the Chiefs of New Zealand, see the meaning of these words: they are taken and consented to altogether by us. Therefore are affixed our names and marks.

This done at Waitangi, on the sixth day of February, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty, of Our Lord.

So there it is, the text (left column) that the grievance industry now wish New Zealanders to accept as the "final English draft". Any adept translator would see major problems with that untenable hypothesis.

Whereas the Formal Royal Style treaty written above looks to have some semblance of order, the rough notes from which this "composite" text was derived was a veritable hodge-podge of confusion. Researchers are encouraged to view the 16-pages of rough draft notes to get some appreciation of how much "literary licence" Freeman assumed in order to splice together this text. To see all 16-pages go to http://www.celticnz.org/TreatyBook/Chapter05a.htm and push the NEXT button after each draft page shown.

The "Official" English version that was chosen to be co-equal to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act is shown below and is simply another of the seven or so differing Formal Royal Style versions that James Stuart Freeman concocted to impress overseas dignitaries. Again, there is no content in that particular version that is not found in the rough draft note texts, which terminated on the 3rd of February 1840.

The final draft was written afterwards, on the 4th of February 1840 and the only true treaty, written in the Maori language was derived directly from that. The only real difference between the "official" version (below) and the erroneously claimed "final draft" (above) is that the top one has Freeman's Preamble and is a little less wordy, whereas the bottom one has Hobson's Preamble.

Composite "Royal Style" version assembled from early notes by James S Freeman, about 5/2/1840.

Her Majesty Victoria Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland regarding with Her Royal Favour the Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and anxious to protect their just Rights and Property and to secure to them the enjoyment of Peace and Good Order has deemed it necessary in consequence of the great number of Her Majesty's Subjects who have already settled in New Zealand and the rapid extension of Emigration both from Europe and Australia which is still in progress to constitute and appoint a functionary properly authorized to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands. Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native population and to Her subjects has been graciously pleased to empower and to authorize "me William Hobson a Captain" in Her Majesty's Royal Navy Consul and Lieutenant Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may be or hereafter shall be ceded to Her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.

ARTICLE THE FIRST

The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess, over their respective Territories as the sole Sovereigns thereof.

ARTICLE THE SECOND

Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

ARTICLE THE THIRD

In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.

[Signed] W Hobson Lieutenant Governor

Now therefore We the Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand being assembled in Congress at Victoria in Waitangi and We the Separate and Independent Chiefs of New Zealand claiming authority over the Tribes and Territories which are specified after our respective names, having been made fully to understand the Provisions of the foregoing Treaty, accept and enter into the same in the full spirit and meaning thereof in witness of which we have attached our signatures or marks at the places and the dates respectively specified

Done at Waitangi this Sixth day of February in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty.

The original Maori text translated by Reverend Henry Williams and Edward Williams 4-5/2/1840.

KO Wikitoria te Kuini o Ingarani i tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani i tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua, a kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangatira-hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata Maori; o Nu Tirani-kia wakaaetia e nga Rangatira Maori; te Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga wahikatoa o te Wenua nei me nga Motu-na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wenua, a e haere mai nei.

Na KO te Kuini e hiahia Ana kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua AI nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore Ana

Na, kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a hau a Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana i te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana MO nga wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei, amoa atu ki te Kuini, e mea atu Ana ia ki nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangatira atu enei ture kA korerotia nei.

KO TE TUATAHI

KO nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga kA tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o ratou wenua.

KO TE TUARUA

KO te Kuini o Ingarani kA wakarite kA wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia KO nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu kA tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai AI te tangata nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea AI e ratou KO te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

KO TE TUATORU

Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei MO te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini-kA tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata Maori; katoa o Nu Tirani kA tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki Ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.

[Signed] William Hobson Consul & Lieutenant Governor

Na KO matou KO nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani kA huihui nei ki Waitangi KO matou hoki KO nga Rangatira o Nu Tirani kA kite nei i te ritenga o enei kupu, kA tangohia kA wakaaetia katoatia e matou, koia kA tohungia AI o matou ingoa o matou tohu.

kA meatia tenei ki Waitangi i te ono o nga RA o Pepueri i te tau kotahi mano, e waru rau e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki.

