The Littlewood Treaty, The True English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi, Found
Chapter: Précis 1 2 3 4 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Lord Normanby's Brief Additional Resources
Chapter 15
A KINGDOM IS LOST
On the 27th of September 2004, Associate Minister of Justice, Margaret Wilson, responded to Mr. Sid Wilson’s Official Information request to supply:
“…any and all documentation that either proves or indicates that the document that has come to be known as the “Littlewood Treaty” is not, in fact, written by the hand of Busby, and that the date written by Busby’s hand on the same document, is incorrect,”
The Hon. Margaret Wilson responded in behalf of all 120 Members of Parliament by saying:
‘I first note that the Government has not needed to prove or disprove the writer or date of the document you refer to, as the constitutional status of the document is not in question. A written treaty, like a treaty contract, has no validity unless signed by both parties. The "Littlewood" Treaty was not signed.
The English text of the Treaty of Waitangi that forms Schedule One of the Treaty of Waitangi Act, 1975 is the same as the text signed by Mäori at both Waikato Heads and Manukau in March and April of 1840. My understanding is that this was the only English version of the Treaty signed by Maori. This text is the official English text of the Treaty, and has been interpreted and applied by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal. While the "Littlewood Treaty" may be of historical interest, it has no official status’.
Our, once, Associate Minister of Justice and, formerly, Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, for years made multi-million dollar payouts based upon her legal and historical understanding of the treaty. Despite being a qualified historian, she does not, by her above comments, realise that no chiefs of either Waikato Heads or Manukau signed the English document in ‘March’ 1840. The Hon. Margaret Wilson is making the same mistake as other mainstream treaty historians in assuming that William Cornwallis Symonds carried the English copy to Manukau from the Bay of Islands, in March 1840. They then assume it was carried, by Symonds, from there to Port Waikato in early April 1840.
It wasn’t, as the only government document ever issued for signing at Manukau in ‘March’, was the handwritten Maori one, now known as the Kawhia Treaty. Neither the Hon. Margaret Wilson or any other historian can show us one Maori chieftain’s signature on the English copy that was affixed thereon in ‘March’ 1840.
It is only by understanding the true nature and status of each individual piece of paper, of which there were 3 sheets in 2 separate sets, that a correct historical comprehension of what happened in the Manukau-Port Waikato districts can be realised. The first document, a single piece of paper, handwritten wholly in Maori (government issued), was used between Manukau-Kawhia. The second set, composed of two make-do pieces of paper, pressed into service out of necessity by Maunsell, was used between Port Waikato-Manukau.
According to present day, legalese logic, all European settler rights, accrued by treaty in other districts beyond Port Waikato prior to or after 11th April 1840, were extinguished the moment this mistakenly used English version received a signature. At the same time, exclusive Maori customary rights became a reality. No such customary rights exist in the Maori language version of the treaty, nor in the final English draft, where all rights spoken of are inherent and available ‘to all the people of New Zealand’ simultaneously. Let’s ask a few legal questions to the New Zealand Government:
• Why did the Waikato Heads English text wording supplant and replace the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi wording as our official treaty text in 1975 with the introduction of the Treaty of Waitangi Act?
• Why did you write the descendants of the European settlers and all non-Maori out of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1975 and accord Maori special customary rights, denied to all other New Zealanders, when the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi (which is the only contract wording) guarantees equal rights for all the people of New Zealand without exception?
• Why did you not consult a literal back-translation of the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi, free from legalese add-ons, before voting the very defective and incorrect Waikato Heads English version of the treaty into law, in 1975, to replace our solitary, real treaty (Te Tiriti O Waitangi)?
• Why did you not consult James Reddy Clendon’s 20th of February, despatch No. 6 version to the United States, after your top government historian, Ian Wards, had told you that James Reddy Clendon had helped to write the English draft of the treaty?