Translation from the Original Maori by, Mr. T.E. Young, Native Department (1869)

Victoria, Queen of England, in her kind thoughtfulness to the Chiefs and Hapus of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their chieftainship and their land, and that peace may always be kept with them and quietness, she has thought it a right thing that a Chief should be sent here as a negotiator with the Maoris of New Zealand - that the Maoris of New Zealand may consent to the Government of the Queen of all parts of this land and the islands, because there are many people of her tribe that have settled on this land and are coming hither.

Now the Queen is desirous to establish the Government, that evil may not come to the Maoris and the Europeans who are living without law.

Now the Queen has been pleased to send me, William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy, to be Governor to all the places of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen; an he give forth to the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand and other Chiefs the laws spoken here.

The First

The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all Chiefs also who have not joined the Assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England for ever all the Government of their lands.

The Second

The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the Chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and their property. But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all the other Chiefs, gives to the Queen the purchase of those pieces of land which the proprietors may wish, for such payment as may be agreed upon by them and the purchaser who is appointed by the Queen to be her purchaser.

The Third

This is an arrangement for the consent to the Government of the Queen. The Queen of England will protect all the Maoris of New Zealand. All the rights will be given to them the same as her doings to the people of England.

William Hobson
Consul and Lieutenant Governor

Now, we the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand, now assembled at Waitangi. We also, the Chiefs of New Zealand, see the meaning of these words: they are taken and consented to altogether by us. Therefore are affixed our names and marks.

This done at Waitangi, on the sixth day of February, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty, of Our Lord.

Hobson's Preamble is closer to the "real thing" than Freeman's. Nevertheless, this was much simplified in the real or actual "final-final" draft of the 4th of February 1840.

New Zealanders, especially those with a background in translation work, are hereby encouraged to closely compare these Formal Royal Style texts to the 1869 back-translation of Te Tiriti O Waitangi by Mr. T.E. Young of the Native Department.

New Zealand historian, Ruth Miriam Ross, (1920 - 1982), pictured here in the 1940s when working for the War History Branch.

She recognised that the Formal Royal Style English versions of the Treaty of Waitangi, when compared to the Maori text, '... makes it clear that the Maori text was not a translation of any one of these English versions, nor was any of the English versions a translation of the Maori text.'

She then correctly labeled these several Formal Royal Style versions, simply as "composites" (variable, selected excerpts from the rough draft notes, assembled-together by James Stuart Freeman, with linking text, and intended solely for overseas despatch as memorial documents).

Unlike Parkinson and Loveridge, earlier-era, unbiased scholars, applying logic, were able to quickly dismiss as an absurdity the notion that the final English draft could somehow be contained within any of the Formal Royal Style versions.

The "real final English draft", was in the handwriting of British Resident James Busby; written on W. Tucker 1833 paper and signed the 4th of February 1840. The final English draft was as close a translation as was humanly possible or "as close a translation as the idiom of language will admit of".

Below is the authentic text of the final English draft, found by John Littlewood and his sister, Beryl Needham in Pukekohe, South Auckland, in 1989. It took the intervention of members of Parliament to finally force Archives New Zealand authorities to put the document on permanent public display in the year 2000.

In its Constitution Room vault case, the document is displayed so that the public can't see the second, face-down side, where all of the problematic text is found, including guarantees of absolute EQUALITY for all New Zealanders and the 4th of February 1840 date, showing the document to be positively Hobson's final English draft. To this day, the authorities will not make a general public admission or announcement that the document is in the handwriting of British Resident, James Busby.

The coloured regions in the comparative texts below show the wording that the grievance-industry hopes you'll never realise is there:

The Littlewood Treaty, which was Hobson & Busby’s final draft of the 4th of February 1840

Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration of the chiefs and the people of New Zealand, and Her desire to preserve to them their lands and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty of their country and of the islands adjacent, to the Queen.

Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving, and it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives, to establish a government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson, a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.

Article First

The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty of their country.

Article Second

The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.

Article Third

In return for the cession of the Sovreignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.


Signed, William Hobson
Consul and Lieut. Governor.

Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand, having understood the meaning of these articles, accept of them and agree to them all.In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed.

Done at Waitangi on the 4th of Feb. 1840.

The original Maori text translated by Reverend Henry Williams and Edward Williams 4-5/2/1840.

Ko Wikitoria te Kuini o Ingarani i tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani i tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua, a kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangatira-hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata Maori; o Nu Tirani-kia wakaaetia e nga Rangatira Maori; te Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga wahikatoa o te Wenua nei me nga Motu-na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wenua, a e haere mai nei.