• Why did you not access Commodore Charles Wilkes’ 5th of April, despatch No. 64 version from the American National Archives, knowing that U.S Consul, J.R. Clendon had, by that time, applied for and received the official English version from Hobson, which he was then able to make available to Wilkes?
• Why is it that no government historian accessed the U.S.S Vincennes’ letter book record of Wilkes’ despatch number 64, when photos of the document originals are easily sourced on 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.
• Did you not know that Busby wrote the final English draft of the treaty on the 4th of February 1840 and that it perfectly mirrors the Maori wording in Te Tiriti O Waitangi, whereas the "official" English version is very different to the Maori version?
• Why do you now state ‘that the Government has not needed to prove or disprove the writer or date’ of the Littlewood Treaty, when this was promised to the Littlewood family in 1989 and to all the people of New Zealand in 1992?
• Why will you not openly admit to the public of New Zealand that the Littlewood Treaty document is positively written in the handwriting of James Busby, is dated the 4th of February 1840 and fits all of the criteria of the final English "lost draft", sought after by our historians since 1840.
• Why, when the Littlewood Treaty document was rediscovered in 1989, did you not undertake a major review of your very mistaken 1975 legislation?
• With the weight of evidence proving that the Littlewood Treaty is the final English draft and the mother document of Te Tiriti O Waitangi, why are you so reluctant to discuss the matter in an open public arena?
• Knowing as you do that the final English draft was lost, why do you promote the Waikato Heads version as the final draft English wording of the treaty and absurdly suggest that Reverend Henry Williams, somehow, made this utterly different text translate into Te Tiriti O Waitangi wording?
William Cornwallis Symonds, continued:
The official document, brought by W.C. Symonds, which had arrived too late for Reverend Maunsell’s meeting, was forwarded on, by Maunsell, to Reverend John Whiteley, further to the south at Kawhia. To see this official document that Maunsell was, technically, supposed to use, we need only view Reverend Whiteley’s document to which the last signature was added on September 3rd 1840.
Captain W.C. Symonds started heading south in an attempt to add more signatures to Maunsell’s make-do treaty documents (composed of a C.M.S. Mission printed Maori treaty sheet and the other defective English sheet with sufficient space available to accommodate signatures). He had missed attending Maunsell’s very successful meeting at Waikato Heads, for which he’d brought the official document. That document had been left with Maunsell for direct despatch, by messenger, to Reverend Whiteley at the Kawhia Mission Station. Symonds, it would seem, was going to take a circuitous route to acquire yet more signatures in the district, then meet up with Reverend Whiteley later and take all signatures acquired, on all 3 documents, back to Government House in Russell. For his own signature gathering incentive, before meeting up with Reverend Whiteley at Kawhia, Symonds would, for the first time, use Maunsell’s make-do documents, bearing the signatures that Maunsell and Ashwell had acquired at Waikato Heads on April 11th 1840.
Shortly after leaving Reverend Maunsell, however, Symonds took time to look closely at the signatures that Maunsell had acquired, undoubtedly in an effort to plan his itinerary and movements. Upon examination he could see from the 5 signatures on the Maori copy and the 32 signatures overflowing onto the English sheet, that all the primary chiefs, except a few from Kawhia area, had already signed the treaty. Reverend John Whiteley and his assistant, James Wallis, could acquire these few missing signatures, without his participation. Symonds decided, therefore, to venture no further south, but to attempt, once more, to convince the chiefs at Manukau to add their signatures (some of which had been promised) and especially Paramount Chief, Te Wherowhero. William Symonds, consequently, sent a letter on to Reverend Whiteley, informing him that he was not now coming, and asking him to proceed in the signature gathering incentive without him. Maunsell had already despatched the official treaty document southward to Reverend Whiteley by messenger, expecting that all documents and letters would come together when Symonds finally reached the mission station there at Kawhia.
Unbeknown to Maunsell, when he wrote his report to Hobson, Symonds would
later decide to return for a third try at getting signatures at Manukau
and not go south to Kawhia as expected. Three earlier acquired Ngati Whatua
signatures, from the second meeting at Manukau, were on the official document,
now in the possession of Reverend John Whiteley in Kawhia. Symonds, without
access to that document, would, as stated, use Maunsell’s unofficial
make-do documents, bearing the many signatures that Reverend Robert Maunsell
and his assistant, Benjamin Yate Ashwell had acquired at Waikato Heads on
the 11th of April. This impressive list would, most assuredly, have some
influence on the reluctant chiefs at Manukau. Maunsell, sent a letter with
Symonds, addressed to Hobson, which said:
‘You will, I trust, receive with this [letter despatched with Symonds]
the document lately forwarded to me to have the signatures of the principal
men in Waikato attached to it. I am happy to inform you that the signatures
obtained [on the alternative, make-do documents] comprise those of the leading
men, except perhaps two. Those we hope soon to obtain, and I have already
forwarded on to Messrs Wallis and Whiteley the document left with me by
Captain Symonds [the one Maunsell was supposed to use...the official government
issued document] in order that they may obtain as many more names as they
deem expedient’.
On May 12th, 1840, Captain W.C. Symonds reported: ‘On examination of the signatures obtained by Mr. Maunsell, I found that with the exception of very few, all the leading men of the country as far as Mokau had acknowledged the sovereignty of Her Majesty. The few belonged to the neighbourhood of Aotea and Kawhia, wherefore I determined proceeding myself no further, being well assured of the disposition on the part of the Wesleyan Mission to support the Government in every exertion in its power, and I sent a letter to the Rev. John Whiteley claiming his assistance in procuring the remaining names. I returned to Manukau on April 18, where I obtained the adherence of seven other chiefs to the Treaty. Te Whero-whero and several others have objected, though they manifest no ill-will to the Government (see Robert Maunsell LL.D. A New Zealand Pioneer, His life and Times, by Henry E.R.L Wily, 1938, pp 68-69).
So, it becomes very clear what had happened with the various documents:
(a) Reverend Maunsell had not been able to use his official document, sent to him from Government House in the Bay of Islands and signed by acting Lieutenant Governor, Willoughby Shortland, as it had arrived 3 days too late. He had used, instead, materials on hand to conduct his meeting on the 11th before 1500 Maori, conveniently gathered in for their hui business meeting. His document for the hui meeting was an authorised Maori text, printed by the Church Mission Society. Two hundred of these authorised Maori treaty text documents had been produced by Paihia Mission printer, William Colenso on February 17th.
(b) At the April 11th meeting another unauthorised piece of paper had been used in no other capacity but to receive the overflow of signatures that would not fit onto the printed Maori text document. Reverend Maunsell wrote a letter to Hobson, describing what had transpired locally and gave it to Captain William Symonds, who, supposedly, was heading southward, by a circuitous route, to eventually join up with Reverend John Whiteley at the Kawhia Mission.
(c) Captain Symonds later changed his mind en route, after looking over Maunsell’s list of signatures and deciding that his efforts should be focused on Manukau, where he’d had only moderate success, despite two meetings with the chiefs there.
(d) Symonds, unbeknown to Maunsell, returned to Manukau, this time with a different document (Maunsell’s signed, Maori printed text from the C.M.S Press and the orphan English treaty document, used only to accommodate the overflow signatures). During his third attempt at Manukau, on the 26th of April, Symonds managed to get an additional seven signatures, bringing his tally in the Manukau area to ten signatures in three meetings. Captain Symonds then took all of the signatures, affixed to the two pieces of paper used by Maunsell, Ashwell, and himself, to Hobson. The official document, which was the only one envisioned by acting Lieutenant Governor, Willoughby Shortland, to be signed in Manukau, Waikato Heads and Kawhia, came back, from Reverend John Whiteley to the Bay of Islands after September 1840.