Na ko te Kuini e hiahia ana kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua ai nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore ana.

Na, kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a hau a Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana i te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana mo nga wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei, amoa atu ki te Kuini, e mea atu ana ia ki nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangatira atu enei ture ka korerotia nei.

KO TE TUATAHI

Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o ratou wenua.

KO TE TUARUA

Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

KO TE TUATORU

Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini-Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata Maori; katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.

[signed] William Hobson Consul & Lieutenant Governor

Na ko matou ko nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko matou hoki ko nga Rangatira o Nu Tirani ka kite nei i te ritenga o enei kupu, ka tangohia ka wakaaetia katoatia e matou, koia ka tohungia ai o matou ingoa o matou tohu.

Ka meatia tenei ki Waitangi i te ono o nga ra o Pepueri i te tau kotahi mano, e waru rau e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki.

Translation from the Original Maori by, Mr. T.E. Young, Native Department (1869)

Victoria, Queen of England, in her kind thoughtfulness to the Chiefs and Hapus of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their chieftainship and their land, and that peace may always be kept with them and quietness, she has thought it a right thing that a Chief should be sent here as a negotiator with the Maoris of New Zealand - that the Maoris of New Zealand may consent to the Government of the Queen of all parts of this land and the islands, because there are many people of her tribe that have settled on this land and are coming hither.
Now the Queen is desirous to establish the Government, that evil may not come to the Maoris and the Europeans who are living without law.

Now the Queen has been pleased to send me, William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy, to be Governor to all the places of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen; an he give forth to the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand and other Chiefs the laws spoken here.

The First

The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all Chiefs also who have not joined the Assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England for ever all the Government of their lands.

The Second

The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the Chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and their property. But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all the other Chiefs, gives to the Queen the purchase of those pieces of land which the proprietors may wish, for such payment as may be agreed upon by them and the purchaser who is appointed by the Queen to be her purchaser.

The Third

This is an arrangement for the consent to the Government of the Queen. The Queen of England will protect all the Maoris of New Zealand. All the rights will be given to them the same as her doings to the people of England.

William Hobson
Consul and Lieutenant Governor

Now, we the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand, now assembled at Waitangi. We also, the Chiefs of New Zealand, see the meaning of these words: they are taken and consented to altogether by us. Therefore are affixed our names and marks.

This done at Waitangi, on the sixth day of February, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty, of Our Lord.

We have a document that qualifies in every conceivable respect to the final English draft, but the authorities do not want to acknowledge that fact, and are quite happy to rob New Zealanders of their treaty rights, which guarantee "across-the-board" EQUALITY.

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to remind our politicians, public servants, "treaty-authorities" and self-appointed (grievance-industry appointed) "experts" that there's something called Te Tiriti O Waitangi and it guarantees equal rights for "all the people of New Zealand".

6. THE SUBTLE ASPECTS OF TRANSLATION THAT PROVE THE LITTLEWOOD DOCUMENT WAS THE FINAL ENGLISH DRAFT..

Let’s look in greater depth at what Captain William Hobson was trying to say in the Treaty of Waitangi final draft and how Reverend Henry Williams was trying to convey crystal-clear understandings of Hobson’s intent through each section of Te Tiriti O Waitangi:

  1. Dr. Phil Parkinson wrote:

    ‘Although nothing can be proven I think that what Hobson read     [at Waitangi on the 5th of February 1840] was not the “Her most gracious Majesty . . .” text (which has a rather stiff and formal preamble) but rather the simpler and less formal Littlewood one “Her Majesty Victoria . . .” ..... Dr Orange, in a document of 5 October 1992, considered that Dr Loveridge was “probably correct” in deducing that the Littlewood document was “a translation of the Maori treaty” but what Loveridge said was that the “translation from the native document” and “the Maori version on which it was based” both bore the date of 6 February (rather than 4 February). But this is not really satisfactory. The Busby / Littlewood document of 4 February is not a translation of the Maori text of the treaty because that translation was written on 5 February, by Henry Williams.’ (see: Letter response from Dr. Phil Parkinson to Martin Doutré, 25507 Doutre, AT 13/19/4, 24th of December 2003). Red emphasis added.