We know full well from the May 12th report of William Cornwallis Symonds
that he was talking about the printed Maori document being used for the
presentation at Waikato Heads, as well as his 3rd attempt at Manukau, with
the English copy being used solely to accommodate the overflow signatures
obtained. Symonds writes:
‘I have the honour to submit to you for the information of His Excellency,
the Lieutenant Governor, a Report of my proceedings in the Manukau and Waikato
districts in my late mission to obtain the adherence of the Principal Chiefs
on the West Coast of this Island to the Waitangi Treaty and herewith - transmit
to you a Copy of the Treaty signed by upwards of Forty of the more
influential Chiefs of that part of the Country’. Underlining added.
Symonds is stating that the signed treaty he is submitting contains ‘over forty’ signatures. The actual tally is:
The orphan English copy has 32 signatures obtained by Maunsell on
the 11th of April 1840 (at Waikato Heads) and another 7 signatures
obtained by Symonds at Manukau (third attempt there) on the 26th of April
1840 = 39. The printed Maori copy, read to the assemblies at both
gatherings, contains the very first of the 5 chiefly signatures obtained
at Waikato Heads on April 11th by Reverend Maunsell, bringing the final
total to 44.
If we then include the 3 Ngati-whatua signatures that William C. Symonds acquired in Manukau on the 20th of March 1840 (his 2nd meeting there), which were recorded upon the official government issued, Maori language document, pre-signed by Willoughby Shortland, then the full tally for the Manukau and Port Waikato districts is 47.
Historian Claudia Orange, in her website, wrote:
These statements by Claudia Orange are unnecessarily vague, poorly researched and evasive. They are “Red Herring” statements designed to lead us off the path and get us to believe that Maunsell stood before 1500 Maori and presented only Freeman’s Formal Royal Style memorial document in English to Maori, when 99% of those present did not speak English or understand it sufficiently ... Preposterous!
By eternally cleaving to this sinister ploy of uncertainty, Claudia is like "Emperor Nero" ... who "fiddled while Rome burned". All she is doing is buying time for her grievance-industry handlers to wreak havoc with New Zealand's social & political structures. When I have confronted her on 3-occasions, face-to-face, concerning the evidence of Maunsell's "make-do" treaty documents (2 pieces of paper) her response has always been: 'We're looking into it, and you might be right, but we just don't know'!
Claudia Orange has now been "looking into it" for decades.
Social-historians, like Orange and her colleagues, working for the grievance-industry, have to continue to push the lie that the “Printed Maori” sheet was signed on a totally different, unknown and unrecorded occasion at Port Waikato. This ploy allows her to argue that Maunsell only had Freeman's Formal Royal Style English language copy and read that to the 1500 Maori at his treaty assembly. This further infers that the NZ government deliberately sent ONLY an English language version to Maunsell for use at Port Waikato ... and ignores the fact that Acting Lieutenant-Governor Shortland only ever sent a Maori language sheet with Deputy-Surveyor William Cornwallis Symonds ... which arrived 3-days too late.
However, more recent forensic evidence proves conclusively that the Formal Royal Style English language document and the Printed Maori sheets were wax-glued and stick pinned together to form one “make-do” treaty.
The forensic evidence proves there is no substance to the co-governance argument, or any of the of the treaty-reinvention rubbish we have been gruesomely tortured with since 1975.
Please see the FORENSIC EVIDENCE that proves, conclusively, that the PRINTED MAORI sheet was once wax-glued to the FORMAL ROYAL STYLE ENGLISH LANGUAGE sheet and also that the two sheets were, also STICK-PINNED together as ONE TREATY DOCUMENT: https://youtu.be/dFFORRwtcUU
William Symonds, who tried on three occasions to get signatures from the
chiefs at Manukau, well understood the importance of unfaltering and strong
oratory before the Maori assemblies. On two occasions he had the very adept
assistant and much-respected orator, James Hamlin to help him. At the 3rd
Manukau meeting James Hamlin was absent on the day, having travelled to
another mission. Symonds later lamented:
‘I obtained the adherence of seven other chiefs to the Treaty. Te Wera-Wera and several others, however, objected.... This I attribute partly to the Bishop’s [Pompallier’s] influence, partly to the extreme pride of the Native chiefs, and in great measure to my being alone and unable to make that display and parade which exerts such influence on the minds of the savages’ (see W.C. Symonds’ letter to the Colonial Secretary, 12 May 1840. Great Britain Parliamentary Papers 1841 (311) XVII pp. 101-2).
Reverend Robert Maunsell, a lettered scholar and linguist, was personally
engaged in translating the Old Testament of the Bible into the Maori language
at the time he made his treaty presentation to 1500 Maori at Waikato Heads.
Of Maunsell’s meeting, T.L. Buick writes:
‘The project had been received by the natives in the most friendly
spirit, and signatures had been obtained with the utmost alacrity’
(see The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pg. 189).
Some years later, in 1845, Rev. Maunsell wrote the following during a time
of conflict:
‘Whether that Treaty was a ‘fiction’ or not, this is no
fiction, that the Government stands pledged to secure certain rights to
the Aborigines, & that the Aborigines were fully informed of that promise.
Whether that Treaty has been attended with injurious consequences or not
I do not know. This I know, that if it had not been for those stipulations
the Colony could not have been established without war with the Aborigines
and other more serious evils than those which at present attend it. The
people may not perhaps understand all the particulars of that treaty, but
we, their teachers took particular care to explain to them, as far as was
necessary to allay the suspicions & jealousy with which they contemplated
the movements of Government’ (see R. Maunsell to Secretaries,
23 April 1845, in ATL-Micro-MS-Coll-04-35 (CMS Archives CN/M v. 15 p. 311).
Hobson wrote to Reverend Henry Williams concerning the Maori text Williams
was issued before his own treaty mission:
‘...treat with the principal native chiefs, in the southern parts
of these islands, for their adherence of the treaty.... I have the honour
to enclose a copy of the treaty, which I have signed; and to request you
will obtain the signatures thereto of such high chiefs as may be willing
to accede to its conditions, first explaining to them its principle and
object, which they must clearly understand before you permit them to sign....Such
presents as may be required will be put on board and placed at your disposal’
(see Hobson’s letter to Reverend Henry Williams, 23rd of March
1840, MS 91/75, Auckland Institute & Museum Library).
The chiefs, who always heard the treaty presentation in their own tongue,
understood perfectly that they were ceding Sovereignty to Queen Victoria
and becoming British subjects. The only area within the wording of the treaty,
where the missionaries were concerned that the chiefs might not understand
the full implications of what they had agreed to, related to selling their
land directly to the Queen’s representative and having no right to
sell it directly to the settlers.
This was of particular concern to Reverend William Colenso, who impressed
the problem, with considerable force, upon the mind of Hobson on the 6th
of February 1840:
‘The correctness of Colenso’s fears that the natives did not understand the implications and effect of a provision of the Treaty conferring on the Crown the right of pre-emption are substantiated by the natives subsequent dissatisfaction with this clause, which later had to be waived by Hobson in favour of the New Zealand Company and also by Governor Fitzroy. The failure of the Crown to exercise its right of pre-emption [exclusive right of purchase], thereby preventing the natives from selling sufficient land to satisfy their desire for European products became a source of grievance and was a contributing factor to the outbreak of Heke’s rebellion’ (see William Colenso, by A.G. Bagnall & G.C. Petersen, 1948, pg. 97).
In reality, Lieutenant-Governor, William Hobson had no other choice but to stipulate in Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi that all future land sales by Maori be done ONLY through the the Queen's government representative, as the New Zealand land ownership situation was in an impossible mess.
Before 1840, some Maori vendors had traveled to Australia, set up booths, and sold whole peninsulas, back in New Zealand, to gullible buyers. However, once those unfortunate, slighted-buyers came to New Zealand to commence building a home, other Maori disputed their ownership and booted them off the land.