  2. Dr. Loveridge observes how:

    [Dr. Claudia Orange], 'was not entirely satisfied with my proposition that the “4th Feb. 1840” date on the Littlewood document was likely to have been the result of a copying error...'

  3. Graham Langton:

    ‘Archivist and historian Graham Langton said the Littlewood Treaty had “no status whatsoever” but unlike Dr. Parkinson’s view, said it was “very likely” it was documentation from before the signing of the treaty on February 6.
    Mr. Langton said “it was probably a draft version and it was possible it was the final draft but added: So what?”     (see National Business Review, pg. 13, March 4, 2005). Red emphasis added.

  4. Dr. Paul Moon:

    ‘I agree that the Littlewood document is dated 4 February 1840, and that there was almost certainly no subsequent drafting of the Treaty’s English text’     (See excerpt from Dr. Paul Moon’s letter to treaty researcher, Ross Baker, 30/08/2004 and posted onto the O.N.Z.F. website).

  5. ‘On 30th March, US Commodore Charles Wilkes, Antarctic explorer, arrived in the Vincennes to join his other ships Porpoise and Flying Fish. Damaged after their bruising exploration of the icy land, they reprovisioned and repaired their ships till late April. As he left Clendon gave him a further despatch containing a hand-written copy of the Treaty in English copied from Busby’s copy of the final draft. It is believed that Clendon then retained Busby’s copy of the Treaty’ (see The Treaty and Its Times, by Paul Moon & Peter Biggs, chpt. 9, pg. 213).

So, our so-called treaty experts are on record from as early as 1992 as accepting that the Littlewood document existed before the Waitangi assembly of the 5th of February 1840 and, over the years, the evidence has mounted, not lessened, in support of that unassailable conclusion.

7. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

So, the story has a beginning a middle and an end... the circuit is complete and documented every step of the way... something that Dr. Loveridge and his colleagues cannot do with their convoluted, selective and distorted treaty-related history. Their entire preoccupation, it seems, is to act as advocates for the grievance-industry and fend off anything that might threaten the exploitative version of events it promotes to sell its dubious wares.

The following arguments by Dr. Donald Loveridge have been demolished, using historical document references and forensic evidence that leads to an altogether different conclusion to the one he wishes us to adopt in his "Appraisal":

1. That the final English draft is still missing and was not found amidst papers of the Littlewood estate in 1989.

2. That the document found by the Littlewood family could be an "inept forgery".

3. That the Littlewood document is "misdated" and was not written on the 4th of February 1840.

4. That the final English draft was completed aboard H.M.S. Herald and not at the home of James Reddy Clendon.

5. That Reverend Henry Williams was present with Hobson and others when the final English draft was written.

6. That the provenance of the Littlewood document cannot be traced back beyond 1856, when, in fact, it can be traced all the way back to Busby and Hobson on the 4th of February 1840.

7. That James Reddy Clendon's copy of the final English draft document, sent in his despatch no. 6 to the United States, was merely a back-translation of the Maori language text, completed about 2-weeks after the signing of the treaty.

8. That Captain Charles Wilkes, in early April 1840, did not use Busby's final English draft to transcribe two further English language copies for his despatch no. 64, as well as for his records in the U.S.S. Vincennes' letter book.

9. That a Formal Royal Style text, found in the volume designated, Repatriated Despatches G 30-1 pp. 29 to 32 at Archives New Zealand, is somehow the true final English draft, identifiable due to a process of analysis that uses 'the principle of filiation'.

Politically-aligned social historians, who often act within lucrative roles as "treaty consultants", try to convince us that we are obliged to recognise an English Formal Royal Style Treaty text, which, by gross misinterpretations of its meaning, gives only meagre rights to most New Zealanders, but exclusive rights to a small minority faction within New Zealand society.

For consultants who continue to find in favour of the grievance-industry, there is continuity of work and income. For those who do not find in favour of the grievance-industry and its preferred version of events, the Cash-Cow saunters off to greener meadows, leaving the non-compliant consultant to face career suicide and academic obscurity.

As stated at the outset, there is only one Treaty of Waitangi and it's in the Maori language. It guarantees absolute equality for all New Zealanders. If anyone is confused about that, they can check the final English draft from which Te Tiriti O Waitangi was derived. That document now goes by the name of "The Littlewood Treaty".