According to the research of Ngai-Tahu Kuia, Jean Jackson, almost the entirety of New Zealand's South Island had been sold 3-times before 1839.
The day after Hobson's arrival in New Zealand, he went to meet with the settlers at Kororareka Church and read proclamations to them, one of which stated that, if a treaty was secured with the Maori chiefs, Queen Victoria would no longer recognise the legitimacy of settler land purchases and all claimed land ownership would have to be reviewed, with most going back to Maori.
Later, Commissioner Spain reviewed the purchases and decided, based upon how much the settlers had initially paid the chiefs, how much of their purchased land they could retain. Most of the land went back to Maori for repurchase.
For the country to function as a British colony, the large blocks of land Maori wished to sell had to be purchased from proven-legitimate Maori owners. Ownership was decided in the Maori Land Court and was based upon Conquest, Occupation and Whakapapa (lineage) from ancestral owners. Once owners and boundaries were proven, a title of ownership could be issued.
Prior to land purchases by the government, a series of criteria had to be met. Gazette notices had to be broadcast, inviting all Maori parties who had an interest in the block being offered for sale to come forward to lodge their claim of ownership or part-ownership. Once this was done, the Maori Land Court deliberated on the evidence delivered by each claimant. Finally, (sometimes after two years of deliberating in court) ownership would be decided upon and title issued. The Maori owners now had several options. They could retain the entire block, sell the block outright or sell a part and keep the rest for a reserve.
Prior to NZ Government purchase of a block being offered for sale the land in question had to be precisely survey-pegged and the boundaries registered. Once bought by the government, the newly acquired land would be subdivided down into farms and plots, again after precise surveying. These could then be on-sold to settlers or Maori alike, and by this means there could be no dispute or misunderstanding as to who was the legitimate owner of a parcel of land.
THE LAND PURCHASE PROCESS & ITS DEVELOPMENT IN GREATER DETAIL
- Immediately after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, the 444 land purchases by settlers from the Maori chiefs prior to 1840 were dealt with by the Old Land Claims Court between 1840 and about 1853 (Maori Deeds Of Old Private Land Purchases In New Zealand From The Year 1815 To 1840 - With Pre-emptive And Other Claims). In this incentive, the settlers lost over 90% of their pre-treaty holdings, which were returned to the former Maori owners and had to be repurchased.
- During this time 1840 -1865 only Government designated representatives were permitted to buy land directly from the Maoris (Article II) but, as true ownership was not always definitively established first, many purchases had to be redone several times over. One group of Maori would sell their land, spend the money and then the Government would find that another relation or group actually owned the land and so were forced into repurchasing it. Some very slick Maori con artists duped the Government into buying the same block of land several times over. Kapiti Island was bought about five times-over or more. We have on record certificates and deeds showing that Taranaki Province (or parts therein) was fully purchased at least five times. This constant deception on the part of Maori vendors caused tremendous difficulties for the government and settlers alike, through no fault of the settlers, as they had bought their land in good faith thinking it was legally titled. Land purchases were always fraught with danger, due to the constant ingredient of Maori trickery, to which the government agents became very aware, watchful and careful to avoid. Despite care and adherence to procedure, the purchasing agents continued to get duped and wily Tiopira Kinaki, who featured prominently in land sales of the 1870's, was a master at playing out this con game.
- In 1865, after completion of the earlier pre-treaty investigations and readjustment of payment to the former Maori owners, the new Native Land Court was established to further clean up the mess and establish clean, clear titles before any land would be purchased by the Crown. Prior to any such purchase, land had to be fully surveyed by Government surveyors.
- The express purpose of this Native Land Court was to determine, equitably, ownership of parcels proffered for sale. The land that Maori vendors wished to sell was, first, surveyed either provisionally as a beginning proposal for consideration or finally by government surveyors working under the jurisdiction of the Inspector of Surveys Department in compliance with the stringent laws and Acts in place. A rudimentary proposal could be initiated with a basic plan or outline idea that had been "compass surveyed" by privately engaged surveyors. Government surveys, however, later required the use of "optical theodolites" of sufficient size and fixes onto several trig reference points.
- Once a plan was made it would have to go before the Inspector of Surveys and an application would be made to the Court. If the plan was rejected or conflict arose for some reason, it would go to the Provincial Surveyor or Chief Surveyor and never be acted upon until all outstanding problems were resolved. Under such circumstances it had only been filed provisionally or as a proposal in its rudimentary stages.
- Once a proposal was allowed to proceed to the next stage and passed by the Provincial Surveyor or Chief Surveyor it would be publicly advertised. Disputees to ownership were given the opportunity to state their claim before a Judge in the Native Land Court. Once ownership was established on the plan before the Court in duplicate, the Judges would make their decision and, if that decision was not accepted unanimously between the disputants, the Court would go into recess until the disputants had come to a unanimous decision. This might entail some "wheeling and dealing" or "horse-trading" between the owners or part-owners. If they achieved agreement amongst themselves they could return to the Court and a clean title would be granted to them in duplicate.
- If, thereafter, the Government wished to proceed with a purchase from the titled owner or owners, an agreed price would be reached and Deed of Sale executed in duplicate. Any reserves to be sectioned out for repurchase by the vendors or any amendments and conditions of purchase would be added, very clearly, to the Deed and plans.
- The complete process would then be checked by the Frauds Commissioner and Native Minister. The sale to the Crown, with all boundaries described, was then made public via gazette notices in the newspaper and could thereafter be sectioned up for purchase by private individuals.
- As stated if at any stage of the step-by-step process there was any lingering contention amongst those claiming ownership, this had to be sorted out between the owners prior to Crown purchase. Maori had the inbuilt provision to veto the ruling of the Native Land Court judge if they were in disagreement with the decision. It was then up to the owners to sort it out and reach trade-off agreements, leading to clear title being awarded to the owners. Only after clear title was established and awarded to the Maori owners could the Crown complete a purchase. Because of many years of difficulties and vexations, the rules were very strict and great care was exercised to side-step any potential problems caused by an oversight. The 1873 Native Land Act had 112 sections covering all contingencies. On the surveying side, The rules of Surveying, written by Theophilus Heale in 1871, applied very comprehensive, stringent practices that the surveying teams were obliged to work to. The 1873 Native Land Act encompassed the Surveying Rules as well and Percy Smith, Chief Surveyor and Deputy Inspector of Surveys, required strict adherence to them from 1871 onwards.
- By the 1870's, as before, Maori were lining up to sell land, this time down the West Coast from the Hokianga to the Kaipara and government surveyors, purchasing agents and Native Land Court judges had their hands full trying to sort out the normally complex process of awarding legitimate owners with legal titles to their blocks. Long-standing experience, hard-won over thirty years, had taught the government that they must "dot all the i's and cross all the t's" utterly, as any unadressed or overlooked issues would inevitably come back to haunt them and cost them dearly. It was because of the unenviable position that the government most-oft found itself in, having to repurchases the same territory several times over, that the 1865 Native Land Court was established. By the 1870's, the carefully monitored, step-by-step process, leading to a completed sale and transfer of clear, undisputed title to the Crown, was subjected to stringent "rules of engagement" covering every stage, resulting in no unresolved issues, loose ends or any conceivable prospect of future problems and challenges.