7. EPILOGUE

The foregoing rebuttal to Dr. Donald Loveridge's attempt at discrediting my book, The Littlewood Treaty - The True English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi Found*, first appeared on the 14th of July 2006. After that, Dr. Donald Loveridge's article was seemingly removed from the government website and became unavailable from that resource within about three weeks.
*Note: My entire book, complete with copies of all pertinent historical documents, is online at: https://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/TreatyBook/Precis.htm

More recently, the earlier semi-supportive or dismissive statements and conclusions of Dr. Phil Parkinson, leading New Zealand historian of the Alexander Turnbull Library, related to the true status of the Littlewood document, have undergone a radical revision. Here are his present conclusions, as outlined on the Archives New Zealand website under the search title of "Littlewood Treaty":

‘However, Phil Parkinson at the National Library, who has perused the document and file recently, believes that the document is in Busby's holograph and that the Littlewood copy proves that Clendon's 'unofficial translation' is a transcript of Busby's draft of 4 February except that the date was given as the 6th rather than the 4th. He believes that Busby provided his draft to Clendon and this resulted in that text being sent to the USA in Clendon's despatch and in the Wilkes copy with Clendon retaining the draft.’ Red emphasis added.

It would appear that Dr. Phil Parkinson is no longer prepared to let his integrity as a professional historian be sallied by political interference and no longer wishes to be party to the unsupportable position of his grievance-industry aligned colleagues. His statement on the Archives New Zealand website is an endorsement, by New Zealand's leading handwriting expert of early colonial-era documents, that the Littlewood document is the final English draft to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Having read and reviewed Dr. Parkinson's statement, "six ways from Sunday", I can come to no other conclusion.

PARKINSON’S RENEWED POSITION

In the Archives’ statement, Parkinson is categorising and naming the Littlewood document as a “draft”, as opposed to earlier naming it a “back-translation”.

He is calling the Littlewood document, “Busby’s draft of 4 February” and on 3 occasions in the statement reiterates that it is a “draft”.

He has retreated from his interim position of 2005 in acknowledging (as he did in 2003) that the date, 4th February 1840 is correct and the date James Busby intended to write on the document.

He no longer adheres to the position that the document was misdated.

He no longer sustains the position that the Littlewood document was first written between February 17 and 20 1840, but that it existed before Te Tiriti o Waitangi was created on the 5th of February 1840.

He further corroborates the fact that James Reddy Clendon’s copy, sent to the United States in despatch No. 6 on the 20th of February 1840 was a direct transcript of Busby’s draft of 4 February.

He states equally that the [two] copies taken-down by Captain Charles Wilkes, of the American Antarctic Expeditionary Squadron, were [transcripts] of Busby’s draft of 4 February.

There were no further pre-treaty drafts written after the 4th of February 1840 and the final draft document, penned by Busby, was hand-delivered by William Hobson to Reverend Henry Williams at 4 pm on the 4th of February 1840 for translation overnight into the Maori language.

Dr. Phil Parkinson's statement, therefore, offers full public disclosure on this very important issue, but is "hidden in plain sight" in the Archives New Zealand website, rather than being formally and loudly announced to the public, "over twenty years too late".  

The grievance industry thrives on keeping the public confused about what the Treaty of Waitangi truly says and means and have, by deceitfully referring to many “versions of the treaty”, deliberately muddied the waters in order to run their very successful extortionist-racket during the past 3-decades.

This would not have been possible in consideration of the actual wording of Te Tiriti o Waitangi or the final English draft, mother document from which Te Tiriti was translated. Because of this insurmountable problem, a “false English treaty” text was substituted in (1975) and alleged to be the true treaty English wording.

Dr. Phil Parkinson, New Zealand’s leading treaty historian, has now sustained the fact that the Littlewood document is the true “final English draft” and we must, thereby, refer only to that English wording if there is any confusion related to what Te Tiriti o Waitangi says in the Maori language.

At the same time, we must get rid of the interloper, “official English”, Formal Royal Style text, which has supplanted and nullified our true treaty and provided the foundation upon which the fraudulent grievance industry has been built.

All power and many thanks to Dr. Phil Parkinson for having finally “come-clean” on this issue and, despite huge pressure from other very powerful and influential quarters, to have chosen academic integrity over the more usual cowardice, capitulation and subservience of his colleagues.

He Iwi Tahi Tatou- We Are Now One People!

Martin Doutré, 14th of July, 2006 - updated commentary, 3rd of August 2013.