- Strict rules, applying to the transfer of land ownership from Maori to the Crown, had first been instituted in 1840 with Lieutenant Governor William Hobson's requirements of Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi. All land purchase titles or claims to settler ownership, prior to 1840, became null & void in the estimation of the Queen's government and subject to full review. The imposed restriction under the treaty , which forbade direct sales from Maori to European settlers, was reinforced by the Native Land Purchase Ordinance, 1846, which made it a criminal offence for a European to purchase such land or to be found in occupation of it. By section 73 of the Constitution Act, in 1852, the same prohibition was repeated; so also in section 75 of the Native Lands Act, 1865, section 87 of the Native Land Act, 1873, and subsequently continued in section 117 of the Native Land Court Act, 1894. From the outset of the colony, all land transfer had to proceed stage-by-stage through a carefully regulated process, stringently monitored and overseen by government officials. Some of the strictest practices related to surveying and the Survey's Department adhered to a step-by-step system. A raw proposal moved from being a rudimentary idea, through several stages of surveying refinements and official approval, to become a fully signed off, described and approved, precisely drawn and officially registered block plan.
- In conjunction with the array of Acts devoted to establishing Native Customary Title and the careful processes of transforming them into Freehold Title, were additional built-in protections. In 1870 the first Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act was passed. This invalidated all alienation of Native land if (a) contrary to equity and good conscience; or (b) made in consideration of the supply of liquor, arms, or ammunition; or (c) such that sufficient land was not left for the support of the Native. Trust Commissioners were appointed, and no instrument of alienation was to be valid unless endorsed by a Commissioner with a certificate that the alienation was in accordance with this Act. This was in full compliance with Lord Normanby's brief or instructions to Captain William Hobson in 1839. By the Native Land Act, 1873, Native reserves were to be set apart and to be inalienable, without the consent of the Governor. In this incentive, every precaution was taken to protect Maori in compliance with Lord Normanby's 1839 instructions, wherein he wrote:
'Nor is that all: they [the Maori people] must not be permitted to enter into any contracts in which they might be ignorant and unintentional authors of injuries to themselves. You will not, for example, purchase from them any territory the retention of which by them would be essential or highly conducive to their own comfort, safety, or subsistence. The acquisition of land by the Crown for the future settlement of British subjects must be confined to such districts as the natives can alienate without distress or serious inconvenience to themselves. To secure the observance of this - will be one of the first duties of their Official Protector.'
Within the terms of the 1873 Native Land Act every instrument of alienation had to be explained to the Native vendor by an interpreter, accompanied by a fully endorsed statement, describing its contents, in the Maori language.
The Reverend John Warren wrote in 1863:
‘I was present at the great meeting at Waitangi when the celebrated treaty was signed, and also at a meeting which took place subsequently on the same subject at Hokianga. There was a great deal of talk by the natives, principally on the subject of securing their proprietary right in the land, and their personal liberty. Everything else they were only too happy to yield to the Queen, as they said repeatedly, because they knew they could only be saved from the rule of other nations by sitting under the shadow of the Queen of England. In my hearing they frequently remarked, "Let us be one people. We had the gospel from England, let us have the law from England."
My impression at the time was that the natives perfectly understood that by signing the treaty they became British subjects, and though I lived amongst them more than fifteen years after that event, and often conversed with them on the subject, I never saw the slightest reason to change my opinion. The natives were at the time in mortal fear of the French, and justly thought they had done a pretty good stroke of business when they placed the British lion between themselves and the French eagle...’ (see, The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick pp. 281-282).
In the end it was only the totality of signatures acquired at both Waikato and Manukau Heads, based upon an oral delivery of the Maori text to the assemblies, to which Hobson later affixed his seal, legitimising the signatures. Hobson, thereby, acknowledged the wishes of the chiefs at Waikato and Manukau that their stated desire to cede sovereignty to Queen Victoria was duly noted and would be implemented.
In 1840 the chiefs wove a tapestry of unification that some of their progeny now seek to unravel.
Modern-day activists are, apparently, far wiser than the 540-chiefs who carefully considered, then signed the treaty. They, therefore, feel qualified in telling us that the treaty is, in actuality, something utterly different to what all the chiefs heard, questioned and discussed, then agreed to embrace as the best course to follow for the future prospects of the country.